The Bosch-Bukharin-Pyatakov Theses on the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

  1. HEAD ICE
    HEAD ICE
    1. The imperialist epoch is a period of the absorption of small states by large states and of a constant redrawing of the political map of the world toward greater state homogeneity. In this process of absorption many nations are incorporated into the state system of the victorious nations.

    2. Modern capitalist foreign policy is closely bound up with the supremacy of finance capital, which cannot abandon the policy of imperialism without threatening its own existence. Therefore, it would be extremely Utopian to advance anti-imperialist demands in the field of foreign policy while remaining within the framework of capitalist relations. The answer to the bourgeoisie’s imperialist policy must be the socialist revolution of the proletariat; Social Democracy must not advance minimum demands in the field of present-day foreign policy.

    3. It is therefore impossible to struggle against the enslavement of nations other than through a struggle against imperialism. Ergo a struggle against imperialism; ergo a struggle against finance capital; ergo a struggle against capitalism in general. To turn aside from this path in any way and advance “partial” tasks of the “liberation of nations” within the limits of capitalist society diverts proletarian forces from the true solution of the problem and unites them with the forces of the bourgeoisie of the corresponding national groups.

    4. The slogan “self-determination of nations” is first of all Utopian, as it cannot be realized within the limits of capitalism. It is also harmful, as it is a slogan that sows illusions. In this respect it does not distinguish itself at all from the slogans of arbitration courts, disarmament, and so on which presuppose the possibility of so-called peaceful capitalism.

    5. We should not get carried away by the agitational side of the question and forget its connection to other questions. Advancing the slogan of “self-determination” in order to struggle against “the chauvinism of the working masses” would be making exactly the same kind of error as Kautsky does, when he advances the slogan of “disarmament” for the struggle against militarism. In both cases the error lies in a one-sided examination of the question. It overlooks the specific gravity of a given “social evil”; in other words, it examines the question from an entirely rational and Utopian standpoint and not from the standpoint of revolutionary dialectics.

    6. The major cases of a concrete application of the slogan of “the right of nations to self-determination” through state independence or secession are, first, the annexation of “foreign” territory in the course of an imperialist war, and second, the disintegration of an already formed state unit. In the first case the slogan of “self-determination” is only a different form of the slogan “defence of the fatherland,” because unless an appeal is made for physical defence of the corresponding state boundaries, the “slogan” remains an empty phrase. In the second case we have essentially the same harmful consequences as with the slogan “defence of the fatherland.”
    The attention of the proletarian masses is shifted to another plane; the international character of their action disappears; the forces of the proletariat are split up; the entire tactical line moves in the direction of national and not class struggle. Moreover, in this case the slogan also implicite [implicitly] includes the slogan of “defence,” for after the achievement of secession, and the slogan of “the right to self-determination” of course presupposes such a possibility, is it not necessary to defend “independence”? Otherwise, what with the constant dangers of the imperialist epoch, why “demand” it at all?
    To struggle against the chauvinism of the working masses of a nation which is a great power by recognizing “the right of nations to self-determination” is the same as to struggle against this chauvinism by recognizing the right of the oppressed “fatherland” to defend itself.

    7. Diversion of the proletariat’s attention toward the solution of “national” problems becomes extraordinarily harmful, especially now, when the question of mobilizing the proletariat’s forces on a world scale, in international struggle to overthrow capitalism, has been posed for action. The task of Social Democracy at the present moment is propaganda for an attitude of indifference to “the fatherland,” “the nation,” and so on. This by no means presupposes a “state” formulation of the question (protests against “dismemberment”), but, on the contrary, poses it in a sharply pronounced revolutionary way with regard to state power and the entire capitalist system.

    8. Therefore it follows that in no case and under no circumstances do we support the government of a great power that represses the insurrection or rebellion of an oppressed nation. At the same time, we do not mobilize proletarian forces under the slogan of “the right of nations to self-determination.” Our task in this case is to mobilize the forces of the proletariat of both nations (jointly with others) under the slogan of civil, class war for socialism and to propagandize against mobilization of forces under the slogan of “the right of nations to self-determination.”

    9. In the case of non-capitalist countries or countries with an embryonic capitalism (for example, colonies), we can support the uprising of the popular masses as something that weakens the ruling classes on the European continent and that does not split the proletarian forces. This is so because, in this case (a) it is not a question of socialism; and (b) the forces mobilized here are not those of the international proletariat, but the national forces of the bourgeoisie, which objectively help the proletariat of the European continent.

    10. Furthermore, the slogan of “the right to self-determination” does not concretely answer the question concerning a given nation.

    11. An essential identity (“aid to imperialism”) does not flow from a formal similarity between the position developed in these theses and the position of Cunow und Konsorten [and company]. To base an objection on “aid” in this case means to go down the road paved by Kautsky.
  2. Niccolò Rossi
    Where did you pull these from?

    This is really good.

    Maybe we could expand on the meaning of point 9 thouugh. I'm not exactly sure of the meaning.

    Nic.
  3. zimmerwald1915
    For what were these theses prepared? In what year?

    As for point number 9, I think it refers to the lack of a developed proletariat in the colonies. For these theses, the question of whether the colonial proletariat should organize and struggle separately from the colonial bourgeoisie is moot, because it doesn't exist as such. Needless to say, that particular premise has been undone by history.
  4. HEAD ICE
    HEAD ICE
    I think it was written in 1919. I got it from this site:
    http://thecommune.co.uk/ideas/imperi...determination/
  5. 9
    I'm not a left communist, so I hope you all won't mind me commenting here (let me know if you do). I agree with Nic, though, that "this is really good", and imo its quite a bit better than a lot of the things I have read by 'modern' leftcoms on the right of nations to self-determination. Particularly, I think this is important:
    Therefore it follows that in no case and under no circumstances do we support the government of a great power that represses the insurrection or rebellion of an oppressed nation.
    But do leftcoms today even acknowledge that there is such a thing as an 'oppressed nation'?

    Personally I have seen groups, particularly social dems, who've used abstract "internationalist"-sounding slogans to conceal what is, in practice, "great power" chauvinism. I can think of many examples of this, particularly in relation to Israel. An example which I remember seeing discussed on revleft was the British AWL, which iirc came out with the slogan "No to Hamas, No to Israel" in the wake of operation cast lead. I think the leftcoms here will concede (I hope) that the AWL's perspective re Israel/Palestine isn't "internationalist" at all, but is in fact pro-Zionist. So the question arises of how it is that a pro-Zionist organization can couch its pro-Zionism in the position of "oppose both sides equally" abstract "internationalism".

    At any rate, I'm not trying to derail this into a discussion about my particular hang-ups on the national question, but my point is that I think the issue of potential overlap between the chauvinism of the "great powers" and denial of the right of nations to self-determination is a serious issue and one which I don't think 'modern' leftcoms engage thoroughly enough (where they engage it at all). Whereas the authors of the 'Theses' in the OP certainly seem to have been more conscious of the gravity of this issue and the need to differentiate their position from one which denies the right of self-determination of oppressed nations on the basis of the chauvinism of a "great power" - which, again, I think is absolutely crucial.
  6. HEAD ICE
    HEAD ICE
    Certainly, when a working class mass resists occupation or oppression by a foreign nation, they are doing so out of their class interests. When a foreign country violently puts down an uprising, even one that is thoroughly bourgeois in origin, it should be strongly condemned.

    Saying, "I oppose national liberation struggles" is wrong imo, and I feel that can be an avenue towards chauvinism. My position, as is the position of the theses above, is not that I oppose it, but that it doesn't offer the working class an opportunity to free itself, and in our current historical situation national liberation is no liberation at all. It was in the past, but the material factors in the world today has rendered it useless.

    Opposing right to self determination out of principle makes the same mistake that the "right to self determination" makes itself. Such a belief is not grounded in materialist method or marxism.
  7. 9
    Saying, "I oppose national liberation struggles" is wrong imo, and I feel that can be an avenue towards chauvinism.
    But it is the left communist (i.e. ICC and ICT) position, is it not?

    (I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said, btw; but I suspect some of the posters here who are members of the left communist organizations would)
  8. HEAD ICE
    HEAD ICE
    Well, if someone asked me, I would probably respond to that. I was trying to say that, at least my position, is not based on principle but on what would best further the interests of the working class as a whole. Taking a stance on it out of principle I can see leading to chauvinism.
  9. Martin Blank
    I'm glad Stagger Lee posted this. The Bukharin-Pyatakov theses are very close to the view we've been developing on the question in recent months.

    I think there is a difference between saying "I oppose self-determination" and saying "Self-determination does not advance the class struggle". It's been my understanding that the latter is more what leftcoms are getting at. Simply saying you oppose self-determination is like saying you reject Stalin; anyone can say it, but the question is why you say it -- what are your reasons?

    I agree with Zanthrous on Point 9. It has been more or less superseded by historical development. There are just about no countries in the world today that lack a developed proletariat. Even countries that have been devastated by years of civil war and genocide have a functioning working class. There is no longer a need for an exception on the basis outlined in the theses. I could see an exception for countries that had such a thoroughgoing revolutionary-democratic upheaval (e.g., a Tunisia, where the popular committees take power and completely break away from the Great Powers and their local extensions, but do not yet constitute a workers' republic) that they do represent an advance for the class struggle. But that's about the only exception I see that's worthwhile. Everything else is getting into petty national-chauvinist turf wars.
  10. Zanthorus
    Zanthorus
    Miles/Uncle Sam, I haven't posted in this thread so far. It was zimmerwald who commented on point 9.
  11. Martin Blank
    Miles/Uncle Sam, I haven't posted in this thread so far. It was Nic who commented on point 9.
    I'm sorry. I meant to say zimmerwald1915. You people with the Z names....
  12. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    FYI to Zanthorus: Nic used to be known as "Zeitgeist," hence the "Z names" remark.

    I don't like the last part of Point 9 for its continued mention of the bourgeoisie as still having a progressive role.

    "In the case of non-capitalist countries or countries with an embryonic capitalism (for example, colonies), we can support the uprising of the popular masses as something that weakens the ruling classes on the European continent and that does not split the proletarian forces."

    This part I can agree with.

    "This is so because, in this case (a) it is not a question of socialism; and (b) the forces mobilized here are not those of the international proletariat, but the national forces of the bourgeoisie, which objectively help the proletariat of the European continent."

    This part I disagree with two-fold. It is not a question of the communist mode of production, but it can be a question of non-bourgeois, progressive, yet definitely non-proletarian "socialism" in terms of the abolition of bourgeois property. Then there's the rather Menshevik-Maoist mention of the bourgeoisie, as opposed to the "national" petit-bourgeoisie.
  13. 9
    sorry, guys...
  14. Lyev
    Lyev
    On thesis 9 (I am not a left-com either, but I like it in here), how many countries (if there are any), are there where non-capitalist social relations are the dominant ones? I've mused over this question for a while and have not got very far with it because, according to Luxemburg anyway, in capitalist countries the total surplus value extracted from the working class cannot be fully realised within these same social forms, so (finance?) capital must find a non-capitalist market. So, if barely any 'embryonic capitalist' or 'non-capitalist' countries exist anymore, how can world capitalism carry on realising this leftover surplus value?
  15. Zanthorus
    Zanthorus
    Luxemburg's theory is false, capital can theoretically realise the total surplus-value in an economy where only capitalists and workers exist. And there are no countries (To the best of my knowledge) where non-capitalist social relations predominate, generalised commodity production exists pretty much everywhere.
  16. Alf
    Alf
    There are no non-capitalist countries, although a few pockets of pre-capitalist economy still exist. Speaking as a 'Luxemburgist', I would say that these ceased to play any meaningful role for the expansion of capitalism during the post-world war II boom. This wasn't yet quite the case in the period the text above was written, but even by then -ie the first world war - capitalism had essentially created a world economy that was (a) unified and developed enough to put the world communist revolution on the agenda (b) already exhibiting evident symptoms of its crisis of senility (above all, the first world war itself, followed by the international revolutionary wave)
  17. Leo
    Leo
    But do leftcoms today even acknowledge that there is such a thing as an 'oppressed nation'?
    Yes, quite clearly. Opposing all forms of national oppression, however, does not necessarily mean support for this or that nationalist reaction however. Left communists argue that only through the destruction of nation states can the problem of national oppression be truly solved.

    Personally I have seen groups, particularly social dems, who've used abstract "internationalist"-sounding slogans to conceal what is, in practice, "great power" chauvinism. I can think of many examples of this, particularly in relation to Israel. An example which I remember seeing discussed on revleft was the British AWL, which iirc came out with the slogan "No to Hamas, No to Israel" in the wake of operation cast lead. I think the leftcoms here will concede (I hope) that the AWL's perspective re Israel/Palestine isn't "internationalist" at all, but is in fact pro-Zionist.
    Yes, indeed.

    So the question arises of how it is that a pro-Zionist organization can couch its pro-Zionism in the position of "oppose both sides equally" abstract "internationalism".
    Anything can be couched under slogans though. Whether the AWL for example is actually opposed to Israel or not is the real issue here.

    but my point is that I think the issue of potential overlap between the chauvinism of the "great powers" and denial of the right of nations to self-determination is a serious issue
    Indeed, and for this reason left communists always and openly condemn national oppression, argue for proletarian solidarity with its victims and call for the destruction of all nation states.
  18. 9
    All fair points, Leo; I appreciate the response.