Yossi Schwartz ISL (RCIT section in Israel/Occupied Palestine) 09.06.2025
In the last issue of WV number 1184, the ICL in the article “Ukraine War: Where Do You Stand Now? ” writes:
“The most consistent pro-Ukrainian voices on the left support the arming of Ukraine by the West, arguing that it matters not where the weapons come from as long as they are used in Ukraine’s national defense. In fact, we can see clearly that it does matter. The entire military strategy of Ukraine is dependent on support from the West. As such, the West dictated to the Ukrainian army how it should conduct the war. Now that the U.S. is planning to cut the flow of weapons (soon to be followed by the Europeans), Ukraine finds itself utterly incapable of independently defending itself..
Since February 2022, the war was only going to have a progressive outcome if the soldiers and workers of each side turned against their own rulers and united against their exploiters. This is not a pious wish but an objective necessity. The survival of the Ukrainian nation depends on workers getting rid of the Zelensky clique and breaking the bonds with Western imperialism. As for Russian workers, they have no interest in fighting for the subjugation of Ukraine for the benefit of the oligarchs, no less than they have an interest in the oppression of national minorities inside Russia. If they really want to throw back the threat of imperialism, they must seek to build an alliance with the workers of Europe through an internationalist strategy.
The ICL has been consistent in fighting for this approach. We have made clear that the U.S. is the main instigator of the conflict—as it is for most conflicts in the world. But we also warned against giving the Russian regime anti-imperialist credentials it does not in any way deserve. Throughout, we have fought for a perspective of fraternization, revolutionary defeatism and internationalism. Instead of the empty formulas used by the left to justify supporting one of the two reactionary sides in this war, our intervention has been guided by the most basic of Marxist principles: Workers of the World, Unite“! [i]
To sum up, according to the Spartacists, Ukraine, by accepting weapons from Western imperialists, subordinated itself to American imperialism. The war in Ukraine is, therefore, reactionary, like the American and Russian imperialist interventions ; thus, the revolutionary position the ICL claims is a revolutionary defeat for all sides.
In 1936, Fascist-imperialist Italy attempted to occupy Ethiopia, ruled by Negus Haile Selassie, King of Kings, Lion of Judah, Emperor of Ethiopia, who got weapons from British imperialism. Leon Trotsky wrote on this war:
Dear Comrade:
“It is with great astonishment that I read the report of the conference of the Independent Labour Party in the New Leader of April 17, 1936. I really never entertained any illusions about the Pacifist Parliamentarians who run the ILP. But their political position and their whole conduct at the conference exceed even those bounds that can usually be expected of them. I am sure that you and your friends have drawn approximately the same conclusions as we have here. Nevertheless, I cannot refrain from making several observations.
1. Maxton and the others opine that the Italo-Ethiopian war is “a conflict between two rival dictators.” To these politicians, it appears that this fact relieves the proletariat of the duty of making a choice between two dictators. They thus define the character of the war by the political form of the state, in the course of which they themselves regard this political form in a quite superficial and purely descriptive manner, without taking into consideration the social foundations of both “dictatorships.” A dictator can also play a very progressive role in history; for example, Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, etc. On the other hand, right in the midst of the English democracy Lloyd George exercised a highly reactionary dictatorship during the war. Should a dictator place himself at the head of the next uprising of the Indian people in order to smash the British yoke – would Maxton then refuse this dictator his support? Yes or no? If not, why does he refuse his support to the Ethiopian “dictator” who is attempting to cast off the Italian yoke?
If Mussolini triumphs, it means the reinforcement of fascism, the strengthening of imperialism, and the discouragement of the colonial peoples in Africa and elsewhere. The victory of the Negus, however, would mean a mighty blow not only at Italian imperialism but at imperialism as a whole, and would lend a powerful impulsion to the rebellious forces of the oppressed peoples. One must really be completely blind not to see this.
2. McGovern puts the “poor little Ethiopia” of 1935 on the same level with the “poor little Belgium” of 1914; in both cases it means support of war. Well, “poor little Belgium” has ten million slaves in Africa, whereas the Ethiopian people are fighting in order not to be the slaves of Italy. Belgium was and remains a link of the European imperialist chain. Ethiopia is only a victim of imperialist appetites. Putting the two cases on the same plane is the sheerest nonsense.
On the other hand, to take up the defence of Ethiopia against Italy in no way means to encourage British imperialism to make war. At one time this is just what was very well demonstrated in several articles in the New Leader. McGovern’s conclusion that it should have been the ILP’s task “to stand aside from quarrels between dictators,” is an exemplary model of the spiritual and moral impotence of pacifism.
3. The most shameful thing of all, however, only comes after the voting. After the conference had rejected the scandalous pacifist quackery by a vote of 70 to 57, the tender pacifist Maxton put the revolver of an ultimatum at the breast of the conference and forced a new decision by a vote of 93 to 39. So we see that there are dictators not only in Rome and in Addis Ababa, but also in London. And of the three dictators, I consider most harmful the one who grabs his own party by the throat in the name of his parliamentary prestige and his pacifist confusion. A party that tolerates such conduct is not a revolutionary party; for if it surrenders (or “postpones”) its principled position on a highly important and topical question because of threats of resignation made by Maxton, then at the decisive moment it will never withstand the immeasurably mightier pressure of the bourgeoisie” [ii]
In “Learn to Think” Trotsky wrote: “What should the attitude of the Italian workers be in this case?… Should the Italian workers prevent the shipping of arms to the Algerians? Let any ultra-leftists dare answer this question in the affirmative. Every revolutionist, together with the Italian workers and the rebellious Algerians, would spurn such an answer with indignation. Even if a general maritime strike broke out in fascist Italy at the same time, even in this case the strikers should make an exception in favor of those ships carrying aid to the colonial slaves in revolt…
“At the same time, the French maritime workers, even though not faced with any strike whatsoever, would be compelled to exert every effort to block the shipment of ammunition intended for use against the rebels. Only such a policy on the part of the Italian and French workers constitutes the policy of revolutionary internationalism.” [iii]
Thus, the real questions to think about are: is Ukraine an imperialist state?-no
2. Have the Ukrainian people sided with the imperialists, or are they struggling for the right of self-determination? They struggle for self-determination against Russian imperialism!
3. Can they continue and fight in spite of American imperialism’s cuts of weapons delivery? Yes.
Just compare the control of American imperialism of South Vietnam to the situation of Ukraine to realize that the Ukrainian people are not an appendage of American imperialism!
Is there a difference between a war between Russia and the USA and a war between Russia and Ukraine? Of course! In the war between Russia and Ukraine, the revolutionary position is a revolutionary defeat for Russia. Revolutionary defense of Ukraine without giving any political support to Zelensky. In the war between Russian and American imperialism, revolutionary defeat for both.
The comrades of the ICL should read the article of Joseph Green of worker’s voice from 2015[iv] and of Alan Woods’ fake international on the war between Russian imperialism and Ukraine to realize in which camp they are. So, what is the problem with the ICL mode of thinking? They believe they are Marxists, but the heart of Marxism is dialectical materialism and not American pragmatism!
Dialectical materialism teaches us how to analyze contradictory phenomena that are made of the unity of opposition, and you cannot judge anything without fully understanding the contradiction between the interests of the international working class and of the capitalists. The national question is part of the class struggle.
Endnotes:
[i] https://iclfi.org/pubs/wv/1184/ukraine
[ii] https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/04/oslo.htm
[iii] Leon Trotsky Learn to Think A Friendly Suggestion to Certain Ultra-Leftists (May 1938)
[iv] Joseph Green The sad story of Leon Trotsky and Haile Selassie (part one.