RCO Central Committee member Eliza MacDonald explains the reasoning behind her decision to vote against the RCO ratifying the CPGB-PCC’s statement on the struggle against war and capitalism, titled “Establshing a principled left“.
I would like to explain why I voted no to the RCO endorsing the “Danger of World War III: the Communist Response. I applaud the statement for acknowledging the role of the USA and NATO in the War in Ukraine and I stand in solidarity with their call for Communists to work for the revolutionary defeat of the NATO war machine. I disagree with their unqualified call for revolutionary defeatism on both sides given the current context of the war and the world system. In the context of a fully formed inter-imperialist conflict this would be appropriate however this situation is different and requires a modified approach.
I agree on the first and second statement in full. In statement three it is encouraging to see that the statement does not explicitly condemn the Russian-backed resistance in the Donbass and Crimea prior to the Russian invasion. The antecedents of the invasion of Ukraine lie in the anti-democratic and anti-communist defeat of the working class with the Maidan coup brought about by the pro-EU oligarchs, the fascists, and the CIA. The victory of the coup was associated with unrest including that of workers which was met with fascist violence, most notably in the massacre of communists and trade unionists in the Odessa trade union hall in 2014. A further democratic defeat for the workers was legal decommunization banning nominally or otherwise communist and socialist parties initially from running for office, and then the imposing of full conditions of illegality including the jailing of comrades. The people of Crimea chose to cede (no matter the flaws in the referendum it is widely acknowledged this move had majority support) and join the Russian Federation. In the Donbass civil resistance became a civil war which rapidly became a proxy war with NATO supporting the new Ukrainian regime and the Russians supporting the Donbass rebels.
Point five begins with the statement that “The US administration is pursuing regime change in Moscow and the break-up of the Russian Federation” which is correct and a meaningful possibility. The military defeat of Russia and Ukraine joining NATO is an existential threat to the people of Russia and given that the conflict has at least in part a defensive character. All communists should support the workers taking power when their party has majority support however this does not equate to a call for the collapse of the Russian Federation in the current context. Such a collapse would most likely lead to both Western neocolonial interests carving up the country in a series of ethnostates. The destruction of the developmentalist bourgeoisie state in Russia and its replacement with a Yeltsin-style Western backed state, or series of ethnostates, would likely lead to a campaign of deindustrialisation which would also be counter to the interests of the global working class. Such a possibility is a major step backwards for the working class globally. The further encirclement of Russia by NATO poses not only a lethal threat to Putin but also the working class within Russia and resistance to this cannot be equated with NATO creeping ever Eastward.
There may well be validity in the fact that Russia is currently a sub-imperial power with some aspects of imperial relationships being present between itself and less powerful nations. The economy is not dominated by the extraction of surplus value from neo-colonies and hence the country cannot be considered a fully fledged imperialist power. While the war in part is a desperate attempt to wrangle Russian oligarchs back into power in Ukraine that does not negate its primary defensive form.
The Statement also misunderstood why many communists see the progressive potential in a multipolar world. It is not that a multipolar world is more peaceful but that communist parties have only taken power under conditions of multipolarity or bipolarity whether that be in the period of intense inter-imperial competition from the First World War, to the end of the Second or in the Cold War. The political and military fragmentation of capital provides the workers with opportunities to build and seize power. Inter-power conflict will also provide fledgling democratic republics an opportunity to evade immediate economic isolation and strangulation before the revolution can be spread. The multipolar world is the rope from which the international workers will hang the bourgeoisie.
The war Putin’s government is currently fighting clearly has a mixed character. While being primarily a war of national defence it also has a secondary reactionary character of being a nationalist war aiming to improve the sub imperial advantage over Ukrainian workers previously enjoyed by the Russian Capitalists. This war is neither fully an imperialist war or a war of national liberation, it’s a hybrid war that requires its own approach. Russia’s strategic bombing, targeting of infrastructure and annexation of territories is reactionary. The working class and their communist party are the only force that can finally vanquish imperialism. Recognising this fact does not mean communists should call for the total defeat of the Russian Federation in the current circumstances which would forestall the possibility of a new workers democratic republic.
For the total defeat of the USA and NATO in the war in Ukraine!
Support defensive actions against the USA and NATO in Eastern Europe!
Oppose imperial and sub-imperial interests!
Turn the national defensive war into a global people’s war.
Relevant context:
Establishing a principled left – Communist Party of Great Britain’s Provisional Central Committee
Against Global Popular Fronts – a response to Eliza MacDonald’s Minority Statement – Edith Fischer
PARTISAN! 
You must be logged in to post a comment.