I’ll preface with saying that I’m only a random Communist. Please take what I say with a grain of salt, even if I come off as confident.
Regardless of your opinion on the war, it is not going to affect its course unless you go fight there, with a few exceptions.
Unless you live in Russia or Ukraine, your priorities should be:
- pressuring your country’s government for non-interventionism, including sanctions. Capitalist States have only the interest of capital in mind, and their intervention will hurt the people further
- fighting racism in your communities, especially the new wave of anti-Russian hate.
If you live in Poland or Romania, you should also be fighting the racism against non-Ukrainians (mostly foreign students) seeking refuge. Most of them just want to go home. The fact that the police are attacking them is extremely ridiculous.
The CPRF is against a war in Ukraine. 3 MPs from CPRF said quite clearly they’re against the invasion. They voted to protect Donetsk and Lugansk, not to bomb Kiev.
I don’t know how can you say that United Russia’s project is part of a popular front. It really is a mystery to me how anyone could be in favor of a war where almost every single casualty is going to be of a child of the working class. What the working class has to gain from this war? For almost every soldier, all they can manage to do is to return alive to their families. Nothing more. Does this war promotes the international solidarity of the working class? No, it doesn’t. On the contrary, this is promoting nationalist jingoism everywhere and it is going to make Ukraine’s political landscape even worse. More anti-communism, more “Oriental menace” propaganda…
Another thing: Neither China nor Cuba supported Russia in the invasion. They abstained from voting to condone Russia. The countries that voted against condoning Russia (and thus supporting Russia’s position) are Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, and Syria.
Did you even read the first source you linked? How are they clearly against the invasion when Zyuganov says
Aren’t those the exact two terms, demilitarization and denazification, that Putin used to describe the operation?
Yes, comrade, I read it and I try to stay up-to-date with their discussion, because I believe in the Party. Various other Communist Parties also adopted the same position of being anti-war, which is quite a strong tradition in our movement.
Also, check what Mikhail Matveyev, Oleg Smolin, and Vyacheslav Markhaev said. Those three are MPs from CPRF and could state more than enough the position of the Party. Well, unless you’re accusing them of breaking the democratic centralism of the Party… but, if this is the case, I believe you should give us quite an amount of evidence, because this is a very serious allegation.
Before I get to that, you still haven’t addressed the quote. Or even explained how what Zyuganov said supports your conclusion. It doesn’t. Zyuganov supports peace in Ukraine the same way I support peace in Ukraine. In the sense that military intervention is necessary to end the 8 year long Donbas war and ensure security against NATO aggression. I don’t know where you are getting this from that KPRF is against the intervention in the first place.
Comrade, it is quite clear that you’re not acting in good faith. The text states the following:
The fact that he uses the terms “demilitarization” and “denazification” is a moot point. This is what was alleged to protect Donetsk and Lugansk, and I don’t believe any communist would oppose to this. What I find it strange is to believe that demilitarization involves waging a military invasion. Like I previously said, arming/bombing for peace is as logical as fucking for virginity. It is jingoistic nonsense such as “si vis pacem para bellum”.
Also, the three members of the CPRF were quite clear in their opposition to the invasion. Their position is quite public. Again, you can argue that they’re breaking the ranks of the Party, but this is a serious allegation and I hope you have evidence to back this up if you choose this way.
If you don’t accuse them of breaking the democratic centralism of the Party, then you must read the text under the assumption that what they’re telling you is the case. They are telling you that their posture is “to become a shield for the Donbas, not for bombing Kiev”, as Comrade Matveyev said.
I’d like to point out that you’re also mistaken when you said
…as it has already be shown in the map of my previous answer. However, you never managed to reckon your mistake. Instead, you try to insult me, asking if I’d read the text that I posted in a clear rhetorical maneuver to avoid taking any of my points seriously. Do you really approach people to talk with this kind of posture? Is this kind of behavior accepted in the Party you belong? Comrade, I don’t believe you act like this in your day-to-day life or at your workplace, so I fail to understand why would you do it with a fellow coreligionnaire. I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish here, however I won’t waste more of our time if this is to approached without honesty and good faith. Comrade, if you want to talk in private, you’re always invited. Otherwise, I wish you a good night.
Just because they refuse to vote to support Russia at the UN, does not mean they do not support Russia materially. International relations is 3D chess, it doesn’t represent the real alignments of nations. So far the only countries that have materially opposed Russia are those in NATO, Japan, South Korea, Isreal, Australia, and New Zealand. And even some like Poland, Hungary, Turkey are refusing to send military aid to Ukraine.
You would not have lasted 5 minutes with the Bolsheviks. They were renown for the intensity and furiosity of their debates. Lenin’s work “Left-Wing” Communism an Infantile Disorder for example. He called ultra left communists infants. Marx was also a very inflammatory rhetorician. Just look at his letters about Bakunin, saying he has become a mass of flesh and fat. If you have a problem with the tone of my speech over its content, you have to be consistent and condemn Marx and Lenin as well. I am not even 1/10 as inflammatory as they were. I’m not arguing in bad faith.
That’s silly. If that was true, why have a military at all? Why put nuclear weapons in Cuba? Do you disagree with Mao’s protracted people’s war? What about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Or what about the Hungarian intervention in 1956? You are upholding peace as an ideal, which is idealism. The real world is full of bad actors, violence, and fascism. Because of this, there are times where it is necessary to use war. Pacifism and warmongering are two sides of the same coin with the same outcome.
How KPRF enforces democratic centralism is their own business. The party itself has not officially condemned the operation, so you can’t take what its members say as the stance of the party. There is also not always an explicit party line on everything.
But this is what Zyuganov said: “So, a very difficult decision on a special operation of Russian troops in Ukraine has been made. I want to appeal directly to the people of Ukraine, including my countrymen and colleagues: let’s expel that Bandera pack that has settled in Kyiv!”
How is that not an example of support for the operation? Do I have to play hermeneutics with you? It’s pretty obvious what their position is.
By the way, it was Zyuganov who called for the recognition of LPR and DPR days before Putin did this. I think it’s kind of interesting. In a way, the KPRF opposition is powerful enough to gain concessions and guide policy.
Their critique of you is not that your tone is mean. It’s that you’re arguing in bad faith. Arguing in bad faith is about honest engagement, not politeness. Dumbass.
But I’m not arguing in bad faith. I said that I’m not arguing in bad faith.
Oh so some guy arguing in bad faith says they aren’t so they must not be?! Glad that solves it.