Recently, the Department of International Relations of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Greece (KKP) published an article criticizing the International Anti-Fascist Forum in Moscow. With this material, the KKE theorists broke through the next ideological bottom, accusing the VII Congress of the Comintern (1935) of mistakes and the problematic (must be understood as unscientific) definition of fascism. It should be assumed that for most parties the theoretical developments of the Comintern of that time are authoritative and relevant so far. Their consideration and analysis are aimed primarily at how we in practice today can use the experience of struggle accumulated by the Communists for many decades. And finally, comrades from the KKE openly told all the anti-fascists that they did not agree! First of all, the corporalists of the KKE turned against the definition of the Comintern (George Dimitrov), given just at the VII Congress fascism, which is in power:

Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, most imperialist elements of financial capital.

Fascism is not a supraclass power or the power of the petty bourgeoisie or the lumpen-proletariat over financial capital.

Fascism is the power of financial capital itself. It is an organization of terrorist violence with the working class and the revolutionary part of the peasantry and the intelligentsia.

Fascism in foreign policy is chauvinism in the most crude form, cultivating zoological hatred against other peoples.

Theorists of the KKE do not agree with the fact that Dimitrov allocated financial capital as the main customer of fascism. In addition, the KKE for greater persuasiveness declares that the definition of Dimitrov is not only erroneous, but also outdated to date. It should be understood that this argument is intended for those who consider the position of the Comintern still true. The definition, they say, was largely opportunistic, because it was given in conditions when “the imperialist forces planned the destruction of the only socialist state in the world, and the USSR sought to split the imperialist forces and use their contradictions.”

The most interesting thing is that, with all this criticism of the achievements of the VII Congress, the ideologues of the KKE for a long time do not give any own definition of fascism, hiding only for reference to the Congress of the Comintern held in 1928, which gave supposedly fundamentally different interpretations: “under certain specific historical conditions, the onset of the bourgeoisie, imperialist and reactionary, takes the form of fascism”, and “the signs of fascism” were given in detail.

But if we look at where the ideologues of the KKE send us, that is, in the materials of the VI Congress, we will see that just there is a clear definition that has not yet been formed, and there was an analysis of the phenomenon in the process of its formation. In particular, a number of external signs of fascism were identified and listed: direct violence, the struggle against the proletarian movement, the achievement of the political unity of all the ruling classes (banks, large industry, farmers), the reliance on the discontent of the broad strata of the petty bourgeoisie and even the workers, social demagogyny, etc.

We know that in 1928 fascism had not yet unfolded in full force, did not develop to its highest form, which was later manifested in fascist Germany. Even aggressive foreign policy, this important feature of fascism, by 1928 had not yet become apparent. And we also know that Marx advised to study phenomena in their mature form: “Man’s anatomy is the key to the anatomy of the monkey.” That is why it is absolutely clear that the Seventh Congress of the Comintern knew about fascism as much more than the VI Congress. The effect of accumulating knowledge also worked. Moreover, in both cases, the analysis of fascism was carried out by almost the same people.

In the 1920’s, when the Communists had not yet fully studied fascism, the label of fascism was often tried on any rigid bourgeois regimes. For example, it is known that the German Communists of the late 20-ies believed that Weimar Germany by that time was a fascist state. However, the same communists (German and not only) after 1933 saw Hitlerism, that is, fascism in its developed form. And this already made it possible to theoretically separate fascism from other forms of bourgeois dictatorship (according to Lenin, any bourgeois-democratic state is at the same time the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), which always (i.e., and not developed into fascism) behaves in relation to the working class as a machine of class suppression. Having singled out fascism as a special phenomenon, it was possible to select the most effective methods of dealing with this form of bourgeois dictatorship (for example, the tactics of the popular fronts).

Fascism is a product of the epoch of imperialism, its specific instrument, and it is obvious that the main customer of fascism will be the part of the capital that developed in the epoch of imperialism as a new dominant force, that is, financial capital. Even if there are various strata of the bourgeoisie in the country, there is always financial capital over all of them in the era of imperialism, the most powerful part formed by the fusion of bank capital with the industrial and taking upon more and more functions of direct control of the economy, including through the state machine. The same VI Congress of the Comintern has repeatedly emphasized this danger.

The references of the ideologues of the KKE to the fact that the 1935 formulations depended on the confrontation between the USSR the capitalist world look somewhat ridiculous, since in 1928 the imperialists desperately wanted to destroy the Soviet Union – but the decisions of the VI Congress, adopted that year, the authors of the document from the KKE, for some reason, consider it possible to refer. Maybe in 1928 the imperialists hated the USSR and the October Revolution less than in 1935? It doesn’t seem to be like that.

In addition, it is worth saying that the opposition to the decisions of the last two congresses of the Comintern is methodologically incorrect. Instead of observing the scientific principle of historicism, to show how some decisions arise on the basis of others, the ideologists of the KKE decided to apply the method of liberals who love, for example, to oppose the works of the young and mature Marx. It works to immature minds, but we are dialectical, we understand the phenomenon in development.

We see that the statements of the KKE about the erroneousness of the assessments and definitions of the 7th Congress of the Comintern do not withstand the verification of elementary facts and contradict logic.

Dogmatism and Hegemony of the KKE?

So why did the KKG deepen today in the Comintern disputes, began to refute the definition of the Comintern, to prove the erroneous tactics of the people’s fronts in the fight against fascism? Recently released a video of the same orientation Solidnet | Communist Party of Greece, a timely video of the KKE “Historical conclusions about the anti-fascist fronts. Modern Struggle Against Fascism (English, Russian)

In our opinion, there are a few motives here. The first is that the KKE leadership withstands its long-standing but erroneous ideological line.

The modern communists of the world are well aware of the theoretical innovation emanating from the KKE, which asserts that practically all capitalist states of the epoch of imperialism are imperialist countries, since everywhere there is a dominant position of monopolies (“the theory of the imperialist pyramid”). The KKE is not embarrassed even by the fact that Lenin spoke directly about a handful of the imperialist states that plunder the rest of the world. So now, in the development of their old unproven dogma, the ideologues of the KKE are trying to present all capitalist (i.e., imperialist, in their opinion) countries as potentially equally ready to become fascist. How else to explain the desire of the leaders of the KKE to abandon the division of capitalist countries into bourgeois-democratic and fascist? Comrades, from our point of view, do not distinguish between fascism in power and manifestation of elements of fascism in ideology and politics. The first phenomenon is described by the definition of the Comintern. The second, in one form or another, inherent in almost all bourgeois states, and more recently more and more.

As noted at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern, “the masses bourgeois , fascismNaturally, the conditions for the struggle of the working class are more favorable under any democracy. But the Greek comrades are now easily brushing away this conclusion. According to the logic of the leaders of the Greek Communist Party, not only those states where the terrorist dictatorship of financial capital has already been established are fascist, but in general all the imperialist countries where elements of fascization are observed in ideology and politics.

It turns out that the concept of fascism is blurred, becomes almost synonymous with capitalism and applicable, if possible, to any bourgeois regime, no matter how he behaves openly or not. Such a ridiculous method, of course, is very dangerous to use – it is possible to frank fascists, as in Ukraine, to be expelled as the formation of a young nation, and you can blame any bourgeois country for fascism. For example, from the point of view of the Marxist-Leninist party of Germany, regime B. Assad in Syria was supposedly a fascist dictatorship, and his armed overthrow by Islamists was a progressive democratic revolution. Or there are reproaches from some of the left-winged president of Belarus A. Lukashenko with accusations of dictatorship and a roll to fascism by analogy with Zelensky.

And here we move on to the second motive for the behavior of the ideologues of the KKE. Today’s Communist Party of Greece is an organization that is trying, on the one hand, to organize an international communist movement. And for that, she should be thanked very much. On the other hand, they accepted the well-deserved compliments for the organization of a series of meetings of the communist and workers’ parties of the Solidnet system as recognition of their theoretical genius, began to show elements of intolerance to other opinions, a kind of communist swagger, when comrades, alone, without listening to objections and other opinions, determine who rights and who is wrong. There were attempts to subdue the communist movement of the world. Having felt some time ago “first among equals”, the leaders of the KKE somehow forgot about equality and pick up satellites. From the Communist Parties of different countries, the leaders of the KKE are simply demanding to stop doubting the usefulness of their ideological alchemy. If they claim that the war is imperialist on all sides, and fascism is inherent in all participants, then there can be no special methods to combat real living fascism. The KKE states as a mantra that only the working class and communists are capable of fighting fascism and capitalism (in particular, recall B quote B. Brecht). But if in a certain country the working class is not yet ready for broad independent actions and the Communists have not yet achieved the support of the masses of the working people, then the KKE does not see the need to unite the various anti-fascist forces to fight the main source of danger and the builder of fascism. Thus, theorists of the KKE in fact lead to a wait-and-see inaction, even if there is a clear danger of fascism (by definition of Dimitrov). That is, according to the Greek theorists (whose in both China and the United States has the same imperialism), the anti-fascists need to wait for the moment when the rebel workers will be able to sweep away capitalism in the PRC and the United States, and then fascism is over, and in any other way.

Are you being attacked by fascists? Prohibit communist ideology, poison your native language, massively kill and burn dissenters alive? But, according to the disrepertists of the tactics of the Comintern, to oppose the brown plague with a common front is unpromising. We must wait for the proletariat to be prepared for revolution. And if you begin to resist fascism right now, fight with it and look for anti-fascist allies in other political camps (i.e., not only among the Communists), the KKE will immediately brand you as social-chovinists and even as accomplices of imperialism. But it is known that V.I. Lenin said: “The denial of any possibility of national wars under imperialism is theoretically wrong, historically erroneous, and practically equal to European chauvinism…”¹

KKE as a brake on the fight against fascism

In practice, all this is clearly manifested in the situation around the SVO, Russia’s military clash with Ukraine (in fact, the imperialist West, including a member of NATO, Greece), is clearly manifested in this year. The Communists of the RKRP have always been extremely critical – and continue to treat the bourgeois regime in the Russian Federation. But, we demanded certain actions from him and recognize that, objectively speaking, only this regime was able to give weapons in 2014 into the hands of the anti-fascists of Donbass, and in 2022, by the very force of his army, opposed the Ukrainian Bander fascism, which in fact is a puppet in the hands of Western imperialist financial capital. And if it were not for the help of the bourgeois Russia to the rebel Donbass, the Nazi punishers could well fulfill their promise “we will cut everyone!” The experience of Odessa and the action of the punishers in the Donbass leave no doubt about the seriousness of their intentions.

Ukraine under the rule of Zelensky now, obviously, a fascist country (by scientific definition of the Comintern). And the political leaders of Ukraine themselves openly admit that they are the heirs of Bandera and Shukhevych, that is, Hitler’s associates. The customer of fascism is in this case Western financial capital. In the country, gangs of “assault” are being troved by gangs of “TCC”, or rather detachments of the “TCC” (territorial centers of acquisition), “Azov” and other ardent nationalists, all communists and workers’ organizations are prohibited, Soviet and communist symbols are outlawed, the Russian language is actually prohibited. Even an entire religious denomination, Orthodox Christians, has been extremely discriminated against. The open terrorist nature of the Zelensky regime is not in doubt

In modern capitalist Russia, manifestations of fascism in ideology and politics are also observed. But while they are at the level of individual manifestations, not escalating into state policy. The Communists act legally, the working-class movement is alive (albeit in its infancy), the monuments to Lenin are not massively destroyed. There is no racial, linguistic, confessional discrimination in public policy (although there are not few private excesses). The financial capital of the Russian Federation does not pass to an openly terrorist form of domination, because, apparently, it does not experience at the moment such a need. Moreover, Russia, with all the desire of its ruling class to stand on a par with the leading Western countries, largely leads the SVO precisely in order to prevent the military defeat of Russia, in order to prove that the Russian bourgeois class itself is able to exploit the natural and human resources of the country, and wants to trade without any sanctions and restrictions. Thus, the SVO performs a positive protective function, since the dismemberment of Russia does not correspond to the interests of the working class of Russia and the world. At the same time, Russia is a real bourgeois dictatorship (in the form of limited bourgeois democracy). But to oppose its actions to help Donbass, to suppress fascism in Ukraine, is to help the Nazis.

However, the ideologues of the KKE do not agree with this assessment of Russia. They scrupulously list a number of disturbing phenomena (from the advance of the reactionaries of Solzhenitsin and Ilyin by the Russian authorities to the presence of the nationalist DShR “Rusich”). This is an attempt to equate Ukraine and Russia, as, allegedly, regimes similar in nature. That is, the ideologues of the Greek Communist Party do not distinguish fascism as state policy and fascist tendencies in ideology and politics in bourgeois society, which to varying degrees are inherent in almost all bourgeois states.

Such assessments could have been disagreed with the inhabitants of Donbass, shot not by anyone, but by Bandera Ukraine from different types of weapons since 2014 and from the same time, who had risen to an anti-fascist uprising, the core of which was the working class, tractorists and miners. But to ignore the suffering of the peoples of the former USSR today in the fashion of Western politicians, in whose actions are increasingly clearly visible are notes by notes of revanchism for the defeat of the USSR in 1945. And it is very strange that among these politicians were the modern leaders of the KKE.

The ongoing military conflict in the leadership of the KKE is considered only “intra-imperialist” and Russia’s goals are as predatory as the United States and the EU. The fact that capitalist Russia suffers enormous losses from Western sanctions and has already lost (under very mysterious circumstances) Nord Stream pipelines – and this was the main material component of the source of income of Russian oligarchs and the budget of the Russian Federation. Even more strange is the fact that such fundamental anti-imperialist analysts of the KKE do not see the expansion of American imperialism into the EU market, the suppression of the economy and, consequently, the interests of the working classes of European countries. Thus, the US and the EU have been applying pressure and violent methods to Russia for a long time, and the true purpose of this pressure is not a secret. The secret here is different: why do the leaders of the KKE not want to see this?

The RKRP believes that the bourgeoisie of Russia, not forgetting about its unrealized imperialist fantasies, is still primarily in the ongoing conflict to fight for its own survival, not agreeing to the dismemberment of the country, the transformation of Russia into a semi-colony or a dependent country. More than once, the leaders of the opinions of the imperialist countries spoke about the need to divide Russia into several parts – for the convenience of their subordination and exploitation. That is why the bourgeois regime of the Russian Federation is forced to confront the imperialist West, which initiated the creation of a fascist regime in Ukraine in order to pressure and weaken Russia. In parallel with this, the bourgeoisie of the Russian Federation (again, forced) helps the peoples of Donbass and Ukraine to free themselves from the fascist Bandera yoke. The workers of Russia as a whole support the anti-fascist goals of the SVO, realizing that the return of the country to a dependent state (as in the 1990-ies) or its dismemberment will be extremely unprofitable, disastrous, deadly, dangerous for the whole people.

In 2014, in the east of Ukraine, for objective reasons, the proletarian revolution could not have occurred – the working class is not yet at all ripe for an independent speech under socialist slogans. But the workers of Donbass and the Communists were able to join forces in reality with various bourgeois, Orthodox and even monarchical anti-fascist forces and rebuff the advancing Bandera punishers. In fact, the old proven tactics of the popular fronts were spontaneously used – joint action against fascism. And this tactic in the new conditions of the XXI century fully justified itself, the Banderites failed to destroy the people’s republics, which do not agree with the rapid fascization.

But all this lively, fighting and saving peoples is condemned by the ideologists of the KKE, who consider the creation of popular fronts a dead end and actually offer people in order to have the right to fight fascism, to wait for a laboratory pure revolutionary situation and a reference proletarian revolution, sweeping away capitalism with all its fascist pads. Figuratively speaking, the CNG theorists who broke away from life, based on the unsuccessful fulfillment of the tactics of the fronts in individual countries, primarily in Greece, deny the very idea of the common front. In fact, rejecting Lenin’s theory of alliances and the use of cracks in the capitalist camp. Today, the ideologues of the KKE offer almost to wait for revolutions in the United States and China. Are we waiting?

Based on the assessment of historical events, then by and large, the Comintern won the war (1939-1945) from the fascist Atiomintern Pact. But the Comintern acted, according to KKE experts, wrong. Here, the assessments of our Greek opponents are somewhat similar to the estimates of our Russian anti-Soviets. They claim that the Soviet Union won the war, but socialism has nothing to do with it, since the people fought simply for the Motherland. And the Greek comrades turn out that the Comintern won, but did it contrary to the “wrong” tactics of creating a people’s anti-fascist fronts. Such an understanding of Marxism, we, the Communists of the RKP, can be called a particularly clinical form of parody of Marxism, a tactic of throwing revolutionary phrases and a strategy of justifying retreat without a struggle before the most brutal imperialist reaction.

Questions that have been brewing for years

We do not consider the ideologues of the Communist Party of Greece foolish people who do not understand the consequences of their ideological justifications. The proletariat, which needs organizational assistance here and now, is carefully treated in the direction of abandoning self-defense. So why does the Communist Party of Greece call on the peoples to withdraw from the struggle against concrete living fascism, which is proceeding in real time and with the involvement of various anti-fascist forces? Does the KKE leadership not understand that it is more profitable for the Communists and the workers’ movement to work a hundred times better in the conditions of both the curtailed and constantly reduced, but still bourgeois democracy and in the legal field than under fascist regimes to hide in the forests and underground, without having a wide access to the workers? Why is the party itself legally existing in the NATO country, of this imperialist bloc, which has a “green light” from its ruling class of its country to political and economic activity, to pass not only to the parliament of Greece, but also to the European Parliament, is trying to control the international communist movement, and at the same time chicly rejects any criticism, appoints its allies as the only right Communist Parties, carries out measures that lead undesirable parties to split? Why does he leave a theoretical dispute, but just throws away dissenting parties from the editorial office of the International Journal of the MKO? What gives the right of KKE to consider itself the leader of the world movement? Did this party in the latest history (in the last quarter of a century) have some objective prerequisites for the imminent achievement of the revolution? No one seems to have heard of it, moreover, the theoretical question “Is a revolution in a single Greece possible?” remains open for now.

The RKRP has repeatedly faced with the fact that the KKE slowed down the publication of our party materials on the international resource Solidnet. The RKRP is aware of the political and material support provided by the KKE to those unscrupulous former members of our party who a few years ago tried to steal our party Internet resources. We see that the parties of other CNG countries are doing the same.

Isn’t the ideologues of the KKE taking much, considering their party an infallible arbiter who labels and dismisses unwanted international bodies from the work? Or maybe the leaders of the KKE turned opposition activity into the form of their existence in bourgeois society? They nourish the dissenting electorate, provide communication and public protests of the dissatisfied, but at the same time do not wave at the keshchey of imperialism itself, since it is possible to suffer for this.

Yeah, there’s a lot of questions here.

I want to believe that the KKE will find healthy forces and curtail all this growth-intellar political alchemy, causing considerable harm to the world movement.

Returning to the beginning of the article, we recall that the Greek comrades at the Anti-Fascist Forum were not present themselves. First, because it took place in Moscow – “the capital of a capitalist country whose leadership openly participates in the war and is covered with anti-fascism.” And secondly, because they do not agree with the main assessments of the forum.

The RKRP also has serious discrepancies with the CPRF, and with the Platform in assessing the events and roles of Russia and China in the anti-imperialist struggle, but we considered it our duty to participate in the forum and express our Marxist point of view for his fellow wrestling. And the Greeks’ comrades evaded the struggle. There were no anti-fascists where there were no anti-fascists. As well as the ongoing war in the Donbass. There are living fascists here, our comrades are at war with them, but Greek comrades are not here. Because, as they say, they fight wrong.

Maybe the wrong thing is enough, but the worst thing is to evade the fight against fascism. This is shameful for the Communists.

Ideological Commission of the Central Committee of the RKRP

1. V.I. Lenin PSS vol.30 page. 133 ︎

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.