Problems of Our Movement
May 18, 2021
Developing the question of the expediency of the participation of representatives of the vanguard of the labor movement in acute social conflicts, which I raised in a previous publication, I would like to analyze several more criticisms of the Donbass militia from the Russian left.
One of them goes something like this:
"The struggle to establish a state status for the Russian language is not a revolutionary demand, since it does not reflect the class interest of the working people."
I am considering the resistance of the citizens of Ukraine in the spring of 2014 against violent nationalism with the demands
1.Federalization of Ukraine and
2. establishing the state status of the Russian language as a progressive phenomenon that brings society one step closer to the socialist revolution.
Citizens of Ukraine rebelled not just against the ban on their native language, but against the regressive course of the development of society, against the imposition of a barbaric, cannibalistic ideology on them, requiring the veneration of war criminals, and the prohibition to keep and protect the memory of those who fought against these criminals.
Respect for the Soviet past and Soviet symbols is one of the manifestations of the socialist consciousness of the masses. And we have no right to ignore and belittle the significance of this phenomenon.
Considering the fact that the protests against violent nationalism, which is a tool to cover up the intensified expansion of the expansionist policy by the Western capital of the economy of Ukraine, were met with open terror from the fascists who came to power, the emergence of a people's militia is quite a revolutionary force in the fight against nationalism - as one of the forms of fascism.
I do not argue with the fact that the non-recognition of the new government by citizens, and the desire to maintain economic relations with the Russian Federation does not contribute to resolving the main inter-class contradictions in society, does not solve the problem of the dependence of the Ukrainian economy on foreign capital. However, one can say as much as one like that it was necessary to fight for the establishment of the power of the soviets and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, since only such a policy can solve all social problems. But, without considering the real circumstances and conditions of the Ukrainian conflict, such statements are idealistic.
Is it possible to demand from a society that is not yet ready for revolutionary transformations the implementation of such tasks?
Yes, a real revolutionary situation has not yet matured in society. Anyone can be blamed for this, for example, the Ukrainian workers, or the communist party organizations for their inability to rouse these very workers to fight against world imperialism. This position is very convenient, especially when you are away from these events.
I see in the position of the anti-Maidan participants more progressive and revolutionary than in the position of the Russian left. Since, being hostages of this situation, the opponents of the Maidan were able to mobilize and resist the armed aggression of Ukraine, which manifested itself in such an ugly, inhuman, regressive form as fascism, using obscurantist nationalist ideology.
It is important to understand that nationalism is one of the tools of fascism to fight communism. Nationalism can only be bourgeois. That is, it always works in the interests of the bourgeoisie, for the implementation of its tougher dictatorship, a dictatorship aimed at suppressing the will of the working people by terrorist methods. Nationalism is a bourgeois cudgel, which, first of all, strikes at the communists, at the labor movement, at whatever stage of development it is.
How can one ignore the fact that the people's militia of Donbass, being bound hand and foot, stubbornly opposes the wildest reaction of financial capital?
How can one ignore the fact of open terror by Ukrainian nationalists against recalcitrant citizens?
How can one ignore the unfolding policy of genocide against them?
How can one fail to notice that the ability to resist such a monstrous policy is a progressive phenomenon that meets the vital interests of all social development?
Doesn't nationalism turn against the interests of all the democratic elements of society?
Isn't resistance to nationalist tendencies a progressive step towards the awakening of socialist consciousness?
Is it not the readiness and ability for armed resistance to fascism one of the manifestations of the revolutionary spirit of the masses?
Is it not important for those who call themselves communists to encourage and support open opposition to the regressive development of society, and fascisization, is its direct manifestation?
It is clear to me what is important and necessary.
However, here and there, I hear that this is wrong, that this is just an excuse to kindle a senseless conflict, that this is not revolutionary, that in order to defeat fascism, it is necessary to first build socialism, etc. etc.
History has shown that the progressive socialist system is a powerful force capable of crushing fascism. However, it is important to understand that during the Great Patriotic War, the two systems clashed under conditions when the socialist state could already independently provide itself with the resources necessary to resist. It was already an established, relatively stable system. Was the Soviet state capable of resistance in the 1920s, for example? Of course, the Soviet people would have fought desperately, but the level of development of production was then insufficient to effectively repel the attack of the fascist invaders. The success of the victory of the Soviet people in that war directly depended on the degree of development of the USSR economy, its independence, self-sufficiency, and ability to provide itself with everything necessary.
Is it possible to effectively resist fascism by a society that is in a transitional stage from capitalism to socialism?
Probably, many will say that in 1918 the young Soviet state found itself in the conditions of a large-scale intervention and in a state of bloody civil war and successfully coped with these problems.
This remark is certainly correct, but even here I have something to say. Namely, it is important to understand what kind of combat potential the Bolsheviks had in those years, and in what objective conditions the resistance to world imperialism was carried out in those years. For persuasiveness, I will quote the words of I.V. Stalin regarding the conditions for the success of the proletarian revolution and victory in the civil war under the conditions of intervention:
Three circumstances of an external nature determined the comparative ease with which the proletarian revolution in Russia succeeded in breaking the chains of imperialism and thus overthrowing the rule of the bourgeoisie.
Firstly, the circumstance that the October Revolution began in a period of desperate struggle between the two principal imperialist groups, the Anglo-French and the Austro-German; at a time when, engaged in mortal struggle between themselves, these two groups had neither the time nor the means to devote serious attention to the struggle against the October Revolution. This circumstance was of tremendous importance for the October Revolution; for it enabled it to take advantage of the fierce conflicts within the imperialist world to strengthen and organize its own forces.
Secondly, the circumstance that the October Revolution began during the imperialist war, at a time when the laboring masses, exhausted by the war and thirsting for peace, were by the very logic of facts led up to the proletarian revolution as the only way out of the war. This circumstance was of extreme importance for the October Revolution; for it put into its hands the mighty weapon of peace, made it easier for it to link the Soviet revolution with the ending of the hated war, and thus created mass sympathy for it both in the West, among the workers, and in the East, among the oppressed peoples.
Thirdly, the existence of a powerful working-class movement in Europe and the fact that a revolutionary crisis was maturing in the West and in the East, brought on by the protracted imperialist war. This circumstance was of inestimable importance for the revolution in Russia; for it ensured the revolution faithful allies outside Russia in its struggle against world imperialism.
But in addition to circumstances of an external nature, there were also a number of favorable internal conditions which facilitated the victory of the October Revolution.
Of these conditions, the following must be regarded as the chief ones:
Firstly, the October Revolution enjoyed the most active support of the overwhelming majority of the working class in Russia.
Secondly, it enjoyed the undoubted support of the poor peasants and of the majority of the soldiers, who were thirsting for peace and land.
Thirdly, it had at its head, as its guiding force, such a tried and tested party as the Bolshevik Party, strong not only by reason of its experience and discipline acquired through the years, but also by reason of its vast connections with the laboring masses.
Fourthly, the October Revolution was confronted by enemies who were comparatively easy to overcome, such as the rather weak Russian bourgeoisie, a landlord class which was utterly demoralized by peasant "revolts," and the compromising parties (the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries), which had become completely bankrupt during the war.
Fifthly, it had at its disposal the vast expanses of the young state, in which it was able to maneuver freely, retreat when circumstances so required, enjoy a respite, gather strength, etc.
Sixthly, in its struggle against counter-revolution the October Revolution could count upon sufficient resources of food, fuel and raw materials within the country. The combination of these external and internal circumstances created that peculiar situation which determined the comparative ease with which the October Revolution won its victory. The combination of these external and internal circumstances created that peculiar situation which determined the relative ease of the victory of the October Revolution.
This does not mean, of course, that there were no unfavorable features in the external and internal setting of the October Revolution. Think of such an unfavorable feature as, for example, the isolation, to some extent, of the October Revolution, the absence near it, or bordering on it, of a Soviet country on which it could rely for support. Undoubtedly, the future revolution, for example, in Germany, will be in a more favorable situation in this respect, for it has in close proximity a powerful Soviet country like our Soviet Union. I need not mention so unfavorable a feature of the October Revolution as the absence of a proletarian majority within the country. But these unfavorable features only emphasize the tremendous importance of the peculiar internal and external conditions of the October Revolution of which I have spoken above.
These peculiar conditions must not be lost sight of for a single moment. They must be borne in mind particularly in analyzing the events of the autumn of 1923 in Germany. Above all, they should be borne in mind by Trotsky, who draws an unfounded analogy between the October Revolution and the revolution in Germany and lashes violently at the German Communist Party for its actual and alleged mistakes... (Stalin, The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists)
As we can see, the conditions for resisting world imperialism in 1917 are very different from the conditions for the need for such resistance today. The militia of Donbass has neither those resources, nor that political situation, nor support from the labor movement of Europe and Russia, simply because there are no such developed labor movements yet. Nor do they have such an effective party organization as the Bolsheviks had at that time, etc.
But what cannot be taken away from them is their readiness and ability to provide armed resistance to Ukrainian fascism, for more than seven years to fight for the life and freedom of citizens of recalcitrant regions, even in such unfavorable conditions as have developed in the current situation.
Many will immediately object to me:
“So here we are, Zhannochka, and we’ve been talking about it for a long time! Look around, because now there are not those necessary conditions for the implementation of the proletarian revolution either in Ukraine, or in Russia, or anywhere else. And without a proletarian revolution, we simply have nothing to oppose to world imperialism. Our main task is to prepare for the X hour, to develop the theory and strategy of the class struggle, to improve the quality of agitation and propaganda, to fight for the minds, to conduct educational work ... ".
And here, comrades, I see the main problem.
The conditions necessary for the accomplishment of the proletarian revolution are not yet ripe, that is true. But, as I already noted in my previous publication, without practical work with the masses, without cooperation with the workers' movements and communist parties of other countries and regions, we will never have such a tested party as the Bolshevik Party. Which actively manifested itself not only in theoretical activity and in the matter of agitation and propaganda, but also actively supported with its participation such seemingly premature and unprepared uprisings as the revolution of 1905-1907.
The Bolsheviks have always called for versatile work with the masses, in the most diverse areas, not to be afraid to join the struggle even for the most hopeless causes, to gain experience in active, including armed, struggle together with the proletarians. Thus, by October 1917, the Bolsheviks had a force on which they could rely. And this strength grew as a result of the active participation of the Bolsheviks in all important spheres of the social life of the working people.
Did such a successful theoretician and practitioner of the proletarian revolution as V.I. Lenin to sit in comfortable offices and concentrate his activities in any one direction? No, on the contrary. Back in 1900, in his work "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement," he writes:
We must train people who will devote the whole of their lives, not only their spare evenings, to revolution; we must build up an organisation large enough to permit the introduction of a strict division of labour in the various forms of our work. Finally, regarding questions of tactics, we shall confine ourselves to the following: Social-Democracy does not tie its hands, it does not restrict its activities to someone preconceived plan or method of political struggle; it recognises all methods of struggle, provided they correspond to the forces at the disposal of the Party and facilitate the achievement of the best results possible under the given conditions.
So, I repeat my own point of view that the emergence of a people's militia in the Donbass to fight nationalism-as one of the forms of fascism, is certainly a progressive revolutionary phenomenon.
And we have no right to deny and ignore this.
We have no right to talk about the insignificance or senselessness of this form of popular resistance, especially when it comes to people's lives. And it is our duty to support our comrades, rendering them all possible assistance. And learn with them military tactics, agitation, and propaganda in the trenches, etc.
So, I think.
I will give, once again, a quote from V.I. Lenin from his article "Political agitation and the "class point of view":
It must not be forgotten, however, that there are periods when every conflict with the government arising out of progressive social interests, however small, may under certain conditions (of which our support is one) flare up into a general conflagration... Those who contemptuously turn up their noses at the slight importance of some of these conflicts, or at the “hopelessness” of the attempts to fan them into a general conflagration, do not realise that all-sided political agitation is a focus in which the vital interests of political education of the proletariat coincide with the vital interests of social development as a whole, of the entire people, that is, of all its democratic elements.
Also, I believe that if you are going to critically analyze the Ukrainian conflict, then you need to soberly assess a number of external and internal factors that influence the success of the resistance, which has been going on for more than seven years in the Donbas.
Namely, it is important to consider at least the following factors:
- correlation of forces of revolution and counter-revolution;
- the degree of coordination of actions of the communist parties;
- the degree of development of the labor movement and the coordination of their actions;
-support from the labor movement in Europe and Russia;
- financial support of the bourgeoisie from outside the forces of reaction, etc.
However, what tendencies do I observe now in the left milieu? The Russian left criticizes the militia of Donbass for failures in overcoming an objective number of problematic factors.
They only omit, at the same time, such an important factor as the need for strong support from the labor movement in Europe and the Russian Federation. This is how they simply take it and silently lower it, or justify their non-participation by saying that before their eyes the situation in the Donbass, in their opinion, is slipping into a reaction, without even trying to provide at least some support and assistance in overcoming this reactionaryness.
So, comrades, please remember when you criticize that one of the reasons for these failures is the lack of our direct participation, which is necessary for the cause of the revolution, for the political education of the proletariat not only in Ukraine, but also in our country. What example are we setting for the Russian workers? What can they learn from us if we present them with an inadequate picture of what is happening with their neighbors, criticizing them for daring to resist in unfavorable conditions?
What could have mattered for the development of the labor movement if our communists were able to provide such support to the militias of Donbass? Think about it. After all, it is so convenient to accuse the workers of Donbass of insufficient consciousness, the militias, communists, and other participants in this conflict of lack of ideology, etc.
Convenient, but not efficient. It is impossible to cope with this or that situation without taking some responsibility for its solution.
If it comes to that, then I believe that the communists of Russia can be absolutely and justly blamed for betraying the cause of the revolution, for betraying and demoralizing the labor movement, In cowardice and hypocrisy. In unwillingness and reluctance to take responsibility for the education of the proletariat.
All we can do is broadcast from monitor screens, comfortably sitting on our sofas, not shy to criticize those who desperately resist fascism.
You could well try to put into practice all those ideas about the lack of implementation of which you criticize. A common cause always pushes the boundaries of communication and mutual understanding, and therefore the likelihood of being heard increases significantly.
But while some resist and defend themselves against the daily terror from the Ukrainian fascists, we are inactive.
It is obvious that today's communists are not ready to participate in a real struggle. And for the most part they are utopian idealists. We should read a little books, but angrily denounce .... But the “popular masses”, who are both “irresponsible”, and “wrong”, and “petty bourgeois”, etc., should really be in danger.
I perfectly understand the reasons for our inaction. At the moment we have neither party structures (we are just entering the state of circles), nor a developed labor movement, but still. The situation in which our brothers found themselves in Ukraine could well have mobilized the labor movement in our country, if there was an adequate attitude and understanding of what the vanguard of the revolution should be doing. But as practice shows, we have not yet developed such a force. On the other hand, there are bumbling bums who, in fact, turn out to be no more conscious than those whom they are going to teach and educate.
For me, the fact remains - the communists of Ukraine, no matter how unorganized they may seem to you, showed bravery and courage, they were able to take responsibility, and, together with the protesters, fought fascism. They continue to resist even today, simultaneously engaging in political education of the participants in the resistance, gaining experience in direct interaction with the masses, mastering the tactics of armed resistance in practice, thus forming the force on which the labor movement can rely in the future, thereby providing all possible assistance the cause of the revolution.
I say this so confidently because I communicate with witnesses and participants in the armed resistance in the Donbass. However, I do not urge you to take my word for it. In no case.
Do you want to assess the situation on the line of contact and the ideology of the militias, their morale and fighting spirit? Go to them and evaluate directly. And if you do not have such a readiness, then at least do not undertake to comment on the war if you know about it only by hearsay.
ZHANNA VALEVSKAYA
Translated from Russian
http://www.borotba.su/zhanna-valevskaya-problemy-nashego-dvizha/
.jpg)
No comments