As I set out in Part 1, not only would the principles outlined in the Theses on The National and Colonial Questions, on support for liberation struggles, not justify support for the Ukrainian regime and ruling class in its war with Russia, if it were a colony, or seeking self-determination, but, its clear that it is not a colony, and the use of the term “self-determination”, is nothing more than a bourgeois liberal cover for the demand to “defend the fatherland”.
“"Such a perversion is, on the one hand, the social-chauvinist trend, socialism in word and chauvinism in deed, the use of the 'defence of the fatherland' slogan to hide the predatory interests 'their own' national bourgeoisie pursues in an imperialist war and to maintain the privileged position of citizens of rich nations which make enormous profits by pillaging colonies and weak nations. Another such perversion, on the other hand, is the equally wide and international movement of the 'Centre', etc." ...
Instead of the word self-determination, which has given rise to numerous misinterpretations, I propose the perfectly precise concept: "the right to free secession".”
“Self-determination”, in respect of an already independent nation state, and so meaning “defence of the fatherland” could just as easily have been raised in the case of the First World War by France, or by Russia, faced with an invading German army. In any war between two states, there comes a point where one obtains advantage over the other, and begins to occupy the others territory. For example, in WWII, when Russia turned back the Nazis at the end of 1941, and then progressively advanced to take parts of Germany, that certainly represented an occupation of Germany, and a denial of its “right to self-determination”. (Note, in 1941, when Nazi Germany invaded and occupied 25% of the USSR, the AWL's mentors and predecessors – Burnham and Shachtman - refused to defend the USSR, despite it being a deformed workers' state. Burnham went on to work for the CIA, and become a hard line Cold War Warrior, whilst Shachtman refused to condemn the Bay of Pigs invasion or call for US troops out of Vietnam.)
So, should socialists have raised the demand for “self-determination” for Germany, against such occupation, and so have ended up aligning with the Nazi regime to that end?! That would clearly be absurd. As set out in the Theses On The National and Colonial Questions, our only responsibility lies with giving support to truly revolutionary forces, i.e. those forces fighting, by revolutionary means, not only for national liberation, but also against their own ruling class. No such possibility exists in Ukraine, today, and even the EBFI, in another of their posts admit that the Ukrainian state, having already placed limitations on the media, and having banned 13 socialist organisations, has also continued to attack workers' rights. In fact, looking at what Trotsky wrote, specifically in relation to Ukraine, illustrates this point too.
“The worker and peasant masses in the Western Ukraine, in Bukovina, in the Carpatho-Ukraine are in a state of confusion: Where to turn? What to demand? This situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian cliques who express their “nationalism” by seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence.”
That of course, is what the liberal-bourgeois apologists of NATO seek to achieve. Did Trotsky, limit himself to supporting, then, just bourgeois-democratic demands for “self-determination” in Ukraine, and supporting whatever forces might be engaged in such a struggle? Absolutely not. In line with his Theory of Permanent Revolution, of Lenin's April Theses, and the Comintern's Theses on The National and Colonial Questions, as well as in line with the principles Trotsky had set out in his Program of Peace, he saw no solution, in the age of imperialism, outside a revolutionary proletarian solution.
“The Fourth International must clearly understand the enormous importance of the Ukrainian question in the fate not only of Southeastern and Eastern Europe but also of Europe as a whole. We are dealing with a people that has proved its viability, that is numerically equal to the population of France and occupies an exceptionally rich territory which, moreover, is of the highest strategical importance. The question of the fate of the Ukraine has been posed in its full scope. A clear and definite slogan is necessary that corresponds to the new situation. In my opinion there can be at the present time only one such slogan: A united, free and independent workers’ and peasants’ Soviet Ukraine”.
How different to that is the liberal bourgeois list of demands cited by Coatesy, let alone the outright social-imperialism of the lackeys of NATO imperialism, such as Jim Denham and the AWL? And, in contrast to that, Trotsky goes on.
“This program is in irreconcilable contradiction first of all with the interests of the three imperialist powers, Poland, Rumania, and Hungary. Only hopeless pacifist blockheads are capable of thinking that the emancipation and unification of the Ukraine can be achieved by peaceful diplomatic means, by referendums, by decisions of the League of Nations, etc. In no way superior to them of course are those “nationalists” who propose to solve the Ukrainian question by entering the service of one imperialism against another. Hitler gave an invaluable lesson to those adventurers by tossing (for how long?) Carpatho-Ukraine to the Hungarians who immediately slaughtered not a few trusting Ukrainians. Insofar as the issue depends upon the military strength of the imperialist states, the victory of one grouping or another can signify only a new dismemberment and a still more brutal subjugation of the Ukrainian people, The program of independence for the Ukraine in the epoch of imperialism is directly and indissolubly bound up with the program of the proletarian revolution. It would be criminal to entertain any illusions on this score.”
Indeed, if the Ukrainians learned from history, they would remember the way imperialism treated them in the past, with the US-UK betrayal of the Lienz Cossacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment