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addition, the KKE for greater persuasiveness declares that the definition of Dimitrov is not only erroneous, but also outdated to date.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 ︎

Capital – through multinational companies and their staunch supporters Britain, the US and other Western countries – tried to impose their hegemony through so-called free global trade, advocated through the World Trade Organization and described rightly as LPG (Liberation, Privatization and Globalization).

This process was initiated during the presidency of Republican Ronald Regan. It is interesting to note that this policy continued during the regime of Democratic presidents like Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. The reason is clear, as both wanted to continue with US dominance.

However, subsequent developments like the rise of China, Russia and other Asian countries like India, Japan and South Korea led to rethinking in the US. Fardeen Zakaria has rightly described the process as “the rise of the rest.” This challenged the dominant position of US. Hence, under Republican president Donald Trump, the trend of policy reversal is clear as he talks of imposing unilateral tariff or taxes on imports from other countries.

When Trump became president for the first time in 2016, he targeted Russia and China and helped create tensions between Europe and Russia through NATO. Europe was dependent on cheap Russian oil and gas, but this conflict forced Europe to abandon the Russian oil and gas and turn to US for the same. Thus, the US is now the biggest supplier of oil and gas to Europe. The conflict also led to the Ukraine-Russia war.

This new situation brought Russia, China and Iran together. Similarly, Russian attempts to use BRICS countries to challenge the dollar currency is also seen as a challenge by the US; hence Trump is threatening BRICS countries and even those that are interested in joining the BRICS.

German and French interests prevailed in the 20th century through the development of the common European market, the single currency of the Euro, and bringing together the European countries through the formation of the European Parliament. This development is perceived as a challenge to US hegemony and hence it is Trump’s strategy to compel them to divert their funds by increasing their defence spending through NATO.

By advocating a ceasefire between Russian and Ukraine, Trump is trying to create a wedge between China and Russia. For a long time, Russians have considered themselves Europeans and thought a weak Europe could be dominated by them, but pulling Russia away from China seems to be the new strategy of Trump in his second term. The military industrial complex and its interest are looked after by Trump, using US military power on one hand and US economic power or market strength and technological dominance on the other.

Meanwhile China is also preparing by developing AI technology (through DeepSeek) and through the Belt and Road Initiative. It is deliberately avoiding an arms race with the US, as this led to grave consequences for the USSR.

Return of the Nation State

After the Second World War most of the countries in the “Third World” became independent and colonialism was ended. During that period the US dominated the world and defeated existing socialism led by the USSR – it is no wonder that Trump in his second term is trying to repeat the same experience. But the world has changed, so the tactics of “democratic socialism” and projecting the West as the defender of democracy is no longer going to work. Thus, compromising democracy and democratic values is becoming common in the process of “Return of the State.”

The emergence of nationalism all over the world in 20th century, when people were fighting their colonial masters, resulted in anti-imperialist and independent countries. This strengthened the non-alignment movement. People’s interests were primary in this process; however, in the 21st century it is mostly the fascist or rightist, conservative forces that are leading the return of the nation state. Hence, people’s interests are pushed back, leading to increasing unemployment, a widening gap between classes, and inflation.

Because of the rivalry between European countries during 1930-40, the world faced the Second World War and five million civilians lost their lives. The return of the nation state and competition may again lead to a war, or multiple wars, and a death blow to democracy and its values unless people unite to defeat fascist forces.

New Age (Communist Party of India)

The presidential election show, which the ruling regime of Iran was eagerly hoping to turn into a grand endorsement of the theocratic regime, ended with the majority of the nation boycotting it. Even according to the official statistics, in several major cities, including the capital Tehran, voter turnout barely exceeded 30%. According to ISNA, the head of the election office in Tehran province said: “The number of eligible voters for the fourteenth presidential election was 10,199,742, and in this election, on June 25^th, 3,366,264 ballots were used in the capital.”

It was clear that the continued stark economic and social crisis, which could bring the society to the brink of another widespread nation-wide protest like the “Woman, Life, Freedom” popular uprising or other successive protests like the ones in the past two years, could seriously challenge the regime’s survival. That’s why the leaders of the regime were deeply worried about the fate of their rule and the serious difficulties they face in maintaining their power. The ongoing regional developments, including the risk of direct and disastrous conflict with the racist and criminal state of Israel and the US imperialism, must be added to the rulers’ concerns to highlight the depth of the crisis the regime is facing with, which is caused by its own irrational and adventurous policies.

With the unexpected and ambiguous death of Ebrahim Raisi, a member of the death commission responsible for the massacre of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, the regime saw an opportunity to rearrange its guards and divert the popular movement towards the illusion of “reformability” of the regime. They intended to create a safety valve to calm the society and quell the growing anger of the masses.

The qualification of Masoud Pezeshkian (who had been disqualified in two previous presidential elections and the most recent parliamentary election) was organized and directly ordered by the Supreme Leader. This move was intended to bring state-affiliated reformists into the scene to create illusions about Masoud Pezeshkian and generate false hope for a “window” of change, similar to what was tested during Hassan Rouhani’s election campaign. Additionally, extensive propaganda and fear-mongering about the possibility of Jalili’s “election” and worsening the situation in the country was part of a precise and organized campaign to encourage the people to vote and to create a made-up “heroic” act and portray it as an endorsement for the regime’s popularity, approval, and the illusion of freedom in the tyranny-ridden country.

Mr. Khatami, who understanding the deep anger and hatred of the people towards the opportunistic regime had refrained from participating in the parliamentary election show months earlier, returned to the scene this time to repeat and promote the illusion of the “election window.” Of course, people have not forgotten that Mr. Khatami once said: “If the reformists or some of them are to be sidelined, public and global opinion won’t matter. What is important is that those who they don’t want should not come in, and I am sure they don’t want us to come in. Even if we pass this stage, we are not allowed to win more votes than they want.” And ironically, Masoud Pezeshkian, who in his previous speeches emphasized being a “servant of the Supreme Leadership” and having no authority to make fundamental changes in many areas, in his first speech after the election, confirming Khatami’s assessment of the “election” process in the Islamic Republic, said: “I thank the Leader, because without him, our names would have not easily come out of these ballot boxes.” Ali Khamenei also reminded Pezeshkian, after the election results were announced, that he must continue Raisi’s course.

Creating Illusions about Pezeshkian’s Government to Calm the Situation, and the Tasks of the Popular Movement

The government of Masoud Pezeshkian, whose key members will be vetted by Ali Khamenei, and whose major economic policies will be dictated by the Supreme Leader’s office to his government and other legislative and executive structures, will have two key missions. First, to calm the severely crisis-ridden country and create the illusion that the regime has chosen the course of reform. Hence, preventing another social explosion, which this time could involve the powerful presence of the labour and working-class movement and could create insurmountable difficulties for the regime. Second, to resume secret negotiations with the US and the European Union, who all implicitly expressed hope for his election to improve mutual relations with Iran.

The experience of Hassan Rouhani’s two terms in power, supported by the state-affiliated reformists, followed a similar pattern. Contrary to Rouhani’s campaign promises, the house arrest of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi Karroubi did not end, prisoners of conscience and political prisoners were not freed, the brutal suppression of women’s rights was not prevented, and the demands of the workers and the working class were ignored. The economic crisis continued, the gap between poverty and wealth widened, widespread government corruption persisted and increased, and the bloody and brutal suppression of any mass protest, including in 2017 and 2019, continued. At the end of his term, Rouhani admitted that he had little authority and was merely an executor of the orders of the Supreme Leader, IRGC, and the security forces.

The Tudeh Party of Iran believes that aside from a small minority who participated in this “election” and voted for Jalili, the overwhelming majority of the nation, including those who voted for Masoud Pezeshkian with the hope of a “window” for change, strive for fundamental changes in the catastrophic current state of the country and moving towards establishing the people’s will over the affairs. The overwhelming majority of the nation, especially workers and the working class, who have been increasingly pushed below the line of poverty, want a relief from crushing economic pressures, suitable wages compatible with the inflation, an end to the extensive neoliberal privatization policies and workforce downsizing, the restoration of the country’s productive infrastructure, an end to the brutal and inhuman assault on women by the regime’s thugs, freedom of political-ideological prisoners, and an opening of the political atmosphere in the country. It is clear that none of these demands can be achieved within the theocratic regime and the current despotic and anti-people political system. The developments of recent decades have shown that only through massive and organized social struggle can the regime be forced to retreat. The recent historical development in France, where a broad spectrum of progressive forces from communists and socialists to greens united to prevent the victory of right-wing fascist-leaning forces, is a clear and proven sign of the power of organized and united action of progressive and freedom-loving forces, which can be noted for Iran.

Once again, we call on all patriotic and freedom-loving forces in the country to collaborate and prepare for a national dialogue to organize the frustrated masses and seriously challenge the anti-people ruling regime. Without joint efforts and organized struggle to bring about fundamental and lasting changes, the Islamic Republic, as it has shown in recent years, will continue its dreadful life, harming our country through various manoeuvres and changes in its guards.

The Tudeh Party of Iran

We, the participants in the International Anti-Fascist Forum from the countries of Asia, America and Europe, have gathered in Minsk to say a firm “No!” to war and reaction, neo-Fascism and oppression.

We have met in the land of Belarus, every inch of which has been washed in the blood of millions of the victims of Hitlerism. It is here that in June 1941 began the sacred war of the whole Soviet people against the Black Plague. One in every three citizens of the Byelorussian SSR was killed or tortured to death as a result of the German Fascist aggression.

Nazism was the direct result of the crisis of capitalism. It grew out of the lust of Big Capital to preserve its power over the working people at any cost. To further their selfish ends the imperialists have embarked on the road of supporting the darkest forces.  They brought to power Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and their ideological accomplices. The Nazis turned from a political fringe into makers of destinies of millions of people.

The peoples of the world have no right to forget the experience of the struggle against Fascism. In 1936, with the support of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, a civil war broke out in Spain. The people’s power was supported by the USSR and many progressive forces. But at the time Fascism turned out to be stronger. This paved the way for the most horrible war in human history. The final decisive steps were taken towards the furnaces and gas chambers of Buchenwald and Mauthausen, Dachau and Sobibor, Majdanek and Oswiecim. 

The tragic lessons of the past should be well known and always remembered! The world has paid a huge price to rid itself of Nazism. The heroes of that struggle have covered themselves with undying glory: soldiers and officers of the Red Army, Allied warriors, fighters of the People’s Liberation Army of China, member of the French and Italian Resistance, participants in the German anti-Fascist underground, Yugoslav and Korean partisans, Polish and Czechoslovak patriots.

The Red flag over the Reichstag in May 1945 is not only a special fact of the past. The meaning of the Great Victory over Fascism reaches out to the future. It sounds like a tocsin appealing to the hearts of new generations.

Today, like in the 1930s, the black smoke of fascism is spreading over the planet. It overcasts the horizon more and more. People of goodwill must show unity and courage in their decisive struggle.

The situation is extremely alarming. Neo-colonialism is rearing its head in Africa and America. The imperialists are whipping up tensions in Asia. Blood is being shed to the roar of cannon in Europe and other corners of the planet. The misery and suffering of people are multiplying. Once again the moaning of the wounded and croaking of the dying are heard. Sorrowful tears of mothers are flowing. Before our eyes the world is about to fall into a gaping abyss in which the sinister outlines of the swastika are emerging.

The treacherous destruction of the USSR, the country which vanquished Fascism, has stirred the world predators. Global capital sensed total impunity. It is imposing its dictatorship by hideous means. The deadly threat of a Fascist revenge is growing every day. The Nazi beast has licked up its old wounds and is fast gathering strength. Emboldened, it is creeping out of its den in search of new victims.

The world evil came back in a neo-liberal guise. It has created a global system of plundering entire countries and peoples. It has stained itself with aggression against Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. Attempts have been made to overthrow the legitimate governments in Venezuela, Nicaragua and Byelorussia. Sanction pressure has been unleashed against the peoples of Russia and China, Cuba and the DPRK. Military threats and political blackmail are resorted to.

On the eve of World War II Hitler’s storm troopers were directed by financial capital. In the 21^st century it is guided by the latter-day Nazis. Fascism, which was vanquished 78 years ago, has not disappeared from the face of the earth because the world oligarchy badly needs its services. That is why Nazi riff-raff march in Vilnius and Tallinn. Books are being burned in Kiev. Monuments to Soviet liberator warriors are pulled down in Warsaw. Euro deputies in expensive suits initiate wicked resolutions trying to equate Hitler’s Nazism to Soviet socialism. The Fascist scum is set to take a historical revenge. Direct support of the USA and its NATO allies has elevated Nazi ideology to government level in Ukraine. For many years, Bandera ghouls have been having a bloody ball in Kiev, tormenting the popular masses. They have: turned Ukraine into a concentration camp for dissenters, have shut down media outlets they do not like, banned opposition activities and launched persecution of communists. Reprisals target all those who have preserved the ideal of the brotherhood of peoples and loyalty to the Great Victory over Fascism. The Nazis burned people alive in Odessa, blew up and shot people from behind the corner. Year in and year out the Azov thugs with a wolf hook on their chevrons terrorized Donbas. Its courageous citizens rose up in a liberation struggle against militarism and neo-Nazism.

Western governments are pumping Bandera Ukraine full of weapons. Zelensky already says he wants to have the nuclear weapon. But NATO has failed to slap him on the wrist. On the contrary, it says it is prepared to transform the Ukrainian army according to its standards. And the imbecile people in London are themselves ready to put shells with depleted uranium in the hands of the neo-Nazi regime.

NATO countries are not only spreading deadly weapons. They have deployed their military bases throughout the world. Four hundred biolaboratories in the USA and other countries are conducting experiments with deadly viruses and bacteria. The consequences of these actions may upset peaceful development of entire states. Moreover, they threaten the whole mankind as a biological species.

The communists have always warned that “Fascism is war.” The course of events confirms this. The answer of the peoples can only be one: the Fascist monster must be destroyed. The bacilli of the brown plague are too dangerous. They should be neutralized confidently and swiftly. The price of unconcern may turn out to be extremely high. The atrocities, condemned in Nuremberg, must not be repeated. We have no right to allow the world reaction to perpetrate new bloody crimes.

The acts and intentions of the imperialist West are soaked in vicious hatred of everything progressive, sovereign and free. Biden and Scholz, von der Leyen and Borrel, Duda and Morawiecki and their ilk are but auxiliary personnel in the system of global dictatorship. Their career prospects are directly determined by their readiness to serve the interests of the world financial oligarchy.

The globalists cover up their actions by pseudo-intellectual studies. They pluck the most reactionary ideas from the theories of Nietzsche, Chamberlain and Gobineau about the “superman” and “race superiority.” They brew their grim cocktail from neo-Malthusianism and post-humanism. They put forward man-hating nonsense about the “priority of technological progress over social development.” They pass off for humanism praise of vices and perversions. Klaus Schwab and his ilk pack the old ideas that inspired Hitler and his accomplices in pseudo-scientific “bioengineering” wrapping.

All this sham “innovation” is hostile to the peoples. It is promoted by those who are afflicted with ethnic and race prejudices, those who desire to take revenge on peoples for the victory over Fascism and colonialism. These circles are possessed by the idea of total control over humankind. Declaring that they cancel the Great Russian culture, they seek to destroy the humanistic culture of the whole world and to throw us back to the times of untold savagery and an electronic concentration camp.

Neoliberalism is a vicious enemy of any independent development and democratic norms. The political forces in the West have degenerated into absolute autocracies. The bourgeois elites have lost touch with the values of freedom and humanism. Their behavior is opening ever wider the doors for neo-Fascism.

Writhing in agony, capitalism is clinging to life at all costs. It is not afraid of a reincarnation of Fascism. The world reaction merely encourages the heirs of Hitler and Mussolini, Franco and Salazar, Antonescu and Mannerheim, Pilsudski and Quisling. They are furiously destroying the memory of the Second World War and falsifying historical facts.

The plans of “a new world order” end up in aggression and conflicts, neo-Fascism and neocolonialism, and the threat of a new world war. The whole world is becoming a battlefield. It is our duty to win this battle in the name of all the best that has been created by world culture, in the name of a worthy future for humankind!

The key to success is the unity and cohesion of the peace-loving forces of the planet. A victorious resistance to world reaction can only succeed if it is worldwide. We are deeply convinced that our international solidarity can safeguard humankind against the Fascist threat and the slide into the abyss of a world war. We declare it firmly here in Byelorussia. On this sacred land the sense of inseparable link between the past, present and future is particularly acute.

Dear friends, in the flaming days of the Second World War a great militant alliance was formed against Fascist barbarism – a union of communists and patriots, fighters against tyranny and democrats. It was created in spite of social and ideological differences, and different political and religious views. This is the bidding of the time. The new era of trials calls for unity of actions of all the people of goodwill.

Let us then unite in the struggle against neo-Nazism, reaction and militarism!

Long live the united front of progressive forces!

Long live the solidarity of the working peoples and nations in the struggle against Fascism!

Do not allow the world to be blown up!¡No pasarán! They shall not pass!

While Taiwan and the mainland have been separated for 70 years, efforts to reduce tension and increase communication and cooperation have never ceased. Cross-Strait relations have witnessed one breakthrough after another over the years, from the open letters to Taiwan compatriots to the development of the “One Country, Two Systems” policy and the basic strategy for national reunification; from the 1992 Consensus to the first-ever historic meeting between leaders from the two sides; from total separation to direct two-way links in postal mail, transportation, and trade; and from the early years, when Taiwan was expelled from the UN, to efforts to defeat attempts at Taiwan independence. 

As we now look upon cross-Strait relations from a new starting point, we can see an overwhelming and unstoppable historical trend for national reunification. In his speech at a conference commemorating the publication of the “Letter to Taiwan Compatriots” issued by the Standing Committee of the NPC 40 years ago, General Secretary Xi Jinping elaborated on China’s policies and positions in the new era for peaceful reunification, demonstrating political wisdom and historical responsibility for a solution to the question of Taiwan. Listening to his convincing words, we realize even more that national renewal and reunification represent a historical trend, a cause to fight for, and a goal that we all want to achieve. 

Peaceful reunification depends on national rejuvenation. The fact that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait remain separated is a wound left over from history. It is said that “the Taiwan question was created at a time when China was a weak and chaotic country, but it will end with the rejuvenation of the nation.” As the Chinese nation moves forward with its renewal, we will see a much stronger force for national reunification under more favorable economic, political, and cultural conditions. People in Taiwan will, of course, be a part of this great journey, joining hands with the people on the mainland in the drive to achieve their dream for national renewal. 

Integrated development is a sure path to peaceful reunification. In times of great changes, the mainland and Taiwan must work together through thick and thin as we move forward with a shared future and intertwined interests. To realize national reunification, it is essential for people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to have the same goals, which are in turn enabled by more communication and connectivity. As requested by General Secretary Xi Jinping, connections with Taiwan should be improved to the greatest extent possible. In particular, as soon as possible, we need to ensure water, electricity, and gas supplies to Kinmen and Matsu from the coastal areas of Fujian and build bridges wherever possible so that people in Taiwan may benefit from development in the mainland. We must also make sure that Taiwanese residents and businesses in the mainland enjoy equal treatment and access to equal, inclusive, and convenient public services.

Countercurrents against peaceful reunification must be curbed. General Secretary Xi Jinping stated categorically that nothing can change the fact that people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese with the same national identity, and nothing can stop the trend toward reunification of the Chinese nation. Taiwan independence goes against this unstoppable trend and will eventually be crushed by the wheels of history. Chinese must not fight against Chinese, and for this purpose we have made the greatest efforts for peaceful reunification with the utmost sincerity. However, we do not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures to prepare for possible interference by external forces and separatist activities by a handful of “Taiwan independence” separatists. Such measures would certainly not be targeted at the people of Taiwan.

The residence permit for Taiwan residents is a permit available to Taiwan residents who come to work, study, live, and travel in the mainland, with protection provided for the legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan residents on the mainland. On August 6, 2018, the General Office of the State Council published the procedures for the application and issuance of residence permits for Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan Residents, and the permit system took effect on September 1, 2018.

The Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) is a public organization established in Beijing on December 16, 1991, for the purpose of promoting peaceful reunification. Entrusted by the mainland authorities, it handles communications with its counterpart in Taiwan on issues regarding cross-Strait exchanges and is authorized to conclude relevant agreements. The Strait Exchange Foundation (SEF) was established in Taiwan on November 21, 1990. It is a non-governmental organization authorized by the Taiwanese authorities to handle cross-Strait affairs. Since the beginning of the 1990s, ARATS and SEF, under authorization from the authorities on both sides, have been holding talks and dialogues for the purpose of promoting economic, trade, scientific, technological, and cultural exchanges between the two sides. Pictured here are ARATS and SEF representatives signing official documents.  We may not be able to decide on what has happened in the past, but we can certainly seize the moment and choose our future. Seventy years have passed, and that is long enough to let bygones be bygones and leave bitterness, hate, and separation behind us. Looking to the future, we have every reason to believe that we can build the mutual trust that allays misgivings, that we can increase communication and clear up misunderstanding, and that we can let peace prevail over conflict. People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, working together, will usher in a bright future for the country as we realize the reunification of the Chinese nation and achieve the goal of national rejuvenation.

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.