Tracking the Recent Events

   The recent events in South Ossetia have become some kind of an acid test for communists, for many of those who call themselves opposition. White, pink and “red” have joined in unambiguous support of regime, of the President and the Prime Minister, in a consolidated outburst of pseudo-patriotism. Even extreme nationalists who had stood furiously against all “Transcaucasian national persons” a week before yet, have suddenly fallen in love with Ossetians. Why is it so?

   The CPRF leadership chauvinist position does not surprise for a long time but such ideas have captured a significant part of the left-wing spectrum, too. It becomes awkward to remind copy-book maxims on international character of communist movement, on necessity to use inter-imperialist contradictions in our own interests. No way! A wave of passionate love to bourgeois state swept over many of those who had seemed to be tried-and-true militants.

   “We need a small victorious war to stop revolution”, the Tsar’s minister Plewe had once said. In 2008 the ruling clique needed a small victorious war again. But do working people need it? For example, do public sector employees need it whose salaries are forcibly cut in favour of Tskhinvali restoration? Then, in 1904-05, the Tsarist regime has lost the war and has faced the revolution. What has acquired Medvedev regime? Has he acquired loss of scarce allies? Or NATO ships in the Black Sea? Or speeded joining NATO by Georgia and Ukraine?

   As a reply we hear a windflaw of arguments up to such one that South Ossetia and Abkhazia recognition is next door to the USSR restoration (well, but what about Trans-Dniester? All these three republics were always mentioned together before! Didn’t it accord to political conjuncture? Or was there no wish to mar relations with Voronin? Shameful silence is the reply). Well, let us address to history.

   In 1990, at the time of the “sovereignty parades” such version had the right to stand – until the Soviet Union existed any movement resisting to its dismantlement was worth support.

   But now, 18 years later, the situation is quite different. The Russian Federation is a bourgeois state, the Soviet power remains were annihilated in 1993. This state cannot be “friendly” for a communist, for a conscious fighter. But maybe with a new President Russia has at least entered the anti-imperialist path of development, hasn’t it? Maybe honest and consistent patriots aspiring to working people’s favour have risen to power, haven’t they? And it is time for us to cross over from the opposition camp to the regime supporters camp, isn’t it? Maybe the housing-maintenance reform is cancelled, salaries are risen up to a decent level, the property stolen from the people is returned back, isn’t it? Evidently it is not. But maybe there are any positive changes in the field of foreign policy, aren’t there? Maybe it has become self-consistent and independent on orders from Washington, hasn’t it? But it is neither. Rhetoric was the only to sharpen. What do we have in fact except for formidable declarations? The border demarcation and transfer of two islands to China in July has gone almost unnoticed. The law on admission of foreign troops to Russian territory adopted by the State Duma and signed by Putin a year ago is still in power, and the next military trainings “Torgau” at notorious Mulino rifle-range are not cancelled but only delayed for a year, too.

   So, why is Putin-Medvedev regime is better and closer to us than Saakashvili? What is the principal difference between them? There is none. But “if stars are being lighted – somebody needs it”. In this case it was necessary to make the feathers of former Soviet peoples fly – and it was done. It was done according to a world-old principle “Divide and rule”. And communists who would have been to stand as a united front against the war are applauding.

   I’d like to mention such an argument characteristic for my “leftist” opponents as peoples’ right for self-determination. Hence they forget, maybe deliberately or not, that at the Soviet Union dismantlement both Ossetians and Abkhazians consisted significantly less than 50% of population in their autonomies, and the majority of it was Georgian. During the Soviet era it was of no importance because the borders of autonomies were administrative only. To date this balance has changed as a result of warfare and ethnic clearances. Thus, if you recognize Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples’ right for self-determination – why don’t you recognize the same right of Georgian people? While supporting in an analogue situation the surely just slogan “Kosovo is Serbia”.

   Let alone that the right for self-determination could be completely realized within socialism only that is completely affirmed by the history of two recent decades – not a single state among those formed at the post-Soviet territory (maybe except for Byelorussia) has acquired genuine independence – all of them appeared to enter areas of influence, areas of interest of larger predators. The same destiny is expected for peoples of Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The communists’ position under such conditions should be unambiguous – to stand firmly for peace, against unleashing of aggressive war from both sides, to prevent by all forces fomentation of hostility between peoples in the world masters’ interests. To disclose diligently the “patriotic” enthusiasm and to direct the disaffection nib point against the real enemy, against imperialists and their puppets, in Moscow, in Tbilisi and elsewhere.

   Maria Donchenko