Condescending hypocrites hiding behind “ultra left” comments and criticisms
Analysing and evaluating the coalition and elections is not my subject
here. I will try to expose the hypocrisy of those who attack and belittle the
success of a democratic struggle regardless of how minimal it is or not.
Sophists and demagogues in the
service of bourgeoisie hiding behind ultra-left slogans disregard the
democratic struggle and belittle every democratic gains. Lenin puts it bluntly;
"Can a class-conscious worker forget the democratic struggle for the sake of the socialist struggle, or forget the latter for the sake of the former? No, a class-conscious worker calls himself a Social-Democrat for the reason that he understands the relation between the two struggles. He knows that there is no other road to socialism save the road through democracy, through political liberty. "(1)
They have, or they promote, the
idea that socialism is a one-leap revolution and built overnight. Socialism is not a figment of the
imagination. Socialism is not a state- a
stagnant situation at a given moment, but a very long process. Not understanding this fact,
they attack every anti-imperialist struggle, every democratic struggle from Africa
to Latin America with hypocritic know-it-all commentaries. They selectively disregard the
Leninist assessment that “the national movement in .. dependent countries..
every step of which along the road to liberation,.. is a steam-hammer blow at
imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly revolutionary step." (2)
The hypocritical criticism of Sri Lanka election result mostly reflects
itself in the “chauvinism “ accusation of the leadership.
Marxist Leninists while
recognizing the rights and right to self determination for the minorities, do
not recognize the rights and right to self determination only for the bourgeois
elite class minority in any country.
The issue of "rights"
apply to all minorities, "right to self determination " is related to
the minorities that has the character of "nation", not to a
"nation state" - which is related to the issue of "independence". Political
independence of a "nation" relates to the gaining of its independence from the oppressor "nation-state"
that forcefully keeps the nation within its borders. Independence of a "nation-state" is
related to independence from an external colonial, imperialist power.
Not all minorities have the right
to self determination but all the colonies and neo-colonies have the right for
independence.
It is the confusion on these
differences that pushes one to defend the "right to self
determination" for a nation-state even if it is a proxy and/or fascist
state.
It is the same confusion that
claims the right to self determination for a minority that does not have the
fundamental character of a "nation".
It is the same confusion that
pushes one to deny the right to self determination to a "nation" while defending
it for the" nation-state" where that 'nation' is located.
However, in most cases these is
not due to confusion but due to chauvinism or consciously serving the interests
of the imperialist bourgeoisie and its domestic lackeys. This hypocrisy and
double standard shows itself in labeling democratic progress as chauvinistic in
another country while denying the right of self determination for "nations" within their own country. Similarly, this hypocrisy shows itself in not
focusing in his own country and on the struggle within his own country, but criticizing and totally focusing on other
countries and on the democratic and anti-imperialist struggles. This hypocrisy
goes further with the critique of socialist and or socialist oriented countries
who have already waged anti-imperialist wars and won their independence.
These condescending, know-it-all hypocrites
are not even capable of organizing antifascist or anti-imperialist fronts in
their own country, yet they preach to
those who already got rid of the imperialist domination and are struggling to build socialism in their
countries.
During the discussion on Cuba,
one Cuban comrade had in fact put this condescending approach to its right
place. He had said;
“We evaluate every criticism from
internationalist communists to the extent that it is appropriate to the
existing situation and conditions, and take it seriously. Likewise, we
sincerely and cordially wish each of them success -within the shortest possible
duration- in their struggles in their own countries. Because their overthrow of
the bourgeois government in their own countries and their steps in the
construction of socialism will ease and facilitate our success here. At the
same time, the political, social, and economic steps they will take to
establish socialism, their attitudes against internal and external pressures,
and the measures and successes they take will provide "living"
examples not only to us but also to others.” (3)
That means ; focus on your own
problems in your own country rather than focusing on and criticizing other
countries, especially on those who are waging anti-fascist, anti-imperialist
struggles or who already waged such struggles and trying to build
socialism.
“While they
cannot show a serious (theoretical and practical) leadership, a serious
organization, even a serious struggle – which is the struggle to seize the
political power, and is the prerequisite for the construction of socialism – in
their own countries, where the fascist dictatorship and reaction have been
dominant for years, to criticize a country that has the political power
already, in a pedantic and arrogant way
on the questions of the struggle period after the seizure of power, is called
pontification.” (3)
Their hypocrisy has nothing to do
with the “internationalism of Leninism”.
Lenin states;
“There is
one, and only one, kind of real internationalism, and that is—working
whole-heartedly for the development of the revolutionary movement and the
revolutionary struggle in one’s own country, and supporting (by
propaganda, sympathy, and material aid) this struggle; this, and only this,
line, in every country without exception." Proletarian internationalism
remains the selfless struggle of the working class and its party for “the
utmost possible in one country for the development, support and awakening of
the revolution in all countries". (4)
What we see in most ultra-left
commentaries in the name of “internationalism” comes down to the “critiques of
every other country waging struggle and making headways in their struggle. What we see in the countries of the most “critiques”
is the lack of serious struggle. What we see in some is that
the right to self determination is denied in their own countries and labeled as
“separatists”, yet they are the champion of the “right to self determination”
in other countries. It is the practice of chauvinism disguised as the critique
of chauvinism. It is the practice of pacifism hidden behind the mask of “ultra
leftism” and ultra-left slogans and commentaries.
Erdogan A
September 9, 2024
Thailand
Notes
*
Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP
Sri Lanka) , 71 Sahodrathwa Sansadaya (Brotherhood Society of 71), Aluth
Parapura (New Generation), Aluth Piyapath (New Wings), Ethera Api, Mass Guiding
Artists, Public Servants for Public Service (PSPS), Janodanaya, National
Bhikkhu Front, National Intellectuals Organization, National Trade Union Centre,
Dabindu Collective, Sri Lanka Communist Party (Alternative Group), University
Teachers for Social Justice, Doctors for Social Justice, Progressive Women's
Collective, Samabhimani Collective, Husmata Husmak, United Left Power, All
Ceylon Estate Workers' Union
(1) Lenin: Petty-Bourgeois and
Proletarian Socialism
(2) Stalin, foundation of Leninism
(3) Pontificating on Cuba with
learned by rote theories - – On the concrete conditions and situation of Cuba
(4) Lenin, “The Proletarian
Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky”
.jpg)
No comments