Introduction.
The imperialist character of the war in the Ukraine needs no further substantiation and it is well established in the Marxist-Leninist literature. Russian capitalism and great Russian-chauvinism, led by Putin on the one side, and the US with the EU, with Germany at the helm, on the other, are waging a proxy war in the Ukraine. The Ukrainian people, Ukrainian and Russian speakers alike, are victims of this heinous military conflict over the Ukrainian market and their vast natural resources and cheap labour.
Vladimir Zelensky openly collaborates with Western powers by instigating confrontation with Russian capitalism and by being instrumental in further escalating military strife. In doing so, Zelensky blatantly collaborates with right-wing nationalism, further promotes Russophobia and Ukrainian fascism. Despite his ethnic origin, he does not seem to take issue with glorifying neo-fascist organisations, past and present, and further bolstering anti-Soviet sentiments through renewed “de-Sovietisation” campaigns. Kiev’s regime has unashamedly embraced Banderism. In doing so, collaborationism with Nazi Germany is glorified and dignified in the face of the aggression by Russian capitalism.
Zelensky does not represent the interests of the Ukrainian people. Neither does Putin represent the interest of Russian speakers brutalised by Ukrainian right-wing nationalism and neo-fascists organisations. Marxist-Leninists need to openly reject the notions encapsulated in the expression “special military operation”, and instead the actions of the Russian government and armed forces need to be openly denoted unreservedly as a direct military invasion of a country deemed under the “sphere of influence” of Russian imperialist ambitions.
While the Russian regime is undergoing serious economic difficulties and internal dissent, the Ukrainian regime is facing a litany of challenges. The Ukrainian state is now hopelessly dependent on foreign aid to function,1 and devastation of infrastructure by the Russian military is also to blame for the economic woes of the country. The Ukrainian state is arguably the most corrupt and anti-labour in Europe. Ukraine’s authoritarian regime and its armed forces are finding themselves scrambling for military personnel. They also must deal with low morale. Ukrainian able-bodied male adults have flooded European countries. Males nearing eighteen flee the country to avoid military service, as reported by Western media.
The US policy is encapsulated by Pelosi’s motto “war to the last Ukrainian”, which has been embraced by loyal servant Zelensky. That said, two years into the war, Ukraine’s counteroffensive launched in the summer of 2023 has failed to achieve its strategic goals, leading to meagre territorial gains that don’t have relevant military significance. In this context, Zelensky’s regime has lost bipartisan support in the US, where many in the Republican party have expressed serious concerns about the effectiveness of the aid, thus casting doubt on the success of the war effort in the long run. Many Republicans are shifting their attention to the US-Mexico border as a subterfuge. This has raised serious concerns about the size of future aid packages, if any at all, without which sustaining the war effort in the Ukraine becomes an impossibility. While the German government remains firm in its support towards the war effort against Russia, it faces increasing domestic challenges, especially from farmers and other vulnerable sectors of society. Farmers in most of Eastern Europe are putting pressure on their respective governments due to Ukrainian farmers undercutting prices. Overall, the support towards the war effort against Russia is dwindling in the European Union, although Germany’s emerging militarism and revanchism remain unfazed and a powerful driver of confrontation.
In this light, and despite setbacks and miscalculations during the first year of the invasion, Putin’s regime appears to be rejoicing over a possible success in the war of attrition as a strategy against the Ukrainian army and Zelensky’s regime. Putin’s great Russian chauvinism continues to be supported by Russian revisionism, led by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) and other organisations. The former has drifted towards open national-chauvinist and openly collaborates with Putin’s regime. Other revisionist organizations have adopted variants of the same collaborationist approach under the disguise of Marxist-Leninist phraseology, through which they articulate a passive attitude towards Putin’s regime.These organizations are effectively adopting national-chauvinism, social-chauvinism or a combination of both, thus rejecting the Leninist analysis of the imperialist war and the position of the working class towards it. These organizations position themselves as “matryoshka dolls”, always within the limits of modern revisionism leading to collaborationism with Russian capital against the interests of the working class and against the socialist traditions of the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin.
As support towards the war effort in the Ukraine is quickly diminishing, strife in the Middle East sparked by Israel’s brutal aggression against Palestine has emerged as a new conduit for imperialist confrontation. Hamas’ incursion into Israel on October 7th 2023, was neither unexpected nor unwelcomed by the US and the parties of war in Israel. It has triggered not only a barbaric response against civilians of unprecedented proportions in Palestine and the destruction of livelihoods for hundreds of thousands; it has also served as a launching board to provoke a war with a much larger geographical area. It is evident that the current military campaign is particularly aggressive, and it is ultimately aimed at toppling the regimes in Syria and Iran, and through them to further confront Russia through yet another proxy military conflict. The dwindling support for Zelensky’s regime does not imply a change in the strategic goals of US and European imperialisms. They do not have the intention to ease the economic and military pressure on the Russian government. Much to the contrary, the intention is broadening the scope of military confrontation, as Zelensky’s regime has failed to achieve the goals that his masters set to accomplish. The imperialist war continues to rage with no signs of abating anytime soon.
Lenin and imperialist war
Lenin’s attitude towards imperialist war hardly needs to be summarised once more. For some reason, revisionist forces in Russia and elsewhere continue to turn a blind eye to the Leninist theory of Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism and the inevitability of wars. Imperialism is marked by the dominance of monopoly finance capital and the export of capital to foreign territories. Lenin identified several key features of imperialist capitalism, including the concentration of economic power, the fusion of finance capital and industry, the emergence of monopolies, and the division of the world among imperialist powers. Imperialism leads to the intensification of contradictions between imperialist powers, resulting in inevitable conflicts and wars. Lenin argued that the competition for control over markets, resources, and colonies would lead to imperialist rivalries and, ultimately, to armed conflicts. Lenin emphasized that wars under imperialism are not accidental but inherent to the system, as powerful capitalist nations seek to secure and expand their economic interests through military means. Revisionism is good at citing Lenin when convenient and ignoring his teachings when needed. This tenet is the backbone of modern and today’s revisionism.
“The war is terrible; it has hit the vast mass of the people hardest of all; it is these people who are becoming aware, albeit still very vaguely, that the war is criminal, that it is being carried on through the rivalry and scramble of the capitalists, for the division of their spoils. The world situation is growing more and more involved. The only way out is a world workers’ revolution, a revolution which is now more advanced in Russia than in any other country, but which is clearly mounting (strikes, fraternisation) in Germany too. And the people are wavering: wavering between confidence in their old masters, the capitalists, and bitterness towards them; between confidence in the new class, the only consistently revolutionary class, which opens up the prospect of a bright future for all the working people—the proletariat—and a vague awareness of its role in world history.”2
Lenin's analysis of the political crisis in Russia following the Provisional Government's April 18 Note reveals his deep insights into the class dynamics at play. He identifies the disillusionment of the masses, particularly soldiers, with the government's continued imperialist agenda, disguised under diplomatic equivocations and other subterfuges. This disillusionment leads to widespread protests, demonstrating the populace's swing away from capitalist interests towards revolutionary ideals. Lenin critiques the petty bourgeois leaders of the Soviet for their vacillation and ultimately their capitulation to bourgeois intimidation, highlighting the class struggle between the proletariat's revolutionary aspirations and the bourgeoisie's efforts to maintain power and continue the war. He calls for the proletariat to enlighten the masses, organize from the bottom up, and rally around the Soviets, emphasizing a peaceful, majority-backed transition to proletarian power as the means to end the war and advance toward a global workers' revolution. Lenin's discourse pivots on the contrasting reactions between the disillusioned masses and the manoeuvring of the political classes amid Russia's critical juncture. He elucidates the inherent class struggle, stressing the proletariat's role in steering the masses towards revolutionary change. Lenin criticizes the Provisional Government and bourgeois elements for perpetuating war under various pretences, urging the proletariat to enlighten, organize, and mobilize for a transition to power, emphasizing framing this as a step towards global workers' revolution.
“That it is an imperialist war on both sides is now likewise indisputable. Only the capitalists and their hangers-on, the social-patriots and social-chauvinists, or—if instead of general critical definitions we use political names familiar in Russia—only the Guchkovs and Lvovs, Milyukovs and Shingaryovs on the one hand, and only the Gvozdyovs, Potresovs, Chkhenkelis, Kerenskys and Chkheidzes on the other, can deny or gloss over this fact.Both the German and the Anglo-French bourgeoisie are waging the war for the plunder of foreign countries and the strangling of small nations, for financial world supremacy and the division and redivision of colonies, and in order to save the tottering capitalist regime by misleading and dividing the workers of the various countries.
“The imperialist war was bound, with objective inevitability, immensely to accelerate and intensify to an unprecedented degree the class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie; it was bound to turn into a civil war between the hostile classes.”4
Lenin argues that the imperialist world war acted as a catalyst, accelerating the class struggle to a point where it inevitably transformed into a civil war, leading to the first revolution of 1917. Lenin emphasizes the war not only as a manifestation of imperialist ambitions but also as a direct cause of intensified social and national crises, laying bare the exploitative nature of the bourgeoisie and their international alignments.
Lenin critiques the national chauvinists, particularly targeting the new government formed by the bourgeoisie and their imperialist backers from countries like England, France, Russia and others. He points out their interest in continuing the war for territorial and economic gains, which directly conflicts with the proletariat's demands for peace, bread, and freedom. This government, according to Lenin, is incapable of addressing the pressing social issues due to its imperialist motives and class interests, effectively preventing a genuine resolution to the peasants' and workers' struggles for land and peace.
Furthermore, Lenin outlines the inherent contradiction in the Provisional Government's promises of liberty and reform against its actions that further entrench imperialist war efforts. He argues that true freedom and social reform cannot coexist with the government's imperialist agenda, emphasizing the necessity for the proletariat to rely on their own strength and organization rather than the deceptive support of the bourgeoisie. Lenin calls for a revolution that not only overthrows the remnants of the tsarist regime but also establishes a government truly representative of the workers and peasants, capable of pulling Russia out of the imperialist conflict and addressing the fundamental social injustices.
Lenin’s anti-imperialist stand and his attitude towards the government of the bourgeoisie waging war was unequivocal. The years leading to the February Revolution of 1917 bear witness to Lenin’s views where, in addition to fighting the government of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois national chauvinism, he exposes all variants of collaborationism among false socialists. Lenin lambasted false socialists and social-chauvinists such as Trotsky by exposing the hollow rhetoric that concealed true opportunism with regards to the imperialist war. He stated in 1915:
“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: (1) that the war of 1914-15 is not reactionary, or (2) that a revolution stemming from that war is impossible, or (3) that co-ordination and mutual aid are possible 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”. The tsarist government was perfectly right in asserting that the agitation conducted by the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma—the sole instance in the International, not only of parliamentary opposition but of genuine revolutionary anti-government agitation among the masses—that this agitation has weakened Russia’s “military might” and is likely to lead to its defeat. This is a fact to which it is foolish to close one’s eyes.”5
Lenin criticized the mainstream socialist parties of Europe and social-chauvinists in Russia for their support of their respective governments in the war, accusing them of betraying the internationalist principles of socialism. He believes that these parties have become complicit in the imperialist objectives of their governments, thus alienating themselves from the global struggle for workers' rights and liberation. Lenin accuses Russian socialists-chauvinists of betraying the working class by supporting the war effort, which he sees as inherently imperialist and contrary to the interests of the proletariat. He is critical of their justification for the war as a defence of the nation, arguing that this rationale serves to mask the true nature of the conflict as a struggle for imperial domination and exploitation. By rallying behind the call for national defence, these socialists, in Lenin's view, abandon the cause of international socialism and the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.
His critique is rooted in a broader theoretical framework that views imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, where wars are waged not for national defence but for the expansion and consolidation of capital. Lenin's disappointment with Russian socialists stemmed from their inability to see beyond the immediate national context and their failure to recognize the global dynamics of class struggle. He argued that by supporting the war, these socialists have sided with their national bourgeoisie against the international proletariat, thereby undermining the unity and solidarity essential for the socialist revolution. Lenin's position reflected a radical departure from the mainstream socialist movements of his time, proposing a strategy of the defeat of their own government. This strategy calls for the working class and socialists within the imperialist countries, including Russia, to oppose their governments' war efforts, aiming at the defeat of their own countries as a catalyst for revolutionary change. Lenin believed that such a defeat would weaken the imperialist regime, create conditions conducive to revolution, and ultimately advance the cause of socialism both nationally and internationally.
His critique of Russian social-chauvinists was thus a call to action, urging them to reject nationalist impulses and embrace a principled internationalist stance, recognizing that the true enemy is not the opposing imperialist powers but the capitalist system itself. Lenin's uncompromising stance highlights his commitment to the proletarian, positioning the defeat of one's own government in an imperialist war not as a betrayal, but as a necessary step towards the liberation of the working class worldwide.
“In each country, the struggle against a government that is waging an imperialist war should not falter at the possibility of that country’s defeat as a result of revolutionary propaganda. The defeat of the government’s army weakens the government, promotes the liberation of the nationalities it oppresses, and facilitates civil war against the ruling classes.
“This holds particularly true in respect of Russia. A victory for Russia will bring in its train a strengthening of reaction, both throughout the world and within the country, and will be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the peoples living in areas already seized. In view of this, we consider the defeat of Russia the lesser evil in all conditions.”6
Lenin further honed on the attitude of the different representatives of social-chauvinist tendencies in Russia. Some of them, like many in today’s Russia, as will be seen below, adopt what some mistakenly refer to as a “centrist” approach, that or “neither-victory-nor-defeat”. This slogan encloses a collaborationist stand towards its own bourgeoisie and the imperialist war, this betraying the cause of socialism.
“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 international revolutionary action by the working class against their own governments, and do not wish to help develop such action, which, though undoubtedly difficult, is the only task worthy of a proletarian, the only socialist task.”7
In conclusion, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were adamantly clear as to what the position of socialists should be vis a vis the government of the bourgeoisie during an imperialist war. So why is Lenin to blatantly ignored by today’s revisionists and false Marxist-Leninists. The war in the Ukraine has become yet another demarcation line between those that collaborate with the capitalist and national-chauvinist regime of the oligarchs and those that truly stand for the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin.
Lenin against Great Russian Chauvinism
Already Marx recognized the impact of ideological influences of the bourgeoisie on the working class. He discussed the concept of false consciousness, which refers to the idea that the working class might adopt beliefs or ideologies that do not align with their own class interests. Factors such as nationalism or chauvinist attitudes within the working class could be seen as manifestations of false consciousness, diverting attention from class-based struggles. For example, nationalist sentiments or chauvinist attitudes among the working class might be manipulated or fostered by the ruling class to divert attention from economic inequalities. By emphasizing national or cultural identities, the ruling class can potentially obscure class divisions and prevent a unified working-class movement. Marx observed that the bourgeoisie could use nationalism as a tool to divert attention from internal class contradictions. By emphasizing national unity and identity, the bourgeoisie could potentially deflect attention from economic inequalities and class struggles within the society. This diversionary tactic, Marx argued, served to maintain the status quo and protect bourgeois interests.
Lenin perceived the war as a manifestation of imperialist rivalries among major capitalist powers. According to his analysis, advanced capitalist nations engaged in fierce competition for markets, resources, and colonies, ultimately leading to military conflicts. In Lenin's view, the war presented an opportunity for the working class (proletariat) to seize power and initiate a socialist revolution. He argued that the conflict exposed the inherent contradictions of capitalism, creating conditions conducive to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. One of Lenin's notable slogans during this period was "turn the imperialist war into a civil war." He advocated transforming the international conflict into a class struggle within each country, urging the working class to rise against their own ruling class rather than supporting national war efforts. Lenin's promise of "peace, bread, and land" became a rallying cry for the Bolsheviks. He contended that the war had depleted the working class and the peasants, asserting that the Bolsheviks could provide a solution by ending Russia's involvement in the conflict, addressing economic hardships, and redistributing land. This interpretation of the war played a pivotal role in the October Revolution of 1917. The Bolsheviks, under Lenin's leadership, seized power, leading to the establishment of a socialist government. Subsequently, in March 1918, Lenin's government signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, formally concluding Russia's participation in World War I. This historical landmark encapsulates Lenin's interpretation of the First World War and brought to fruition the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist essence of the October revolution.
Lenin strongly opposed Great Russian chauvinism, which is an extreme form of nationalism believing in the superiority of Russians over other ethnic groups within the Russian Empire. Historically, the terms "Great Russians" and "Little Russians" were used to differentiate two groups within the Russian population, reinforcing a sense of hierarchy among Slavic peoples. The "Great Russians" were seen as the dominant group, mainly living in Russia's central and northern areas, including major cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg. They represented the political and cultural heart of Russia, embodying the notion of Russian superiority and central power. In contrast, "Little Russians" referred to Ukrainians, especially those from central and eastern Ukraine, during a time when Ukraine was under Russian rule. This term suggested a lower status or influence compared to the "Great Russians," highlighting the discriminatory nature of these distinctions.
“We are full of a sense of national pride, and for that very reason we particularly hate our slavish past (when the landed nobility led the peasants into war to stifle the freedom of Hungary, Poland, Persia and China), and our slavish present, when these self-same landed proprietors, aided by the capitalists, are leading us into a war in order to throttle Poland and the Ukraine, crush the democratic movement in Persia and China, and strengthen the gang of Romanovs, Bobrinskys and Purishkeviches, who are a disgrace to our Great-Russian national dignity. Nobody is to be blamed for being born a slave; but a slave who not only eschews a striving for freedom but justifies and eulogises his slavery (e.g., calls the throttling of Poland and the Ukraine, etc., a “defence of the fatherland” of the Great Russians)—such a slave is a lickspittle and a boor, who arouses a legitimate feeling of indignation, contempt, and loathing.”8
Lenin was committed to combating any form of chauvinism, including Great Russian chauvinism, which reflected an extreme form of Russian nationalism. Lenin aimed to establish a socialist society that respected the rights and identities of the various ethnic groups. Several measures and policies were implemented by Lenin and the Bolsheviks to counteract Great Russian chauvinism. Lenin advocated a nationalities policy that recognized the right to self-determination for the various ethnic groups within the Soviet Union. This meant that different nationalities had the right to decide their own political status, including the right to form independent states. This approach aimed to create a voluntary and equal union of socialist republics. Lenin's government established autonomous republics within the Soviet Union to accommodate the cultural and linguistic differences of various ethnic groups. These autonomous entities were granted a degree of self-governance and cultural autonomy. Lenin promoted a language policy that acknowledged the importance of preserving and promoting the languages of different nationalities. Regional languages were granted official status, and efforts were made to develop literature and education in these languages. Lenin emphasized the need for equal representation of all nationalities in the Soviet government. Policies were implemented to ensure proportional representation of different ethnic groups in various government bodies and institutions. Efforts were made to provide education in the native languages of different nationalities. This included the development of educational materials and the establishment of schools that catered to the linguistic and cultural diversity of the population. By adopting these policies, Lenin sought to eliminate manifestations of Great Russian chauvinism and promote the idea of a voluntary union of nations based on equality and solidarity.
On the other hand, it is very important to note that Lenin counterposed the interests of the proletariat to those of the national bourgeoisie, including that of the Ukraine. The national bourgeoisie seeks to confuse the working class with the slogan of the national identity and aims at pitting the working classes from different countries against each other.
“Contraposing Ukrainian culture as a whole to Great-Russian culture as a whole, when speaking of the proletariat, is a gross betrayal of the proletariat’s interests for the benefit of bourgeois nationalism.”9
In his renowned work "Theses on the National Question," Lenin addressed the complex issue of nationalism and its impact on the proletariat and the broader socialist movement. The article outlined a Marxist perspective on national self-determination and the role of the working class in national struggles. Lenin emphasized the importance of the proletariat maintaining a class-conscious approach to national questions, warning against the divisive tactics of the bourgeoisie that use nationalism to undermine class solidarity.
“Social-Democracy, therefore, must give most emphatic warning to the proletariat and other working people of all nationalities against direct deception by the nationalistic slogans of ‘their own’ bourgeoisie, who with their saccharine or fiery speeches about “our native land” try to divide the proletariat and divert its attention from their bourgeois intrigues while they enter into an economic and political alliance with the bourgeoisie of other nations and with the tsarist monarchy.”10
The highlighted paragraph specifically warns against the dangers of nationalist slogans propagated by the bourgeoisie. Lenin argues that the bourgeoisie of different nations, despite their nationalist rhetoric, often enter into economic and political alliances with each other and even with oppressive regimes like the Tsarist monarchy in Russia. These alliances are made at the expense of the working class and serve to protect their economic interests.
Lenin's critique focuses on how nationalist slogans like “our native land” are used by the bourgeoisie to create divisions within the proletariat and distract them from their true class interests. He sees these slogans as a tool of deception, designed to engender loyalty to the nation-state and obscure the exploitative relationships at the heart of capitalism. By appealing to national sentiment, the bourgeoisie attempts to rally the working class behind their own bourgeois interests, presenting them as common national interests.
In this light and given Lenin’s unequivocal and renowned views on the subject, one wonders how the Russian revisionists justify the need to support or not oppose the invasion, thus implicitly supporting Putin’s war. We will delve into the narrative used by Russian revisionism below. Before we do so it is relevant to highlight Putin’s chauvinist ideology and how this is fuelling the invasion.
Putin's chauvinist views are encapsulated in his celebrated article “On the Historical Unity of Russian and Ukrainians”.11 It reflects a perspective that downplays Ukraine's distinct national identity by emphasizing its historical and cultural unity with Russia. This view has been criticized for its chauvinist undertones, suggesting that modern Ukrainian statehood is less legitimate and largely a product of Soviet-era administrative decisions. The article presents a view in which Ukrainian identity is minimized and downplayed in favour of a shared historical and cultural heritage with Russia, suggesting a unity that overlooks Ukraine's distinct nationhood. This perspective can be seen as chauvinist, as it diminishes the legitimacy of Ukrainian sovereignty and self-determination. It portrays the division between Russia and Ukraine not as a result of Ukrainian self-determination but as external meddling and a historical error, implying that redeeming the true identity of the Ukrainian people can only be achieved through reintegration with Russia.
“During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people– a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe.”12
Putin blames Lenin for, in his view, planting the seeds of division within the historical Russian empire by promoting policies that led to the recognition of separate national identities within the USSR, including that of Ukraine. This, according to Putin, laid the groundwork for the eventual fragmentation of the Soviet Union and the emergence of independent states, which he sees as detrimental to the unity of the Russian and Ukrainian people. Essentially, Putin lays blame on Lenin for the dismemberment of the USSR. In this light, Putin objects to the creation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the territorial region that was assigned to it.
“In 1922, when the USSR was created, with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic becoming one of its founders, a rather fierce debate among the Bolshevik leaders resulted in the implementation of Lenin's plan to form a union state as a federation of equal republics. The right for the republics to freely secede from the Union was included in the text of the Declaration on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, subsequently, in the 1924 USSR Constitution. By doing so, the authors planted in the foundation of our statehood the most dangerous time bomb, which exploded the moment the safety mechanism provided by the leading role of the CPSU was gone, the party itself collapsing from within. A ‘parade of sovereignties’ followed. On 8 December 1991, the so-called Belovezh Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed, stating that ”the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer existed.“ By the way, Ukraine never signed or ratified the CIS Charter adopted back in 1993.”
Putin’s ties to right-wing nationalist and Great-Russian chauvinist ideology are well-known. This is epitomized by organic ties with the Wagner group, which in turn has strong ties with neo-fascist elements. In a video released by E. Prigozhin not long before his demise, he asserted that the "Wagnerites" possessed the right to defend their homeland. According to him, the paramount consideration was not the decision of a minister or department head but the aspirations of the Russian people who desire to reside in a nation called Russia.
“If we remain passive, there is a risk that a country named Russia might cease to exist. Hence, it is our entitlement to take measures to ensure the continued existence of this Russia.”13
The Wagner Group is not the only unofficial unit aligned with far-right Russian nationalism in the Russian Federation. Other entities, including far-right nationalist groups like "Rusich" and "Enot," volunteer detachments such as BARS and the "Kuban Cossacks," and various quasi-private military units also operate in support. These formations are primarily motivated by ideology rather than monetary gain. They receive backing from patrons and enjoy financial resources, their emergence is often linked to specific far-right ideological movements within Russia. It is well-known that many of the volunteers that join the Russian army in the Ukraine stem from such type of right-wing organisations.14
By way of conclusion, it is relevant to note that while Putin continues to toy with the pro-Soviet sentiments prevalent among the Russian toiling masses, his ideology remains national-chauvinistic and right-wing to the core. Putin’s use of pro-Soviet feelings holds purely opportunistic character. Most importantly, contrary to the views of the CPRF and other collaborationist organisations, this opportunistic use of Soviet symbolism and Stalin’s vindication, however partial, subdued and feeble, does not imply a change in the class character of Putin’s regime nor a change towards the attitude towards the socialist past. On the contrary, Putin’s use of pro-Sovietism is reminiscent of the ideological traits use by the revisionist USSR to conceal social-imperialism and the annihilation of the socialist relations of production built during the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin.
The national-chauvinist stand of modern revisionism in today’s Russia.
In the concrete historical juncture, it is essential to expose the national-chauvinist stand of the heirs of modern revisionism, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. This is not to say that the CPRF is the only organisation that is inherently connected with the modern revisionism of the old CPSU. Indeed, the CPRF epitomises the political and ideological ethos of modern revisionism under conditions of modern, post-revisionist Russia. Many organisations in the left-wing spectrum display similar attitudes in the form of variants of the CPRF’s narrative that will be succinctly characterised below.
The CPRF’s narrative regarding the war in the Ukraine revolves around the national-chauvinist argument that the so-called “Special Military Operation launched by the Russian Federation” is a legitimate response to the aggressive policies of Western imperialism and NATO. As such, the military intervention of the Russian Army in Ukraine is not characterised as an invasion, nor as an imperialist aggression. The so-called Special Military Operation is portrayed as a necessary action to stop the expansion of Western imperialism towards Russian borders. In a statement by the CPRF regarding a recent anti-war conference led by revisionist forces, one can read:
“The main messages of the forum were to stop the aggressive policy of the US and NATO against the dissenting countries and to prevent the Third World War...
“Generally speaking, the anti-war conference became an act of protest against the new system of neocolonialism being built by the collective West, which turns «the majority of countries into vassals» disguised in so-called «pseudo-progressive mask of «global democracy». The forum participants were unanimous that the US is fuelling conflicts on the planet to establish a new world colonial system, making the real threat of World War III…
“Dmitry Novikov, Deputy Chairman of the Communist Party Central Committee, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee for International Affairs, addressed the participants of the Rome conference on behalf of the Russian Communists. Wishing the participants success in the struggle against imperialism and neo-fascism, he drew their attention to the fact that the current international situation is due to the exacerbation of the general crisis of capitalism, the exit from which the leaders of the imperialist states see in fuelling wars and reviving fascism.”15
The paragraphs encapsulate the national-chauvinist stance of the CPRF, through several key themes and rhetoric commonly associated with national-chauvinism. The strong anti-Western sentiment, particularly against the US and NATO, reflects a national-chauvinist position that views Western countries as adversaries imposing their will on other nations. This perspective is rooted in a belief in the superiority of one's own nation or political system over others, which is a hallmark of chauvinism. The accusation that the West is creating a new system of neocolonialism positions the CPRF as a defender of national sovereignty against external domination. This aligns with national-chauvinist ideologies that prioritize national independence and often portray the nation as a victim of foreign exploitation or manipulation. The critique of "global democracy" as a "pseudo-progressive mask" suggests a rejection of Western democratic norms and values, positing them as tools for subjugation rather than genuine expressions of freedom or progress. This scepticism of Western democracy and promotion of alternative models of governance can reflect a chauvinistic belief in the superiority of one's own political ideas based on national-chauvinism. The warning about the real threat of World War III due to US actions serves to rally support by invoking a sense of impending danger from external forces. This tactic can be seen as exploiting nationalist sentiments for political gain, a strategy often employed in national-chauvinist rhetoric.
Gennady Zyuganov’s books “Globalisation and the Destiny of Humankind”, “Russia in the Gunsights of Globalism”, “The Russian Core of the Great Power”, “The Russian World on Two Axes” serve as a launching board for the national-chauvinistic worldview that underlies modern revisionism in Russia today. This ideology of false anti-imperialism seems to transcend the borders of Russia.
“Now it has become evident that it is Russia’s union with these Asian powers that overturns the thoroughly Fascist 'American dream' of a unipolar world. This union can put an end to total dehumanization which Washington strategists have set about to accomplish….
“… But the great heritage of the Soviet civilization may enable us to stand our ground and to prevail.”
In this light,
“History ordained that Russia protect the sovereignty and security of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, liberate the fraternal Ukrainian people from the Nazi-Bandera junta.”
“We must all understand: a war of annihilation has been unleashed against us. Its aim is to dismember our country, enslave its people and turn our lands into a zone of colonial plunder. This threatens us not only with massive losses. To lose in this situation means to cease to exist.”16
The CPRF, hand in hand with Putin, have reduced the leadership of Lenin and, most prominently, Stalin to that of statesmanship void of the ideological acumen of Marxism in the epoch of imperialism and the emergence of social revolutions and the socialist formation. Instead Lenin and Stalin are compared to Peter the Great, a Tsar.
“A country with such a destiny is obliged to have a strong army. Russia’s history has always been inseparable from its Armed Forces. That is why all the great leaders of our country – from Peter I to Lenin and Stalin – did not only create a powerful state, but built an invincible army.”17
The CPRF is by far not the only organisation that either supports the war on openly chauvinist positions or rejects Lenin’s position on the war based on whatever pretext. It is not the objective of this article to review the different variants through which revisionist organisations operate in Russia. However, it is relevant to provide an illustrative example of how revisionist positions are articulated to the “left” of the CPRF by organisations that pretend to uphold Bolshevik positions, but in practice do not oppose, let alone, fight the invasion. One of the arguments put forward by collaborationists is that Lenin’s thesis on the defeat of the Tsarist government needs to be understood in the concrete historical conditions before the February revolution and that allegedly Lenin’s tactics changed afterwards, in the period between the February and October revolutions of 1917. According to the Russian Communist Workers Party (RCWP), Putin’s regime does not deserve to be treated as Lenin treated Tsarism:
“Thus, the Bolsheviks employed three tactics during the First World War, but all three were expressions of the same class strategic course in different political situations. From the summer of 1914 to February 1917, they were defeatists; from March 1917 to October 1917, they were anti-imperialists and supporters of democratic peace; from October 1917 onward, they were socialist defencists.”
“Today's strategy and tactics, of course, cannot and should not involve blindly copying any of the above-mentioned approaches, as the current situation does not precisely replicate that of a hundred years ago, although it shares many similarities. The tactics of today's communists should be more akin to the second rather than the first, as the current imperialist regime is sustained not only through violence but also through deception and the ignorance of the broader masses. Among these masses, there exist healthy spontaneous anti-fascist sentiments, which the Russians skilfully exploit in collaboration with the support of Chinese imperialists.”18
Lenin was consistently and fundamentally opposed to the Tsarist regime, which he viewed as the epitome of autocratic, oppressive, and feudalist rule. He saw the Tsarist government as an enemy of the working class and peasantry, and his criticisms were rooted in a broader Marxist critique of monarchy, imperialism, and the inherent exploitation within the capitalist system. Lenin advocated the overthrow of the Tsarist regime as a necessary step towards the establishment of a socialist society. This perspective was a cornerstone of Bolshevik ideology and Lenin's political activities prior to 1917. The Provisional Government, which came into power after the February Revolution of 1917, represented a different kind of challenge for Lenin. Initially, he recognized it as a step forward from Tsarist autocracy, as it was supposed to be a more democratic and representative form of government. However, Lenin quickly became critical of the Provisional Government for a number of reasons, such as the continuation of the war, failure to respond to the social and economic needs of the broad toiling masses, compromising attitude towards monarchism, etc....Sooner than later, Lenin advocated for the proletariat to seize power with the intent to bring democratic and popular demands to fruition, and to pave the way towards socialist construction.
Collaborationists, such as the RCWP, argue that Putin’s regime somehow is placed in history vis a vis the imperialist war and the struggle for socialism as the Provisional Government following the fall of Tsarism. What kind of historical analysis can theoretically substantiate such parallelism, other than to surreptitiously seek collaboration with the capitalist elite that rules the country, and whose interests Putin upholds? Do we need to wait for the restoration of Tsarist autocratic and feudalist government to re-enact Lenin’s policies regarding the imperialist war? Are Lenin’s thesis pertaining to the imperialist war only applicable to the period preceding the February revolution? What kind of progressive role is ascribed to Putin that can substantiate conditional support from socialist forces? What kind of socialist would not oppose its own government in an imperialist war of aggression and capitalize on the growing pro-Soviet sentiment in the population, that in turn bears the brunt of the cost of the war, but instead effectively portrays the invasion as an act of defence in the face of NATO expansionism? What kind of socialist is not able to see in the imperialist war the contradictions that engender a future social revolution in country where the vast layers of its toiling masses are cognizant of the greatness of the Soviet past?
The RCWP concedes that Russian capitalism has imperialist tendencies, and even use the term “Russian imperialism”. However, the latter is insidiously intertwined with the slogan the defence of Russian interests against NATO imperialism upheld by the CPRF. In their view, both Russian imperialism (only in words) and NATO imperialism need to be opposed by Russian progressive forces, thus effectively rejecting Lenin’s thesis on the defeat of one’s government.
“Our stance today must be sharpened against both Russian imperialism and nationalism, which advocate for the 'Russian world'19 but, in reality, serve the interests of Russian capitalists. Additionally, we must oppose the imperialists of NATO countries who insist on the capitalist Russian Federation capitulating not to the people's will but to NATO imperialism and Ukrainian Nazism.”20
The opposition against NATO imperialists without real defiance towards the imperialist war waged by one’s own government, effectively substantiates the invasion of Ukraine as a legitimate act of defence against the aggression from another imperialist centre. While the RCWP formally acknowledges the imperialist character of Russian capitalism, effectively, considers it as a lesser evil in comparison to that of NATO imperialism, in that by opposing the latter, it somehow displays elements of progressiveness. This is an argument is also harnessed by many revisionist organisations around the globe. As such,in practice the stand of the RCWP does not differ substantially from that of the CPRF.
In the meantime, Russian oligarchs are getting richer
Over the 18 months since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the lives of Russian oligarchs have undergone significant changes due to Western sanctions. However, despite the prolonged conflict, these restrictions have not notably diminished the billionaires' well-being or altered their support for Putin. Despite facing significant sanctions aimed at crippling their financial standing and influencing their political alignments, the wealthiest Russians have not only weathered the storm but have seen substantial growth in their fortunes.
In 2023, Russia's wealthiest individuals experienced a remarkable increase in their combined net worth, surging by $50 billion, as reported by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. This comes in stark contrast to the preceding year, when their fortunes had contracted by $93.7 billion due to Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia and its business elite. As of January 2, the total net worth of the 25 Russian billionaires listed in the index reached $328.53 billion.
Vladimir Potanin, the owner of mining giant Norilsk Nickel, retained his position as Russia's richest person, witnessing a $2.49 billion growth in his wealth over the previous year, reaching $31.1 billion. Leonid Mikhelson, the co-owner of Novatek, Russia's second-largest natural gas producer, secured the second spot with a $2.83 billion increase in 2023, bringing his total capital to $27.5 billion.
Vagit Alekperov, the former head of Russian energy giant Lukoil, claimed the third position with a $9.3 billion gain last year, elevating his net worth to $24.7 billion. Vladimir Lisin, chairman of NLMK, Russia's largest steelmaker, ranked as the fourth-richest with $23.9 billion by year-end, reflecting a $4.08 billion increase. Alisher Usmanov, owner of 49% of USM, an investment group controlling Russia's largest iron ore producer Metalloinvest, and the MegaFonmobile operator, completed the top five, seeing his fortune rise by $2.61 billion to $21.1 billion.
The Bloomberg Billionaires Index is a ranking of the world’s 500 richest people and is calculated on the basis of the share price of the companies in which those listed own shares. Bloomberg's list also featured prominent figures like Alexey Mordashov, chairman of steel giant Severstal; Andrei Melnichenko, founder of Eurochem and SUEK; Mikhail Prokhorov of Onexim group; Gennady Timchenko, co-owner of Novatek and Sibur; and Mikhail Fridman of Alfa Group. Notably, among the 25 Russian billionaires, only one experienced a decline in fortune in 2023: Vyacheslav Kantor, a major shareholder of Russian fertilizer producer Acron, saw his net worth decrease by $149 million over the past year to $6.21 billion.
This financial resilience among Russian oligarchs underscores a broader narrative of capital accumulation during times of conflict, where certain corporations and individuals manage to expand their wealth despite—or perhaps because of—the turmoil. Key figures not only maintained but significantly increased their fortunes, with sectors such as mining, natural gas, energy, steel, and telecommunications serving as lucrative engines of wealth growth. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index, reflects this dynamic, showing a concentrated increase in wealth among Russia's business elite.
Lenin's theory of imperialism posited that wars under the capitalist system are driven by the economic interests of the ruling class and serve as mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth and resources from the many to the few. The resilience and growth of oligarchic wealth in Russia amidst sanctions and military conflict exemplify this process, in which economic and political turmoil facilitates further concentration of capital among the already wealthy. This scenario underscores the inherent dynamics of capitalist societies that Lenin critiqued: even in the face of sanctions and international condemnation, the mechanisms of capital accumulation remain robust, enabling the oligarchy to capitalize on the war economy.
The case of Russian billionaires amassing greater wealth during the Ukraine conflict vividly reflects the enduring relevance of Lenin's analysis of imperialism, demonstrating how wars and geopolitical tensions can serve as catalysts for deepening economic inequalities, in line with the interests of the capitalist elite. This also raises further questions as to why Russian revisionism in all its incarnations either openly support the invasion or don’t oppose it as a matter of principle. The collaborationist character of revisionism and opportunism comes to the fore one more time in history.
Endnotes:
1.
An account of US security assistance to the reactionary
government of the Ukraine can be found in
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040#:~:text=FY2022%20and%20FY2023%20security%20assistance,
Drawdown%20Authority%20(PDA%3B%2022%20U.S.C. A recent report on
the structure of US assistance can be found in
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine-here-are-six-charts.
A similar report from the EU can be found in
https://eu-solidarity-ukraine.ec.europa.eu/eu-assistance-ukraine_en.
The total direct assistance from the West to the Ukraine since
February 2022 amounts to about $170 billion US. This is an
average of about $85 billion US a year. By comparison Ukraine’s
GDP before the invasion hovered around $200 billion US. The
International Monetary Fund has estimated that the Ukrainian GDP
has fallen by 30-35% in 2022, with no sizeable recovery in 2023.
About half of the support goes to military spending and the rest
corresponds to various forms of budgetary aid and financial
assistance without which the Ukrainian government would not be
able to operate.
2. V.I. Lenin, “Lessons of the Crisis”, Lenin Collected Works, English edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 24, pages 213-216.
3. “On April 18 the Provisional Government issued its unhappily notorious Note, which confirmed the predatory aims of the war clearly enough to arouse the indignation of the masses, who had honestly believed in the desire (and ability) of the capitalists to “renounce annexations”. V.I. Lenin, “Lessons of the Crisis”, Lenin Collected Works, English edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 24, pages 213-216.
4. V.I. Lenin, “Letters from Afar”, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, English edition, Moscow, Volume 23, pages 295-342.
5. V.I. Lenin, “The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War”, Lenin Collected Works, English edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 21, pages 275-280.
6. V.I. Lenin, “Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Groups Abroad”, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, English edition, Moscow, Volume 21, pages 158-164.
7. V.I. Lenin, “The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War”, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, English edition, Moscow, Volume 21, pages 275-280.
8. V.I. Lenin, “On the National Pride of Great Russians”, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, English edition, Volume 21, pages 102-106.
9. V.I. Lenin, “Critical Remarks on the National Question”, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, English edition, Volume 20, pages 17-51.
10. V.I. Lenin, “Theses on the National Question”, Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, English edition, Volume 19, pages 243-251.
11. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
13. E. Prigozhin, in https://vk.com/video-31371206_456266538 and in “Army with Ideology”, https://proza.ru/2023/03/07/248,translated from the original Russian.
14. Take for example this recent review pertaining to the growth of right-wing organisations, including in particular Cossack organisations, within the Russian armed forces active in the Ukraine, https://www.ponarseurasia.org/beyond-wagner-the-russian-cossack-forces-in-ukraine/
15. https://cprf.ru/2023/11/international-anti-war-conference/
16. https://cprf.ru/2023/05/gennady-zyuganov-fighting-for-the-russian-world/
18. Ilya Ferberov, member of the Political Soviet of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Workers Party in “About the slogan of the defeat of its ‘own’ government”, https://trudross.ru/news/o-lozunge-porazheniya-«svoego»-pravitelstva-v-imperialisticheskoj-vojne/. Translated from the original Russian.
19. The use of “Russian World” is in relation to the openly national-chauvinist rhetoric of the CPRF. With this the RCWP demonstrates that it stands to the “left” of the CPRF.
20.
https://trudross.ru/news/o-lozunge-porazheniya-«svoego»-pravitelstva-v-imperialisticheskoj-vojne/.
Translated from the original Russian.
Click here to return to the April
2024 index.