The war in debate. Exchange with Alejandro Bodart on Ukraine

The war in debate. Exchange with Alejandro Bodart on Ukraine.

Then, We reproduce the recording of the interview conducted by Sergio García, Director of Leftist Journalism, via an Instagram live, to the coordinator of International Socialist League and general secretary of the MST in the FIT-Unidad, Alejandro Bodart, last Wednesday 6 of July. There they addressed, among other issues, the following:: How is the war that took place in Ukraine due to the Russian invasion? What are their characteristics? What policy to raise there? do we have to take sides? What are the tasks of the socialists within Ukraine and throughout Eastern Europe? What is LIS doing there? What is the world that is coming and what international organization is needed? These are some of the questions that were addressed in this conversation that we publish below.

SG: We are with Alejandro Bodart, well-known leader, General Secretary of the MST in the Left Unity Front. He is also LIS coordinator: International Socialist League. And what is distinctive about this alive? That Alejandro comes from having been in kyiv and in the Ukraine, a few days ago. In general, we are bombarded by the big media with explanations of what happens in war, what about putin, with Russia, with NATO, con Zelensky. It also depends on which media group is more akin to the West and explains it in a way, if it is more akin to the Russian and Chinese bloc, they explain it differently.

Good, us in general, as we always do fromleftist journalism, we want to have our own voice, own analysis and that fellow socialists and anti-capitalists, leaders like Alejandro, tell us another voice of what happens in reality. so good, first welcome Alexander, thank you very much for taking your time, I know you are in the middle of many activities, but we value very much that you can share with all of us and us this experience.

So I start a little there. First you will tell us if it was very difficult or not to enter the country, get there, see what situation you are in. Oh well, what country did you meet? With what spirit of the population? Y, within that we were even a little following your trip when they announced the new Russian bombing of kyiv. We knew that you were there. And well, the situation of the population is very complex, understanding that the war has moved further to the east of the country at this time, what is the situation in the country, of the workers and of the war in particular?

AB: Good, for the workers it is very, but the situation is very bad, Very bad. as you said, getting there was an odyssey because there are no planes, at least there are no commercial planes to get there. Only the army moves and when NATO wants to send an official, but we had to go on a refugee train to get there, thanks to our colleagues from Ukraine, that they got us the possibility that we could go and return on that train.

When we arrived there had been no bombing in kyiv for some time, there was a new normality that lasted very little, because just the other day we arrived, again, bombing began on kyiv, despite the fact that fighting is taking place in an area far from the capital. Let us remember that the Russian army was 30 kilometers from the capital at the time and had to go back because the resistance was so, so great, forced him back. Along with many other problems that, as well, had the Russian army in the planning of the offensive. Since they thought it was a walk and met with tremendous resistance, then they got entangled and had to go back. I had the opportunity to go as far as the Russian army and there is a city that became well known, what is bucha, because before leaving and facing the impotence of the Russian army, provoked an unjustified slaughter of the civilian population. But, today, it's not fighting so close. The sea, because the Russian army had to withdraw towards the border areas with Russia, who are all that is south and east, what is Donbass. It is the place where there are many Russian speakers or ethnic Russians, why, bueno, we should go back in history. Part of the rectification that was attempted on the Ukraine in the time of Stalin, that is to say, after Lenin's death, al exilio de Trotsky, there was an attempt to “russify”. They once again had a colonization policy on Ukraine and moved a large population to that area. But it has cost the Russian army to take it, because they believed that they would receive them as heroes of the Russian population, and yet, they were also fought. Because it's one thing to be a Russian speaker or to be an ethnic Russian., and another thing is to want them to invade the country, because it was a country that lived in relative peace. Although in those southern and eastern areas there have been separatist attempts. We would have liked there to have also been a self-determination process for those regions, because people have the right to decide what they want to do. Oh well, today there is fighting in that area and the Russian army is advancing. Very possibly it will manage to control everything that is the Donbass and in this way its presence will be consolidated and consolidated there.

Now this will hardly end the war, because Ukraine does not recognize or cede that territory and in turn there is still a lot of resistance from the population. Surely there will be guerrilla warfare, boycott a number of issues. Thus, Russia has walked into a trap, because what I thought was going to be a very fast thing, ended with the great resistance of the people who defend their sovereignty. There's a lot, as you said, power plants that pose almost as if Russia is the one attacked. No, Russia is an imperial power that got into another country to dominate it. It's as if we, I do not know, England came or some imperialist country came and got into Argentina to stay. I would like to keep the territory, control it, put in a puppet government or go back later to keep the piece of Patagonia.

SG: In fact, remember that at the beginning of the war Putin said that Ukraine is an invention of Lenin. Defending Stalin's thesis that you said.

AB: Good, there was a lot of discussion. Ukraine is a country that has suffered permanent invasions and colonization throughout its history.. Although initially, like all nations, it was in a diffuse nation, as was all of America at one time, in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. But it was constituted as a nation a long time ago. What happens is that the tsars dominated it, First, Poland, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, later a part was liberated with the Revolution. Because the process of self-determination was combined with the process of social change, and the 17 starts a process that will end in the 19 only with the independence of a part, because there was still a part taken by Poland, taken over by the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

This process is reversed with Stalinism. Stalinism throws overboard everything that had been, what had allowed Ukraine to become socialist, that it was the Bolsheviks who took up the banner of self-determination. Good, all that, with the consolidation of Stalinism, about the end of the decade 30 it is reversed and Stalinism becomes an oppressor.

This is going to give rise to phenomena that many on the left are not aware of. On how a self-determination movement closely linked to the right is taking shape, because Stalinism came to play, in the name of socialism, oppressive role.

SG: Now I interrupt you for a second. To follow the thread of what you said about Russia, except for those years that you said about Trotsky and Lenin, historically russia, tsarist russia, has always had a very imperial and very oppressive role over nations. evidently, now the role of Putin too. So it opens a debate between the left and between Marxists about what is Russia? what is your relationship, your role today? The fact of being one of the main arms countries, despite the fact that it is more backward from the economic point of view. How would you define Russia, your role today?

AB: It is clearly a new imperialism. First, everyone who dreams of socialist Russia, they have to know that he died a long time ago, Regrettably. Stalinism liquidated it, he began to liquidate it in the 1930s. what was theWorkers State of Lenin and Trotsky began to liquidate it in the 1930s and ended up bursting it in the 1990s. There was a process of capitalist restoration. The old bureaucrats of the Stalinist Communist Party, they kept the factories, the companies, natural resources and transformed from bureaucrats to bourgeois, to oligarchs as in all the East they name them, great oligarchs. Putin, who was a gray KGB agent, it ended up becoming the administrator of all that bureaucracy that became capitalist. Now he wants to recover the role that he had as a "great empire" and that is why this whole adventure is over..

Russia is imperialist, there is a process of formation of new imperialisms. I think it's very foolish to deny it. ¡Ojo! I knew that in Argentina there is a party, our comrade from the Left Front, Who thinks that Russia is not capitalist yet. Thus, there are many debates. I'm talking about the Workers' Party, which calculates that there was no finished restoration. But there was not only restoration, today there is capitalism. need to go, nothing else. Maybe they need to travel a little. It is a complete capitalist country, emerging as an imperialist power along with China.

Part of the trouble in the world, In addition to the tremendous crisis that capitalism is experiencing after the 2008, the pandemic and this war, It has to do with the friction between a new imperialism that is emerging with an axis in China. In a block of China with Russia, with Iran and with other sectors, try to dispute him, for now financially, we'll stop at this later, to an imperialism that is in decline, which is the United States and Europe. Although Russia has a weak economy compared to Germany, with France, Japan, with the United States, It is one of the most important powers from a military point of view., and one cannot be foolish, has an imperialist attitude towards the area. Let us remember that very recently, in fact, to save the dictator Lukashenko in Belarus, ended up acting as an imperial power. in Kazakhstan, that there was a tremendous rebellion, they ended up sending troops to intervene. other notice, there is another rebellion, in another of the republics, in Azerbaijan.

SG: Alejandro, being clear about this, this imperialist role of Russia that you explain very well, It is also evident that in the official discourse, I mean the Putin government, there is talk that he has to do this because NATO is expanding, and it does it to weaken NATO. At the same time, contradictorily, I get the feeling that NATO, Since Russia invaded, has gained more political prominence with the United States. Now, it is evident that NATO has an imperialist plan commanded by Biden, by United States. It is evident that Zelensky acts politically towards the side of NATO. What is your vision of NATO, of the Zelensky government in this war?

AB: Good, It's two questions in one.. I believe that, as you say, Putin's invasion of Ukraine ended up strengthening NATO and the United States, that came in complete decline after what was the Trump presidency. In addition to practically abandoning the role of gendarme that he had. The United States is very weak, economically and politically in the world. A little Putin gave him the excuse to get back together. NATO was completely frayed. So, This greening of NATO is not understood, without the hand that Putin gave him.

At the same time, NATO has just held a summit, where what they resolved was very important. First they resolved to strengthen the entire military budget, that it is not a thing of today for tomorrow. They got tired of clarifying that, obviously, they were not preparing to invade or enter the game in Ukraine, nor to attack Russia. was preventative, because at some point this new imperialism that arises, I insist again, with axis in China and secondarily with Russia, it may end up colliding with the old imperialism to discuss who is the new axis of the world. Let us remember that all imperialisms have fallen or have arisen from great military confrontations. World War I and World War II. Is a third possible?? it's possible. Nevertheless, today we are not in that situation, because NATO is in charge of clarifying that it does not want to do that. Russia also does not invade any NATO country, Ukraine was not in NATO and possibly is not. But NATO also took it upon itself to say that it armed, because they foresee rebellions and revolutions in the countries. NATO's own statement is: “Be careful, our problem is not only Russia., nor Ukraine, we have problems throughout North Africa”. Remember that, in the north of Africa, every six months there are rebellions and revolutions that have taken place against the dictatorial regimes of the entire area, who apply brutal plans at the service of imperialist corporations. Widespread famines are coming in Africa, they are very worried.

And they are worried about Europe itself, because there has just been a strike that went half unnoticed, perhaps, in the Southern Cone, in Latin America, because we see it very far. A strike in England, that all the analysts talk about, mentioning that there had not been a strike of that dimension for a long time 30, 35 years. You have to go back to the Thatcher era to see a strike of this magnitude.. It is part of the changes that are taking place in the world today. From this brutal capitalist crisis of 2008, of the pandemic and of this war, which has exacerbated the economic problems, social and political, We are going to a stage of many rebellions.

NATO is preparing to face this and also to face the new axis that is disputing power. China, fundamentally, and Russia. China also does not want a confrontation today, because he is not in a position to do it. In a sense it is the other side of Russia, because it is an economy that is getting stronger, with a still weak military power. They all work at 10 or 15 years, both NATO and China and Russia. Now, it might get out of hand. The plans they have to patiently prepare for a confrontation going forward, and today dedicate themselves to stealing a little each one, a piece of the world, essentially economically, they fear it will get out of hand. But today that is the situation, and it is important for politics to have all this in the conflict, be clear about what is going on.

SG: Clear, that's how it is, effectively. China was advancing, Let's say, quietly economically, and suddenly this upsets the whole situation a bit. Now, as is this that you propose, NATO relationship, his expansive plan, the Russia-China bloc grounded, Let's return to the terrain of Ukraine. Throughout the 20th century there have been different wars, the first World War, the Second World War, liberation wars, the Malvinas war -in the case of Argentina-, the russian war- japanese, the chinese-japanese. Good, lots of wars of different characteristics. In this case, which is very complex, evidently, and is not exactly the same as any of the above. How do you characterize the war? What are the core elements that define what the war is like in Ukraine and, but still, how to locate?

AB: The question is very important, because I think it is the basis of why a very important sector of the left fails so much in relation to the war, by not understanding that it is actually a complex war, because two elements are involved, no one. If it were a war where only Russia invades Ukraine, an imperialism like the Russian invades a colonial country like the Ukrainian, we would have a war similar to what was Malvinas. Thus, for us it would be very simple, we should support the country attacked by an empire. A semi-colonial country attacked by an empire. Now, what has confused? This element is, because there is an empire that invades a semi-colonial country. That is one of the elements., very important, that makes one have to support the attacked country. But there is another element that occurs in this war. Imperial aggression on a semi-colonial country, it happens in the midst of these inter-imperialist frictions that I told you about before, between what is Russia – China and the United States – Europe, that are the two powers that are facing.

So, What's up? it would be wrong, how do some sectors, view one item only, one isolated from the other. That, unfailingly, makes one wrong how to stand in the face of war. For example, there are comrades on the left who see only the confrontation between Russia and the United States, between NATO and Russia. come that. They even make a movie that we are already on the verge of World War III or they have a policy as if we were in a world war. Good, there are frictions, no world war yet. If there were a world war, it would become the axis on which to act for the revolutionaries. Obviously, get to work so that no one wins in this war, because the only ones who are going to lose are the workers of all the countries that get involved there. Now, as there is no third world war yet, the axis cannot be this. The axis of the national liberation of Ukraine remains, which is the attacked country. There are two elements, but today the most important, it is the issue that there is an invasion of an imperialism to a semi-colonial country. If tomorrow the conflict becomes a third world war, the axis will become another. But today we cannot be confused, we have to support that attacked nation. Ojo, even if there is a third world war, the struggle of the Ukrainians for the liberation of their country would not cease to be just.

It must be clear that there are two elements in war: a, the defense of the sovereignty of an attacked country, that fights for self-determination against an empire, what is russia. That, is an axis, the most important today. and one second, what is this imperialist dispute, what, eye, everyone uses Ukraine based on that dispute that is behind. NATO makes it support Ukraine, that he would even like to stay with Ukraine, How would Russia like to stay?. You have to have a policy. We revolutionaries have to have a policy of permanently denouncing those imperialist interests that are behind, but do not confuse us and support the attacked nation in its liberation process.

What does a sector of the left? As you only see the inter-imperialist dispute, does not support Ukraine and vice versa. Those who do not support Ukraine, many times, end up supporting Russia. I believe that this war has divided waters in the world left, and I'm not talking about the old camping, of the recycled Stalinist sectors, those who argue that Putin is a socialist. I speak of the revolutionary left, that many times has politics together. For example, Argentina's FIT has split around this. There are two members who are on one side of the trench in the case of Ukraine and two others who, doubtfully, it is not known where they are, in which trench. And if you go to the bottom, at the bottom, bottom, they are more on the side of Russia, that on the side of the Ukrainian people. We are all against imperialism, against NATO, but later... I think it has a lot to do with the fact that they don't know much about the East, they don't have jobs in the East. There is a very westernized left, that mechanically transfers to the East what happens in the West. And the East ain't got much to do with the West, because Stalinism passed through there, I think that it is not fully understood what Stalinism did in all those countries and how to move there.

SG: while you were talking, I actually remembered the debate in the Left Front, that has different positions. There has been a public debate, many have surely seen it. But, effectively, I would like to ask you for an opinion because every war reopens debates. There are colleagues who, although they say and pose as a policy or as a slogan, the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, at the same time, refuse to raise support for the resistance. So, there, you're getting into trouble. Because how do you fight against Russia without supporting the resistance? For what you develop of the LIS policy, effectively, you make a differentiation between what would be, in terms of war, what is a political field and a military field. Politically it is not necessary to be with Zelensky, but on the military level there is an invasion. How would you explain to those who are listening or those who are participating, all this controversy?

AB: There is a sector on the left that, First, refuses to characterize Russia as an imperial power. This is a first problem, since if it is not an empire they put it almost at the same level as Ukraine. And that's why they don't stop defending Ukraine, because they almost pose that it is a problem between equals, which is not so.

There are others who say otherwise. They say that, as Ukraine is supported by NATO, bueno, means that Russia fights against NATO or against a NATO power, then we should not support Ukraine, which is a puppet government of NATO. So, I think that a sector of the left is completely confused, because he is in the wrong field. With this sector of the left we have a debate. You are on the wrong side of the trench because there is a country under attack, which is a semi-colonial country. Suppose Russia is not imperialist, thing that we believe is imperialist, is a superpower against Ukraine, against a semi-colonial country. Always Marxism, and is full of examples of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, the marxists, they have been located with the backward country when there is a power that tries to invade it. We have always characterized as just war, the war of a country that fights against a power that invades it, who wants to keep his territory. This is always the case and we have examples to show that this has always been the policy of the revolutionaries.

Now, later there is another debate, what is this that you propose. support the resistance, how do we, so that he wins and throws out the invader. We want Russia to leave. That NATO does not enter and that Russia leaves, that is the axis of our policy. Today NATO is not, the one is Russia. we differentiate, that leads you to act in unity of action with other sectors in Ukraine. We are a small force, revolutionary socialists in ukraine, the Ukrainian Socialist League was founded a year ago, in the midst of the pandemic our league began to emerge. But there are other forces that are also fighting Russia objectively..

Government, which for us is a neoliberal government, that even later we could talk about what he's doing in the middle of the war, is taking advantage to introduce a series of very violent reforms against the working class. But, objectively, you are in the military camp of Zelensky himself, because everyone shoots to one side. What is a military camp? It is where there are people who shoot to one side. that's where we are, that we want to get rid of the invader, but there are other forces. Even right-wing forces. There is even a formation that Putin took it upon himself to mention a lot to justify the invasion, they are a group of nazis. Because there are Nazis all over the world, Regrettably, and they are emerging more and more. We have some who at any time put the swastika in Argentina, the Milei. It has confessed Nazis inside, as the second of Milei, but everywhere there are nazis. Here, there are also nazis in russia. Here is a Nazi battalion in the Ukraine, what is the Azov battalion. That there is almost nothing left, because since he is the one who was fighting in the south and in the east, they have practically liquidated it and some have been left in detention. Good, now, objectively, in the military field, pull to that side. It's not that you're shooting at yourself with those Nazis, I don't know how many are left.. They are all shooting to the same side.

Now, being in the same military camp, In the same place, shooting shots for the same place, it does not mean that you are in the same political field as those people. We are not even in the same political camp as those Nazis, nor in the same political camp as Zelensky, leading a neoliberal government, which is a government that wants to put the country in NATO. we differentiate, Marxism always differentiated. Coincidentally, in a meeting, a fellow from pakistan, reminded us when we were discussing this, that the bolsheviks, before taking power -between February and October 17-, in an attempted military coup by the tsarist right wing armed with Kornilov, the Bolsheviks called to fight with the reformist government of that time, that had arisen in February, contra Kornilov. There are kicking examples in the world.

ourselves in the Falklands. whether we like it or we don't like it, those of us who were against the invasion, we wanted those who were fighting militarily in Malvinas to win. And in Malvinas there was, in fact, a military front commanded by some stupid people who were the military dictatorship itself. We lost the war because of that driving. But this does not mean that one, who wants the soldiers who were going to fight to win the war, most colimbas who were going to fight against the English, be in the same political camp as the dictatorship. Because, there is the political field and there is the military field. This differentiation is very important.. those who confuse everything, end up in an eggplant, because not being in the same political field, they end up not being in the same military camp and therefore end up not being involved in the pivotal event. It's the same as in a strike. Last, wars are a concentrated expression of politics. on a strike, it may be that the leadership of the strike are rotten bureaucrats who have been dragged into the strike by the workers. And that you are supporting that strike, doesn't mean you're supporting that rotten bureaucracy. You are fighting with the bureaucracy against the bosses, but it does not mean that you are the same as that bureaucracy. The same thing happens in war.. Many times you are forced to be in the same military camp, shooting shots to the same side, because there is a common enemy and the war is just, but that does not put you on the same political side. Understanding this is the ABC of Marxism.

I think that many sectors of the left, ultra-leftists, sectarians and propagandists, They do not fully understand this fact and, so, do not act correctly. Some because directly, they stand on the other side of the trench. But others who say they are against the invasion, they make such a mess with this that they end up not supporting the resistance. They are afraid of getting a little dirty. I wrote an article where I put, “You have to get dirty in the mud of the trench, get a little stained with the mud of some royalty”. Good, we will never beat the right by being cowards. We believe that the war waged by Ukraine to self-determinate and drive out the invader is just., How was the Falklands War fair?, as there have been many just wars. The Serbian War against the Austro-Hungarian Empire, that started the First World War, and we could count the war that China waged against Japan.in just wars, if you want to dispute the address, you cannot be a coward or abstainer from participating. It cannot be that the brave are the right in war. If you want to beat the Zelensky leadership, to all who are there, who are already bourgeois, they are people who want to take the country anywhere, you have to intervene.

What I am saying is that the revolutionary socialists have to be avant-garde. Trotsky and Lenin said that they cannot be cowards in these facts. There were ultra-left currents that, for example, in Japan's invasion of China, who had a "Zelensky" directing and facing the invasion, they said you had to refrain, apply "revolutionary defeatism". Trotsky, Conversely, desperate, I told them not to be cowards. There you have to be with the Chinese people, knowing that Chiang Kai Shek is in charge and is going to betray. Then he betrayed and not only that, but he was one of the gravediggers of one of the Chinese revolutions. But since there was a just war and you have to free yourself, the communists, socialists, they have to be at the forefront in that to dispute the direction of the right. And to all the others who are there, who face the invasion with objectives that are different from ours.

We would like to defeat Russia and for this to be the beginning of a revolutionary process that ends up defeating the Ukrainian bourgeoisie itself., to the Zelenskys, to the fascist rights and let the workers take power. Now, none of that is going to be done in the war, while the entire population fights in one way or another to expel the invader, we socialists get under the bed.

SG: Listening to you is obviously that, As minimum, it is contradictory to say that one is against the invasion, but do not support the resistance, Y, that way, favor invaders. because it is a war, effectively.

AB: Shots are fired in war, position war, you take territory, free territories. The sea, there is a very propagandist left that dies when it takes action.

Of course, this happens with the confusions that we said before. Because there are some who do not finish seeing that Ukraine's war against Russia is a just war. they get confused, when NATO is behind, everyone gets confused and does not see that there are two processes: the war of the ukrainians, fair to get rid of Russia, and inter-imperialist friction. Good, we have to be against all imperialism, but supporting Ukraine to free itself from Russia.

SG: We read an article of yours and we invited you to read it for Journalism of the Left, where you brought up an example of Lenin's world war on Serbia, Austria. A little where Lenin remarked this, the defense of that right (self determination), you brought it to account a little to relate this situation.

AB: There are just wars and not all wars are the same. This is the point that is very important. suppose, if tomorrow these inter-imperialist frictions were transformed into a world war, our policy would not be the same as now. Today our Russian comrades have to fight for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine. The sea, they have to fight so that they lose their own country. That is what a Russian internationalist has to do today. and they do, That's why they end up in prison. We have colleagues who have stopped them, others who have had to leave Russia. What do the comrades from Belarus? Because Lukashenko together with Putin act in the war. They have to work so that Lukashenko loses, his own army.

If there was a war unleashed between NATO and Russia – China, that is a third world war, our policy would be that each country fight to defeat its own army, to end the war. Apply "revolutionary defeatism". But today, there is no third world war, it's another war. The real war that exists, is between a country that has been invaded and an invading country. Thus, politics, today, is to try to work so that the attacked country wins. That is to say, for the defeat of Russia and the triumph of Ukraine, it's a just war. How do you count, the Serbian example.

World War I started because the Austro-Hungarian Empire had a policy of invasion of Serbia, and a few days later other powers began to intervene and the world war was armed. Now, Lenin clearly stated that Serbia was a nation attacked by the Austro-Hungarian Empire and that it was correct for the Serbs to defend themselves. Nothing more than then became the First World War and the invasion moved to a second axis, and the main axis was the world war. Today we are not in the third world war, we are in what would be the phenomenon of Serbia invaded by the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the third world war has not yet taken place. if tomorrow changes, will change the policy.What can't be done, is to apply the policy of a fact that does not happen. Today it cannot be said that they all lose, as if it were a world war. These are important things in politics and I think there is a lot of confusion on the left.

Then there are other issues. This I told you about the ignorance of how the nationalist spirit was formed in the East. It is an important point, because it also confuses, most have a romantic view of nationalism. For example, one actually supports palestinian nationalism, against israel. Or one is very sympathetic to Basque nationalism against Spain, or Catalan nationalism against Spain, or the nationalism of the Saharawis. Y, in general, the directions of these movements have been nationalisms a little shifted to the left. Why? Because they have had to fight against nations that expressed the most recalcitrant right well and even within their own countries the right ended up supporting the oppressive state. The Catalan right is with Spain, in Catalonia. The Basque Right, in general, is with Spain. The right in Ireland is with England. So, the national liberation movements have been shifted to the left, including many influenced by Marxism.

what happens in the east? Nationalist processes have collided with Stalinism, I mean, different from Latin America that collides with the United States and its right-wing government represented by governments like Macri's. In the East, the oppressive state that has been the great Stalinist Russia, who now intends to revive Putin as the great imperialist Russian, it was painted from the left. Thus, the oppressor said he was a marxist, who was a communist. So the nationalism that arose, it emerged very closely linked to the right and that is what has confused many, that's why they don't like it. Some say that the Ukrainians are half fachos. First it's fake, because the expressions fachas or of right have the same weight that they have in the other countries. But it is clear that Ukrainian nationalism was never a left-wing nationalism. For this I say, because the left was the oppressor for the masses.You have to put yourself in the head of the worker, Stalinism made a mess in the head of the worker. The one who came with invading armies and massacred, he was a guy who was said to be a communist, who was a socialist. So, that's what the left doesn't understand about the East, he does not fully understand the role that Stalinism played and that is why he dislodges himself. The Ukrainian masses are not right-wing. What does have to be rebuilt is a left, raising the dead left by Stalinism, that has greatly confused the mass movement. One speaks of socialism and they imagine Stalin entering again, kidnapping with the KGB and killing.

The millions of deaths that Ukraine has due to Stalinism are tremendous, because Stalinism was the other face of Nazism. That's the truth. The Nazi of the East was Stalin although he painted himself as a socialist. There is a lot of left that makes their hair stand up when they talk about Hitler, but his hair does not stand up so much when talking about Stalin, it's like they try to embellish it. Unfortunately he played the most nefarious role in history, because we are talking about a third of humanity that had become a socialist and later hated socialism because of the barbarities that Stalin did, that he had nothing socialist. We are trying to rebuild that consciousness and it is possible to rebuild the consciousness, because people are making the experience with capitalism in Ukraine. capitalism is awesome, because capitalism is putting people out of work, I mean, brutal labor laws are being applied. So people are in a dilemma because they don't want anything to do with Stalinism., but at the same time the situation under capitalism is getting worse. So you are looking for an alternative. Good, that is where we revolutionary socialists have to act, really stating that we have nothing to do with Stalinism or capitalism, that we are a third alternative exit, that we are for your self-determination, that's why we fight, for Russia to go, but at the same time we fight against Zelensky and his labor reforms. We fight so that workers can decide their future, for reopening factories, why things are not privatized.

SG: this war, as well, we have already begun to pay the workers of Argentina in Latin America, from another part of the world. what do you think? because it is evident, lack of food, prices go up. How do wars act for the larger context?

AB: Good, I said it at the beginning. Capitalism has been in decline for a few years. I think there is a continuity 2008. At 2008 the crisis was so deep that it was the beginning of friction between the different imperial powers. Because the world no longer allows the same place for everyone. So, they start fighting over the top. But if you add 2008, severe economic crisis, The world economy has not finished recovering and the pandemic is coming, the pandemic is not over, and the war is coming… All this has provoked tremendous measures by the capitalists to save themselves and unload the crisis on the shoulders of the people.

Now, for example, with the excuse of war they are increasing food everywhere. Ukraine is a supplier of food, so since these foods are not available, there is a little less food and then the capitalists take advantage to increase it, something that is not justified. Because the truth is that there is more food than what is needed for the entire world population. But the capitalists take advantage of this situation, a real situation, to end up highlighting and causing disasters. In Africa, a significant sector of the population no longer has access to food. It is estimated that there will be widespread famines, but there will also be rebellions against this. There have already started to be mobilizations everywhere.

Russia is a supplier of gas and oil and with all this sanctions, They have also taken the opportunity to raise the energy. then the taxes, for example, what the population pays, they've gone through the roof, reading oil, etc. Y, how do you know, if gasoline goes up everything also goes up again. The war has deepened the crisis. However, the States are investing a lot of money in the war and in saving the companies. Miles y miles, and thousands and billions and millions of euros and dollars. Since 2008 they have invested here to save the banks, the big corporations. They want someone to pay. And who wants to pay it? People. How? with more fees, price increase, inflation. Inflation is no longer just Argentina. The sea, Argentina is world record, for everything that happened in these days he must already be in the 100% of inflation. But Europe and the United States, who did not know about inflation for decades, today has inflation 10, 11, 12% and they despair. For the people the 10, 11%, is similar to 70, 80% from Argentina, because people are not used to these levels. Y, Of course, here is inflation 10, 11, 12, 15%, but wages are frozen. Apart from the fact that the crisis is causing the closure of factories and companies, because the big ones eat the smaller ones and there is an economic crisis. there is recession. America is entering a recession. Then you start to see factory closures, closure of companies.

Anyway, I want people to know something. The whole world is suffering the consequences of the war and the economic crisis. But the Ukrainians have to add to all this the costs of the war, because they think he 30% of the country's infrastructure is destroyed. Thousands and thousands of jobs and factories have already been destroyed. Nevertheless, there is no social help from Zelensky and company. Zelensky asks for weapons and money, but it is money that does not go to the pocket of people who are desperate. That is why they have had to go because of the war and because of this situation millions of Ukrainians who are touring all over Europe. Above, like little, taking advantage of the war and this situation, they are introducing a labor package that facilitates dismissal, that virtually eliminates union membership so companies can do whatever they want. there are ridiculous things. For example, What were the most important military objectives of Russia? The factories, then almost all the factories are so destroyed and the people, it has nothing, do not have unemployment insurance. So the war has caused the consequences to be seen on the workers. And in Ukraine add to that the war. So they are even a little worse than all the rest.

SG: good alexander, in this last part, a bit like a logical conclusion for you who are such an important leader of the left and of so many years, you said very well that there is a sector of the left that does not understand what is happening in the East. This is so and it can be demonstrated by the fact that today, very few sectors of Trotskyism have a militant organization in Eastern Europe. For some reason they don't have it., and besides, hardly someone can have it if it is not part of the countries, for example, as Ukraine to be in the front row of the confrontation with Russia. Now, you went to Ukraine and kyiv, in particular, because the section that you just said, of the DSL, the Ukrainian Socialist League had its meeting, your conference. Tell us a little, what is it?? what do the companions do? What is your location, his politics, your challenge, his role? because they are one of the few, I think, although you tell us, of the only revolutionary Marxist organizations that exist today in the midst of the war.

AB: We have had relationships with colleagues from the East for many years. Practically since after the '90s, because we joined forces with a sector of independent trade unionism that stood up to the old bureaucracy, but also that he stood up against the attempts of North American imperialism to go and buy the union organizations. A whole sector of the labor movement, of union leaders, activists, they said a little good, we are against what was happening, but we are not in favor of going to capitalism. And an independent trade unionism developed, that to this day has expressions in all the countries of the East. That's why we have work in Belarus, we have work also in Russia and we have work in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Socialist League has a base in independent trade unionism, anti bureaucratic, anticapitalist, independent of the Zelensky government. Even our colleagues run a union that has some 4.000 militants. The union is called Labor Protection.

Ojo, but they also have work in other unions, not only in that. For example, At the conference I just attended, the colleague who gave the report is not from the Labor Protection union., It's from the Aviation union. They have a labor base, of many years, They are people with a lot of experience gained in that, but at the same time also as they are the only Marxist expression in Ukraine, trotskyist, they also have a group of young people who are attracted to the ideas of the left, we are the only group. Missing a middle generation, say ours, because they are fellow trade unionists and young people for a few years. But, as I told them, Every organization has a future if it has young people and that is a very interesting group of young people.

We are the only Marxist organization, trotskyist, from Ukraine. I think this is important because being a revolutionary does not mean being a revolutionary.. Being an internationalist is not talking about international politics. All this has to be done. The central base of a revolutionary is to build revolutionary organization to fight the bourgeoisie, to the bureaucracy. That is why I say that our left in the East is important, there are very few organizations that have relations in the East. First, because there has never been an attempt to understand what happened in the East. He goes east looking for communists, but the communists that remain are stalinists who yearn for the time of the gulag, What were the concentration camps?. They love the times where the KGB and Stalinism acted. Those are the ones who call themselves communists and the rest of the communists today are government officials, they are the owners of the factories. then it is not understood, it is not fully understood, It is not understood because there is no leftist nationalism. This what I told you, then it is not understood why a Chavez does not arise, an Evo Morales does not emerge. They don't come up here, nationalists are rather straight, because they were made fighting against communism, in a sense they went that way. Good, none of this is understood. And the workers who have been fighting against all that are not understood. Our comrades told us that when the USSR fell, I was going left but I didn't understand anything. The left was looking for things that for the workers were the devil, like the symbols, that for that the symbols of oppression had been. The left withdrew and has had almost no politics. Good, there is a process, the labor movement in all those countries is tremendous.

I believe that, if Ukraine wins and if Putin is defeated, thing that is not easy, but if it happened, tremendous forces of the Russian working class would be unleashed, Belarusian, kettle. Today the role that Russia plays on the region's workers with brutal repression continues to be a prison for peoples.. The USSR dissolved relatively easily., practically no fight. From there they learned, they learned and began to apply it. For example, In Syria, In Nicaragua, in Venezuela itself, they are regimes that before falling are going to unleash tremendous massacres and tremendous repressions. And that is why even the barbarities that the Russian army is doing on the Ukrainian civilian population, but that doesn't mean they can't be beaten. Because underneath there is a generalized anger. The majority of the Belarusian people hate Lukashenko. There are millions in Russia who hate Putin. And the same thing happens in Kazakhstan, who crushed them with russian tanks.

In Ukraine all that force is what allows Russia to not yet have taken the country. that hate, that anger, that desire to be a free country. but in turn, that is infecting the rest of the workers. If Ukraine were to win, It is false what some say that NATO is being strengthened. Of course, NATO is going to try to capitalize on it, but that has no way out. The problem is that, from our point of view, that of the workers, forces would be released that today are contained and are in a prison, which are the billions of workers in one of the largest countries in the world. A territory such as Russia, that today are under the boot of Putin. That is why the issue of war is also so important.. Far from strengthening that to imperialism, that today has been strengthened thanks to the presence of Putin, that liberated force would go against the oligarchs, against the powers of the bourgeoisie and would open a new panorama. These trade unionists who have been fighting, they would strengthen. And they're unionists who are looking to the left. Of course, the left cannot close the door on him like a sector does and show itself on the side of Putin, because if we are not screwed. If the left wants to become strong in that place, has to support the Ukrainian self-determination process, the independent unions that continue to exist even with the boot of repression. That is where the vanguard is going to come from and it is going to build revolutionary organizations. I think that the LIS helps to understand this, that allows us to be the only expression that has a development in Ukraine. There is another interesting group in Ukraine. It's not that we're alone, but it is a more social movement. But political movement, it's just ours.

SG: I was thinking while you were talking. If indeed such a resistance succeeded in defeating Russia, looking to the future Ukraine, look if they are not going to defend their labor rights against Zelensky and any economic plan that affects them. Oh well, These are very, very important discussions.. A more general thought, because as you said at the beginning, NATO summit met. And they are worried not only about the war, but for the world to come, rebellions and strikes. That makes, obviously, it becomes important for the Ukrainian group to become stronger, that the ISL be strengthened in Eastern Europe. But the ISL is an organization that is in many continents and that is in a process of new political phenomena in Colombia., revenue in Brazil, of new relations with Australia, with the United States. What is the perspective of the LIS? How is it and how do we see it for the coming period?

AB: I think that the dynamism of the LIS shows that there is a new world. For many years there is a new world. There is a very big crisis of the old, of capitalism that is leading us to wars, the destruction of the planet from the point of view of climate change, brutal. As for the repression, fascism is emerging again in some places and now this is also generating a vanguard that begins to look to the left and is going to generate rebellions and revolutions, because processes like this are always spawned. And I believe that in this process that is taking place, there is a vanguard that is looking for an alternative. The problem is whether we are able to give you a real alternative for the current moment. LIS tries to do that, try to make an organization where we learn from the past, where we can coexist different expressions, different traditions, where we make room for even the workers from the East and that we make room for the processes that are taking place in Africa, where we do not want to transfer our own experiences to each of the countries and colleagues, but to understand the experiences of those countries. Like all this that I explained to you from the East. and learn from peers, not wanting to put something into them that are more western ideas, that have nothing to do even with your experience.

Good, the LIS is growing for that. Ojo, I do not want to say that there are no debates in the LIS. For example, we did the first congress before the war. The war has reopened the debates, we have managed to make declarations and agree. This does not mean that there are no debates in relation to this topic., as with others. It's not bad to have debates. The important thing is that after the debates we can act together in the class struggle, for example, at this very moment we are doing an extraordinary thing in Nicaragua. tremendous, because we are in a serious internationalist action, not peak, because we have formed a commission that is and is going to try to enter Nicaragua to see the prisoners. In a country where an entire sector of the global left talks about socialism. It's false. That prostitutes the name of socialism, experiences like that of Ortega-Murillo and dictatorships that take that name.

The ISL has been the architect of an extraordinary event, which is to put together an international commission with other currents, with human rights organizations, with the Nicaraguan diaspora to be there. We have campaigned for the East as well, that has strengthened us. I think there are many possibilities, as well, a void from the international point of view. The working class does not have a world organization, but there are many possibilities to conform it. Good, the LIS tries to cover that gap, regroup revolutionaries worldwide so that we occupy that space, that emptiness, and we can think about how to defeat capitalism, not only in speaking ill of capitalism. But to think about this world that is upon us, how a new opportunity is opened so that revolutionary socialism once again has enough weight to think about power.The LIS is not a propagandist project, it's a power project. not for tomorrow, but it doesn't stop from here to 100 years, but to intervene in this tremendous crisis that is coming. We are convinced that we are going to grow. Look, I surprise myself more every day, because I go to Africa and I find very large organizations that think the same as us. I go to Asia and the same thing happens without us having met before, because there is a search, we are not the only revolutionaries. To the Argentines I tell them because many times I see other organizations that believe they are the beacon of the world. No, we are one more contribution to the whole world. There are revolutionaries who are beginning to think how to better combat the bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy. It's about putting them together.. Good, the LIS tries to be that project.

SG: I remembered the images of when you were with Cele Fierro at the Congress of the Struggle in Pakistan. How different experiences converge, in that case a very important organization.

AB: Yes, or how the comrades of the Polisario Front invite us to be the only political expression of the revolutionary left in the events of the Saharawi people. Or in Lebanon. That's why I think there is a very big opportunity. hopefully the rest, other leftist organizations were open to work in this sense. must see the war. Good, the war divided waters. Just as he has separated us from some, with other organizations, with which we still have nuances, in this point, for example, we have been closer. Good, you have to open a dialogue. Also lead some common actions. We, that we are the ones who have work in Nicaragua, we have set up a commission, but we have not been sectarian. We have invited the rest of the organizations to participate. others would have to learn, that many times no action is taken because the one who grabs the handle does not want to open it. We do not, we don't have that complex, we have the idea of ​​doing something big.That's the LIS, trying to do something great, an organization that can respond to the challenges of the times, that can respond as we respond in Nicaragua in other countries, how today we respond in war. a socialist organization, revolutionary, supportive and campaigning to carry out its policy, not that he lives in a tiny microworld and is content only to agree between four walls and with four people without intervening in world reality.