this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
62 points (98.4% liked)

GenZedong

4481 readers
200 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
Elara@lemmygrad.ml
ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml
American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml
62
Lenin's "The Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War" | GZD Reading Group | Week 12, 2024 (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
61 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We're starting off with a very short one for the first week. This text was published in 1915, two years before the October revolution, and is sadly still highly relevant in the imperial core.

This reading group is meant to educate, and people from any instances federated with Lemmygrad are welcome. Any comments not engaging in good faith will be removed (don't respond to hostile comments, just report them).

You can post questions or share your thoughts at any time. We'll be moving on to a new text next week, but this thread won't be locked.

You can read the text here.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NikkiB@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 2 weeks ago

Always fun to read these bits and remember all over again Lenin's absolute disdain for Trotsky even before 1917.

[–] Stalinist_Dishrag@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This is what I took from this text:

If you're in a capitalist country and your country is at war, you can't claim to have revolutionary ideals while also advocating against your country's defeat/for its victory.

Also, wow, this part has aged incredibly well: ("Discerning reader": note that this does not mean "blowing up bridges", organising unsuccessful strikes in the war industries, and in general helping the government defeat the revolutionaries.)

[–] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The distinction between a non-imperialist capitalist country and an imperialist one is important; if the former is fighting against the latter, the situation is very different

[–] Stalinist_Dishrag@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago

Very true -- thanks for pointing that out!

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 16 points 2 weeks ago

During a reactionary war a revolutionary class cannot but desire the defeat of its government.

Starts off with a banger. And then goes into the merciless shredding of anyone with incorrect views. Lays out his reasoning logically step by step. interspersed with sick burns like "This is a fact to which it is foolish to close one’s eyes." which could have just as easily said, "If you cant see this you are fucking stupid."

I think Lenin kept Trotsky around as a training dummy. Or like a pitching machine that threw nice slow ones right over the plate so he could practice his home runs. Or a spring board that he could jump on to get mad air and preform amazing dunks.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

To help people that are unable to think for themselves, the Berne resolution (Sotsial-Demokrat No. 40) made it clear, that in all imperialist countries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government.

Gotta love Lenin, he never forgets to restate his points in clear and simple terms, and he's always snarky too

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

Its fairly straightforward for imperialist countries, e.g. US, European states. But it gets incredibly complex when it's about ascendant capitalist countries like Russia.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago

Agreed, we have to make sure base analysis is correct first before applying strategies.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

While the notion is simple, i find this text very hard to digest. The world was very different when Lenin wrote this, it was a very multipolar world in that time, albeit these polars were imperialists competing for the distribution of the world while multipolarity now is about the right of self-determination.

The case of Russia is very interesting, a capitalist country that is ideologically reactionary but one way or another is found itself fighting for a globally progressive cause, the weakening of US hegemony throught the disarment of Ukraine, an US satellite state. Would this be the moment for the working class of Russia to organize to topple their oligarchy? Maybe it would be the prime time to do it even if it could potentially lead to an US invasion?

[–] AlbigensianGhoul@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is the reason I commented on the other thread about "On Protracted People's War" and how it talks seemingly similar conditions but take very different stances. One is written from the perspective of revolutionaries on a reactionary country waging a war that is principally imperialist in character, the other from the perspective of a reactionary country defending from such a war.

The war in Ukraine is somewhere in-between, as there will be sectors of the Russia bourgeoisie that benefit from this war, but it also weakens the global hegemon (I disagree that we already have a multipolar world). On the other hand, it assures some measure of self determination for the peoples of Donbas and Ukraine.

From a very distant and somewhat ignorant perspective, (actual) revolutionary communists in Russia should not defend the overthrow of the Russian bourgeois state as an immediate objective (but a long term one). But they should have advocate for the immediate overthrow of the Ukrainian regime and, controversially, non-antagonistic autonomy from the Russian state and socialist restoration for the Donbas and Luhansk.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)

I think it is important in the context to see Ukraine as just a vassal of usa/nato and Russia as a 3rd party standing up for the LPR and DPR's right to self determination. In a war for self determination against neo-imperialism we side with the anti-imperialists.

LPR and DRP are joining Russia as a practical response to the fact that they will never be allowed to be independent as long as usa and nato exist. Better to live as equals in a capitalists state than be an oppressed people under outright fascist imperialists.

It breaks down the nuance a bit further.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Would this be the moment for the working class of Russia to organize to topple their oligarchy?

Organization is an ongoing project, but taking power without the support of the army would likely lead to a civil war, and now is not a good time for Russia to be destabilized

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

would likely lead to a civil war, and now is not a good time for Russia to be destabilized

This is exactly the position Lenin critisises in this text. Lenin is quite clear:

A revolution in wartime means civil war

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes but the global context is different, the imperialist hegemon would benefit from a civil war in Russia, a communist revolution in Russia at this moment could very well be found itself fighting for the globally reactionary class war. In fact, the US would absolutely fund such a group, just like in Syria with the SDF.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the imperialist hegemon would benefit from a civil war in Russia

Again this is exactly the kind of thinking Lenin is railing against in the very text we're discussing.

The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Again, this is not the same context of the WW1, this is not one imperialist state fighting another imperialist state, this is an imperialist state trying to subjugate another state through their proxies Ukraine and NATO.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Let's bring this back to the text, it's the reading group after all:

Anyone who would in all earnest refute the "slogan" of defeat for one’s own government in the imperialist war should prove one of three things:

  1. that the war of 1914-15 is not reactionary, or
  2. that a revolution stemming from that war is impossible, or
  3. that co-ordination and mutual aid are impossible* between revolutionary movements in all the belligerent countries.

The third point is particularly important to Russia, a most backward country, where an immediate socialist revolution is impossible. That is why the Russian Social-Democrats had to be the first to advance the "theory and practice" of the defeat "slogan".

*I changed "possible" to "impossible" because that's what Lenin wrote in Russian! The quote makes no sense otherwise. Russian sources: one, two, three.

So point by point:

  1. This is not a revolutionary war, it's neither an anticolonial struggle nor a war for proletarian liberation. It's a proxy war between two capitalist oligarchies over geopolitical power and control over resources, it doesn't matter that one is the underdog and the other the hegemon. As such this war is inherently reactionary.
  2. A revolution stemming from this war is possible, perhaps more possible now than it was when Lenin wrote this.
  3. International cooperation and mutual aid are not only possible but much easier in modern times than they were when Lenin wrote this.
[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

1: I find it revolutionary since it challenges the status quo of the uni-polar world. it is revolutionary in the current world context, just like bourgeois revolutions were revolutionary in their context.

2: i agree that the conditions are prime for a revolution, but where is the organization? revolution doesn't happen spontaneously by itself.

3: i can agree with this but it's non-important if there is no organization to cooperate with.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I can't believe we are having to have this struggle session again on Lemmygrad. I thought this had been settled a long time ago.

It's a proxy war between two capitalist oligarchies over geopolitical power and control over resources

No, it's not. It's a proxy war between the global imperialist hegemon and a capitalist country defending itself against imperialist encroachment.

In that sense yes, it is about geopolitical power. About the power of one state to remain sovereign and defend its people in the face of imperialist encroachment.

The argument that it's primarily about resources falls apart when you look at the terms that Russia was willing to agree to with Minsk. That would have returned control to Kiev over the entire Donbass, except in an autonomous form and with protections for the Russian speaking population enshrined into law.

It also falls apart when you consider the terms that Russia was willing to agree to at the Istanbul peace talks. Again if it was all about resources, Russia would not have been willing to return all occupied territories to Ukraine (except for the now irreversibly separated DPR and LPR) in exchange for permanent neutrality.

(To clarify: I'm not saying resources don't play a role, but it doesn't appear to me like they are the primary motivation. If Russia was after resources they would have had a much easier time invading resource rich and sparsely populated Kazakhstan. And why would they invade Ukraine in 2022 after it had already built up a massive military instead of 2014 when its military was in total shambles? This explanation just doesn't add up.)

it doesn't matter that one is the underdog and the other the hegemon. As such this war is inherently reactionary.

It does because Russia is not just "the underdog" it is acting defensively and not as an imperialist power. Today's Russia is not the Russian empire. The geopolitical situation is completely different. There is only one imperialist pole and Russia has been forced into alignment with most of the anti-imperialist forces in the world today, from China and the DPRK to Iran, the AES (Alliance des États du Sahel) states, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba.

And that's on top of the fact that for the people on the ground in Eastern Ukraine who identify as Russian this very much is a war of national liberation. For the Russian people and the Russian soldier this is an anti-fascist struggle. That makes it a progressive struggle.

A revolution stemming from this war is possible, perhaps more possible now than it was when Lenin wrote this.

Completely delusional. Maybe in Ukraine (still highly unlikely due to the high levels of brainwashing and the complete destruction of any worker organization and communist movements) but not in Russia. I wish that was the case but it just isn't. Unless you consider a color revolution to be a revolution. That is the only kind of "revolution" you would potentially get out of Russia's defeat. That or an up-swelling of extreme nationalism leading to a strengthening of reactionary forces in Russia and potentially a repeat of the Chechen wars on a much bigger scale.

International cooperation and mutual aid are not only possible but much easier in modern times than they were when Lenin wrote this.

What are you even talking about? International co-operation from who? The imperial core? An absurd proposition considering how chauvinist the Western proletariat is. We have seen vastly more "international co-operation" from fascists and mercenaries going to fight for the Ukrainian Nazi regime.

It's true that there were a few Westerners who went to defend the DPR and LPR when they were alone in fighting the fascists until Russia started the SMO but that was very much the exception. Most Westerners simply bought into the narrative their mainstream media bombarded them with. The same would be the case if a civil war broke out in Russia.

Who then? Non-interventionist China? Cuba, Iran, the DPRK, all of which are under severe siege themselves by the imperialists and which if they lost Russia would be in a much more exposed and vulnerable position than they already are? The world can't even muster up enough solidarity to stop the Palestinian genocide, do you seriously think they would go to bat to defend Russia from imperialist aggression, neo-colonial plundering and local warlords taking over as imperialist comprador puppets if the Russian state were to fall? You are living in a fantasy world.

Edit: Looking back at how i formulated this response i think i am guilty of somewhat losing my patience. My tone was overly hostile and i apologize. I should not have taken this tone with a comrade on a discussion thread. We are here to discuss and learn.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

No worries at all, this reads completely civil. :)

Great points about control over resources, I think you're right here, this is clearly not the priority for Russia.

CPRF is bigger than Social-Democrats were in Lenins times. I know they won't try and bring the war home to turn it into a revolution, but I think they absolutely could if a Lenin shows up (cause Zyuganov is evidently not it).

For the Russian people and the Russian soldier this is an anti-fascist struggle.

OK this is a bit much. Russia has been a hotbed for Nazism since the 90s putting even the likes of Poland to shame. Travel guides to Russia have to warn people of colour to stay in hotels on Adolf Hitlers birthday cause Russian neonazis murder people year after year to celebrate the date.

Ukraine somehow managed to out-Nazi Russia after Maidan but still, the idea that Putin invaded Ukraine to fight Nazism is laughable cause he never had any issues with Nazis in Russia.

[–] Makan@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

Pog.

[–] sunbleachedfly@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany.

This makes me think of Russia-Ukraine right now, or even "Israel"-Palestine. Maybe it's just the general way that war is framed in the US. It has been used to an even greater degree in Palestine imo, where they've bent the word Hamas to mean "anything vaguely against the genocide". Even if the working class doesn't actually carry out treasonous acts, they'll end up being criminalized anyways.

On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean a "class truce", the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s "own" bourgeoisie, one’s "own" government, whereas dealing a blow at one’s own government in wartime is (for Bukvoyed’s information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one’s own country.

I like this, as it expands on the previous quote. I see this logic a lot when it comes to criticizing the gov or demanding anything at all from them, like our class is supposed to deprive ourselves in support of some war instead of seeing it as a time where our gov's grasp on authority is weaker & more vulnerable.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just to note that Palestine is different because Palestinians are not waging an imperialist war but an anti-colonial war. This text doesn't apply to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination and Palestinian communists are correct in supporting their government even if it is not progressive or communist:

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “Socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm

[–] sunbleachedfly@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks for providing the distinction!

[–] cimbazarov@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Wartime revolutionary action against one’s own government indubitably means, not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a defeat.

banger quote. So he's calling out the people who say they are against the war, but take no action that would impede the government from waging the war.

The war cannot but evoke among the masses the most turbulent sentiments, which upset the usual sluggish state of mass mentality. Revolutionary tactics are impossible if they are not adjusted to these new turbulent sentiments.

I think this is important when analyzing our own modern day situations, and not just taking what Lenin lists out here and applying it willy-nilly. It is my belief that we do not need to gain the support of the masses before performing an action because if we can understand the "turbulent sentiments" correctly, then we can come to a conclusion of what the correct action is. By performing the correct action we gain support of the masses. I think of it kinda like the whole UnitedHealthcare CEO situation, but the killer was not organized and only arrived at a correct action by chance.

Those who stand for the "neither-victory-nor-defeat" slogan are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they do not believe in the possibility of inter national revolutionary action by the working class against their own governments,

This is a nice way of framing it. In the end our goal is the revolution and everything we do is to achieve that end.

edit: I dunno how you are going about selecting texts, but could I submit a vote for Theses on the National and Colonial Questions

[–] Eos@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

It was definitely an interesting read and I didn't actually know about this one. I thought I had all of Lenin's works but somehow this one slipped unnoticed.

I'm looking forward to this reading group going forward especially since I can find books I may not have read yet or heard of. I don't have too much to say about it that hasn't already been said but I'm certainly looking forward to the group and reading more in the future. :)

load more comments
view more: next ›