Donbass and National Question
October 4, 2021
“Whoever does not recognize and champion the equality of nations and languages and does not fight against all national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist; he is not even a democrat. .” V. I. Lenin
I have repeatedly expressed the opinion that the Russian left needs to support the people of the South-East of Ukraine, who rebelled in 2014 against violent nationalism (forced Ukrainization), the wildest national oppression, the policy of decommunization and the genocide of pro-Russian / pro-Soviet citizens who rose in the Russian Spring on defense of their national self-determination, for reunification with Russia, since I consider such support to be one of the key tasks of the left movement. I disclosed my views in the articles “Problems of our movement”, “Accept the challenge to fight or give up without a fight "and other posts. However, faced with criticism of their position on this issue, nothing but attempts to discredit and demonize the people's militia of Donbass, which has been fighting for 7.5 years for its liberation, whose resistance has been severely suppressed for all these years, both by the Kyiv Ukronazi authorities and by the government of the Russian Federation, I did not note.
An analysis of the points of view on the nature and causes of the war in the Donbass, common both among my opponents and other leftists, revealed, for me personally, a number of significant contradictions that manifest themselves not only in relation to this conflict, but also in relation to tasks, which face all communist organizations today. Therefore, I decided to analyze in more detail a number of issues related to the Ukrainian conflict. In this article we will touch upon the significance of the national question.
So, in the context of discussing the war in eastern Ukraine, many leftists argue that the people of Donbass put the national question above the class question and believe that the workers of the southeastern Ukraine should fight not for their liberation from national oppression, but for the overthrow of the bourgeois government in Ukraine, or at least would be in the republics, and the establishment of Soviet power there. The struggle of the people of Donbass for their national self-determination, the desire of Novorossia to reunite with Russia, is perceived by such leftists as support for Russian imperialism and therefore such a struggle cannot claim support from the communists.
Here are some examples of judgments made in the context of the discussion of the Ukrainian conflict regarding the uprising in the southeast of Ukraine and the tasks that my opponents consider to be priorities at the present time:
“The trap of priorities for our leftists lies in the setting of national liberation tasks above class ones. But if class problems are not solved, national questions, questions of imperialism, it will be simply impossible to solve. The class approach is the basis, but some of us prefer to talk about imperialism, while almost not touching on the root issues of Marxism. <…> Putting the question in such a way that the national question becomes a priority, and only then liberation from capitalist oppression in today's conditions is incorrect and dangerous.”
“Spontaneous communists in all countries must, first of all, explain to their working people their class interests, explain that the concept of capitalist and the concept of fascist are essentially synonymous words, where the first always evolves into the second, explain that the reason for the oppression of the language, the closure of enterprises, schools, hospitals, inflation, imperialist wars, nationalism from a neighbor, job loss, lawlessness on the part of usurers, horse accounts, etc. etc., is capitalism as a system, the elimination of which will allow one fell swoop to solve all these problems, and not running around with a club for a separate bad official who needs to be replaced with a good one who will allow your children to study in their native language.
“There is no class character in the uprising! It will be right if the proletarians on both sides recognize themselves as a class and unanimously direct their weapons against their only enemy - the capitalists.
In my opinion, such leftists are not on friendly terms with either Marxism or common sense at all. Guided by this logic, it can be argued, for example, that the struggle for an eight-hour working day, for better working conditions, the struggle against the adoption by bourgeois governments of anti-people laws, pension reform, the struggle against any political oppression, including national oppression, is meaningless in today's conditions, and therefore the formulation of such problems is “incorrect and dangerous”. Accordingly, it is necessary to explain to the working people that they need to realize themselves as a class and stand together for the elimination of the capitalist system, and not run around with clubs protecting and defending their civil rights. Only guided by such ridiculous, idealistic logic, my opponents could issue judgments such as those presented above. And the essence of these judgments boils down to the denial of the political struggle and the need for one's direct participation in such a struggle, no more, no less. Such leftists are unwilling and afraid to solve urgent tactical tasks, without which the implementation of the socialist revolution (maximum task) is impossible. Not daring to take responsibility for the practical preparation of the working people for the revolutionary overthrow of bourgeois power, such leftists are looking for reasons and arguments that complicate the task so that it cannot be solved, shifting the entire responsibility for the solution of these problems to the masses of working people. And therefore, calls to the masses, unprepared in the political struggle against the bourgeoisie, to first carry out a socialist revolution, and only then, on the basis of socialism, to resolve other issues, despite all their seeming "revolutionary" are empty anarchist phrases, behind which there is no and there will be no revolutionary action.
First, when calling on the masses to carry out a socialist revolution, socialists must be sure that the necessary conditions have arisen for this—objective and subjective prerequisites that determine the possibility of a revolutionary overthrow of bourgeois power under given historical conditions.
Of great importance for the implementation of the socialist revolution is the presence of a revolutionary situation, which manifests itself in the impossibility for the ruling classes to maintain their dominance unchanged, which leads to a political crisis and a situation arises when "the lower classes do not want" and "the upper classes cannot" live according to old.
However, as Lenin noted, not every revolutionary situation leads to a socialist revolution. In order for a revolutionary situation to turn into a revolution, it is necessary that the objective factors be joined by a subjective factor - the proletariat, hardened in battles with the bourgeoisie, led by the revolutionary party of communists, capable of overthrowing the old bourgeois power and establishing a new Soviet power.
Moreover, the subjective factors necessary for the implementation of the socialist revolution include such factors as:
- the presence of a general proletarian movement against the bourgeoisie in the big imperialist countries;
- the presence of strong, massive, battle-tested socialist parties in the major imperialist countries;
- the possibility of joint revolutionary action, correspondence, and assistance to each other of the revolutionary movements in these countries.
Without these political prerequisites, the victory of the socialist revolution is impossible.
How adequate, in today's conditions, are the requirements for the implementation of the socialist revolution by the workers of Donbass in Ukraine or in the republics of the DPR and LPR? The question is rhetorical, isn't it?
If by the middle of 2013 the revolutionary situation in Ukraine was on the face (objective condition), then the degree of development of the revolutionary movement both in Ukraine itself and in neighboring countries (subjective condition) makes it impossible for the immediate implementation of the socialist revolution.
“Only the naivest optimists can forget how little the mass of workers still knows about the aims of socialism and the methods of its realization. But we are all convinced that the emancipation of the workers can only be the work of the workers themselves; Without the consciousness and organization of the masses, without their preparation and education by an open class struggle against the entire bourgeoisie, there can be no question of a socialist revolution. [1]
Secondly, not a single sane Marxist will advocate the implementation of a socialist revolution in a small, dependent country, because it will inevitably be crushed by big imperialist predators. A socialist revolution is possible only on the basis of a large, centralized state or in alliance with such a state.
“The class-conscious proletariat will always stand up for a larger state. It will always fight against medieval particularism; it will always welcome the closest possible economic unity of large territories in which the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie could develop widely. <...> A centralized large state is a huge step forward from medieval fragmentation to the future socialist unity of the entire world, and otherwise there is and cannot be a way to socialism through such a state (inextricably linked with capitalism). [2]
On this occasion, the Communist Manifesto says that the real result of the struggle of the proletariat “is not immediate success, but an ever-widening union of workers. It is facilitated by the ever-increasing means of communication created by large-scale industry and by the connections being established between the workers of different localities. Only this connection is required in order to centralize the many local centers of struggle, which are everywhere of the same character, and to merge them into one national, class struggle. And every class struggle is a political struggle. [3]
Thus, the larger the production, the wider the economic and production ties between countries, the more opportunities for the workers of different countries to unite, the more opportunities for different peoples to merge and form larger centralized states. Accordingly, the larger the state, the more obvious becomes the main enemy of the working people - the big bourgeoisie. The more concentrated the capital, the easier it is to nationalize it. The fewer political barriers between countries, the easier it is for the proletariat to cope with the power of capital. The easier it is for the working people to rally, the easier it is for them to oppose political reaction, and the easier it is for them to overthrow their bourgeois government. Moreover, the greater scope of state-solid and united territories, on which alone the proletarian class can rally, gives the opportunity to maneuver, retreat, when the situation of the class struggle requires it, so that the working class can muster its strength for a further offensive. A wider territorial base provides the revolutionary class with the necessary amount of food, fuel, raw materials, etc. etc.
At the same time, the smaller and more isolated, ethnically fragmented states, the stronger the national enmity, the stronger the political reaction in these countries, the more disunited the working people of different countries, the less opportunities for them to unite in the struggle against the big bourgeoisie.
If at the stage of the formation of capitalism, the creation of individual national states met the tasks of a faster development of capitalism in these countries, then at the stage of mature capitalism, which is moving towards its transformation into a socialist society, the further development of capitalism corresponds to the tendency to expand economic ties and alliances between countries that contribute to regional development. economic integration and political fusion of nations. Therefore, at this stage, the development and increase in all kinds of contacts between countries, the breaking of national barriers, the creation of international unity, the complete political merger of the allied countries, the formation of larger centralized states is welcomed.
However, it is important to understand that in defending centralism, Marxists defend democratic centralism, based on national equality, granting greater independence, and autonomy to small nations within one state, recognizing the equal right of self-determination for all nations. At the same time, the self-determination of nations means the right of every people to freely determine, without outside interference, its political status and to carry out its economic, social, and cultural development.
“Far from precluding local self-government, with autonomy for regions having special economic and social conditions, a distinct national composition of the population, and so forth, democratic centralism necessarily demands both. <...> Obviously, one cannot conceive of a modern, truly democratic state that did not grant such autonomy to every region having any appreciably distinct economic and social features, populations of a specific national composition, etc. The principle of centralism, which is essential for the development of capitalism, is not violated by this (local and regional) autonomy, but on the contrary is applied by it democratically, not bureaucratically. <...> Lastly, it is beyond doubt that in order to eliminate all national oppression it is very important to create autonomous areas, [2]
The struggle against all national oppression is one of the main class tasks of the working-class movement, dictated by the interests of the international unity of the working people for the struggle against the bourgeoisie. National equality is impossible without recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. The denial of this right endangers national peace and the possibility of uniting the proletarians of all countries in the struggle against the bourgeoisie.
At the same time, in order to achieve the closest international rapprochement and further merging of all nations, the Marxist of the “oppressing nation” must shift the center of gravity of his agitation to the demand for equality for all peoples inhabiting this state, granting them greater independence, independence and autonomy, defend the recognition of their right to self-determination, up to freedom of separation. Only under this condition will the Marxist of the oppressed nation be able to place the center of gravity of his agitation on the unity of the class struggle of the proletariat of the oppressed and oppressing nation, without putting forward the slogan of secession for his people.
By setting national liberation tasks above class tasks, Lenin meant the unconditional desire of the oppressed peoples for separatism, for complete independence, national isolation, the creation of separate, small, national states and the development of their own special “national culture”, to the detriment of “proletarian culture” or, in other words, saying " an international culture of democracy and a worldwide labor movement" .
Thus, using the example of the struggle for the equality of nations in pre-revolutionary Russia, Lenin showed that:“every democrat, not to mention Marxists, will strongly oppose the incredible humiliation of Ukrainians, and demand complete equality for them. But it would be a downright betrayal of socialism and a silly policy even from the standpoint of the bourgeois “national aims” of the Ukrainians to weaken the ties and the alliance between the Ukrainian and Great-Russian proletariat that now exist within the confines of a single state.” [2]
Overall, Marxism is hostile to separatism, because the creation of separate, nationally isolated states is contrary to the class interests of the proletariat. Marxists stand for the international unity of the working people, for the voluntary union and merging of nations, for the strengthening of ties between the workers of different nations, which is possible only on the only possible and stable democratic foundations in a civilized society - on the full recognition of the equality of all nations and the equal right of self-determination for all nations. .
“The upholding of this right not only does not encourage the formation of small states, but, on the contrary, leads to a freer, fearless, and therefore broader and more widespread formation of larger states, more beneficial to the masses and more in line with economic development, and alliances between states. [4]
Thus, in itself, the idea of the legal separation of one nation from another is a reactionary idea. If a Marxist of a small nation, under all conditions, advocates the national isolation of his people, the formation of a petty national state, then such a Marxist will thereby slide into the swamp of bourgeois nationalism.
So, for example, the “parade of sovereignties” in the era of the collapse of the USSR was a manifestation of precisely the reactionary bourgeois policy, which led to the disintegration of the Soviet people, the split of the labor movement, the formation of small isolated national states in the post-Soviet space, which naturally gave rise to national enmity between the workers of the once one country , one that has developed over the years of the existence of the USSR, the Soviet nation.
A continuation of this reactionary policy is the striving of the bourgeois governments in all the former Soviet republics towards an ever-greater national isolation of their countries, towards an ever-greater severance of the established industrial and economic ties with Russia. The ruling class of Russia itself is also striving for such isolation. The purpose of this policy is to consolidate the results of the disintegration of the Soviet people. At the same time, the laws of development of capitalism create an objective need to unite neighboring countries into economic unions (for example, the EAEU), which contribute to regional economic integration. However, the inconsistent policy of bourgeois governments more and more often hinders integration processes rather than promotes them.
The task of the communists is to expose the inconsistency of the bourgeoisie, which, increasingly striving for national isolation, hinders integration processes, and to demand a complete political merger of countries.
“in place of all nationalism, Marxism puts forward, internationalism, the fusion of all nations in a higher unity, which is growing before our eyes with every verst of the railway, with every international trust, with each (international in its economic activity, and then in its ideas, according to aspirations) a workers' union." [2]
However, not every national secession will be considered reactionary. Under the conditions of the impossibility of overcoming national tensions, when the strengthening of national oppression hinders the economic development of the nation, prevents the expansion and deepening of economic ties and alliances, or even completely destroys the already established ties between countries, in such a situation the struggle of the oppressed people for secession will be in the interests of creating the best possible environment. class struggle.
“The masses of the population know perfectly well, from everyday experience, the significance of geographical and economic ties, the advantages of a large market and a large state, and they will go to secession only when national oppression and national tensions make life together completely unbearable, hinder all and all economic relations. And in such a case, the interests of capitalist development and freedom of the class struggle will be precisely on the side of the secessionists. [5]
In cases where the secession of an oppressed nation becomes inevitable, the way to exercise the right to self-determination may be the creation of a sovereign and independent state, free accession to or association with an independent state, or the establishment of any other political status.
a Social-Democrat from a small nation must emphasize in his agitation the second word of our general formula: “voluntary integration” of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, be in favour of both the political independence of his nation and its integration with the neighboring state of X, Y, Z, etc.” [6]
Thus, the voluntary union of nations is one of the central tasks of the labor movement, which cannot be achieved without the struggle of the proletariat of all countries for national equality and, in particular, without upholding the right of nations to self-determination. In the "freedom of secession" and "freedom of association" of nations lies true internationalism. And there can be no other way to a voluntary merger of nations. Only a person who thinks nothing of Marxism can oppose this and call the inclination of nations towards rapprochement "support for imperialism" or "imperial ambitions", as my opponents do:
““Ah, we are talking about integration?! That is, the imperial ambitions about the "single and indivisible" rule according to the results! So let the fans of the “one and indivisible” help Donbass then. To the communists, then what are the complaints?We are not drowning for the “one and indivisible”, if anything!”.”.
Well, so, firstly, the fans of the "one and indivisible", and help Donbass, and help more actively than the left. And instead of opposing bourgeois nationalism with proletarian internationalism, similar leftists, poking their fingers at the presence of support from the right, refuse to assist the working people of Donbass, outsourcing solidarity with Donbass to right-wing forces. Of course, such a policy has nothing to do with Marxism.
Secondly, why, one might ask, are such “communists” drowning? For even greater disunity and division of nations? They understand the communist slogan "Proletariat of all countries, unite!" very strangely. The Marxist thesis that "the proletariat has no fatherland" is perceived extremely destructively by such "communists". The proletariat has a fatherland. And this fatherland is all mankind. The proletariat fights first and foremost for its socialist fatherland, the path to which is impossible without the expansion of ties between nations, without the subsequent unification and merging of nations.
The proletariat has no right to cover up with “defence of the fatherland” the aggressive, reactionary, anti-democratic policy of its government, which violates the equality of nations, because the forcible merging of peoples through annexations, that is, against the will of the population, can bring enormous harm to the international solidarity of the working people. And the direct manifestation of the reactionary, predatory, imperialist policy of the bourgeois governments is precisely the annexationist policy. Let me remind you what annexation is and what it means to be against annexations:
“No matter how you turn, you will not avoid the conclusion: annexation is a violation of the self-determination of the nation, it is the establishment of the borders of the state against the will of the population. To be against annexations means to be for the right of self-determination.
Being “against the forcible retention of any nation within the boundaries of a given state” is the same as being for the self-determination of nations.”
In other words, "annexation violates the self-determination of nations or, in other words, constitutes one of the forms of national oppression." [6]
The establishment of the borders of this or that state against the will of the population, as well as the forcible annexation and retention of any nation within the borders of its state, is a reactionary, anti-democratic, predatory, that is, imperialist policy.
The policy pursued by violent, terrorist methods, through the armed seizure of foreign countries and peoples, the violation of the equality of nations, in particular, the right of nations to self-determination, is the reactionary policy of bourgeois governments. The proletariat has no right to support such a policy.
Defense of the interests of the fatherland in this case is the defense of the reactionary interests of the bourgeoisie and betrayal, both in relation to other peoples and in relation to one's own people, since a people that oppresses other peoples cannot become free.
Accordingly, the support of imperialism is the support of the forcible merging of nations, but not the inclination of the peoples towards a voluntary unification that meets the interests of creating the best conditions for the class struggle. In the interests of the class struggle, any assimilation of nations, with the exception of forcible assimilation, is welcomed. To oppose the voluntary union of peoples means to take the side of nationalism and social chauvinism.
It is not surprising, subsequently, to hear from such "Marxists" and desperate "fighters against nationalism" the following judgments:
“What is so important being decided in Donbas now? What is the interest of the Russian proletariat to interfere in this? What is the interest of the Russian proletariat in this integration?
“So, this one, but how will my participation in the cause of some mythical revolution in the Donbass help the cause of the revolution in Russia or in Ukraine? It is incomprehensible ... Can I help the cause of the revolution in my homeland, and not the devil knows where, in the interests of the devil knows who, it is not clear why you are called comrades in a crowd? Or maybe our workers are closer and more important than what happens directly to them and their families, and not what their neighbors have there? Maybe, they would be better off discussing pressing problems and their causes, no? Or is Donbas our everything? Or do we and our local hard workers have no problems left? Let's talk from class positions, shall we?!"
What can I say? Criticizing the working people of Donbass for setting national tasks above class ones, such leftists themselves do not notice how they are sliding into the swamp of bourgeois nationalism.
““He who says A must say B”; one who has adopted the standpoint of nationalism naturally arrives at the desire to erect a Chinese Wall around his nationality, his national working-class movement; he is unembarrassed even by the fact that it would mean building separate walls in each city, in each little town and village, unembarrassed even by the fact that by his tactics of division and dismemberment he is reducing to nil the great call for the rallying and unity of the proletarians of all nations, all races and all languages.. [7]
Guided by nationalistic feelings, infinitely far from the theory and practice of Marxism, being hostages of formulaic, idealistic judgments in the understanding of the class struggle, mindlessly memorizing Marxist mantras, such “comrades”, not at all embarrassed by their ignorance, are engaged in agitation and propaganda of ideas that have nothing to do with Marxism, but in essence openly chauvinistic ideas, hiding behind loud phrases about the class approach and the scientific method. Such rhetoric sabotages national defence, disarms democracy, hinders the development of the revolutionary movement and, in essence, plays into the hands of bourgeois reaction.
And not so bad when the reason for such reasoning is banal illiteracy and lack of education. However, not all judgments expressed by my opponents are a manifestation of ignorance. For the most part, they quite consciously and purposefully use all possible demagogic tricks in order to hide the true state of things from the masses. So, when discussing the causes of the Ukrainian conflict, my opponents constantly emphasize that the people of Donbass rebelled because of the ban on the Russian language.
“The working people of Donbass are simply convinced that the language issue is more important and priority than the class issue.”
“but for some reason some “Marxists” are sure that by pedaling the national question, by putting the solution of national questions regarding the Russian language in Ukraine ahead of the class one, they are acting in a Leninist way.”
“Talk about Ukrainian fascists, emotional wringing of hands for their native language, only misleads people and is essentially no different from the chatter of only bourgeois nationalists with their Russian world.”
“Will the question of language solve the daily problems associated with the survival of people under the existing system of socio-economic relations? No, it won't. Whether Russians in Russia, Ukrainians in Ukraine, or Latvians in Latvia, the official use of their native language in all spheres of social relations does not make their daily life one ounce easier but is only a manipulation tool for the ruling bourgeois classes in order to fool the working people about their special national values, around which you need to rally against the insidious enemy from the east or west.
In this case, the language issue is brought to the fore deliberately and with the sole purpose of discrediting the popular uprising in the east of Ukraine on the basis of the principle “they stood up for the wrong thing”, “Donbass militias are no different from Ukrainian nationalists”, etc. etc. This approach allows my opponents to justify their passive-aggressive position towards the people of Donbass and to disorient the masses of workers, already in Russia itself. Is it precisely for this reason that the language issue is raised to the banner, so that the audience, who may be poorly immersed in the topic, does not see the real causes of the Ukrainian conflict? And the reasons for this conflict are primarily economic, and the people of Donbass are fighting primarily for their economic and political interests. Only people who did not follow the events in Ukraine in 2013-2014 cannot know about this.
And my opponents are quite well immersed in the topic and cannot but know that the Ukrainian conflict was based on the aggravation of contradictions between the economic and political interests of the industrial eastern and agrarian western regions of Ukraine. Moreover, these contradictions concerned not only the interests of the elites, but also the large masses of the working population.
The majority of the population, mainly in the southeastern regions of Ukraine, identifying themselves as part of the Russian/Soviet people, could not imagine their development outside the common economic space with Russia and sought to maintain and strengthen economic ties with it (preservation of production chains with Russia, established back in the era the existence of the USSR). Breaking ties with Russia meant, for the industrialized regions of Ukraine, the final de-industrialization and the transformation of Ukraine into a medieval agrarian colony of the West. Thus, the population of the eastern regions, who always dreamed, for the most part, of reunification with Russia, as an opportunity to restore the artificially split Soviet nation, was more than interested in an alliance with Russia, which would allow to preserve the industry of Donbass - an objective condition for the existence of the proletariat. And therefore, the population of the southeast supported the entry of Ukraine into Customs Union, perceiving it as a springboard for a possible reunification with Russia. At the same time, the population of the southeast did not impose the Customs Union on the whole of Ukraine, but defended the right to conclude such a union for their regions, in the context of the struggle for national equality, demanding greater political independence and autonomy for the southeastern regions.
The population of the western regions of Ukraine, led by nationalists, sought to maximize the rupture of already existing, established ties with Russia, and the complete European integration of the whole of Ukraine, not just ignoring the will of the population of the southeastern regions, but imposing their will on the population of these regions by terrorist methods, pursuing a policy of forcible Ukrainization and de-Sovietization of the entire population of the country. Thus, the western part of the population, driven mainly by nationalist feelings, defended the “national independence” of Ukraine, by strengthening national oppression, striving to develop their own special “national culture”, to the detriment of the “international proletarian culture”, putting the national question not just above the class question, but as opposed to the class question.
Thus, the situation of a deep political crisis in 2013 provoked an aggravation of regional contradictions in Ukraine. The current situation resulted in an uprising of citizens on the Kiev Maidan, led by nationalists, who by that time turned out to be the most prepared, organized, armed political force in Ukraine, and actively advocated the overthrow of the current government, the need for a national coup d'état and European integration. At the same time, opposition to the entry of Ukraine, or at least part of it, into the Customs Union with Russia was perhaps the main slogan of Euromaidan.
Accordingly, in response to the nationalist policy of the Euromaidan, an anti-Maidan movement was formed, whose participants opposed the policy of mass European integration and forced Ukrainization, as well as the federalization of Ukraine (at the initial stage) and the entry of the southeastern regions into the Customs Union, and later, after the “Crimean scenario ", for the complete separation from Ukraine and the annexation of all of Novorossia (the south-east of the country) to Russia. Thus, fighting against Ukrainian nationalism, the opponents of the Maidan defended the equality of nations and their right to self-determination, without encroaching on the national self-determination of the western part of Ukraine.
The language issue, of course, was of great importance for the rebels, as one of the factors uniting Novorossia with Russia, and therefore one of the demands of the opponents of the Maidan, even before the Russian Spring, when the anti-Maidan participants tried to negotiate with the Kyiv authorities, was the demand to officially recognize the Russian language as the second state language in Ukraine. But the main demand of the opponents of Euromaidan was the demand for federalization, which is primarily aimed at solving the main problem for those who raised the issue - the opportunity to independently determine the economic and political vector of their development. That is, the question was about national independence, about greater autonomy and relative independence of the eastern regions of Ukraine, about achieving equality of nations in Ukraine. Accordingly, the protection of the Russian language for the anti-Maidan was not an end in itself but was an integral part of the main task - the protection of their national existence, civil rights and freedoms, economic and political interests of their people.
“every “rebellious nation” “defends” itself from the oppressor nation, defends its language, its land, its fatherland. Every national oppression evokes a rebuff from the broad masses of the people, and the tendency of any rebuff from the nationally oppressed population is a national uprising. [8]
As we can see, the pro-Russian/pro-Soviet population of the industrialized south-eastern regions of Ukraine found themselves in a situation of the wildest national oppression, as a result of which their national existence and physical survival were threatened, as well as the possibility of preserving industrial enterprises connected by production chains with Russia. Under the conditions of national oppression by Ukrainian nationalists, whose goal was to counteract the expansion of established economic ties with Russia (CU) and the complete rupture of these ties, the broad masses of workers in the southeast of Ukraine organized popular resistance. The resistance of the broad masses of the people to the reactionary, nationalist policy resulted in a national liberation uprising.
Thus, when analyzing the policy that led to the war in Donbass, it is absolutely obvious that the nature of this war is national liberation.
“How to find the “real essence” of war, how to define it? War is a continuation of politics. It is necessary to study the politics before the war, the politics that led and led to the war. If the policy was imperialist, i.e., defending the interests of finance capital, plundering and oppressing colonies and foreign countries, then the war resulting from this policy is an imperialist war. If the policy was national liberation, i.e., expressing a mass movement against national oppression, then the war resulting from such a policy is a national liberation war. [8]
Every struggle against national oppression, against the bloody dictatorship of finance capital, against imperialist aggressors in the era of imperialism is a struggle for one's national existence, against attempts to rob and strangle one's own people. The struggle of the oppressed people for their liberation from national oppression, that is, against the forcible retention of their people within the borders of the state of the oppressor nation, the defense of the nation's right to self-determination, in its content is a political struggle for national equality, without which the international unity of the working people is impossible. And that is why the war of national liberation arising from such a policy is, in its significance, a war of democracy. And that is precisely why the socialists cannot refuse moral and practical support for the insurgent masses,
“Wars are the continuation of politics; therefore, once there is a struggle for democracy, there may be a war over democracy; the self-determination of nations is only one of the democratic demands, not fundamentally different from the others. "World domination" is, to put it briefly, the content of the imperialist policy, the continuation of which is the imperialist war. Denying the "defence of the fatherland", i.e. participation in a democratic war is an absurdity that has nothing in common with Marxism.” [8]
Thus, the significance of the struggle for the national self-determination of the oppressed peoples is subordinated to the highest goals of socialism—the democratization of public life and the international rallying of the working people of different countries, in the interests of the best conditions for the class struggle. Not understanding the significance of the political struggle for the equality of nations and languages may gray townsfolk, but not the Communists. However, many of those who call themselves communists, consciously denying the class significance of the national liberation struggle, openly sabotage the support of the working people in such a struggle.
Thus, noting, for example, that the republics of the DPR and LPR are capitalist, many leftists speak out about the unlawfulness of supporting the struggle of the working people of Donbass for their liberation from national oppression, believing that since there is a bourgeoisie in the Donbass, it means that the people of Donbass are fighting for the interests of the bourgeoisie, and therefore there is no class character in such an uprising.
“We have a NATIONAL liberation BOURGEOIS, and not a PEOPLE’S liberation CLASS (proletarian) war!” such leftists say.
Discussing with similar "comrades" on this issue, V. I. Lenin repeatedly pointed out the absurdity of such views:
“It turns out that the Polish comrades are against such an uprising on the grounds that in these annexed countries there is also a bourgeoisie that also oppresses foreign peoples, or rather, can oppress, because it is only a matter of “its right to oppress.” To evaluate a given war or a given uprising, therefore, it is not its actual social content (the struggle of the oppressed nation against the oppressor for its emancipation) that is taken, but the possible exercise by the now oppressed bourgeoisie of its "right to oppress". If Belgium, say, in 1917 is annexed by Germany, and in 1918 rises for its liberation, then the Polish comrades will be against the uprising on the grounds that the Belgian bourgeoisie has "the right to oppress other peoples"! There is not an iota of Marxist or revolutionary in this reasoning.” [6]
Thus, the inability or rather unwillingness of my opponents to see the immediate, class interests of the working people lead to a misunderstanding of the significance of the national liberation struggle in the era of imperialism for the development of the revolutionary movement.
Moreover, refusing to support the people of Donbass in their struggle for liberation from national oppression by the Kiev authorities, many leftists explain their position by the fact that this war is “a civil war in form, but imperialist in content,” since the people of Donbass, allegedly fighting for the interests of Russian capital.
Let's see who is fighting for what in this war.
1) What is the Kyiv Ukronazi government fighting for? - For the preservation of the integrity of Ukraine and the creation of a separate, independent national state, solving these problems by terrorist methods, grossly violating the right of national self-determination of the people of Novorossia.
Firstly, the Kyiv authorities forcibly keep within the borders of their state, the population of the southeastern regions who rebelled for their liberation from national oppression and rose in the Russian Spring for reunification with Russia.
Secondly, the Kyiv authorities are at war with the republics of the DPR and LPR with the aim of forcibly annexing the seceded regions back to Ukraine, covering up the “defence of the fatherland”, that is, the protection of the independence of Ukraine, the policy of the wildest national oppression and genocide of the civilian population.
2) What is the Donbass fighting for? - for their liberation from national oppression by the Ukronazi authorities, for reunification with Russia, in the interests of ensuring the best conditions for the class struggle.
Are the people of Donbass somehow encroaching on the political independence of the Ukrainian people? Does it somehow violate the equality of nations? On the contrary, Donbass is fighting for national equality, upholding and defending the right of its people to self-determination.
3. What are the interests of the Russian government in this war? Maybe in this war there is an aggressive policy of the Russian bourgeoisie? Maybe the establishment of the Russian Federation is striving for the annexation of Ukraine? Maybe the policy of the Russian Federation towards Crimea was aggressive, that is, reactionary, that is, anti-democratic - violating the right of the nation to self-determination?
Was the annexation of the peninsula an annexation of Crimea? — No, it didn’t, and first of all because this accession was not its annexation, but was carried out democratically, taking into account the will of the Crimeans, who have long gravitated towards Russia.
Yes, the Russian establishment did not act out of democratic motives. By protecting the interests of the Russian people, the establishment of the Russian Federation covered up the protection of its military-strategic interests. At the same time, if there had not been a coup d'état in Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea would have been out of the question. The annexation of the peninsula was a reaction to the events in Ukraine and was not part of the plans of the Russian establishment. Moreover, the annexation of Crimea brought some Russian capital more losses than profits, both due to sanctions from the EU and the United States, and in view of the fact that the annexed region is essentially subsidized and imposes an extra social burden on Russian capital.
The Russian left was extremely frightened by the rise of patriotic sentiment in Russia after the annexation of Crimea. And why shouldn't we rejoice at the liberation of the Crimeans from the wildest national oppression, the partial restoration of the territories alienated as a result of the collapse of the USSR, the voluntary unification of the people split in 1991? Just the same, patriotic feelings in this situation are fully justified and ratified. On the contrary, one cannot be a communist without being a patriot of one's own people—I emphasize—the people, not the state. And reunification with Crimea was in the interests of the people. Modern leftists worry a lot about the interests of the bourgeoisie, but somehow forget about the interests of the common people.
Another thing is that it was too early to rejoice. Because subsequently the policy of the establishment of the Russian Federation, having turned 180 degrees in relation to the interests of the people, slipped into a reaction, refusing to support the main initiative of the militia - the integration of all of Novorossia into Russia.
Thus, the establishment of the Russian Federation not only does not seek annexations, but, on the contrary, refuses to accept the republics of the DNR and LNR into the Russian Federation, voluntarily and openly striving for reunification with Russia. And the position of the Russian Federation on this issue plays into the hands of the aggressive policy of the Kyiv authorities but is not aggressive in the interests of Russian capital.
From the very beginning, the Russian government did not support either the idea of secession of the South-East from Ukraine, or the idea of its reunification with Russia, calling on the Donetsk and Lugansk militias to postpone a referendum on the separation of these regions from Ukraine, insisting on a "peaceful settlement of the conflict."
From the very beginning, the Russian establishment took a course towards the reintegration of the seceded regions back into Ukraine, ignoring the will of the population fighting for its liberation from the wildest national oppression by the Ukronazi authorities. And this is the official position of the government of the Russian Federation, recorded in a document called “A set of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements”, according to which the republics of the LPR and DPR remain officially unrecognized, including by Russia itself. These republics are recognized as separate regions of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine (ORDLO-U). That is, the establishment of the Russian Federation not only does not recognize the republics as such, but also officially considers them part of Ukraine, slowly but persistently pushing through the implementation of the Minsk agreements,
Thus, despite all the foreign policy contradictions, both the Kyiv authorities and the Russian authorities, in this case, solve the same tasks - the suppression of the national liberation movement of the citizens of Novorossia and the reintegration of the republics of the DPR and LPR back into Ukraine, in order to preserve its territorial integrity, against the will of the population of the LDNR.
The government of the Russian Federation could not fail to take control of the rebellious Donbass. It would be political suicide, both in foreign policy and in domestic policy, since the masses of people from the Russian Federation and not only spontaneously supported the Donbass, going to fight on the side of the militia on a voluntary basis. By providing minimal support in arming the people's militia, the government of the Russian Federation defended its political image.
At the same time, while forming “its own” government in the republics, the Russian side put forward its own conditions to the militias and in every possible way prevented the solution of the liberation tasks of Donbass (cleansing the leftist forces in the Donbass, handing over to the Ukrainian side participants in active resistance, both in the republics themselves, and participants in the underground -sabotage activities in Ukraine, etc. etc.).
Moreover, after the Debaltsevo operation, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine was broken and demoralized, did not have proper reserves and there were favorable circumstances for further advancement in order to at least liberate the rest of the LDNR from the Ukronazis, and at the maximum, proceed to liberate the territory of the rest of Novorossia, the government of the Russian Federation ( probably in their predatory interests) demanded that the militia of Donbass stop the offensive, and announced that there would be no supply of weapons for a further offensive from the Russian Federation.
Ultimately, the Donbass militia was driven into the rigid framework of the “Minsk agreements”, according to which the people’s militia not only cannot go on the offensive, but also has no right to respond to shelling from Ukraine. Moreover, if the Minsk agreements are violated by the militias, the world community will recognize the militias as terrorists and take appropriate measures against them. When these agreements, absolutely, openly, are violated by the Ukrainian side, the world community, and in particular the government of the Russian Federation does not react to this in any way.
Thus, it is more than obvious that the Russian government does not interfere with the realization of the interests of Western partners on the territory of the LDNR, which is loyal to Russia, actually withdrawing and playing into their hands.
Do the bourgeois governments on both sides agree among themselves? Are they exploiting this war to their advantage? Yes, they are exploiting. Yes, they agree. But about what? About the conditions under which it is more profitable to reintegrate the Donbass back into Ukraine.
But my opponents not only don’t want to see this, but they also blame it on the people of Donbass, who found themselves hostage to such a situation and were forced to cope with these problems alone, left without the moral and practical support of the communist forces from Russia. My opponents see only that the Donbass is under the control of Russia, but why it is under control, what tasks the Russian Federation solves, does not matter to my opponents. Since Russia gives weapons to Donbass, it means that Donbass is fighting in the interests of Russian imperialism, which means that there is no fundamental difference between Ukrainian nationalists and the people of Donbass. This is how my opponents, and many Russian leftists argue.
I will give an example of the following judgment on this issue, the odiousness of which does not fit into any framework:
“I am discussing the conflict in Donbas here from a CLASS position, THEREFORE, articles about the crimes of the Ukrainian regime in THIS context do not bother me. What does all this have to do with the question, if we consider it not from the point of view of who hurt whom more, who is good and who is bad, but from a CLASS position? But none, because both the militias and the Armed Forces of Ukraine are ruled by the bourgeois.”
This is how stupidity looks like, covered with loud phrases about the class approach.
Guided by this logic, both my opponents and many Russian leftists came to the conclusion that the war in the Donbass was imperialist and resolutely adopted a defeatist position in relation to their bourgeois government.
I note that the defeatist position in the imperialist war presupposes active revolutionary actions on the part of the socialist and proletarian parties of all the belligerent countries. This position is designed to transform the imperialist war into a civil war directed against the ruling class, for the establishment of a more just social system - the socialist one.
Lenin emphasized that the defeat of the bourgeois government in the imperialist war weakens it, helps to emancipate the peoples it has enslaved, and contributes to the international rallying of the working people in order to organize a civil war against the ruling classes. And therefore, the proletarians of all the belligerent countries must desire the defeat of their government and actively contribute to such a defeat, which must be used to overthrow the bourgeois power and establish Soviet power.
Thus, the defeatist position in the imperialist war was a revolutionary position. This is not simply a refusal to take part in the war, but, on the contrary, it is a call to the masses to turn their weapons against their bourgeois governments. During WWI, socialists who took this position were persecuted and tried. Today, it is precisely those forces that most actively stand for the liberation of Novorossiya and its integration with Russia that are being subjected to repression.
Under the conditions of the war in the Donbass, the “defeatist position” of the Russian left is in fact neither revolutionary nor defeatist at all. On the contrary, such a position is most beneficial to the government of the Russian Federation, against which, it would seem, it should have worked, if only because the leadership of the Russian Federation itself takes a defeatist position in this war. And therefore, a situation is developing when the left, speaking out against the Russian government in words, actually supports their government, refusing to directly support the people of Donbass, openly demonizing them, which plays into the hands of the reactionary policy, both of the Kyiv authorities and the Russian, aimed to suppress this national liberation struggle.
It is the Russian government that benefits from the fact that there is no sympathy, and, accordingly, support, from the citizens of the Russian Federation for the Donbass. So that the idea of reintegrating the republics back into Ukraine does not cause any controversy in society and is not a reason for possible protests and indignation on the part of the Russians. It is for this purpose that the Russian bourgeois media renamed the Russian Spring into the Crimean Spring. To erase from the memory of people the idea of reunification of Donbass with Russia. So that people forget or do not know what people were burned on May 2 in the House of Trade Unions, for which the workers of Donbass, risking their lives, under massive shelling from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, went to vote during the referendum on May 11, 2014, for which the people of Donbass have been fighting all this time. So, in the recently released film "The Sun "the ideological content of the war in the Donbass has been completely emasculated. Not a word is said about the desire to reunite with Russia, and it is simply impossible for an unenlightened viewer to understand what the people of Donbass have been fighting for all these 7.5 years.
Thus, speaking out against their bourgeois government in words, in reality these "comrades" turn into only its servants, taking the side of the imperialists, that is, the oppressors. Such is the essence of this “defeatist” position, which in fact is not defeatist or revolutionary, from the word at all, but in the most direct sense, reactionary, anti-democratic, anti-popular, chauvinistic, having nothing in common with Marxism and the class approach.
The main goal of my opponents in this matter is, under any pretext, to step back from their duties as communists, even if these pretexts contradict each other.
So, in a discussion with such leftists, it comes to complete absurdity. First, they claim that Donbass is fighting for the interests of Russian capital, and after a while, they already argue their passive position by saying that supporting Donbass will lead to increased reaction in our country, tightening the screws on the part of the Russian government, because integration of Donbass is not beneficial for Russian capital in RF. And there are no contradictions in the minds of my opponents. Because there is only one task before them - under any pretext to justify their passive position on this issue, hiding behind, at the same time, the class approach, and the scientific method.
So, one of these pretexts is the argument that support for the liberation struggle of the people of Donbass also contributes to the support of Great Russian chauvinism.
“Lord, well, they won’t reconcile with the Ukrofascists, but for a sweet soul they will reconcile with the Russian great-power chauvinists.”
“Why should I support the militia in the Donbass, with the prospect that this militia will grow into an analogue of the freikorps, charged with a white idea to the very tonsils, which will be sharpened for processing, like you and me, into soap?”
Firstly, for a sweet soul, it was my opponents who reconciled with the Great Russian chauvinists, arguing that what is happening in our homeland is more important, and not what our neighbors have there, that we have enough problems of our own, and not we need of strangers.
Secondly, such arguments are a clear example of social chauvinism. Such a policy is no different from the policy, for example, of Ukrainian nationalists, in relation to the fight against "political strangers."
Lenin rightly noted that by resorting to such arguments, such "comrades" dumped nationalism from a sick head on a healthy one. And therefore, fearing the nationalism of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations, such leftists play into the hands of the nationalism of the oppressor nation. And therefore, again, that in order to assess this war, it is not its actual democratic content (the struggle for liberation from national oppression) that is taken, but the possible exercise by the oppressed nation of its “right to oppression”. As a result, fearing such a possibility, my opponents consider it a lesser evil, apparently, if the Kiev Ukronazi authorities physically destroy the people of Donbass, in the bud, so to speak, stop the possibility that an analogue of the freikorps charged with the white idea will grow out of this militia.
With such an approach to agitation and propaganda, which such “Marxists”, develop an analogue of such a freikorps (right wing paramilitary E.A)will definitely grow, only not from the militia of Donbass, since they have practically no chance of survival, but from the Russian masses of workers, brought up in the spirit of social chauvinism preached by my opponents.
The only true tactic in the fight against all nationalism is the consistent struggle for the equality of all nations, the prevention of any national privileges for any one nation and no national inequality of rights.
“Struggle against all national oppression – definitely yes. Struggle for any kind of national development, for "national culture in general" - certainly not. [2]
Since we are talking about the liberation of the oppressed people from national oppression, the broad masses of the people, including both right and left forces, are interested in such liberation. And in such a struggle, their tasks converge. It is impossible for the proletariat of an oppressed nation to free itself from national oppression without freeing itself along with all the oppressed strata of the population. And since these tasks are primarily democratic, the participation of right-wing forces does not contradict the democratic tasks of the national liberation war.
“In every bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed nation there is a general democratic content against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support.” [5]
But at the same time, the task of the left forces in such a war is to oppose proletarian internationalism to bourgeois nationalism.
“We are told: by supporting the right to secession, you are supporting the bourgeois nationalism of the oppressed nations. <...> We answer: no, it is the bourgeoisie that is important here a "practical" solution, and the workers are important to distinguish two trends in principle. To the extent that the bourgeoisie of an oppressed nation fights against the oppressor, to that extent we are always and, in any case, more resolutely in favor, for we are the most daring and consistent enemies of oppression. Since the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its bourgeois nationalism, we are against it. Fight against the privileges of the oppressor nation and no connivance with the desire for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation. [5]
To throw off all national oppression, all oppression of nations, all privileges of one nation is the absolute duty of the proletariat as a democratic force, the absolute interest of the proletarian class struggle. But at the same time, the left forces are faced with the task of defending equal rights for all nations; to counteract the development of nationality in general, the striving of any nation for its national dominance, for its national exclusivity; uphold the principle of unconditional unity and complete fusion of the workers of all nationalities.
“We are fighting on the soil of a given state, uniting the workers of all the nations of a given state, we cannot vouch for this or that path of national development, we are advancing through all possible paths towards our class goal. But it is impossible to move towards this goal without fighting all kinds of nationalism and without upholding the equality of different nations.” [5]
In view of the fact that not only the left, but also the right forces are fighting against Ukrainian nationalism in the Donbass, respectively, both the left and the right are showing solidarity with the Donbass. That is why a situation arises in which representatives of the opposing forces find themselves on the same side of the barricades, and the support from the right forces is more significant than the support from the left. And that is why the left should not be left at the mercy of the right solidarity with the Donbass. The real consistent support of the Left must counter bourgeois nationalism with proletarian internationalism. Without solidarity, without unity of action by all communist forces, socialism has no chance for the future.
The anti-Maidan movement in Ukraine is grassroots, spontaneous, mixed movement of the masses, most of whom are industrial workers, conscious enough to understand that without reunification with Russia, the implementation of a socialist revolution is impossible. At least half of the rebellious workers perceived the reunification with Russia as a partial restoration of the artificially split Soviet nation. That is why in the Russian Spring they rose under Soviet flags and with international slogans. That is why, fighting Ukrainian nationalists, they desperately defended Soviet symbols, Soviet monuments, toponymy, the Soviet idea, and communist ideology. Having rebelled against the wildest bourgeois reaction in 2014, the working masses acted in accordance with the spirit and letter of Marxism. Yes.
But my opponents do not see these masses of working people at close range, but only note the presence of right-wing forces, and attribute to all the rebels the right-wing ideology, supposedly underlying their liberation struggle. Moreover, considering the fight against national oppression senseless, my opponents believe that the insurgent masses deserve support only when they stand for the direct implementation of the socialist revolution. Otherwise, the uprising is regarded as an unprepared and premature uprising of the class-immature masses, whose support from the left is senseless and even dangerous.
“To think in this way is to renounce the social revolution. One army must line up in one place and say: "We are for socialism," and in another and say: "We are for imperialism," and this will be a social revolution! [6]
It is on this absurd point of view that my opponents stand, condemning the working people of Donbass for lack of organization, class immaturity, and unpreparedness to make a socialist revolution right now. Such an approach boils down to only one thing - the renunciation of the political struggle against any political oppression, including national oppression, for the reason that insufficiently conscious, class-immature masses of working people participate in such a struggle.
“Whoever expects a “pure” social revolution will never live to see it. Such a person pays lip-service to revolution without understanding what revolution is. [6]
In a national uprising or war, the broad masses of all and sundry oppressed and discontented strata of the population always take part. Parts of the petty bourgeoisie and the lumpen proletarian and semi-proletarian masses will inevitably take part in such a struggle. And without such participation, no mass struggle is possible against the main enemy of the working people, the big bourgeoisie, against any political oppression, including national oppression.
Moreover, not a single socialist revolution is possible without the participation in it of broad, diverse and outwardly fragmented masses of the people. One of the most important tasks of the labor movement is to win over these masses to the point of view of the proletariat, depriving the big bourgeoisie of a mass base on which it can rely in the struggle for power.
“The question of the laboring masses of the petty bourgeoisie, both urban and rural, the question of winning these masses to the side of the proletariat, is highly important for the proletarian revolution. Whom will the laboring people of town and country support in the struggle for power, the bourgeoisie or the proletariat; whose reserve will they become, the reserve of the bourgeoisie or the reserve of the proletariat — on this depend on the fate of the revolution and the stability of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The revolutions in France in 1848 and 1871 came to grief chiefly because the peasant reserves proved to be on the side of the bourgeoisie. The October Revolution was victorious because it was able to deprive the bourgeoisie of its peasant reserves, because it was able to win these reserves to the side of the proletariat, and because in this revolution the proletariat proved to be the only guiding force for the vast masses of the laboring people of town and country.
He who has not understood this will never understand either the character of the October Revolution, or the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat, or the specific characteristics of the internal policy of our proletarian power. <…>
"The dictatorship of the proletariat," says Lenin, "is a special form of class alliance between the proletariat, the vanguard of the working people, and the numerous non-proletarian strata of working people (the petty bourgeoisie, the small proprietors, the peasantry, the intelligentsia, etc.), or the majority of these; it is an alliance against capital, an alliance aiming at the complete overthrow of capital, at the complete suppression of the resistance of the bourgeoisie and of any attempt on its part at restoration, an alliance aiming at the final establishment and consolidation of socialism." (9)
Socialist society will not immediately be cleansed of all kinds of petty-bourgeois elements. Moreover, the proletariat who made the socialist revolution does not automatically become a communist. On the contrary, he is still petty bourgeois in his mass. The overcoming of petty-bourgeois and idealistic prejudices in the minds of the masses is the main task of socialism. And this task is solved by overcoming any alienation in the process of socialist construction. The complete overcoming of petty-bourgeoisness in the minds of the masses ends with the transition from socialism to communism and begins with the unification of the proletarian masses to fight the bourgeoisie.
The masses unite in the struggle, as a rule, not because class consciousness has awakened in them and they have become aware of their class interests, but because life circumstances require it. The broad masses of working people are impelled to fight by objective, forced necessity. In the process of this struggle, class consciousness begins to take shape. It is in the process of struggle, and not vice versa. Because consciousness is formed and transformed in social activities. The outcome of the class struggle depends mainly on whether there will be communist forces nearby to help, support and guide the class-immature, irresponsible masses onto the path of socialism. Which ideology will dominate the masses—socialist or bourgeois—depends on who exerts a greater educational influence on the masses in such a struggle (left or right).
"Detached from Social Democracy, the working-class movement becomes smaller and necessarily falls into bourgeoisness." 10]
But for my opponents, these are empty words. Denying the need for their participation in the development of the working-class movement, they are waiting for a pure social revolution, where the ideologically sterile, class-conscious, untainted masses, without any petty-bourgeois admixtures and idealistic prejudices, will come forward under the right slogans, with the right demands, etc. etc.
“People are sliding into nationalism not because of the lack of consistent support from the Communists, but because of the presence of a petty-bourgeois non-class consciousness, with which people were saturated even BEFORE the war.”
Well, what can I say? Nothing discredits a communist if he does not discredit himself. In my opinion, my opponents exceeded this plan by 200%.
The task of the communists is to form the proletariat into a class, turning it into the leading political force in the struggle against the bourgeoisie. The proletariat is not capable of independently realizing itself as a class and getting rid of petty-bourgeois prejudices. This is the task of the communists.
The task of the communists is "to instill socialist ideas and political self-consciousness into the mass of the proletariat and organize a revolutionary party inextricably linked with the spontaneous workers' movement." [10]
Without the support of the communist forces, the spontaneously revolted proletariat will not be able to fully realize its class interest, correctly formulate its demands and work out the tactics and strategy of the class struggle. It is the task of communists to bring socialist principles and ideals into the spontaneous working-class movement. The task of the communists is precisely to fight for the interests of the working people, together with the working people, even if they themselves are not yet fully aware of their class interests. This realization can come to the proletariat only in the course of the class struggle.
“Social democracy is not reduced to simple service to the labor movement: it is “the union of socialism with the labor movement”; its task is to introduce certain socialist ideals into the spontaneous working-class movement, to connect it with socialist convictions, which must stand at the level of modern science, to connect it with the systematic political struggle for democracy as a means of realizing socialism, in a word, to merge this spontaneous movement into one inseparable whole with the activities of the revolutionary party. 11]
However, my opponents believe that the Marxists can begin to solve all these tasks only when they have a strong Communist Party.
“In order to do all this, we need a party! And then, where is the guarantee that they won’t bang me there?! Show me the communists in quantities! We do not have a Communist Party, so we are simply unable to help the people of Donbass. We can't do anything without a party. Therefore, I propose to engage in agitation and propaganda and increase the number of communists, and not make a three-legged dog cry!
And what is the result?
You are simply not able to do anything, but the working people of Donbass must recognize themselves as a class, and unite against the capitalists, and carry out a revolution, and get rid of the petty-bourgeois consciousness, etc. etc. So, it turns out?
That is, not keeping up and not even trying to keep up with the spontaneous labor movement, either in a theoretical or practical sense, do you think that you have the moral right to criticize people with whom you did not stand next to?
And how are you going to increase the number of communists? With his chauvinistic preaching? A communist is born in struggle and nothing else.
Undoubtedly, for the implementation of the socialist revolution, a strong revolutionary communist party, tested in battles with the bourgeoisie, is needed. At the same time, one must understand that the Communist Party is an organization of professional revolutionaries. And such an organization can only be formed from revolutionaries, that is, from people who:
- devote their whole lives to the revolution;
- with patience and perseverance, they develop professional revolutionaries out of themselves;
- with their whole way of life, they prove loyalty to their convictions and ideals;
- put the cause of the revolution above their personal interests and above their own lives;
- wholly and completely connect their lives with the working-class movement, and in their practical activity they set the organization of the class struggle as the main task.
The communist revolutionary never forgets the interests and sufferings of the people and is always guided by high moral communist ideals. The pursuit of justice is his life credo.
Only with the help of such people can a strong revolutionary communist party be formed.
The one who engages in active inaction and encourages others to do so, the one who is waiting for the communists to be brought to him in commercial quantities, but who cares about how they do not bang him, who is looking for any pretexts so that as long as possible not leave the comfort zone, he is a revolutionary only in words. In practice, this is a vile demagogue, living on his own, not public problems. And therefore such "comrades" will never create any strong organization. And if they do, it will be any kind of organization, but not the revolutionary party of communists.
“only the grossest misunderstanding of Marxism (or “understanding” it in the spirit of “struvism”) could give rise to the opinion that the emergence of a mass, spontaneous working-class movement relieves us of the obligation to create an organization as good as that of the landowners, to create an even incomparably better organization of revolutionaries. On the contrary, this movement places this duty on us, for the spontaneous struggle of the proletariat will not become its real "class struggle" until this struggle is led by a strong organization of revolutionaries. [12]
***
In conclusion, I want to say that I have no illusions about those representatives of the left movement that I had to face in the discussion on the war in Donbass, because, as Dzerzhinsky said, “he who is afraid of pain always succumbs to evil. ”
In my opinion, an assessment of the attitude towards this war is an occasion for a decisive disengagement and further unification of all communist forces that are really interested in the development of an international revolutionary movement.
The issue of integration of the republics into Russia, which are objectively part of the Russian economy, but found themselves outside the legal field of the Russian Federation, in connection with which the workers of Donbass, being not included in the legal system of the Russian Federation, found themselves in an absolutely powerless position - this is the same question as the question of official employment of workers at an enterprise who carry out their labor activity, being in a powerless position, when the employer compensates for his costs due to such a position of workers in the interests of preserving and increasing his own profits, resorting to super-exploitation of workers. Can communists turn a blind eye to this state of affairs, move away from these problems, without ceasing to be communists?
Can we, without ceasing to be communists, remain silent about how the Russian establishment betrays the people of Donbass? About how, contrary to the will of the population, who rose in the Russian Spring for reunification with Russia, he seeks, by implementing the “Minsk agreements”, to push the republics into present-day Ukraine, placing them completely under the control of the Kyiv Ukronazi authorities, where repressions await all those involved in the Russian Spring and destruction? Can we, without ceasing to be communists, allow such a scenario to materialize? Can we contribute to the implementation of the "Minsk scenario" by playing into the hands of the ruling class of the Russian Federation with our silence?
Can we remain silent about the hypocrisy of the Russian establishment, which is exploiting this war in its own interests, betraying the interests of the people, openly parasitizing on the patriotic feelings and conscience of people who have no choice, who cannot leave the front line, and therefore still hold the front, continuing to protect the local population from physical destruction?
Can we remain silent about the betrayal of the interests of the people of Donbass without becoming accomplices in such a betrayal?
For me, the answers to all these questions are obvious. No, we cannot be silent about it. Moreover, we must launch a wide agitation and propaganda, defending the interests of the people of Donbass, demanding the protection of these interests, demanding the integration of the republics of the DPR and LPR into Russia. We must use all possible means to prevent the realization of the intentions of the ruling class to reintegrate the republics back into Ukraine. Otherwise, we will never become representatives of the interests of the working people, we will never become the driving force of our people, and no one will ever take us seriously, and if we do, it will be nothing more than an empty, weak-willed bunch of screaming idlers who are not able to take on responsibility for the fate of his people.
While the servicemen of the people's militia of the LDNR, shedding sweat, blood and tears, losing their best fighters and commanders, hold the front, protecting the population of the republics from regular shelling, in the hope of holding out in the conditions of military aggression of the Kyiv authorities for as long as possible and with the least losses, in the hope of that sooner or later, the Donbass will become part of Russia, the Russian left must launch a struggle on the "mainland" for the interests of people suffering from war and betrayal. This is my position and as long as I am, I will defend this position. I consider a different position as a betrayal of my people (for me, there is no doubt that the people of Donbass are part of our people, whose interests the communists have no right to ignore).
I am convinced that supporting the liberation struggle of the people of Donbass in all possible ways is the most important item on the current leftist agenda. The real left should look for ways and means of providing practical assistance to the people of Donbass, which would correspond to our available forces in the given conditions, combining legal and illegal forms of work with the masses.
It is clear that we cannot take a passive position on this issue without ceasing to be communists. It is our duty to launch a broad propaganda in support of the Donbass and its aspirations for reunification with Russia. Explain to the masses the real reasons for this war and the positions of the parties taking part in this war.
In conclusion, I want to end with the words of Stalin, spoken at the 19th Congress of the CPSU on October 14, 1952:
“Earlier, the bourgeoisie was considered the head of the nation, it defended the rights and independence of the nation, putting them “above all”. Now not a trace of the "national principle" remains. Now the bourgeoisie is selling the rights and independence of the nation for dollars. The banner of national independence and national sovereignty has been thrown overboard. There is no doubt that you, the representatives of the communist and democratic parties, will have to raise this banner and carry it forward if you want to be patriots of your country, if you want to become the leading force of the nation. There is no one else to pick it up." [13]
Links to sources.
- V. I. Lenin "Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution"
- Critical remarks on the national question (Lenin)
- K. Marx - F. Engels "Manifesto of the Communist Party"
- V. I. Lenin PSS T.26 "On the right of nations to self-determination"
- V. I. Lenin "On the right of nations to self-determination"
- Results of the discussion on self-determination
- V. I. Lenin "The Latest Word of Bundist Nationalism"
- V. I. Lenin "On the caricature of Marxism and imperialist economism"
- I. V. Stalin. The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists: Preface to the book "On the Way to October"
- V. I. Lenin "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement"
- V. I. Lenin "Our Immediate Task"
- V. I. Lenin “What to do? Painful questions of our movement»
- Speech by I.V. Stalin at the XIX Congress of the CPSU on October 14, 1952
https://vk.com/@jeannev-donbass-i-nacionalnyi-vopros
.jpg)
No comments