In Defense of the Russian Federation

Against Both Imperialism and Misguided calls for Revolutions

The Russian Federation today is often misunderstood by many Marxists, who mistakenly categorize it as a bourgeois state, state capitalist, or Bonapartism. This view, echoed not only by Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist positions but also by Stalinist, Neo-Stalinist, Neo-Maoist, and other petty-bourgeois radical currents, overlooks the complex historical continuity between the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) and the present-day Russian Federation. Unlike other former Soviet republics (Ukraine, the Baltics etc), the RSFSR's state machinery did not miraculously revert into bourgeois state machinery immediately upon splitting from Ukraine during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In the RSFSR this state machinery survived, adapted, and retained key elements built during the October Revolution.

This analysis builds upon the arguments already made in my previous article which proposes an alternative view that Russia is a Regenerating Workers State. This analysis aims to demonstrate why advocating for a revolution in Russia today fundamentally misjudges the state’s class character and ultimately serves the interests of imperialist forces seeking to destroy the remnants of the Soviet legacy. Furthermore, it seeks to clarify the unique challenges of defending a workers’ state in the transitional epoch within a hostile capitalist world system, outlining the stakes for the international working class and the future of socialism.

1. “Smashed all at once” — Lenin

A core tenet of Leninist theory is that the machinery of a bourgeois state cannot be reformed or used to build socialism. It must be smashed and replaced by a new state built for proletarian control. This principle was evident in the October Revolution, when the Soviets established the dictatorship of the proletariat and dismantled the existing state structures that had served the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Likewise, a workers' state cannot be transformed into a bourgeois state through internal reform—it can only be smashed. The fundamental differences between the state structures and class interests of a workers' state and a bourgeois state make gradual transformation impossible. The machinery of the workers' state is designed to serve proletarian interests and must be physically dismantled to revert to a bourgeois state, just as a bourgeois state must be dismantled to become a workers' state. In Russia, the neoliberal counter-revolution of the 1990s attempted to do just that but ultimately failed. The state machinery that exists in Russia today is not the product of a bourgeois state built from scratch; it is a continuation of the workers' state, albeit severely weakened and adapted to new material conditions.

2. The Failed Counter-Revolution of the 1990s

The chaotic period following the collapse of the Soviet Union was characterized by an attempt to dismantle the socialist state and replace it with a bourgeois system. Under Yeltsin, neoliberal reforms led to mass privatization, the rise of oligarchs, and the imposition of capitalist economic policies. However, these attempts never succeeded in completely destroying the workers' state.

The key institutions that defined the RSFSR as a workers' state—state control over strategic industries, centralized planning mechanisms, and a military structured to defend against imperialist encroachment—were not fully dismantled. The capitalist class that emerged in Russia was unable to smash the existing state machinery because it lacked the revolutionary power and popular support needed to fully dismantle these entrenched structures. Instead, it coexisted uneasily with remnants of the centralized state structure, which still retained significant influence over key industries and defense. This persistence of centralized planning mechanisms and state control allowed Putin, with considerable popular backing, to reassert control over strategic sectors, resist the domination of both domestic oligarchs and foreign capitalist interests, and reestablish the state's sovereignty over crucial aspects of the economy.

3. October was a Permanent Revolution

The deep roots of the October Revolution in the social fabric of the Russian Federation give it an ongoing capacity for centralized planning, resource allocation, and rapid mobilization and surge capacity. This is what allowed it to withstand the neoliberal onslaught and adapt to new material conditions. The ability of the state to reactivate mothballed factories, prioritize military production, and centrally allocate resources during the current confrontation with the West reveals the ongoing relevance and superiority of the centralized planning and socialized property relations created by and which are a direct result of the October Revolution.

The Bolshevik-Leninist theory of permanent revolution provides the essential framework for understanding Russia's historical trajectory and its current position in the global class struggle. In countries with belated capitalist development, like Tsarist Russia, the proletariat—not the bourgeoisie—is the only class capable of carrying out the tasks of bourgeois-democratic revolution, such as land reform and industrialization. Once the revolution begins, it does not halt at bourgeois tasks; it advances uninterrupted towards the construction of socialism. This process is continuous and dialectical, not a tidy two-stage affair.

Understanding and applying this framework in contemporary Russia clarifies Putin’s complex role. While he does not abide by conventional Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, his focus on defending Russian sovereignty, resisting NATO expansion, and strategically incorporating capitalist elements into a state-controlled economy resonates with the foundational logic of permanent revolution.

4. The Harm of Advocating for Revolution in Russia Today

The complete success of a social counter-revolution in a state as established and experienced as the RSFSR is as difficult, if not more so, than overthrowing capitalism itself. The attempt by German Fascism to do just that were crushed, and the feeble efforts of the Russian bourgeoisie in the 1990s were likewise thwarted by the KGB (the historical continuation of the CHEKA) during an intervention operation to safeguard the workers’ state—a task to which Putin was assigned at the executive level.

Marxists who call for a social revolution in Russia today are, perhaps unintentionally, advocating for the smashing of a workers' state. Such a revolution would not be a step toward socialism but a fatal blow to the October Revolution's legacy. It would dismantle the state machinery that, despite its contradictions, remains rooted in the revolutionary achievements of 1917.

If discontented elements within Russia were to be mobilized against the state, the outcome would not result in a socialist workers' state, but rather in the dismantling of the last structures that safeguard the Russian working class from complete capitalist exploitation. This would create conditions conducive to a fascist takeover, wherein imperialist powers and domestic reactionaries could finally accomplish what the counter-revolution of the 1990s could not—the destruction of the workers' state.

This is precisely what imperialism desires. The West has sought to obliterate Russia as a potential bulwark against imperialist expansion ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Advocating for a revolution in Russia today risks providing imperialist powers with precisely what they desire—the total annihilation of the workers' state, the dismemberment of Russian sovereignty and breakup into rival neo-fascist statelets open for plunder by Western imperialism.

Instead of advocating for revolution within Russia from without (or from within by the left), Marxists should focus on defending the existing state machinery in Russia and working to deepen its socialist character. This involves supporting policies that prioritize public welfare, resisting the influence of the bourgeoisie, and maintaining sovereignty against imperialist pressures. Russia's state, originating from the October Revolution, is certainly distorted and represents something that is many levels of abstraction from its first iteration during and following victory in the Civil War. Nevertheless, it remains the product of a revolutionary history that must be defended.

The task of the global working class, particularly in the imperialist countries, is to overthrow their own bourgeois states. Only by achieving proletarian revolutions in the West can the global balance of power shift in favor of socialism. Until then, Russia's role as a surviving workers' state is crucial in resisting the advance of imperialism and creating space for revolutionary possibilities worldwide.

Deepening Russia's socialist development involves continuing to centralize strategic industries under state control, enhancing the welfare of the working class, and building alliances with other anti-imperialist nations. It means materially supporting policies that empower its existing revolutionary institutions—workers' control, central planning, and the mobilization of state resources. Russia's continued utilization of these mechanisms to resist both domestic and external capitalist pressures is what has allowed it to serve as a significant counterforce against Western imperialism.

5. The Influence of Pabloism and other Revisionists

To fully grasp the confusion that persists regarding the nature of the Russian state, it is essential to address the influence of Pabloism within Marxist discourse. Pabloism, a revisionist liquidationist tendency that emerged after World War II, posited that bureaucratic regimes not born from proletarian revolutions could evolve toward socialism by aligning with the Soviet Union. This led to the characterization of states like East Germany as "deformed workers' states," despite their non-revolutionary origins.

This theory subtly undermined the necessity of genuine, independent proletarian revolutions and fostered the view that there was no distinction between the RSFSR and other republics within the Soviet bloc. History has illuminated the shortcomings of this approach: the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rapid turn of the "deformed" former Soviet republics toward neoliberal hyper-capitalism in alignment with U.S./NATO imperialism and fascism underscored the fact that non-workers' states could not evolve into workers' states merely through bureaucratic or diplomatic means. Just as a non-workers' state cannot become a workers' state without the state machinery being “smashed all at once”, a workers' state also cannot be bureaucratically reverted into a bourgeois state without the physical smashing of its own state machinery — which is the essence of what fascism aims to do.

Pabloism's legacy has contributed to the current misunderstanding of Russia's class character and confused the difference between strategic alliances with a workers’ state, with those who enter in such alliances being workers’ states themselves. While strategic alliances between bourgeois states and Russia based on anti-imperialism may arise and have military-technical, security, economic or diplomatic benefits, there should be no illusions that this can serve as an alternative or substitute for proletarian revolution. These alliances are driven by the immediate interests of the respective national bourgeoisies, not by any principled commitment to socialism or the international working class. Such alliances are inherently unstable and opportunistic, subject to change based on shifting geopolitical and economic considerations. Marxists must recognize the cynical and self-serving nature of these alliances and avoid mistaking them for genuine expressions of international solidarity. Moreover those strategic aliances are more often than not a one way street with the workers’ state giving so much to others who are under attack from imperialism but receiving so little—and doesn’t complain. But this relationship and the stress it imposes in a way is what lead to the Soviet Union’s budget and economic crisis that lead to perestroika and its disintegration as a bloc.

Strategic alliances and bloc formations between bourgeois states and workers’ states do not negate the necessity for independent working-class action and revolution in imperialist and other bourgeois countries. On the contrary, they highlight the limitations of relying on bourgeois governments and underscore the need for building independent revolutionary organizations capable of leading the proletariat to power. Nevertheless, these compromises are necessary and welcomed, especially from the perspective of the workers' state benefiting from such alignments, however temporary or minor those advantages may be.

6. Donbas: A War of Liberation, Not Invasion

The conflict in Donbas is not an invasion by Russia; rather, it is a war of liberation fought by the people of Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR), with the assistance of the Russian Federation. This narrative contrasts sharply with Western and imperialist perspectives that falsely portray Russia's involvement as an aggressive invasion.

The DPR and LPR are/were republics formed by the social revolution of the industrial working class in former Eastern Ukraine in response to the US-Germany-backed Euromaidan coup and the subsequent rise of Ukrainian fascism.

Ukraine's Aggression Against Donbas

The Ukrainian government, supported by NATO, launched a military offensive against the DPR and LPR in 2014, resulting in a bloody civil war that took the lives of 14000 drawn heavily from the Working class of Donbas. This aggression—not Russia's intervention—is the root cause of the current conflict. The Ukrainian state's actions constitute an invasion and occupation of Donbas, not the other way around.

Russia's military intervention in 2022 was a direct response to the pleas of the DPR and LPR for protection against Ukrainian aggression and the threat of genocide. This intervention, formalized through referendums and accession to the Russian Federation, was not an act of conquest but an act of solidarity with the people of Donbas, who had been fighting for their survival for eight years.

The Referendums and Accession

The overwhelming vote for accession to Russia in the DPR, LPR, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions demonstrates the popular will of these territories to join the Russian Federation. These referendums, while conducted under wartime conditions, reflect the desire of the people of Donbas to escape the violence and oppression of the Ukrainian regime and align with a state that offers historical, cultural, and material support. Their overwhelming vote represents a working-class rejection of the counter-revolutionary neoliberal order, reclaiming their place within what began as the socialist RSFSR and became the core of the multi-ethnic, formerly internationalist USSR. Dismissing these referendums as "shams" or "coerced" denies the agency of these workers in determining their own destiny.

The Alternative to the SMO would’ve been a Ukrainian Gaza

The socialist condemnation of Russia's intervention ignores the material realities on the ground and the life-or-death consequences of inaction. As materialists, we must analyze from a realistic position—the only alternative to Russia’s intervention would have been the defeat and destruction of the republics of Donbas, ending any potential for socialist revolution within a Ukraine unified under a fascist regime. This kind of virtue signaling amounts to complicity with imperialism and aligns perfectly with the goal of discrediting Russia as a powerful challenger to the current world order.

By recognizing the true nature of the conflict in Donbas—a war of liberation, not invasion—we strengthen our analysis and align ourselves with the material interests of the working class, both in Russia and Ukraine. The defense of Donbas is not a betrayal of socialist principles; it is a necessary step in the fight against imperialism and fascism.

Those who genuinely believe Russia is a bourgeois state—and therefore an enemy of both Russian and Ukrainian workers—are falling prey to imperialist narratives. They fail to recognize the fundamental class character of the Russian state, its historical origins in the October Revolution, and its current role in resisting Western hegemony. This misunderstanding leads them to advocate for policies that benefit imperialism, such as supporting the Zelensky regime, or calling for revolution in Russia, or opposing Russia's defense of Donbas and its re-integration of Crimea after 2014. Such positions weaken the broader struggle against capitalism and undermine the potential for international proletarian solidarity.

In the Final Analysis

Only by recognizing the importance of defending the remnants of the October Revolution can Marxists hope to advance the cause of socialism, both in Russia and globally.

Those who conclude that the workers’ state was qualitatively liquidated during the 1990s fundamentally underestimate the legacy of the October Revolution. They fail to see that this resilience, forged in the civil war, the defeat of the Nazi invasion, and maintained through decades of Cold War pressure, is precisely what enables Russia to withstand the current onslaught of imperialist aggression. These critics appear to possess a far greater confidence in the seemingly boundless power of Western imperialism and its purportedly unstoppable military might than in the historical and revolutionary institutions of the Russian working class and the Russian Armed Forces, which are the torch bearers of the Red Army.

The Russian state today is not a bourgeois state; it is the surviving machinery of the October Revolution, adapted to new conditions but still fundamentally distinct from the bourgeois states of the West. Advocating for its overthrow is a dangerous misreading of its class character and ultimately serves imperialist interests. The defense of Russia as a workers' state is not merely a matter of national sovereignty—it is a crucial battleground in the global struggle against world imperialism.