1. Historical Roots of Campism

Campism did not begin with the Cold War

Campism has an ancient history intensely intertwined with situations of oppression and the death of many millions. It’s worth going back almost a century. Although the origin of campism is normally associated with the times of the Cold War and the confrontation between two “camps” – the USSR and the USA – in reality we can, historically, find slightly older roots, dating from the triumph of Stalinism and the subjugation and subservience of an important part of the international left to the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy. It should be noted that the 3^rd International intervened directly in the life of the communist parties affiliated with it, which, in turn, depended on the Soviet state for their financing.

This total and uncritical fidelity to the USSR had tragic consequences from various points of view. The overwhelming majority of Communist Parties worldwide accepted the Moscow trials (or Prague trials, or others). Any criticism (internal or external) was considered a mortal attack on communism and these voices were labelled as agents of imperialism or fascism.

In these processes, more communists and revolutionaries were killed worldwide by the USSR and its armed wings than by Nazism itself. Among many tragic cases, the worst may have been the German-Soviet (non-aggression) pact. Signed on 26 August 1939, the Hitler-Stalin Pact (or Ribbentrop-Molotov) proposed to divide Eastern Europe into zones of influence for Germany or the USSR. Soviet propaganda “sold” the German-Soviet pact as a measure to achieve peace. The so-called international communist movement was completely disoriented, war was not avoided, and what followed was an immense catastrophe.

The partition of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel

Another example worth noting is the support of the USSR and Stalin for the 1947 United Nations General Assembly resolution on the partition of Palestine and subsequent creation of the State of Israel. Stalin believed that an alliance with Israel could counterbalance the political alignment of some countries in the region (Egypt, Jordan and Iraq) with the British Empire. Moreover, the creation of the State of Israel would certainly lead many Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel, which greatly pleased Stalin – for whom Jews were a minority he didn’t mind getting rid of.

Furthermore, Czechoslovakia was one of the largest suppliers of weapons to the Zionist militias that fought the British army, still the mandate power in Palestine, and who later expelled Palestinians from their homes in the Nakba. The particular interests of the Kremlin’s geopolitics took precedence over the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people.

It is not surprising that, later, the revolts that arose in various countries of the Soviet sphere (Berlin 1953, Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Poland 1981) were brutally crushed by Moscow’s tanks, and that the communist parties supported this repression. The case of the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 did not manage to generate as much unanimity and had more drastic consequences, even leading to the departure of many communist militants.

2. The Expansion of Campism in the Era of Globalisation

Let us return to more recent times, of neoliberal and conservative globalisation that emerged after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the former USSR. In an era of strong geopolitical tensions and permanent war, considering that there is only one imperialism, that of the USA, is not only wrong but anachronistic. It is also dangerous because by considering that “the enemy of my enemy is automatically my friend,” campism acts and determines its strategy according to the interests of governments and not peoples. These positions are joined by the left that came from the Stalinist tradition but also, unfortunately, some left coming from an anti-Stalinist tradition. We will try to illustrate with two examples, Syria and Ukraine.

War in Syria – a crime of gigantic proportions

The wave of protests and popular uprisings that swept across North Africa in 2011 (Tunisia, Egypt) also reached Syria where there was a popular rebellion against Bashar al-Assad’s oppressive regime, for better living conditions but especially for the release of prisoners and for democratic freedoms. The insurgency was dubbed a counter-revolution and the rebels were brutally repressed by the Syrian police and army, with direct and concrete support from Russia. Putin’s Russia did not limit itself to sending political and military advisers or providing weapons; it was an active accomplice in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and the transformation of Syria into a field of ruins.

There were nuances in the reactions of the “Western left.” A certain left was unable to understand the dynamics of the Arab Springs and aligned with their repression. For this left, ultimately, peoples are merely puppets in the hands of imperialism and are not capable of being agents of revolt and determining their destiny.

Others argued for non-interference in “Syria’s internal affairs,” claiming that the popular uprising was fabricated by the USA and that the Syrian regime’s repression was a legitimate response to “imperialist interference.” It was necessary to choose between Assad and ISIS (Islamic State), which in reality only strengthened in Syria after the brutal repression against the popular uprising. The internationalist left that opposed Assad was a minority but courageous: it stood in solidarity with the popular uprising and against the regime’s repression.

The Ukraine war was a test for the left

The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022 changed politics, geopolitics, and alliances. It came at a time when North American imperialism, although hegemonic, had suffered a significant loss in Afghanistan in 2021. It was shaken. Nothing better than the pretext of the Russian advance to the West for the European Union and the USA to have political space to sell the idea of the threat of a generalised war and the need for a new arms race, even if it means sacrifices in wages and social services and the prolongation of a war with no end in sight.

There are also nuances within the campist left that supports the Russian invasion: some claim that there wasn’t exactly an invasion, but rather a special operation by the Kremlin to anticipate the supposed imminent NATO offensive against Russia. Others add that the Maidan revolt in 2014 was the harbinger of the fascistisation of the Kyiv regime and that the Kremlin’s tanks did nothing more than save Russia (and Ukraine) from fascism. They characterise the Kyiv regime as fascist or friendly to fascists, concealing that Putin is a friend of Trump, interfered in the American elections, and supports and gives encouragement and shelter to the world’s far-right, from Milei to Marine Le Pen, through Orbán.

There are also those who accept that this is an inter-imperialist war. The slogan “Neither NATO nor Putin” may seem very appealing but it is profoundly wrong. This is not an inter-imperialist war or a proxy war, but the invasion by Russia of a sovereign and independent country that once belonged to the USSR and before that to the Russian empire. In fact, Putin was absolutely clear on this matter: the right to independence of Ukraine enshrined by the Bolsheviks was a serious mistake. The right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people is simply ignored and trampled upon.

By focusing on governments and geopolitics, campists forget the concrete forces on the ground. They care little whether there are trade unionists, anti-war activist collectives, feminists, LGBT and others in Russia. It’s all people in the pay of imperialism. They not only ignore but slander Ukrainian activist groups that resist the occupation whilst opposing the neoliberal policies of the Zelensky government. Organisations such as the Ukrainian Social Movement are ignored or even vilified, because they don’t fit into the puzzle of a Ukraine that they claim is monolithically becoming fascist.

Contrary to what is proclaimed by Putin’s supporters, appealing to Peace in the abstract whilst supporting the invasion of Ukraine does not contribute in any way to silencing the guns. It only discredits the anti-war movement. Speaking of Peace in the abstract can mean supporting the oppressor. How can one speak of Peace in Ukraine without demanding, first and foremost, the withdrawal of Russian troops? The campist left, by aligning with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is at the same time weakening the anti-imperialist movement. It is difficult to be credible in the fight against American imperialism if one was omissive or even complicit with Russian imperialism and if one left opposition to the invasion practically in the hands of the usual warmongers.

3. Internationalism is the Only Vaccine Against Campism

The Left Bloc and some other European lefts demonstrated that it was possible to have a position of active solidarity with the Ukrainian people, demand the withdrawal of Russian troops and a peace plan, whilst denouncing and opposing with all forces the militaristic war escalation of NATO and various European countries.

The internationalist left opposes the invasion, demands the withdrawal of Russian troops, whilst seeking to establish bonds of solidarity with the movements that both in Ukraine and Russia oppose the invasion. The internationalist left knows that solidarity is not built with governments but with oppressed peoples.

Anticapitalist #79 – March 2025

Alda Sousa

Click here to subscribe to ESSF newsletters in English and or French.