"There you have a picture of the specific platform and the specific methods of the "Lefts." This, in fact, explains why the "Lefts" sometimes succeed in luring a part of the workers over to their side with the help of high-sounding "Left" phrases and by posing as the most determined opponents of the Rights, although all the world knows that they, the "Lefts," have the same social roots as the Rights, and that they not infrequently join in an agreement, a bloc, with the Rights in order to fight the Leninist line. That is why it is obligatory for us, Leninists, to wage a fight on two fronts—both against the Right deviation and against the "Left" deviation."
-Joseph Stalin, 'Industrialisation of the country and the Right Deviation in the C.P.S.U.(B.)'
I view the above article by Stalin as one of his most underrated ones. Every possible ideological error I encountered thus far had its right and "left" sides, both seemingly opposed, but always serving the same goal and leading to the same outcome, merely with a different approach. The same is true for Racism in so-called "Communists". This article aims to educate against this danger, and is especially meant for good-faithed Comrades who are unaware of the mistake they are committing.
Right-Wing, Imperialist Racism (or crude nationalism)
Under Imperialism, national chauvinism assumes a special role in the exploitation of nations. Its aim is to keep the people ignorant and disunited, fighting each other instead of fighting for liberty.
What was the real historical reason for settling urgent Balkan problems by means of a war, a war guided by bourgeois and dynastic interests? The chief cause was the weakness of the proletariat in the Balkans, and also the reactionary influence and pressure of the powerful European bourgeoisie. They are afraid of real freedom both in their own countries and in the Balkans; their only aim is profit at other people’s expense; they stir up chauvinism and national enmity to facilitate their policy of plunder and to impede the free development of the oppressed classes of the Balkans.
-Lenin, The Balkan War and Bourgeois Chauvinism
But racial hate does more then that. It not only helps the imperialists to "justify" their enslaving wars and convince people to fight them, but also serves as a crutch for Social-Chauvinists (So-called "Social-Patriots") to prevent anti-war sentiment and action amongst the working class.
Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same economic basis: the interests of a tiny stratum of privileged workers and of the petty bourgeoisie who are defending their privileged position, their “right” to crumbs of the profits “their” national bourgeoisie obtain from robbing other nations, from the advantages of their position as the ruling nation, etc.
Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same ideological-political content: collaboration of classes instead of class struggle, renunciation of revolutionary methods of struggle, helping one’s “own” government in its embarrassed situation instead of taking advantage of these embarrassments for revolution. If we take all the European countries as a whole, if we pay attention not to individuals (even the most authoritative), we will find that it is the opportunist trend that has become the chief bulwark of social-chauvinism, whereas from the camp of the revolutionaries, more or less consistent protests against it are heard nearly everywhere. And if we take, for example, the grouping of trends at the Stuttgart International Socialist Congress in 1907, we will find that international Marxism was opposed to imperialism, while international opportunism was in favour of it already at that time.
-Lenin, Socialism and War
Moreso, it plays a much more insidious purpose. In 1870, Marx had quoted and potentially authored the sentence:
A nation that enslaves another forges its own chains.
-Marx, Confidential Communication on Bakunin
No hyperbole is used here. Engels explained it further:
A people which oppresses another cannot emancipate itself. The power which it uses to suppress the other finally always turns against itself. As long as Russian soldiers remain in Poland, the Russian people cannot free itself either politically or socially. But, at the present state of Russian development it is certain that on the day on which Russia loses Poland the [revolutionary – ed] movement in Russia itself will be powerful enough to overthrow the existing order of things.
-Engels, A Polish Proclamation
And Lenin further still:
(1) Economically, the difference is that sections of the working class in the oppressor nations receive crumbs from the superprofits the bourgeoisie of these nations obtains by extra exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations. Besides, economic statistics show that here a larger percentage of the workers become “straw bosses” than is the case in the oppressed nations, a larger percentage rise to the labour aristocracy. That is a fact. To a certain degree the workers of the oppressor nations are partners of their own bourgeoisie in plundering the workers (and the mass of the population) of the oppressed nations.
(2) Politically, the difference is that, compared with the workers of the oppressed nations, they occupy a privileged position in many spheres of political life.
(3) Ideologically, or spiritually, the difference is that they are taught, at school and in life, disdain and contempt for the workers of the oppressed nations. This has been experienced, for example, by every Great Russian who has been brought up or who has lived among Great Russians.
-Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism
So this 'dominant nation' chauvinism keeps the conditions workers experience in oppressed nations underdeveloped, creates a feedback loop between opportunism and imperialism, and keeps the 'dominant' nation itself oppressed, by enlarging the army and labour aristocracy. It also distracts workers away from the class issue.
Are revolutions in oppressor nations possible?
Was a revolution possible in Russia?
Proletarian internationalism has proven itself stronger than chauvinism, and is in fact the only tool we have to overcome it. Without internationalist solidarity there can be no revolution.
Regarding Britain and Ireland, Marx outlined a few reasons for this case. Some were more universal in nature, and others more particular:
I have become more and more convinced—and it is only a question of driving this conviction home to the English working class — that it can never do anything decisive here in England until it separates its policy with regard to Ireland most definitely from the policy of the ruling classes, until it not only makes common cause with the Irish but even takes the initiative in dissolving the Union established in 1801 and replacing it by a free federal relationship. And this must be done, not as a matter of sympathy with Ireland but as a demand made in the interests of the English proletariat. If not, the English people will remain tied to the leading-strings of the ruling classes, because it will have to join with them in a common front against Ireland. Every one of its movements in England itself is crippled by the strife with the Irish, who form a very important section of the working class in England. The primary condition of emancipation here—the overthrow of the English landed oligarchy—remains impossible because its position here cannot be stormed so long as it maintains its strongly entrenched outposts in Ireland. But, once affairs are in the hands of the Irish people itself, once it is made its own legislator and ruler, once it becomes autonomous, the abolition there of the landed aristocracy (to a large extent the same persons as the English landlords) will be infinitely easier than here, because in Ireland it is not merely a simple economic question but at the same time a national question, for the landlords there are not, like those in England, the traditional dignitaries and representatives of the nation, but its mortally hated oppressors. And not only does England’s internal social development remain crippled by her present relations with Ireland; but also her foreign policy, and in particular her policy with regard to Russia and the United States of America.
-_Marx, Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover_
In other words, for the British worker to liberate themselves, they must fight for the Irish workers and support them in both words and deeds. Marx advocated replacing the U.K. with a voluntary federation of nations, quite akin to the U.S.S.R.
And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.
[...]
England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.
-_Marx, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York_
In the above letter Marx expressed his support for a federation once again:
I had intended to submit further motions on the necessary transformation of the present Union (i.e., enslavement of Ireland into a free and equal federation with Great Britain.
-_Marx, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New York_
So far the situation is clear and intuitive. Opportunism has known social roots, and to effectively combat it we must combat national chauvinism at the same time. We have a historical example to look at in Tsarist Russia. Regardless if one is nationally oppressed or not, they have every reason to make common cause with workers from the other side, as both are economically oppressed, and can help break each other's chains. The classical Marxist slogan "Workers of the world, Unite!" is quite literally a blueprint for victory.
With all that in mind, we can get to the issue.
Ultra"Left", Petty-Bourgeoisie Racism (or "refined" nationalism)
While the previous chauvinism is relegated away from any self-proclaimed Communist, many otherwise good Comrades buy into this one. This is due to its cloaking with "leftist" phrases. We are committed to solidarity with the oppressed and active support for their national liberation; But it is mistaken to assume we support nationalism, and adopt nationalist views ourselves.
Have a look at Lenin's directives:
The class-conscious workers fight hard against every kind of nationalism, both the crude, violent, Black-Hundred nationalism, and that most refined nationalism which preaches the equality of nations together with ... the splitting up of the workers’ cause, the workers’ organisations and the working-class movement according to nationality. Unlike all the varieties of the nationalist bourgeoisie, the class conscious workers, carrying out the decisions of the recent (summer 1913) conference of the Marxists, stand, not only for the most complete, consistent and fully applied equality of nations and languages, but also for the amalgamation of the workers of the different nationalities in united proletarian organisations of every kind.
[...]
The interests of proletarian solidarity and comradely unity in the workers’ class struggle call for the fullest equality of nations with a view to removing every trace of national distrust, estrangement, suspicion and enmity.
[...]
To the bourgeoisie, however, the demand for national equality very often amounts in practice to advocating national exclusiveness and chauvinism; they very often couple it with advocacy of the division and estrangement of nations. This is absolutely incompatible with proletarian internationalism, which advocates, not only closer relations between nations, but the amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities in a given state in united proletarian organisations.
[...]
This is a plan of refined nationalism, which corrupts and divides the working class. To this plan (of the Bundists, liquidators and Narodniks, i. e., of the various petty-bourgeois groups), the Marxists contrapose the principle of complete equality of nations and languages and go to the extent of denying the necessity of an official language; at the same time they advocate the closest possible relations between the nations, uniform state institutions for all nations, uniform school boards, a uniform education policy (secular education!) and the unity of the workers of the different nations in the struggle against the nationalism of every national bourgeoisie, a nationalism which is presented in the form of the slogan “national culture” for the purpose of deceiving simpletons.
-Lenin, Corrupting the Workers with Refined Nationalism
Any kind of behaviour that divides the workers and alienates them is hostile to us. This includes those directed against majority groups, and groups not suffering certain types of oppression, provided they still suffer from economic oppression and do not exploit the labour of others.
Recall how Marx advocated for a federation of nations. He did not incite prejudice against the English, neither did he dismiss their revolutionary potential or status as workers. He identified that English capitalists were enslaving the Irish workers, using their enslavement to enslave the English workers further, and advocated for the joint struggle of the two. The Irish and Brit must fight together for the emancipation of both; The workers of the world have no nation.
Imagine his indignation, would he have seen Sakai and other third worldists. Imagine Lenin, after dedicating so long to unite the nations under the boot of the Tsar, seeing someone belittle Russians for being Russians/Whites/Russia being imperialist/ect. This is equally as absurd as attacking Europeans (Like the British or the Germans) and white Americans, all because of some immutable trait.
These workers must, especially the Communists within their ranks, fight for the freedom of all oppressed nations, especially those oppressed by their own.
Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. Therefore, they must without fail demand that the Social-Democratic parties of oppressing countries (especially of the so-called “great” powers) should recognise and champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, precisely in the political sense of the term, i.e., the right to political secession. The Socialist of a ruling or colony-owning nation who fails to champion this right is a chauvinist.
-Lenin, Socialism and War
But Communists from oppressed nations have an important part to play in this:
The Socialists of oppressed nations must, in their turn, unfailingly fight for the complete (including organisational) unity of the workers of the oppressed and oppressing nationalities. The idea of the juridical separation of one nation from another (so-called “cultural-national autonomy” advocated by Bauer and Renner) is reactionary.
-Lenin, Socialism and War
Lenin stressed that in the oppressing nation, the Proletariat as a class must fight for the liberty of oppressed nations, while in the oppressed nations, the Socialists must fight for "absolute unity" between the workers, not only in organizational forms.
The proletariat of the oppressing nations cannot confine itself to the general hackneyed phrases against annexations and for the equal rights of nations in general, that may be repeated by any pacifist bourgeois. The proletariat cannot evade the question that is particularly “unpleasant” for the imperialist bourgeoisie, namely, the question of the frontiers of a state that is based on national oppression. The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed nations within the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of political secession for the colonies and for the nations that “its own” nation oppresses. Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase; mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed nations will be impossible; the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of self-determination who maintain silence about the nations which are oppressed by “their” nation and forcibly retained within “their” state will remain unexposed.
The Socialists of the oppressed nations, on the other hand, must particularly fight for and maintain complete, absolute unity (also organizational) between the workers of the oppressed nation and the workers of the oppressing nation. Without such unity it will be impossible to maintain an independent proletarian policy and class solidarity with the proletariat of other countries in the face of all the subterfuge, treachery and trickery of the bourgeoisie; for the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations always converts the slogan of national liberation into a means for deceiving the workers; in internal politics it utilizes these slogans as a means for conduding reactionary agreements with the bourgeoisie of the ruling nation (for instance, the Poles in Austria and Russia, who entered into pacts with reaction in order to oppress the Jews and the Ukrainians); in the realm of foreign politics it strives to enter into pacts with one of the rival imperialist powers for the purpose of achieving its own predatory aims (the policies of the small states in the Balkans, etc.).
-Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination
Some so-called "Communists" have taken a liking to this "refined" nationalism of the bund. They mock people on the basis of nationality, sometimes worse still, the colour of their skin. If calling a British person a "cracker" does not disgust you, this can only mean you became so immersed in prejudice it became axiomatic to you.
I do not care what "jokes" you make in private. But if you use slurs like the "oid" suffix, which has its roots in anti-Mongolian slurs, if you call German people German "people", if you do anything that splits the working class instead of uniting it, you are as reactionary as the ghosts you are fighting. You might have even been doing it without understanding all of this. If so, stop doing it. Nobody is above making mistakes, but you can choose to be better once you know them.
If you persist in this behaviour, knowing many of you are from oppressor nations yourselves, you are directly hurting the efforts of Communists from oppressed populations of uniting all workers. You are all Chauvinsts, and I urge every Communist with the slightest conviction to cut all contacts with such rot. If you would have cared for minorities, or for anything different then your idealist sense of self-righteousness, you would have understood your actions hurt national-liberation and Socialism directly, instead of dismissing everything I presented here, including the many quotes from Marx and Lenin, as the "rumblings of a cracker", due to the dissonance you experience by being called out.
Appendix: Racism feeds Racism
Exclusionary behaviour from both deviations will allow the Bourgeoisie to sow enmity based on fear. For example, political "Conservative" voters are driven by fear and anxiety, not hate. In their heads the propaganda drawn against us is reality. If we show them they have much in common with the oppressed groups a great blow will be dealt to Capital. Agitate for solidarity, agitate against exploitation, agitate against splitting the working class.
