'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
No comments:
Post a Comment