We have not left the year 1920 and want to understand Lenin's presentation of the National Question and the issue of self determination of nations. One is hard pressed to find anything in Lenin concerning advancing the slogan "self determination" after the confirmation of the October Revolution. Again what was Lenin's attitude concerning the National Question in the international arena?
Report Of The Commission On The National and The Colonial Questions (July to August 7, 1920) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/x03.htm#fw3 "First, what is the cardinal idea underlying our theses? It is the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations. . . . In this age of imperialism, it is particularly important for the proletariat and the Communist International to establish the concrete economic facts (ECONOMIC FACTS, emphasis added by me . . . MP) and to proceed from concrete realities, not from abstract postulates, in all colonial and national problems. The characteristic feature of imperialism consists in the whole world, as we now see, being divided into a large number of oppressed nations and an insignificant number of oppressor nations, the latter possessing colossal wealth and powerful armed forces. The vast majority of the world's population, over a thousand million, perhaps even 1,250 million people, if we take the total population of the world as 1,750 million, in other words, about 70 per cent of the world's population, belong to the oppressed nations, which are either in a state of direct colonial dependence or are semi-colonies, as, for example, Persia, Turkey and China, or else, conquered by some big imperialist power, have become greatly dependent on that power by virtue of peace treaties. This idea of distinction, of dividing the nations into oppressor and oppressed, runs through the theses, . . . The second basic idea in our theses is that, in the present world situation following the imperialist war, reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole are determined by the struggle waged by a small group of imperialist nations against the Soviet movement and the Soviet states headed by Soviet Russia. " Lenin continues: "Unless we bear that in mind, we shall not be able to pose a single national or colonial problem correctly, even if it concerns a most outlying part of the world. The Communist parties, in civilized and backward countries alike, can pose and solve political problems correctly only if they make this postulate their starting-point. Third, I should like especially to emphasize the question of the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. This is a question that has given rise to certain differences. We have discussed whether it would be right or wrong, in principle and in theory, to state that the Communist International and the Communist parties must support the bourgeois-democratic movement in backward countries. As a result of our discussion, we have arrived at the unanimous decision to speak of the national-revolutionary movement rather than of the â bourgeois-democraticâ movement. It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois-democratic movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consist of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist relationships. It would be utopian to believe that proletarian parties in these backward countries, if indeed they can emerge in them, can pursue communist tactics and a communist policy, without establishing definite relations with the peasant movement and without giving it effective support. However, the objections have been raised that, if we speak of the bourgeois-democratic movement, we shall be obliterating all distinctions between the reformist and the revolutionary movements. Yet that distinction has been very clearly revealed of late in the backward and colonial countries, since the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nations too. There has been a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very oftenâperhaps even in most casesâthe bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes. This was irrefutably proved in the commission, and we decided that the only correct attitude was to take this distinction into account and, in nearly all cases, substitute the term â national-revolutionaryâ for the term âbourgeois-democratic.â The significance of this change is that we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organizing in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie, to whom the heroes of the Second International also belong. Reformist parties already exist in the colonial countries, and in some cases their spokesmen call themselves Social-Democrats and socialists. The distinction I have referred to has been made in all the theses with the result, I think, that our view is now formulated much more precisely. Next, I would like to make a remark on the subject of peasantsâ Soviets. The Russian Communistsâ practical activities in the former tsarist colonies, in such backward countries as Turkestan, etc., have confronted us with the question of how to apply the communist tactics and policy in pre-capitalist conditions. The preponderance of pre-capitalist relationships is still the main determining feature in these countries, so that there can be no question of a purely proletarian movement in them. There is practically no industrial proletariat in these countries. Nevertheless, we have assumed, we must assume, the role of leader even there. Experience has shown us that tremendous difficulties have to be surmounted in these countries. However, the practical results of our work have also shown that despite these difficulties we are in a position to inspire in the masses an urge for independent political thinking and independent political action, even where a proletariat is practically nonexistent. This work has been more difficult for us than it will be for comrades in the West-European countries, because in Russia the proletariat is engrossed in the work of state administration. It will readily be understood that peasants living in conditions of semi-feudal dependence can easily assimilate and give effect to the idea of Soviet organization. It is also clear that the oppressed masses, those who are exploited, not only by merchant capital but also by the feudalists, and by a state based on feudalism, can apply this weapon, this type of organization, in their conditions too. The idea of Soviet organization is a simple one, and is applicable, not only to proletarian, but also to peasant feudal and semi-feudal relations. Our experience in this respect is not as yet very considerable. However, the debate in the commission, in which several representatives from colonial countries participated, demonstrated convincingly that the Communist Internationals thesis should point out that peasantsâ Soviets, Soviets of the exploited, are a weapon which can be employed, not only in capitalist countries but also in countries with pre-capitalist relations, and that it is the absolute duty of Communist parties and of elements prepared to form Communist parties, everywhere to conduct propaganda in favor of peasantsâ Soviets or of working people's Soviets, this to include backward and colonial countries. Wherever conditions permit, they should at once make attempts to set up Soviets the working people." (End of quote) Where does Lenin make a fetish of self determination or even mention this slogan in the year 1920 . . . after the confirmation of the October Revolution? Lenin even states the conditions for communists to support national movements: "we, as Communists, should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies ONLY WHEN THEY ARE GENUINELY REVOLUTIONARY, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organizing in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited." Today no one can frame the national factor as if we are dealing with pre-capitalist relations or a peasant movement against feudal and semi-feudal social relations and merchant capital. Or as if we are in the pre-October period, which ended almost ninety years ago. It is instructive to keep in mind Lenin's description of the actual circumstances faced by communists dealing with pre-capitalist social formation or social formation that had not achieved what is meant by the Marxists concept of nation. "in such backward countries as Turkestan, etc., have confronted us with the question of how to apply the communist tactics and policy in pre-capitalist conditions. The preponderance of pre-capitalist relationships is still the main determining feature in these countries, . . . Nevertheless, . . . we must assume, the role of leader even there. . . . It is also clear that the oppressed masses, those who are exploited, not only by merchant capital but also by the feudalists, and by a state based on feudalism, can apply this weapon, this type of organization, in their conditions too. The idea of Soviet organization is a simple one, and is applicable, not only to proletarian, but also to peasant feudal and semi-feudal relations ... it is the absolute duty of Communist parties and of elements prepared to form Communist parties, everywhere to conduct propaganda in favor of peasantsâ Soviets or of working people's Soviets, this to include backward and colonial countries." Lenin even defines the task of Communist parties in respects to peasant feudal and semi-feudal relations. The issue of Beslan and self determination in Chechnya and even Yugoslavia are misunderstood by the American left and militant radicals. If anything these are utterly reactionary "national movements." In history a national movement is progressive in relationship to feudal and semi feudal social relations. Properly speaking these are not even national movements within the former Soviet Union but reactionary bourgeois identity movement whose stated goals are bourgeois property relations as opposed to socialism. The national movement belongs to an entirely different period of history and this is not understood by a segment of American Marxism blinded by the glitter of their imperial bourgeois democracy. In the American Union we are not currently faced with a mysterious theoretical proposition that makes the National Factor unknowable. African Americans clearly are not a tribe so what are they and what is the specifics of their evolution? What are the features of the historical era we faced today? There are several other important Marxist concepts concerning the national factor. For the moment we are going to not look at the Mexican National Minority or he/she that has recently migrated from Mexico and found work. Here is the meaning of national minority, a person that migrates from a colony or dependent country to the imperial center. The Irish in England is an Irish National Minority and in America simply an Irish minority . . . until after several generation or even one, that allows the assimilation of that that is Anglo American. Nor, are we going to consider the Mexican National who migrated from Mexico and has lived in the United States, taken root and have perhaps several generation in America. Here is the meaning of Mexican National as distinct from the Mexican National Minority. Rather than fixed categories these concept express the social logic of the Southwest and affirms the brilliance of Marxism and the National Question in the hands of the proletariat of the Southwest, specifically the Chicano Marxists. What of the Chicano that has been on the same land mass centuries before it was annexed by the slave oligarchy and locked down by Wall Street Imperialism after the Civil War? Although there is an obvious fusion of culture throughout the entire Southwest and within the American Union, the national character of the Mexican national and Chicano was distinctly different from the national character of the African American people, and can be observed in its vanishing. The national character of the African American people as a people has in history been distinctly different from the Anglo-American people of the North of the American Union and can be observed in its vanishing. A historically evolved people and a modern nation are two different things requiring a different solution as national factors. Self determination for nations is historically obsolete for communists and a bourgeois slogan pure and simple. A communist in America cannot raise the banner of self determination for anyone on earth until they prove in the flesh their understanding of the national factor right here at home. And then once you raise the banner of "self determination of nation," you can take your place at the knee of capital. Here is where it gets ugly. Is Chechnya a nation or are we dealing with a historically evolved people? The answer to such questions inform policy. Are the Chechan a nation in the sense of what Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin. the masters speak? Is the Chicano a modern nation in the sense of the "masters?" No. To answer such question requires real analysis and not sloganeering. What would be the basis for the erection of another independent multinational state within a multinational state system, in as much as current population data has the Chechan at less than 60% of the population of Chechnya which is roughly the size of the population of Detroit, Michigan or less than one million? Self determination for nations meant nations. Lenin expresses the complexity of the problem the Soviet communists faced dealing with historically evolved peoples, who had not yet reached the social formation called "nation." A historically evolved people and a modern nation are two different things requiring a different solution as national factors. The African American people are not a nation, have never been a nation and will never become a nation and they number roughly 30 million. The Indians in the American Union are what is called "old nations" and not the modern nations of which Marx and Engels, Lenin and Stalin speak. There is a difference between a nation, state, historically evolved people, with the state predating the nation by thousands of years. Across continental African the national factor is still more varied with "advanced national groups" who are neither modern nations not tribes but retain tribal characteristics from various groups welded together under the heavy hand of imperialism. The reason the African American people are not a nation is not predicated on the existence of a separate state as such, but their concrete economic evolution as a class of slaves. Nor is population density and magnitude or territory expanse a fundamental attribute characterizing the emergence of a nation. At the end of the Civil War there was a slave population five times the size of the population of Chechnya and America is a very large land mass with blacks sca ttered across its breath and depth. Self determination for Chechnya means one have defined the Chechan as a nation and relapsed ninety years into the past. The break up of the multinational state system of the Soviet Union released powerful bourgeois nationalist reactionary movements that immediately proceeded to align themselves with international finance capital and the military arm of world imperialism. The only obligations communists have in respects to the former Soviet Union is the demand to withdraw all American troops and military forces from these territories and unconditional support to the communist proletariat. _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
