• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    151·
    6 days ago

    A left-wing Russian-speaking group in Germany and their contacts in Russia are once again on the view that Ukraine is waging a justified defensive war against Revanchist Russian imperialism. This is the so-called defeatist position, as also promoted during the First World War by the German socialist Karl Liebknecht: the enemy stands domestically and a defeat of Russia is the least evil.

    That’s completely wrong and ahistorical. The “defeatist” position in WWI was the position that completely rejectedthe notion that any side was fighting a “justified defensive war,” instead viewing as a conflict between imperialist powers. On that basis, defeatism called for revolutionary action against one’s own government, whichever government that is. It was an explicit rejection of “the lesser evil.”

    Lenin called Trotsky out over this point very clearly and explicitly:

    Theory

    To desire Russia’s defeat, Trotsky writes, is “an uncalled-for and absolutely unjustifiable concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism, which would replace the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions causing it, with an orientation—highly arbitrary in the present conditions—towards the lesser evil” . . .

    The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany. . .

    What is the substitute proposed for the defeat slogan? It is that of “neither victory nor defeat.” This, however, is nothing but a paraphrase of the “defence of the fatherland” slogan. It means shifting the issue to the level of a war between governments (who, according to the content of this slogan, are to keep to their old stand, “retain their positions”), and not to the level of the struggle of the oppressed classes against their governments! It means justifying the chauvinism of all the imperialist nations, whose bourgeoisie are always ready to say—and do say to the people—that they are “only” fighting “against defeat”. “The significance of our August 4 vote was that we are not for war but against defeat,” David, a leader of the opportunists, writes in his book. The Organising Committee, together with Bukvoyed and Trotsky, stand on fully the same ground as David when they defend the “neither-victory nor-defeat” slogan.

    On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean a “class truce”, the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s “own” bourgeoisie, one’s “own” government, whereas dealing a blow at one’s own government in wartime is (for Bukvoyed’s information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one’s own country. Those who accept the “neither victory-nor-defeat” slogan can only be hypocritically in favour of the class struggle, of “disrupting the class truce”; in practice, such people are renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. . .

    Whoever is in favour of the slogan of “neither victory nor defeat” is consciously or unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an -enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing governments, of the present-day ruling classes.

    What on earth does maintaining the territorial integrity of a bourgeois state have to do with international solidarity?

    • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
      214·
      6 days ago

      It’s a good thing I’m not a Leninist or I would feel pretty silly now. Nevertheless time has moved on and other strategies of Socialism have continued in different directions each European country and its cultural influence. Some recognising that ignorance or defence of autocratic actions don’t slide after talking about power to the people.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        15·
        6 days ago

        The source you linked explicitly chose to bring up the defeatist slogan in the context of WWI, and then described it as something entirely different than what it was. Maybe you should link a source you’re actually willing to stand by.

        Some recognising that ignorance or defence of autocratic actions don’t slide after talking about power to the people.

        Do “autocratic actions” include things like banning political parties you disagree with and drafting people en masse? You are defending autocratic actions and trying to get it to slide by talking about “power to the people.”

        • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
          211·
          6 days ago

          Drafting your population when you have a foreign adversary dropping bombs on you is the right thing to do. It is known as self defence. I know I’ll get some hate for this from most people but yeah. As a Dutch man my country’s history contains the defeatism to the fucking Nazis.

          Do you have a publisher that you 100% stand by? Come on.

          Bad faith news sources like RT, FoxNews, OngehoordNederland. Should not have the same rights sorry, similar to blocking bad faith politicians from being elected, see the ongoing case for removing AfD.

          • m532@lemmy.ml
            151·
            6 days ago

            So I’m germany, I invade your country, kill your gov, put myself in charge, and then start drafting the population because I’m at war with france.

            According to you, that draft would be justified…

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            131·
            6 days ago

            Drafting your population when you have a foreign adversary dropping bombs on you is the right thing to do. It is known as self defence.

            “Self”-defense? The state is not yourself, nor is it a person. Defending the state is defending the power, structure, and organization that exists in the country. Which is only a worthwhile endeavor if there is a significant difference for the average person between the two sides.

            If a state is actually good, if it actually improves the quality of life of its people, then sure, it’s worth defending. Conversely, if a state is genuinely exterminationist, like the Nazis, then even a flawed, bourgeois state can be worth defending. But every major conflict since WWII, from Vietnam to Iraq, has had people trying to justify it by comparing the other side to Hitler and the Nazis, generally those comparisons are frivolous.

            Ukraine and Russia are both capitalist states. What tangible difference will there be if one side winds up governing the disputed territory instead of the other? It’s just a question of what color flag they look at while they get exploited. Is that worth sending people at gunpoint into a meat grinder? Is it a leftist, progressive position to say that it is?

            • waterwasamistake@lemmy.zip
              1·
              1 day ago

              Than there is no reason to be against american imperialism as long as the countries are already capitalist which is pretty much all of them.

              People justifying anything with whatever argument doesn’t make it true?

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                2·
                1 day ago

                Than there is no reason to be against american imperialism as long as the countries are already capitalist which is pretty much all of them.

                In some cases, yes, that’s true. For example, Imperial Japan claimed to be fighting against Western colonialism and building it’s “Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.” But it was a colonial empire that was even worse than the colonizers from the West. Certainly, I would not consider it justified for Imperial Japan to draft people in it’s fight against the US.

                But generally it’s a complex topic that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Two countries may both be capitalist, but one may be a resource colony of the other, and that’s not exactly the same system in both. The theoretical standard that I’m applying is whether there’s a significant difference in the expected quality of life, and pointing out that they’re both capitalist countries is only one practical indication of that. You could argue that Ukraine is fighting for economic autonomy as opposed to being a resource colony of Russia, but it looks to me more like they’re fighting to be a resource colony of the US, considering the fact that they signed an agreement with the US that handed over mineral rights in exchange for military aid.

                Outside of extreme cases like WWII, I don’t consider it my determination to make, that a movement resisting my own country’s imperialism should just law down their arms and surrender. Because of my position as an American citizen, it’s better to recuse myself from that, for three reasons. First, to avoid any lingering subconscious bias from affecting my judgement. Second, to avoid the appearance of that nationalistic bias, which is important for the sake of building international solidarity. Third, because it makes little practical difference, because I generally don’t have the ability to affect those countries, except through trying to control them by force from the outside, and I have a greater responsibility to critique my own government. There are many imperfect movements that oppose the US, sometimes for the wrong reasons, but it is up to the socialists from those places to critique and correct them, not me.

            • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
              110·
              6 days ago

              That is why I’m only defending the concept on the requirement that it is to defend your country not attack another.

              The Japanese or Dutch self defence forces are different to the US or Russian invasion troops.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                141·
                6 days ago

                “Aggressor and defender” is just not a good framework for understanding any conflict. For example, during the Vietnam War, where the US was sending troops halfway around the globe to terrorize a bunch of poor rice farmers into submission so that they could keep exploiting them, they justified it by saying they were just “defending” the state of South Vietnam.

                The same can be said of either side in Ukraine. The West is just “defending” the government which they hand-picked during Euromaidan, while Russia is just “defending” the separatist governments who requested their aid. It’s trivially easy to paint virtually any side in any conflict as merely “defending.” Even the Roman Empire, while they were expanding across Europe, often claimed that they were simply “defending their allies.” Look at an area you want to control, pick one side in that area to be your ally, wait for a conflict to break out, then use the excuse to move in, and the next thing you know you’ve conquered the known world, “defending” all the while.

                In any case, I can’t say I’m particularly invested in upholding a status quo where my enemies are the ones on top. That’s their problem, not mine.

                • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
                  111·
                  6 days ago

                  Your first sentence is a straw man and is just dishonest.

                  The second sentence would make Vladimir Putin proud. When as the great empire of Ukraine gained any ground over the lines drawn after the collapse of the USSR?

                  That’s their problem, not mine

                  That’s fair so long as bombs aren’t flying on your neighbours house.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    13·
                    6 days ago

                    The second sentence would make Vladimir Putin proud. When as the great empire of Ukraine gained any ground over the lines drawn after the collapse of the USSR?

                    “Great empire of Ukraine?” No, the empire is the US and NATO, obviously. Ukraine is simply the next prospective territory they want to expand into. And they did in fact gain significant ground after the collapse of the USSR.

                    That’s fair so long as bombs aren’t flying on your neighbours house.

                    Nope. Territorial integrity would still be the ruling class’s problem.

                    If that happened, I would be calling for surrender and trying to avoid the draft and help others to avoid it. Because I have absolutely no interest in fighting on the behalf of my oppressors to uphold their “right” to exploit me.

                    Again, why would I give a shit which flag my oppressors are waving?

                  • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
                    10·
                    6 days ago

                    Your first sentence is a straw man and is just dishonest.

                    Fuck off, no it isn’t. You just have no response to it so you’re pulling it the big list of reddit debate words to distract from that