Unsplash and Getty Images.

In the conflict between Soviet Russia with Joseph Stalin at its head and Nazi Germany, I would have supported Soviet Russia. I suppose you could argue that might make me some kind of Stalinist. After all, I would have been supporting the Stalinist government. Not only that, I may even have hoped the US might provide it with funding to continue to organise its military effort, so you could probably label me an American stooge too. (in fact, the US did supply Soviet Russia with millions of tonnes of food, weapons and equipment during the Second World War).

But a distinction should be made. What one is supporting most fundamentally in this case is not Stalinism but rather the struggles of the Russian people themselves,[1] their imperilled freedoms at the hands of a brutal, barbaric foreign invasion. People fighting and dying – not because they had some great love for Stalin – but because they didn’t want to be bombed and maimed and killed at the hands of a foreign power. Because they didn’t want to live their day-to-day lives under the shadow of foreign occupation.

Of course, one could ignore all this. One could assert, for instance, that the Russian population were simply being manipulated in the interests of the Stalinist government (and vicariously the US itself) and, therefore, it was Stalinism and the US government who were the true objects of international support. Certainly, the defeat of Germany did bolster the imperial power of the US and Russia. But were the millions of Russians who fought and died against fascism – were those lives merely the ‘proxies’ of the interests of Stalin and the United States government who supported him?

Such an assertion most would find obscene. It is obscene because it involves the annihilation of a living content – the struggles and sacrifice of millions of people fighting for their concrete freedoms – in favour of the interests and relationships of a set of given states and governments considered in empty and schematic isolation.

For similar reasons, I support the right of the Ukrainian people to resist foreign occupation. As a necessary corollary, I also support the means by which they might do so – even if that means receiving funding and ammunition from the US and NATO (though if you can suggest some other alternative beyond capitulation at the point of a Russian gun, I really am all ears).

But none of this is the same as saying I support Zelensky, or that I support the US and NATO. At the most basic philosophical level, it simply means to recognise that freedom – as Kant put it – is ‘an end in itself’. It has an objective and social reality whether or not the arms the freedom fighters take up are provided by this particular imperial power or that one. Likewise, freedom has an objective reality whether or not it is being menaced by Russian bombs or Israeli bombs or Nazi bombs.

Imagine, for instance, if the funding to Ukraine hadn’t been provided by the US and NATO. Imagine it had been provided by China. Or imagine that Ukraine had the ability to fund itself to the same financial tune. Would that have any impact on the right of the Ukrainians to resist? Each of these scenarios would have made no difference to the fundamental ethical substance of the issue; they would not have touched upon the fact that the struggle of Ukraine’s population against Russian occupation flows from their essence as human beings, as beings with a capacity for self-determination, a capacity that is being infringed and curtailed. And self-determination is at the philosophical core of the Marxist project. Or at least it should be.

As Lenin once said, the true work of the revolutionary begins ‘where the masses are to be found’, for it is only in the movements from below – the movement, needs and objectives of great swathes of people – that concrete forms of universal........

© CounterPunch