Overcoming Sectarianism

[Sky]

Sectarianism in the working-class movement is the isolation or detachment of revolutionary organizations or parties from the toiling masses as a result of mistaken ideological and political orientations, particularly of a leftist and dogmatic character.

Sectarianism emerged in the working-class movement in the first half of the 19th century. At that time it was a specific form of protest against capitalism and was linked with a number of different tendencies in utopian socialism and communism: in France, the Babouvists, the Blanquists, the followers of Saint-Simon and Fourier, and the Proudhonists; in Germany, the “true socialists” and the followers of Weitling; and in England, the Owenites. Engels pointed out that the “confusion” characteristic of the early socialist movement was “to be seen in the formation of numerous sects that fight against each other with at least the same zeal as against the common enemy,”

From the very beginning, scientific communism proclaimed its rejection, in principle of any sectarianism: “The communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.”, declared the Communist Manifesto. The Revolutions of 1848 dealt a blow to pre-Marxist forms of socialism, undermining the position of the countless sects in the working class movement. The history of the First International was characterized by a continuous struggle by the General Council against various sects, which tried to consolidate their position inside the International. Among these sects were the Proudhonists in France, the Lassalleans in Germany, and especially Bakunin’s anarchists.

The Marxist socialist movement experienced symptoms of a new sectarianism associated with ta doctrinaire distortion of Marxism that was to some extent a reaction against the reformist and opportunist tendencies in the Second International. The Social Democratic Federation in England and the Socialist Labor Party in the USA, both of which followed a sectarian line, where sharply criticized by Engels for turning Marx’ theory into a “rigid orthodoxy”. (Letter to A. Sorge). Engels insistently advised the Anglo-American socialists to abandon their narrow, backward, sectarian spirit and merge with the labor movement. Lenin emphasized the great importance of these remarks, especially since he himself was forces struggle continually against sectarianism in the Russian Social Democratic movement—for example, against localism and the “narrow circle” mentality in the late 1890s and 1900s, against Menshevik docrinairism during and after the Revolution of 1905 in Russia, and against the Otzovists and Ultimatists during the years of reaction.

After the October Revolution in Russia, with the rise of the revolutionary working-class movement in a number of counries, the problem of combating sectarianism became even greater in scope and urgency. In addition to throwbacks to earlier sectarianism (the revival of anarchist currents), new sectarian tendencies apepeared in the young Communist parties. Within the Bolshevik party the “Left” Communists and Trotskyists were conveyers of sectarianism. During this period Trotskyism became the greatest danger, for it endeavored to revise the general line of the communist movement. In the western Communist parties the tendency toward sectarianism was also linked with what Lenin called “the infantile disorder of ‘left-wing’ communism—exaggerated revisionism, the rejection of all compromises, and refusal to participate in parliamentary activities or work in the reformist trade unions.

A major step toward overcoming sectarianism in the communist movement was taken by the VII Comintern Congress in 1935, which added a rich, new dimension, based on experience, to the tactics and strategy of the workers’ united front, and proposed a program for creating a popular front against war and fascism. The resolutions of the Comintern Congress outlined a broad platform, free of all sectarian restrictions and advocating the unity of the working class and all democratic forces. The popular front policy and subsequent Communist participation in the organization of antifascist resistance movements, as well as Communist leadership of these movements, imparted new authority to the communists and helped eliminate sectarian tendencies.

Trotskyist, anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, and other petit-bourgeois ultraleftist movements have systematically worked to hinder the unity of all progressive forces. This campaign of slander against Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi resistance, and the Pashtun mujahideen are but the latest example of this.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...anity/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...rs/73_06_20.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/letters/73_06_20.htm)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...rs/94_11_10.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_11_10.htm)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1907/apr/06.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/work...0/lwc/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)

[black magick hustla]

Trotskyist, anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, and other petit-bourgeois ultraleftist movements have systematically worked to hinder the unity of all progressive forces. This campaign of slander against Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi resistance, and the Pashtun mujahideen are but the latest example of this.

Funny thing the old hardline marxist leninists opposed the afghani reactionaries--the same MLs you seem to admire.

Sectarianism is placing one sect above class struggle. Refusing to choose between the national bourgeosie and the "imperial" bourgeosie is not sectarianism, because its embracing class struggle as an alternative.

Cheerleading the action of bosses sending workers to die for their national interests is not communism, for communists do not "conceal the fact that they wish nothing but the forceful overthrow of the social order". I.E. we do not choose a bourgeosie over the other. You seem to forget "workers have no country".

[Sky]

Funny thing the old hardline marxist leninists opposed the afghani reactionaries--the same MLs you seem to admire.
At best, the communist movement was split in regard to the Afghan resistance. The Chinese, Albanian, Yugoslavian, and Romanian communists had regularly condemned Russia for its presence in Afghanistan and in some cases even rendered material assistance to the Afghan patriots. The Soviet intervention was also condemned by certain revisionist organizations such as the Italian and Spanish communist parties.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:19 pm
. This campaign of slander against Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi resistance, and the Pashtun mujahideen are but the latest example of this.


BUt many of these are damaging the working class, thus making them reactionary. I agree with them mery on the anti-zionist aspects, but not their religios sexism and homophobia. It is hard to suport a group and be critical of some elements of them...or critisice them and praise one aspect...so we end up with either secterianism or apathy

[spartan]

I think that all these Marxist-Leninists are being secterian when they complain about secterianisn as they, more often than not, blame it on the Trotskyists and Anarchists (Thus being secterian when complaining about secterianism).

Trotskyist, anarchist, anarcho-syndicalist, and other petit-bourgeois ultraleftist movements have systematically worked to hinder the unity of all progressive forces.
Depends on what you mean by "progressive forces" as i wouldnt want to unite with any forces upholding Stalinist type Marxism-Leninism as its ideology as it is more akin to Nazi style Fascism and State Capitalism then to Socialism.

This campaign of slander against Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi resistance, and the Pashtun mujahideen are but the latest example of this.
Hezbollah are religious Fascists, and thus the enemy of the working class, who appeal to the left as they are fighting the Imperialist Israel.

Hamas and the Iraqi resistance are exactly the same as Hezbollah and show us yet again why we on the left should not regard the enemies of our enemies as our friends as they uphold some very reactionary beliefs such as homophobia and sexism.

The "Pashtun mujahideen" (Why not just call them the Taleban?) are even worse then all the other groups as they openly state that their goal is to have all economic practices revert back to the time of the prophet Muhammad! (Thus making them primitive Feudalists at best).

If you are a Socialist then welcome progression by not supporting groups who uphold primitive and backward beliefs, which wont help anyone but themselves, just because they happen to be fighting the USA and Israel (Who for the most part had a helping hand in the creation and funding of some of these groups as part of their divide and conquer strategy).

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend (Never a better time and place to say that then here).

[Sky]

I think that all these Marxist-Leninists are being secterian when they complain about secterianisn as they, more often than not, blame it on the Trotskyists and Anarchists (Thus being secterian when complaining about secterianism).
Circular reasoning.

unite with any forces upholding Stalinist type Marxism-Leninism as its ideology as it is more akin to Nazi style Fascism then Socialism.
Familiar bourgeois slander. There is no shortage of right-wing liberals seeking to equate Stalin to Hitler and more broadly communism to fascism.

Hezbollah are religious Fascists, and thus the enemy of the working class
Hezbollah reflect the interests of the toiling and oppressed Shia community of Lebanon. The bulk of the Shias are part of the lowest strata of the proletariat.

The concept of "religious fascism" has been endlessly ridiculed by competent scholars of political science. Religion crosses racial, national, lingistic, and ethnic lines. Fascism, by contrast, is based in a single nation-state.


uphold some very reactionary beliefs such as homophobia and sexism.
This is a superficial misunderstanding. That these groups hold homophobic and sexist attitudes is more of a reflection of the society by which they are shaped rather than a product of some abstract ideology. The idea that these groups implant homophobic ideas in the minds of the people is voluntarist nonsense.

Plus, the Communist movement at one time too was not friendly towards homosexuals. But this should discredit the heroic resistance movement of World War II.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend (Never a better time and place to say that then here).
That is debateable. History demonstrates that it is important for groups to set their differences aside in order to achieve a common objective. Such is the basis of the anti-fascist movement.

[Holden Caulfield]

sectarinism should be worked out after the struggle against the common enemy, because time and time again the forces of the right have pulled in centrists to a coalition against the left and won over against the odds,

disunity of the left was the major failing of the 1919-23 risings in the Weimar governed germany,

and the disunity of the left was a massive help to the forces of the nationalists in the Spanish civil war,

[spartan]

I agree with hewhocontrolstheyouth (Nice name ;) ).

If we hate each other so much then we can fight it out amongst ourselves after, and only after, we defeat our biggest and common enemy the Bourgeoisie and their Capitalist system.

Too many times has disunity and secterianism resulted in the left not even being able to defeat Fascists let alone the Bourgeoisie!

I am sure that a few Stalinists getting "accidentally" shot, as i fight my way through to the Bourgeoisie armies front lines, wont matter that much though :D

[black magick hustla]

Hezbollah reflect the interests of the toiling and oppressed Shia community of Lebanon. The bulk of the Shias are part of the lowest strata of the proletariat.


Hesbollah reflects the interests of the anti-imperialist bourgeosie and the islamist leadership. It makes no difference if they are religious or not. Similarly to how it would make no difference if Iran was an islamic theocracy or not. Most of the time, national liberation means sending workers to die for the interest of their bosses.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:19 pm
Sectarianism in the working-class movement is the isolation or detachment of revolutionary organizations or parties from the toiling masses as a result of mistaken ideological and political orientations, particularly of a leftist and dogmatic character.

fallen at the first hurdle. Or maybe it's a matter of definition.

Libertarian Communists (anarchists, syndicalists, council commies) and authorotarian communists (trots, stalinists, leninists) have massive practical and theoretical differences. That would make working together at best unprodutive at worst, fatal to both tendancies.

Bridging that cap is not possible and shouldn't be attempted.


If we hate each other so much then we can fight it out amongst ourselves after,

Depends. If the Anarchists get the upper hand, then the leninists can have their little platform, to spout their crap, no problem to me.

Should they get the majority it is the duty of the anarchists to fight to defend workers power from all threats, including fro mthe Leninists.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Wat Tyler+December 30, 2007 11:35 pm--> (Wat Tyler @ December 30, 2007 11:35 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 11:19 pm
Sectarianism in the working-class movement is the isolation or detachment of revolutionary organizations or parties from the toiling masses as a result of mistaken ideological and political orientations, particularly of a leftist and dogmatic character.

fallen at the first hurdle. Or maybe it's a matter of definition.

Libertarian Communists (anarchists, syndicalists, council commies) and authorotarian communists (trots, stalinists, leninists) have massive practical and theoretical differences. That would make working together at best unprodutive at worst, fatal to both tendancies.

Bridging that cap is not possible and shouldn't be attempted.


If we hate each other so much then we can fight it out amongst ourselves after,

Depends. If the Anarchists get the upper hand, then the leninists can have their little platform, to spout their crap, no problem to me.

Should they get the majority it is the duty of the anarchists to fight to defend workers power from all threats, including fro mthe Leninists. [/b]
good god!

the fact is we don't have such massive ideological differences.

"sectarianism" is a religious term applied to the various "factions" within the revolutionary movement, by those, who either wanna control it or defeat it.

trotsky had the ideal solution to such factionalism, he said, "march seperately but strike together".
this is an obvious recognition of the complimentary role to be played by all factions in the fight against capital.

why do the "anarchists" see their role, "should the leninists gain power" as "defending the working class"?
the "leninists" in a revolutionary situation, will only gain power if "the working class" put them there.
so who will you be protecting the "working class" form? themselves? do you not think they are cquite capable of protecting themselves from themselves? or do they need a "father figure" to guide them and point out their mistakes?
or don't you actually believe in the ability of the proles to liberate and organise on their own behalf?
maybe you "anarchists" better guide us, despite our wishes, to your "brave new world".

[kromando33]

The thing is, 'leftist pluralism' or 'coalitions' are irrelevant because they assume Marxism-Leninism can exist side by side with all other manner of watered-down petty bourgeois left-liberal organizations who do nothing but hinder the class struggle. In reality Marxist-Leninist science refutes all other fake progressive groups through it's practicality to building socialism and by exposing the Hegelianism of the 'new left' of hippies, greens, liberals and other anti-social minority degenerates of society.

[spartan]

The thing is, 'leftist pluralism' or 'coalitions' are irrelevant because they assume Marxism-Leninism can exist side by side with all other manner of watered-down petty bourgeois left-liberal organizations who do nothing but hinder the class struggle. In reality Marxist-Leninist science refutes all other fake progressive groups through it's practicality to building socialism and by exposing the Hegelianism of the 'new left' of hippies, greens, liberals and other anti-social minority degenerates of society.
Marxism-Leninism isnt a science but an anti-working class ideology with a bizzare liking for God like Autocratic rulers, cults of personality surrounding these rulers and the elimination of practically non-existent enemies (Most of whoms only "crime" is to advocate true Socialism i.e. working class ownership and control of the productive forces of society).

Also anyone on the left who isnt Marxist-Leninist isnt necessarily a "Liberal", "green" or a "hippie".

And you arguing such makes you look like an ignorant person who cant take oppossition to your beliefs.

There is a reason why the various Marxist-Leninst regimes had their arses handed to them by the Capitalists.

My advice to you is to move on from the failure and mistakes of the past as no one in their right mind would want a Stalinist style system in their country for the future except for people with military fetishes and delushions of grandeur.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:41 am
At best, the communist movement was split in regard to the Afghan resistance. The Chinese, Albanian, Yugoslavian, and Romanian communists had regularly condemned Russia for its presence in Afghanistan and in some cases even rendered material assistance to the Afghan patriots. The Soviet intervention was also condemned by certain revisionist organizations such as the Italian and Spanish communist parties.
Well, that's certainly a nice company. The Deng clique, who started collaborating with world imperialism, just to get in the way of the "revisionists". Hoxha, 'nuff said. The revisionist Tito. Caeusescu, whose country was at the forefront when it came to revisionist rot, and was also a collaborator. And finally, the Eurocommunists. Not that there was a lot of hope for the Soviets in Afghanistan, but these are also hardly examplary gentlemen.

Anyway, I don't think there is much that can be done about "sectarianism". A lot of people use the term entirely wrongly, and think that "sectarianism" simply refers to the fact that "the left" is split along several currents. I'd be much more worried about actual sectarianism: placing one's own party over the interests of the working class. Of course, there is even disagreement about what those are, and to sum them all up would be a lifelong endeavour. Kronstadt, Makhno and Spain are just three famous examples (defence of the socialist state under fire, or direct workers' control and the abolition of the state?).

Of course, this disagreement is an easy way to label others "sectarians". Maybe the anarchists are sectarian, because they want to place their libertarianism over the socialist state. Or maybe the Leninists are, because they want to centralize their state instead of smashing it. I doubt that it will be solved very easily, or that we're going to change each other's minds.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Marmot+December 29, 2007 04:37 pm--> (Marmot @ December 29, 2007 04:37 pm) Sectarianism is placing one sect above class struggle. Refusing to choose between the national bourgeosie and the "imperial" bourgeosie is not sectarianism, because its embracing class struggle as an alternative.

Well, at least you acknowledge that sectarianism goes far beyond just merely placing one's party above the class struggle.



Anyway, I don't think there is much that can be done about "sectarianism". A lot of people use the term entirely wrongly, and think that "sectarianism" simply refers to the fact that "the left" is split along several currents.I don't mind the divide between anarchists (along with their "autonomous Marxist" buddies) and scientific socialists. What I do mind is the internal divide within the scientific socialist community (which is almost non-existent in the anarchist community):

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67429

That Trotsky quote above - "march separately but strike together" - is ironic, given that, out of the three movements with Leninist Marxism as their common precedent, the Trotskyists are the most group-sectarian, while the Maoists are the most chairman-sectarian ("Avakian Thought" and the "Prachanda Path" come to mind). :(



Then there are also genuine Leninists who keep decrying left-communism as an "infantile disorder" and left-communists, with their more advanced outlook on international organization (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355), returning the favour by claiming that genuine Leninism "had undermined its own role as a proletarian vanguard by fusing with the state (http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left)" - even though during the DOTP such "workers' party-state" is historically necessary.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Jacob Richter+December 31, 2007 03:19 am--> (Jacob Richter @ December 31, 2007 03:19 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:37 pm
Sectarianism is placing one sect above class struggle. Refusing to choose between the national bourgeosie and the "imperial" bourgeosie is not sectarianism, because its embracing class struggle as an alternative.
Well, at least you acknowledge that sectarianism goes far beyond just merely placing one's party above the class struggle.


Van Binsbergen
Anyway, I don't think there is much that can be done about "sectarianism". A lot of people use the term entirely wrongly, and think that "sectarianism" simply refers to the fact that "the left" is split along several currents.

I don't mind the divide between anarchists and scientific socialists. What I do mind is the internal divide within the scientific socialist community (which is almost non-existent in the anarchist community):

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67429

That Trotsky quote above - "march separately but strike together" - is ironic, given that, out of the three movements with Leninist Marxism as their common precedent, the Trotskyists are the most group-sectarian, while the Maoists are the most chairman-sectarian ("Avakian Thought" and the "Prachanda Path" come to mind). :(



Then there are also genuine Leninists who keep decrying left-communism as an "infantile disorder" and left-communists, with their more advanced outlook on international organization (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65355), returning the favour by claiming that genuine Leninism "had undermined its own role as a proletarian vanguard by fusing with the state (http://en.internationalism.org/the-communist-left)" - even though during the DOTP such "workers' party-state" is historically necessary. [/b]
or you could take the view that all "anarchists" are counter revolutionary on the basis that a "social revolutionary" (anarchist) was responsible for the assassination of lenin which led to the rise of satalin and the "defoemed workers state" in the ussr and were directly responsible for the deaths of 600 leading bolsheviks and the subsequent defeat of the world revolution.
or you could put it down to experience, guard against such idiocy in the future and try and work with genuine comrades that want to leave this shit in the past.

just an opinion, no quotes or theoretical argument to back it up.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If today were the first day of proletocratic rule, the first two things I'd do on my end regarding pseudo-communist sectarians:

1) Line up every single chairman-sectarian, including the Maoist Bob Avakian and his ilk, and shoot them;

2) Line up every single group-sectarian, including the sectarians in that Trot Spartacist League, and have them hacked with ice-picks (and to you, Rosa and the more Marxist-oriented Trotskyists, I KNOW the irony, but unlike Trotsky and the tragedy of his murder, these sectarians won't be missed with their "farcical" deaths). Fortunately, the more Marxist-oriented Trotskyists won't associate themselves with these sectarian scum and will limit themselves to healthy, constructive factionalism within the "party of [workers'] power."

3) Line up every single anarchist who fights against the "Leninist" socialist revolution, and shoot them.



I said it before: despite their anti-factionalism, isolationism ("socialism in one country"), Menshevik two-stageism ("national democracy"), and modern reformism, today's proper Stalinists (not Maoists) have the best approach to anti-sectarian measures. :)

[Ben Seattle]

Political transparency will play a big role in defeating the sectarian disease.

One of the most effective ways to oppose sectarianism is for groups to maintain email or web-based discussion lists or blogs where critics of the groups can post their views. One of the imperatives (and symptoms) of sectarianism is the quest for "information isolation". Sectarian groups want their members and supporters to be isolated from critical opinion. That becomes more difficult when the group maintains open discussion forums where criticism and questions can be posted. The special sectarian beliefs that glue the group together do not do well in the light of the sun.

Some people believe (incorrectly) that sectarianism is the refusal to unite with other progressives. But while this is true sometimes--other times it is not. The nature of the unity and the conditions which exist determine whether joint political work or a political alliance is of benefit to the progresive movement or weakens and undermines the progressive movement. One example of weakening the movement is the various groups in the US which maintain an alliance with the left wing of the imperialist Democratic Party. These groups imagine that they are "taking advantage of contradictions in the ruling class" and creating an alliance with powerful forces that will help the movement. The reality is that such alliances help to maintain the ideological and organizational domination of imperialist politics within the antiwar movement and undermine the independent self-organization of the masses.

[Teemu Ruskeepää]

As reading this whole disorganized list of opinions is useless, I am just going to add my own opinion to it. This is not constructive but I can't change the World with one thread. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb7Fn8hEDzg

Sectarianism, fragmentation of the Socialist Movement into opposing camps, will be overcome by a mutual cause for all classes, including the owner class. Labeling one class as the cause of the class society leads to general fragmentation for "petty" control over the knowledge and rank capitals. Marx didn't mean that the Revolution is an uprising against the old order. He meant that we all are capitalist, even though he just proved the existence of economic capitalism. The cultural revolution will happen eventually and as soon as the whole culture becomes aware that it works in a capitalist way. Capitalism means using all capital to incapacitate others' control over them. All culture and social actions are part of this, from bullying to sport, from competition to market economy. Socialism is the yet unachieved culture where the capitals are used to make others gain capitals. Capitals are the systemic form of social action and are present in all cultures. Enabling individual freedom results from this kind socialism and it includes not just economic socialism, but also emancipation (knowledge capital), teaching of skills (skill capital), promoting personal thought over rank (rank capital) and eradication of all discrimination (social capital). In light of my theory, tell me communists, how the hell could you achieve Socialism just by enforcing an economic model? You have got it wrong! :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:44 pm
or you could take the view that all "anarchists" are counter revolutionary on the basis that a "social revolutionary" (anarchist) was responsible for the assassination of lenin
The SRs weren't anarchists.

Devrim

[spartan]

or you could take the view that all "anarchists" are counter revolutionary on the basis that a "social revolutionary" (anarchist) was responsible for the assassination of lenin
Lenin wasnt assassinated!

Unless of course you are refering to the attempted assassination of Lenin?

[A.J.]

Hesbollah reflects the interests of the anti-imperialist bourgeosie and the islamist leadership. It makes no difference if they are religious or not. Similarly to how it would make no difference if Iran was an islamic theocracy or not. Most of the time, national liberation means sending workers to die for the interest of their bosses.

Seems like you're making some abstract moral judgement here.

Lenin posited that the essence of Marxism, "it's living soul", was "concrete analysis of concrete conditions"

Your dogmatic refusal to support any and all national liberation struggles is completely detached from any concrete analysis of the balance of forces. It's thus ultra-leftist and objectively serves the world system imperialism.

".....support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries come into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question. The question of the rights of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is a part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole. In the forties of the last century Marx supported the national movement of the Poles and the Hungarians and was opposed to the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs. Why? Because the Czechs and the South Slavs were then "reactionary nations," "Russian outposts" in Europe, outposts of absolutism; whereas the Poles and the Hungarians were "revolutionary nations," fighting against absolutism. Because support of the national movement of the Czechs and the South Slavs was at that time equivalent to indirect support for tsarism, the most dangerous enemy of the revolutionary movement in Europe.

"The various demands of democracy," writes Lenin, "including self-determination, are not an absolute, but a small part of the general democratic (now: general socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected."
This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements -- if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement.
The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its result was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reasons

a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of that government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step. Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, "not in isolation, but on a world scale."

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/FL24.html#c6