By Aníbal and Fred Corvo
Circolo internazionalista “coalizione operaia” – Prospettiva Marxista (CI-PM) has published the article “Il ‘sinistrismo maschera del Mossad’?” (“The ‘left-wing mask of the Mossad’?”)
In it there is a defense of the revolutionary internationalism that the proletariat needs, as well as a series of appropriate denunciations of forces that claim to be internationalist but in fact, in the case of the Gaza-Palestine war, defend and call for the defense of Palestinian bourgeois nationalism.
CI-PM refer to Lenin, who is their fundamental reference on the question of internationalism and national liberation struggles.
We have already criticized the Leninist and neo-Leninist approaches and proposals in general and in relation to the conjunctural issues in which they have been concretized on several occasions [1], without receiving any response or critical evaluation from CI-PM.
Since we see that they continue in this direction, we will insist on our criticism.
CI-PM argue in this article:
“Apparently, it is enough to make abundant use of the word ‘colonial’ to transform the reactionary Palestinian bourgeoisie into a progressive force, erasing at a stroke a century of imperialist maturation of world capitalism, perhaps misquoting the Lenin that the fake communists like, apparently not the generally unacceptable ‘Kautskyite’ Lenin of What is to be done? but the one not understood or falsified in the Marxist analysis of the national question”.
…”Supporting any ‘people’ in the present imperialist phase has nothing classist or even internationalist about it. It means, in reality, supporting the ruling class of the ‘people’ you claim to support: that is, a bourgeoisie that cannot but be reactionary in its present state. And no ridiculous ‘self-certification’ of internationalism will stand up.”
Source: our translation from
https://www.facebook.com/prospettivamarxista (31-5-2024) or
https://coalizioneoperaia.com/2024/05/29/il-sinistrismo-maschera-del-mossad/
CI-PM speaks of a Lenin “not understood or falsified in the Marxist analysis of the national question.”
It is necessary to ask which Lenin is this Lenin and what would he say?
CI-PM does not quote anything concrete defended by Lenin, but assures that after more than a century of imperialist maturation of world capitalism, one cannot speak of the Palestinian bourgeoisie as a progressive force, but that it is in fact a reactionary force. For them, as for other forces that claim to be internationalist and defenders of the heritage of Lenin’s positions and methods (for example, the Communist Lotta type), capitalism already closed the so-called “progressive cycle” of national liberation movements after the Second World War (although there can be nuances in the historical date).
With this approach, which considers the state of Israel and Palestinian nationalism as reactionary and anti-proletarian forces, CI-PM calls for not supporting either side and defends the need for internationalist revolutionary defeatism, which is appropriate and convenient for us, but with problems of theoretical and historical foundation… due to the Leninist reference they use.
For Lenin, the program of socialism also demands the fulfillment of the bourgeois-democratic program, which the bourgeoisie itself does not carry out. On the national question, Lenin defends the following:
“At a time when bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Eastern Europe and Asia have begun, in this period of the awakening and intensification of national movements and of the formation of independent proletarian parties, the task of these parties with regard to national policy must be twofold: recognition of the right of all nations to self-determination, since bourgeois-democratic reform is-not yet completed and since working-class democracy consistently, seriously and sincerely (and not in a liberal, Kokoshkin fashion) fights for equal rights for nations; then, a close, unbreakable alliance in the class struggle of the proletarians of all nations in a given state, throughout all the changes in its history, irrespective of any reshaping of the frontiers of the individual states by the bourgeoisie.”
Source: The Right of Nations to Self-Determination. Ch. 7. February-May 1914: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch07.htm
CI-PM should show that this Leninist approach is no longer valid, by providing arguments. It does not.
Let us continue with Lenin, who also defended:
“I have already written in my works on the national question that abstract framing of the question of nationalism in general simply will not do. It is essential to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressing nation and the nationalism of the oppressed nation, the nationalism of the big nation and the nationalism of the small nation.”
On the Question of Nationalities or of ‘Autonomization’:
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/transcaucasia/transcaucasia-texts/lenin-on-nationality-policy/
We repeat the above. And we add: Israel, as a powerful imperialist state with strong international ties, has carried out all kinds of moves to deny, limit or dismantle such a Palestinian national state, and the most that has been achieved is the conformation of a PNA tied to Israel, a Gaza in the hands of Hamas and a strong Palestinian diaspora in camps and groupings in Arab countries above all (Lebanon, Jordan…). The claim of the Palestinian bourgeoisie is not against pre-capitalism and capitalism, neither in Palestine nor in the world, and if it were to be achieved, it would only be to obtain a territory in its favor with borders and an army to ensure its quota of capturing the surplus value based on the exploitation and domination of the proletariat. This should never be defended by those of us who want world communism.
The era of national movements of bourgeois emancipation, which brought about the development of capitalism, ended with the imperialist enthronement of capitalism, something Lenin and Bolshevism never accepted. The independence movements continued to manifest themselves, but they were no longer movements of the national bourgeoisie to put an end to pre-capitalist forces, but pro-capitalist forces that had to compete intensely economically, that had to compete fiercely for quotas of the imperialist distribution of the world, of its redistributions, by means of economic and political force and, as it could not be otherwise, by means of the crudest militarism. A capitalist power with limited imperialist capacities does not cease to be an imperialist power of capital, and as it is verified daily and historically, it has to boil with expansive energy and defend itself with all possible means, for which it has to establish relations, agreements and strategic alliances of imperialist type with powers that have greater capacities than itself, with regional or international imperialist powers, with other similar ones, in order to form a coalition and gain strength and offensive and defensive capacities. The Zionist movement has been very active in this sense, but also the Palestinian national movement, both current and its predecessors, and the same can be said of pan-Arabism, the Arab social nationalism of other times.
Let us return to the Leninist approach. On December 30, 1922, in the text On the Question of Nationalities or of ‘Autonomization’, Lenin defends:
“(…) the harm which accrues not only to us but to the entire International, to the hundreds of millions of people in Asia who will have to come to the fore on the historical stage in the very near future, following after us. It would be unforgivable opportunism if, on the eve of this emergence of the East and at the beginning of its awakening we were to undermine our authority within it by even the slightest rudeness and injustice toward those of other nationalities living in our country. It is one thing to have to rally together against the imperialists of the West who defend the capitalist world. Here there can be no doubts and it is superfluous for me to say that I approve of these measures absolutely. It is quite another matter when we give way, if only in trifles, to imperialist attitudes toward oppressed nationalities, thereby undermining completely all our sincerity of principle, all our defense in principle of the struggle against imperialism. And tomorrow in world history will be a day when the aroused peoples oppressed by imperialism will wake up once and for all and when a vigorous, long and difficult battle will begin for their liberation”.
Source: https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1921-2/transcaucasia/transcaucasia-texts/lenin-on-nationality-policy/)
And again, CI-PM must provide arguments to show that what Lenin defends is outdated.
CI-PM, like other followers of Lenin on the national question and imperialism, can claim that the “real” and not “misunderstood” Lenin would say … what they say.
No one can say that, because Lenin has been dead for a century.
But we have their positions and their methodology, as well as their conceptions of imperialism. If we follow them rigorously and thoroughly, we could not call Palestine an imperialist economy, but we could call Israel’s economy an imperialist economy because of its concentration, the role of finance capital and monopolies, its international monopolist and imperialist friendships… etc. Because Leninists are supposed to follow Lenin’s approach of the five famous characteristics of capitalist imperialism, which he presents in his famous book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism [2].
To define the Palestinian side as bourgeois, it is enough to see its characteristics in relation to the ownership of the means of production and distribution of Palestinian society, the Palestinian class structure as it exists and reproduces itself, the prevailing economic and social relations, in sum. Now, to define it as imperialist, we no longer find any possible support in Lenin… and it is notorious and very significant that his followers have to speak of the Palestinian bourgeoisie as having “external imperialist links”.
Following Lenin, there is no justification to define the Palestinian national cause as imperialist, because for Lenin there are imperialist countries and non-imperialist dominated countries, imperialist forces of the international capital and bourgeois dominated forces that are forced to take the path of “struggle against imperialism” to try to assert their needs and intentions of national emancipation. Moreover, for Lenin, the future of the world was determined by this present and future vessel of the struggles of the dominated peoples against the imperialist powers, as stated in the Leninist Theses of the Third International on National Liberation Movements [3].
Could Lenin have come to the same conclusion as CI-PM, Lotta Comunista and the like? Suppose so, but then he would have had to modify his positions and grassroots approaches.
Lenin and Bolshevism do not serve as a basis for a theoretical and practical internationalist struggle, and for this we have in communism only the clarity of the German-Dutch communist left.
But this is what the collectives, groups and parties that defend Leninism and neo-Leninism ARE attracted to. That is why they make many partridges dizzy and spread various rhetoric, while avoiding a serious and rigorous historical materialist confrontation on this problem.
CI-PM commits a notorious fallacy, it is completely wrong when it says
…”There is nothing classist or even internationalist about supporting any ‘people’ in the present imperialist phase”.
This implies that Lenin, when he called for the defense of certain peoples fighting for their effective self-determination… was not only wrong, but that by defending his position he opposed internationalism… No, for Lenin, outside of Western Europe and the U.S., there were conditions for communism to defend certain national democratic movements. Again, see the Leninist Theses of the Third International (our note 3) and what we have pointed out is verified.
Aníbal and Fred Corvo, 4-6-2024
[1] See in Spanish:
- https://inter-rev.foroactivo.com/t10940-pasados-mas-de-cien-anos-la-izquierda-comunista-germano-holandesa-y-lenin-ante-el-capitalismo-el-imperialismo-la-autodeterminacion-nacional-y-los-nacionalismos?highlight=lenin
- https://inter-rev.foroactivo.com/t11017-la-guerra-interimperialista-en-ucrania-de-luxemburgo-pannekoek-gorter-y-lenin-al-comunismo-de-consejos-fredo-corvo?highlight=lenin
- https://inter-rev.foroactivo.com/t12488-circolo-internazionalista-coalizione-operaia-critica-a-dos-de-sus-posicionamientos-el-leninismo-engendra-confusion-y-apoyo-a-bandos-burgueses?highlight=Circolo+Internazionalista++Coalizione+Operaia
English:
- F.C., The inter-imperialist war in Ukraine – From Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Gorter and Lenin to “Council-Communism” : https://leftdis.wordpress.com/2022/05/01/the-inter-imperialist-war-in-ukraine/ 1-5-2023
- Aníbal, Circolo Internazionalista “Coalizione Operaia”. Critique of two of its positions. 14-11-2023
[2] These are the 5 characteristics defined by Lenin:
“(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.”
Source: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Ch.VII. Imperialism as a special stage of capitalism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm
[3] Those of the II Congress, where it is defended, among other things:
… “2) (…) the Communist Party, as the avowed champion of the proletarian struggle to overthrow the bourgeois yoke, must base its policy, in the national question too, not on abstract and formal principles but, first, on a precise appraisal of the specific historical situation and, primarily, of economic conditions; second, on a clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes, of working and exploited people, and the general concept of national interests as a whole, which implies the interests of the ruling class; third, on an equally clear distinction between the oppressed, dependent and subject nations and the oppressing, exploiting and sovereign nations, in order to counter the bourgeois-democratic lies that play down this colonial and financial enslavement of the vast majority of the world’s population by an insignificant minority of the richest and advanced capitalist countries.”
… “11) (…) all Communist parties must assist the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement in these countries, and that the duty of rendering the most active assistance rests primarily with the workers of the country the backward nation is colonially or financially dependent on”.
… ” The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form”
Source: Lenin, Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions
For The Second Congress Of The Communist International: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm
Also see these fragments from theses added by the Indian delegation:
“1. – One of the most important questions that faces the Second Congress of the Communist International is to establish exactly the mutual relations between the Communist International and the revolutionary movements in the politically oppressed countries dominated by their own capitalist system, like India and China.”.
“6. – The foreign imperialism violently forced upon the peoples of the East has without doubt hindered their social and economic development and robbed them of the opportunity of reaching the same level of development as has been achieved in Europe and America. (…)
Foreign domination constantly obstructs the free development of social life; therefore the revolution’s first step must be the removal of this foreign domination. The struggle to overthrow foreign domination in the colonies does not therefore mean underwriting the national aims of the national bourgeoisie, but much rather smoothing the path to liberation for the proletariat of the colonies.
7. – Two movements can be discerned which are growing further and further apart with every day that passes. One of them is the bourgeois-democratic nationalist movement, which pursues the programme of political liberation with the conservation of the capitalist order; the other is the struggle of the property-less peasants for their liberation from every kind of exploitation. The first movement attempts, often with success, to control the second; the Communist International must, however, fight against any such control, and the development of the class consciousness of the working masses of the colonies must consequently be directed towards the overthrow of foreign capitalism.”
Source: supplementary theses provided by the Indian delegation for
The Second Congress Of The Communist International:
https://equalspublishing.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/reader-ep_comintern_1920_national-colonial.pdf
Left wing communism 
Recent Comments