The question of which wars should be considered just and unjust has long attracted the attention of the Marxists. This question was considered many times (both before and after the October Revolution) by Lenin. “History has repeatedly seen wars that, despite all the horrors, atrocities, disasters and torments that are inevitably associated with any war, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind, helping to destroy especially harmful and reactionary institutions, the most barbaric despotisms in Europe” (PSS, vol. 26, p. 311). “Marxism requires a historical analysis of each individual war in order to make out whether this war can be considered progressive, serving the interests of democracy or the proletariat, in this sense legal, just, etc. … For a Marxist, it is important why this war is being waged” (PSS , vol. 30, pp. 77-85). “Socialists, without ceasing to be socialists, cannot be against any war” (PSS, vol. 30, p. 131). “There are wars, just and unjust, progressive and reactionary, wars of advanced classes and wars of backward classes, wars that serve to consolidate class oppression, and wars that serve to overthrow it” (PSS, vol. 38, p. 337) .

Stalin, developing the thoughts of Lenin, wrote: “War is of two kinds:

a) a just, non-conquest, liberation war, aimed at either protecting the people from external attack and attempts to enslave them, or liberating the people from the slavery of capitalism, or, finally, liberating the colonies and dependent countries from the yoke of imperialists, and

b) an unjust, predatory war aimed at capturing and enslaving foreign countries, foreign peoples. (“History of the CPSU(b). A short course”, p. 161).

Of course, this is only a small part of the statements of Lenin and Stalin on this topic. Already in the “Brezhnev” times, an attempt was made to reduce everything to the following definition: “Lenin, the Bolsheviks rejected the division of wars according to their nature into offensive and defensive … The whole point is which class wages war, what policy the war continues, what political goal is pursued by the ruling class in this war. From this point of view, revolutionary Marxists distinguish between just and unjust wars. Wars of the oppressed class against the oppressor, … wars of national liberation, wars of peoples against the threat of national enslavement, wars of the victorious proletariat in defense of socialism, against imperialist states — Marxists recognize such wars as just” (BN Ponomarev and others,”

There are two parts to this definition: 1) the method of determining which war is just; 2) a list of which particular wars should be considered fair. It is obvious that for us the method of analysis should be the main and unchanged one. As for the list, it, like any similar list, is not final and assumes a change in accordance with the current situation.  

What Is Fascism?

The definition of fascism was given, as you know, by Georgy Dimitrov: “Fascism is an open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, most militant circles of financial capital” (that is, the largest bourgeoisie—author).

The first conclusion from this is obvious: fascism is one of the forms of capitalism. Fascism leaves the means of production, transport, finance, banks, land, etc. in the hands of a handful of oligarchs and provides these people with the maximum possible profit. All the fairly numerous varieties of bourgeois democracy and fascism are just different forms of capitalism. It all depends on the specific situation, which the oligarchs, by the way, are able to assess very well. In some cases, it is beneficial for them to mask their absolute power with such institutions as general elections, the existence of opposition parties, freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc. In others, it is more profitable to switch to open terror against political opponents (primarily against the working class and other working people), to shut up even the most “soft” critics, to crush any semblance of resistance, openly throw dissenters into prison and even kill. The choice of forms and methods always and everywhere depends on a single consideration: what in a given situation will bring the oligarchs the greatest profit.

Moreover, in order for fascism to form in its standard version, many factors must develop, the foundations of which will be the financial, military and ideological crisis of the regime, and the pillars of the new order will be the security forces and lumpen in the person of ardent Black Hundreds / Brownshirts / Freikorites (underline as necessary) and ideologists of an idealistic orientation.

One of the forms of fascism is Nazism, that is, the desire to achieve its goals by providing advantages to one nation or group of nations, by humiliating, depriving and even destroying another nation (other nations). Again, this is just one of the forms of capitalism, which does not affect the essence of the phenomenon. Therefore, for us, by and large, it doesn’t matter with whom we are dealing: with Italian fascists, with German National Socialists, with Ukrainian Bandera or some other human scum. A war with any of them is a just war.

But, taking the position of bourgeois democracy, the oligarchs are forced, at least outwardly, to observe some of its norms: to allow the activities of opposition parties, to allow certain public, including workers’, organizations, to allow criticism of the authorities on television, on the Internet and in other media, and other “bourgeois-democratic toys”. They are forced to establish some lower level of social support for the population. With various varieties of fascism, all the norms of bourgeois democracy are rejected even outwardly. Therefore, bourgeois democracy, willy-nilly, provides the communists with much more opportunities to spread their ideas, to propagate their teachings, than any kind of fascism. Yes, we are well aware that all this is within certain, very narrow limits. We understand: as soon as it becomes profitable for the oligarchs, all external signs of democracy will be discarded, and all “toys” will be locked in a chest. This is exactly what has happened over the past few years in the United States and Western Europe. But still, as long as we are unable to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and workers’ democracy, we must support even the weak bourgeois democracy against any variety of fascism.

Let us recall that back in 1917, between the February and October revolutions, the Bolsheviks said: bourgeois democracy is more progressive than any institutions of the autocracy, but even higher democracy is the Republic of Soviets, that is, socialist democracy. Proceeding from the same considerations, the Bolsheviks supported the political buffoon Kerensky against Kornilov. The same can be said about fascism: socialist democracy is many times more progressive than bourgeois democracy, but bourgeois democracy is many times more progressive than fascism.

Everything written here has long been well known. But it seems that some communists began to forget about it, while others simply got lost in the three pines.

Experience Of The 2nd World War

The role of the US and UK. These two countries—our allies in World War II—were waging a war that did not fall under any of the above points (especially the United States; regarding England, one can still talk about the threat of national enslavement). Soviet historians assessed the Second World War as at first “unfair on the part of all its main participants.” Over time, the nature of the war for England and France began to change: it turned into a fair one. The reasons for this were the defeat, the threat to national security, cooperation with the victims of fascism, the broad participation of the masses. As far as we know, no explanations were given regarding the United States, but the US war against Germany was unequivocally assessed as fair. And this assessment is correct! But Soviet historians, as has repeatedly happened, stopped at this very vague characterization and could not rise to the point of needing to supplement the “classical” definition, based on the practically, objectively prevailing reality. And the reality is this: any war against any kind of fascism must be recognized as a just war. Even if this war is waged by a bourgeois-democratic state against an openly fascist one. Yes, we understand that such a war will necessarily be a battle between imperialist predators for spheres of influence and the division of profits. And yet the war of bourgeois democracy against fascism is a just war.

Dissolution of the Comintern. The conclusion about the justice of the war of bourgeois democracy against fascism was made (not in words, but in deeds) as early as 1943. When discussing the resolution on the dissolution of the Comintern at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on May 21, 1943, Stalin said on the contrary, “have the task of supporting their governments in every possible way (highlighted by us—ed.) for the speedy defeat of the enemy”.[1] That is, it was directly said that in the war against fascism, the communists of the bourgeois-democratic countries must support their governments. This conclusion is not and could not be in the works of Lenin written during the First World War or immediately after it: such a phenomenon as fascism had not yet arisen at that time, and it was impossible to assess the justice or injustice of the war against fascism. Stalin’s words quoted above are a truly creative development of Leninism in an entirely new historical situation.

Experience Of Other Conflicts

Consider the recent events in Syria as an example. It is unlikely that the Assad regime itself can arouse sympathy among the progressive part of the population. But when the religious fascists of ISIS threatened to replace him, the choice of two evils became obvious. However, it is also obvious that Assad (and the Russian troops supporting him!) will not bring “freedom, equality and brotherhood” to the people after the victory.

You can consider the example of armed conflicts in Chechnya in the 90s and the beginning of the “zero” years. It seems that all adequate people have not the warmest feelings for the Yeltsin regime and his faithful successor Putin, but the question is: which regime is worse? With a truncated bourgeois democracy, a la the Russian Federation, or under the medieval regime of Dudayev?

Assessment Of What Is Happening In Ukraine

After the coup of 2013-14, an openly terrorist regime was established in Ukraine. Its main features: the ban on all opposition parties, the impossibility of any open criticism or expression of disagreement, for “dissenters” and “suspicious”—prisons, torture and even murder. The facts have become abundantly known of late. As a result of constant shelling, many residents of the DPR and LPR were killed. Russians and Russian-speakers are openly persecuted, the Russian language and Russian education are banned, and calls are openly heard for the murder of Russians (“Muscovites – to Gilyaks”! etc.). Hitler’s accomplices in the Second World War—Bandera, Shukhevych and their “armies” are glorified and declared national heroes. Nazi symbols are openly displayed and encouraged. All this and much more makes it possible to unequivocally characterize the regime established in Ukraine as fascist, specifically as Nazi. A feature of the Ukrainian regime is the absolute helplessness of the central government. First, this power operates under the full control of the United States and cannot take any independent action. Secondly, this government has no real power (pardon the tautology) over formations like “Azov”, which are pursuing a gangster policy, regardless of anyone and nothing. The current Ukrainian government has no independent policy (either internal or external) and is incapable of making any strategic decisions.

Russia today is a bourgeois democracy. For some (perhaps even for many) this statement will come as a shock, but it is true. Yes, this bourgeois democracy is moving towards fascism, but it is still bourgeois democracy. There are opposition newspapers and websites on the Internet. The Yeltsin Center stinks with might and main. For expressing disagreement (at least at the everyday level), they are not yet imprisoned, if one does not move from words to deeds. An obvious example is the RCRP. The Communist Party is not banned, meetings and Plenums of the Central Committee are held, the party press is published, websites operate, and open criticism of the authorities and Putin personally is being conducted. There are no significant repressive measures in response. In Ukraine, the communist party is banned, the expression of communist views is a criminal offense and threatens with dismissal, investigation, prison, torture by the SBU, beatings and even murders by “radical patriots”. It would be nice to look at the West as well. In recent years, such a struggle for political correctness and tolerance, have unfolded there— BLM and others—that believe both freedom of speech and other democratic “toys” that the United States and Europe were so proud of were destroyed. This is very funny, but it seems that the phrase from Lenin’s April theses becomes fair (at least in part!): “Russia is now the freest country in the world.”

The war that has unfolded in Ukraine is a new war for the redivision of the world, like the wars at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. This is a war of imperialist predators for changing spheres of influence and, ultimately, for the profits of the oligarchs of different countries. Russia is waging this war, of course, not with Ukraine, but with the United States and other NATO countries. But if Russia fights directly (and loses people!), then the West, as it has happened many times, is waging war by proxy, hoping to weaken Russia as much as possible (whose military victory few doubt) and make her easy prey. In this war of imperialist predators for greater profits and for the first right to exploit workers of different nationalities, the communists cannot support anyone!

But at the same time, this is a war of a bourgeois-democratic state against an openly Nazi state, that is, a just war. The Russian leadership proclaimed its goal the denazification of Ukraine, that is, the destruction of the Nazi government and all Nazi organizations, the prosecution of Nazi criminals, the establishment of bourgeois-democratic freedoms in the country, the destruction of all restrictions on the use of the Russian language, etc. Having won, the Russian leadership will be forced to fulfill at least part of the promises, and this will improve the situation of the workers and other working people of Ukraine. And the communists are obliged to support the actions of the Russian government aimed at achieving these goals. We should also take a positive attitude towards the desire to protect all Russian citizens from missiles aimed at them, which can be installed in the east of Ukraine. We are also obliged to draw a clear line between the heroism of the Russian military and the actions of the government, aimed primarily at protecting the interests of Russian oligarchs.

So, What Should Russian Communists Do Now?

To begin with, let’s repeat. You need to understand that Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to action. Therefore, blind copying of the views of previous generations, and even more so an attempt to turn them into “Holy Scripture” is a disastrous dead end path. And of course, it is necessary to develop the labor movement, strengthen the stamina and unity of the core, and establish contacts with the workers of other countries in order to create a full-fledged opportunity to influence the situation.

Now to concrete actions. First, to support any actions of the Russian government aimed at destroying the Nazi regime in Ukraine. Secondly, to oppose any measures aimed at intensifying the exploitation of Russian and Ukrainian workers. To expose the true background of the actions of the Russian oligarchic authorities: the true purpose of these actions is to increase the profits of the oligarchs. Third, prepare for harsh criticism of many of the government’s actions in the ongoing war. One of the directions of such criticism is clear even now: the full exposure of the Putin-Medvedev slander against the Bolsheviks and Lenin, explaining to people on the basis of factual material the real picture of historical events. Other directions, apparently, will become clear later, when the results of the war are finally determined and the facts become known, hidden now for wartime reasons. And, of course, we must be prepared for the fact that we will have to act in much tougher and more difficult conditions than now.

There is another consideration. We must not allow ourselves to be drawn into any actions and speeches under the abstract slogan “Down with Putin!”. We are not fighting against Putin, but against capitalism. And if tomorrow Putin suddenly begins to destroy private ownership of the means of production and replace it with public property, if he starts building an appropriate state structure (that is, the dictatorship of the proletariat), we will support him with all our strength. Another thing, of course, is that he will never do so, and therefore we can make such statements without the slightest risk. But seriously, any slogan like “down with so-and-so!” should be opposed to the question: “For whom?” The position “let’s throw it off, and then we’ll figure it out” cannot suit us. We have already seen what this leads to: both in the USSR in 1990-91, and during the Ukrainian Maidan in 2013-14. We must have a clear idea of who, and most importantly, what program they are offering us instead of the same Putin, and by what means this program will be implemented. Only then can one decide who—Putin or his conditional opponent—will be worse for the working class (that’s right!), and act accordingly. Unfortunately, the objective reality is that today only ultra-liberal personalities like Navalny, Ksenia Sobchak, etc. can be an alternative to Putin. The left circles, including the communists, sadly, cannot put forward such an alternative now. And the coming to power of right-wing liberals would mean a sharp deterioration in the position of workers: the collapse of the economy, the elimination of many jobs, the destruction of the remnants of the social sphere, the fall of workers under the double oppression of Russian and foreign oligarchs. It will be the same fascization of the country, only at a much faster pace. This cannot be allowed.

What Is The Result?

And the last, purely theoretical consideration, which has already been implicitly formulated in this article. It seems that the part of Marxist theory that deals with just and unjust wars needs to be supplemented in accordance with the realities of today. This addition should be officially recorded in the relevant party documents. As of today, the list of just wars should look like this:

A) wars of the oppressed class against the oppressor,
B) wars of national liberation,
C) wars of peoples against the threat of national enslavement,
D) wars of the victorious proletariat in defense of socialism, against the imperialist states, E) wars against fascism and Nazism, including the wars of bourgeois-democratic states against fascism and Nazism.

[1] Dimitrov, Georgi, Diary of Georgi Dimitrov (1941-1945); Kuchkovo Pole: Moscow, 2020, p. 381.