Sophistry of Ukraine’s right to self-determination- stripping Marxism Leninism from its revolutionary spirit and siding with bourgeoisie.
Lenin, in his article “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism” says;
National self-determination means political
independence. (1)
In
case of Ukraine, I will not even ask the question of “political independence “from whom" since it is undeniably a “proxy” of US-NATO imperialists. I will
continue the meaning of “right to self-determination to see if it is applicable
to proxy Ukraine bourgeoisie and of their neo-Nazi state, or it is actually
applicable to Donbass where the communists and anti-fascists have been waging a
civil war for eight years.
Lenin
says that
The right of
nations to self-determination implies exclusively the right to independence in
the political sense, the right to free political separation from the
oppressor nation. (2)
And
our definition of the “right of nations to self-determination” must follow, a definition that is consistently democratic, revolutionary… (11)
Is this clear enough? Cry for the
right to self-determination consistently democratic, revolutionary for a
neo-Nazi regime? Or for an oppressed nation where their language has been
banned and penalized to be used, have been bombed, burned, and massacred in
mass and waging a civil war not only for their “democratic rights” but for
their survival. Overlooking this fact and claiming the “right to self-determination”
for oppressor nation rather than the oppressed deeply related to the reformism
not to Marxism Leninism. “The petty bourgeoisie” says Lenin “are still putting
this question all forward in a utopian manner because they fail to
see the class struggle…and because they believe in "peaceful"
capitalism. (2) Their sophistry is that they do not believe in class
struggle, civil war but a “peaceful capitalism” under the yoke of imperialism.
Lenin says that the
Civil war
against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle. (3)
However, the sophists would prefer
to ignore Lenin’s assessment and try extremely hard to overshadow the fact of existing civil war waged in Ukraine against
neo-Nazi state and worse never mention that those waging this civil war are
communists and anti-fascists. They, however, cling on the terms of “separatism”,
“respect to the borders of Ukraine” in its bourgeois context.
What does Lenin say on this
issue? Just the opposite;
The proletariat cannot
remain silent on the question of the frontiers of a state founded on national
oppression…The proletariat must struggle against the enforced
retention of oppressed nations within the bounds of the given state, which
means that they must fight for the right to self-determination. (4)
Is it clear as far as Lenin is
concerned who has the “right to self-determination”? Is it Neo-Nazi oppressor
Ukraine state or so called “separatists” who have been waging a struggle
against it? According to the hypocrites who claim to be internationalists it is
the “right to self-determination” for the Ukraine neo-Nazi "oppressor" state.
Lenin exposes these types of hypocrites and their sophistry. He states that
The proletariat
must demand freedom of political separation for nations oppressed by "their
own" nation. Otherwise, the internationalism of the proletariat would
be nothing but empty words... (4)
These words clearly describe the
sophists who cry for the “unity” and blame those who has been waging a
form of class struggle against the oppressor neo-Nazi state, as “separators”.
Lenin repeatedly exposed
these reformists in his articles. “The hypocrisy of the reformists and
Kautskyites,” Lenin says, “who defend self-determination but remain
silent about the nations oppressed by "their own" nation and kept
in "their own" state by force… (4)
In this sense these so called “internationalists”
who defend the “right of self-determination” for Ukraine Neo-Nazi state, yet
deny for the Donbass communists and anti-fascists, are not so much different
than the 2nd internationalists in their approach. In Stalin’s words;
… the vague
slogan of the right of nations to self-determination has been replaced by
the clear revolutionary slogan of the right of nations...to secede, to form
independent states. When speaking of the right to self-determination, the
leaders of the Second International did not as a rule even hint at the right
to secede—the right to self-determination was at best interpreted to
mean the right to autonomy in general…self-determination was
converted into the privilege of the dominant nations to wield political
power, and the question of secession was excluded. Kautsky, the
ideological leader of the Second International, associated himself in the main
with this essentially imperialist interpretation of self-determination… (5)
Lenin goes further and makes a
distinction between reactionary and democratic nations. If we are not considering
Ukraine as a democratic nation like those who cry for them, it is important to cite
Lenin’s words;
there were
historical and political grounds for drawing a distinction between
"reactionary" and revolutionary-democratic nations. Marx
was right to condemn the former and defend the latter. The right to
self-determination is one of the demands of democracy which must naturally be subordinated
to its general interests…In some small states … the bourgeoisie
makes extensive use of the "self-determination of nations" slogan
to justify participation in the imperialist war. (4)
As we understand from Lenin’s words, the so called “internationalists”
with their cry for the “right to self-determination “for Ukraine neo-Nazi
state are, actually, for the defense of status quo in neo-Nazi Ukraine and are against the anti-fascist struggle in
Ukraine, and their cry has nothing to do with Marxism Leninism.
Lenin clearly states
It is quite easy
to see that a protest against annexations either boils down to recognition of
the self-determination of nations or is based on the pacifist phrase that defends
the status quo and is hostile to any, even revolutionary, violence. Such a
phrase is fundamentally false and incompatible with Marxism. (4)
Let's go further and analyze the
meaning of the “right of self-determination” in order to show that the cry for the “right
to self-determination” for neo-Nazi Ukraine has nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism.
For Marxists Lenin states;
our unreserved
recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not in
any way commit us to supporting every demand for national
self-determination. As the party of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic
Party considers it to be its positive and principal task to further the self-determination
of the proletariat in each nationality rather than that of peoples or nations. (6)
Their
cry for the “right to self-determination” for neo-Nazi Ukraine has no class base and even any ideological base. They are
claiming and defending the right to
self-determination for the neo-Nazis but denying it for the communists
and anti-fascists.
Let’s
talk about the subject of the ‘right
to self-determination of an imperialist proxy, neo-Nazi state. (Although
they probably do not see Ukraine as a proxy, or even as a neo-Nazi
but they are too timid to accept that publicly for it would expose their true
color quickly)
“Being
a “negation” of democracy in general”, says Lenin, “imperialism is also a “negation”
of democracy in the national question (i.e., national self-determination):
it seeks to violate democracy… National self-determination means political
independence. Imperialism seeks to violate such independence because political
annexation often makes economic annexation easier, cheaper (easier to bribe
officials, secure concessions, put through advantageous legislation. etc.),
more convenient, less troublesome—just as imperialism seeks to replace
democracy generally by oligarchy. (7)
Is it may be that the
defenders of the right to self-determination of neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy Ukraine
derives from the understanding that US-NATO is not imperialist? Is it
possible for an imperialist proxy country to fight for “self-determination”? It
is an oxymoron claim to defend the right to self-determination for an
imperialist proxy country.
The problem is, as historically
presented itself numerous times, consciously or unconsciously linking the question
of “right to self-determination” with the question of the “right to defend fatherland”. However, as far as the question of imperialist
proxy, neo-Nazi oppressor nation is concerned, neither of those linking is applicable.
They are shy to bring up the question of the “defense of fatherland” so they prefer bringing up the “right to self-determination”.
Let's talk about the question of
the “defense of fatherland” and see – as
far as the Marxist Leninists are concerned- if it is applicable to Ukraine.
Defense of
the fatherland is a lie in an imperialist war, but not in a democratic and
revolutionary war. (8)
Anyone in his or her sane mind can
claim that neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy Ukraine is giving democratic or revolutionary war?
“The character of a war “, says Lenin, “depends chiefly upon the internal regime of the country that
goes to war, that war is a reflection of the
internal policy conducted by
the given country before the war. “(8)
Does any Marxist Leninist have
any “reservation” about the internal policy conducted by the Ukraine regime
for the last eight years, before the war started?
Let's go back to Lenin analyzing the imperialist war.
“the present
imperialist war is not an exception, but a typical phenomenon in the
imperialist epoch.” [[The typical is not the unique.]]
One should say:
“Small countries, too, in imperialist wars, which are most typical of
the current imperialist epoch, cannot defend their fatherland.” (9)
Now the question comes down to
whether this war in Ukraine is an imperialist, or anti-imperialist war. Since there is almost no
Marxist Leninists statement claiming the war as “anti-imperialist” we can
easily say that Lenin’s following statement is not applicable to Ukraine. And
we can understand the reasons behind the sophistry of those crying for the “right to self-determination”
for Ukraine while they actually mean the right to “the defense of fatherland” but
cannot say it openly because then they would have to be saying that the war is
an “anti-imperialist war.”
We are not at
all against “defense of the fatherland” in general, not against “defensive
wars” in general. You will never find that nonsense in a single resolution (or
in any of my articles). (9)
The reality of Ukraine is
that both the right to self-determination and the right to defend are
applicable to Donbass. Lenin says that
We are
against defense of the fatherland …and a defensive position in the
imperialist wars, typical of the imperialist epoch. But in the imperialist
epoch there may also be “just”, “defensive”, revolutionary wars [namely (1)
national, (2) civil, (3) socialist and
suchlike.] (9)
Let’s consider the undeniable fact
of civil war waged by the communists and antifascists of Ukraine, their success
in liberation villages, towns, cities and regions and correlate with Lenin’s
assessment of “Civil war against the
bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle... (3)
"Civil war” says
Lenin, “is just as much a war as any other. He who accepts the class struggle
cannot fail to accept civil wars, which in every class society are natural,
and under certain conditions inevitable continuation, development, and
intensification of the class struggle. That has been confirmed by every
great revolution. To repudiate civil
war, or to forget about it, is to fall into extreme opportunism and renounce
the socialist revolution." (10)
This clear assessment of Lenin should be sufficient enough to see
the fact that the struggle of communists and anti-fascists of
Ukraine, especially in Donbass against the neo-Nazi regime is
progressive and in line with the point three of Lenin- “socialist
and suchlike”, as well as point 2 – “civil
war.” In other words, both the defense of liberated region from the
neo-Nazis as the fruit of their struggle and the ‘right to self-determination”
is applicable to Donbass and support for the communists and anti-fascists of
region is the internationalist duty of Marxist Leninists.
Crying for the “right to self-determination” for neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy regime is not the practice of Marxist Leninists but of those
on the side of bourgeoisie, worse on the side of neo-Nazis against the
communists and anti-fascists.
Trying to hide behind Marxist
Leninist “concepts” and siding with the fascists and imperialist, in
Lenin’s words, “is nothing more nor
less than bourgeois sophistry.”
As Lenin puts it clearly;
self-determination
is the same as the struggle for complete national liberation, for complete
independence, against annexation, and socialists cannot -- without ceasing
to be socialists -- reject such a struggle in whatever form, right down
to an uprising or war.
To embellish
imperialist war by applying to it the concept of "defense of the
fatherland", i.e., by presenting it as a democratic war, is to
deceive the workers and side with the reactionary
bourgeoisie. (12)
And that is exactly what
the cry for the “right to self-determination”
for neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy Ukraine regime lands them to- siding with the
reactionary bourgeoisie.
Erdogan A
May 30,2022
Related article
What is annexation? Referendum in Donbass and other regions
Notes
(1) Lenin, A Caricature of
Marxism and Imperialist Economism
(2) Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations
to Self-Determination
(3) Lenin, Junius Pamphlet
(4) Lenin The Socialist
Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination
(5) Stalin, Concerning the
Presentation of the National Question
(6) Lenin, The National Question
in Our Program
(7) Lenin, A Caricature of
Marxism and Imperialist Economism - What Is Economic Analysis?
(8) Lenin, Address to the Second All-Russia
Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of The East
(9) Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky
(Y. Pyatakov)
(10) Lenin, Military Program of
the Proletarian Revolution
(11) Lenin, The Revolutionary
Proletariat, and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination
(12) Lenin, A Caricature of
Marxism and Imperialist Economism
.jpg)
No comments