Russian Anti-Communism: Condemning the Idea, Keeping the Power

Narratives about Russia have always been conducted in a nearly surrealistic manner, but the recent four years of full-scale war in Ukraine have elevated this media surrealism to a higher level of absurdity and disinformation. What else can be said about a narrative that presents an oligarchic, imperialistic, and traditionalist state as a continuation of Soviet socialism? Although most of these claims are merely pejorative shortcuts, some circles openly believe in them. For them, this serves as an argument not so much against the criminal nature of Vladimir Putin's regime, but against communism and leftist ideas themselves.

Therefore, I would like to focus on one fact that serves as a cold shower for both Russophile leftists and right-wing propagandists. Vladimir Putin is an open anti-communist, which he does not particularly hide.

Lenin's Second Death at the Kremlin

Among most communists, the dominant ideological trend remains the universal combination of the thoughts of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Although at first glance they may seem like outdated concepts (after all, more than 100 years have passed since Lenin's death), to this day their works provide an excellent critical analysis of capitalism and a foundation for the more current concept of cybercommunism. The contribution of these two thinkers to world history is undeniable—their texts sparked rebellion in many, which ultimately led to improved labor standards in developed countries and the liberation of peripheral states, the so-called Third World, from foreign influences. However, contemporary Russia is an absolute negation of these ideals, and the official Kremlin narrative is unambiguous on this topic.

As early as 2012, Vladimir Putin officially condemned Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik Party, and the entire October Revolution, accusing the communists of betraying Russia's national interests. In 2016, he incorrectly labeled this revolution the 'October Putsch,' which was meant to prove the lack of legitimacy of the new social order. This criticism included, among other things, the murder of Tsar Nicholas II Romanov and his entire family, the dismantling of the feudal and imperial system in Russia in favor of socialism, and the establishment of the principle of self-determination for all nations, which significantly reduced the territory of the state. As he himself commented: "As for the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, Lenin's principles of state-building were not only a mistake but something much worse than a mistake."

The President of Russia also accused the leader of the revolution of leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 (which seems to have no logical justification) and Russia's defeat in World War I. This is an interesting coincidence, considering that Adolf Hitler similarly argued his hostility towards German communists, also accusing them of Germany's defeat in the same conflict. As Vladimir Putin put it: "We lost with the losing side—a unique case in history." Such a conclusion should not surprise anyone, as the dismissive attitude of the Russian head of state towards the life of the working class (dying in the wars of the powers solely in the interest of the ruling caste) is a very current phenomenon—even in the context of the ongoing war with our neighbors. The self-awareness of the leader of the Russian Federation rejects hypocrisy in this matter, hence he has often referred to Lenin himself as a 'terrorist' who was supposed to suppress conservative and nationalist values, so crucial for the propaganda and identity of today's Russia.

In the context of the current war in Ukraine, this also has real propaganda consequences, which we could observe already in the first days of the invasion. Putin tried to justify his military actions by calling Ukraine a 'Leninist creation,' thereby denying it its own history and national identity. While it is true that Lenin contributed to the independence of the Ukrainian state by separating it from Russia and protecting its borders from the expansion of Józef Piłsudski, basing the entire Ukrainian past on this manipulative circumstance is simply a historical falsification. Anti-Leninism in this case becomes a tool not only against communism but also against Ukrainian nationality itself.

Overt or Hidden Anti-Communism?

Perhaps, however, the condemnation of Lenin is merely a propaganda ploy that does not reflect the true sympathies of Russia's leader towards communism? A common weapon of liberal media is the argument that Putin was part of the KGB, and he himself admits to a temporary sympathy for communist ideals—though even in his time, they were more of a liberal caricature of Marxism-Leninism. This argument could reflect reality if not for the fact that during his presidency, Putin openly and ultimately criticized these ideas, accusing them of almost religious utopianism, which is an extremely common element of anti-communist rhetoric.

In an ideological program directed at the Western right, delivered by Vladimir Putin during a meeting of the Valdai Club, he presented to foreign guests a proposal for 'healthy conservatism' as an alternative to 'neomarxist ideology.' We could hear:

"After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, based on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also declared that they would change the entire existing order—not only political and economic but also the very idea of what human morality is and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, faith, and human relations to the point of complete rejection of the family (as it was), forcing and encouraging denunciations of loved ones—all this was considered a step of progress and, by the way, enjoyed quite broad support in the world and was fashionable—just as it is today. By the way, the Bolsheviks also showed absolute intolerance towards any other opinions. (...) The classics are considered backward because they did not understand the significance of gender or race. In Hollywood, there are instructions on how and what kind of movies to make, how many heroes there should be, of what skin color or gender. It turns out that it is worse than in the agitation and propaganda department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union."

His narrative, as can be easily noticed, does not differ significantly from the message that often comes from media sympathetic to Law and Justice or Confederation in Poland.

Moreover, Putin holds great respect for the philosopher Ivan Ilyin—an anti-communist with a fascist worldview, known, among other things, for his open sympathy for Hitler. His admiration for Ilyin went so far that the President of Russia personally distributed Ilyin's philosophical treatises to his party colleagues. This perfectly illustrates the direction in which the current regime of conservatives is heading. While Russia cannot be unambiguously called a fascist state, the current power is quite visibly inspired by fascism.

Soviet Sentimentalism

But what to do with this sentiment for the Soviet Union, the tolerance for the cult of Stalin, and the loud statements that the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century? Let's use an analogy: in Poland, a similar sentiment is felt towards the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Current politicians treat it almost as a model and a source of national pride, though ideologically they have little in common with monarchism, feudalism, or the model of pure noble democracy.

Similarly, this is the case in Russia. This sentiment stems from the sense of loss of the position of a global power—a state with political influence on every continent, its own space programs, a developing economy, a powerful military potential, and significantly wider borders. Although Putin has repeatedly proven that his historical ideal is the former Russian Empire, the very awareness of the fact that Russia (as the core of the Soviet Union) once had the power to decide the fate of the world, drives the current power into a certain complex. Soviet nostalgia therefore has a strictly nationalist basis, not an ideological one. Putin wants a Great Russia, not a Russia without oligarchs, with a strong labor movement, guaranteeing workers' rights, central planning, or high social standards. The propaganda machine is tasked with highlighting only the superpower aspect of the USSR and inciting citizens to fight with their own blood for a similar position for today's national ruling class. This is also the main reason why Russia refrained from decommunization in the Polish or Ukrainian style.

Interestingly, in an interview for the weekly "Sieci," former President Andrzej Duda quite accurately—though not very often—expressed this:

"This is, in my opinion, a war for symbols and history. The symbol is the reborn great Russian empire. Importantly, it is not about the Soviet empire, as some say. In my opinion, Vladimir Putin's ambition is not to recreate the Soviet Union, but the era of the tsars."

Lenin, Stalin... Putin?

A bitter pill for the contemporary historical narrative of the former Eastern Bloc elites is Russia's open declaration that the Red Army under Joseph Stalin objectively and undeniably put an end to German Hitlerism, bringing liberation to the occupied nations of Europe. The Great Patriotic War is an episode in Russia's history where ideological issues are now maximally marginalized. Instead, military and diplomatic achievements are emphasized to evoke national fervor and perpetuate the propaganda myth of the legendary, unconquered, and invincible Russian land. For this reason, Soviet flags can occasionally be seen on Russian tanks. They are treated both as a patriotic symbol of victory and a tribute to the ancestors of the current soldiers of the Russian Federation, who mostly once fought in the ranks of the Red Army or the later Soviet Army.

Promoting theses that completely contradict or diminish the role of the Soviet state during World War II usually serves as evidence of a false historical narrative with a political basis, not the result of an honest analysis of facts. Putin speaks openly about this, which naturally fuels Western theories about the connection of his politics with communism or the desire to continue the legacy of the USSR. The supposed lack of official permission to destroy monuments of the Red Army, statues of Vladimir Lenin, or other monuments related to the Soviet period is allegedly confirmation of this thesis.

Contrary to appearances, historical references in Russia are cited mainly for nationalist reasons. They are meant to 'nationalize' the achievements of the Soviet Union—in complete detachment from the ideas of socialism—to build on this foundation a sense of national duty in society towards imperialistic and expansionist interests. This is not a new mechanism. Similar propaganda tactics were used by the French during World War I, referring to the figure of Napoleon Bonaparte, and today they are used by Poles, for example, in the context of the victory of King Władysław Jagiełło over the Teutonic Order or Jan III Sobieski at Vienna.

A similar mechanism applies to the figure of Joseph Stalin. Although it is impossible to deny that he was the author of war crimes, mass deportations of civilians, and bloody purges, it must also be honestly admitted that he greatly contributed to the final victory over Hitlerism, including saving the Jewish, Romani, and Slavic populations from complete extermination. Vladimir Putin once rightly stated: "Excessive demonization of Stalin is one of the ways, one of the paths of attack on the Soviet Union and on Russia," but then quickly added: "Of course, something probably remains in the consciousness, but that does not mean we should forget all the horrors of Stalinism, associated with concentration camps and the destruction of millions of our compatriots."

It seems that the President of Russia perfectly understands the phenomenon of Stalin in that society. He knows that Stalin is primarily an ideal propaganda figure: the most powerful man of his time, who was respected on the international stage on the one hand, and feared on the other. All this combines into an inconsistent, internally contradictory image: the power, on the one hand, recognizes the victims of Stalinism (even those convicted under the law of that time) and repeats extremely right-wing rhetoric, and on the other hand, gives silent consent to the cult of the Soviet dictator. This is so convenient for the Kremlin that the figure of Stalin is commonly associated with strength, strict subordination, and the status of a superpower. This clearly distinguishes him from Lenin, who placed incomparably greater emphasis on the self-determination of nations and the building of a community of socialist republics on equal rights.

The Communist Party's Love for the Right, War, and... Capitalism?

There remains the question of the CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation), the legal 'communist opposition,' which openly declares itself as a pro-Putin group, which by definition disqualifies it as a real opposition force. In the minds of uninformed readers, a dissonance may arise at this point: if communists support Putin, how can Putin be an anti-communist?

It should be started by noting that while in the 1980s (during Mikhail Gorbachev's time) the CPSU resembled almost pro-liberal social democracy, today's CPRF has delved much deeper into this socio-economic pathology. Officially, they promote a mixed economy—meaning capitalism supported by light interventionism and state ownership in the most strategic sectors. Exactly: this is a textbook example of a communist party that wants to maintain capitalism in Russia. In terms of identity, they can be described as the left wing of 'United Russia.' The differences are microscopic, and the largest of them is that the CPRF operates with a stronger sentiment for the Soviet Union and builds its political capital on it.

This is not an isolated observation. Vyacheslav Nikonov (grandson of Vyacheslav Molotov) outright stated that the program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation lacks any reference to Marxism-Leninism, noting that the party has abandoned atheism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and world revolution, instead standing in line with the defenders of the capitalist state. The ranks of the CPRF are now filled with businessmen, conservatives, and chauvinists, and the main axis of their narrative is not communism at all, but 'national patriotism.' We can clearly see that this party is far from Marxism. The label itself is meant to be a false mirage for people who, through sentiment for the USSR, simply long for a more stable existence. Of course, within the CPRF, there are still ideological communists, but they are systematically marginalized and silenced. The real communist opposition in Russia consists of structures such as the Left Front, the KPRF-CPSU, and the Russian Labor Front.

Repression against ideological communists in today's Russia is quite overt and mainly affects those activists who dare to put their doctrine into practice. A good example is Boris Kagarlitsky—a Marxist political scientist who was officially sentenced for 'supporting terrorism,' while in reality, he was punished for condemning the invasion of Ukraine (even though he previously supported the annexation of Crimea and the creation of separatist republics in Donbas). In 2024, he received a sentence of 5 years in a penal colony. Another example is Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the illegal communist group 'Red Youth Vanguard' and the Left Front. In 2012, he was sentenced under the pretext of resisting the police, which— as later recordings proved—was a complete lie. In 2014, for organizing anti-Putin demonstrations, he received a sentence of 4.5 years in a labor camp.

But is Russia Really Imperialistic?

Imperialism is commonly defined as a form of politics aimed at subjugating other states or colonies to create— as the name suggests—an empire. Although this definition seems simple and clear, real geopolitical nuances escape such easy assessments, making this approach quite simplistic. A much more accurate characterization of the phenomenon, considering contemporary realities, was provided by Lenin. He defined imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, pointing out its five most important features:

1. Concentration of production and capital, leading to the creation of monopolies.
2. Fusion of banking capital with industrial capital, creating so-called financial capital.
3. Export of capital (as opposed to export of goods).
4. Formation of international, monopolistic associations of capitalists that divide the world among themselves.
5. Completion of the territorial division of the world among the largest capitalist powers.

Although Russophile leftists often portray Russia as an 'anti-imperialist' state, such a conclusion seems to stem solely from the fact that, in the conditions of a multipolar international policy, this 'left' desperately seeks a counterweight to American imperialism. However, by analyzing Russia's economy in the context of the conditions formulated by V.I. Lenin, it is easy to assess how justified it is to label Putin's state as 'anti-imperialist.'

The monopolization of the Russian Federation's economy includes, among others:

• Gas Industry: Dominated by the state giant Gazprom (created from the privatization of the former Ministry of Gas Industry), which controls about 65% of natural gas extraction in the country.
• Oil Industry: Where the Rosneft concern is responsible for the extraction of over 40% of Russian oil.
• Metallurgical Industry: Dominated by the company Norilsk Nickel (one of the world's largest producers of palladium, nickel, and platinum) and the company Rusal (one of the global leaders in aluminum production).
• Arms Industry: Based on the Kalashnikov concern, which produces about 90% of all firearms in Russia. We can be almost certain that it is this weapon that is currently taking the lives of civilians in Ukraine and in Third World countries, which are constant markets for the concern.
• Other Key Sectors of the Economy: Such as mechanical engineering (United Shipbuilding Corporation), nuclear energy (Rosatom), air transport (Aeroflot Group), or digital and internet services (Yandex).

Of course, this is not all, but an in-depth analysis of the monopolization process in the Russian Federation is a topic for an extensive book, not a single article. Between the Russian industry and the largest banks (such as Sberbank or VTB), there is an extremely dense network of connections, which is a textbook example of the fusion of banking capital with industrial capital. Imperialism, by definition, also largely relies on the export of capital. We see this perfectly in the example of Russia's relations with former Soviet republics—Kazakhstan, Armenia, or Belarus. This export takes the form of direct investments, with national giants such as Gazprom, Lukoil, Rosneft, and Rosatom acting as the main investors.

What undoubtedly connects the common definition of imperialism with Lenin's definition is the desire of bourgeois states for a new division of the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia became, in a sense, the 'United States on a smaller scale.' Over the decades, the Russian Federation has supported artificial separatist entities (such as Transnistria), maintained dictatorships in Third World countries (Syria under Assad, Mali), made neighboring governments dependent on itself with the threat of armed intervention (Belarus), and has repeatedly carried out direct invasions—the tragic examples being Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine, where the war that has been ongoing since 2014 turned into a full-scale, bloody armed conflict in 2022.

Despite declarations of supposed 'quiet admiration' for the Russian regime, which some members of the (former) Communist Party of Poland, the Polish Left Movement, or leaders of the 'Red History' association spread through disinformation, it must be emphasized beyond any doubt: today's Russia is a thoroughly capitalist and imperialist state. The oligarchy—though largely nationalized—still pulls the key strings in the Russian state, while society itself has been struggling with extreme inequalities since 1991. Vladimir Putin's state stands in complete and fundamental contradiction to communist, socialist, or any authentic leftist thought.

In Conclusion

The narrative portraying Russia as a 'continuation of the USSR' or 'heir to the communists' serves solely to mask the fundamental similarities between Putin's aggressive power and the United States, so eagerly fetishized by liberal media, as well as many Eastern European countries. A false, forcibly attached label is the simplest way to hide the true face of the Kremlin's ideology—centered around religion, conservatism, deep traditionalism, and national capitalism.

Breaking through the sea of insults and stereotypes, one can come to a sober reflection: the Russian Federation in many systemic aspects is not very different from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, or Romania after 1989. The only difference is its great power national interests and hard aspirations to the status of a global power. If we honestly assess Russia's current status, it turns out that systemically it is closest to the USA. In both countries, political life is based on the influence of the oligarchy, society is strongly imbued with conservative values, and the ruling elites ruthlessly implement global imperialist goals. The fundamental difference remains only the historical path that both empires had to travel to reach their current position.

Taking all this into account, Putin's Russia not only has absolutely nothing in common with communism but is even one of its fundamental and hardened enemies. Soviet sentimentalism serves there solely as a cynical tool of manipulation, and the former historical figures of the USSR have been reduced to faded propaganda figures. All this is meant to emphasize the Kremlin's unchanging ambitions and readiness to return to the path of a true world power—while maintaining the untouchable oligarchic order within the country.

Sources

1. Imperialism: The Example of the Russian Federation
2. Extracts from Putin's speech on Ukraine
3. Vladimir Putin accuses Lenin of placing a 'time bomb' under Russia
4. Putin’s Anti-Bolshevik Fantasies Could Be His Downfall
5. Duda: Russian ambitions reach Kalisz. Putin wants a return to the era of the tsars
6. Putin’s Offer to the Western Right: 'Sensible Conservatism' Instead of Neomarxist Ideology
7. «Вы не хотите революции!»: Внук Молотова в Госдуме разнес коммунистов
8. Clarifying the Position, Part III: Russian 'Official' Communists on the Russia-Ukraine Crisis