XXV. The Left Facing Great Power Rivalry: Pro-Eastern Social-Imperialists (Non-Stalinists)

 

 

 

 

It would be wrong to imagine that the current of pro-Eastern social-imperialists would be limited to Stalinist parties. As a matter of fact, there are also a number of non-Stalinist forces which view, with more or less criticism, Russian and Chinese imperialism as allies. In this chapter we will deal with a few representative examples.

 

 

 

Boris Kagarlitsky and Rabkor: Great Russian “Marxists” ready to fight for Moscow’s Interests “with Blood and Iron”

 

 

 

We already mentioned above Boris Kagarlitsky who is the Director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements (IGSO) in Moscow as well as the editor of the online magazine Rabkor. Albeit he does not represent a party, his theories are quite influential among the Russian left and highly respected among Western leftists. Unfortunately, Kagarlitsky who has never been a Stalinist (he was a dissident in the 1980s) has developed more and more into a “Marxist” supporter of Great Russian chauvinism.

 

As we demonstrated in chapter VIII, he does not recognize Russia as an imperialist state but rather as a “peripheral capitalist state” comparable to other larger semi-colonial countries like Mexico or India (similar to the positions of LIT and UIT). This assessment is used as theoretical justification to support Russian imperialism and its reactionary allies in practice.

 

For example, Kagarlitsky and his Rabkor magazine have become supporters of the Russian intervention in the Ukraine since 2014. In 2016, this magazine published an article which warned about the Ukraine’s transformation “from Weimar into a new Reich”, awaking associations with Hitler’s Third Reich! Consequently, the magazine called Moscow to deal with the Ukraine “with blood and iron”!

 

“So, Russians will observe the transformation of Ukraine from Weimar Republic into the Reich. However, if Russia is not willing to deal with the Reich, is does not mean that the Reich will leave Russia in peace. No, Russia will have to face a transformed Ukraine in the future and the only instruments for dealing with this problem will be the blood and iron.” [1]

 

So we see it is only a small step from denying Russia’s imperialist character to become a fervent whip of reactionary war-mongering!

 

It is hardly surprising that Kagarlitsky and his Rabkor magazine have also offered their space for the extremely right-wing adventurist Igor Strelkov. Strelkov is said to be a retired colonel of the GRU (Russia's external military intelligence organization). He became prominent in 2014 as a military leader of the Donbass Republic in its first phase. He is a Great Russian chauvinist, a White Russian monarchist and an Anti-Semite. He describes himself openly: “I consider myself a supporter of the autocratic monarchy in Russia.” Characteristically he talks about his opponents’ “interests [which] are inextricably linked to international Judeo-Anglo-Saxon capital”. [2] In 2016, he founded a new party called Russian National Movement which calls in its Manifesto for "uniting the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, and other Russian lands into a single all-Russian state and transforming the entire territory of the former USSR into an unconditional zone of Russian influence." It also favors strict quota system for migrant workers from the former Soviet republics in Central Asia and the Caucasus. [3]

 

All this did not stop Kagarlitsky and his Rabkor magazine to promote Strelkov and to give him a tribune for his reactionary propaganda. In 2015, it published an interview with Strelkov in which the latter called for the creation of a red-brown alliance. [4]

 

And it is also the same reactionary red-brown spirit which guided Kagarlitsky to participate in meetings with fascist and semi-fascist figures from the Aleksandr Dugin’s Eurasian movement. [5]

 

We note in passing, that Kagarlitsky first adaption to Great Russian chauvinism began already long before the Ukraine war in 2014. In his book on Russia’s history – which has been published in 2008 and which covers also the most recent events in Russia – he completely ignores the tragic fate of the Chechens in the 20^th century. The barbarian deportation of this small Caucasian people by Stalin, the two genocidal wars of Russia – the first waged by Yeltsin in 1994-96 and the second by Putin in 1999-2002 – all this is not worth even a single word for this Great Russian “Marxist”! [6]

 

Such a reactionary adaption to Great Russian imperialism has inevitable massive consequences for Kagarlitsky’s views on other subjects. In an editorial, Kagarlitsky’s Rabkor magazine proclaims that revolutionary defeatism as it was elaborated by Lenin is no longer valid. “Defeatism”, Kagarlitsky claims, has become “bourgeois”:

 

“There is no use one hundred years after the First World war to make references to Lenin, the Zimmerwald conference and anti-imperialist «defeatism». Firstly, because, contrary to the beginning of 1914, there is no war, it will not and can not happen. Secondly, the defeatism at the beginning of the XX century was anti-systemic and anti-bourgeois. But today we are dealing with the fully bourgeois ideology, orientated on the promotion of the same neoliberal politics with each every socialist must fight. No matter how one assesses the position of Lenin or Martov in 1914, they did not go to the demonstrations under the German and Austrian flags, did not write pamphlets calling on these empires to increase pressure on the Russian army.” [7]

 

In an article on the popular independence movement in Catalonia, Kagarlitsky sharply denounces this revolt. [8] He declares: “The Catalan revolt, like Scottish separatism, is an uprising of the rich against the poor. It is a protest of a liberal society against the remnants of a redistributive social-state.” He even denounced the nationalism of the oppressed people – putting it on the same level like the chauvinism of an oppressor nation: “So, the left do not dare to recognize that nationalism of minorities is no less hostile to toilers’ interests than any other nationalism.” [9]

 

So it was not surprising but rather confirming Kagarlitsky’s transformation into a “critical” mouthpiece of the Putin regime, when he welcomed the electoral victory of the ultra-reactionary U.S. President Trump! He praised him for being an opponent of the financial oligarchy as well as a representative of the anti-liberal ideology of imperialist protectionism – something which he considers worthy of support against imperialist globalization. He even called the working class to back Trump in this. In an article, published by Counterpunch, he told a baffled readership:

 

“Besides, Trump never said anything wrong regarding African Americans, women or gays, except for a private conversation many years ago, when he told his friend about an unsuccessful attempt to molest some lady…”

 

“The forty-fifth President of the United States is firmly committed to the principles of protectionism; he will protect US markets and jobs. And, most importantly, he encourages other countries to do the same, not taking into consideration the interests of multinational corporations based in the United States. Worse, he considers these corporations to be the main threat to America.”

 

“This part of bourgeoisie quite naturally rebelled against the transnational corporations (...) The average business, which rebelled against transnational oligarchies, was forced to look for allies. In turn, the lower classes of society, who for decades suffered from neoliberal policies, enthusiastically joined the revolt. Such alliance will not last for too long, but it is not accidental. The development of industry, internal market, and social policy that strengthens the position of the workers, and gives them confidence is needed in order to restore the workers’ movement, to allow it to gain momentum. In short, we need protectionism.”

 

“Undoubtedly, the ideology of the forty-fifth President of the United States is woven of contradictions, his program, as well as the coalition of social forces which established around it, is transitional, focused only on the decision of one, but absolutely fundamental task – to undermine the rule of the financial oligarchy. There is no way we can support his actions preventing Muslim people from Syria or Iran (just any people) entering the US. There are plenty of other decisions and policies of Trump the Left will never agree with. Yet administration in Washington, finally, appears to be headed by a politician who is determined to put into practice the demands that the radical activists put forward at least since the time of the protests in Seattle in 1999. And this is really a historic turning point.”

 

“... the US President is well aware that he faces a potential coup and he knows where the threat is coming from. He will be forced to contribute to the mobilization and organization of the lower classes. In this situation, no one will help him, but the working class.” [10]

 

That Trump is the incarnation of a corrupt, speculating oligarchy, that he is a reactionary enemy of the workers, migrants and women, that he is a (Cold) War monger against the U.S. rivals – all that is conveniently swept under the carpet by this Putinist “Marxist”!

 

We conclude this chapter by noting that also other reformist world-system thinkers like Alexander Buzgalin and Ruslan Dzarasov share a “critical” support for the Russian state and its intervention in domestic and foreign policy. Buzgalin, for example, promotes an alliance of the left with the Russian state and demands reform in order to establish some social welfare combined with elements of state-capitalist planning (Buzgalin's “Gosplan of the XXI century”). It is not surprising that pro-Russian imperialist economists connected with the state like Sergey Glazyev also refer repeatedly to the World System analysis. [11]

 

 

 

The Pro-Russian/Chinese Pseudo-Trotskyists (PO/CRFI)

 

 

 

There are also several pseudo-Trotskyists who refuse to recognize the imperialist character of Russia and China and who, consequently, openly side with them against the Western rivals. The largest of these social-imperialist “Trotskyists” is the international tendency around the Argentine Partido Obrero (PO, Workers Party), which is called Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International (CRFI) and which also includes the PT (Uruguay), EEK (Greece) and DIP (Turkey). And, as we already mentioned above, the PO/CRFI also collaborates with the Russian Stalinists (and Assad supporters) of the United Communist Party (OKP).

 

As we described in detail above, the PO/CRFI denies that capitalist restoration has been completed in Russia and China. Consequently, they strongly reject the notion that these states have become Great Powers. In a recently adopted statement, they proclaim that Russia and China have not become imperialist and can not become such. They state that these countries only have the alternative to either become colonies of Western imperialism or socialist states. They consider our class characterization of China and Russia as “imperialist propaganda”: “The reflection of this imperialist propaganda on the left, be it consciously or otherwise, is to describe Russia and China as imperialist powers.” [12]

 

From this, they draw the inevitable conclusion that Russia and China have to be defended today against the U.S., EU and Japan. We note, as an aside, that the PO/CRFI theory would have obligated them, in retrospective, to side with capitalist Russia in an isolated war with Germany or Britain before 1917. [13]

 

Lenin liked to say: „Our doctrine is not a dogma, but a guide to action.“ [14] A correct theory guides a party to a correct practice. In reverse, we can say that a revisionist theory guides a party to a revisionist practice.

 

Unfortunately, this is the case with the PO/CRFI. From their analysis – that Russia and China are not imperialist power – they draw the strategic conclusion to support these Eastern powers against their Western rivals. This becomes evident from a recently published joint statement in reaction to the latest escalation of the tensions between the Great Powers:

 

“The escalating international trade war between America, Europe, Russia, and China is intensifying the imperialist war drive everywhere. From the war volcano of Middle East to the Balkans and the Eastern borderlands of Europe in Ukraine, from the Caucasus to Central Asia to the South China Sea and Korea, imperialism is already in confrontation, directly or indirectly, with Russia and China to fragment and re-colonize them, absorbing them in world capitalism. Working class and popular movements cannot be neutral in this confrontation, which threatens humanity and every living being on Earth with world war and nuclear extinction: we declare war against the imperialist war of re-colonization of Russia and China, without supporting or cultivating any illusions in the restorationist Bonapartist elites in Kremlin or Beijing.“ [15]

 

One has to thank the PO/CRFI comrades as they articulate more explicitly than other supporters the devastating consequences of the “Russia and China are semi-colonies” thesis. The same position has been expressed in a statement adopted at a congress of the CRFI in April 2018.

 

“An imperialist capital has not been created in Russia or China, and the likelihood of an exclusively state-based imperialism is a flimsy hypothesis. These regimes of transition to capitalism face, on the one hand, imperialist colonization (and wars) and, on the other, proletarian revolution. Given a hypothesis of imperialist war against Russia and / or China, to carry out a capitalist restoration of a colonial nature, revolutionary socialists will fight for the complete defeat of imperialism and will take advantage of this struggle to promote the resurgence of the soviets, as the independent political power of the working class; to expropriate the oligarchy and the bureaucracy and develop a socialist revolution, defending the free self-determination of the peoples, in the perspective of the reconstruction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [inspired] in the revolutionary and internationalist origin of the October revolution.” ^[16]

 

The pseudo-socialist rhetoric can barely conceal the social-imperialist position contained in this statement. If Russia and China are not imperialist (in fact, according to the PO leadership, they are not even fully capitalist) and if the Western Great Powers are imperialist, than the formulation “revolutionary socialists will fight for the complete defeat of imperialism” can have only one meaning: that PO is siding with Russia and China against the old imperialist powers.

 

This is the theoretical and strategic basis for the alliance which the PO/CRFI leadership has created with the Russian Stalinist OKP of Darya Mitina. As we did show above this party also rejects the notion of Russia as an imperialist state and considers it rather as a “peripheral capitalist country”. On such a common basis these forces can agree on supporting Russian and Chinese imperialism. We see: theoretical confusion and abysmal failure to recognize social-historical developments of world politics inevitable results in taking the wrong side in the class struggle and in open betrayal to the cause of the liberation of the international proletariat and oppressed peoples! Revisionist theory creates revisionist whitewashers of Chinese and Russian imperialism. And all this in the name of “Marxism” and “Anti-Imperialism”!

 

Nevertheless, one has to thank the PO/CRFI comrades for one thing: as we have shown in other works, many self-proclaimed “Trotskyist” organizations share the thesis that Russia and China are not imperialist states. However, only few are prepared to articulate so consistently and explicitly the devastating consequences of this position in calling to support China and Russia against their Western rivals.

 

Authentic Marxists draw a dividing line between consistent anti-imperialism and pro-Eastern social-imperialism. The former opposes all Great Powers and supports the liberation struggle of oppressed peoples against them. The latter sides with China and Russia against their Western rivals and refuses to support those liberation struggles of oppressed people which are directed against the Putin and Xi regimes resp. their local allies. And indeed, it is only logical that the PO/CRFI leadership refuses to lend any support to the Syrian people fighting against the Assad tyranny and their Russian and Iranian imperialist masters. In fact, they are preparing to openly join the camp of Assad, as they are warning in their latest joint statement:

 

“The 4^th Euro-Mediterranean Conference in May 2017 had emphasized the implications of the first trip of Trump outside the US in Saudi Arabia and Israel: the formation of a pro-imperialist war axis of Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Sudan aimed against Iran and its allies in the region, first of all Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian regime of Bashar al Assad.” [17]

 

Denying the imperialist character of Russia, which is the master of Iran and Syria, they view the political events in the Middle exclusively thought the prism of opposition against Western imperialism. So what does it mean when the PO/CRFI raises, as they did in this statement, the call “Imperialists out of Syria” but never mention the necessity for the Russian and Iranian troops to be expelled from Syria?! It means nothing else but the implicit support for the continuation of the presence of the counterrevolutionary Russian and Iranian forces which are deployed on Syrian soil to suppress the popular liberation struggle! Obviously revolutionary Marxists are sharply opposed to such revisionist whitewashing of Chinese and Russian imperialism.

 

We conclude in reiterating our position which we have outlined in our “Theses on Revolutionary Defeatism in Imperialist States”: “In cases of conflicts between imperialist states, the RCIT calls workers and popular organizations around the world to act decisively on the basis of the principles of international working class solidarity. This means that they must not support either camp. They must refuse to side with their own ruling class as well as with that of the opposing imperialist camp: Down with all imperialist Great Powers – whether the US, EU, Japan, China or Russia!”

 

“Refusal to recognize the Great Power rivalry as a key feature of the present period and, related to this, refusal to recognize the imperialist character of China and Russia” inevitable results in “supporting Russian and Chinese imperialism.” [18]

 

 

 

The Spartacist sects and their defense of the Chinese “Deformed Workers State”

 

 

 

Let us mention, in passing, that there are also other pseudo-Marxist groups who arrive to similar conclusions like the Stalinists. Examples for this are the WWP and the PSL in the U.S. as well as some “Trotskyists” – let us better say caricatures of Trotskyism. Such Stalinophile sects like the Spartacist ICL, the IBT or Jan Norden’s IG/LFI claim that China would be still a “deformed workers state” – more than a quarter of century after capitalist restoration! Surely, the numerous Chinese billionaires would not stop laughing in case they would come across such proclamations! They also suggest that Russia is not an imperialist state. [19] As we mentioned above, the World Socialist Website (WSWS) even published a polemic against the RCIT because we dared to characterize China and Russia as imperialist powers.

 

Consequently, they all refuse to support the ongoing popular liberation struggle of the Syrian people against the Assad dictatorship. Some, like the American WWP and PSL or the British grouplet Socialist Fight even have come up with statements of support for Russia and Assad against the US and against the Syrian Revolution.

 

As a result, these groups call for a social-imperialist united front with Russia against the US – instead of an “anti-imperialist united front” as they pretend: “We do not call for Russians out, as this would be objectively aiding the U.S./NATO imperialists and the jihadist groups they support (as well as those they oppose, i.e., the I.S.). If the U.S. and its NATO allies directly attack Russian forces in Syria, we are for defense of the [sic!] those forces against imperialism.” [20]

 

Writing in the same spirit, the SF group titled a statement: “Defend Syria and Russia: Imperialism out of the Middle East” [21]

 

On the surface it might seem that the Marxists agree with the Stalinists and pseudo-Trotskyists in the opposition against the military interference of U.S. imperialism in Syria and the whole Middle East. But the truth is that one can oppose the US foreign policy in this region for very different reasons. One can oppose it from a revolutionary internationalist and anti-imperialist point of view. But one can also oppose it from a petty-bourgeois pacifist, liberal-humanist, or from a pro-Russian social-imperialist, pro-Assad, or even from a fascist point of view. [22]

 

Trotsky once remarked that dialectical thinking requires fusing the general analysis of the world situation with a concrete analysis of the crucial factors and its interaction. Repeating common phrases about “imperialism” and focusing only on the old Great Powers of the West without understanding the fundamental changes which have taken place in the past one, two decades – such schematic, mechanistic thinking must unavoidable result in gross misjudgments of the dynamics of the world situation and, hence, of the consequential tasks for the class struggle.

 

“Marxist thought is concrete, that is, it looks upon all the decisive or important factors in any given question, not only from the point of view of their reciprocal relations, but also from that of their development. It never dissolves the momentary situation within the general perspective, but by means of the general perspective makes possible an analysis of the momentary situation in all its peculiarities. Politics has its point of departure in precisely this sort of concrete analysis. Opportunist thought and sectarian thought have this feature in common: they extract from the complexity of circumstances and forces one or two factors that appear to them to be the most important (and sometimes are, to be sure), isolate them from the complex reality, and attribute to them unlimited and unrestricted powers.” [23]

 

And, indeed, the objective reality – characterized by inter-imperialist rivalry between the Great Powers and ongoing liberation struggles of oppressed peoples – is a closed book for these groups. Lacking any theoretical compass, they are forced to stumble in the camp of Russian imperialism with a far more pathetic consistency than most Stalinists do.

 

Lenin has warned of such confused organizations: „We are constantly making the mistake in Russia of judging the slogans and tactics of a certain party or group, of judging its general trend, by the intentions or motives that the group claims for itself. Such judgment is worthless. The road to hell—as was said long ago—is paved with good intentions. It is not a matter of intentions, motives or words but of the objective situation, independent of them, that determines the fate and significance of slogans, of tactics or, in general, of the trend of a given party or group.“ [24]

 

Likewise, it is today with the pro-Eastern social-imperialists. They praise anti-imperialism and many other good things. But a few Trotskyist phrases can not conceal their pro-Russian or pro-Chinese social-imperialist politics. As a matter of fact, neither will the sinner enter heaven just because he said some hurried prayers nor will the camouflaged semi-Stalinists join the camp of working class internationalism just because they recite some memorized quotes from Trotsky’s books.

 

One must not ignore the bitter truth: the pro-Russian/Chinese pseudo-Trotskyists who combine meaningless and empty admiration for the founder of the Red Army with revisionist whitewashing of Chinese and Russian imperialism are nothing but Stalinist wolves in “Trotskyist” sheep's clothing!