I've been coming across this specific passage by a lot of leftcoms and Trotskyists when it comes to the Marxist-Leninist push to critically support anti-imperialism around the world. I know it's a response to Kievsky (not exactly sure what he was talking about either), but I'm having trouble understanding the context it's said in and what it means. Does it directly contradict ML critical support of Iran, Palestine (non-PFLP), Russia, etc.
Why must “we” “actively resist” suppression of a national uprising? P. Kievsky advances only one reason: “...we shall thereby be combating imperialism, our mortal enemy.” All the strength of this argument lies in the strong word “mortal”. And this is in keeping with his penchant for strong words instead of strong arguments—high-sounding phrases like “driving a stake into the quivering body of the bourgeoisie” and similar Alexinsky flourishes.
But this Kievsky argument is wrong. Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
cfgaussian - 2mon
This is what happens when you take things out of their historical context. When Lenin writes about an uprising of "reactionary classes" against capitalism, what classes is he referring to? He is talking about the literal feudal class! Yes, compared to them, capitalism was indeed progressive at the time. Those classes practically no longer exist today! And where there are still vestiges of them they have been inextricably subsumed into the bourgeoisie.
We live in a completely different time than 1916's Russia. The most reactionary classes today are those supporting capitalism and imperialism. Nor is the capitalism of today the same as in Lenin's time. We live in the age of neoliberalism where capitalism has long since turned into a moribund and decrepit system, a financialized parasitic rentier system that is actively holding the world and its development back, much like feudalism was doing in the 19th century, rather than propelling it forward industrially and productively.
Does it directly contradict ML critical support of Iran, Palestine (non-PFLP), Russia, etc.
Absolutely not. In no way do any of these qualify as the "reactionary classes" that Lenin was talking about. None of these are remotely as reactionary as the western bourgeoisie and their empire and no one can seriously say that they are.
I would also remind you that Lenin is not the only communist theorist who had something to say about these things, especially when his analysis was very much of his time and others who lived longer and witnessed the way that world events developed further then expanded on his and Marx's theories.
We know from Mao for example how important it is to correctly identify primary and secondary contradictions. What is the primary contradiction in the world today? What is by far the most reactionary force and biggest obstacle to socialism? No serious Marxist can claim that the contradictions within Iran, Palestine or Russia take precedence over the global contradiction that is imperialism.
12
Taosti - 2mon
Thanks for the response, that makes a lot of sense! If possible, can you direct me to some more information about this historical context? I've had some trouble finding anything.
6
小莱卡 - 2mon
I'll intervene here and come out to recommend Domenico Losurdo Class Struggle. There is a chapter in that book that analyzes Marx and Engels fervent support of the abolitionist side in the american civil war which i think is relevant to this discussion.
The entire book revolves around carefully evaluating the nuances of global class struggle and how seemingly reactionary forces are in fact progressive forces in determinate circunstamces, along with a lot of analysis of Marx/Engels own thoughts.
7
cfgaussian - 2mon
Good question. I think it comes from reading a lot about European history, like the struggles between the aristocracy and bourgeoisie in 18th and 19th centuries, things like the French revolution, the Junker class in Germany, Tsarism and serfdom in Russia, and just the historical development of capitalism in general. I don't know if there is one single source that covers all of this. For sure Marx and Engels talked a bit about the societal transition that was occurring in Europe in the 19th century.
I would just say, try to read or learn as much about history as you can. Find topics that interest you and use that interest as a starting point to learn history. I've said this before, i think that someone who is trying to learn Marxist theory needs to devote almost as much time to learning history too. It's called Historical and Dialectical Materialism for a reason. Skipping history is a bit like trying to learn science without math. It's fine if you just want to get into it on a casual level, but you're going to struggle with real scientific literature.
I'm sorry that I can't give you something more concrete right now (i'd need to take some time to research and vet sources that are good for beginners), i hope someone else can give you a few actual recommendations.
6
OBJECTION! - 2mon
It's actually completely opposite of that.
Kievsky's position is essentially that of the "no state solution" types. He rejects the idea of defending or establishing any nation under any circumstances, on the basis that that would fall into the "defense of the fatherland" line which socialists reject.
Lenin clarifies that the reason that socialists reject "the defense of the fatherland" as a justification is that it's an empty slogan that can easily be applied to any conflict. Today, the justification for the Iran War is that Iran could get nukes to launch at other countries, so the US is "defending" against that threat. Likewise, in WWI, armies occupying enemy territory could claim that they were "defending the fatherland" by removing another country's ability to attack them.
But rejecting the phrase as an empty slogan is not the same as knee-jerk opposing anything that could be characterized as "defending the fatherland." He argues that it should be rejected in the case of WWI because it is a lie, that WWI was not actually about defending anybody's fatherland, but rather was driven by imperialist conquest on all sides. As he explains:
The present imperialist war stems from the general conditions of the imperialist era and is not accidental, not an exception, not a deviation from the general and typical. Talk of defence of the fatherland is therefore a deception of the people, for this war is not a national war. In a genuinely national war the words “defence of the fatherland” are not a deception and we are not opposed to it.
Although Kievsky does not support national independence movements, he also clarifies that he does not support suppressing them, because he does not support the nations they're trying to become independent from. All of these "nots" should sound familiar, you can hear similar stuff from liberals here on lemmy every day, if you never support any real life faction, you can safely evade all criticism while lobbing it at everyone else. This is what leads to the convoluted triple negative of "avoid suppressing national uprisings."
If he were alive today, he'd be saying, "Yes, I condemn Hamas, but that doesn't mean I support Israel suppressing them."
Kievsky argues that, while both sides are bad because they're both nationalist and seeking to "defend the fatherland," national liberation movements are useful in that they strike a blow against imperialism, which is the most important thing.
By this logic, socialists should support, sorry, "avoid suppressing" the Confederacy because it "strikes a blow against imperialism." This is what Lenin is talking about when he says, "We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism."
Lenin's position was that there is not universal principle that can be applied to any and all independence movements. In fact, he even argues that different groups can and should take different lines on the same indepenence movement, that people from an oppressor country should be especially supportive of an independence movement in order to counter chauvanism. A Palestinian critiquing Palestinian movements is very different from an American doing so.
It's clear that anyone interpreting it the way you mentioned either hasn't read anything other than that quote or is being deliberately disingenuous. At one point Lenin actually says that Swedes should be "unconditionally" (!) supportive of a bourgeoisie-driven Norwegian independence movement (though he said Norwegians should be more critical)! Unconditionally supportive of a bourgeois movement! That's how far Lenin was willing to go with his support of national independence movements.
Taosti in theory
Lenin's "Monism And Dualism" vs. Anti-Imperialism
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htmI've been coming across this specific passage by a lot of leftcoms and Trotskyists when it comes to the Marxist-Leninist push to critically support anti-imperialism around the world. I know it's a response to Kievsky (not exactly sure what he was talking about either), but I'm having trouble understanding the context it's said in and what it means. Does it directly contradict ML critical support of Iran, Palestine (non-PFLP), Russia, etc.
This is what happens when you take things out of their historical context. When Lenin writes about an uprising of "reactionary classes" against capitalism, what classes is he referring to? He is talking about the literal feudal class! Yes, compared to them, capitalism was indeed progressive at the time. Those classes practically no longer exist today! And where there are still vestiges of them they have been inextricably subsumed into the bourgeoisie.
We live in a completely different time than 1916's Russia. The most reactionary classes today are those supporting capitalism and imperialism. Nor is the capitalism of today the same as in Lenin's time. We live in the age of neoliberalism where capitalism has long since turned into a moribund and decrepit system, a financialized parasitic rentier system that is actively holding the world and its development back, much like feudalism was doing in the 19th century, rather than propelling it forward industrially and productively.
Absolutely not. In no way do any of these qualify as the "reactionary classes" that Lenin was talking about. None of these are remotely as reactionary as the western bourgeoisie and their empire and no one can seriously say that they are.
I would also remind you that Lenin is not the only communist theorist who had something to say about these things, especially when his analysis was very much of his time and others who lived longer and witnessed the way that world events developed further then expanded on his and Marx's theories.
We know from Mao for example how important it is to correctly identify primary and secondary contradictions. What is the primary contradiction in the world today? What is by far the most reactionary force and biggest obstacle to socialism? No serious Marxist can claim that the contradictions within Iran, Palestine or Russia take precedence over the global contradiction that is imperialism.
Thanks for the response, that makes a lot of sense! If possible, can you direct me to some more information about this historical context? I've had some trouble finding anything.
I'll intervene here and come out to recommend Domenico Losurdo Class Struggle. There is a chapter in that book that analyzes Marx and Engels fervent support of the abolitionist side in the american civil war which i think is relevant to this discussion.
The entire book revolves around carefully evaluating the nuances of global class struggle and how seemingly reactionary forces are in fact progressive forces in determinate circunstamces, along with a lot of analysis of Marx/Engels own thoughts.
Good question. I think it comes from reading a lot about European history, like the struggles between the aristocracy and bourgeoisie in 18th and 19th centuries, things like the French revolution, the Junker class in Germany, Tsarism and serfdom in Russia, and just the historical development of capitalism in general. I don't know if there is one single source that covers all of this. For sure Marx and Engels talked a bit about the societal transition that was occurring in Europe in the 19th century.
I would just say, try to read or learn as much about history as you can. Find topics that interest you and use that interest as a starting point to learn history. I've said this before, i think that someone who is trying to learn Marxist theory needs to devote almost as much time to learning history too. It's called Historical and Dialectical Materialism for a reason. Skipping history is a bit like trying to learn science without math. It's fine if you just want to get into it on a casual level, but you're going to struggle with real scientific literature.
I'm sorry that I can't give you something more concrete right now (i'd need to take some time to research and vet sources that are good for beginners), i hope someone else can give you a few actual recommendations.
It's actually completely opposite of that.
Kievsky's position is essentially that of the "no state solution" types. He rejects the idea of defending or establishing any nation under any circumstances, on the basis that that would fall into the "defense of the fatherland" line which socialists reject.
Lenin clarifies that the reason that socialists reject "the defense of the fatherland" as a justification is that it's an empty slogan that can easily be applied to any conflict. Today, the justification for the Iran War is that Iran could get nukes to launch at other countries, so the US is "defending" against that threat. Likewise, in WWI, armies occupying enemy territory could claim that they were "defending the fatherland" by removing another country's ability to attack them.
But rejecting the phrase as an empty slogan is not the same as knee-jerk opposing anything that could be characterized as "defending the fatherland." He argues that it should be rejected in the case of WWI because it is a lie, that WWI was not actually about defending anybody's fatherland, but rather was driven by imperialist conquest on all sides. As he explains:
Although Kievsky does not support national independence movements, he also clarifies that he does not support suppressing them, because he does not support the nations they're trying to become independent from. All of these "nots" should sound familiar, you can hear similar stuff from liberals here on lemmy every day, if you never support any real life faction, you can safely evade all criticism while lobbing it at everyone else. This is what leads to the convoluted triple negative of "avoid suppressing national uprisings."
If he were alive today, he'd be saying, "Yes, I condemn Hamas, but that doesn't mean I support Israel suppressing them."
Kievsky argues that, while both sides are bad because they're both nationalist and seeking to "defend the fatherland," national liberation movements are useful in that they strike a blow against imperialism, which is the most important thing.
By this logic, socialists should support, sorry, "avoid suppressing" the Confederacy because it "strikes a blow against imperialism." This is what Lenin is talking about when he says, "We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism."
Lenin's position was that there is not universal principle that can be applied to any and all independence movements. In fact, he even argues that different groups can and should take different lines on the same indepenence movement, that people from an oppressor country should be especially supportive of an independence movement in order to counter chauvanism. A Palestinian critiquing Palestinian movements is very different from an American doing so.
It's clear that anyone interpreting it the way you mentioned either hasn't read anything other than that quote or is being deliberately disingenuous. At one point Lenin actually says that Swedes should be "unconditionally" (!) supportive of a bourgeoisie-driven Norwegian independence movement (though he said Norwegians should be more critical)! Unconditionally supportive of a bourgeois movement! That's how far Lenin was willing to go with his support of national independence movements.