Lenin On National Question and Bundists
Collected writings of Lenin on the subject
PDF Download Yandex Archive org Academia Edu
National Question whether it be in general -between
countries- or in particular within a nation-state cannot be taken and studied
without the question of nationalism -nationalist ideology.
The question of the right of nations to determine
their own fate has been taken up extensively by Lenin and Stalin, articles for
which has been compiled in the book “Lenin on the Right to Self-Determination”
which is summarized in the introduction section. Although the articles touch
base with the issue of “nationalist
ideology” and contain “warnings” for it, the question has been dealt with in so
many articles in connection with other
issues. The only directly related to the issue of “nationalism” in specific has
been the articles about the “Bundists”.
In most cases the articles related to the right to
self-determination concentrated on the `national Liberation movements` and the
attitude towards them. Marxist Leninist parties and movements have been the
secondary issue except that of Bundizm related articles.
Considering the undeniable fact of “nationalism” in
disguise appears in various Marxist Leninist parties and movements which clouds
the working class ideology and effectively divides and builds an ethnic
wall hindering their unity, it has been
imperative to compile the writings and speeches specifically related to
“Bundist” since quite some parties and movements give lip service to the theory
but act like “Bundists” in deed- especially in Turkey. (My commentary will be
based on the developments in Turkey)
Looking at the history of Russia, it is clear that The
Bund brought nationalism and separatism into the Russian working-class movement
and took an opportunist stand on the most important issues of the socialist movement. Typical Bundist stands are being
taken in our days in most issues on the current agenda for example the struggle
against the fascist dictatorship or autocracy rather than acting “ as a
single and centralised militant organisation with the whole of the proletariat
without distinction of language or nationality, “and struggling against the autocracy, against the bourgeoisie
as a whole, separation of working class by ethnicity is being promoted not only
in theory in some cases, but in practice as a whole. Opportunism, Liberalism and tailism in
various degrees influences the theory and practice of parties and organizations
and prevails in any stand at any given time or subject; practice is determined
not based on the application of theories to the conditions and situations for
the benefit of laboring masses and their struggle in mind, but theories have
been revised and/or invented to justify the “nationalist” practices. The most
important of which is being the separation of working class by ethnicity, in
some cases, childishly and illogically fabricating a statistics showing the
“working class” of oppressor nation as “minimal” and thus coming to the
conclusion that “that portion of working class is irrelevant”, but the
“working class” of oppressed nation is relevant and since the current agenda
for that nation is “national liberation”, struggle embraces the “whole ethnic
group” as an homogenic one – a blunt nationalist view dressed with Marxist
Leninist ingredients.
It would be beneficial to go back to the history and
see the mirror images of past in present;
“The
Bund (The General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania, Poland, and Russia)
came into being in 1897 at the founding Congress of Jewish
Social-Democratic groups in Vilna. In the main, it comprised
semi-proletarian Jewish artisans in the west of Russia. At the First
Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1898, the Bund joined the latter “as an autonomous organisation, independent only
in respect of questions affecting the Jewish proletariat specifically”. (The
C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Its Congresses, Conferences and
Plenary Meetings of the Central Committee, Russ. ed., Moscow 1954, Part 1, p.
14.)
Such an approach
that the questions affecting a specific ethnic proletariat requires an
autonomous organisation - although not as much in theory but- in practice is
widely defended and being carried out- which in Lenin’s point of view is an expression
of nationalism and separatism.
“The Bund
was an expression of nationalism and separatism in the Russian working-class movement. In April 1901
the Bund’s Fourth Congress decided to alter the organisational ties with the
R.S.D.L.P., as established by the latter’s First Congress. In its resolution,
the Bund Congress declared that It regarded the R.S.D.L.P. as a federation of
national, organisations, and that the Bund should enter the R.S.D.L.P. as a
federal section. After the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. turned down
the Bund’s demand that it should be recognised the sole representative of
the Jewish proletariat, the Bund left the Party, but rejoined it in 1906 on
the basis of a decision of the Fourth (Unity) Congress. From the note Lenin, The Black Hundreds, and the
Organisation of an Uprising
We have witnessed similar demands made in different
forms and under different disguises with varying revised and fabricated
theories, some still reigns within some parties and organisations although most
dissolvement, separations and new ones
along these lines have been a result for the last 30 years or so.
Within
the R.S.D.L.P. the Bund constantly supported the Party’s opportunist wing
(the Economists, Mensheviks, and Liquidators), and waged a struggle against
Bolshevism and the Bolsheviks. To the latter’s programmatic demand for the
right of nations to self-determination the Bund contraposed the demand for
autonomy of national culture. While the Stolypin reaction was raging, the
Bund took a liquidationist stand, and was active in the formation of the August
anti-Party bloc. During the First World War the Bundists held a
social-chauvinist stand, and in 1917 they supported the counter-revolutionary
Provisional Government and sided with the enemies of the Great October
Socialist Revolution. During the foreign military intervention and the Civil
War the Bund’s leaders made common cause with the forces of counter-revolution.
Meanwhile there was a turn among the Bund’s rank and file for collaboration
with the Soviets. In March 1921 the Bund decided to dissolve itself,
part of the membership joined the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on
the basis of the general rules of admission” , From
the note Lenin, The Black Hundreds and
the Organisation of an Uprising
As it was an inseparable history of Bolshevism in
Russia, it has become an ongoing history of Bolshevism in Turkey. Lets look at
the history of Bolshevism in her struggle against the “Bundizm” and its
supporter “economism” as a mirror to last 50 years history of Turkey;
“The
origin of Bolshevism is inseparably linked with the struggle of what is
known as Economism (opportunism which rejected the political struggle of the
working class and denied the latter’s leading role) against revolutionary
Social-Democracy in 1897–1902. Economism, supported by the Bund, was
defeated, and eliminated by the well-known campaign of the old Iskra (Munich, London,
and Geneva, 1900–03), which restored the Social-Democratic Party (founded in
1898 but later destroyed by arrests) on the basis of Marxism and revolutionary
Social-Democratic principles. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (August
1903), the Iskrists split: the majority stood for the principles and tactics of
the old Iskra, while the minority turned to opportunism, and was backed by the
one-time enemies of Iskra, the Economists and the Bundists. Hence the
terms Bolshevism and Menshevism (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks).
In 1903–04 the struggle was mainly over the Mensheviks’
opportunism in questions of organisation. From the end of 1904 on, tactical
differences became the most important. The “plan for the Zemstvo campaign” put
forward (Autumn 1904) by the new Iskra, which had deserted to the Mensheviks,
took up the defence of the tactics of “not intimidating the liberals”.
The year 1905 saw the tactical differences take final shape (the
Bolshevik Congress, Third Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in London, May 1905, and
the Menshevik “conference” held in Geneva at the same time). The Mensheviks
strove to adapt working-class tactics to liberalism. The Bolsheviks, however,
put forward as the aim of the working class in the bourgeois-democratic
revolution: to carry it through to the end and
to lead the democratic peasantry despite the treachery of the liberals. The
main practical divergencies between the two trends in the autumn of 1905
were over the fact that the Bolsheviks stood for boycotting the Bulygin Duma
while the Mensheviks favored participation.
In the spring of 1906, the same
thing happened with regard to the Witte Duma. First Duma: the Mensheviks stood
for the slogan of a Duma (Cadet) Ministry; the Bolsheviks, for the slogan of
a Left (Social-Democratic and Trudovik) Executive Committee that would organise
the actual struggle of the masses, etc... At the Stockholm Congress (1906) the
Mensheviks won the upper hand, and at the London Congress (1907), the
Bolsheviks.
In 1908–09 the Vperyod group (Machism] in philosophy and
otzovism, or boycotting the Third Duma, in politics—Bogdanov, Alexinsky,
Lunacharsky and others) broke away from the Bolsheviks.
In 1909-11, in fighting against them (Lenin, Materialism and
Empirio-Criticism, 1909 ), as well as against the liquidators (Mensheviks
who denied the need for an illegal Party), Bolshevism came close to the
pro-Party Mensheviks (Plekhanov and others), who had declared a resolute war on
liquidationism.” Lenin, On Bolshevism
During late 1970s and up to early 1990s it was not so
much different that of Russia in essence against the “nationalists” , or
better, against those Marxist Leninists who could not rid themselves off
their ethnic subjectivity. Referring back;
“Formally,
I think, our attitude to the Bund should be studiously correct (not hitting
straight in the teeth), but at the same
time icily cold, buttoned up to the neck, and on legitimate grounds we
should press hard against the Bund relentlessly and all the time, going
right to the end without being afraid. Let them get out, if they want to, but we
should not give them the slightest occasion, the shadow of an excuse, for a
break. We must, of course, observe the formalities prior to the Congress, but
there is no point in showing our cards. You write: Bundist knows we are working
for Iskra but keeps silent, although we have no right to do so in the name of
the O.C. In my opinion, this should not be done from the O.C. but from each
member personally, referring not to the O.C., but to the committees which have
recognised Iskra. The result is the same and even much stronger (there are no
“agents”), and the formal aspect is irreproachable. Preparing the committees
against the Bund is one of the most important tasks of the present moment,
and it, too, is fully possible without any violation of form. To: YEKATERINA ALEXANDROVA, Private, from Lenin
Opportunism, nationalism, and to some degree social-chauvinism
have become the trend and with
eclectic, revised theories the root causes of dissolvements, separations
and forming ”new ” parties and organisations during 1990s and onward. Referring
back;
“The
inane idea of the necessity of forming an International of ‘internationalist
Social-Democrats’ .., [of] opposition elements picked at random from all the
socialist parties .... The International can be restored only from the same
elements it has consisted of till now .... A restored International will
not be the ‘third’ in succession, as is desired by a handful of sectarians and
experts in the business of arranging splits, but the selfsame Second International,
which has not died, but has been temporarily paralyzed by a world disaster....”
This is
what Mr. V. Kosovsky writes in issue No. 8 of the Bund’s Information Bulletin. We
are deeply thankful for the frankness shown by this Bundist, who is not the
brightest of the lot. This is not the first time he has defended opportunism
with an outspokenness that must be displeasing to the Bund’s diplomatists. This
time again, he will be helping the struggle against opportunism, by revealing
to the workers how hopelessly far the Bund stands from proletarian
socialism. Mr. V. Kosovsky does not see the link between opportunism and
social-chauvinism. To discern that link, one must be able to ask oneself
the following questions: what are the fundamental ideas in the two currents?
How has opportunism developed in Europe during the last few decades? What is
the attitude towards social-chauvinism revealed by the opportunist and the
revolutionary wing in, a number of European countries, as, for instance, in
Russia, Germany, Belgium, France, Britain, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland,
and Bulgaria? “ Lenin, We Are Thankful For Such Frankness
During 1990s, except few individual voices-
some had to leave and chosen to be non-party as a result- , not even one party
or movement raised its voice and dared to do so for fear and chosen
opportunism.
“Be
stricter with the Bund! Be stricter, too, in writing to the Bund and
Rabocheye Dyelo abroad, reducing their function to such a minimum that in any
case it cannot be of importance.” Lenin, To: P. A. KRASIKOV
As a result while some played at the center and chosen
opportunism, others concentrated on
“national issue”, helped bourgeoisie in its struggle to divide the
working class for the purpose of weakening her and
let the “nationalism” reign and cloud the working class conscious
with it. Referring
back;
“For a
long time it has of course been no secret to the Party that a group of liquidators has
been trying to call a conference with the assistance of the Bund, which has
essentially nothing to do with actual Russian Social-Democratic activity. (For
the information of German readers let us add that when we speak about Russian
Party work the Bund is not included because its sphere of activity is confined
exclusively to the Jewish proletariat. “ Lenin, Reply to Liquidators’
Article in Leipziger Volkszeitung
And “ internationalism“ converted in to “national
question” at large rather than
“socialist” one in particular. İt is not a coincidence though that the US and
EU NGO funds and support have been used for translations and promotions of this
“conversion”. (Only to look at the “supporters” stated on their web sites would
be sufficient evidence to that fact.) The issue of “socialism “ or “
socialist struggle” was replaced -or at best given lip service- by the “issue
of national question” with illusions of “new alternative” to the
question and followed by its promotion worldwide. Mainly what promoted was
(and is) a caricature of Marxism Leninism ; Bookchin-ism with the dressing of Leninism in an unseen form of practice of eclecticism. Referring back;
Then,
about the internationalists. In one of your recent editorials, you enumerated
those organisations which, in your opinion, hold an internationalist stand.
High on that list is-the Bund. We would like to know what grounds you have
to number the Bund among the internationalists. The resolution of its
Central Committee does not contain a single definite word on the major
problems of socialism. It breathes a most unprincipled eclecticism.
The Bund’s organ (Information Bulletin) indubitably adheres to the standpoint
of Germanophile chauvinism, or else gives a “synthesis” of French and German
chauvinism. It was with good reason that an article by Kosovsky adorned the
pages of Die Neue Zeit, a journal which (we hope you agree with us on this) is
now among the most disreputable of the so-called “socialist” press organs.”
Lenin Letter from the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to The Editors of
Nashe Slovo
Some even have gone as far as defending a “federalism”
based on “ethnicity” overreaching the existing boundaries of not one
country but of four countries. The aim of uniting and building a country on an
ethnic basis that overreaches the existing boundaries cannot be defended
without sinking into the swamp of chauvinism and nationalism. That cannot be a “progressive”
aim but a “reactionary” aim.
“I am
very worried that part of the Letts are for cultural-national autonomy, or
wavering, for Bundist federalism, or wavering, hesitating to attack
the nationalism and separatism of the Bund” Lenin, To:
I. E. HERMAN
İt was not, again, a surprise that the Trotskyites
were in support of this approach, for the Trots had been the core supplier
of “fabricated” theories for the ethnic- ML organizations in their search for theories
fitting their anti- ML practice as early as late 1970s. Referring back in regard to both above;
From this
alone the German comrades can see how shamelessly the Letts, the Bund,
Trotsky, and sundry private “informants” are deceiving them. It is clearly
a matter of enabling the same Trotsky, the Bund, the Letts, or the Caucasians
to lay hands on the money on behalf of angeblichen “organisations”, whose
existence neither the Vorstand nor anyone else can prove or verify. Lenin,
To: L. B. KAMENEV
“In
Russia, as it happens, all the Jewish bourgeois parties (as well as the
Bund, which actually follows in their wake) adopted the programme of “extra-territorial
(cultural-national) autonomy”,..
The Bund’s nationalist vacillations were formally and unequivocally
condemned long ago by the Second (1903) Congress, which flatly rejected the
amendment moved by the Bundist Goldblatt on “the setting up of institutions
guaranteeing freedom of development for the nationalities” (a pseudonym for
“cultural-national autonomy”).” Lenin, A Contribution to the
History of the National Programme in Austria and in Russia
Now we come to the “splits” of parties and
organizations especially 1990s forward -with some possible exceptions- purely
opportunistic reasons and ethnic subjectivity. The trend was to take
advantage of situation where the “bourgeois nationalism” gaining grounds
speedily and the “market” was open to grab “followers” , make agreements
with bourgeois nationalist movement, and in some cases to “confiscate “ the
resources as they split. Referring back;
The
Mensheviks at present are stronger than we are; it’s going to be a long and
hard fight. The icons abroad[Menshevik leaders] raise a heap of money. I consider
it simply indecent for us to raise the question of an agreement with the Bund,
etc., after their (and the Lettish) conference with the C.C.[ This refers to a conference
of representatives of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P., the Bund, the Lettish S.D.L.P.,
and the Revolutionary Ukrainian Party held abroad in January 1905] (minutes in
Posledniye Izvestia and in Iskra No. 89). It would be idiocy; it would
look as if we were thrusting ourselves upon them. We shall be told: we
don’t know you, we have already reached agreement with the C.C. It will end in
disgrace, believe me! “Lenin, To: S.
I. GUSEV, To Nation from Lenin
İn some cases liquidationist practice was so similar
yet occasionally upside down to Russian historical experience. The reasons
given for the liquidation and-or split varied from practical differences to differences
going as far as being ridiculously irrelevant. As one of the comrade
from an organization who was involved in discussion summarizes; “they could not
come out and indicate the core of reason because they knew well that would be
exposing their opportunism, so they have chosen a disputed subject that has no importance for the current
tasks but of a subject related to the “communist society” which even Marx and
Engels called it would be ridiculous to discuss something related to a communist
society at this stage. “ So the purpose of bringing about disputes that are in
no way decisive on the current struggle was to find an excuse and justify
their liquidationist practice. Referring back Lenin was saying;
Liquidationism
is “a deliberately vague, maliciously indefinite catchword”, asserts a leading
article in Golos. Maximov asserts that Proletary magnifies and inflates practical differences of opinion with
the ultimatumists until they become differences in principle. Poor
Golos! So far it has been able to lay the blame for all “malicious invention”
on the Bolsheviks, i.e., on its “factional opponents”. Now it is Plekhanov and
the Bund that have to. be charged with malicious invention. Is it Plekhanov and
the Bundists or is it Golos who “maliciously” prevaricates; which is more
likely to be true?
Liquidationism is a
deep-seated social phenomenon, indissolubly connected with the
counter-revolutionary mood of the liberal bourgeoisie, with disintegration
and break up in the democratic petty bourgeoisie. The liberals and
petty-bourgeois democrats are trying in thousands of ways to demoralise the
revolutionary Social-Democratic Party, to undermine and overthrow it, to clear
the way for legal workers’ associations in which they might achieve success.
And in a time like this the liquidators are ideologically and organizationally
fighting against the most important remainder of the revolution of yesterday,
against the most important bulwark of the revolution of tomorrow.” Lenin,
Methods of the Liquidators and Party Tasks of the Bolsheviks
Was there a struggle against the opportunism
during this period of splits, forming new parties, organizations? Yes, but unfortunately
mostly as individual efforts, since almost all existing parties and
organizations were going through similar liquidationist practices in different
degrees. Following the splits and new formations, opportunists dominated the field
with their ethnically subjective theories fitting their practice. It has become
the era of opportunism and bourgeois nationalism in where the picture of
it was drawn with Marxist Leninist brush. Considering most of the leadership cadres
were residing in European countries, the resemblance is quite striking to the
Russian history in that aspect.
“In
the national question the old Iskra, which in 1901–03 worked on and
completed a programme for the R.S.D.L.P. as well as laying the first and
fundamental basis of Marxism in the theory and practice of the Russian
working-class movement, had to struggle, in the same way as on other questions,
against petty-bourgeois opportunism. This opportunism was expressed,
first and foremost, in the nationalist tendencies and waverings of the Bund.
The old Iskra conducted a stubborn struggle against Bund nationalism, and to forget
this is tantamount to becoming a Forgetful John again, and cutting oneself
off from the historical and ideological roots of the whole
Social-Democratic workers’ movement in Russia.
On the
other hand, when the Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. was finally adopted at the
Second Congress in August 1903, there was a struggle, unrecorded in the Minutes
of the Congress because it took place in the Programme Commission, which was
visited by almost the entire Congress—a struggle against the clumsy attempts
of several Polish Social-Democrats to cast doubts on “the right, of nations to
self-determination”, i.e., attempts to deviate towards opportunism and
nationalism from a quite different angle.
And
today, ten years later, the struggle goes on along those same two basic
lines, which shows equally that there is a profound connection between this
struggle and all the objective conditions affecting the national question in
Russia…
In
Russia—as usual—people have been found who have made it their business to
enlarge on a little opportunist error and develop it into a system of
opportunist policy. In the same way as Bernstein in Germany brought into
being the Right Constitutional-Democrats in Russia—Struve, Bulgakov, Tugan
& Co.—so Otto Bauer’s “forgetfulness of internationalism” (as the super
cautious Kautsky calls it!) gave rise in Russia to the complete acceptance of
“cultural national autonomy” by all the Jewish bourgeois parties and a
large number of petty-bourgeois trends (the Bund and a conference of
Socialist-Revolutionary national parties in 1907). Backward Russia serves, one
might say, as an example of how the microbes of West-European opportunism
produce whole epidemics on our savage soil.” Lenin, The National
Programme of the R.S.D.L.P.
Opportunism was (and still is) so dominant, widespread,
and powerful that neither the large, somewhat
chauvinist party nor the petty bourgeois, middle of the road large organization
could protect themselves from similar splits. The core reasons of splits have
become so apparent on their articles and approaches to daily events for any seeing
eyes.
“As for
the O.C. (R.S.D.L.P), the conference reaffirms that its main group, which is in
Russia, and also its literary representative
take the social-patriotic standpoint, and that its weak
internationalist wing has neither the strength nor the courage to break with
the social-patriots, and that the O.C. Centre takes the pacifist
standpoint; the conference considers that the attitude of the Social-Democrats
of Poland and Lithuania to the O.C. can
consist exclusively of criticism of its position, promoting its disintegration
and separating from the O.C. its internationalist elements grouped around Nashe
Slovo, an organ which has done a great deal to elaborate internationalist-revolutionary
views in the ranks of the R.S.D.L.P.
“The same
applies, in particular, also to the Bund, which is a part of the O.C., for its
attitude is an even greater chaotic mixture of social-patriotic and pacifist,
Russophile and Germanophile elements.” Lenin, Letter From the Committee
of Organisations Abroad to the Sections of the R.S.D.L.P.
All these splits, like in Russian history has shown,
was “ to the joy of those nationalist elements (the Bund) .. as the
“adaptation of socialism to nationalism.” Lenin, The Split in the
Russian Social-Democratic Duma Group İnteresting enough while the Bourgeois
Nationalist movement do not demand a secession but compromise with the
bourgeoisie of Nation-State to extract
privileges for its own bourgeoisie, most of the “Bundists” call for
secession from all surrounding countries
for a larger feudal supported bourgeois state on ethnic base. Although
they quote Lenin for such claim, they hide the core of Lenin’s words; the
working class.
The
class-conscious workers do not advocate secession. They know the advantages
of large states and the amalgamation of large masses of workers. But large states
can be democratic only if there is complete equality among the nations;
that equality implies the right to secede.” Lenin, More About “Nationalism
As in Turkey, it has been the inevitable practice of the Bundists in history to replace
the socialist struggle with nationalist struggle concealing the aim with
Marxist Leninist phrases. Some even openly supported the bourgeois idea of “new
alternative” (of course to socialism) defended by the Bourgeois
Nationalists. “ The liberal” said Lenin,
“ is not pleased that the struggle of the proletariat against the
bourgeoisie is regarded as the fundamental question. The liberal strives
to ignite and fan the flames of national struggle in order to divert
attention from the serious questions of democracy and socialism… Socialism
actually does take first place .. It is ridiculous even to compare the struggle
of the proletariat for socialism, a world phenomenon, with the struggle of one
of the oppressed nations against the reactionary bourgeoisie that oppresses it.
“Lenin, Vekhi Contributors and Nationalism
As conclusion, Marxist Leninist have faced two dilemma
for the question of right to self-determination; one is the attitude towards
the Bourgeois Nationalist Movement the other is the attitude towards
Bundist – tacit nationalists with Marxist Leninist mask. For the former the basic
principles are clearly stated for the recognition and support; “it must be strictly
limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this
recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian
consciousness.” Lenin Cultural national Autonomy - Critical Remarks on
the National Question As far as the demand for secession; “The proletariat
is opposed to such practicality. While recognizing equality and equal rights to
a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the
proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national
separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle. This call for
practicality (to say yes to demand) is
in fact merely a call for uncritical acceptance of bourgeois aspirations
. Lenin Practicality on National Question
For the latter, due to its Marxist Leninist mask, it
is not easy for the large masses to see their true faces and thus it is not an
easy task to expose them since their opportunism directed to and leads to a large followers of their
nationalistic views of the same. Mentioning Stalin’s article, Lenin states;
“Koba
had time to write a big article on the nationalities problem. Good! We
must fight for the truth against the separatists and opportunists of the
Bund and among the liquidators.” Lenin, To: L. B. KAMENEV
Liberalism, as it reflects in avoiding criticizing and exposing the “wrongs”, is the worse enemy of Marxism Leninism, and
the most dangerous for the socialist struggle. Fighting against opportunism,
especially of this kind, cannot be avoided for “subjective” and-or “calculated”
reasoning, for that kind of liberalism is the very definition of opportunism. It
is a long bumpy road that Marxist Leninist have to go through without fear,
without subjectivity in order to clean herself up from every right and left
trends, especially from the “nationalist” views.
Whatever level theoretical knowledge a man may have,
in the final analysis, what makes him a Marxist-Leninist is that he has freed
himself from his ethnic subjectivity.
E.A
.jpg)
No comments