Pills of OUR History (28)
Just as a broken clock shows the right time twice a day, so the right-wing, the conservatives, the fascists, and the brown-shirts (they're all fascists, who get off on the Putinist Russia in their rooms, see
@[macaco]) who wish for a ceasefire in Ukraine for their own interests or illusions find themselves agreeing with a communist's class position. However, this does not undermine or render ambiguous the communist position. Every action always serves, as just and ideal as it may be, the interests of someone who has little that is just and ideal. Certainly, one position that a communist cannot take is to further ARM a conflict that exhibits only the traits of nationalism and imperialism.
This is being written because on Deb (see
@[G] who posts the flag of a warring nation for the interests of others) as well as outside of here, there reigns absolute confusion and arrogance in taking sides in something that strictly speaking, as a class, does not concern us except in the form of a necessary humanitarianism (I think of those who work with refugees or who simply assist the victims of this conflict), given the current situation, far removed from the social liberation of the Ukrainian people: because the Russians, when advancing, do not encounter popular forces like the Spanish partisans against the French, the Viet Cong, communist partisans as in Italy, Yugoslavia, Albania (etc...), a whole oppressed people directly facing the slave-driving imperialism like in Palestine or Yemen, but only a disillusioned people long since let down by both Euromaidan and Russian interference, a people that has not yet found its path and that suffers directly from class oppression (from their own country) or international oppression (Russia or Europe/USA) not from the Russian invasion but from much earlier.
To clarify any doubts, we are aided by Karl Liebknecht, invoked by
@[lector]:
“Since we have been unable to prevent the war, since it has come to our detriment, and since our country is facing an invasion, must we leave our country defenseless? Must we leave it in the hands of the enemy? Does Socialism not demand the right of nations to determine their own destiny? Does this not mean that every people is entitled, indeed duty-bound, to protect their freedoms? When the house is on fire, should we not extinguish the fire first before determining who the arsonist is?”
These are the arguments that have been repeated time and again in defense of the Social Democrats’ attitude (Translator's note: today our center-left echoes phrases like "let's not forget who the invader is", "there's an aggressor and an aggressed", "the Ukrainians are like the partisans")...but there is one thing that the firefighter in front of the burning house has forgotten: that in the mouth of a socialist, the phrase "defend one's homeland" does not mean becoming a c
