Fascism,Trotskyist deracination & Russian anti-Imperialism

Russia lack the character of Imperialism according to Lenin

Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practised imperialism. But “general” disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater Britain.” ^[5] Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital. - Lenin ( VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS)

The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist associations of big employers. These monopolies are most firmly established when all the sources of raw materials are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the international capitalist associations exert every effort to deprive their rivals of all opportunity of competing, to buy up, for example, ironfields, oilfields, etc. Colonial possession alone gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle against competitors, including the case of the adversary wanting to be protected by a law establishing a state monopoly. The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of colonies. - Lenin ( Imperialism)

Russia is saving Ukraine

At its core, the conflict between NATO and Russia is a struggle between Western financial imperialism and a nation resisting subjugation. When Ukraine’s former leader Yanukovych faced an economic policy decision in 2014, the question was never merely about ideological alignment with the West or Russia—it was about who would truly develop Ukraine’s resources rather than plunder them. The imperialist bloc offered loans and arms, but only in exchange for the extraction of natural wealth, turning Ukraine into a colony in all but name.

NATO, the modern successor to the British Empire, functions as the military arm of global capital, enforcing a system where wealth flows upward to the financial core. Meanwhile, the regions reintegrated into Russia have seen development, not devastation—a stark contrast to the IMF’s vampiric grip on Ukraine, which drains its resources only to return U.S. dollars. These dollars then cycle back into purchasing goods from America and its vassals, reinforcing the very system that keeps Ukraine dependent. The war obscures this reality, disguising economic predation as a fight for "democracy."

Dictatorship of the proletariat

Russia, though no longer socialist, carries forward a communist consciousness in its defense of historical sovereignty. Just as Stalin and the Soviet Union stood as the defenders of historic Russia during the Great Patriotic War, today’s Russia resists the dismemberment of nations by speculative capital. Compare this to bourgeois states like Poland, which—lacking communist leadership—folded before the Nazis, allowing their nation to be carved up. Without a revolutionary vanguard, history is erased, replaced by the tyranny of finance capital—a process that degrades culture, people, and memory alike. Ukraine’s tragedy is not just war, but the slow erasure of its future under the boot of imperialist "aid."

Russia today lacks the leadership of a communist party, yet its historical foundations were forged in revolution. The socialist character of a state is not determined by the professed ideology of its leaders, but by the dictatorship of the proletariat—the concrete defense of a nation against the predation of finance capital. When a state shields its people, culture, and history from the vampiric grip of imperialism, it fulfills the essence of socialism in practice, regardless of its official doctrine.

Communism—Marxism-Leninism—is not an abstract ideology but the living answer to the crisis of modernity: the restoration of economic sovereignty to the people. Russia, despite its national bourgeoisie, has reclaimed this sovereignty in opposition to Western financial domination. The mere existence of a bourgeois class does not negate this reality, for the decisive factor is not class composition alone, but whose interests the state enforces.

This stands in stark contrast to the National Socialists of Germany, whose "socialism" was a grotesque parody without material basis. The Nazis, like anarchists, attacked the form of the bourgeois state (its laws, its constitutions) while leaving its foundation—capitalist exploitation—fully intact. In practice, they were rabid attack dogs for finance capital: crushing unions, outlawing strikes, and massacring communists. Their "utopian socialism" was built on myth, not dialectics, rendering them enemies of the German proletariat.

Socialism—whether in Stalin’s USSR or today’s Russia—understands that national liberation is inseparable from class struggle. To defend the nation against imperialism is to defend the future of its working class. Those who dismiss this as mere "bourgeois nationalism" have succumbed to the very idealism they claim to oppose, severing the revolutionary dialectic between form and content. The task is not to recite dogma, but to wield it—to transform the weapon of theory into the practice of liberation.

Responding to Trotskyism

A Trotskyist, arguing against the Russian working class’s support for Putin in the war against NATO imperialism, declared: “The proletariat has no nation.” To justify this idealist distortion, he invoked Marx’s phrase, “The working man has no country.” But this interpretation is bourgeois idealism—and worse, it reflects the very nationalism Trotskyists claim to oppose. Bourgeois Idealism in Disguise
The Trotskyist’s framing reduces the working class to an abstract negation—defined solely by what it lacks—rather than understanding it as a concrete historical force shaped by material conditions. This mirrors the liberal subject’s ideological worldview: individualism, rooted in British empiricism, which severs the subject from the totality. It rejects the dialectical unity of the particular (national struggle) and the universal (socialist revolution), freezing them in false opposition.

The Crisis of Modernity and the Petty Bourgeois Mindset
Modernity has dissolved traditional bonds, leaving people alienated from land, culture, and collective being. The petty bourgeois—caught between the proletariat and the capitalist class—epitomizes this uncertainty. Even if they acquire property, they lack the bourgeoisie’s class power, yet fear falling into the proletariat’s “nothingness.” Their consciousness wavers: “Do I have, or do I not?” Trotskyism, with its deracinated internationalism, reflects this unstable petty-bourgeois psychology—unlike the proletariat, which is certain in its revolutionary negation, or the bourgeoisie, secure in its ownership.

The Dialectics of National Form and Socialist Content
Marx’s “working man has no country” was a critique of bourgeois nationalism, not a denial of national liberation’s role in revolutionary struggle. By divorcing form (national resistance) from content (socialist transformation), Trotskyism abandons the working class’s actual battlegrounds—reducing itself to a sect howling at imperialism from the sidelines, rather than leading the fight within concrete historical conditions.
Trotskyism’s failure to grasp the unity of opposites—national struggle and socialist revolution—renders it a tool of fascist imperialism in practice. It condemns the proletariat to eternal abstraction, while the Marxist-Leninist party alone synthesizes these moments into a living, revolutionary force.

Trotskyism often appeals to the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, who are detached from the material conditions of the proletariat and oppressed nations. This class oscillates between proletarian and bourgeois consciousness, leading to ultra-leftist phrases ("no nation!") while failing to engage in real revolutionary practice.

The proletariat, however, must engage with national consciousness strategically—not as an end in itself (as bourgeois nationalism does), but as a means to consolidate revolutionary power. Putin’s Russia, while capitalist, is engaged in an anti-imperialist struggle against NATO expansion, and the Russian working class’s support for this defense is objectively progressive compared to siding with Western imperialism.

For this reason, it abstracts the form of the working class, leaving nothing but the class character of the ruling class (e.g., "Putin is a capitalist," "the working class has no nation"). This reflects an inability to grasp the unity of opposites—the dialectical interplay between content and form, and how they transform into one another through mutual development. Communism itself embodies this unity of opposites: it is national in form and socialist in content, a synthesis that can only be realized under the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist Communist Party.

Until Trotskyism adopts dialectical materialism as the foundation of its analysis, it will remain an enemy of the working class and a collaborator with fascist imperialism. Its abstract and confused positions must be sublated—transcended and preserved—into a concrete, historically grounded understanding of class struggle.

Solidarity with the anti-imperialist front!
Down with Trotskyist metaphysics