V. I.

Lenin

A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

6. The Other Political Issues Raised and Distorted By P. Kievsky

Liberation of the colonies, we stated in our theses, means
self-determination of nations. Europeans often forget that colonial peoples
too are nations, but to tolerate this “forgetfulness” is to
tolerate chauvinism.

P. Kievsky “objects”:

In the pure type of colonies, “there is no proletariat in the
proper sense of the term” (end of §r, Chapter II). “For whom, then,
is the ‘self-determination’ slogan meant? For the colonial bourgeoisie?
For the fellahs? For the peasants? Certainly not. It is absurd for
socialists [Kievsky’s italics] to demand self-determination for
the colonies, for it is absurd in general to advance the slogans of a
workers’ party for countries where there are no workers.”

P. Kievsky’s anger and his denunciation of our view as “absurd”
notwithstanding, we make bold to submit that his arguments are
erroneous. Only the late and unlamented Economists believed that the
“slogans of a workers’ party” are issued only for workers. [1]

No, these slogans are issued for the whole of the labouring population, for
the entire people. The democratic part of our programme—Kievsky has given
no thought to its significance “in general”—is addressed specifically
to the whole people and that is why in it we speak of the
“people”. [2]

The colonial and semi-colonial nations, we said, account for 1,000
million people, and P. Kievsky has not taken the trouble to refute that
concrete statement. Of these 1,000 million, more than 700 million (China,
India, Persia, Egypt) live in countries where there are
workers. But even with regard to colonial countries where there are no
workers, only slave-owners and slaves, etc., the demand for
“self-determination”, far from being absurd , is obligatory hit every Marxist. And if he gave the matter a little
thought, Kievsky would probably realise this, and also that
“self-determination” is always advanced “for” two nations: the
oppressed and the oppressing .

Another of Kievsky’s “objections”:

“ For that reason we limit ourselves, in respect to the colonies, to a
negative slogan, i.e., to the demand socialists present to their governments—‘get out of the colonies!’ Unachievable
within the framework of capitalism, this demand serves to intensify the
struggle against imperialism, but does not contradict the trend of
development, for a socialist society will not possess colonies.”

The author’s inability, or reluctance, to give the slightest thought to
the theoretical contents of political slogans is simply amazing! Are we to
believe that the use of a propaganda phrase instead of a theoretically
precise political term alters matters? To say “get out of the colonies”
is to evade a theoretical analysis and hide behind propaganda phrases! For
every one of our Party propagandists, in referring to the Ukraine, Poland,
Finland, etc., is fully entitled to demand of the tsarist government (his
“own government”): “get out of Finland”, etc. However, the intelligent
propagandist will understand that we must not advance either positive or
negative slogans for the sole purpose of “intensifying” the
struggle. Only men of the Alexinsky type could insist that the “negative”
slogan “get out of the Black-Hundred Duma” was justified by the desire to
“intensify” the struggle against a certain evil.

Intensification of the struggle is all empty phrase of the
subjectivists, who forget the Marxist requirement that every slogan be
justified by a precise analysis of economic realities, the
political situation and the political significance of the
slogan. It is embarrassing to have to drive this home, but what can one do?

We know the Alexinsky habit of cutting short a theoretical discussion
of a theoretical question by propaganda outcries. It is a bad habit. The
slogan “get out of the colonies” has one and only one political and
economic content: freedom of secession for the colonial nations, freedom to
establish a separate state! If, as P. Kievsky believes, the
general laws of imperialism prevent the self-determination of
nations and make it a utopia, illusion, etc., etc., then how can one, with
out stopping to think, make an exception from these general laws for
most of the nations of the world? Obviously, P. Kievsky’s
“theory” is a caricature of theory.

Commodity production and capitalism, and the connecting threads of
finance capital, exist in the vast majority of colonial countries. How,
then, can we urge the imperialist countries, their governments, to “get out of the colonies” if, from the standpoint of commodity production, capitalism and imperialism,
this is an “unscientific” and “utopian” demand, “refuted”
even by Lensch, Cunow and the rest?

There is not even a shadow of thought in the author’s argumentation!

He has given no thought to the fact that liberation of the colonies is
“unrealisable” only in the sense of being “unrealisable without
a series of revolutions”. He has given no thought to the fact that it is
realisable in conjunction with a socialist revolution in
Europe. He has given no thought to the fact that a “socialist society will
not possess” not only colonies, but subject nations in general . He has given no thought to the fact that, on the question
under discussion, there is no economic or political difference
between Russia s “possession” of Poland or Turkestan. He has given no
thought to the fact that a “socialist society” will wish to “get out of
the colonies” only in the sense of granting them the free
right to secede, but definitely not in the sense of recommending secession .

And for this differentiation between the right to secede and the
recommendation to secede, P. Kievsky condemns us as “jugglers”, and to
“scientifically substantiate” that verdict in the eyes of the workers, he
writes:

“ What is a worker to think when he asks a propagandist how the
proletariat should regard samostiinost [political independence for
the Ukraine], and gets this answer: socialists are working for the right to
secede, but their propaganda is against secession?”

I believe I can give a fairly accurate reply to that question, namely:
every sensible worker will think that Kievsky is not capable of thinking .

Every sensible worker will “think”: here we have P. Kievsky telling
us workers to shout “get out of the colonies”. In other words, we
Great-Russian workers must demand from our government that it get out of
Mongolia, Turkestan, Persia; English workers must demand that the English
Government get out of Egypt, India, Persia, etc. But does this mean that
we proletarians wish to separate ourselves from the
Egyptian workers and fellahs, from the Mongolian, Turkestan or Indian
workers and peasants? Does it mean that we advise the labouring masses of the colonies to
“separate” from the class-conscious European proletariat? Nothing of the
kind. Now, as always, we stand and shall continue to stand for the closest
association and merging of the class-conscious workers of the advanced
countries with the workers, peasants and slaves of all the
oppressed countries. We have always advised and shall continue to advise
all the oppressed classes in all the oppressed countries, the colonies
included, not to separate from us, but to form the closest
possible ties and merge with us.

We demand from our governments that they quit the colonies, or, to put
it in precise political terms rather than in agitational outcries—that
they grant the colonies full freedom of secession, the genuine right to self-determination , and we ourselves are sure to
implement this right, and grant this freedom, as soon as we capture
power. We demand this from existing governments, and will do this
when we are the government, not in order to “recommend”
secession, but, on the contrary, in order to facilitate and accelerate the
democratic association and merging of nations. We shall exert
every effort to foster association and merger with the Mongolians,
Persians, Indians, Egyptians. We believe it is our duty and in our interest to do this, for otherwise socialism in Europe will not be secure . We shall endeavour to render these nations, more backward and
oppressed than we are, “disinterested cultural assistance”, to borrow the
happy expression of the Polish Social-Democrats. In other words, we will
help them pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to
democracy, to socialism.

If we demand freedom of secession for the Mongolians. Persians,
Egyptians and all other oppressed and unequal nations without
exception, we do so not because we favour secession , but
only because we stand for free , voluntary association and merging as distinct from forcible association. That is the
only reason!

And in this respect the only difference between the Mongolian
or Egyptian peasants and workers and their Polish or Finnish counterparts
is, in our view, that the latter are more developed, more experienced
politically than the Great Russians, more economically prepared, etc., and
for that reason will in all likelihood very soon convince their peoples that it is unwise to extend their present legitimate hatred of the
Great Russians, for their role of hangman, to the socialist
workers and to a socialist Russia. They will convince them that economic
expediency and internationalist and democratic instinct and consciousness
demand the earliest association of all nations and their merging in a
socialist society. And since the Poles and Finns are highly cultured
people, they will, in all probability, very soon come to see the
correctness of this attitude, and the possible secession of Poland and
Finland after the triumph of socialism will therefore be only of short
duration. The incomparably less cultured fellahs, Mongolians and Persians
might secede for a longer period, but we shall try to shorten it by
disinterested cultural assistance as indicated above.

There is no other difference in our attitude to the Poles and
Mongolians, nor can there be. There is no “contradiction”, nor
can there be, between our propaganda of freedom of secession and our firm
resolve to implement that freedom when we are the government, and
our propaganda of association and merging of nations. That is what, we feel
sure, every sensible worker, every genuine socialist and internationalist
will “think” of our controversy with
P. Kievsky. [3]

Running through the article is Kievsky’s basic doubt: why advocate and,
when we are in power, implement the freedom of nations to secede ,
considering that the trend of development is towards the merging of nations? For the same
reason—we reply—that we advocate and, when in power, will implement the
dictatorship of the proletariat, though the entire trend of development is
towards abolition of coercive domination of one part of society over
another. Dictatorship is domination of one part of society over the rest of
society, and domination, moreover, that rests directly on
coercion. Dictatorship of the proletariat, the only consistently
revolutionary class, is necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and repel
its attempts at counter-revolution. The question of proletarian
dictatorship is of such overriding importance that he who denies the need
for such dictator ship, or recognises it only in words, cannot he a member
of the Social-Democratic Party. However, it cannot be denied that in
individual cases, by way of exception, for instance, in some small country
after the social revolution has been accomplished in a neighbouring big
country, peaceful surrender of power by the bourgeoisie is
possible , if it is convinced that resistance is hopeless and if it
prefers to save its skin. It is much more likely, of course, that even in
small states socialism will not be achieved without civil war, and
for that reason the only programme of international
Social-Democracy must be recognition of civil war, though violence is, of
course, alien to our ideals. The same, mutatis mutandis (with the
necessary alterations), is applicable to nations. We favour their
merger, but now there can be no transition from forcible merger
and annexation to voluntary merger without freedom of secession. We
recognise—and quite rightly—the predominance of the economic factor,
but to interpret it a‘ la Kievsky is to make a caricature of
Marxism. Even the trusts and banks of modern imperialism, though inevitable
everywhere as part of developed capitalism, differ in their concrete
aspects from country to country. There is a still greater difference,
despite homogeneity in essentials, between political forms in the advanced
imperialist countries—America, England, France, Germany. The same variety
will manifest itself also in the path mankind will follow from the
imperialism of today to the socialist revolution of tomorrow. All nations
will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, hut all will do so in not
exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some
form of

democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the
varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of
social life. There is nothing more primitive from the viewpoint of theory,
or more ridiculous from that of practice, than to paint, “in the name of
historical materialism”, this aspect of the future in a
monotonous grey. The result will be nothing more than Suzdal daubing. And
even if reality were to show that prior to the first victory of
the socialist proletariat only 1/500 of the nations now oppressed will win
emancipation and secede, that prior to the final victory of the
socialist proletariat the world over (i.e., during all the vicissitudes of
the socialist revolution) also only 1,500 of the oppressed nations will
secede for a very short time— even in that event we would be
correct, both from the theoretical and practical political standpoint, in
advising the workers, already now, not to permit into their
Social-Democratic parties those socialists of the oppressor nations who do
not recognise and do not advocate freedom of secession for all
oppressed nations. For the fact is that we do not know, and cannot know,
how many of the oppressed nations will in practice require secession in
order to contribute something of their own to the different forms
of democracy, the different forms of transition to socialism. And
that the negation of freedom of secession now is theoretically false from
beginning to end and in practice amounts to servility to the chauvinists of
the oppressing nations—this we know, see and feel daily.

“ We emphasise,” P. Kievsky writes in a footnote to the passage quoted
above, “that we fully support the demand ‘against forcible
annexation’....”

But he makes no reply, not even by a single word, to our perfectly
clear statement that this “demand” is tantamount to recognising
self-determination, that there can be no correct definition of the concept
“annexation” unless it is seen in context with self-determination. Presumably Kievsky believes that in a discussion it is
enough to present one’s arguments and demands without any supporting
evidence!

He continues: “... We fully accept, in their negative formulation, a number of demands that tend to sharpen proletarian
consciousness against imperialism, hut there is absolutely no possibility
of working out corresponding positive formulations on the basis of the existing system. Against war, yes, but not
for a democratic peace....”

Wrong—wrong from the first word to the last. Kievsky has read our
resolution on “ Pacifism and the Peace Slogan ” (in the pamphlet Socialism and War ,
pp. 44–45 [4]

)

and even approved it, I believe. But obviously he did not understand it. We
are for a democratic peace, only we warn the workers against the
deception that such a peace is possible under the present, bourgeois
governments “without a series of revolutions”, as the resolution points
out. We denounced as a deception of the workers the “abstract” advocacy
of peace, i.e., one that does not take into account the real class
nature, or, specifically, the imperialist nature of the present
governments in the belligerent countries. We definitely stated in the Sotsial-Demokrat
(No. 47) theses that if the revolution places our Party in power during the
present war, it will immediately propose a democratic peace to all the
warring countries. [5]

Yet, anxious to convince himself and others that he is opposed “only”
to self-determination and not to democracy in general, Kievsky ends up by
asserting that we are “not for a democratic peace”. Curious logic!

There is no need to dwell on all the other examples he cites, and no
sense in wasting space on refuting them, for they are on the same level of
naïve and fallacious logic and can only make the reader smile. There is
not, nor can there be, such a thing as a “negative” Social-Democratic
slogan that serves only to “sharpen proletarian consciousness against
imperialism” without at the same time offering a positive answer to the
question of how Social-Democracy will solve the problem when it
assumes power. A “negative” slogan unconnected with a definite positive
solution will not “sharpen”, but dull consciousness, for such a slogan is
a hollow phrase, mere shouting, meaningless declamation.

P. Kievsky does not understand the difference between “negative”
slogans that stigmatise political evils and economic evils. The difference lies in the fact that certain economic evils are part
of capitalism as such, whatever the political superstructure, and that it is impossible to eliminate them
economically without eliminating capitalism itself. Not a single instance
can be cited to disprove this. On the other hand, political evils represent
a departure from democracy which, economically, is fully possible “on the
basis of the existing system”, i.e., capitalism, and by way of exception
is being implemented under capitalism—certain aspects in one country,
other aspects in another. Again, what the author fails to understand is
precisely the fundamental conditions necessary for the implementation of
democracy in general!

The same applies to the question of divorce. The reader will recall
that it was first posed by Rosa Luxemburg in the discussion on the
national question. She expressed the perfectly justified opinion
that if we uphold autonomy within a state (for a definite region, area,
etc.), we must, as centralist Social-Democrats, insist that all major
national issues—and divorce legislation is one of them—should
come within the jurisdiction of the central government and central
parliament. This example clearly demonstrates that one can not be a
democrat and socialist without demanding full freedom of divorce now,
because the lack of such freedom is additional oppression of the oppressed
sex—though it should not be difficult to realise that recognition of the
freedom to leave one’s husband is not an invitation to all wives to do so!

P. Kievsky “objects”:

“ What would this right [of divorce] be like if in such cases
[when the wife wants to leave the husband] she could not
exercise her right? Or if its exercise depended on the will of
third parties, or, worse still, on the will of claimants to her
affections? Would we advocate the proclamation of such a right? Of
course not!”

That objection reveals complete failure to understand the relation
between democracy in general and capitalism. The conditions that
make it impossible for the oppressed classes to “exercise” their
democratic rights are not the exception under capitalism; they are typical
of the system. In most cases the right of divorce will remain unrealisable
under capitalism, for the oppressed sex is subjugated economically. No
matter how much democracy there is under capitalism, the woman remains a
“domestic slave”, a slave locked up in the bedroom, nursery, kitchen. The
right to elect their “own” people’s judges, officials, school-teachers, jurymen,
etc., is likewise in most cases unrealisable under capitalism precisely
because of the economic subjection of the workers and peasants. The same
applies to the democratic republic: our programme defines it as
“government by the people”, though all Social-Democrats know perfectly
well that under capitalism, even in the most democratic republic, there is
bound to be bribery of officials by the bourgeoisie and an alliance of
stock exchange and the government.

Only those who cannot think straight or have no knowledge of Marxism
will conclude: so there is no point in having a republic, no point in
freedom of divorce, no point in democracy, no point in self-determination
of nations! But Marxists know that democracy does not abolish
class oppression. It only makes the class struggle more direct, wider, more
open and pronounced, and that is what we need. The fuller the freedom of
divorce, the clearer will women see that the source of their “domestic
slavery” is capitalism, not lack of rights. The more democratic the system
of government, the clearer will the workers see that the root evil is
capitalism, not lack of rights. The fuller national equality (and it is
not complete without freedom of secession), the clearer will the
workers of the oppressed nations see that the cause of their oppression is
capitalism, not lack of rights, etc.

It must be said again and again: It is embarrassing to have to drive
home the ABC of Marxism, but what is one to do if Kievsky does not know it?

He discusses divorce in much the same way as one of the secretaries of
the Organising Committee abroad, Semkovsky, discussed it, if I remember
rightly, in the Paris
Golos . [6] His line of reasoning was that freedom of divorce is
not, it is true, an invitation to all wives to leave their husbands, but if
it is proved that all other husbands are better than yours, madame, then it
amounts to one and the same thing!!

In taking that line of argument Semkovsky forgot that crank thinking is
not a violation of socialist or democratic principles. If Semkovsky were to
tell a woman that all other husbands were better than hers, no one would
regard this as violation of democratic principles. At most people would say: There are bound to be big cranks in a big party! But if Semkovsky were
to take it into his head to defend as a democrat a person who opposed
freedom of divorce and appealed to the courts, the police or the church to
prevent his wife leaving him, we feel sure that even most of
Semkovsky’s colleagues on the Secretariat Abroad, though they are sorry
socialists, would refuse to support him!

Both Semkovsky and Kievsky, in their “discussion” of divorce, fail to
understand the issue and avoid its substance, namely, that under capitalism
the right of divorce, as all other democratic rights without
exception, is conditional, restricted, formal, narrow and extremely
difficult of realisation. Yet no self-respecting Social-Democrat will
consider anyone opposing the right of divorce a democrat, let alone a
socialist. That is the crux of the matter. All “democracy”
consists in the proclamation and realisation of “rights” which under
capitalism are realisable only to a very small degree and only
relatively. But without the proclamation of these rights, without a
struggle to introduce them now, immediately, without training the masses in
the spirit of this struggle, socialism is impossible .

Having failed to understand that, Kievsky bypasses the central
question, that belongs to his special subject, namely, how will we
Social-Democrats abolish national oppression? He shunts the question aside
with phrases about the world being “drenched in blood”, etc. (though this
has no bearing on the matter under discussion). This leaves only one single
argument: the socialist revolution will solve everything! Or, the argument
sometimes advanced by people who share his views: self-determination is
impossible under capitalism and superfluous under socialism.

From the theoretical standpoint that view is nonsensical; from the
practical political standpoint it is chauvinistic. It fails to appreciate
the significance of democracy. For socialism is impossible without
democracy because:
(1) the proletariat cannot perform the socialist revolution unless it
prepares for it by the struggle for democracy; (2) victorious socialism cannot consolidate its victory and bring humanity
to the withering away of the state without implementing full democracy. To
claim that self-determination is superfluous under socialism is therefore
just as nonsensical and just as hopelessly confusing as to claim that democracy is superfluous
under socialism.

Self-determination is no more impossible under capitalism, and
just as superfluous under socialism, as democracy generally.

The economic revolution will create the necessary prerequisites for
eliminating all types of political oppression. Precisely for that
reason it is illogical and incorrect to reduce everything to the economic
revolution, for the question is: how to eliminate national
oppression? It cannot be eliminated without an economic revolution That is
incontestable. But to limit ourselves to this is to lapse into
absurd and wretched imperialist Economism.

We must carry out national equality; proclaim, formulate and
implement equal “rights” for all nations. Everyone agrees with
that save, perhaps, P. Kievsky. But this poses a question which Kievsky
avoids: is not negation of the right to form a national state
negation of equality?

Of course it is. And consistent, i.e., socialist, democrats proclaim,
formulate and will implement this right, without which there is no path to
complete, voluntary rapprochement and merging of nations.

---
Notes:
[1]

P. Kievsky would do well to reread what A. Martynov and Co. wrote in
1899–1901. He would find many of his “own” arguments there. — Lenin

[2]

Some curious opponents of “self-determination of nations” try to refute
our views with the argument that “nations” are divided into classes! Our
customary reply to these caricature Marxists is that the democratic part of
our programme speaks of “government by the people”. — Lenin

[3]

Evidently Kievsky simply repeated the slogan “get out of the
colonies”, advanced by certain German and Dutch Marxists, without
considering not only its theoretical content and implications, but also the
specific features of Russia. It is pardonable—to a certain extent—for a
Dutch or German Marxist to confine himself to the slogan “get out of the
colonies”. For, first, the typical form of national oppression,
in the case of most West-European countries, is oppression of the colonies,
and, second, the very term “colony” has an especially clear, graphic and
vital meaning for West-European countries.

But what of Russia? Its peculiarity lies precisely in the fact that the
difference between “ our ” “colonies” and “our” oppressed
nations is not clear, not concrete and not vitally felt!

For a Marxist writing in, say, German it might be pardonable to
overlook this peculiarity of Russia; for Kievsky it is unpardonable. The sheer absurdity of trying to discover some serious
difference between oppressed nations and colonies in the case of Russia
should be especially clear to a Russian socialist who wants not simply to
repeat , but to think . — Lenin

[4]

 — Lenin

[5]

 — Lenin

[6]

Golos (The Voice)—a Menshevik daily paper published in Paris
from September 1914 to January 1915, with Trotsky playing a leading part in
its editorship. The first five issues appeared under the title Nash Golos (Our Voice). Followed a Centrist policy and in the early days of
the First World War published L. Martov’s articles against tie
social-chauvinists. Subsequently Martov shifted to the right and the
paper’s policy changed in favour of the social-chauvinists. In January 1915
it was replaced by Nashe Slovo (Our Word).

The Organising Committee —the leading Menshevik centre,
inaugurated at the August 1912 Conference of liquidators. In the First
World War the Organising Committee followed a social-chauvinist
policy, justified tsarist Russia’s part in the war and carried on jingoist
propaganda. Published a magazine Nasha Zarya (Our Dawn) and, after
its closure, Nashe Dyelo (Our Cause), later renamed
Dyelo , and the newspaper Rabocheye Utro (Workers’
Morning), later renamed Utro . The O.C. functioned up to the
elections of the Menshevik Central Committee in August 1917. Besides the
0. C. which operated inside Russia, there was a Secretariat Abroad composed
of five secretaries—P. B. Axelrod, I. S. Astrov-Poves, Y. O. Martov,
A. S. Martynov and S. Y. Semkovsky. It followed a pro-Centrist line and
used internationalist phraseology to cover up its support of the Russian
social-chauvinists. The Secretariat Abroad published a,newspaper,
Izvestia (News), which appeared from February 1915 to March 1917.

Semkovsky’s article “Russia Disintegrating?”, to which Lenin
evidently refers, appeared in Nashe Slovo No. 45, March 21, 1915.