This huge power balance reversal in the whole planet in favour of the “red”-brown neo-hitlerism, the general headquarters of which sit at the Kremlin, is being hidden by the social-fascists posing as the Left (in Greece: SYRIZA, pseudoCPG, ANTARSYA, “m-l” renegades of Maoism and traditional Trotskyites) who have been loudly denouncing the US-Western interventions as a so-called manifestation of the advancing American autocracy, not in order to stop them but to help Hitler-Putin reap the fruits of all those interventions and invasions.
To achieve this they must first conceal the fact that, as we proved in the first part, those interventions have always held Russia’s approval (how decisive that was became evident in Syria) and, second, conceal that on the power vacuum caused by the US-Western interventions in all those countries Hitler-Putin’s and his friends’ men have seized one by one the positions of power, by sometimes disguising themselves as pro-western democrats, sometimes as anti-imperialists friends of the people. This isn’t and could not have been a series of unfortunate choices and coincidences. It remains to be explained how come that the once almighty western (and particularly American) diplomatic and military machine has ended up working methodically to dig itself a pit a mile deep and a foot wide and promote in world scale the positions of the Russian superpower, which raises the anti-liberal anti-western banner of fascism everywhere in the world.
A necessary clarification regarding the national question in Russia and in general
We must first clarify that when Russia yells “the West wants to split me”, except posing as the victim of an imaginary conspiracy, it cheatingly presents every just national movement of the peoples bound together within the Russian Federation by force as a foreign-motivated attempt at a reactionary fragmentation, organized and instigated from outside, like the one she’s been perpetrating in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Long-suffering Chechnya was waging such a just struggle for national liberation for over a decade to finally be defeated by the inhumane and genocidal violence of the Russian army, the islamofascists’ provocations and western treason. This kind of struggle is continuation of the national struggles against tsarism once waged by the Ukrainian and Georgian, Polish and Turkic democrats and patriots, a struggle that met with the resolute support of the Bolsheviks and Lenin, who for the first time in the history of those nations recognized their existence, gave them statehood and mostly their right to self-determination, that is to independence, in the context of the then newly formed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
We stand resolute against any movement for the fragmentation and in effect dissolution of the modern national states, as they have been formed originating from the first bourgeois revolutions to assume their final shape in the anti-Nazi struggle of the peoples of Europe and Asia, and in the anti-imperialist revolutions of the Third World. Yet we equally resolutely defend the right to separation of every nation that takes part in a multinational state union against its will, because such unions are not acceptable according to democratic principles unless they are based on a peaceful and voluntarily concluded agreement. We today point at Russian neohitlerism as the main force to blame for crunching both of these democratic principles. Moscow, on the one hand, continues to keep whole nations, such as the Chechen one, chained; nations the historical and social development of which have brought them to the point of waging a prolonged all-people’s struggle for independence from the Russian Federation. On the other hand, it triggers an ethic-religious racist civil war in the countries in its path, by waking every forgotten or dormant ethnic, religious, cultural contradiction among the people, by stirring up national hatred in voluntary multinational unions such as Spain, Great Britain and the European Union, and by discovering oppressed nations in ethnic and cultural minorities that, far from living an independent national life, have historically followed the big nations alongside which they were brought by history.
The liberal bourgeoisie paralyzed by the Nazi attack
It is not only in the national question that the Nazis blame their enemies for their own misdeeds. Actually, they apply this principle on each small or big pace of theirs. Thus, the German Nazis had warned of an alleged conspiracy for the subjugation of the peoples by the “Jewish-Bolsheviks” and the “Jewish-capitalists”, while they were the ones who conspired with Italian fascism and the Japanese imperial militarism to do exactly that. They shouted about a “plan for the extermination of the German people”, while they were organizing the Holocaust of the Jews and the extermination of the Slavic peoples. They depicted the true or imaginary enemies of theirs as the coldest-blooded monsters, while at the same time they were training every German, man, woman, elder or child to become torturers and murderers at the school of genocide, involved in and guilty of the greatest crime in history. Such a trick could paralyze the liberal bourgeois intelligentsia who, attached more to form rather than to essence, so as not to sound like the nazi, populist, and fascist conspiracy theorists that it generally dislikes, prefers to remain silent about the true conspiracies the latter hatch.
The profound reason why the western-type liberal bourgeoisie thinks this way is that, as they see in the economic field the dominance of the spontaneity of the free competition of the market, so they see in politics the dominance of the free competition of the parties (or of the states in the international arena), where also the economic power which every one of themrepresents plays the decisive role. It is actually contrary to the logic of the liberal bourgeoisie that a relatively small group of monopolists could first seize political power and thence could dominate over rival monopolies, even over economically stronger ones, through non-economic methods of political-military state violence. Such bourgeois fascists come to power in countries that, late-comers as they are at the table of imperialist competition for the division of the world, due to historical circumstances, they cannot defeat their imperialist competitors and win the world hegemony through economic means, as the latter have the advantage: they possess a huge financial power, they control for a start the sources of raw material and energy and the trade routes, and have decades of accumulated experience in the development of industrial production, scientific research and technology.
Such was the path of war the axis had followed in WW2, as all three big imperialisms that comprised it (Germany, Italy, Japan) had reached their modern capitalist national formation no earlier than in 1871, with the unification of the till then fragmented states-survivals of the feudal middle ages. Marx-Engels-Lenin considered this unification, which in the case of Germany took the form of a national war against the Russian and French oppression, progressive and necessary, even if it wasn’t actually carried out by the methods of revolutionary democracy, but under guidance of the Prussian aristocracy of land represented by Bismarck.
Such path is for the same reasons obligatory for the Russian and Chinese bourgeoisies, also late-comers at the table of world distribution. It is obligatory for them this time not because it has taken them long to emerge from their feudal middle ages, but because they came to power not earlier than in 1956 and 1978 respectively, by deceitfully overthrowing both the two great socialist revolutions of the previous century. Right in order to eliminate their disadvantage and undermine the dominant economic position of the older imperialists (USA, Europe, Japan) in the planet so as to achieve the world hegemony, as is the aim of every imperialism, they are obliged to act the way Hitler’s Germany, imperial Japan and fascist Italy had previously acted so as to undermine the political-economic dominance of the much stronger Britain-France-US: they are obliged to launch a world war against them. Mao Zedong, the greatest Marxist-Leninist of our era, had predicted this path in principle and considered it obligatory for the imperialist in deeds but socialist only in words Russia-dominated Brezhnev’s USSR, and outlined this position in his noted Theory of the Three Worlds. This concept has being scandalously confirmed today, when since the transformation of the once socialist China into a social-imperialist country, Russia and China have formed a hitler-type fascist Axis and have turned from the victims of the old hitler’s Axis to the perpetrators of a new attack.
Like in WW2, in this already prepared war the main target of the fascist Axis, according to the more and more confirmed in practice Maoist analysis, won’t be the colonial conquest of industrially underdeveloped countries of the periphery but of overdeveloped industrial countries, at first of the relatively militarily and politically weaker imperialist countries (Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada) as the first step to a final countdown between the Axis and the US superpower.
Those two imperialisms cannot realize a plan for global dominance unless they have amassed, organized and coordinated all economic, diplomatic, and military resources of their states at the highest level, and in such a way that this amassment would not be apprehended on time by the future victims of the attack, so that the latter could be encircled and taken by surprise. A modern fascist conspiracy is nothing more than this high level of amassment of economic, diplomatic and military resources, which is as such only possible for imperialist states where the political, economic and military power are controlled by a more or less solid state-monopolistic bloc and by its corresponding political-police core.
Such newly-born, but also rising, imperialist states, which naturally seek for a brutal redistribution of the world, are obligatorily fascist ones, as either their target or the means for its fulfilment require the use of racist-cannibalistic violence at home and mostly abroad. This is the case because the colonization of countries and peoples with a relatively high level of democratic spirit and character could only be achieved through a general ideological attack on the most fundamental principles of democracy, and through a practical application of this attack which is the use of absolute and most arbitrary terror. One may already notice this process virtually in the monstrosity shown by the Russian-Chinese axis and its allies in their small-scale preparation wars (Russian barbarism in Chechnya and Syria, Chinese barbarism in Tibet and Xinjiang, Serbian ethnic cleansing in Bosnia), while at a theoretical level this could be seen in the neonazi Eurasianist theories of Putin’s envoy Dugin. Those theories (see the so-called “4th political theory” of Dugin ) turn, in their very core, with fierce brutality against western enlightenment and safeguard a moral relativism in which cannibalism is of an equal (and in practice higher) position than modern democratic civilization. If the western imperialists don’t make an issue of such barbarism and in fact do not resist it, this happens not only due to their direct interest in appeasing the fascist monsters and cooperating with them so that their markets won’t be disturbed, but also because they all have more or less used colonial violence in the past when their own dominance was at risk, although not to such an extent or to such a degree.
That’s why the western liberal imperialist states, divided internally but also between them by the endless fierce antagonisms of their monopolies – which means that their corresponding centres of state power are also divided – cannot effectively compete with the eastern fascist monopolist bloc of Russia-China, basically on the political-diplomatic level, in peacetime. This is one reason why this bloc is on the strategic rise. Of course, this bloc does not hesitate to denounce the liberal imperialists as plotters hatching its encirclement and annihilation and entrust to the liberals the impossible for them central planning of a global conspiracy, having an alleged secret, imaginary but historically and propagandistically elaborate so-called “center” of every liberalism, but also of every truly internationalist Marxism, which is the Jews. So as to prevent being recognized as the successors to the old hitlerians, the new ones denounce the “Jewish conspirators” not as such but as Zionists, while they are covered even more deeply by pretending to be their friends and at that they are strengthening chauvinism in Israel (see the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by Putin-Trump) in order to make the peoples hate the latter and to prepare as far as possible their domestic and international public opinion for a new Ηolocaust. At the same time, the eastern fascists and their buddies denounce, with unbelievable insolence, every political analyst or minor political current on earth that dares to speak of conspiratorial plans and strategies of Russia as paranoid conspiracy theorists.
We’d like to remind the reader that the old German Nazism had systematically shared this same scientific use of conspiracy, two-facedness and reassurance of the future victim. The western bourgeoisie wants to forget this aspect of the path towards WW2 to conceal how easily their political predecessors were fooled by the monster and, consequently, how much responsibility they had feeding and letting the monster out of the cage. Here’s what Hitler had told them when he came to power in 1933: “I only ask four years; after that the nation can do what it will with me – crucify me if it likes”, “I have been presented as having made bloodthirsty and firebrand speeches against foreign countries, and now the world is surprised at my moderation”, he went on. “I never delivered firebrand speeches against foreign countries – even my speeches of ten years ago can testify to that. Anyone like myself who knows what war is, is aware of what a squandering of effort or rather consumption of strength is involved.” (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/03/hitler-adolf-interview-archive-1933). And here is what he told them in 1938 right after the annexation of Sudetenland: It is “the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe”, “I am grateful to Mr. Chamberlain, I assure him that the German nation wanted nothing but peace”. (https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=MT19380926.2.20). And each time they believed him!
Nazism is the imperialist reaction that goes to the extreme
In fact, there is a class basis in this weakness of the liberals, because Nazism is the most extreme and concentrated expression of the general trend of every imperialism, to negate democracy. Lenin wrote that “the political superstructure of this new economy, of monopoly capitalism (imperialism is monopoly capitalism) is the change from democracy to political reaction. Democracy corresponds to free competition”. (See Lenin’s work “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism”). The western monopoly also carries this trend towards violation of democracy within it, and one may quite easily identify it in the contempt the liberals show for the ability of the peoples of the Third World to determine their own fate by themselves, to wage revolutions and face their dictatorships and the semi-feudal backwardness that torments them. And the social-imperialists, who are the champions of counter-democratism and reaction and study hard the mentality and the vice of their enemies, know this very well and for that they can direct every reactionary trend of their enemies towards the direction that each time suits them.
Social-fascism and petit-bourgeois opportunism pick up on here to support that, since every kind of imperialism and every monopoly equals to negation of democracy and political reaction, we cannot talk about distinction between fascist and non-fascist imperialisms. This is an argument equivalent to the one claiming that, since every form of bourgeois power is after all a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, no true distinction between bourgeois democracy and fascism could stand. All in all, this rationale leads to the conclusion that every struggle for democracy without capitalism being overthrown is a vein and reactionary struggle. This conclusion practically means division of the antifascist forces and assistance to fascism in crushing the broad democratic antifascist fronts.
Lenin, however, had written the above-quoted lines precisely so as to refute this rationale, at the time supported by the Bolshevik Kievsky!
Not every monopoly evenly negates democracy, such as not every form of bourgeois dictatorship is evenly oppressive and terrorist as to the distribution of socialist literature and the ability of the working class to form its independent trade-unionist and political organizations. In the first place, this is because such counter-democratism is a trend of monopoly, an objective and necessary one indeed, but nevertheless a trend, which means that it might as well be mitigated or relatively contained as such by an opposite trend, in particular by the struggle of the working class for political democracy and the national struggle of the peoples for independence and self-determination, which is nothing other than democracy in trans-national relations. After all, monopoly, basically in the west, is rarely total in each sector of production, as it usually takes the form of oligopoly, which means that a proportion of free competition within each sector and, as a result, an aspect of democracy within the countries and in international relations continues to be carried out. The development of the 20th century has proved that Lenin was right to claim that imperialism made democracy more difficult but not impossible to implement in conditions of capitalism, and Kievsky was wrong to claim that imperialism made every democratic measure inapplicable, and therefore that the imperialist reaction could only be confronted by pure socialism. The fact that big monopolies of European capitalism may today coexist with a high level of democratism, imposed upon them basically by the European peoples through their victorious struggle against the most extreme, concentrated imperialist reaction which is Nazism, but also allowed for by the conditions of oligopoly in each sector of production, is a historical vindication of Leninism.
The second reason why not every monopolist capitalism evenly negates democracy is that not all monopolist capitalisms have reached the same level of concentration, not all monopolies have reached the level of state monopolies, that is the merger of the state with monopolies. Basically, not always does this concentration and merger reach its extreme, which is the merger with the state not of just one individual monopoly but of the whole complex of monopolies, and ultimately the formation of political monopoly with the creation of a state-fascist bureaucracy with oligarchic characteristics and the placing of the whole national economy under the requirements of this bureaucracy. Those requirements are military aggression and robbery, because this excessively voracious over-concentrated capital wants to continue swallowing up whatever stands around it till it swallows up the whole planet. It is the aim of military conquest that compels the state-fascist monopolies to over-concentrate the nation’s economic machine, to set aside, temporarily and to a degree, their differences and to unite for war expansion. It’s no accident that state-monopoly capitalism initially grew bigger during WW1 to serve the placing of economy under the requirements of war robbery. Nor is it accident that the renegades of Marxism of the time, the social-chauvinists, had named state monopoly “socialism” so as to defend this war robbery, as the social-fascist descendants of theirs who adore the Russian and Chinese nazi over-concentrated state do today. Such an over-concentration, which the western imperialists have no need of (and they even hinder it through anti-monopoly legislation since they know that total monopoly kills competition which is the driving force of their economic innovation), is an economic necessity for Nazi imperialism and a comparative advantage in its political and diplomatic war effort.
That’s why the social-fascist leaders aren’t some narrow-minded radicalized petit-bourgeois but big bourgeois state-monopolists. That’s the reason why their anti-plutocratic, anti-monopoly, anti-banking slogans do not aim to protect the small stores from monopolies, as they maintain, but to exploit the petit-bourgeois superstition against the big private capital in order to control (or, if they can’t, to destroy) the rival monopolies, not because they are monopolies but because they are out of their exclusive control. Thence stems the socialfascists’ hatred for economic liberalism, that is the hatred for the relatively free market, which the state-fascists hate as they can’t control it, and mostly the hatred for political liberalism, that is bourgeois democracy. The latter threatens the monopoly of social-fascism in political power and in war preparations.
Nazi ideology is nothing other than the theoretical reflection of the nature and pursuits of this type of state-monopolist bourgeoisie. This ideology must reflect in theory what the fascist state-monopolists do in practice, and for that it is the total negation of democracy, which means first and foremost of rational thought and human equality. That’s why the racist poison and the most frantic counter-rationalism are compulsory for such kinds of imperialisms.
Even the most special ideological conceptions of Nazism are nothing other than an adapted theoretical justification of its most specific objectives. Hitlerism’s Pan-Germanism corresponded to its early military steps, which were the annexation of Austria and Sudetenland, white racism corresponded to the subjugation of Western Europe in the name of the “superior Arian race” unity, anti-Slavism corresponded to the extermination of the peoples of Eastern Europe and Russia so that those territories could be colonized by German population and then annexed by the Reich. Respectively, the Russian neo-hitlerists raise today their own banners: Pan-Russianism, which corresponds to their early military steps unfolding before our eyes, such as the annexation of provinces of Georgia and the Ukraine in the name of the protection of Russian minority populations; Pan-Slavism and orthodoxy for the purpose of attracting Eastern Europe and the Balkans; racism of the colonial type, which today has taken the form of cultural racism against the Muslims, and Eurasianism for the annexation of the whole Europe and the colonization of the Third World. Anti-Semitism, which is both nazisms’ (Hitler's german and Putin’s russian) central battle flag, with its universal character as an alleged struggle of the whole mankind against the satanic race of the anti-humans, corresponds to nazism’s pursuit for a global terrorist dictatorship on every democrat that may resist anti-Semitic cannibalism.
The closest predecessor, in the form, of this total negation of democracy and equality was the struggle the pre-capitalistic classes of feudal lords and slave-owners had waged against the new capitalistic relations of production. Nazism draws inspiration from this pre-capitalistic feudal, slave-owning or even barbarous past, which is being romantically depicted as national-popular tradition and attempts to revive to a degree all the dead forms of class violence and exploitation: that is to revive the feudal Middle Ages and their aristocratism, but also further back the slave-ownership and its nature-loving paganism, and finally primitive barbarity of cannibalism and human-sacrificing, which in the age of imperialism must be the sacrifice of a whole people. Once it comes to negate the Enlightenment, the banner of which was raised first by the bourgeoisie itself, once it has reached this point, nothing can obstruct Nazism to keep marching backwards, as the theoretician of Russian neonazism Dugin has openly stated. This kind of reversion to primitive barbarism, as a means to deal with the entrance of the masses into the historical foreground, was for the first time suggested in modern times by the over-reactionary philosopher Nietzsche, and that’s why he has been rightly viewed as the ideological forerunner of Nazism.
Even the banner of socialism which is being raised today by Russian neo-hitlerism (as had been previously raised, although much more clumsily, by German Nazism) is not its own novelty, but actually the heritage of this kind of reactionary struggle of the feudal aristocracy against the emergent bourgeoisie, and essentially even the more so against the emergent proletariat. Marx had pictured this type of reactionary socialism with the following words:
“In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and whispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe. In this way arose feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart’s core, but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history. […] in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter. […] For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society”.
Is not Nazism too, of which the guiding form nowadays is social-fascism, exactly “half echo of the past, half menace of the future”, half primitive mysticism, and half black prophecies about the coming world catastrophe? Don’t they also wave the “proletarian alms-bag” since their highest “class” demand for the proletariat is to make it dependent on alms-allowances by the bourgeois state or to transform the proud working class laborer, creator of life, into a frightened, conservative and parasitical civil servant? And is it not the charge of destroying the natural order by giving voice to the mindless masses through universal suffrage the most serious charge brought by classical fascism against bourgeois liberalism? Such is the reactionary anti-capitalist banner raised today by the politically-ideologically leading Russian neohitlerite monopoly. At that, this time this is not about the banner of socialism in general, but about the banner of Marxism-Leninism, the symbols of which were distracted through violence and deceit by the social-fascists from the revolutionary proletariat when they overthrew its power first in the USSR in 1956 and completely in 1978 in China.
Indeed, the historical ideological affinity between the anti-capitalist struggle of dying feudalism and the nazi state monopoly has been recorded in the well-known forgery, depicting every progressive, democratic and socialist movement as being guided by some mythical Jewish clergy, a forgery produced by the police of the last great representative of the old dying world, the old tsarism (a military-feudal imperialism, as Lenin used to identify it). This political manifesto became the political platform of German Nazism to end up today back in the hands of its creators’ heirs, the new Tsars.
Social-imperialism fakes his own death
One may, however, wonder well-intentionally: do really the above-mentioned apply today, when since 1991 Russia has endorsed the classic private market economy and the multiparty elections? This argument is today quite flawed, weaker than it was 10 or 20 years ago, because Putin has already revealed himself as an open dictator who carries out fake elections and uses the economy as a political weapon. We are obliged however to shed light on the interim period from the dissolution of the USSR till the rise of Putin, that most people believe was the period of some kind of relative but true democracy, because there lays the key to the current successes of Russian diplomacy, successes we have described in the first part of this article.
Such a relative democratization and such a relative liberalization have actually never happened. What really happened were a large-scale diversion movement and a large-scale tactical shift, which could bear fruits only today. Gorbachev’s reforms did not constitute a victory, yet a temporary one, of the most relatively liberal-democratic faction of the Russian bourgeoisie, as Gorbachev-Yeltsin in every tone and in every possible way declared while the western representatives believed them, but right the contrary: it was the triumph of the most cruel, fascist, most aggressive core of the Russian monopolist bourgeoisie and its KGB mechanism, that took some steps back only to gain momentum for a new headlong assault forward.
This hard core of the fascist state monopoly, the same that has been ruling Russia since 1956, gave their western competitors the victory they desired, without even having to lift a finger by themselves. And since those competitors believe in miracles, bourgeois idealists as they are, they were not surprised at all. At that they enjoyed it and celebrated it frenetically. However, the few true retreats, necessary to make the “collapse” look convincing, concealed the most important victories that passed totally unnoticed within this celebratory fashion of western imperialism.
- Instead of having to constantly be in antagonism with the broad masses of the peoples of the USSR that thirsted for democracy, they exploited those dispositions to win over the masses, first with the guise of the supposed liberal-democrats Gorbachev and Yeltsin, alleged enemies of the old regime, to subsequently form, as a “people’s avenger against the western liberals that made us hungry” (Putin), a mainstream of revenge against the hunger and humiliation the West had allegedly imposed upon them (while in fact the hunger was imposed by Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Putin, those consecutive leaders of the same unified general headquarters of social-imperialism).
- Instead of holding 14 union republics together by force and having to constantly confront the nationalisms of their bourgeoisies (that except for the trend for independence from Russia had also chauvinistic claims against each other), they dissolved the USSR to settle their relationship with their neighbors in the way every Nazism knows: by sowing the seeds of civil war inside each country, as they did in Georgia and Ukraine, or by plunging those countries into war against one another, as did with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Thus ended the story of “fraternal unity of the nations of the USSR”, that had ceased to be fraternal since 1960.
- They let Russia gather the whole political-diplomatic and mostly military force, that is all the resources of the war industry, of nuclear and space high-tech (typical of this are the nuclear arsenal of Ukraine and the Baikonur space-base), while by then all union republics had shared it as the heritage of the onetime Third-Internationalist USSR that had tried to achieve the balanced industrial and cultural development of its republics.
- They reassured and definitively gained a huge ally in their strategic pursuits for global hegemony, namely social-fascist China, which subsequently became an industrial giant by making its working class do the western – but also other – monopolists’ bidding. China is now using its economic strength as a complementary force to the politico-diplomatic strength of Russia, to purchase with capital whatever Russia cannot purchase with political posts. Both countries form together the new hitlers’ war axis.
- Within each country, they dissolved, through their apparent disappearance as a superpower, almost all parties of the revolutionary Maoist left (in Greece everyone except for OAKKE), the remains of which were finally mobilized in the great common aim to demolish the American monocracy. They freed their local “red” agencies, such as the pseudo-CPG, of the need to give explanations on their boss’ dirty job. Those agencies could now serve them more faithfully than ever and at the same time pretend they don’t know them.
- Finally, they won over within each country the whole classic grey reaction, that is all classical fascists and Nazis, who were until then either pro-US or sought for an imperialist protector, and so Russia has granted one after the other all those thugs its protection (the greek nazis of “Golden Dawn” accepted it here in 1992). Now she can win over the Greek or the Serb chauvinists in the name of orthodoxy and the Islamic menace. Due to her multiparty system, the KGB has now a party to guide every respective political current over the planet (they have Zyuganov for the pseudo-CPG and Zhirinovsky for the Golden Dawn).
Those were the terrible fruits of the “dissolution” of the USSR, a development the westerners applauded as a great victory of theirs in 1991. The whole western interventionism in the Third world, all this unconceivable blindness, arrogance and stupidity of a unique superpower-police were based on this theory, according to which the USSR collapsed by itself because allegedly “communism contravenes the human nature”!
Russia has not only backed this line, but has also worked systematically to consolidate it in the minds of the western liberals, and of all the peoples too, by posing for too long as the decaying corpse, half-dizzy and injured, trying to stand on her feet so as to resemble her new favorite image, the western capitalists. The tsars have indeed given the performance of their lives. Sometimes Yeltsin showing up drunk next to Clinton and the whole mankind, sometimes the onetime all-mighty Gorbachev starring in pizza commercials, there is not a showing of subservience, flattery or self-ridicule the wicked tsars have not undergone in order to convince even the most skeptical that they only deserved pity. This trick worked admirably, because the most important achievement of the “suicide” of social-imperialism we haven’t mentioned yet was the demolishment, along with the Berlin wall, of every kind of western political and ideological defense, by then standing on the ground of anticommunism, while this ground had already collapsed along with the alleged communism of the actually big-bourgeois “USSR”. In the 2001 Slovenia summit, when Bush was asked why he could trust Putin, he replied “I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy”!
We as Marxists and historical materialists have always said that the “collapse”-suicide of an empire has never taken place, nor will it ever happen. That’s why in 1989 we had written that “the Berlin wall fell only to be moved to the west, maybe across the French-German border, or maybe to the Atlantic Ocean” (extract from the article “Gorbachev and the Berlin Wall”, published on November 24, 1989, issue No 105 of “New Sunrise”)*. The empires collapse only as a result of revolutions at home or great external conflicts, as was the case of Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire during WW1, in any case as a result of violent and cataclysmic historical events. Only decadent big-bourgeois plunged into metaphysics and idealism could believe that Russian-“Soviet” imperialism had died of a heart attack while he was carefree drinking coffee.
Marx was right to say that “The character of every people enlarges with its enfranchisement from a foreign yoke”, when, tracing the continuity of tsarist policy from 12th to the 19th century, concluded that “Ivan Kalita, the Mongolian slave, acquired greatness by wielding the power of his greatest foe, the Tatar, against his minor foes, the Russian princes”. (See, Marx’s text “Revelations of the Diplomatic History of the 18th century” https://bit.ly/2nGsAvS, which we republish in this issue, and the introduction by OAKKE https://bit.ly/2oqjPqc). It is exactly the same tactics we described in the whole first part: the tsar makes his greatest enemy, the US, hit his minor enemies, the third-world nationalist dictators. In order to achieve this, he must first disguise himself into the most slimy, servile courtier of the big boss, and therefore hide himself as an enemy of his. To convince him to hit his own enemies, the tsar must set up every kind of provocations and undermine the relations between them. On the other hand, the US has willingly accepted the role of policeman, since having taken out Russia, the only thing they imagined as an obstacle to their gaining total domination were some third-world dictators, remnants of the old age.
The successes of social-imperialism pave the way for its defeat
The main contradiction in the policy line of the social-imperialists is that they must, on the one hand, remain well hidden in the dark for this tactic to be successful and to be able to organize the mutual extermination of their enemies, while on the other hand the more they become stronger the more they must show themselves in sunlight to appear as the winners of the game. The manifestation of social-imperialism as an interventionist and mass killer in Syria, or as an invader and splitter in Ukraine, have already awaken the peoples more than 100 Marxist analyses could. We believe that the more the social-imperialists advance in achieving their targets, the more they would be obliged to destroy the means of their rise, as they have now done with SYRIZA which the Greek people has detested as a terrible two-faced and slanderer party. This means that they will be compelled to show off their deeper character, which is no other than brutal force, concentrate the people’s hatred upon them, and finally face with more open fronts than they will be able to handle.
The fact that Russian social-imperialism is such an able imperialism, that it owes this ability to being heir of the worst reactionaries in history, and that it was born by overthrowing from the inside the first socialist revolution in the history of mankind, give this imperialism a great advantage against its enemies, and mostly against the peoples and the antifascist defenses they have built since 1945. But this advantage will turn into its opposite, because the people’s democratic and finally socialist movement that will rise against this new hitlerism will stand before the duty to discover the method to defeat this terrible reaction that could change a thousand faces and disguise itself in a thousand ways.
This means that from now on, true socialism will raise against social-imperialism as its greatest, most persistent and most resolute enemy, realizing that every concession to this enemy, every concession to nationalism, to the arrogance of easy successes, to disregard of the people’s disposition, desires and agonies, every concession to liberal prejudice, to idealism and to the belief in miracles, will be a matter of life and death, because this enemy has a rich experience in how to discover such cracks so that it could penetrate the camp of progress and turn it into the opposite. Social-imperialism will give birth to its opposite, that is to the most mature revolutionary proletarian movement that has ever existed, and the people will again love this movement with all their hearts, because they will hate and will be fed up with the hypocrisy, injustice, insensitivity and roguery of the whole of bourgeoisie. Social-imperialism offers us the great historic service of bringing all this filth to light.
*Scanned archive of old issues can be found here: https://www.oakke.gr/links_oldna.htm