'There
are lies, dammed lies and statistics. The figures given below should
be looked at sceptically. Whether correct or not the figures given
for Ukrainian casualties, and the unknown Russian ones, are
unacceptable and a tragedy.
To
these should be added the number of innocent lives being sacrificed in the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
'More
than 400,000 people have joined the Russian Army in 2024, Defence
Minister Andrey Belousov revealed during a meeting of top officials
in Moscow. Around 1,200 people voluntarily sign up for military
service every day, he said. We
continue systematic work on staffing the armed forces Since the start
of the year, over 427,000 servicemen have already been recruited,
Belousov stated.
In
September, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree that
increased the number of armed forces personnel to 2.39 million,
including 1.5 million military personnel. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov explained at the time that the decision was based on the
increasing number of threats currently faced by Russia, including the extremely
hostile situation on the Western borders and instability on the
Eastern borders.
The
decree came into force on December 1. The Russian Army had previously
been increased to 2.2 million in December 2023, including 1.32
million military personnel, amid the Ukraine conflict and the ongoing
expansion of NATO towards Russian borders.
Belousov
did not specify the total number of Russian troops taking part in
Moscow’s military operation. Russia also does not make public
losses incurred in the conflict with Kiev. However, according to the
minister, the Ukrainian Army has lost more than half a million troops
in 2024 and over one million since the escalation of the conflict in
2022. He noted that, unlike the Russian military, which has been
steadily boosting troop numbers, the Ukrainian Army is severely
understaffed, with fewer than 50% of frontline positions currently
filled.’
More
outrage is being expressed about the assassination of a Russian
General in Moscow than against the crime of the continuing
annihilation of the many who are used as pawns in capitalism’s
‘game.’
It’s
totally against the rules of war! Military do not kill other
military in that fashion is the cry. As if capitalism has any
conscience in its pursuit of its aims of power, resources,
competitive advantage and hegemony.
‘The
US has denied any involvement or prior knowledge of the bombing that
killed Russian Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov and his assistant in
Moscow. Both the Pentagon and State Department have distanced
themselves from the targeted assassination, which is believed to have
been carried out by Ukraine.
The
commander of the Russian Radiological, Chemical, and Biological
Défense Forces was killed along with his aide in an explosion outside
his apartment early on Tuesday morning. Multiple media outlets have
reported that the assassination was executed on the orders of
Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU).’
What
is the reason that the working class, the majority who run capitalism
on behalf of the exploiting minority, submit to such heinous manipulation?
One
explanation may be that of ‘nationalism.’
The
below is from the Socialist
Standard
March 1973
‘In
the struggle to win the minds of the working class Socialists have to
contend not, on the whole, with rational critiques of the Socialist
position but with deeply held and unquestioned values. A few of
these, for example, might be religion, "human nature", "a
fair day's wage for a fair day's work" or the association of
Socialism with Russia. One of the strongest of these sacred beliefs,
and one of the biggest obstacles to the establishment of Socialism,
is nationalism ― the loyalty felt by many members of the working
class to "their country", the political unit in which they
happen to reside.
Socialists
hold that the only real divisions which exist in the world are
horizontal ones, between different social and economic groups. In
advanced capitalist countries this consists in a division between the
capitalist class, which owns and controls the means of production,
and the working class, which owns none of them and which has to sell
its mental and physical labour-power to the capitalist class in order
to live. Feelings of loyalty to a nation-State are purely subjective,
having no basis in reality; the working class in Britain has more in
common with the workers in other countries than it has with the
British capitalist class.
Classes
not Kingdoms
There,
is however, an alternative view of the world. This is the belief that
the important divisions are not horizontal, between different
classes, but vertical, between various nations. A "nation"
consists, according to this view, of a hierarchy of men and women
who, although having differing incomes, social status and power, all
have a common interest in working in harmony for the benefit of the
whole unit and, if necessary, in fighting against other nations to
defend this interest. This completely erroneous outlook is the one
held by most members of the working class and nearly all political
parties (including the Labour Party). Most historians reject Marx's
declaration that "the history of all hitherto existing society
is the history of class struggle", preferring instead to see
history as a succession of struggles of nations against foreign
domination, of subjects against tyrannical kings and of nations and
races against each other.
Broadly
speaking, nationalist ideologies and movements represent the
interests of the capitalist class. Nationalism as such did not exist
in pre-capitalist society and its growth and development represents
the parallel development of the capitalist class. Nationalism as we
know it today first made its appearance during the French Revolution.
In the early stages of the revolution cosmopolitan ideas were
prevalent ― it was believed that the rest of Europe would be
inspired by France's example and would likewise overthrow the old
order. When this failed to materialise strong feelings of nationalism
developed; France was seen as a chosen nation, picked out to be the
standard-bearer of revolution throughout Europe.
Politically,
nationalism is ambiguous, in that it can take on a "rightwing"
or a "leftwing" form. This depends upon the position of the
capitalist class in the particular time and place. If political power
is held by the aristocracy or nobility, and the middle-class is
struggling to assert itself, then nationalism will have "leftwing"
connotations. This was the case in Europe until 1848, when
nationalism was a romantic, revolutionary force against the
traditional ruling class. However, once the bourgeoisie has captured
and consolidated its power, then nationalism becomes a conservative
and rightwing force.
Although
every nationalist movement believes it is unique, there exist
basically these two forms of nationalism side by side. In the
advanced parts of the world ― the United States, Britain, Western
Europe ― nationalism is conservative, whilst in pre-industrial
countries engaged in struggles against a foreign ruling class,
nationalism is a "leftwing" force.
The
World Socialist Movement opposes all nationalist movements
recognizing that the working class has no country. There are certain
other groups ― the Communist Parties of the world, and the
so-called revolutionary left ― which, though claiming to have a
class outlook, have a wholly opportunist and ambiguous attitude to
nationalism, which reflects not so much the interest of the working
class as it does Russian or Chinese foreign policy. These groups
fully accept the mythology of the existence of "the nation".
For example, from an Anti-Internment League pamphlet:
"The
people of each nation have the right to determine how they shall be
governed. Foreign interference is a fundamental attack on that right.
When one nation takes offensive action against another, by
introducing troops or in any other way, we cannot sit on the fence .
. . And so to Ireland: Ireland is a nation; Ireland is not Britain;
and the Irish have a right to decide whether or not they wish to have
any association with the rest of these isles."
This
attitude is a complete denial of Marxism; it is almost
incomprehensible that people who describe themselves as Socialists
should write of the "right to re-establish Irish nationhood"
(from the same pamphlet). The Irish republican movement is in essence
no different from any other nationalist movement; it was brought into
being because of the need of a fledgling capitalist class to break
away from Britain and erect protective tariff barriers in order to
build an industrial economy. Socialists give the IRA and Sinn Fein no
support whatsoever.
What
Marx Meant
It
will be argued that Marx and Engels supported nationalist movements
and that therefore Socialists should do so today. Such an assertion
is based on a faulty understanding of the materialist conception of
history. Marx and Engels were living in an era when the bourgeoisie
was engaged in a struggle to assert itself against the old feudal
regimes. The victory of this class was a historically progressive
step at that time in that it brought about the re-organization of
society on a capitalist basis, the essential precondition for the
establishment of Socialism; and it created an urban proletariat, the
only class which can bring about Socialism. This was why Marx
supported the rising capitalist class in their bid to capture
political power. However, once capitalism reaches the point where
Socialism is a practical proposition, there is no need for Socialists
to advocate the capitalist industrialization of every corner of the
globe; they can concentrate fully on the task of establishing
Socialism. Hence we give no support to any nationalist group, and in
place of the opportunism and hypocrisy of the myriad Bolshevik
groupings in advocating "national self-determination",
Socialists echo the rallying cry of Marx and Engels, "Workers of
All Countries, Unite!"
Brendan
Mee
https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-poison-of-nationalism-1973.html