Part 7 - Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

Ideological Warfare tactics of capitalists against socialism through concepts and theories

Part  7 - Ukraine — Case Study-The distortion of the principle

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

There always will be those, consciously and some unconsciously, who by means of sophistry try to conceal or justify their desertion to the camp of the bourgeoisie.  The cry for Ukraine’s right to self-determination is a striking example of this sophistry. Let’s start by studying what National self-determination means for Marxist Leninists.

Lenin, in his article “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism,” says;

“National self-determination means political independence.”  Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

In the 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 the proxy Ukraine bourgeoisie and of their neo-Nazi state, or it is actually applicable to Donbas, 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.” Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination

And

“our definition of the “right of nations to self-determination” must follow, a definition that is consistently democratic, revolutionary…”  Lenin, The Revolutionary Proletariat, and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

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, has been bombed, burned, and massacred en masse, and is 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 the oppressor nation rather than the oppressed is deeply related to 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. 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. Lenin, Junius Pamphlet

However, the sophists would prefer to ignore Lenin’s assessment and try extremely hard to overshadow the fact of an existing civil war waged in Ukraine against the neo-Nazi state and, worse, never mention that those waging this civil war are communists and anti-fascists. They, however, cling to the terms of “separatism”, “respect for 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. Lenin The Socialist Revolution and the right of Nations to Self-Determination

Is it clear, as far as Lenin is concerned, who has the “right to self-determination”? Is it the Neo-Nazi oppressor Ukrainian 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 Ukrainian 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... Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

These words clearly describe the sophists who cry for “unity” and blame those who have 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…  Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

In this sense, these so-called “internationalists” who defend the “right of self-determination” for the Ukrainian Neo-Nazi state, yet deny it for the Donbas communists and anti-fascists, are not so much different than the 2^nd 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… Stalin, Concerning the Presentation of the National Question

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. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

As we understand from Lenin’s words, the so-called “internationalists” with their cry for the “right to self-determination for the neo-Nazi state of Ukraine are, actually, for the defense of the 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. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

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. Lenin, The National Question in Our Program

Their cry for the “right to self-determination” for neo-Nazi Ukraine has no class base and even no 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 colors 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. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

Is it possible 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 oxymoronic 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 the fatherland”.  However, as far as the question of an imperialist proxy, neo-Nazi oppressor nation is concerned, neither of those links 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.  Lenin, Address to the Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of The East

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. “Lenin, Address to the Second All-Russia Congress of Communist Organizations of the Peoples of The East

Does any Marxist-Leninist have any “reservation” about the internal policy conducted by the Ukrainian 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.” Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)

Now the question comes down to whether this war in Ukraine is an imperialist or anti-imperialist war. Since there is almost no Marxist-Leninist 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 the 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). Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)

The reality of Ukraine is that both the right to self-determination and the right to defend are applicable to Donbas. 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. Lenin, Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov)

Let’s consider the undeniable fact of civil war waged by the communists and antifascists of Ukraine, their success in liberating 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." Lenin, Military Program of the Proletarian Revolution

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 Donbas against the neo-Nazi regime, is progressive and in line with point three of Lenin- “socialist and suchlike”, as well as point 2 – “civil war.” In other words, both the defense of the liberated region from the neo-Nazis as the fruit of their struggle and the ‘right to self-determination” is applicable to Donbas, and support for the communists and anti-fascists of the region is the internationalist duty of Marxist Leninists.

Crying for the “right to self-determination” for a neo-Nazi, imperialist proxy regime is not the practice of Marxist Leninists but of those on the side of the 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 imperialists, 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. 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 lands them at- siding with the reactionary bourgeoisie.

We have exposed the sophistry of applying the right to self-determination to the oppressor nation while denying it to the oppressed. But the sophists make another claim: that the referendum in Donbas is an 'annexation.' They call the free exercise of self-determination by the people of Donbas a 'forced incorporation' — while ignoring Ukraine's forcible retention of Donbas for eight years. We must now clarify the Marxist-Leninist definition of annexation — and distinguish it from the free exercise of self-determination through referendum. This is the concrete application of the theoretical framework we have established.

Chapter I- Part 8