What is annexation? Referendum in Donbass and other regions
The attitude to the referendum in
Donbass and other regions, as it was to the 8 year long civil war will
inevitably expose the difference between bourgeois liberals, Kautskyites,
chauvinists (both Western and Russia) and the Marxist Leninists. That is why it
is imperative to define the concepts and their Marxist-Leninist contexts so
that the reader can shape his/her own opinion and decide on the attitude.
Reader can disregard my comments if he/she chooses or compares with his own;
this is only a guideline based on Lenin’s definitions and stand.
The Dialectic of Marxism requires
the approach to any given subject with its entirety -study of all directly
related subjects; Nation, right to self-determination-secession, accession-,
and annexations.
The core of the subject goes to the concept of “nation”. One must have a clear understanding of what “nation” means and make the separation of the question of “nation” and “nation state”. Not comprehending this difference will, as it did, take one to defend the “right to self-determination” for an oppressor, imperialist, Neo-Nazi “nation-state” while rejecting the “right to self-determination” for a “nation” oppressed and massacred by its own government.
The right to self-determination is
not only the right to secession but the right to accession- merging based on
the will of the people of a given region that constitutes a “nation”. For
Marxist Leninists, “nation” is NOT defined by common ethnicity or
religion. Most revisionists and bourgeois liberals behind the mask of Leninism
obscure this in order to serve the interests of bourgeoisie. It is
this way that they promote for the “status quo” in Ukraine and consciously
confuse the concepts of “nation” and “nation state”. That brings them to the
betrayal of Marxism Leninism by denying the right to self-determination for the
oppressed people of Donbass yet promoting it for the oppressor.
Proceeding from the same
approach, it is inevitable that they will try to confuse, misrepresent the
meaning of “annexation” in order to defend the previously existing
“political and economic annexation” of the “nation state” and present the
right to merge as “annexation”. With their sophistry and
falsification, they will follow the Western narrative with bourgeois context of
terms.
Let’s summarize the
Marxist-Leninist concept of “annexation” and continue with each subject
from Lenin.
“Annexation
is the forcible incorporation of nations; it is seizure and violence
against the people of annexed region.”
The first question here is whether the “nation” was being held by force for years, or they had the
right to self-determination from their oppressor “nation state”.
The second question is whether
they are practicing their right to accession-merging, or they are being annexed
by force. It is the choice of people whether the conditions for a merger have
been created consciously or not. Utopia and words do not help the improvement
of “people’s conditions, but deeds. They are facing a choice between forced
annexation -by Ukraine or merging with Russia and the choice is left to
the people’s will by referendum- a non-parliamentary mobilization of the masses
by masses.
What is a nation – difference
between nation and nation state
It is important to understand
what nation means as far as Bolsheviks are concerned. Stalin explains this
in brief;
The Concept of
"Nation"
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.
It is evident
from your letters that you consider this theory inadequate. You therefore propose
that the four characteristics of a nation be supplemented by a fifth, namely,
that a nation possesses its own, separate national state. You consider that
there is not and cannot be a nation unless this fifth characteristic is
present.
I think that the
scheme you propose, with its new, fifth characteristic of the concept
"nation," is profoundly mistaken and cannot be justified either
theoretically or in practice, politically.
According to
your scheme, only such nations are to be recognized as nations as have their
own state, separate from others, whereas all oppressed nations which have no
independent statehood would have to be deleted from the category of nations… “(1)
As one can easily see, contrary
to revisionists (even few with Stalinist mask) claimed that “Donbass
people does not constitute a nation, they are ethnically Ukrainian speaking
Russian”, they do constitute a nation (aside from the fact that contrary to
claims, they are Russians as per the 1927 statistics, writings of Larin and
confirmed by Stalin which we are not even considering based on the “theory of
Nation”, it is not important).
Donbass people have all the four
characteristics of a “nation”; a common language, a common territory, a common
economic life, and a common psychological make-up- especially being anti-Nazi
ideological make up.
If we proceed from this fact, our
conclusions will inevitably be different than those who claim otherwise. That
is an ideological choice between Bolsheviks and others.
Dialectic connection
between the right to self-determination and merging- annexation!
Lenin clearly states in his
various writings that merging-annexation cannot be analyzed without taking that
in connection with the right to self-determination. He states;
“there can be no
correct definition of the concept “annexation” unless it is seen in context
with self-determination.” (2)
Lenin clearly identifies the
difference between those who are for status quo and thus go against the
“annexation-merger”, and those who recognize the right of self-determination-
whether accession or secession;
“what is
annexation! Clearly, to protest against annexations implies either
the recognition of the right of self-determination of nations, or that the
protest is based on a pacifist phrase which defends the status quo and opposes
all violence including revolutionary violence. Such a phrase is radically
wrong, and incompatible with Marxism.” (3)
In the case of forced
retention and annexation against the will of people Lenin states;
“We explained
this when we raised it. It is because “a protest against annexations is nothing
but recognition of the right to Self-determination”. The concept of annexation
usually includes: (1) the concept of force (joining by means of force);
(2) the concept of oppression by another nation (the joining of “alien”
regions, etc.), and sometimes (3) the concept of violation of the status
quo. We pointed this out in the theses, and this did not meet with any
criticism.
Can
Social-Democrats be against the use of force in general, it may be asked?
Obviously not. This means that we are against annexations not because
they constitute force, but for some other reason. Nor can the
Social-Democrats be for the status quo. However, you may twist and turn,
annexation is a violation of the self-determination of a nation, it is the
establishment of state frontiers contrary to the will of the
population.”
To be against
annexations means to be in favor of the right to self-determination. To be
“against the forcible retention of any nation within
the frontiers of a given state.. is the same as being in favor of the
self-determination of nations.” (4)
In case of Ukraine, Donbass has
been facing and struggling against the forcible retention within the
frontiers of Ukraine for years. Revisionists and bourgeois liberals,
all those for the status quo are not only for the “forcible retention”
but they are against the “right of self-determination “of this people.
They further their revisionist approach to the degree of “defense of
fatherland-of Ukraine” and to the “right of self-determination for that nation
state.
The war in Ukraine is an
imperialist war by proxy. Lenin clearly states in this situation neither the
“defense of fatherland” nor the “the right to
self-determination” for the nation-state is applicable. In addition to being a
proxy, Ukraine was- is holding Donbass against the will of its
people, and thus holding the region as annexed by
force. Revisionists who gloss over and reject the civil war, the
revolt of Donbass people and yet preach against the “annexation” actually fall
into the category of annexationists. Lenin clearly states;
We renounce
“defense of the fatherland” in an imperialist war. This is said as clearly
as it can be in the Manifesto of our Party’s Central Committee and in the Berne
resolutions… By refusing to support the revolt of annexed regions we
become, objectively, annexationists. It is precisely in the “era of
imperialism”, which is the era of nascent social revolution, that the proletariat
will today give especially vigorous support to any revolt of
the annexed regions... there is no difference “either political or
economic”, or even logical, between the “recognition” of
self-determination and the “protest” against annexations.” (4)
Another widely made argument is
that annexation (you read as merger since it is not by force but by referendum)
of these regions will elevate the war. Lenin’s response to this
argument is strikingly important;
“the danger
of what wars is increased by annexations? Not imperialist wars,
because they have other causes: the chief antagonisms in the
present imperialist war are undoubtedly those between Germany and Britain, and
between Germany and Russia. These antagonisms have nothing to do with
annexations. It is the danger of national wars and national
revolts that is increased.” (4)
In this connection Lenin further
explains as he criticizes the revisionists;
“Kievsky was
probably led astray here by the fact that the philistine regards annexation
(i.e., acquisition of foreign territories against the will of their people,
i.e., violation of self-determination) as equivalent to
the “spread” (expansion) of finance capital to a larger
economic territory. But theoretical problems should not be approached
from philistine conceptions.
The big finance
capital of one country can always buy up competitors in another, politically
independent country and constantly does so. Economically, this is fully
achievable. Economic “annexation” is fully “achievable” without
political annexation and is widely practiced… National
self-determination means political independence. Imperialism seeks to
violate such independence because political annexation often makes economic
annexation easier, cheaper, more convenient, less troublesome—just as imperialism
seeks to replace democracy generally by oligarchy. ” (5)
As we noted earlier, the right to
self-determination contains in it both the right to secede and the right to
merge. It is the right of people to determine whether to secede or
merge. Lenin states in a way that is hard to misunderstand;
“To renounce
annexations means to let each nation determine freely whether it wants
to live separately or together with others… With regard to annexations, our
answer is that nations must be free to make their own decisions.” (6)
As in the case of the
right to secede, a denial of right to merge is
tantamount to the defense of annexation for both supports the status que of a
nation forced to be retained within the frontiers of oppressor
nation-state.
“denying the
oppressed nations, the right to secede, a denial which is tantamount to
annexation… To be against the right of secession is to be for annexations.” (7)
Lenin gives examples of different
approaches in this matter;
For Or Against
Annexations?
A. (to the
right of the C.D.) and B. (C.D.). If it is a question of annexations
by the German capitalists and their robber chieftain, Wilhelm, we are against.
If by the British, we are not against, for they are “our” Allies. If by our
capitalists, who are forcibly keeping within the boundaries of
Russia the peoples who were oppressed by the tsar, we are in favor; we
do not call that annexation.
C. (S.D.
and S.R.). Against annexations, but we still hope it will be possible
to secure even from the capitalist government a promise to renounce
annexations.
D. (“Bolsheviks”).
Against annexations. All promises on the part of capitalist governments
to renounce annexations are sheer fraud. There is only one
method of exposing it, namely, to demand the liberation of the peoples
oppressed by their own capitalists.” (8)
Lenin further explains the
Bolshevik attitude;
“a conscientious
and forthright anti-annexation policy requires that socialists
and democrats of the oppressed nations, in all their propaganda and
agitation, denounce as scoundrels those socialists of the oppressor
nations .. who do not consistently and unreservedly stand for
free secession of nations oppressed by their own nation (or
forcibly held by it).” (9)
What is annexation?
From the previous sections, the
reader may already have reached an understanding of what annexation is.
However, it is important to cite a couple more paragraphs from Lenin to
understand better in order to debunk the bourgeois liberal arguments hidden
behind Leninist mask.
“those who
talk of annexations and the struggle against them either cannot
or will not for the most part give thought to what annexation is. Clearly, annexation
will not be the right word for every appropriation of
“foreign” territory, for, generally speaking, socialists favor the
abolition of frontiers between nations, their getting closer together
and integration, and the formation of larger states. Clearly, not
every disturbance of the status quo can be described as annexation,
for this would be extremely reactionary and a mockery of the
fundamental concepts of the science of history. Clearly, annexation
does not apply to every kind of integration by force of arms, for
socialists cannot repudiate violence in the interests of the majority
of the population and in the interests of human progress.
Annexation
can and must clearly apply only to the appropriation
of a territory against the will of the population of that territory. In
other words, the concept of annexation is inseparably bound up
with the concept of self-determination of nations.” (10)
This following explanation of
Lenin is vitally important to understand what is and what is not considered an
annexation which clearly defines the Marxists Leninist approach on the
subject;
“Annexation is the integration of any country with distinct national
peculiarities; it is any integration of a nation against its
will, irrespective of whether it differs in language, if it feels itself to be another people.” (11)
In the case of Donbass forcefully
retained by Ukrainian Nation-state, the merger cannot be called as
“annexation” for it is neither has a “distinct national peculiarities
differing from Russia, not they feel themselves to be “another
people from Russians, nor the merging is being carried out against
the will of Donbass people. (Related to the last note, of course,
one may have reservations as to the type of politics played in creating such
conditions which the stand from the right to secede changed to the stand to
merge- however, regardless, it is not considered an “annexation but a merger.)
Bourgeois chauvinist
Annexationist
Here again the subject is related
to the “forced retained- annexation” vs
“merger-annexation”. Chauvinists and revisionists of one side
usually disregard the existing forcefully retaining a nation within
its frontiers and focus on the “merger-annexation! That is how they serve their
bourgeoisie or imperialist block they favor through defending the
previous or existing status quo.
“Your own
Izvestia has got into a muddle and proposes to keep the
status quo instead of peace without annexations and indemnities. Our
idea of peace "without annexations" is different…
A peace treaty without annexations and indemnities cannot be concluded until
you have renounced your own annexations.” (12)
Revisionists disregarding the
“right of self-determination” defend the “status quo” if not go as far as
defending the right of oppressor, imperialist proxy “nation state”. Such a
stand is an incomprehensible approach for a Marxist Leninist with basic
knowledge. As Lenin points out;
“facts are
facts, and the fact is that our Party was the only one to give a
definition of annexation in official and carefully worded resolutions.
Annexation means keeping an alien people by force within the bounds of
a given state. No person able to read and understand Russian could
fail to understand that.. “no annexations” is equivalent to status quo.”
(13)
Revisionists of then and now are
not so much different in falling into contradictions with their arguments.
Lenin gives a good example of this;
“You have shown
that “annexation” cannot be interpreted merely as the seizure of
territory in this war. In other words, you have refuted
yourselves and Izvestia of the Petrograd Soviet which only the other
day declared with proud ignorance that the term annexation could be applied
only to territories seized in the present war. But who does not know
that Ireland and Algeria were annexed decades and centuries before the
outbreak of this war?
The annexation
issue is a good touchstone for the Narodniks and Mensheviks, who are
entangled in a web of lies. They are just as muddled as
Plekhanov, Henderson, Schieidemann and Co.; they are distinguishable from each
other only in words, for as far as deeds are concerned, they are all
alike—dead to socialism.” (14)
Reading Lenin, it is clearly a hypocrisy to call a merger with the application of a
referendum representing the free will of people as “annexation”, while not even
a lip service to the “forcefully retained-annexed” situation in Ukraine, or in any other nation-state for that matter.
Is referendum an annexation or
accession-merging
Lenin explains concept of
“annexation” both in the sense of forced “retained” and forced
“integration-annexation”;
“any territory shall be deemed to be annexed whose
population, over the last few decades, has expressed dissatisfaction
with the integration of their territory into another state,
or its status in the state, regardless of whether such
dissatisfaction has been expressed in writings, decisions of meetings,
assemblies, municipal councils and similar institutions, in state and
diplomatic acts, arising from the national movement in these
territories, in national friction, clashes, disturbances, etc.” (15)
Similarly, in in another writing;
If any nation
whatsoever is forcibly retained within the borders of a given state,
if, in spite of its expressed desire is not accorded the right to
decide the forms of its state existence by a free vote... without
the least pressure being brought to bear, such incorporation is
annexation, i.e., seizure and violence.” (16)
As it can clearly be seen, all
clarifications of Lenin on the subject of forced- retained annexation
apply, specifically to Donbass area since they have been fighting for
the last eight years -noting the fact that they did want to be a separate
Soviets in early stages of revolution including Donbass, Kherson, Odessa,
Kharkiv, Dnieper and Nikolayev.
Such a referendum is the practice
of the right of self-determination either that is for secession or merging.
Lenin criticizing the bourgeois liberals and chauvinists states;
With regard to
annexations, our answer is that “nations” must
be free to make their own decisions.
Therefore,
in warning the people against the capitalists' empty promises, the
Conference declares that it is necessary to make a clear distinction
between a renunciation of annexations in word and a renunciation
of annexations in deed, i. e., the immediate publication and
abrogation of all the secret, predatory treaties and the immediate granting to
all nationalities of the right to determine by
free voting whether they wish to be independent states or to
be part of another state." (17)
Any secession from one and/or
integration to another through Referendum is not considered an annexation. It
is the reflection of the free will of the people.
Conclusion
Comparing to the past, we are
living in an era which all the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin is
widely available and accessible by all. However, laziness in reading on one
side and relying on the bourgeois liberal (in some cases anti-communists) books
and articles inevitably turned the “left” into tail-gaters of
Western bourgeois narratives and definitions. Lenin was saying that “If a
Communist took it into his head to boast about his communism because of
the ready-made conclusions he had acquired, without putting in a great
deal of serious and hard work, without understanding the facts which he
must examine critically, he would be a very deplorable
Communist. Such superficiality would be decidedly fatal. If I know
that I know little, I shall strive to learn more; but
if a man says that he is a Communist and that he needs to know nothing
thoroughly, he will never be anything like a Communist....” (18)
The attitude of Marxist Leninist
left, unfortunately some reaching all the way to the top, to the theoreticians
of parties and organization is such that they consider they already
know it all and they do not have to study the “primary
source”, yet they become one of the singers in the bourgeois chorus on
the subjects and concepts. As it is with the concept of “regime” (which only
being used for those against the West- you can increase the number of such
concepts), concept of annexation is being used within the same context.
Bolsheviks are very clear on the definition of a “nation” and “nation state” as they are very clear in the definition of annexation; ““any territory shall be deemed to be annexed whose population, has expressed dissatisfaction with the integration of their territory into another state, or its status in the existing state,” “Annexation means keeping an alien people by force within the bounds of a given state.” Is there really any difficulty in understanding this definition? Isn’t “the right to determine by free voting whether they wish to be independent states or to be part of another state” refers to a referendum?
Then what would be the underlying reason to present a referendum as an “annexation”? It is the for-status quo approach of reformists, in the service of imperialist bourgeoisie.
Imperialism is a
striving for annexations—this is what the political part of Kautsky’s
definition amounts to. It is correct, but very incomplete, for
politically, imperialism is, in general, a striving towards
violence and reaction.
Kautsky’s
definition is not only wrong and un-Marxist…. The essence of the matter is that
Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics,
speaks of annexations as being a policy “preferred” by finance capital, and
opposes to it another bourgeois policy … The result is a slurring-over and a
blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest
stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois
reformism instead of Marxism. (19)
Considering the definition of
annexation without forgetting the forced-retained annexation, 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. (20)
And that is exactly what
the cry for the “right to self-determination” for neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy
Ukraine regime, and claiming the referendum to be an “annexation”,
lands them to; siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie. Every “nation”
must be free to make their own decisions” and has ““the right to
determine by free voting” regardless of whether we like the
outcome or not- in this case people's struggle against Ukraine nation-state already indicates where their will is. Calling it as an “annexation” does not have any theoretical
ground other than that of bourgeois and their lackeys mixed with subjectivity
or lack of Marxist-Leninist knowledge.
Erdogan A
September 25, 2022
Related article
Sophistry of Ukraine’s right to self-determination- stripping Marxism Leninism from its revolutionary spirit and siding with bourgeoisie.
Notes
(1) Stalin, The National Question and Leninism
(2) Lenin, A Caricature of
Marxism and Imperialist Economism
(3) Lenin, The Socialist
Revolution, and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination
(4) Lenin, What Is Annexation?
(5) Lenin, A Caricature of
Marxism and Imperialist Economism - What Is Economic Analysis?
(6) Lenin, The Seventh (April)
All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)
(7) Lenin- Finland and Russia
(8) Lenin, Political Parties in
Russia, and the Tasks of the Proletariat
(9) Lenin - Lost in a Wood of
Three Trees
(10) Lenin, Initial Variant 0f
The R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee Proposal
(11) Lenin, Report at a Meeting of Bolshevik
Delegates to the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies
(12) Lenin, First All-Russia
Congress of Soviets of Workers’, and Soldiers’ Deputies
(13) Lenin, Muddle-headedness
-more about annexations
(14) Lenin, A Mote in the Eye
(15) Lenin, Outline Program for
Peace Negotiations
(16) Lenin, Decree on Peace
(17) Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia
Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)
(18) Lenin, The Tasks of the
Youth Leagues
(19) Lenin, Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism
(20) Lenin, A Caricature of
Marxism and Imperialist Economism
.jpg)
No comments