Resolution of the Russian Maoist Party Regarding the break-up of Ukraine, Crimea and Novorossiya

rmp logo

  1. The current events in Ukraine are leading to the establishment of a Ukranian national state. In itself, it is a progressive process, which has, however, been realised in quite an undesirable way, with a splash of reactionary ideologies (chauvinism of all sorts, social racism, etc.), war, partial fascisation of the Kiev regime and international tensions.
  2. In Ukraine, two main ethnicities have more or less taken shape. One is the Ukrainian – it speaks Ukrainian and votes for Ukrainian nationalist parties (parties of the coalition United Opposition ‘Bat’kivshchina’, European Ukraine, ultra-right Svoboda and Right Sector, and other ones). Currently, its central ideas are anticommunism, particularly in the form of anti-stalinism and banderophilia, russophobia and eurocentrism. The other nation speaks Russian and votes for Russian national parties (the Party of Regions and its heirs as well as KPU), for separation or does not vote at all. Its central ideas are russophilia and soviet nostalgia with an ambiguous character. This nation is predominant in Crimea and in the eight south-eastern oblasts that have become known as Novorossiya. Both nations are infected with nationalism and, to a certain degree, with the restoration of religiousness.
  3. There is no need to prove that any given national minority in any given bourgeois state is subject to the national yoke. Every bit of history eloquently witnesses that normally it is so; cases that demonstrate the opposite are rather exceptions. The given minority alone must affront this question.
  4. In Ukraine’s Russian national minority the demands for equal status of the language, federalization and even separation have been raised. The deciding of these questions in a democratic way has been resolutely rejected by the new Kiev regime. After that, the territories of Novorossiya and, in first place, the self-determined Donetsk (DNR) and Lugansk (LNR) oblasts were required to be regarded as annexed (in the sense of the Decree of peace, meaning ‘retained by force’) by Ukraine.
  5. Numerous witness accounts by people with diverse beliefs put out of doubt the goodwill and honesty of the self-determination of the majority of Crimea’s population in favour of joining Russia, as well as presenting it [sic] as an ‘annexation’ or an ‘occupation’, even if it was practically realized only thanks to the entanglement of the Russian military. In its turn, for Russians, the return of Crimea arouses a two-sided feeling: on one side, it is a feeling of Great Power superiority, nudging toward expansion and claims of hegemony; on the other hand, it is the feeling of reunification of the Russian people as a long-awaited realization of justice.
  6. There are no grounds to doubt that in the separated Russian outskirts (despite the correctly declared official bi- or trilingualism), the Krimtatar and Ukrainian minorities will experience certain limitations. From the other side, the Kiev propaganda, of course, depicts the limitations in an exaggerated fashion in order to satisfy its expansionist goals. This question must be examined with good consideration, from all perspectives and without trusting the engaged sources from both sides.
  7. We stand in solidarity with Marxist-Leninist organisation Borot’ba, as well as with all activists that are being persecuted due to communist activities. Overall, from the left, the Ukrainian headline is publicly formulated by: anti-authoritarian Autonomous Workers’ Union, which has taken the side of the Kiev regime; the Social Movement, which rejects the dictatorship of the proletariat and the right of national self-determination; reformist and susceptible to nationalism Left Opposition (at its base are the Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU) and the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (PSPU)); and the above mentioned Borot’ba. The choice of orientation for communists of other countries is obvious.
  8. The main goals that are to be sought out in the current stage of the Ukrainian conflict are:
    1. International recognition for the self-determination of the peoples of Crimea, DNR and LNR (as well as those of other partially-recognized states – Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Kosovo), and the stopping of military aggressions on the part of the Kiev regime;
    2. The democratical decision of the national question (by means of complete legalization of parties that stand for autonomy and separation, peace talks and referendums under the observation of all interested parties) in the other parts of Novorossiya;
    3. The stopping of politics in Ukraine that aim to legalise fascism and criminalize communism.
  9. In connexion with the current stage of the Ukranian conflict, a particular topicality is attributed to:
    1. the common and consistent respect of the right of a nation for self-determination,
    2. the defense of the important meaning and untouchable legacy of the historical anti-hitler coalition against fascism,
    3. the international solidarity of the proletariat and the poor.

Russian Maoist Party

October 22, 2015

Originally published on the ICOR web platform.

This entry was posted in International, Parties and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s