I do not know how consistently Russell wants to represent himself as a follower of Lenin, but Lenin called for the making of clear and definite lines of demarcation. Russell's repeated use of loaded phrases,
giving carte blanche to the imperialists hitching your wagon to the imperialists getting into bed with your opponents joining their crusade for a new world order cuddle up to the big powers
does not make any progress in clarifying the lines of demarcation that Russell knows quite well exist. It is about temporary conditional alliances without sacrificing strategic independence.
It includes for example the international united front against fascism from 1941-1945 in which the socialist camp did not lose its indepenendence and made many gains.
Russell is presenting a simplified and moralistic version of Leninism and marxism. Lenin by no means restricted his criticism of left wing communism to the need at times for alliances with non class enemies.
Lenin wrote in "On Slogans" 1917 "for the good of the cause, the proletariat will always support not only the vacillating petty bourgeoisie but even the big bourgeoisie".
Marx welcomed the 10 hours Bill which was won through an alliance of the working class with the landed aristocracy against the industrial capitalists.
On 6th December 1920 Lenin spoke to a meeting of activists about "a rule which will remain fundamental with us for a long time until socialism finally triumphs all over the world: we must take advantage of the antagonisms and the contradictions that exist between the two imperialisms, the two groups of capitalist states and play them off against each other."
Russell fails to answer the question of what compromise would have been better for liberating South Africa from constitutional apartheid.
And on the question of Chechnya, these debating skirmishes, rather than IMO serious polemic, obscure the question of what should be done in support of the oppressed Chechens, and whether it should be similar to what was done in support of the people of East Timor.
Undoubtedly a compromise, and undoubtedly messy, but IMO Russell is trying to block discussion of that on dogmatic grounds. He thereby actually leaves the terrain open to western finance capital which does not want to make too much of a fuss about Chechnya because of its more important relationship with the Russian oligarchs who need to play the fascist card to retain power.
There is an imperialist policy of appeasement as well as an imperialist policy of war. Russell is tacitly supporting the former, while pretending there is no possibility of international action protecting the Chechens in the way the people of East Timor were protected. Certainly no pure marxist way, but what is pure marxism, except idealism?
Chris Burford
London