JSS Column – Journal of State and Society

My Peace Plan

JSS Column — Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:13:20 +0000

ELMAR RUSTAMOV

Coordinator of the Executive Committee of the Labour Russia Movement

Among the international communist and left movements, including their Russian branch, there has been, throughout the entire period of the war in Ukraine, three conflicting assessments of the situation: unconditional support for Ukraine, a cowardly position of “critical” support with “reservations,” and unequivocal condemnation. However, even the generally correct anti-imperialist position of rejection of militarism suffers greatly from “pacifism” in the worst sense of the word. That is, this point of view, by and large, comes down to only one thesis – the immediate cessation of hostilities, without a specific plan, explaining by what methods this will be achieved, by what means, under what conditions, at what borders, etc.

And the social-chauvinists do not miss the opportunity to use this circumstance as an advantageous argument for themselves as justification for their conciliatory position: “And what do you propose? The war is already going on, this is a given, it is not possible to stop it, we must simply win and everything will end.”

Moreover, absurd and groundless accusations of “pro-NATO” and “pro-American” rhetoric, and even of support for NATO’s crimes, are also flying at the communist internationalists.

You think we don’t know about this!? We, whose senior comrades, and we ourselves, have consistently condemned the invasions of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yugoslavia for so many years, held protests against the bombing and interference in the affairs of sovereign countries and rallies of solidarity with the peoples of these countries. Do you think we would hide and deny the role of the “alliance” in the destruction of the USSR and the socialist bloc, in the catastrophic results of these processes? Let’s leave these accusations against us to the conscience of these moralizers, if anything is left of that at all. Their position is all the more hypocritical because they themselves are well aware of the character of the current Russian government, which has started and continues the hostilities. It pursues a policy in its own interests, which by no means identical to the interests of the people, otherwise all this bloodshed would never have been started. So it was with almost all the conflicts of recent years in which this government participated: Chechnya, Syria, and now Ukraine. They have sold weapons surreptitiously, and they trampled on agreements, all to promote the interests of various oligarchs. It doesn’t happen otherwise.

It is impossible to be against the government and at the same time support its policies; this is called “schizophrenia” or “split personality.” Let psychiatrists figure it out from there.

At the same time, unilateral calls to stop deliveries of NATO weapons to Ukraine “here and now,” without preconditions or demands, no matter who they come from, are naïve and have a slight shade of hypocrisy and irresponsibility. After all, no similar requirements have been presented to the opposite side.

In fact, the authors and heralds of this idea, perhaps unwittingly themselves, are playing along with only one of the parties in the conflict. In other words, if this requirement is implemented, the war will not stop but will continue, but only on terms more favorable to the Russian army. It will be temporarily suspended on the current “lines of contact” until Putin’s oligarchs gather strength for their new campaign, using the truce as a respite. And for the people of Russia, this automatically means the preservation of the political regime, the continuation of police repression, state terror, and the preparation of the authorities for a new, broader general mobilization. In other words, such a truce would be no less – or even greater – of a catastrophe for Russian society than a military defeat.

Let’s try to imagine a real plan that would actually work to end the confrontation, and not simply to extend the Putin oligarchy. It could consist of four main points:

1. Stop fighting on both sides;

2. Cessation of any supply of foreign weapons and ammunition to both Ukraine and Russia;

3. Abandonment by the Russian Armed Forces of the territory of Ukraine as of February 1, 2014 (“zero option”);

4. The UN and its peacekeeping forces are temporarily introduced to the territories left by the RF Armed Forces.

In fact, even some official propagandists are beginning to understand the need to move in this direction. For example, Margarita Simonyan, head of the Russia Today TV channel, proposed to hold referendums again (in other words, from the point of view of the authorities, she calls for a review of the new borders of the Russian Federation). It seems that in the fall of last year, the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, and the Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics were entered into the Constitution of Russia. The Criminal Code even has a special article for such a case: “Art. 280.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Public calls for actions aimed at violations of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.”

If you believe the Kremlin propaganda, one of the mouthpieces of which is Simonyan herself, there have already been “referendums” in these regions, but now she is proposing to hold new ones. So then, you will admit that what happened before was a circus, and not a vote?

But here a fundamental point emerges: it is necessary to stop the bloodshed not only to correct the previous injustices, but also to prevent new ones. It won’t be easy or simple. And in order to stop the escalation of violence and repression from any side, an appropriate policy is needed, which needs to be thought out today.

In order to avoid clashes and outrages on both sides, it is proposed to create a “humanitarian corridor” in the territories left by the Russian troops for the unhindered exit of residents in both directions, and to temporarily deploy UN peacekeeping forces from among countries that are not directly or indirectly involved in the conflict.

Failure to comply with at least one point entails the continuation of the war with innumerable victims and suffering for Ukrainian and Russian citizens, a war that claims hundreds and thousands of lives every day. So let’s find out, looking at the reactions to this program, what is actually more important to the elites and governments – is it land and territory, saving face (in fact, saving power and capital), or is it people’s lives? Bring out the hysterics to the slaughterhouse, who themselves are in no hurry to leave for the front, or send their children and relatives there!

Everything has gone too far, Russian territory is being shelled (it was foolish to believe that this would not happen – usually in wars, in response to constant shelling, the other side also starts shooting back!), and threats of a nuclear apocalypse are heard. Yes, the chances of this scenario occurring are extremely small, but such rhetoric itself speaks of the seriousness of the current situation. Time does not wait!

The peoples are tired of war, they want peace, and therefore a plan is needed that will stop the bloodshed and create conditions for the mutual laying down of arms, without fear of monstrous consequences for Ukrainians and Russians.

The left must offer a program of an honest peace without territorial conquest or any further aggressive policy, with remuneration for all destruction, not from the pockets of the working people, but at the expense of those who unleashed this massacre. It cannot be ruled out that such a “peace plan” could bring the revolution in Russia closer, contribute to the awakening of class consciousness among the soldiers, to their desire for self-organization, and to an awareness of themselves as an independent force. The left is fundamentally in favor of finally saying its word to “His Majesty the Working Class,” the same class that is often thrown into a meat grinder against his will and desire. So that there are no “agreements” behind the back of the people, and at their expense, and the working people themselves ought to be the ones to stop the war. However, for the time being we have to be guided not by what we ultimately desire, but by the existing reality. And therefore, we need to take responsibility, take the first step, and begin the process that will lead to an end to the war, and lead the workers to victory in the struggle for their power, so that the defeat of the insane adventurist plans of the government of the Russian Federation does not turn into a defeat for the people and the country.

Translated by Dan Erdman

First appeared in RABKOR

JSS Blog

JSS Column — Mon, 26 Jun 2023 04:22:17 +0000

Is “De-Globalisation” Occurring?

Prabhat Patnaik

Many economists these days talk of a process of “de-globalisation” taking place; some others talk of the neoliberal regime of yesteryears no longer existing. Of course, nothing remains the same forever: as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus had said “You cannot step into the same river twice”; some change in the neoliberal order therefore is inevitable with the passage of time. But the real point is: has the analytical frame used for understanding the economic reality of the contemporary world, with a view to changing it, become obsolete and hence in need of serious revision?

“Globalisation”, it must be remembered, never meant different countries of the world coming together voluntarily to set up a global order that would be mutually beneficial. Nearly 50 countries of the world today are at the receiving end of “sanctions” of various kinds; they are forcibly prevented from accessing essential goods, including in some cases life-saving medicines, from the global market. And the number was not much less a decade ago when “globalisation” was universally recognised as being in full swing.

“Globalisation” thus always meant something quite different from what is commonly ascribed to it. It meant the coming into being of a phase of capitalism where capital, including above all finance, had become globalised by opening up economies for its unrestricted movement; it had thereby curbed the capacity of the nation-state to intervene in ways that finance did not approve; and this globalised capital had enjoyed the backing, in its global operations, of metropolitan states above all, and of other states by default.These metropolitan states, notably the US, decided on which countries sanctions were to be imposed, with the others falling in line.

“Globalisation” thus represented a reimposition of western imperialist hegemony on the world as a whole, excluding the socialist countries, but including countries which had been decolonised around the middle of the twentieth century and had adopted, even while promoting capitalist development, various kinds of dirigiste strategies; it meant in other words the breaking down of any relative autonomy vis-à-vis imperialism within the non-socialist third world. As a complement to the unrestricted mobility of capital, “globalisation” had also meant relatively unrestricted movement of goods and services across country borders (barring of course the countries that faced “sanctions”).

What happened during this period of “globalisation” was that new economic powers emerged, by whom the western imperialist powers felt threatened. These included Russia which inherited the massive production base built up by the Soviet Union and which the western powers thought they had subjugated, until there was a reassertion of its strength after Boris Yeltsin left office; and China, which, while relating to “globalisation” on its own terms rather than those dictated by the western powers, witnessed rapid rates of growth because, among other factors, of the market access it enjoyed in the metropolitan capitalist world.

Now, Russia has come under “sanctions” after the Ukraine War; and the trade of the western world with China has declined to an extent, because of the latter’s deliberate political effort to scale it down. Such an effort in the case of the US has been motivated by several factors, from protecting domestic jobs (even though a good deal of imports from China by the US is produced there by US direct foreign investment) to a strong desire not to be too dependent on it; in the case of other metropolitan countries there is the additional factor of US pressure. Of these factors however the desire not to be too dependent on China has been the far more decisive one.

US concern over rapidly-growing imports from China began in the era of George Bush Jr. who tried to persuade the Chinese to appreciate the exchange rate of the yuan vis-à-vis the dollar; it continued under Obama who penalised US firms relocating production abroad. But it was Donald Trump who imposed tariffs to protect domestic production against imports from abroad; China was the major target of these tariffs.

Two examples underscore the overwhelmingly political motivation behind the western scaling down of trade with China. The European Union has proposed a rule that solar panels which are to be used for the decarbonisation of Europe should not be imported from any country that has more than 65 per cent of the market share; this rule is meant solely to exclude China which has 85 per cent of the market because of the extremely low price of the panels it supplies. Europe in short is willing to pay a much higher price for solar panels just to keep China out, which is a decision motivated entirely by geo-political considerations.

Likewise, the Biden administration’s ban on semi-conductor exports to China, which is imposed against corporate wishes within the US itself, and which poses a major threat to the high-tech industries in China, including military technology and artificial intelligence, is motivated exclusively by geo-political considerations, the sheer desire to keep China economically and technologically crippled. In other words, even though there are no explicit sanctions against China at the moment, what we are seeing nonetheless is an implicit imposition of sanctions, either in preparation for a time in future when there would be explicit sanctions or out of a sheer desire to cripple China.

What is called “de-globalisation” refers in effect to this entire new tendency of the western powers to discriminate against China, their desire not to become too dependent on China. The effort essentially is to diversify trade relations away from China to other countries, even though such diversification turns out to be more expensive; the recent decline in the magnitude of US trade with China is a consequence of this. It is as if China is being added to the list of countries that are subject to western sanctions.

Interestingly there has been no actual decline in macro-level parameters like the ratio of total world imports to world GDP which some economists have used as proxies for measuring the extent of “globalisation”. What they find through such measures is a slowing down of the progress of “globalisation” but not its reversal.

As we mentioned earlier, however, “globalisation” in our perception refers not so much to the phenomenon of countries becoming more dependent on one another; it refers essentially to a relationship of power. This power is exercised as much through the “sanctions” imposed against specific countries as through the drawing in of countries to the vortex of “globalisation”. The exercise of this power is the hallmark of imperialism. “Sanctions” are as much a symptom of the ruthlessness of imperialism as is “globalisation” entailing the hegemony of globalised capital. Put differently, the so-called “de-globalisation” is not a negation of “globalisation” but a complement to it.

Globalised capital comes overwhelmingly from the metropolis and is enmeshed with the operation of metropolitan states. The hegemony of globalised capital therefore is ipso facto the hegemony of metropolitan states, exercised over the people of the world, and especially over the people of the third world. “Globalisation”, which may have the support of the big bourgeoisie of the third world and even of the upper segments of the salariat and the professional classes, necessarily entails the suppression of third world workers, peasants and petty producers.

The praxis for overcoming their thraldom is no different today from what it was a decade ago. Any improvement in the condition of the working people requires State intervention; for this, the State must have the elbowroom to intervene without being cramped by the fear of capital flight. But as long as the country remains trapped within the vortex of unrestricted capital flows, the State cannot acquire this elbowroom. Control over capital flows therefore becomes necessary for any progressive State intervention.

Put differently, an improvement in the material condition of the people requires not just a change in the nature of the State, namely, its being based on the support of workers and peasants; it requires in addition a delinking from the universe of unrestricted capital flows. The support of the working people alone is not enough; control over capital flows is also essential if a set of pro-people policies is to be followed, though such control may well attract imperialist “sanctions”.

This remains as true today as it was a decade ago. The so-called “de-globalisation” that some economists are talking about makes not an iota of difference to this absolute need to confront the hegemony of globalised capital, behind which stand the phalanx of metropolitan States.

(This article was originally published in the Peoples Democracy on June 4, 2023)