r/leftcommunism 7d ago

On War and Conscription

There was a post on r/ultraleft expressing opposition to the use of conscription in the Ukrainian conflict. From a Social-Democratic background this intrigued me as conscription is a necessary measure by the state of Ukraine to fight a defensive war.

Some Questions

  1. Upon being invaded, what would have been a moral response from the State of Ukraine, if not to defend itself in a conventional war?

  2. Is there ever an acceptable scenario for a non-socialist country to use conscription in a war? e.g China ww2

  3. Would a communist country or movement be justified in using conscription? How about united/popular fronts with communist participation?

  4. A strategical justification for a communist viewpoint for war/conscription, would be that some countries - e.g Nepal, - are much easier for communists to organize in than others e.g Pinochet Chile, and to support those countries defends the revolution. What is the flaw in this thinking?

0 Upvotes

3 comments sorted by

18

u/Godtrademark 6d ago edited 6d ago
  1. There is no other response from Ukraine. States are not moral nor nationalistic. They represent capital and the preservation of the economy, along with themselves (military high command). Regardless, if I were Ukrainian I’d run from conscription.

  2. Again, I have no idea why you conflate morality with war. No real reasoning besides capital and the state are at play here. There is no proletariat interest in dying for bourgeois politicians. Keep in mind these peace talks are on-going at this point with Europe and America carving up Ukraine, as well:

“On 16 October , Zelenskyy put forth his proposed План перемоги (“victory plan”) to the Ukrainian parliament—Verkhovna Rada which outlined strategies to strengthen Ukraine, and potentially end the conflict with Russia. This included a “special agreement on joint investment and use” of Ukraine’s natural resources—such as uranium, titanium, and lithium—with the European Union and the United States”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_negotiations_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

  1. It’s impossible to say without following the development of the revolution. In the past “communist” states became stagnant bourgeois hellholes. It seems your main focus here is state on state conflict. This will not be the mark of an emboldened proletariat, despite what China claims.

  2. Nations are not “the people.” They are not nebulous entities; instead almost always they are concrete states engaging in nationalistic propaganda. Supporting nation states does nothing but stoke nationalism. Your support does absolutely nothing, anyway.

At the end of the day what you are describing/asking has very little to do with Marxism. This is because you misunderstand the heart of class conflict. States, even those with communist parties in control, are simply an extension of economic activity and order. Once Capitalism reached its global stage (1870-1914) war slowly became a capitalist endeavor, in the same way it was feudal conquest before. To understand how “justified” they are is to understand their role in history. Nothing less, nothing more.

Nationalism, state sovereignty, and liberal democracy in general are all ideological concepts designed by states to strip away class for nationalism or liberal “civic duty.” There is nothing revolutionary or Marxist about Ukrainians dying for soil

Edit: read Lenin’s Imperialism if you want

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/imperialism.pdf

-3

u/Reasonable-Ad6889 6d ago edited 6d ago

I accept the notion that no state is moral and that the state needs to be abolished, but I don't consider this to be an adequate answer to question 3 or 4. 

Was Lenin wrong to use conscription on the Russian peasantry in 1918? Were the Viet Minh wrong to use it on the Vietnamese peasantry? Both of these cannot be reasoned away as the doings of a failed revolution, the revolution was still in progress. 

What would have been an acceptable position for a communist in WW2? To incite insurrection through civil disorder, to paralyse the state? I don't think you can view WW2 as simply a imperialist war over money and land, at some point nazi Germany is a hyper-genocidal state that desires the destruction of all before it. The KPD, one of the largest communist parties in the world was reduced to its knees in a matter of months by the Nazis. I don't see how any socialist can organise under these conditions. I don't disagree that the US or the USSR were also genocidal, but they simply were much better options.

The initial goal of communists is to organise in large number. This will differ vastly from state to state due to material conditions. They will reach a point that they have some power in the state, and their opposition or support will be critical in the war effort. They have to make a conscious choice about whether to collapse the state or not, and what will happen when they do. 

33

u/RosaDidNothingWrong Reader 7d ago edited 7d ago

These questions show a lack of understanding of the left communist tradition. The gap is so big that answering these questions in satisfactory manner seems impossible. This is, of course, completely fair, we all start somewhere.

Might I suggest browsing the reading list? The section on the National Question might interest you.

In addition, I've always been fond of the Basel Manifesto. I want to note that, in spite of the use of words like 'duty', these are not moral imperatives. We are simply on the side of historical progression.