Socialist Viewpoints on War in Ukraine

In his presentation to the London-based Online Communist Forum – printed on this website (“Debates in the Second International”) – Mike Taber made the following statement on Ukraine, drawing parallels to Second International debates on the question of militarism and war:

“Consistent with the approach that revolutionary socialists took following 1914, one can completely oppose and condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while at the same time refusing to give an ounce of support to the forces of the Ukrainian capitalist regime and its US and NATO backers. Above all, socialists within the United States and other imperialist countries should see as their number-one task to oppose the war moves of their own government.”

That statement elicited several comments by readers, along with a response to these by Taber. Given the importance of the question, we thought it best to separate these comments out into a separate post, beginning with Taber’s response.

---

By Mike Taber

Here is my response to various points raised in the exchange.

On Richard Fidler’s comments:

1. Just to avoid any misunderstanding – I oppose and condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and its violation of that country’s independence and sovereignty, which socialists should defend. Those socialists and antiwar activists who refuse to criticize Putin’s move weaken the fight against US and NATO war moves. The Russian antiwar movement should be supported.
2. Nowhere did I say that the Russia-Ukraine war is an inter-imperialist conflict, nor do I believe that to be the case. Ukraine is certainly not an imperialist power. And I would hesitate to put Russia in that category either – at least in the way Lenin defined imperialism. They are instead both capitalist countries that emerged following the fall of the regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe. Former Stalinist bureaucrats and rising capitalists there have been engaged in bloody turf battles with each other over power and resources. Examples of such gang wars are the Yugoslavia civil war, the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, and the Russia-Georgia war. In these conflicts, Russia has been the biggest and most aggressive bully on the block, led by Putin’s bonapartist regime, with its reactionary aspirations to restore whatever it can of the old Russian Empire.
3. The example that Richard gives of Germany’s 1914 invasion of Belgium at the start of World War I is actually a good analogy – not exact, but close in some ways. Revolutionary socialists at the time strongly condemned Germany’s invasion and its violation of Belgium’s sovereignty. Yet they did not buy into the “poor little Belgium” propaganda campaign waged by the Entente powers to back their own war efforts, nor did they campaign for military support to Belgium. And they labeled the move by right-wing Belgian social democrats to enter that country’s government as a betrayal of socialism.
4. Richard seems to disagree with my statement that “socialists within the United States and other imperialist countries should see as their number-one task to oppose the war moves of their own government.” In my opinion, there should be nothing controversial about what I said, whatever one’s analysis of the war itself. I believe this to be ABC for Leninists, completely in line with the traditions of our movement.

On Aaron Ruby’s comments:

Two points on Aaron’s thoughtful remarks.

1. I would be very hesitant to refer to Ukraine’s resistance to the invasion as a “war of national liberation” at the present time. Such a term cannot be used in the absence of at least some progressive social program or vision. But I’ve seen nothing of the sort coming from the Ukrainian regime thus far. What we’ve seen from it instead are simply calls for intervention by the US and other imperialist powers, which should be opposed.
2. As to what advice I’d give Ukrainian working people who wish to stand up to the invasion: I have no such advice to offer. Ukrainian workers themselves will have to navigate the complex challenge of opposing the Russian invasion while not reinforcing the capitalist government of their own country or giving support to US and NATO intervention.

On Prianikoff’s comments:

Some telling points here about various Ukrainian historical figures being referenced today. Confusion on this history does not in itself tar as reactionary all those in Ukraine at the present time who wish to defend their country. But the real history of these movements should not be sugarcoated. Doing so poses an obstacle for Ukrainian working people who are looking for ways to advance their interests.

Prianikoff is also correct that the fight for national self-determination and sovereignty, while deserving of support, cannot be elevated over the worldwide interests of the working-class struggle in general.

Comment by Richard Fidler

Mike Taber says Russia’s war on Ukraine is an inter-imperialist war. Revolutionary Marxists “can completely oppose… the Russian invasion” but they must at the same time refuse “to give an ounce of support” to the resistance of the Ukrainian people, which he identifies with “the Ukrainian capitalist regime and its US and NATO backers.” The “distinction between offensive and defensive conflicts” has little meaning in the era of imperialist wars, he says. The “issue of national defense and national sovereignty can obscure the tasks facing the working-class movement.” We should no longer “distinguish wars of conquest from wars to defend national sovereignty. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Russia’s war is a war of conquest, as Putin openly admits, a war for “regime change” and the forcible incorporation of Ukraine into the Great Russian sphere of influence. Although the backdrop to the war is NATO’s encirclement of Russia, this does not justify the attempt to eliminate Ukraine’s sovereignty, its political independence, which the Ukrainian masses are fighting to defend. Ukraine is not threatening to invade Russia. Revolutionary Marxists should have no hesitation in defending the Ukrainians’ heroic resistance to Russia’s aggression, even though Ukraine is led by a capitalist government and “backed” by NATO.

Even if you reduce it to an inter-imperialist conflict, as Taber does, that does not mean that socialists should deny support to the Ukraine resistance. Has he forgotten the Zimmerwald conference, the first major gathering of antiwar Marxists in WWI? Its Manifesto stated that “entire nations and countries like Belgium, Poland, the Balkan states, and Armenia are threatened with the fate of being torn asunder, annexed in whole or in part as booty in the game of compensation.” Listing the tasks before the international working-class movement, the Manifesto said “The right of self-determination of nations must be the indestructible principle in the system of national relationships of peoples.” In a joint statement to the conference, the German and French delegations denounced “the violation of Belgian neutrality” and demanded “restoration of Belgium to its complete integrity and independence.” In a message to the conference from prison, the German antiwar deputy Karl Liebknecht called for “a peace that could restore unfortunate Belgium… to freedom and independence….” And Belgium was an imperialist country, a brutal colonizer of a large section of Africa, the Congo! See Lenin’s Struggle for a Revolutionary International (ed. John Riddell). Further materials may be found by consulting the book’s index under “Belgium” and “Self-determination.” See also Lenin, “The Discussion On Self-Determination Summed Up” (1916).

Comment by Aaron Ruby

Excellent presentation by Mike Taber, as always.

His comment on the current war against Ukraine was on the money. However, I have one question that I have been ruminating over.

“Consistent with the approach that revolutionary socialists took following 1914, one can completely oppose and condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while at the same time refusing to give an ounce of support to the forces of the Ukrainian capitalist regime and its US and NATO backers. Above all, socialists within the United States and other imperialist countries should see as their number-one task to oppose the war moves of their own government.”

I have no difficulty demanding: Russia Out of Ukraine AND U.S. Out of Europe, AND Abolish NATO!

There indeed exists a capitalist government in Ukraine, and at present there appears to be no working class revolutionary movement. Obviously, a workers movement would demand that the Trade Unions be armed.

I can’t recall the last time that a capitalist government has engaged in a fight of National Liberation by an oppressed people, and not simply acquiesced to imperialist domination. Perhaps someone can provide some example.

How does the fight against the Russian invaders in the absence of a workers movement get articulated now, under these conditions? Wouldn’t communist workers join the armed forces of Ukraine (the Territorial Militia)?

Thanks for publishing this.

Comment by Prianikoff

Simply defending Ukraine’s right to self-determination can easily become an excuse for dissolving into a cross-class patriotic opposition to the Russian forces. Such a position is no more valid today than it was in France during World War 2. This is precisely the position advocated by an Anarcho-Syndicalist called Taras Kobzar, in an interview published by International Viewpoint on April 4th.

Kobzar claims: “Three tendencies with their own historical traditions, stemming from the revolution and civil war of a century ago (1917-1922), are now organically linked in Ukraine: the Makhnovschina, the Petlyurovschina and the Hetmanschina. The Makhnovshchina has its roots in the anarchist tradition of the Ukrainian people, which is embodied today in the self-organization …and territorial defence; the Petlyurovshchina is the army and national republican associations; the Hetmanschtchina is state power and the business world. All these tendencies are now united by the same desire to defend the country, by the same concern to see this country develop freely and independently.”

In case anyone needs reminding;

* Nestor Makhno’s forces alternately allied themselves with the Reds and Whites during the Civil War, before being suppressed by Trotsky’s Red Army.

* Petliura was President of the Ukrainian Peoples Republic and commanded its armed forces when they fought the October Revolution, carrying out numerous pogroms in the process. (He was subsequently assassinated in Paris by Sholom Schwarzbard, whose relatives were amongst their victims)

* The Hetmanate was a warlord government sponsored by German Imperialism.

It’s sickening that IVP can publish such an interview, which implies that uniting these groups in the name of ‘national defence’ is justifiable in modern Ukraine. What next, OUN-B?

This is why simply defending self-determination is a dangerous trap. And why Trotsky explicitly called for an Independent *Socialist* Ukraine. Nor was he under any illusion that this was the key demand in the impending Imperialist World War.