Part 8 - Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

Part 8 - What Is Annexation? Referendum in Donbas-The concrete application

Introduction

The attitude to the referendum in Donbas 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 Russian), 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. The reader can disregard my comments if he/she chooses or compare them with his/her own; this is only a guideline based on Lenin’s definitions and stance.   

The Dialectic of Marxism requires the approach to any given subject in 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, lead 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 the bourgeoisie. It is in this way that they promote 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 Donbas, yet promoting it for the oppressor.

Proceeding from the same approach, it is inevitable that they will try to confuse and 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 a 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 the annexed region.”

The first question here is whether the “nation” was being held by force for years, or whether 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 the 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. Stalin, The National Question and Leninism

As one can easily see, contrary to revisionists (even a few with a Stalinist mask) who claimed that “Donbas 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).

Donbas people have all 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.” Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

Lenin clearly identifies the difference between those who are for the 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.”  Lenin, The Socialist Revolution, and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

In the case of forced retention and annexation against the will of the 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.” Lenin, What Is Annexation?

In the case of Ukraine, Donbas 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 that in this situation neither the “defense of fatherland” nor the “right to self-determination” for the nation-state is applicable. In addition to being a proxy, Ukraine was- is holding Donbas 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 Donbas 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.” Lenin, What Is Annexation?

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) Lenin, What Is Annexation?

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. ” Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

Right to secede and right to merge

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.” Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

As in the case of the right to secede, a denial of the right to merge is tantamount to the defense of annexation for both supporting the status quo of a nation forced to be retained within the frontiers of an 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.” Lenin- Finland and Russia

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.” Lenin, Political Parties in Russia, and the Tasks of the Proletariat

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).” Lenin - Lost in a Wood of Three Trees

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 the 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.” Lenin, Initial Variant 0f The R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee Proposal

The following explanation of Lenin is vitally important to understand what is and what is not considered an annexation, which clearly defines the Marxist-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.”  Lenin, Report at a Meeting of Bolshevik Delegates to the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies

In the case of Donbas forcefully retained by the Ukrainian Nation-state, the merger cannot be called as “annexation” for it is neither has a “distinct national peculiarities differing from Russia, " nor do they feel themselves to be “another people from Russians, nor is the merging being carried out against the will of Donbas 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 retention-annexation” vs “merger-annexation”.  Chauvinists and revisionists of one side usually disregard the existing forceful retention of a nation within its frontiers and focus on the “merger-annexation! That is how they serve their bourgeoisie or imperialist bloc 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.” Lenin, First All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’, and Soldiers’ Deputies

Revisionists disregarding the “right of self-determination” defend the “status quo” if not go as far as defending the right of the 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.” Lenin, Muddle-headedness -more about annexations

Revisionists of then and now are not so 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.” Lenin, A Mote in the Eye

Reading Lenin, it is clearly hypocritical 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 a referendum an annexation or accession-merging

Lenin explains the 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.”  Lenin, Outline Program for Peace Negotiations

Similarly, 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.” Lenin, Decree on Peace

As can clearly be seen, all clarifications of Lenin on the subject of forced, retained annexation apply, specifically to the Donbas area since they have been fighting for the last eight years -noting the fact that they did want to be separate Soviets in the early stages of the revolution, including Donbas, Kherson, Odesa, Kharkiv, Dnieper, and Mykolaiv.

Such a referendum is the practice of the right of self-determination, whether that is for secession or merging. Lenin, criticizing the bourgeois liberals and chauvinists, states;

Regarding 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." Lenin, The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

Any secession from one and/or integration into another through Referendum is not considered an annexation. It is a reflection of the free will of the people.

Conclusion

Compared to the past, we are living in an era in which all the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin are widely available and accessible to all. However, laziness in reading on one side and relying on the bourgeois liberal (in some cases anti-communist) books and articles inevitably turned the “left” into tailgaters 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....” Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues

The attitude of the Marxist-Leninist left, unfortunately, with 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 is only used for those against the West- you can increase the number of such concepts), the 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 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. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

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.  Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

And that is exactly what the cry for the “right to self-determination” for the neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy Ukraine regime, and claiming the referendum to be an “annexation”, lands them on: siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie.  Every “nation” must be free to make its 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 an “annexation” does not have any theoretical ground other than that of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys mixed with subjectivity or a lack of Marxist-Leninist knowledge.

We have established the foundational distinction: socialism is the first phase of communist society; communism is the higher phase. The confusion between them is not accidental but serves ideological warfare — it allows the bourgeoisie to apply communist criteria to socialist reality, declare socialist states "failures," and discredit anti-imperialist struggles.

But the confusion between socialism and communism is only one weapon in the bourgeois arsenal. It is the foundational distinction — the one upon which other confusions rest. In the chapters that follow, we will examine other weapons: the weaponization of "bureaucracy" as an institutional attack on socialist states; the "cult of personality" accusation as a personal attack on socialist leaders; and the "failure" vs. "defeat" narrative that portrays the restoration of capitalism as proof of socialism's inherent impossibility.

These weapons are dialectically connected. The confusion between socialism and communism creates the conditions for the others. If socialism is judged by the standards of communism, it will always "fail." And if it "fails," then its leaders are "cultists," its institutions are "bureaucratic," and its restoration is "inevitable."

We turn now to the first of these connected weapons: the weaponization of "bureaucracy.

 Part 9