Commentary on the article by the International Department of the Central Committee of the KKE “On the position of the RCWP in relation to the imperialist war in Ukraine”
Understanding the assessment of modern warfare and modern politics
FROM THE EDITOR: We have already written quite a lot about the spread of opinions among the communists on the issue of assessing the ongoing military operations of the RF Armed Forces and Donbass militias in the Donbass and Ukraine. Various, sometimes opposing opinions. The hot fuse of some comrades and even the hysterical impulses of some other comrades, of course, are worthy of attention and consideration. But still, first of all, we are interested in a scientific approach to assessing events. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin himself, in the preface to the post-revolutionary edition of “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, wrote, “I would like to hope that my pamphlet will help to understand the basic economic question, without studying of which it is impossible to understand anything in the assessment of modern war and modern politics, namely, on the question of the economic essence of imperialism.” Of our allied parties, the most profound and sharpest discussion took place between the RCWP and the Communist Party of Greece. Comrades from the KKE on a number of issues did not agree with our assessments of the current situation, and the RCWP did not sign the joint statement of a number of parties initiated by them. The International Department of the Central Committee of the KKE published a critical article in the newspaper Rizospastis regarding our position. The International Commission of the Central Committee of our Party responded to the criticism of the comrades and expressed arguments in favor of our analysis.
The Central Committee of the RCWP expresses confidence that the ongoing discussion will help not only the disputing parties, but the entire communist movement in the formation of a revolutionary communist pole.
_______________________________________________________________________
On April 29, 2022, the newspaper “Rizospastis”, the central organ of the Communist Party of Greece, published an article by the International Department of the Central Committee of the KKE “On the position of the RCWP towards the imperialist war in Ukraine”.
The article assesses the actions of the RCWP in connection with the special operation carried out by Russia in Ukraine, expresses extreme resentment for our disagreement with the position of the KKE and argues that the approach of the RCWP is eclectic, and that it slides into serious theoretical and political errors, even “borrowing” bourgeois concepts.
We openly say that we categorically disagree with such assessments and consider them unscientific, but we do not agree even more with the method of conducting discussions on the part of the party, with which we have long-standing friendly relations. At the request of the International Department of the Central Committee of the KKE dated April 28, 2022, we deliberately discussed the situation at a meeting of the Political Council and answered the questions asked. However, it turned out that no one was expecting our arguments, and on April 29, 2022, the above-mentioned article was published in the Rizospastis newspaper.
Since we have already verified the main arguments and submitted them to the comrades in the Central Committee of the KKE, we are submitting them for publication on the Solidnet website, trying to adhere to the structure of the article in Rizospastis.
A few words about the relationship between the RCWP and the KKE
The Political Council of the Central Committee of our party carefully considered and discussed the letter of the International Department of the Central Committee of the KKE dated April 28, 2022 about serious differences in our positions on a number of issues, primarily on assessing the situation in connection with military operations in Ukraine and Donbass.
We also believe that the time has come to clarify our relations, which have a long history and have for the most part been fruitful and comradely in nature.
We remember well and appreciate the fact that the KKE was one of the first foreign communist parties to establish bilateral relations with the RCWP. Our parties have always treated Marxism as a science, and our positions on the analysis of the reasons for the defeat of socialism in the USSR practically coincided. At the International Meeting in Leningrad in 1997, in honor of the 80th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, we, together with 30 parties, signed the declaration “October-80”. It can be said that we jointly conducted theoretical work. Thus, at the request of the Greek comrades, we selected relevant literature on economic discussions in the USSR, and our specialists shared their knowledge. A group of scientists, political economists and philosophers (associate professor Yabrova, prof. Popov, prof. Elmeev, prof. Volovich) traveled to Greece to give lectures and participate in scientific discussions. We also recall with gratitude the organization of studies in Greece for a group of our trade union activists. Our party in 1998 immediately supported the KKE’s initiative to hold regular International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties and participated in all meetings as a member of the Working Group of solidnet. Together, our parties laid the foundations for the International Communist Review (ICR) and the European Communist Initiative (ECI) Movement.
The RCWP viewed these forms of interaction as concrete steps to create a communist pole in the international communist movement, which, in our opinion, has had a strong opportunist bias since Gorbachev’s time. As you know, our party contributed to overcoming this bias, organizing international conferences of orthodox parties: “100 years of October” in Leningrad, “100 years of the Comintern” and “140 years of I.V. Stalin” in Moscow, “70 Years of Victory” in the Donbass, in which the KKE participated.
Unfortunately, despite these long-standing comradely relations that have developed between our parties, we have indeed recently come across serious differences in positions.
How did it happen? We also sincerely experience this fact and analyze the previous history. We think it should be said frankly that certain discrepancies appeared much earlier than the military operations of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine began. Previously, there were differences on the issue of scientific understanding of fascism and assessment of the manifestations of fascism in the foreign policy of the United States (i.e., the initiation and support of terrorist forms of domination of capital in the “victim” country) and their NATO allies today – “fascism for export”. Significant differences also emerged in the evaluation of the activities of the Comintern.
But even more significant, from our point of view, is the fact that differences gradually accumulated more and more in our parties’ visions of a way to form a communist pole. We certainly recognize the merits of the KKE in initiating and creating the ICR and then the ECI, but we must note that these organizational forms have not been developed as active forms of collective struggle against opportunism and revisionism. They were limited to the exchange of opinions of the parties among themselves, but did not find continuation in practical joint work – they did not provide even the most elementary joint coordinated actions of the parties of the pole outside, for example, at such forums as general meetings of solidnet. In order to ensure visible unity and prevent a split in the solid system, the KKE constantly held back attempts to organize a common front to fight the opportunism of the Euro-Left and other right-wing parties, although it itself spoke out on issues of theory and current politics correctly, from revolutionary Marxist positions.
We have to add to this that, from our point of view, the comrade leaders of the KKE, from the time of the first meetings, became somewhat arrogant, and, as we say in Russia, bronzed, they began to present their opinion as the ultimate truth or even in the form of lectures, and the ICR and ECI began to turn into to the support agencies of the KKE line. We think that this is the reason for the recent decision of the Presidium of the Hungarian Workers’ Party to end the participation of the party in the Secretariat of the European Communist Initiative, since the comrades can no longer take responsibility for various political documents adopted on behalf of the Secretariat.
We are heavy-hearted, but we must have this conversation. As V.I. Lenin: “… there are moments that require us to put the question point-blank and call things by their real name, under the threat of causing irreparable harm to both the party and the revolution.”
Report of the Central Committee of the RCWP and objections of the comrades from the International Department of the Central Committee of the KKE
The comrades from the KKE have really studied the report of the Central Committee of the RCWP and correctly note that we assert that “capitalism brought wars to the soil of the Soviet Union”. We assess the nature of the war as imperialistic – that “the true source of the conflict in Ukraine being analyzed is the inter-imperialist contradictions of the USA, the EU and Russia, into which Ukraine is drawn.” The RCWP also believes that Ukraine is a fascist state and that fascism in this country is “Ukrainian only in terms of its place of manifestation, in terms of language, in terms of historical continuity and personnel composition, but in terms of its origins it is completely American.”
After that, the comrades state that they do not agree with the RCWP’s understanding of the Leninist theory of imperialism, they do not agree with the theory of “fascism in foreign policy”, they do not share the conclusion of the RCWP and its belief that what is happening in Ukraine has a positive side – it helps the people of Donbass in the fight against American fascism in foreign policy. The theorists of the KKE claim that it is allegedly eclecticism in the position of the RCWP that eventually leads it to support the imperialist war. They say that is why the RCWP supported Russia’s imperialist invasion of Ukraine and did not sign the Joint Statement, supported by 42 communist and workers’ parties and 30 communist youth organizations from around the world, issued on the initiative of the KKE, the Communist Workers’ Party of Spain, the Communist Party of Mexico and the Communist Party of Turkey, in contrast to its youth organization RCYL(b) – the Revolutionary Communist Youth Union (bolsheviks), which maintains bilateral relations with KKE.
Comrades from the KKE regret that the RCWP is not among the 42 Communist and Workers’ Parties that signed the Joint Declaration against the imperialist war in Ukraine. We, too, regret and worry. But at the same time, we have to note that a certain arrogance and disdain for the opinions of comrades also manifested themselves here. The statement was initiated by the Communist Party of Greece, the Communist Workers’ Party of Spain, the Communist Party of Mexico and the Communist Party of Turkey. We respect these parties, but we consider it simply indecent that, before submitting the draft for general familiarization, the authors did not consult with the communists of Donbass, Russia and Ukraine. But together we held an international conference in the Donbass on the problems of combating fascism in 2015 in honor of the 70th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War. How could one act so tactlessly, knowing that the war against Donbass has been going on for 8 years and has already claimed 15,000 lives, mostly civilians? The comrades of the KKE and other signatories rightly noted that the Russian bourgeoisie is engaged in denazification not at all for ideological reasons, that it is not going to uproot the capitalist roots that give rise to fascism. But, we ask them, what should have been done – to wait and endure further? You know that we (RCWP, CWO LPR and WFD) have always not only allowed, but also insistently demanded more help from bourgeois Russia, but in the statement being analyzed, you did not even mention that the war on the part of the workers and communists of Donbass is fair and anti-fascist in nature. Or do you disagree with this?
Instead, you are quite ironic about the nature of the so-called “People’s Republics” of Donbass, which has nothing to do with the nature of the People’s Republics that emerged after World War II in Europe.
Yes, it is correct. We and the communists of Donbass know this and speak in sufficient detail and directly in our agitation about the loss of elements of people character in the government of the republics. But let us suggest that people character of these republics is generated and conditioned by the unwillingness of the people to submit to the dictates of the fascists, the unwillingness to repeat the fate of the burnt House of Trade Unions in Odessa. The people of Donbass at the referendums in May 2014 said their “OKHI” (“NO” in Greek) to the fascist chasteners in Kyiv. It is on this that such a people character – in your opinion wrong, but it is as it is – of these republics is based.
The fact that it is impossible for the republics of Donbass to survive in this struggle without the help of bourgeois Russia has been absolutely clear since 2014, especially since they are opposed to the combined forces of the world’s imperialist capital. But this does not mean at all that the republics should refuse this assistance from the Russian Federation. Let us repeat, the RCWP has always not only allowed, but always demanded from the authorities more assistance, including military assistance. For some reason you didn’t mind before. Today, do you think that it was not necessary to help the fight against American fascism in foreign policy? We believe that the Nazis must be beaten with any weapon, always, using all allies and accomplies.
An erroneous approach considering the modern world and Russia by RCWP or by KKE?
Comrades from the KKE write in Rizospastis: “It is clear that, unlike the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the RCWP is trying to approach current events from class positions, but it is slipping into serious theoretical and political mistakes, even to “borrowing” bourgeois concepts from those forces that it calls opportunistic. Such blunders lead to the justification of an unacceptable Russian military invasion, which, as the party admits though, is carried out for imperialist purposes under the pretext of saving the people of Donbass.”
The claims are really serious. The difference in assessments of the nature of the imperialist war must be dealt with seriously, since this is a matter of science and theory.
Earlier, in the course of working on articles for the ICR, we expressed our opinion that the ideological department and the leadership of the KKE, from our point of view, somewhat incorrectly interprets the Leninist theory of imperialism in relation to today’s reality. You present the matter in such a way that today the whole world is imperialist, monopolies rule in all countries, and one should consider only a kind of pyramid of imperialists of the highest category, second and third levels, etc. Everyone is at odds with each other, and everyone exploits and plunders the weaker ones.
At the same time, you seem to be forgetting Lenin’s conclusion that capitalism has now singled out a handful (less than one tenth of the world’s population; with the most “generous” and exaggerated calculation – less than one fifth) of especially rich and powerful states that rob the whole world. This objective position was even reflected, albeit in a distorted form, in the bourgeois concept of the “golden billion”, named after the total number of those “prosperous people” who live in “robber states”.
You somehow modestly hush up this moment and consider this Leninist provision supposedly outdated. You just write that on the basis of this distorted understanding of the modern world, the RCWP interprets Lenin’s statement about a “bunch of countries”, written when 3/4 of the planet was still colonies.
You substantiate this by saying that it is allegedly possible to reduce the issue of the struggle against imperialism to exclusively anti-Americanism, which is typical of many national bourgeois states and the corresponding political forces. This, of course, should not be done, we agree with you. But the core of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, along with its economic basis, the monopolization of production, is the proposition that a handful of leading imperialist powers, which have divided the world and are fighting for its redivision, under imperialism plunder all other bourgeois countries. Today the essence of imperialism has not changed. The influence of the “handful” and its influence in today’s world has definitely increased compared to Lenin’s times.
Today this handful is headed precisely by the United States of America. The rest play the part of the jury. Do you disagree? Is Greece an imperialist country? Or even the much more powerful EU countries? By and large, none of these countries today can disobey the United States, can not show independence, which is remarkably confirmed by the entire practice of imposing sanctions against the Russian Federation. And even obviously to the detriment of themselves! Don’t you see it? Not to see that today a handful of the most powerful predators, led by the United States and NATO, are forming “a solid basis for imperialist oppression and exploitation of most nations and countries of the world, capitalist parasitism of a handful of the richest states!” This, from our point of view, is a very big mistake. The political practice of the behavior of the EU countries and other leading imperialist powers in connection with the conflict in Ukraine has shown that there is almost no independent policy of the EU countries, there is the fact that these countries are dancing to the tune of the United States, even to the detriment of their economies for the sake of hope to continue plundering the rest of the world in the future. The United States is carrying out the most profitable operation – lending, ideologically and politically shaping fascism, which is hostile to the peoples of the world and destroys even bourgeois democracy. At the same time, significantly weakening the EU countries, at least in the short term, and strengthening its presence in this market.
An analysis of events suggests that if Russia did not possess nuclear weapons, it is quite possible that it could have suffered the fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. But given the power of the defense potential of the Russian Federation inherited from the USSR, the US and EU imperialists have chosen the tactics of resurrecting fascism in Ukraine and inciting it against the Donbass and the Russian Federation. The pumping of weapons on their part and the political aggravation of the situation on the line with the Donbass, as many countries and parties admit, if not forced, then pushed the Russian authorities to start preventive military actions.
The defective, allegedly, theory of “fascism for export”?
It must be said that some of our and foreign comrades are confused by the very term “fascism for export.” It slightly reminds someone of the concept of “export of revolutions”, which the communists do not support. Someone primitively interprets it as a real export, i.e. export of fascism. Moreover, after translation from the great figurative Russian language for foreign comrades, the essence can be difficult to grasp. We do not hold on to the term, for us it was born as a publicistic image. More important is the very essence of the phenomenon – fascism in foreign policy. Particularly noteworthy are the assertions of the Greek comrades that the RCWP in its analysis repeats the harmful theory of “fascism for export”. They even agreed that “fascism for export” is a bourgeois theory, which was first put forward by Russian bourgeois political forces during the “orange revolution” in 2006 in Ukraine.
It is not comfortable for us to make this remark, but, firstly, this is an outright lie. An analysis of the manifestations of fascism in foreign policy, which in journalism we often call “fascism for export”, was carried out for the first time, with our participation, by Honored Worker of Culture of the RSFSR Boris Lavrentievich Fetisov and published in 2009 by the Russian socio-political newspaper Narodnaya Pravda. After that, it was discussed, agreed upon and adopted as a position at the plenum of the Central Committee of the RCWP. Then the Solidnet was brought to the attention of the parties in 2012. The Greek comrades mention that there was a serious discussion in the pages of the ICR magazine. At the same time, they believe that practice has fully confirmed the warning made by the KKE in 2014 that this theory will lead to an erroneous course of cooperation with bourgeois political forces.
We affirm that practice has fully confirmed our analysis and foresight. And the discrepancy between our assessments is caused by the Greek comrades’ shift from the positions of the scientific approach and, as a result, the rejection of the Comintern definition of fascism. The comrades somehow openly and directly do not speak about this, but write very intricately: “However, one should not forget that this definition made by the Comintern took shape during a period of serious polemics between number of leaders of the Comintern, and it was in practice their inability to show the connection between fascism and capitalism and take this into account in the strategy of the international communist movement.”
Strange and even painful to hear. This Dimitrov definition turned out to be untenable? “Fascism in power is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most imperialist elements of finance capital, a special form of class domination by the bourgeoisie… Fascism is not supra-class power, nor is it the power of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen proletariat over finance capital. Fascism is the power of finance capital itself. This is the organization of terrorist reprisals against the working class and the revolutionary part of the peasantry and intelligentsia. Fascism in foreign policy is chauvinism in its grossest form, cultivating zoological hatred against other peoples.”
In our analysis, we are talking about fascism in foreign policy! Fascism consists in the rejection of democratic forms of bourgeois domination and the transition to open bourgeois imperialist terror. In the modern world, most of the most developed bourgeois states use various forms in their domestic politics with the appearance of bourgeois democracy, refraining from exercising dictatorship in an open terrorist form. Another thing is in the international arena. We argue that after the defeat (we are sure that it’s temporary) of socialism in the USSR and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, there was a negative change in the balance of power that determines the situation throughout the world. First, in the absence of examples from socialist countries, capital went on an all-out attack on the rights of workers in domestic politics. And secondly, the imperialists are trying to solve their internal problems through external expansion. In foreign policy, world imperialism, and above all, its shock detachment, namely US imperialists and NATO countries, began to act much more unbridled, aggressively, without looking back at the bourgeois-democratic norms of international law and the so-called public opinion. An example of this is the reprisals against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and today – Syria, threats against the DPRK and Iran, the initiation and support of today’s bloody conflict in Ukraine. In the words of V.I. Lenin, “we have before us a completely naked imperialism, which does not even find it necessary to clothe itself in anything, believing that it is already magnificent.”
We regard the ongoing escalation of tension in the Middle East, in Ukraine as the spread of neo-fascism – “fascism for export”. “Fascism for export” is an undisguised, ignoring all the laws and norms of international law terrorist imperialist policy of violence and bloody solution of issues of ensuring the interests of world imperialism, the core of which is financial capital. This is a modern form of fascism. At the same time, chauvinism in its crudest form today manifests itself in the statements of US presidents about evil empires, about outcast countries, about the special responsibility of the United States for the fate of the whole world, with the conclusion that they have been given the right to decide everything!
The denial of the reactionary dominance of the United States is detrimental to determining the position and tactics of the struggle of the Communist Parties. This is the source of your skepticism about the manifestations of fascism in foreign policy – “fascism for export”, and even the rejection of the Comintern definition of fascism. And in the end, this led to a mechanical transfer of assessments of 1914–1917, the time of the First Imperialist War, to the current situation.
You write that the criticism of the RCWP is unfounded, but we reflected all these points in the Report of the Central Committee to the March plenum (03.26.2022) “On the attitude of the RCWP to the military actions of the government of the Russian Federation and the armed forces of Donbass in Ukraine.” You can read the report, and we are quite ready to answer questions and criticism. Only people who are not confident in themselves are afraid of criticism. The RCWP is confident in its position and is ready to clarify relations.
You, dear comrades, write that “on the one hand, the RCWP verbally recognizes the imperialist war, which is the result of inter-imperialist clashes, and on the other hand, declaring “protection of the people of Donbass” and allegedly “denazification” of Ukraine, it actually supports Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the imperialist war and the Russian bourgeoisie, which it regards as the guarantor of the fight against fascism.”
But this only shows that you just haven’t figured out, in Lenin’s words, “on the basic economic question, without studying which it is impossible to understand anything in the assessment of modern war and modern politics, namely: in the question of the economic essence of imperialism.”
Undoubtedly, the war is for the Russian bourgeois class, which is much weaker, being in the stage of formation of imperialism, also in the process of becoming imperialistic, since bourgeois Russia defends its interests, its desire to operate gas and oil pipelines, others, incl. country’s human resources. But this does not mean at all that the working class of the Russian Federation is indifferent to the long, stubborn and aggressive attack on Russia by the forces of the United States, NATO and the EU, that we do not notice the use of open fascism as a weapon in Ukraine, that the prospect of repeating the fate of Yugoslavia, Iraq or Libya for the worker class of Russia is more preferable than the oppression of the domestic bourgeoisie. Today, the military actions of the Russian Federation are no longer aimed at seizing resources and markets through the subordination of Ukraine, but at protecting the interests of bourgeois Russia, Russian capital and even the integrity of the country. We do not support the government and do not call for all forces to rally around it, as the Communist Party of Russian Federation does, on the contrary, we call for using the situation to clarify the true causes of the tragedies experienced and to organize the struggle against capitalism, for socialism and the restoration of the USSR. But we do not call to simply stop the war, because this essentially means a call to stop the war against fascism, with real fascism, fed and directed by the biggest imperialist predators, being self-announced as the successor of the fascists’ cause of 1941-45 and openly uses civilians as human shields. We cannot do this. We believe that it is possible and necessary to beat the Nazis with any weapon with the involvement of all possible forces. At the same time, a conscious factor should be introduced there, i.e. agitation for the development of the anti-fascist struggle into the struggle for socialism.
And calls for the defeat of own government in this war do not correspond to the essence of the moment, do not contribute to the approach of the revolution, since there is no corresponding situation, and today, in the words of Lenin, it is not yet possible for revolutionary movements in all the warring countries to correspond and cooperate with each other. The victory of the USA and NATO today will be the victory of advancing fascism. Strengthening fascisation of regimes is observed in all EU countries, especially in the Baltic States.
This point is very difficult to understand, because there is a great temptation to simply transfer the assessments of the times of the First Imperialist War to the present day.
Criticism of the KKE
You write that the RCWP unfoundedly accuses the KKE of “mistakes”, as well as the lack of solidarity with the people of Donbass. This, of course, is not at all the case. We certainly recognize that you sympathize with the people of Donbass and condemn the fascist manifestations of the Kyiv regime. We, together with the communists of Donbass and Ukraine, are grateful to the KKE for the consistent protests that have been held since 2014, including from the rostrum of the European Parliament.
But this is solidarity and support for the victims, protection of the suffering and oppressed population, and we, as a party, first of all, support the struggle of this people themselves against the fascists, and we ourselves participate in it to the best of our ability, helping the formation of communist forces in the republics.
We take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the deputies from the KKE, who, for their political activities against the war, were included in the official “black list” of the Kyiv reactionary regime. But let me tell you that our comrades in the Donbass are directly involved in hostilities, having losses both in the wounded and in the lives of their comrades. Our mutual friend, the leader of the Workers’ Front of Donbass, Nikolay Belostenny, who fought in 2014-15, went to enroll in the militia at the military registration and enlistment office, but being 69-year-old he has not yet been taken. Today he works as an ambulance driver, sometimes carrying the wounded under fire, incl. soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, from Mariupol to the hospitals of the DPR. And the guys who are younger are fighting. And the fact that the Russian bourgeoisie, not at all for ideological reasons, is forced to help their struggle does not negate its just character and absolute necessity.
Intra-party processes in the RCWP
The Greek comrades note: “The recent events threaten to become a crushing ideological and political blow to the RCWP, as evidenced by the so-called “Conference in support of the struggle against fascism in Ukraine”, held on March 20, 2022 at the headquarters of the Central Committee of the RCWP.”
You know that certain tensions have also arisen in our party in connection with this question. There are even exits of unstable comrades from the Central Committee and from the ranks of the party. And we have to note with regret that comrades from the KKE, voluntarily or involuntarily, contribute to these processes, including by accepting the signature of a group of young people, allegedly from the organization of the RCYL(b), under the Declaration of 42 parties, although we informed you that this is actually provocateurs trying to capture the Komsomol brand and website. You did not react to this and even repeated this disinformation in the newspaper “Rizospastis” for the mass reader, actually misleading in relation to the position of the RCYL(b). We think that such actions also do not contribute to the strengthening of comradely relations between our parties.
In addition, we note your attempts to interfere in our internal political work with the voice of opponents of our party. So, you write to us: “… with great sadness we are watching you conduct joint events with Russian far-right, nationalist organizations, such as the Other Russia party (“National Bolsheviks”).”
We have already provided clarifications on these issues on the party website and in the Working Russia newspaper, which you could read. The Other Russia is not a socialist organization, but it is also by no means an extreme right-wing party. In fact, it is not quite a party, since it does not have clearly defined class positions, but it does not support the private capitalist system, and one of the populist slogans is the statement “Capitalism is shit!”. These are mostly young people, they are not so much nationalists as patriots of the Soviet past and the greatness of the USSR, in which all peoples had their decent place.Hoisting a red flag over Riga (November 17, 2000) is in the baggage of their deeds, for which the comrades received real prison terms. Their people are fighting in the Donbass not for the Russian world, but against the Nazis. We are trying to introduce elements of class consciousness into this youth subculture, incl. on the example of Lenin’s understanding of the national pride of the Great Russians. Not always, but quite often it works. We have been cooperating for many years and we will continue.
Therefore, we would like you to consult with us before drawing conclusions. In any case, we are not going to silently tolerate distortions of our position and even of the historical facts.
The fact that not the most advanced, but various Orthodox, Cossack, national-patriotic and even anti-communist elements often fight in the militia of Donbass does not change the nature of the anti-fascist struggle at all. It is impossible to win with one vanguard, as Lenin taught. It is necessary to attract and use any forces, you need to beat the Nazis with any weapon. And it is not by chance that the core of the resistance to the Nazis was made up of miners and tractor drivers, and even President Putin had to admit that. And you shout when “in the name of the fight against fascism, the way is opened for cooperation with the opportunist forces, with the Social Democrats, with sections of the bourgeoisie.” Yes, even with the devil! We will learn from the USSR and Stalin.
The RCWP allegedly embarked on a dangerous political path
In conclusion, we must oppose you categorically regarding the statement of the International Department: “With this letter, we call on you to reconsider your position, which not only does not correspond to the founding declarations of the ICR and ECI, but also cuts you off from the line of consistent forces of the international communist movement.” And who gave you the right to single-handedly determine the boundaries of the consistent or inconsistent forces of the communist movement? Both in the ICR and in the ECI, as we know, there is a procedure for collective consideration of issues and decision-making. In our opinion, here you again manifest that same element of communist swagger, which we have already mentioned and which has ruined many parties with a glorious revolutionary past.
We directly say that, of course, we agree with your statement: the RCWP has indeed embarked on a dangerous political path. Though we did it back in the times of the CPSU, fighting against its degeneration and Gorbachevism, we did it in 1991, when in response to Yeltsin’s ban on the activities of the CPSU we answered that there was even more abruptly banning force in 1941 – and we established the RCWP. In 1993, when we participated in the defense of the House of Soviets, shot by Yeltsin from tanks. We quite consciously embarked on the path of struggle and are well aware of the danger of deviation from the principles of Marxism-Leninism. We learn from the Bolsheviks and Lenin: “It is possible to defeat a more powerful enemy only with the greatest exertion of forces and with the obligatory, most thorough, caring, cautious, skillful use of any, even the slightest, “crack” between enemies, any opposition of interests between the bourgeoisie of different countries, between different groups or types of the bourgeoisie within individual countries – and every, even the slightest, opportunity to get a mass ally, even if temporary, shaky, fragile, unreliable, conditional. Anyone who has not understood this has not understood a grain of Marxism and scientific, modern, socialism in general.”
Only people who are not confident in themselves can be afraid of temporary alliances, even with unreliable people. We are confident in ourselves, therefore, with all due respect, we have the right to defend our Marxist-Leninist approach to political practice.
We will not falter on the chosen path!
With comradely greetings and wishes to think about the questions raised.
19.05.2022
Leningrad