Contribution of the Communist Party of Sweden

The War in the Ukraine and the experience and conclusion of the communists

 

Almost two years have passed since the start of the imperialist Russian invasion of the Ukraine, which forced a rapid development unto the communist movement. This development has shown that a large part of the international movement has been unable to cope with a situation characterised by sharper contradictions, and a critical factor in this has been a faulty conception of the phenomenon of imperialism.

The development within the communist movement the last two years has shown that there are two main ways in which to view imperialism: either as a system, as the highest stage of development of the capitalist system as such, or as a stage that a given capitalist country attains at a given level of development, a view which entails the separation between capitalist and imperialist countries.

The first view, which regards imperialism as the highest state of development of the capitalist system as such, cannot recognize any qualitative difference between the different capitalist countries, making the very idea of an imperialist state moot - instead, it sees the laws of capitalist accumulation at work in every capitalist state, forcing it to act to secure market shares, transport routes, raw materials and geo-strategic positions for its own monopolies. This view necessarily takes into account the class situation in every country and facilitates a class-based position in every conflict and contradiction.

However, this view does not equate every capitalist nation, but arranges them into a hierarchy based on strength, capitalist development and maturity, among other factors. We must recognize these differences, but we cannot regard them as qualitative, which means that between the capitalist nations of the world, we see a difference in degree, not in type.

This view stands in contrast with the second view, of which it is unfortunately not unfair to say that a majority of the communist parties of the world encompass. This view regards imperialism as something that each individual country reaches at a certain stage of development; a country goes from being capitalist to being imperialist. Very seldom are objective criteria presented in support of this view, which thus must remain scientifically dubious - because, to take one example, at what point in the process of concentration and centralization of capital does a capitalist country transition into imperialism?

It is no coincidence that the parties that have taken the side of Russia in the imperialist conflict regarding the Ukraine espouse this view. The separation of capitalist from imperialist nations is politically useful for this purpose, as it allows one to adopt a position in which the mere capitalist nations can become progressive in relation to the dominance of the imperialist nations. It makes possible the idea of “the lesser evil” on the world stage.

In addition to the idea of “the lesser evil”, this separation opens up a Pandora’s box of opportunism, which is not to say that every party that has adopted such a view necessarily must adopt a certain set of opportunist positions, but rather that the door to these positions has been opened.

In connection with the idea of the separation of capitalist and imperialist nations, we see concepts such as “the Global South” or “multipolarity”, as well as a number of ideas concerning anti-imperialism completely detached from any notion of anti-capitalism.

Looking at all of these notions, we see that what they have in common is that they objectively translate into a support for the weaker capitalists in every given situation, because what does the idea about “the Global South” entail, other than the positioning of communist parties in support of weaker capitalist economies, that have traditionally been colonies or semi-colonies?

What does the idea of “multipolarity” mean, other than the positioning of communist parties in support of weaker capitalist economies, accompanied by the illusion that peace is attainable under capitalism and that you can get the runaway train that is capitalism back on its tracks?

What does the idea of “anti-imperialism” become, when capitalist nations now can act “anti-imperialist”?

It becomes support for the weaker capitalists.

In the end, this idea concerns a separation of capitalist from capitalist, because of course, no one can deny that the imperialists are also capitalists. This mistake, because we are convinced it is a mistake, unfortunately has a long tradition within the communist movement and it is easily traceable to the era of the Comintern, where Georgi Dimitrov spoke about “the extreme imperialists” and “the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital” in relation to fascism. These utterances presuppose the existence of less extreme imperialists, of less reactionary, less chauvinistic and less imperialist (!) elements of finance capital.

In turn, this opened the door to viewing parts of the capitalist class, either in one's own country or internationally, more benevolently and favourably. We must recognize that this theoretical mistake is one aspect of the adjustment of communist parties to life under capitalism.

Certainly, there are many conclusions to be drawn from the imperialist war in the Ukraine, but in regards to the question of imperialism, we must acknowledge that the war has exposed a deep divide between the parties that adhere to a revolutionary view of imperialism and those that trample it underfoot to the benefit of one side in the imperialist contradictions.

It is vital that we deepen our analysis of imperialism, that we firmly position our analysis in the tradition of revolutionary and scientific Marxist-Leninist analysis, as this is the only possible way in which we can be able to position ourselves in the interests of not only the working people of the world, but in the interests of socialism and the revolution.