In memory of Vladimir Ilich Lenin

When in February 2022 the Russian Federation intervened militarily in Ukraine, the different positions expressed by the communist parties confirmed the ideological, political and strategic crisis of the international communist movement; it is not a matter of a diversity of approaches, of plurality, but a question of principles, in which a double interpretation is not permissible: either one marches under the banner of proletarian internationalism, or one enters the baleful slope that the Second International in its day followed in decomposition in the outbreak of the First World War.

Reality, everything that is material, is knowable with the scientific approach of Marxism-Leninism, and of course the social process, social development; and if we start from the class point of view, we cannot reach two different or opposing conclusions, unless the approach is not classist, unless it is only formally said to start from our theory, but in reality it is not, either because some of its elements were diluted and others were blurred by revisionism or dogmatism, by subjectivism or eclecticism: this is the case, for example, with the Leninist theory of imperialism and also with the question of wars.

It is necessary to highlight some essential elements, without intending to make any analogy, of the situation within the Second International in the face of the imperialist war that broke out in 1914.

In the prelude to the first imperialist war, social democracy ratified its internationalist position, warning that its beginning would also be a basis for revolutionary outbursts, as in the case of the Franco-German war with the Commune and the Russo-Japanese war with the Revolution of 1905. Very clearly the Basel Manifesto explains that "the workers consider it a crime to shoot at each other for the benefit of the capitalists", calling for opposition to militarism and acting effectively. But at the outbreak of the war everything was betrayed, and German Social Democracy voted for war credits, with the argument that 30% of the German Army sympathized with socialism, other arguments, some very strange such as that of Adler and the Austrians, but in a general sense, the Second International went bankrupt replacing Marxism with social chauvinism. Such a substitution, sudden and untimely like all qualitative change – but not unforeseeable – was the result of a gradual decomposition by the consistent work of revisionism and reformism that undermined the revolutionary political positions of the worker’s parties, and also why it prevented them from understanding the transition from free exchange to monopoly within the capitalist mode of production. One can see in the debate on imperialism the great difference, for example between Lenin and Kautsky, between considering this stage, either a phase of decomposition and a prelude to the Socialist Revolution, or a progressive factor for universal peace, as was theorized of “ultra-imperialism”.

Against the tide, a minority within the international workers' movement knew how to fulfill their responsibility, without ceasing to fight, and to face the daily vicissitudes of the class struggle, to defend Marxist theory against the apostates and to develop it creatively, especially the Bolshevik Party and Lenin, in all the essentials and taking it to a higher point, and the Spartacists, who, in spite of their honest efforts in some matters, hesitated, but in the essential matters had a correct position; the theoretical development of the Bolsheviks met the test of history successfully, with the Great October Socialist Revolution, and unfortunately one of the shortcomings of the German Revolution of 1919 was that the Party, as they conceived it, did not have the characteristics that were required to do so. Both the Bolsheviks and the Spartacists, who had a good degree of organizational development and real influence among the proletariat, did not hesitate to work in conjunction with much less developed organizational efforts, which were at the level of groups, but acted on principle, at a time of generalized ideological putrefaction. Some of those groups which in Zimmerwald and Kienthal [1] supported the internationalists and Lenin, and which helped to lay the foundations of the Third International, later became parties, and others were never able to abandon their group culture, like the case of the one in which Gorter and Panekoek participated in; but at the critical moment they positioned themselves correctly. Now that we can appreciate the bankruptcy of some communist parties that previously seemed to be heading in the right direction, that by abruptly turning to the camp of opportunism, cause currents to emerge within their own ranks determined not to renounce revolutionary positions or proletarian internationalism, it is necessary to keep in mind the criterion that the attitude towards imperialist war in moments of confusion is the touchstone.

It is not a minor fact that such a period of crisis and bankruptcy in the worker’s movement is also a period of vital theoretical and strategic development of Marxism, the crucible of Marxism-Leninism: in economy, the state, and programmatic objectives, which opened the way to the historical epoch of the transition from capitalism to socialism.

To focus on the class nature of war then as now, is the crossroads of different paths, and not of different paths to the same objective, but of different fighting positions in the class struggle, either with the working class and its immediate and historical interests or with the class domination of the regime of exploitation. And in that point the theoretical efforts of the revolutionary Marxists allowed the following conclusions: war is the continuation of politics by other means, war is a result of irreconcilable clashes and antagonisms between the different capitalist countries, and as long as capitalism exists wars will be inevitable, therefore one issue is to maintain a constant denouncement and confrontation with militarism and another a utopian and sterile pacifism that thinks war can be avoided without the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism; for a certain period, while in the present mode of production – the last in which there will be an exploiting class – the process of concentration and centralization had not yet displaced free trade, some wars could be just, but from the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, as Lenin said, wars were imperialist on both sides.

In 1914 neither in Russia, Austria-Hungary, France nor England was there a just side, it was not a just war on any side, and therefore, with Lenin at the head the internationalist revolutionaries specified as their task not to place themselves under someone else's flag, but to uphold class independence.

Today some argue that the war is not imperialist on both sides, but that there is a just side, despite the recognition that the countries involved are capitalist, and that capitalism is in its highest phase, imperialism.

For example, it is argued that Russia has the right to defend its sovereignty, or that it is an anti-fascist war; Fallacies!; what a sad position of some CPs and provocative groups such as the World Anti-imperialist Platform, which emerged with the specific task of attacking the revolutionary communist parties.

For revolutionaries, the outbreak of war has brought to agenda the discussions on the degree of development of capitalism and the meaning of imperialism, on strategy and tactics, on the role of communists and the tasks of the period. But to address this discussion, it is necessary to characterize the nature of the war in Ukraine and its meaning.

The imperialist war being waged in Ukraine has its roots in the triumph of the counterrevolution in the USSR and the restoration of capitalism, in this region the inter-imperialist clashes sharpened rapidly, and had their central moments with: the decision to strengthen economic ties with Russia to the detriment of the US and the EU, and the later intervention of the US-EU bloc in 2014 with the establishment of a government sympathetic to its interests; Russia's response by annexing the Crimean peninsula, and in 2022 the formal start of the war.

The outbreak of the war in Ukraine has marked the beginning of a new phase in the inter-imperialist dispute, where each side is willing to sacrifice entire peoples in search of securing the maximum share of profit, and where the shadow of the use of nuclear weapons is stirred, and the representatives of the bourgeoisie on both sides openly speak of the necessary preparations for general war. At the heart of the question of war are the antagonisms of imperialist poles and in particular that of China and the US, and in a derivative way the clash between Russia and the US-EU.

For Lenin, imperialism is the highest stage of the development of capitalism, a phase characterized by the process of economic concentration and centralization, the phase of the domination of monopolies and the closure of free competition characteristic of the previous period, a phase in which not only the export of commodities but also the export of capital play a central role. In Lenin's analysis this phase cannot be evaluated only as the unilateral development of some countries, it must be examined as a whole as a phase that is reached by capitalism, where all countries are linked together under the law of uneven development. Lenin observed the development of this phenomenon at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, at a time when some countries began to reach the imperialist phase and it began to link the relations of capitalism as a whole. Lenin pointed out the problem of dependent, colonial, and semi-colonial countries, but the development of the productive forces and the class struggle (where the USSR and the communists played a decisive role) has changed that world. Countries that at the beginning of the 20th century had a low development of their productive forces (such as Brazil, Mexico, or Australia) or were subject to the colonial or semi-colonial yoke (such as the countries of the Asian Southeast) have now undergone an accelerated process of development and are inserted into complex bonds of interdependence. In many of these countries, history shows the birth of the bourgeoisie and its development by peaceful and violent means that has led them to occupy important positions.

It is necessary to distance ourselves from analyses that treat imperialism in a reductionist way, considering it not a phase of the general development of capitalism, but a stage in the development of some countries or a series of aggressive foreign policies that lead to identifying the anti-imperialist struggle only with the struggle against certain manifestations of some capitalist countries, a view that on many occasions reduces the struggle against imperialism to only the struggle against US imperialism, under this conception groups of communists have opened the door to unprincipled alliances and to be left as a tow of by the bourgeois pole opposed to the US, without advancing the socialist revolution one centimeter.

The consequent anti-imperialist struggle is the struggle against the monopolies, the struggle against the bourgeoisie in each country. In a moment of imperialist war, the only consequent revolutionary is one who acts for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, as Lenin pointed out: "the struggle against the government itself which is waging an imperialist war must not stop at the possibility of the defeat of the country as a result of revolutionary agitation." (The Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Groups Abroad, 1915)

Having pointed out the problem of characterizing the stage of capitalist development, let us look at the question of the war in Ukraine.

With the triumph of the counter-revolution in the USSR, capitalist relations developed rapidly in both Russia and the Ukraine, mounted on the technical achievements and productive capacity of socialist industry, social ownership passed on to private hands that quickly concentrated wealth resulting in monopolies that control sectors of the economy, and as a whole have in the State their representative. The working class of Russia and Ukraine was severely affected by the dismantling of socialism and the restoration of capitalism, the loss of social gains such as: free health and education, housing, 8-hour workday, guaranteed retirement for all workers, elimination of unemployment, social security, important steps for the abolition of women's inequality, . the direct election from workplaces and the right to revoke them; in addition unknown phenomena reappeared, such as the formation of an industrial reserve army, the reappearance of scourges such as misery, the resurgence of exploitation, etc. The re-establishment of capitalism also meant the division and confrontation of the Russian and Ukrainian people, peoples who lived together for decades, building a socialist society, and who fought together in the Second World War against fascism. At the same time, a systematic operation has been implemented to discredit the achievements of socialism.

In the process of re-establishing capitalism, both Russia and the other countries that made up the USSR integrated into the imperialist system, but they integrated into different positions because of the law of uneven development.

At the same time that the nascent Russian and Ukrainian bourgeoisie were established, the US and EU monopolies claimed their share of the spoils. Political, diplomatic, military, and economic alliances were established, several countries joined the European Union and NATO (Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic in 1999; Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania in 2004) propping up an imperialist pole.

The Russian capitalists had to give up positions because they did not have a favorable balance of forces on the international terrain. But little by little Russia – now with the full reign of capitalist relations – managed to carve out a space within the capitalist dispute, its monopolies and in particular those dedicated to energy, gained strength and positions within the EU markets, while militarily initiating a series of campaigns such as in Georgia, with Abkhazia and South Ossetia (1992-94 and 2008); interventions in Syria and the Middle East; the repression of worker’s demonstrations in Kazakhstan led by the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which brought together troops from Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan; and the case of Ukraine since 2014. Today Russia has a high level of development, being the eleventh economy measured by nominal GDP and with powerful monopolies such as Gazprom.

At the same time, new capitalist competitors emerge and begin to dispute the control of markets, raw materials, transport nodes and trade. In particular, China has become the second largest economy in the last decade, displacing countries such as France, Germany and Japan, and with an objective tendency to displace the US from the leading position within the imperialist system. China is the main participant in the BRICS and promotes projects such as the New Silk Road. It is clear that the US and China are competing for supremacy, in clashes that are expressed on various fronts, which at times escalate to trade wars, establishment of tariffs, prohibition of the use of certain technologies, rupture and formation of new agreements, military escalates, etc.

It was convenient for the Russian bourgeoisie to establish alliances with Chinese capital and the emerging capitalist economies grouped in BRICS, as well as other regional alliances such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which were expressed in grandiloquent statements such as the one emanating from the official meeting of the leaders of Russia and China in the framework of the Winter Olympics in 2022, where they proclaimed that friendship and cooperation between the two has no limits or forbidden zones.

After the crisis of 2009, capitalism sought to place its weight on the backs of the working class at the international level, in the developed countries there were years of adjustments and openly anti-worker policies, at the same time the capitalists sought to alleviate the crisis by seeking to control new markets, resources, transport nodes, etc, however, unlike the the 19th century, there are no virgin lands where capitalism can nest, this conditioned a rapid development of conflicts between the different imperialist poles, which were expressed with trade wars, diplomatic jabs , economic sanctions, and the outbreak of wars.

In Ukraine, since the triumph of the counterrevolution in the USSR, there has been capitalist development marked by its asymmetrical interdependence with Russia and the dispute over markets, natural resources, etc., by the bourgeoisie of the EU and the US. This dispute has developed in Ukraine and explains the political upheavals of recent decades.

In Ukraine during the first years of the 21st century, a policy was developed that sought to ensure maximum profit, agreements were reached with Russia, Europe and the United States, however, while the contradictions between the two blocs were developing, that could not be maintained indefinitely, by the second decade Ukraine found itself in the dilemma a of choosing between an Association Agreement with the EU or one within the framework of the Eurasian Customs Union, promoted by Russia.

In 2010 Viktor Yanukovych, a politician supported by the bourgeoisie with pro-Russian tendencies, came to power, with his arrival the struggle of the different tendencies of the bourgeoisie in Ukraine intensified. In 2014, Yanukovych's government took steps backwards in the implementation of the agreement with the European Union and proceeded to strengthen ties with Russia. Part of the bourgeoisie with active support from the US and the EU staged a coup, reversing plans to deepen the economic integration of Russia and Ukraine, in these maneuvers they used nationalist and philofascist groups, and gave free rein to repression against any communist expression. Russia quickly responded by declaring the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. At the same time that both sides began operations to maintain control of eastern Ukraine, Russia recognized the so-called "People's Republics" of Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region and under the pretext of self-defense and the fight against fascism, as many steps were taken towards war, a war that finally began with Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 22, 2022.

The war in Ukraine is part of the general escalation of confrontations between the imperialist poles, which are heading towards wars of increasing scale.

After the counter-revolution in the USSR and other socialist countries, the forces of the monopolies were unleashed in their ruthless competition for control of the world's markets and resources. During the 90’s, the United States and the European powers took advantage of the situation to expand their economic and military influence in the world, now that the socialist dam had disappeared. The First Gulf War and the wars in the former Yugoslavia are the most emblematic cases of that period. For a time, the United States took advantage of its supremacy in the world economy and the temporary end of socialism to expand its intervention around the world. It did not do this without contradictions, even from its own Euro-Atlantic allies.

After several decades of ideological softening within the international communist movement, the shock generated by the temporary retreat of socialism in Eastern Europe and the USSR led to serious confusion in many Communist Parties. Old and erroneous positions on imperialism began to penetrate the international communist movement, for example, the stripping away of the economic and historical essence of imperialism, as the highest and final phase of capitalism, and unilaterally considering only its political-military effects, such as the aggressive and expansionist character of certain powers. In this way, imperialism became synonymous with the United States, and if anything, the role of some European powers was recognized, at the level of subordinate allies. Kautsky's positions, refuted by Lenin and the Communist International, resurfaced within the workers' movement.

However, the bourgeoisie and the monopolies that triumphed in the counter-revolution in Russia and the former Soviet republics were gradually strengthened, taking advantage of the great development of the productive forces that occurred under socialism. Initially, its state representation was limited to defending its control in the sphere of the former Soviet republics, such as the Chechen wars or intervention in the conflicts in Abkhazia, Ossetia, and Transnistria. However, after 20 years of strengthening, capitalist Russia began to have a greater international military intervention, first in the war in Syria, then in Ukraine, as well as in Africa with the Wagner mercenary group.

In the case of China, the capitalist relations of production that had been advancing since the 1970s had a strong boost during the early 21st century, particularly with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. China, which in 1990 was only the 11th largest economy in the world in terms of GDP, went on to dispute supremacy in the world system from 2010 onwards. This accelerated capital development was accompanied by a strengthening of the Chinese bourgeoisie within the CCP, and the need for Chinese monopolies to compete for control of routes, resources, and markets in the world. The Silk Road is a clear example of this need. To a lesser extent, other countries that had less capitalist development in the previous century, with a predominantly agricultural economy, rapidly took off in their capitalist development within 30 years, following the law of uneven development discovered by Lenin. Countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico, and Turkey have even surpassed former colonial countries, and have formed strong monopolies capable of defending their economic interests, at least in the regional context.

These transformations of the international context over the last 30 years are nothing more than the concrete form in which the development of present-day capitalism in its monopolistic phase, that is to say, imperialism, manifests itself. And this development is the basis of all current military conflicts and of the increasingly latent imperialist war between the United States and China for world supremacy. Faced with this scenario, an essential task of communists is the implacable struggle against all political and ideological positions that seek to lead the working class and the peoples of the world to serve as cannon fodder for current and future imperialist wars. The main task on the ideological plane is to explain to the workers that the origin of diplomatic conflicts, military skirmishes and imperialist wars ultimately come from the same place: the competition between the monopolies and their state representatives for control of trade routes, resources, markets, and investments.

This means breaking spears with those who seek to create illusions of a monopoly capitalism without wars, of a lasting peace under imperialism. These positions are defended by both the political actors of the United States and the European powers, with the possibility of a "European Union for peace" or a "NATO without military plans or offensive systems". But also, by those who defend the illusion of a peaceful "multipolar world" under capitalism. These ideas are very pernicious because under the promise of a future imperialist peace, hides the need to position oneself openly in favor of the military strategy of one or another imperialist bloc.

The example of the current war in Ukraine shows that peace under imperialism is nothing more than the preparation phase for a broader and bloodier war. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a new phase in the internal war that had begun since 2014. Zelensky and Merkel's statements showed that there was no real intention by NATO or Ukraine to implement the measures of the Minsk Agreement. It was just a truce to improve their balance of forces, rearm and train the Ukrainian army and assimilate fascist gangs, such as Azov. For its part, the Russian Federation, as Surkov, the former adviser to the Russian president, has confessed, also did not believe in the stability of the Minsk Agreement. Instead, they used that time to eliminate the independent elements in the Donbas self-defense groups and assimilate the military and administrative leadership of the "People's Republics," under an alliance with the regional bourgeoisie. As Commander Ernesto Che Guevara warned us in 1961, "We can't trust imperialism, not even a little bit, at all." This applies not only to the United States, but to all countries where the power of the monopolies reigns, because imperialist bestiality "does not have a certain border, nor does it belong to a certain country (...) because it is the nature of imperialism that bestializes men, that turns them into bloodthirsty beasts."

Within this struggle is the frontal struggle against the ideological manifestations of imperialism, such as terrorism, racism, nationalism, or the cosmopolitanism of the bourgeoisie that seeks to divide the working class and pit it against each other. In the face of this, the workers must be shown that their only natural allies are the workers and peoples of other nations.

On the political plane, one of the main tasks for which communists must fight is the withdrawal of their own country from imperialist unions, blocs, and treaties. Be they economic, political, or military. These imperialist unions increase the strength of the monopolies, both to subjugate their respective workers and popular sectors, and to fight with the rest of the imperialist blocs. They make the struggle for the improvement of living conditions, and ultimately the struggle for socialist revolution, more difficult. In addition, they become a magnet for possible attacks in possible future imperialist wars. In the case of our country, the Communist Party of Mexico has as one of its main strategic objectives the exit of Mexico from the USMCA, formerly NAFTA. In addition, we oppose the attempts of the Mexican bourgeoisie and its governments to send Mexican military personnel into external military conflicts.

At this point there is an important issue in the international communist movement which is the participation of communists in bourgeois governments. The current experience of the war in Ukraine is a clear example of how wrong these positions are. Some parties defend participation in these governments under the idea that in this way they will be able to push governments towards positions in favor of the working class and popular sectors. But in reality, it turns out to be the opposite , they become accomplices of the anti-worker and anti-popular policies that these managements necessarily have to implement in the face of the capitalist crisis. The bourgeois state, as the collective administrator of the interests of the ruling class, exercises its diplomacy and its international policy according to the objective needs of its monopolies. That is why social democratic governments such as those of Portugal, Spain or Chile finance or send weapons to the reactionary government of Zelensky, despite any phraseology. That is why López Obrador's government in Mexico is strengthening its relations with the United States and Canada and assuring that Mexico will position itself in favor of the U.S. in the trade competition with China, despite some demagogic winks that it sometimes makes. That is why we communists must oppose all bourgeois administrations, whether they be reactionary, liberal, or social-democratic. Supporting or participating in these governments has shown in practice that it does not strengthen the workers' and people's movement, on the contrary it demobilizes it, and leaves it inert in the face of bourgeois ideology.

An immediate task in the context of open wars, such as Ukraine, is to fight against the shipment of war materiel and financial support to either side. To not permit the land, sea, or air of the country to serve as a fulcrum for imperialist wars, which includes the struggle for the exit of all foreign military bases. This is an important issue for the Latin American context given the large presence of U.S. bases, particularly in Colombia. But this must also extend to the presence of law enforcement and intelligence agents and agencies, as in the case of Mexico, where the DEA, CIA, and FBI have a history of impunity within the country, carrying out counterinsurgency work and even allying with drug cartels.

Finally, a primary task of communists is solidarity with the struggle of the peoples. Proletarian internationalism in all its manifestations is a crucial element in the struggle against imperialist wars. Faced with this task, we must always be on guard against the subtle ways in which bourgeois ideology tries to seep in, for example, in the case of Palestine, through the category of terrorism seeks to criminalize and de facto deny the right of the Palestinian people to use all forms and methods of struggle for their liberation against the occupier.

But undoubtedly, as during the first great imperialist war, and as two common declarations on the issue of the imperialist war in Ukraine have emphasized, the central thing is to ensure the political independence of the communist parties, both from the two imperialist groups in dispute, and from the absurd position of considering that this war has a just side. It is imperialist on both sides and therefore we cannot raise those alien flags.