Ukraine war and two irreconcilable working-class policies; bourgeois and Marxist Leninist

Due to the decision of ML Discussion Group, I will not target the source(s) directly, but indirectly will continue to expose the bourgeois context of arguments about the war in Ukraine.

Ukraine war; preaching "self-determination" for neo-Nazis, preaching defense of fatherland, preaching "humanity", and "peace", "peace at all costs" and its' inevitable conclusions; 
Re-demarcation of the line between Marxism Leninism and opportunism and 
Re-death of second internationalists.

March 18 article stated that;

"The war in Ukraine as some defines as “invasion” others as “interference” is slowly but surely drawing the demarcation line between Marxism Leninism and Liberalism, between the idealist abstractionism and dialectic approach based on the assessments of all ML parties, organizations and of ML individuals. Some are inevitable due to their liberal, reformist tendency, others are due to reliance on abstract theories and generalization of them without actually applying the dialectics of Marxism and its assessment process." (1)

At this point, as it was stated about the second internationalists in June 1916; in our days "in fact, there is already a split throughout the world; two entirely irreconcilable working-class policies in relation to the war have crystallized... with those who pursue a bourgeois policy under the flag of socialism."

Western bourgeois narratives and bourgeois definitions of political terms are being used for their "socialist" analysis and "arguments". Let's start with the term "annexation" and its repeated use by these "socialists" regarding Crimea and Donbass. According to these "socialists" Crimea has been "annexed" and Donbass is in the process of being "annexed". 

Lenin, in the article "Proposals Submitted by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to the Second Socialist Conference", clarifies the term without any room for discussion. He states; 

It is necessary to clarify what annexation is; why and how the socialists must fight against annexations. Any accession of "foreign" territory cannot be considered an annexation...Annexation should be considered only the annexation of a territory against the will of its population; in other words, the concept of annexation is inextricably linked with the concept of self-determination of nations. (2)

Do we really need to go over the case of Crimea where overwhelming population voted for and Donbass where the people oppressed by their own "fatherland" have been fighting a civil war for eight years for their rights, right to secede. 

As it is explained in our article "Sophistry of Ukraine’s right to self-determination" and pointed out that this sophistry conceals the fact that "economic and political annexation" of Ukraine already done by the US-NATO at the expense and will of the people Ukraine. Thus, to oppose Russian interference as "annexation" attempt yet to gloss over the already done annexation of an enemy state, and "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". (3) 

"In order for the struggle against annexations from being mere hypocrisy, or an empty phrase, to make it really educate the masses in the spirit of internationalism," says Lenin,

 "the question must be presented in such a way as to open the eyes of the masses to fraud in this matter of annexations, instead of covering it up. It is not enough for the socialists of each country to pay lip-service to the equality of nations   or to orate, swear and invoke the: name of God to witness their opposition to annexations, The socialists of every country must demand immediate and unconditional freedom to secede for nations oppressed by their own “fatherland”. (2)

And continues;

Without this condition, recognition of the self-determination of nations and principles of internationalism would, at best remain a dead letter.  (2)

To claim the right to "self-determination" for the oppressor, yet to ignore the right to self-determination for the oppressed is nothing but a bourgeois approach to the question of "annexation" and "self-determination". 

They stubbornly ignore Lenin's assessment that in an imperialist war, the "defense of fatherland" cannot be applied to the small imperialist proxy country.  (4)  Yet, while even the defense of fatherland cannot be applied, they argue "right to self-determination" for this country.  Self-determination applies to colonies and minority people oppressed by their own fatherland. 

Stalin was saying that " 

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) 

And that is exactly what these concealed "2nd internationalists" are doing; using the bourgeois, imperialist interpretation of the term. 

Their approach to the question of "nation" is in its bourgeois context too. They claim that people in Donbass and other regions are not Russian but Ukranian despite the fact that overwhelming majority, if not all, speak Russian. In order to support that they do not hesitate to falsify the history of Soviets and Ukraine. They echo the bourgeois and fascist falsifications and claim that there was Russification during the Soviet era, and that is why "people speak Russian in those regions."

Anyone who studies the Soviet history would easily see that except in the Tsar time, there was never any Russification, but "Ukrainization" policy in Ukraine. 

Leaving aside the "falsification", their approach in defining a "nation" is bourgeois to a degree that they will be asking the DNAs of people to determine. Does DNA, original ethnicity is decisive in any way for Marxist Leninists to define a nation?  Not even close. 

Stalin, in reference to the concept of "Nation" summarizes as following;

The Russian Marxists have long had their theory of the nation. According to this theory, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of the common possession of four principal characteristics, namely: a common language, a common territory, a common economic life, and a common psychological make-up manifested in common specific features of national culture. This theory, as we know, has received general recognition in our Party. (6)

According to Marxist Leninist definition, regardless of the people of Donbass, Melitopol, Dnieper, Kharkiv etc., Ukrainian or Russian, or Polish, they make up a nation or separate nations due to their common language, common territory, common economic life, and a common psychological make-up-the last one which could be ideologically as anti-fascist, communist. 

So, whose side are they on? Obviously on the side of imperialist proxy, oppressor Ukraine, rather than oppressed nation.

We can easily see they are on the side of bourgeoisie with bourgeois context in each decisive issue for a correct analysis of war in Ukraine.

Their approach and analysis of anti-fascists and communists of Eastern and south Ukraine is not so much different than that of bourgeois and fascists.  They call them "separatists" in the same context as bourgeoisie and fascists do. So, in their opinion, the struggle of oppressed people, the civil war they have been waging, their demand for the right of self-determination is all "reactionary separatist" in context. Does this argument have anything to do with Marxism Leninism? No.  It is totally bourgeois. 

Since Donbass people have been waging a civil war for eight years, it is beneficial to repeat the section from the referenced article; Lenin says that the

Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle. (7)

"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." (8)

This clear assessment of Lenin should be sufficient to see the fact that the struggle of communists and anti-fascists of Ukraine, especially in Donbass against the neo-Nazi regime is progressive

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. (9)

Let's go to the subject of liberal "humanitarian, unconditional peace" calls, and read what Lenin says and make dialectical connection with the dual character, civil war, and war in Ukraine.

An imperialist war, as long as the foundations of present-day, i.e., bourgeois social relations, remain inviolable, can only lead to an imperialist peace, i.e., to strengthening, expanding, and intensifying the oppression of weak nations and countries by financial capital, which is especially; grew enormously not only before this war, but also during it...The objective content of the policy pursued by the bourgeoisie and the governments of both groups of great powers, both before and during the war, leads to increased economic oppression, national enslavement, and political reaction. Therefore, a peace that ends a given war, whatever its outcome, cannot but consist in consolidating this worsening of the economic and political condition of the masses once the bourgeois social system is preserved.

The objective significance of this most popular "peace program" is to strengthen the subordination of the working class to the bourgeoisie. The “peace program” of the socialists, just like their program of “struggle to end the war,” must proceed from exposing the lie of the “democratic peace”, the peace-loving intentions of the belligerents, etc.

Any “peace programme” will deceive the people and be a piece of hypocrisy, unless its principal object is to explain to the masses the need for a revolution, and to support, aid, and develop the mass revolutionary struggles breaking out everywhere.

It is the duty of socialists to support, extend and intensify every popular movement to end the war... mass revolutionary actions during the war, if successfully developed, can lead only to the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism, this is obvious, and it is harmful to conceal this from the masses.  On the contrary, this goal must be clearly indicated, no matter how difficult it may seem to achieve it when we are only at the beginning of the path...

It is impossible to fulfill the tasks of socialism at the present time,,. it is impossible to achieve real international rallying without a decisive break with opportunism, and without explaining its inevitable fiasco to the masses...two parties in existence, one helping the bourgeoisie, and the other fighting against it.. (2)

That is exactly the situation now. And as Lenin said; "The task of the socialists is to explain to the masses the inevitability of a split with those who pursue a bourgeois policy under the flag of socialism." (2)

Erdogan A

August 6, 2022

Notes

(1) Sophistry of Ukraine’s right to self-determination- stripping Marxism Leninism from its revolutionary spirit and siding with bourgeoisie.

(2) Proposals Submitted by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to the Second Socialist Conference

(3) Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

(4) (Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)

(5) Stalin, Concerning the Presentation of the National Question

(6) Stalin, National Question and Leninism

(7) Lenin, Junius Pamphlet

(8) Lenin, Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution

(9) Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination