We’re starting off with a very short one for the first week. This text was published in 1915, two years before the October revolution, and is sadly still highly relevant in the imperial core.
This reading group is meant to educate, and people from any instances federated with Lemmygrad are welcome. Any comments not engaging in good faith will be removed (don’t respond to hostile comments, just report them).
You can post questions or share your thoughts at any time. We’ll be moving on to a new text next week, but this thread won’t be locked.
You can read the text here.
Wartime revolutionary action against one’s own government indubitably means, not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a defeat.
banger quote. So he’s calling out the people who say they are against the war, but take no action that would impede the government from waging the war.
The war cannot but evoke among the masses the most turbulent sentiments, which upset the usual sluggish state of mass mentality. Revolutionary tactics are impossible if they are not adjusted to these new turbulent sentiments.
I think this is important when analyzing our own modern day situations, and not just taking what Lenin lists out here and applying it willy-nilly. It is my belief that we do not need to gain the support of the masses before performing an action because if we can understand the “turbulent sentiments” correctly, then we can come to a conclusion of what the correct action is. By performing the correct action we gain support of the masses. I think of it kinda like the whole UnitedHealthcare CEO situation, but the killer was not organized and only arrived at a correct action by chance.
Those who stand for the “neither-victory-nor-defeat” slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they do not believe in the possibility of inter national revolutionary action by the working class against their own governments,
This is a nice way of framing it. In the end our goal is the revolution and everything we do is to achieve that end.
edit: I dunno how you are going about selecting texts, but could I submit a vote for Theses on the National and Colonial Questions
It was definitely an interesting read and I didn’t actually know about this one. I thought I had all of Lenin’s works but somehow this one slipped unnoticed.
I’m looking forward to this reading group going forward especially since I can find books I may not have read yet or heard of. I don’t have too much to say about it that hasn’t already been said but I’m certainly looking forward to the group and reading more in the future. :)
deleted by creator
This is what I took from this text:
If you’re in a capitalist country and your country is at war, you can’t claim to have revolutionary ideals while also advocating against your country’s defeat/for its victory.
Also, wow, this part has aged incredibly well: (“Discerning reader”: note that this does not mean “blowing up bridges”, organising unsuccessful strikes in the war industries, and in general helping the government defeat the revolutionaries.)
The distinction between a non-imperialist capitalist country and an imperialist one is important; if the former is fighting against the latter, the situation is very different
Very true – thanks for pointing that out!
While the notion is simple, i find this text very hard to digest. The world was very different when Lenin wrote this, it was a very multipolar world in that time, albeit these polars were imperialists competing for the distribution of the world while multipolarity now is about the right of self-determination.
The case of Russia is very interesting, a capitalist country that is ideologically reactionary but one way or another is found itself fighting for a globally progressive cause, the weakening of US hegemony throught the disarment of Ukraine, an US satellite state. Would this be the moment for the working class of Russia to organize to topple their oligarchy? Maybe it would be the prime time to do it even if it could potentially lead to an US invasion?
This is the reason I commented on the other thread about “On Protracted People’s War” and how it talks seemingly similar conditions but take very different stances. One is written from the perspective of revolutionaries on a reactionary country waging a war that is principally imperialist in character, the other from the perspective of a reactionary country defending from such a war.
The war in Ukraine is somewhere in-between, as there will be sectors of the Russia bourgeoisie that benefit from this war, but it also weakens the global hegemon (I disagree that we already have a multipolar world). On the other hand, it assures some measure of self determination for the peoples of Donbas and Ukraine.
From a very distant and somewhat ignorant perspective, (actual) revolutionary communists in Russia should not defend the overthrow of the Russian bourgeois state as an immediate objective (but a long term one). But they should have advocate for the immediate overthrow of the Ukrainian regime and, controversially, non-antagonistic autonomy from the Russian state and socialist restoration for the Donbas and Luhansk.
I think it is important in the context to see Ukraine as just a vassal of usa/nato and Russia as a 3rd party standing up for the LPR and DPR’s right to self determination. In a war for self determination against neo-imperialism we side with the anti-imperialists.
LPR and DRP are joining Russia as a practical response to the fact that they will never be allowed to be independent as long as usa and nato exist. Better to live as equals in a capitalists state than be an oppressed people under outright fascist imperialists.
It breaks down the nuance a bit further.
LPR/DPR have nothing to do with self determination because they are not nations. Russia and Ukraine are nations, both have their states, neither is fighting for self determination.
Donbass was not colonised by Ukraine, it’s a region of Ukraine with significant Russian population which is not unusual along borders.
This is a border dispute, of course people living there are affected, but that doesn’t make it a war for self-determination, otherwise all wars fought over territory would be wars of self determination.
Not nations? says who? regardless of your arbitrary (and incorrect) definition of “nation” they were autonomous and self governing for nearly a decade berfore the smo.
Whether they were colonized or not is irrelevant. The people of the LPR and DPR have the right to self determination. They have a right to fight for their freedom and they did that for 9 years. Russia started the SMO with the intention of assisting the LPR and DPR in defending from attacks by ukraine. The Russian offer to join was only extended after the zelensky government abandoned peace talks.
Calling it a border dispute is ahistorical.
Not nations? says who?
Lenin, Stalin, and Marxist-Leninist theory in general.
The people of the LPR and DPR have the right to self determination.
Not any more than people of Hong Kong or Taiwan. Because they are not nations.
Lenin and stalin never said shit about the LPR or DPR because they didn’t exist. Stop pretending you speak for them.
A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. -Lenin, Marxism and the National Question
How does that not apply to the Donbass republics?
The people of hong kong and taiwan are nations and have self determination. They haven’t used their self determination to secede from china because it isn’t the majority position. They aren’t independent states but they are nations, just like Tibet is.
It was Stalin who wrote Marxism and the National Question.
There is no nation of Hong Kong, they are Han Chinese. There is no nation of Donbass, they are Russians and Ukrainians. The way you’re trying to read that quote from Lenin, every single town, every village, every district is a nation. That’s not at all what Lenin said.
Tibet does have it’s own language, territory, and culture, and so it is indeed a nation.
The people living in the DPR and LPR disagree with you. For many of them this is about self-determination. It is about protection from a fascist regime that was seeking to exterminate them, their language, their culture and their religion. This is not a border dispute, that is completely ignorant of the reality of the situation and of how this started.
Go try and ask a person living in Donetsk what they think about the prospect of being left unprotected at the mercy of the Ukrainian Nazi regime that has been shelling them for a decade. All this started because the people there rose up against an illegal coup that brought to power a regime that declared everything Russian as anathema. The entire reason why there was a civil war for eight years in Ukraine is because of people fighting for self-determination. For autonomy or independence from a state that they felt no longer represented them and had become outright hostile to them. For them this is a war of national liberation.
This is not about a few people of another nationality living in a border area, these are entire regions, most of Eastern and Southern Ukraine in fact, that are and have been for centuries historically Russian, linguistically and culturally.
It is quite apparent that you don’t understand Ukraine, its national-ethnic composition or its history.(Edit: I should not have said that, i made unjustified assumptions about where you were coming from on this issue)The Banderite Ukrainian nationalist project, even if you wanted to ignore its deeply fascist character and roots, is a colonial one, in the sense that it seeks to establish a mono-linguistic ethnostate and erase the linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity of Ukraine by forcibly imposing the language, culture and historical national conception of a minority in the far west of Ukraine.
There is a continuum of culture and language in Ukraine going from East to West. The distinction between Ukrainian and Russian national identity is not at all as clear as you make it out to be. No, the DPR and LPR are not nations, they never claimed that, they (now) consider themselves part of the Russian nation, as did much of Ukraine to some degree before the Ukrainian nationalist re-education project began post 1991 and accelerating after 2014 to aggressively promote the idea that the entire territory of Ukraine should view itself as “Ukrainian” according to a strictly Western Ukrainian conception of that term that is explicitly and aggressively anti-Russian.
It is quite apparent that you don’t understand Ukraine, its national-ethnic composition or its history.
language, culture and historical national conception of a minority in the far West of Ukraine.
OK this is laughable. I was raised in Ukraine and I don’t need a Westerner to tell me I don’t understand it, especially one who seems to think Ukrainians are “a minority in the far West of Ukraine”.
There is a continuum of culture and language in Ukraine going from East to West.
I’m aware, thanks. The way I’ve been taught, Dnipro marks the border between Eastern Ukraine, which was always under Russian influence, and Western Ukraine, which had significant Polish influence and cultural ties. But the same goes for Russia. Ukrainian language was spoken all the way to the Don, the Cossack dialect has strong Ukrainian influence, and really entire Southern Russia is a mixture of Ukrainian, Georgian, Abkhasian, Ingush, Circassian, and other influences. Where exactly is the “ethnically and historically correct” border between Ukraine and Russia? I have no idea, maybe it’s along Dnipro, maybe it’s along Don, or anywhere in between.
Where is the legally correct border between Ukraine and Russia? That’s much easier, that was peacefully agreed in 1991. Should Ukraine pursue a return to those borders? Fuck no, that ship has sailed and it’s time for Ukraine to cut its losses and accept whatever peace it can have.
Your post with date-by-date history of the lead up to this conflict is spot on and I’m aware of those events. They still don’t justify invading a brotherly nation. Again, having been raised in the USSR I can’t support Russia’s wars on its neighbours, even if the fault lies mostly with the West.
Look at China, it manages to maintain sovereignty without killing large numbers of people in Hong Kong or Taiwan, and without waging wars on internal separatists like in Xinjiang.
No, the DPR and LPR are not nations, they never claimed that, they consider themselves part of the Russian nation, as did much of Ukraine to some degree before the Ukrainan nationalist re-education project began post 1991
Again, having grown up in Ukraine in the 80s, I can assure you people living there considered themselves Ukrainian, even Russian speakers like me.
Continuing from my other reply to this comment, I would add a few more minor things:
The way I’ve been taught, Dnipro marks the border between Eastern Ukraine, which was always under Russian influence, and Western Ukraine, which had significant Polish influence and cultural ties.
I don’t entirely agree with this generalization. Odessa is clearly a very Russian city but it is West of the Dnieper, whereas some parts of northern Ukraine close to the Belarus border, around Chernigov and even Poltava, at least according to voting patterns and language maps, appear to align more toward the West.
The only region here that sticks out from the general “more Russian-speaking = more pro-Russian” trend is Kiev itself where the population is naturally more cosmopolitan and Western oriented.
They still don’t justify invading a brotherly nation. Again, having been raised in the USSR I can’t support Russia’s wars on its neighbours, even if the fault lies mostly with the West.
I understand where you are coming from. I don’t think anyone who supports Russia wanted this war either. But what choice exactly did Russia have? Would you have had them throw the people of the DPR and LPR to the wolves? What was the alternative once it became clear that the Minsk agreements were never going to be fulfilled by Ukraine, and that the situation was quickly reaching a point of no-return? What would the domestic consequences be for Russia to have millions of refugees from the Donbass pour over the border? How many in Russia would blame the government for having abandoned these fellow Russians?
And on the subject of NATO, membership or no Ukraine was quickly becoming a de-facto member. NATO was already beginning to move into Ukraine, train its troops, transfer equipment, preparing to establish bases… Should Russia have waited until NATO had fully and irreversibly sunk its claws into Ukraine? Should they wait until the security situation became so critical that it would mean they were forced to start a war with all of NATO?
The Kiev regime was not going to stop at just the Donbass. Since 2014 they never stopped declaring their intention to retake Crimea, which i think you will agree is clearly Russian and voted overwhelmingly to rejoin Russia. What if a NATO Ukraine started a war to retake Crimea and NATO spun it to make Russia look like the aggressor? How could a sovereign Russia even continue to exist if NATO nuclear missiles were placed in Ukraine, at any time minutes away from a decapitation strike on Moscow? Would the fanatical Ukrainian nationalists stop at Crimea even or would they continue to push further, into places like Rostov-on-Don or Kuban which the Banderites also claim as “historically Ukrainian”?
What do you think Russia could or should have done, after eight years of being fooled with the Minsk sham, after their offer for a diplomatic settlement of the security situation in 2021 was decisively rejected and as it became clear that the Kiev regime was becoming increasingly intent on and prepared for a purely military “final solution” to the Donbass problem?
Russia is not waging war on Ukraine, it is at war with NATO and its proxies, with the fascist Kiev regime. At what point does it become morally unacceptable to abandon a brotherly nation to imperialism and fascism?
who seems to think Ukrainians are “a minority in the far West of Ukraine”.
That’s not what i said. I said that this particular conception of Ukrainian national identity (as it began to be popularized after 1991 and has been forcefully imposed since 2014) is one which came from Western Ukraine. You may disagree but from my understanding of history this specific conception of what it means to be Ukrainian is clearly rooted in the Bandera-Shukhevych Ukrainian nationalist movement.
Ukrainian language was spoken all the way to the Don, the Cossack dialect has strong Ukrainian influence
And Russian language was spoken all the way to Lvov. This is not an argument. The question is what is the majority language and culture, and that is not so easy to answer because it depends on where you draw a line that is to a degree somewhat arbitrary. Is Surzhik a Russian or a Ukrainian dialect? What distinguishes Ukrainian from Russian culture? Some people even argue that Ukrainian is (or started out as) a dialect of Russian: https://en.topwar.ru/193115-ukrainskij-jazyk-narechie-russkogo-jazyka.html That’s probably going too far but again, where exactly do you draw the line? I prefer not to get into these sorts of linguistic debates, my point is merely that there is a lot of ambiguity here.
And why was it necessary for post-Maidan Ukraine to begin such a harsh repression of the use of Russian language, suppression of Russian books and other media, etc. if it was an insignificant minority? https://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Nationalism/Ukranian_nationalism/supression_of_russian_language_in_ukraine.shtml
I can assure you people living there considered themselves Ukrainian, even Russian speakers like me.
I don’t doubt it. At that time the definition of Ukrainian was different, it was not yet the fanatically anti-Russian identity that is now promoted by Ukrainian nationalism. At that time it was still possible to identify as Ukrainian in the sense that you live on the territory of Ukraine, and still speak Russian, identify in part with Russian culture and history, belong to the traditional Ukrainian Orthodox Church (not the fake one invented by the nationalists) which is now banned etc.
Look at China, it manages to maintain sovereignty without killing large numbers of people in Hong Kong or Taiwan, and without waging wars on internal separatists like in Xinjiang.
The situation is not comparable. Hong Kong and Taiwan are officially part of China. Russia does not consider Ukraine part of its territory. And if Taiwan did attempt to officially declare independence China would almost certainly respond very forcefully.
The closest comparison would be if China didn’t consider Taiwan as part of China but had good relations with it until the US one day replaced Taiwan’s government in a coup, Taiwan started to heavily persecute its ethnic Chinese population (unrealistic because they are a vast majority but let’s say for the sake of argument they weren’t), suppressed the use of Mandarin Chinese, waged an open war on a part of its own population while building up an enormous army, and openly declared intentions to join a US led military alliance that refused to rule out the placing of nuclear capable missiles on the territory of Taiwan. In what world would China just sit by and do nothing?
I’m not sure I follow, what is so specific to Galicia in the current Ukrainian national identity? How is it different from Ukrainian identity of the UkrSSR?
It seems to me Ukrainian Nazis did the same thing Nazis do everywhere - take a national identity and slap some hatred on top. In this case, Bandera cult and russophobia. Remove that and you’re back to just… Regular Ukrainians. Am I missing something?
Would this be the moment for the working class of Russia to organize to topple their oligarchy?
Organization is an ongoing project, but taking power without the support of the army would likely lead to a civil war, and now is not a good time for Russia to be destabilized
would likely lead to a civil war, and now is not a good time for Russia to be destabilized
This is exactly the position Lenin critisises in this text. Lenin is quite clear:
A revolution in wartime means civil war
Yes but the global context is different, the imperialist hegemon would benefit from a civil war in Russia, a communist revolution in Russia at this moment could very well be found itself fighting for the globally reactionary class war. In fact, the US would absolutely fund such a group, just like in Syria with the SDF.
the imperialist hegemon would benefit from a civil war in Russia
Again this is exactly the kind of thinking Lenin is railing against in the very text we’re discussing.
The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany.
Again, this is not the same context of the WW1, this is not one imperialist state fighting another imperialist state, this is an imperialist state trying to subjugate another state through their proxies Ukraine and NATO.
Let’s bring this back to the text, it’s the reading group after all:
Anyone who would in all earnest refute the “slogan” of defeat for one’s own government in the imperialist war should prove one of three things:
- that the war of 1914-15 is not reactionary, or
- that a revolution stemming from that war is impossible, or
- that co-ordination and mutual aid are impossible* between revolutionary movements in all the belligerent countries.
The third point is particularly important to Russia, a most backward country, where an immediate socialist revolution is impossible. That is why the Russian Social-Democrats had to be the first to advance the “theory and practice” of the defeat “slogan”.
*I changed “possible” to “impossible” because that’s what Lenin wrote in Russian! The quote makes no sense otherwise. Russian sources: one, two, three.
So point by point:
- This is not a revolutionary war, it’s neither an anticolonial struggle nor a war for proletarian liberation. It’s a proxy war between two capitalist oligarchies over geopolitical power and control over resources, it doesn’t matter that one is the underdog and the other the hegemon. As such this war is inherently reactionary.
- A revolution stemming from this war is possible, perhaps more possible now than it was when Lenin wrote this.
- International cooperation and mutual aid are not only possible but much easier in modern times than they were when Lenin wrote this.
1: I find it revolutionary since it challenges the status quo of the uni-polar world. it is revolutionary in the current world context, just like bourgeois revolutions were revolutionary in their context.
2: i agree that the conditions are prime for a revolution, but where is the organization? revolution doesn’t happen spontaneously by itself.
3: i can agree with this but it’s non-important if there is no organization to cooperate with.
I can’t believe we are having to have this struggle session again on Lemmygrad. I thought this had been settled a long time ago.
It’s a proxy war between two capitalist oligarchies over geopolitical power and control over resources
No, it’s not. It’s a proxy war between the global imperialist hegemon and a capitalist country defending itself against imperialist encroachment.
In that sense yes, it is about geopolitical power. About the power of one state to remain sovereign and defend its people in the face of imperialist encroachment.
The argument that it’s primarily about resources falls apart when you look at the terms that Russia was willing to agree to with Minsk. That would have returned control to Kiev over the entire Donbass, except in an autonomous form and with protections for the Russian speaking population enshrined into law.
It also falls apart when you consider the terms that Russia was willing to agree to at the Istanbul peace talks. Again if it was all about resources, Russia would not have been willing to return all occupied territories to Ukraine (except for the now irreversibly separated DPR and LPR) in exchange for permanent neutrality.
(To clarify: I’m not saying resources don’t play a role, but it doesn’t appear to me like they are the primary motivation. If Russia was after resources they would have had a much easier time invading resource rich and sparsely populated Kazakhstan. And why would they invade Ukraine in 2022 after it had already built up a massive military instead of 2014 when its military was in total shambles? This explanation just doesn’t add up.)
it doesn’t matter that one is the underdog and the other the hegemon. As such this war is inherently reactionary.
It does because Russia is not just “the underdog” it is acting defensively and not as an imperialist power. Today’s Russia is not the Russian empire. The geopolitical situation is completely different. There is only one imperialist pole and Russia has been forced into alignment with most of the anti-imperialist forces in the world today, from China and the DPRK to Iran, the AES (Alliance des États du Sahel) states, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.
And that’s on top of the fact that for the people on the ground in Eastern Ukraine who identify as Russian this very much is a war of national liberation. For the Russian people and the Russian soldier this is an anti-fascist struggle. That makes it a progressive struggle.
A revolution stemming from this war is possible, perhaps more possible now than it was when Lenin wrote this.
Completely delusional. Maybe in Ukraine (still highly unlikely due to the high levels of brainwashing and the complete destruction of any worker organization and communist movements) but not in Russia. I wish that was the case but it just isn’t. Unless you consider a color revolution to be a revolution. That is the only kind of “revolution” you would potentially get out of Russia’s defeat. That or an up-swelling of extreme nationalism leading to a strengthening of reactionary forces in Russia and potentially a repeat of the Chechen wars on a much bigger scale.
International cooperation and mutual aid are not only possible but much easier in modern times than they were when Lenin wrote this.
What are you even talking about? International co-operation from who? The imperial core? An absurd proposition considering how chauvinist the Western proletariat is. We have seen vastly more “international co-operation” from fascists and mercenaries going to fight for the Ukrainian Nazi regime.
It’s true that there were a few Westerners who went to defend the DPR and LPR when they were alone in fighting the fascists until Russia started the SMO but that was very much the exception. Most Westerners simply bought into the narrative their mainstream media bombarded them with. The same would be the case if a civil war broke out in Russia.
Who then? Non-interventionist China? Cuba, Iran, the DPRK, all of which are under severe siege themselves by the imperialists and which if they lost Russia would be in a much more exposed and vulnerable position than they already are? The world can’t even muster up enough solidarity to stop the Palestinian genocide, do you seriously think they would go to bat to defend Russia from imperialist aggression, neo-colonial plundering and local warlords taking over as imperialist comprador puppets if the Russian state were to fall? You are living in a fantasy world.
Edit: Looking back at how i formulated this response i think i am guilty of somewhat losing my patience. My tone was overly hostile and i apologize. I should not have taken this tone with a comrade on a discussion thread. We are here to discuss and learn.
To help people that are unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution (Sotsial-Demokrat No. 40) made it clear, that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government.
Gotta love Lenin, he never forgets to restate his points in clear and simple terms, and he’s always snarky too
Its fairly straightforward for imperialist countries, e.g. US, European states. But it gets incredibly complex when it’s about ascendant capitalist countries like Russia.
Agreed, we have to make sure base analysis is correct first before applying strategies.
it gets incredibly complex when it’s about ascendant capitalist countries like Russia.
It really doesn’t though. Russia was a backwards agrarian state barely on its way out of feudalism when Lenin wrote this, he even explicitly acknowledges it right in this text:
Russia, a most backward country, where an immediate socialist revolution is impossible.
If Lenin’s thesis applied to WW1 Russia, it surely applies to SMO Russia.
Both war contexts are very different. WW1 was inherently imperialist, imperialist countries fighting for a better share of the world while the current war is about stopping NATO expansion in Ukraine, NATO being the alliance of imperialist countries, Russia is found in a progressive side in this time.
Russia is simply not a part of the imperial core, like nor is Iran, another locally reactionary state. I cannot find myself supporting a movement, regardless of their politics, that weakens these states that one way or another are found themselves fighting against US hegemony, because that would make me end up in the pro-US side.
I think Domenico Losurdo “Class Struggle” does a really good job explaining the nuances of class struggle and the different forms it can take from small to global perspectives. Locally progressive struggles can find themselves helping a globally reactionary struggle while locally reactionary struggles can find themselves helping a globally progressive struggle.
This is lesser evilism. Sure, Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO expansion, this doesn’t make this war a “progressive struggle” though. Ultimately it is just as much about control over Ukrainian resources and Russia simply acts like any capitalist power would. Russia does support some progressive struggles around the world but Ukraine isn’t it.
In a world with an unchallenged-anti communist global hegemon the growth of socialism is stunted. Anyone who challenges the anti-communist imperialists is whether they intend it or not is making the word safer for socialism. Burkina Faso has only gotten as far as they have because the imperialists are busy.
You’re basically saying it’s fine when a reactionary capitalist power invades their neighbours to control them, as long as it’s detrimental to US interests. This is campism and it’s completely incompatible with Marxism-Leninism.
Yes the war was provoked by the US and NATO but this doesn’t absolve Russia from all responsibility and it definitely doesn’t make it a “progressive struggle”. It’s undeniable Russia escalated the conflict 3 years ago and it wasn’t necessary - Russia absolutely had enough power in Ukraine to meddle and pull strings, hell do some assassinations, sanctions, etc.
What did we get out of this?
Over a million people dead, over 10 millions displaced, Ukraine is destroyed, the debt will surpass the GDP this year with state assets already sold off to foreign capital for chicken feed, it’s the most landmined nation in the world (84% of landmine victims globally are civilians, with children accounting for 37%), it’s polluted by depleted uranium which will cause cancers and birth defects for generations, its population reduced by a quartrer and will likely never reach its pre-war levels. You’re sitting on the sidelines cheering cause you just want to see US snubbed.
But the opposite is happening, US has achieved its goals in this war. This war has accelerated the European descent into fascism, it made Europe dependent on the US energy, it triggered European countries to join NATO and to raise their defense budgets by billions. This is exactly what the US wanted and Trump is pushing NATO countries to increase their defense budgets even further.
Regardless. The question is whether this text by Lenin suggests that Russian communists should desire the defeat of Russia in this war so that they can turn it into a civil war, a revolution. The answer is yes, unambiguously. You can disagree with Lenin and that’s fine, but that doesn’t change what Lenin said.
You are completely misunderstanding the context and the reality of the Ukraine conflict. As you yourself have pointed out in another comment here, Palestine’s struggle is just because it is anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist. The same applies to Russia in the context of the Ukraine conflict.
It’s undeniable Russia escalated the conflict 3 years ago and it wasn’t necessary. Russia absolutely had enough power in Ukraine to meddle and pull strings, hell do some assassinations, sanctions, etc.
This is simply not true. Russia had no such power in Ukraine to fundamentally change the trajectory. You are massively overestimating the ability of Russia to exert that kind of influence. Assassinations would have achieved nothing, in fact they would likely have strengthened the imperialist grip on Ukraine. Moreover, the escalation did not come from Russia, it came from NATO via its Ukrainian proxy army.
By 2022 the Donbass Republics and the ethnic Russian people living there were facing an existential threat. Ukraine had been building up an enormous army with the help of NATO since 2015. Starting in late 2021 they had been amassing forces and preparing to launch an all out assault on the Donbass which would have been a bloodbath for the civilians there. Anyone perceived as having collaborated with the rebels would either have had to flee or would be tortured and brutally murdered in retribution for the years of rebellion. It is clear that this attack was coming as preparatory shelling from the Ukrainian side had already begun just a few weeks prior to Russia launching the SMO. I have explained this in a prior comment on another post where i also provided sources confirming that this occurred in the lead up to the SMO: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7112898/6016809
The Donbass militia was not going to be able to withstand an all out attack by a Ukrainian army that had been reconstituted, massively expanded and armed to the teeth by NATO. It is enough to look at how the Ukrainians treated the civilians in the Kursk region, where now countless massacres and atrocities are being uncovered to see what would have happened had Russia not intervened. It was imperative that Russia not allow that attack to begin in earnest, as once the Ukrainian forces had lodged themselves into the urban areas of Donetsk and Lugansk - which they would have done quickly had they broken the militia lines as the frontline was extremely close to the city and the Ukrainians were trained in NATO’s blitzkrieg style of war - they would have been impossible to dislodge without the widespread destruction of the cities, as we have seen throughout this conflict.
We saw in Mariupol what happens when Ukrainian units take over a majority Russian city in Ukraine, how they treat civilians, use them as human shields, and how they entrench themselves into every civilian building. Except it would have been worse even than Mariupol, which was surrounded and cut off from supply and reinforcements and thus could be partly preserved intact despite the best efforts of the Azov and other Ukrainian units to ensure maximum destruction of the city. If Russia had reacted only after the invasion by the Ukrainian forces began they could not have surrounded and cut off the incursion into Donetsk as the Donbass was too heavily fortified by Ukraine. We have seen how long it took Russia to break through those defenses.
Liberating Donetsk would have been a grinding affair more akin to Bakhmut in which the entire city would have been ruined and with Donetsk being an order of magnitude larger almost a million civilians would have been killed or displaced. And Russia would still have been portrayed as the aggressor and be blamed for starting a war and for all the destruction.
The goal of the Banderite Nazis was and is ethnic cleansing. They have explicitly said this. See the sources on this that i gave here: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/7263447/6081888 The Ukrainian nationalist project is fundamentally a colonialist one in Eastern Ukraine and the struggle against it is anti-colonialist. And on a broader scale Russia’s SMO is an anti-imperialist and anti-fascist operation, pushing back the expansion of the imperialist NATO by defeating its Ukrainian proxy army and the fascist Kiev regime. Russia’s defeat in this conflict would not accelerate the socialist revolution in Russia any more than the victory of NATO’s jihadi proxies in Syria has done for Syria. Syria and the entire region is now further away from socialism than it has ever been, and imperialism and colonialism have been greatly strengthened there.
I think none of us here disagree with Lenin’s stated position in this text. But you are committing a dogmatic, ultra-left error by reading it as if its application is universal regardless of objective material context. The geopolitical context surrounding the Ukraine conflict and the Western imperialist assault on today’s Russia more broadly is simply not the same as the context in which this text was written. The current context is closer to the one you yourself quoted in your comment about the Palestinian struggle. It is closer to the struggle of the Emir of Afghanistan which Stalin spoke about. A reactionary and capitalist regime but one which in the present context is serving an anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist function.
I completely disagree with the US achieving its goals statement when this war has strengthened the anti-imperialist alliance to a point that the ruling faction of the US is abandoning Ukraine and Europe in an effort to woo Russia against China. We are witnessing the imperialist bloc at it’s weakest point, a direct result from this war.
I’m saying when a reactionary capitalist power invades another reactionary capitalist power I want both those powers to come out of it as weak as can be. I am saying a world with 2 reactionary world powers at each others throats is more conducive to proletarian revolutions than a world with a single world spanning reactionary capitalist power. Wanting my enemies to fight each other is not campism.
Ukraine was building up a sizeable force to reinvade the donbas. Should russia have just sat by while a genocide unfolded on their doorstep?
The violence and suffering in would have happened somewhere. The usa doesn’t take breaks from murder. It doesn’t like its weapons going past their due date. If they didn’t push for war in ukraine they’d be doing murder in africa or south america. Maybe they’d have started shit in China. Then they would have invaded Russia after the pogroms in ukraine were over.
I’m not cheering on the suffering in Ukraine but I am happy that the usa isn’t doing another Iraq which killed 4x the civilians that Russia’s SMO did in a country half the population. I’m happy that They gave the guns to incompetent ukrainians who couldn’t use them to the same devastating effect that usa would have.
The usa did not achieve its aims. It said from the start its goal was to weaken Russia for cheap. This did the opposite. Europe was going to fascism anyways. Don’t blame Russia for what the euros are doing. Spending more on weapons doesn’t make more weapons it just makes weapons more expensive.
Go read it again. Revolutionary defeatism isn’t the idea that communists should want Russia to lose every war. Its wanting your capitalist government to lose the war so you can turn it into a civil war. Do you not understand the context this was written in? If Lenin and Trotsky were Germans Lenin would be advocating that Germany lose the war.
My country is supplying arms and funds to ukraine thus I should want ukraine to to lose because it degrades my governments military and erodes trust in my government. That is what Lenin is saying.
If you are Russian then yes you should want Russia to lose in Ukraine but you better be planning a fucking civil war if they do.
Over a million people dead, over 10 millions displaced, Ukraine is destroyed, the debt will surpass the GDP this year, state assets sold off to foreign capital for chicken feed
You are right about the devastating impact of this proxy war on Ukraine. Sadly this is what happens when the West manages to turn you into a proxy. They will use you and destroy you. But to blame this devastation on Russia is to completely ignore reality, the fact that the war was started not by Russia but by the US and the Europeans when they orchestrated the Maidan coup. Russia tried for eight years to resolve this diplomatically. Even when the SMO had started, Russia still offered a way out with the Istanbul negotiations. All of the destruction that came afterwards is solely on the US and its European puppets who went and told the Ukrainian side to renege on the peace agreement they were about to sign and promised them a blank check for military and financial support. Moreover the selling off of Ukraine and the destruction of its public sector had already begun long before the SMO. That was always going to happen after the West successfully engineered a color revolution.
But the opposite is happening, US has achieved its goals in this war. This war has accelerated the European descent into fascism, it made Europe dependent on the US energy, it triggered European countries to join NATO and to raise their defense budgets by billions.
You are wrong in saying that the US has achieved all its goals in this war. It has achieved some goals as you correctly stated with the impact this has had on Europe. But if you think that they didn’t go into this originally hoping, intending and to a large extent even believing that they would defeat Russia, militarily or via sanctions and overthrow the Russian government, you have not paid attention to just how much they invested in this. And they certainly didn’t and don’t plan on losing Ukraine, which they very well may if the entire post-Maidan Kiev regime ends up collapsing as a result of the Russian victory. Blackrock and other Western corporations have not invested so much into owning Ukraine only to lose it to the Russians.
If Ukraine is lost to them then everything that happens in Europe is nothing more than a consolation prize. They have achieved a short term victory in subjugating Europe but in doing so they have severely destabilized it and further undermined their own global hegemony. Russia’s victory is a victory for anti-imperialism. It is doubtful whether the increase of the European defense budgets is sustainable or even feasible at the levels proposed. Especially with the deindustrialization that is occurring. And it comes at the cost of the gutting of European welfare states which does not in the long run stabilize the imperialist position but rather has the opposite effect. Is is also not clear how long NATO as an entity will still survive after this defeat and the splits that are emerging in the imperialist camp.
The question is whether this text by Lenin suggests that Russian communists should desire the defeat of Russia in this war so that they can turn it into a civil war, a revolution. The answer is yes, unambiguously.
The defeat of Russia would not turn into a revolutionary civil war. If you think that then you have no understanding of the real conditions and political situation in Russia. Russian communists have no ability presently to do what you are fantasizing about here. And i’m sorry to be so blunt but that’s what this is, a fantasy completely detached from the reality on the ground. If a civil war does take place it will be more akin to what happened to Yugoslavia with ethno-religious hatred and separatism breaking out, reactionary nationalist forces taking over and Russia being balkanized into Western neo-colonies and NATO fiefdoms just as the Balkans have been. Is the socialist revolution any closer in any of the countries that NATO has destroyed and plunged into internal conflicts? Is it any closer in Iraq? Libya? Syria?
I need to repeat this because this cannot be stressed enough: the geopolitical conditions of today are not the same as those in Lenin’s time. You cannot blindly take a text which was written in a specific context and under specific historical conditions and apply it over a century later in totally different context without a proper analysis of the real conditions. This is un-scientific and anti-Marxist. There is no inter-imperialist rivalry today (at most there may be emerging splits in the imperialist camp). The working class is disorganized and the communist movement is not in the position it was at the time that the First World War broke out. The US’s unipolar hegemony which suppresses not only socialist revolutionary movements but any kind of sovereignty and de-colonization across the world would only be strengthened by the defeat of Russia.
Gaining access to Russia’s resources would greatly alleviate the problems that Western capitalism is now facing as a result of the mounting contradictions of neoliberalism and of the emerging multi-polar world in which it is much harder to extract neo-colonial plunder from the global south when they are developing and have alternative centers of power to look to. It would be akin to the infusion of life that the global capitalist system, which by the 1970s had begun to run into serious issues, received after the fall of socialism in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the USSR. Such a renewed age of rampant plunder would delay the potential for socialist revolutions not just in the West but the world over by many decades, maybe longer. It would place even the Chinese revolution under an existential threat.
And ultimately neither the Russians nor the Ukrainians would benefit from it. In fact at the moment the best hope the Ukrainians have is a total Russian victory that would liberate them from not only their own fascist regime but from the total enslavement by the IMF, Blackrock & co. that they are looking at today.
The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany.
This makes me think of Russia-Ukraine right now, or even “Israel”-Palestine. Maybe it’s just the general way that war is framed in the US. It has been used to an even greater degree in Palestine imo, where they’ve bent the word Hamas to mean “anything vaguely against the genocide”. Even if the working class doesn’t actually carry out treasonous acts, they’ll end up being criminalized anyways.
On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean a “class truce”, the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s “own” bourgeoisie, one’s “own” government, whereas dealing a blow at one’s own government in wartime is (for Bukvoyed’s information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one’s own country.
I like this, as it expands on the previous quote. I see this logic a lot when it comes to criticizing the gov or demanding anything at all from them, like our class is supposed to deprive ourselves in support of some war instead of seeing it as a time where our gov’s grasp on authority is weaker & more vulnerable.
Just to note that Palestine is different because Palestinians are not waging an imperialist war but an anti-colonial war. This text doesn’t apply to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and Palestinian communists are correct in supporting their government even if it is not progressive or communist:
The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “Socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm
Thanks for providing the distinction!
Always fun to read these bits and remember all over again Lenin’s absolute disdain for Trotsky even before 1917.
During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government.
Starts off with a banger. And then goes into the merciless shredding of anyone with incorrect views. Lays out his reasoning logically step by step. interspersed with sick burns like “This is a fact to which it is foolish to close one’s eyes.” which could have just as easily said, “If you cant see this you are fucking stupid.”
I think Lenin kept Trotsky around as a training dummy. Or like a pitching machine that threw nice slow ones right over the plate so he could practice his home runs. Or a spring board that he could jump on to get mad air and preform amazing dunks.
Pog.
