The Rebel War Against Ukraine's Top Oligarch

[Martin Luther]

The Supreme Soviet of the Donetsk People's Republic is nationalizing all resources, electricity plants, and factories.

I think this is interesting because this reflects some of the earliest demands of the uprising in Eastern Ukraine. Keeping in mind the limitations of such programs, and the fact that national chauvinists hold key positions in the rebel republics, it shows that the working class is there and still conscious about its interests. Most importantly, the working class necessarily makes up the bulk of the rank and file of the rebel forces.

businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-18/the-rebel-war-against-ukraines-top-oligarch-rinat-akhmetov

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The working class makes up the bulk of any group destined to die on behalf of their owners, why even comment on it? If the working class were conscious in Donetsk it would be killing different people.

[Martin Luther]

Like who?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Their leaders? Russian officers? Someone other than their fellow dupes from the other side of the country? Who should American troops kill? Or North Korean troops for that matter?

[Tim Cornelis]

Their own officers and rulers of course.

From another thread:

If you think nationalisation in and of itself is a socialist measure in and of itself, then you are not a communist. Pure and simple. Socialism is about common ownership of the means of production, not state property. As long as the direct producers continue to confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, there is private property. Private property is not confined to individual ownership, or ownership by private individuals. Private property can take the form of state private property, collective private property, individual private property, or private property under association. Allende's measures, and nationalisation under the bourgeois state, did not and does not challenge or abolish capitalism.

"the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."
(Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific)

The workers remain wage-workers are they neither own nor control the means of production, which is under state control, they remain dispossessed, and therefore confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property. Such state ownership is private class property.

Of course, expropriation/nationalisation by a bourgeois state of corporations or businesses undermine the interests of the specific owners if they are removed from their access to capital. But the social relationship of capital is not abolished through state ownership in and of itself. It merely changes the faces of the personalised representatives of Capital (vs. Labour). This is different from social revolution which threatens the interests of the general owners, the capitalist class as a whole, by removing them from their access to capital, by undermining capital itself.

So nationalisation does not signify any gain in and of itself for the working class. It can at best be pursued for reasons of more job security.

Moreover, Novrossiya has come back on its promises of nationalising key industries. And you are also underestimating the influence of the chauvinists. They do not merely have key positions, they founded Novorossiya and rule it.

[Hrafn]

I personally don't believe a word of this. Only last month or so the separatists rejected nationalization, and decided to keep the oligarch's holdings intact. I don't see that changing.

[DOOM]

Nah, the earliest demands of this uprising were rather influenced by russian nationalism than by some sort of socialist ideology.

[Martin Luther]

Their own officers and rulers of course.

From another thread:

If you think nationalisation in and of itself is a socialist measure in and of itself, then you are not a communist. Pure and simple. Socialism is about common ownership of the means of production, not state property. As long as the direct producers continue to confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property, there is private property. Private property is not confined to individual ownership, or ownership by private individuals. Private property can take the form of state private property, collective private property, individual private property, or private property under association. Allende's measures, and nationalisation under the bourgeois state, did not and does not challenge or abolish capitalism.

"the transformation — either into joint-stock companies and trusts, or into State-ownership — does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces. In the joint-stock companies and trusts, this is obvious. And the modern State, again, is only the organization that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as of individual capitalists. The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head. But, brought to a head, it topples over. State-ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but concealed within it are the technical conditions that form the elements of that solution."
(Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific)

The workers remain wage-workers are they neither own nor control the means of production, which is under state control, they remain dispossessed, and therefore confront the objective conditions of their labour as alien property. Such state ownership is private class property.

Of course, expropriation/nationalisation by a bourgeois state of corporations or businesses undermine the interests of the specific owners if they are removed from their access to capital. But the social relationship of capital is not abolished through state ownership in and of itself. It merely changes the faces of the personalised representatives of Capital (vs. Labour). This is different from social revolution which threatens the interests of the general owners, the capitalist class as a whole, by removing them from their access to capital, by undermining capital itself.

So nationalisation does not signify any gain in and of itself for the working class. It can at best be pursued for reasons of more job security.

Moreover, Novrossiya has come back on its promises of nationalising key industries. And you are also underestimating the influence of the chauvinists. They do not merely have key positions, they founded Novorossiya and rule it.

Thank you. I understand the nature of the bourgeois state. The idea I want to raise is, how close is the situation there to that in Venezuela, for instance?

The dominance of the chauvinists may be true for Novorossiya, at least to the extent that they can dictate what the flag is, but the Donetsk People's Republic is still an independent entity. The fact that its legislative body is the Supreme Soviet, as well as the leading role of the Communist Party of Ukraine in its policies, would throw doubt on that in the DPR's case.

[Tim Cornelis]

Thank you. I understand the nature of the bourgeois state. The idea I want to raise is, how close is the situation there to that in Venezuela, for instance?

The dominance of the chauvinists may be true for Novorossiya, at least to the extent that they can dictate what the flag is, but the Donetsk People's Republic is still an independent entity. The fact that its legislative body is the Supreme Soviet, as well as the leading role of the Communist Party of Ukraine in its policies, would throw doubt on that in the DPR's case.

The situation is not really comparable to Venezuela, I'd say. Centre-left vs. ultranationalism.

The Donetsk People's Republic is co-founder and constituent member of Novorossiya, so I'm not sure what you mean. 'Sovietism' in Eastern Europe is often interweaved with positive sentiments for Russian empire building (with the Soviet empire as exemplary of Russian might) as opposed to socialist content.

I have not heard of the Communist Party's involvement in any way -- this is the first I've heard of it. The Communist Party is also of questionable quality.

[tuwix]

The Supreme Soviet of the Donetsk People's Republic is nationalizing all resources, electricity plants, and factories.

I think this is interesting because this reflects some of the earliest demands of the uprising in Eastern Ukraine. Keeping in mind the limitations of such programs, and the fact that national chauvinists hold key positions in the rebel republics, it shows that the working class is there and still conscious about its interests. Most importantly, the working class necessarily makes up the bulk of the rank and file of the rebel forces.

businessweek.com/articles/2014-09-18/the-rebel-war-against-ukraines-top-oligarch-rinat-akhmetov


Then they're trying to repeat all errors of Leninism...

But they're financially and militarily dependent on Russia. Will Putin allow a return of state capitalism? I don't think so.