V. I.

Lenin

A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

4. The Example of Norway

Norway “achieved” the supposedly unachievable right to self-determination in 1905, in the era of the most rampant imperialism. It
is therefore not only absurd, but ludicrous, from the theoretical
standpoint, to speak of “unachievability”.

Kievsky wants to refute that by angrily calling us “rationalists”. (What has that to do with it? The rationalist con fines
himself to purely abstract disquisitions, while we have pointed to a very
concrete fact! But perhaps Kievsky is using the foreign word
“rationalist” in the same... how to put it more mildly?... in the same
“unhappy” manner he used the word “extractive” at the beginning of his
article, when he presented his arguments “in extractive form”?)

Kievsky reproaches us. For us, he says, “the important thing is the
appearance of phenomena rather than the real substance”. Well, let us
examine the real substance.

His refutation begins with this example: enactment of a law against
trusts does not prove that their prohibition is unachievable. True
enough. But the example is an unhappy one, for it militates
against Kievsky. Laws are political measures, politics. No
political measure can prohibit economic phenomena. Whatever political form
Poland adopts, whether she be part of Tsarist Russia or Germany, or an
autonomous region, or a politically independent state, there is no
prohibiting or repealing her dependence on the finance capital of the
imperialist powers, or preventing that capital from buying up the shares of
her industries.

The independence Norway “achieved” in 1905 was only political. It
could not affect its economic dependence, nor was this the intention. That is exactly the point made in our theses. We
indicated that self-determination concerns only politics, and it would
therefore be wrong even to raise the question of its economic
unachievability. But here is Kievsky “refuting” this by citing an example
of political bans being powerless against the economy! What a
“refutation”!

To proceed. “One or even many instances of small-scale industry
prevailing over large-scale industry is not sufficient to refute Marx’s
correct proposition that the general development of capitalism is attended
by the concentration and centralisation of production.”

Again, the argument is based on an unfortunate example , chosen
to divert the attention (of the reader and the author) from the substance
of the issue.

We maintain that it would be wrong to speak of the economic
unachievability of self-determination in the same sense as we speak of the
unachievability of labour money under capitalism. Not a single “example”
of such achievability can be cited. Kievsky tacitly admits we are
correct on this point when he shifts to another interpretation of
“unachievability”.

Why does he not do so directly? Why does he not openly and precisely
formulate his proposition: “self-determination, while achievable
in the sense that it is economically possible under capitalism, contradicts
development and is therefore either reactionary or merely an exception”?

He does not do so because a clear formulation of this counter-proposition would immediately expose its author, and he therefore
tries to conceal it.

The law of economic concentration, of the victory of large-scale
production over small, is recognised in our own and the Erfurt
programmes. Kievsky conceals the fact that nowhere is the law of political
or state concentration recognised. If it were the same kind of law—if
there were such a law—then why should not Kievsky formulate it and
suggest that it be added to our programme? Is it right for him to leave us
with a bad, incomplete programme, considering that he has discovered this
new law of state concentration, which is of practical significance since it
would rid our programme of erroneous conclusions?

Kievsky does not formulate that law, does not suggest that it be added
to our programme, because he has the hazy feeling that if he did he would
be making himself a laughing stock. Everyone would laugh at this amusing
imperialist Economism if it were expressed openly and if, parallel with the
law that small-scale production is ousted by large-scale production, there
were presented another “ law ” (connected with the first or
existing side by side with it) of small states being ousted by big ones!

To explain this we shall put only one question to Kievsky: Why is it
that economists (without quotation marks) do not speak of the
“disintegration” of the modern trusts or big banks? Or of the possibility
and achievability of such disintegration? Why is it that even the
“imperialist Economist” (in quotation marks) is obliged to admit that the
disintegration of big states is both possible and achievable, and not only
in general, but, for example, the secession of “small nationalities”
(please note!) from Russia (§e, Chapter II of Kievsky’s article)?

Lastly, to show even more clearly the lengths to which our author goes,
and to warn him, let us note the following:
We all accept the law of large-scale production ousting small-scale
production, but no one is afraid to describe a specific “instance” of
“small-scale industry prevailing over large-scale industry” as a
reactionary phenomenon. No opponent of self-determination has yet
ventured to describe as reactionary Norway’s secession from Sweden, though
we raised the question in our literature as early as 1914 . [1]

Large-scale production is unachievable if, for instance, hand-worked
machines remain. The idea of a mechanical factory “disintegrating” into
handicrafts production is utterly absurd. The imperialist tendency towards
big empires is fully achievable, and in practice is often achieved, in the
form of an imperialist alliance of sovereign and independent—politically
independent—states. Such an alliance is possible and is encountered not
only in the form of an economic merger of the finance capital of two
countries, but also in the form of military “co-operation” in an
imperialist war. National struggle, national insurrection, national
secession are fully “achievable” and are met with in practice under
imperialism. They are even more pronounced, for imperialism does not halt
the development of capitalism and the growth of democratic tendencies among
the mass of the population. On the contrary, it accentuates the
antagonism between their democratic aspirations and the anti-democratic
tendency of the trusts.

It is only from the point of view of imperialist Economism, i.e.,
caricaturised Marxism, that one can ignore, for instance, this specific
aspect of imperialist policy: on the one hand, the present imperialist war
offers examples of how the force of financial ties and economic interests
draws a small, politically independent state into the struggle of the Great
Powers (Britain and Portugal). On the other hand, the violation of
democracy with regard to small nations, much weaker (both economically and
politically) than their imperialist “patrons”, leads either to revolt
(Ireland) or to defection of whole regiments to the enemy (the Czechs). In
this situation it is not only “achievable”, from the point of view of
finance capital, but sometimes even profitable for the trusts, for their imperialist policy, for their
imperialist war, to allow individual small nations as much
democratic freedom as they can, right down to political independence, so as
not to risk damaging their “own” military operations. To overlook the
peculiarity of political and strategic relationships and to repeat
indiscriminately a word learned by rote, “imperialism”, is anything but
Marxism.

0 n Norway, Kievsky tells us, firstly, that she “had always been an
independent state”. That is not true and can only be explained by the
author’s burschikose carelessness and his disregard of political
issues. Norway was not an independent state prior to 1905, though
she enjoyed a very large measure of autonomy. Sweden recognised Norway’s
political independence only after her secession. If Norway “had
always been an independent state”, then the Swedish Government would not
have informed the other powers, on October 26, 1905, that it recognised
Norway’s independence.

Secondly, Kievsky cites a number of statements to prove that Norway
looked to the West, and Sweden to the East, that in one country mainly
British, and in the other German, finance capital was “at work”,
etc. From this he draws the triumphant conclusion: “This example [Norway] neatly fits into our
pattern.”

There you have a sample of the logic of imperialist Economism! Our
theses point out that finance capital can dominate in “any”, “even
independent country”, and all the arguments about self-determination being
“unachievable” from the point of view of finance capital are therefore
sheer confusion. We are given data confirming our proposition
about the part foreign finance capital played in Norway before and
after her secession. And these data are supposed to refute our proposition!

Dilating on finance capital in order to disregard political
issues—is that the way to discuss politics?

No. Political issues do not disappear because of Economism’s faulty
logic. British finance capital was “at work” in Norway before and after
secession. German finance capital was “at work” in Poland prior to her
secession from Russia and will continue to “work” there no matter what political status Poland enjoys. That is so elementary that
it is embarrassing to have to repeat it. But what can one do if the ABC is
forgotten?

Does this dispense with the political question of Norway’s status?
With her having been part of Sweden? With the attitude of the workers when
the secession issue arose?

Kievsky evades these questions because they hit hard at the
Economists. But these questions were posed, and are posed, by life
itself. Life itself posed the question:
Could a Swedish worker who did not recognise Norway’s right to secession
remain a member of the Social-Democratic Party? He could not .

The Swedish aristocrats wanted a war against Norway, and so did the
clericals. That fact does not disappear because Kievsky has “forgotten”
to read about it in the history of the Norwegian people. The Swedish worker
could, while remaining a Social-Democrat, urge the Norwegians to vote
against secession (the Norwegian referendum on secession, held on August
13, 1905, resulted in 368,200 votes for secession and 184 against, with
about 80 per cent of the elector ate taking part). But the Swedish worker
who, like the Swedish aristocracy and bourgeoisie, would deny the
Norwegians the right to decide this question themselves, without the

Swedes and irrespective of their will, would have been a
social-chauvinist and a miscreant the Social-Democratic Party could not tolerate in its ranks .

That is how §9 of our Party Programme should be applied. But our
imperialist Economist tries to lump over this clause. You cannot
jump over it, gentlemen, without falling into the embrace of chauvinism!

And what of the Norwegian worker? Was it his duty, from the
internationalist point of view, to vote for secession? Certainly
not. He could have voted against secession and remained a
Social-Democrat. He would have been betraying his duty as a member of the
Social-Democratic Party only if he had proffered a helping hand to a
Black-Hundred Swedish worker opposed to Norway’s freedom of
secession.

Some people refuse to see this elementary difference in the position of
the Norwegian and Swedish worker. But they expose themselves when they
evade this most concrete of political questions, which we squarely
put to them. They remain silent, try to wriggle out and in that way
surrender their position.

To prove that the “Norwegian” issue can arise in Russia, we
deliberately advanced this proposition: in circumstances of a
purely military and strategic nature a separate Polish state is
fully achievable even now . Kievsky wants to “discuss” that—and
remains silent!

Let us add this: Finland too, out of purely military and
strategic considerations, and given a certain outcome of the
present imperialist war (for instance, Sweden joining the Germans
and the latter’s semi-victory), can become a separate state
without undermining the “achievability” of even a single operation of
finance capital, without making “unachievable” the buying up of Finnish
railway and industrial shares. [2]

Kievsky seeks salvation from unpleasant political issues in an amazing
phrase which is amazingly characteristic of all his “arguments”: “At any
moment... [that is literally what he says at the end of §c, Chapter I]
the Sword of Damocles can strike and put an end to the existence of an
‘independent’ workshop” (a “hint” at little Sweden and Norway).

That, presumably, is genuine Marxism: a separate Norwegian state, whose
secession from Sweden the Swedish Government described as a
“revolutionary measure”, has been in existence only some ten years. Is
there any point in examining the political issues that follow from
this if we have read Hilferding’s Finance Capital and “understood” it in the sense that “at any moment”—if we are to
exaggerate then let’s go the whole hog!—a small state might vanish? Is
there any point in drawing attention to the fact that we have perverted
Marxism into Economism, and that we have turned our pol icy into a rehash
of the speeches of case-hardened Russian chauvinists?

What a mistake the Russian workers must have made in 1905 in seeking a
republic: finance capital had already been mobilised against it in France,
England, etc., and “at any moment” the “Sword of Damocles” could have
struck it down, if it had ever come into being!

*     * *
“ The demand for national self-determination is not ...utopian in the
minimum programme: it does not contradict social development, inasmuch as
its achievement would not halt that development.” That passage from Martov
is challenged by Kievsky in the section in Which he cites the
“statements” about Norway. They prove , again and again, the
generally known fact that Norway’s “self-determination” and secession did not halt either the development of finance
capital generally, or expansion of its operation in particular,
or the buying up of Norway by the English!

There have been Bolsheviks among us, Alexinsky in 1908–10, for
instance, who argued with Martov precisely at a time when Martov
was right! God save us from such “allies”!

---
Notes:
[1]

 — Lenin

[2]

Given one outcome of the present war, the formation of new states in Europe
(Polish, Finnish, etc.) is fully “achievable” without in any way
disturbing the conditions for the development of imperialism and its
power. On the contrary, this would increase the influence,
contacts and pressure of finance capital. But given another outcome, the
formation of new states in Hungary, Czechia, etc., is likewise
“achievable”. The British imperialists are already planning this second
outcome in anticipation of their victory. The imperialist era does not
destroy either the striving for national political independence or its “achievability” within the bounds of world imperialist
relationships. Outside these bounds, however, a republican
Russia, or in general any major democratic transformations anywhere else in
the world are “unachievable” without a series of revolutions and are
unstable without socialism. Kievsky has wholly and completely failed to
understand the relation of imperialism to democracy. — Lenin