In looking at FRSO/OSCL's website I came across a reference to a "Durham Mobilization," which might have been in the election we just had, but nothing was said about it ( freedomroad.org/crush-the-fascists-isolate-trump-and-build-a-path-to-power/ ). Members have been elected in Durham before, though they might have some competition from the Workers World Party.
"The October Revolution and the National/Colonial Question
Many of the reflections on the experience of the October Revolution and the Soviet Union have and will focus on economics, democracy, and to some extent foreign policy. Yet there is a frequently overlooked chapter that was of great importance to most of what we currently reference as the “global South,” i.e., the national-colonial question.
The “national-colonial question” refers to a designation of the special oppression—including but not limited to colonialism—of peoples (based on alleged race and/or ethnicity) and the subjugation of nations around the planet, most especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America, but also including Ireland, First Nations in the Western Hemisphere, the Chicano people in the US Southwest, and African Americans in the USA.
The national-colonial question was at the heart of the October Revolution because the October Revolution was not only a movement for socialism, but a revolution against empire. It was a revolution within and against the Russian Empire, a state structure referenced at the time as a “prison house of nations.” The national-colonial question became central to Russian revolutionary theory, whether explicitly or implicitly (including by omission). Any revolutionary project had to come to grips with the multitude of peoples within the Russian Empire and the history of virulent chauvinism and oppression including annexations and bloody pogroms (as, most notably, perpetrated against the Jews).
Lenin came to especially appreciate the strategic significance of the national-colonial question, though in the beginning his tendency was represented by more of an active opposition to Russian “Great Nation Privilege” (analogous to what many of us reference as “white privilege” in the USA context) and national inequality. Lenin spoke strongly against discrimination and chauvinism, and in favor of equality.
Yet this was only part of the equation. Within the Bolshevik Party, and increasingly from the revolutionaries within the oppressed nations of the Russian Empire, another voice emerged, a voice that received general support—though not unconditional—from Lenin. This was the voice arguing in favor of national self-determination. The thesis was straight forward: nations that were oppressed by others—including but not limited to imperialist states—had a right to determine their own futures even if socialists might not recommend secession. This, of course, begged the question: what is a “nation”?
Lenin supported the orientation of Joseph Stalin, an up and coming leader from what we know as “Georgia”, who authored a major work on the question of nationhood. While in many respects path-breaking, it was largely Eurocentric in its orientation and could not account for the national aspirations of peoples who did not fit into Stalin’s defined categories. In the context of the Russian Empire, populations such as Russian Jews and Turks of Central Asia did not easily fit within Stalin’s mold and attempts to classify them were often inconclusive, analytically speaking. In either case, this was the guiding theory until the October Revolution unfolded.
The October Revolution broke ground on the national-colonial question like no previous revolutionary movement. At the same time, both the theory and practice were contradictory and in some cases, destructive. Time and space do not permit an exhaustive examination of this, but we will attempt to identify some of the major accomplishments and major limitations of the October Revolution with regard to the national-colonial question.
- Breaking with imperialist schemes: One of the most significant and understated contributions of the October Revolution was its willingness to reveal the imperialist schemes and agreements that had laid the foundation for World War I. The warring powers had all sorts of plans for the post-war world and the Bolsheviks unveiled them. Think Pentagon Papers or WikiLeaks.
- Self-Determination: This was both a contribution and limitation. Within the Russian revolutionary movement there were those who actively opposed the concept of national self-determination, seeing that as divisive and distractive. Lenin disagreed, though not consistently. The Bolsheviks supported Finland’s secession, for instance. At the time Finland had a significant revolutionary movement that might have taken power.
- Conceptualization of the USSR: The very notion of a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was revolutionary, i.e., that various national republics would come together under one umbrella and agree on a socialist revolutionary project. The closest parallel to this might have been the Swiss Confederation, albeit a capitalist project. There have been federations and confederations, but the notion of a USSR was aimed at suggesting a different sort of political and economic integration.
- Attention to national chauvinism: When the October Revolution first unfolded, there were those, among Russians, who believed that this was a ‘Russian affair.’ The Tashkent Soviet, for instance, was dominated by Russians despite the fact that Tashkent was found in what we now know as Uzbekistan (and, at the time, was part of Turkestan). The Bolsheviks directly intervened to address the national chauvinism of the Tashkent Soviet. The October Revolution introduced dramatic changes aimed at ending national oppression and national chauvinism, although in doing so it did not always or fully resolve the underlying contradictions.
- Inspiration for anti-colonial struggles: Particularly with the 1920 “Congress of the Peoples of the East” held in Baku, Azerbaijan, the October Revolution represented inspiration to anti-colonial, national liberation movements. Representatives of national liberation struggles visited the USSR and sought from the USSR support for their own movements.
- National-Territorial Delimitation: One of the more controversial projects of the Soviet experiment occurred under Stalin’s leadership and was largely in contradiction with Stalin’s own concept of the nation. The Soviet leadership, in order to address the national sentiments of countless peoples, committed to developing and establishing formal “nations” out of peoples, some of which were economically and politically very primitive. Republics and autonomous regions were created under the theory of advancing these peoples toward nationhood. One of the challenges which arose from this process was that it also led to the breakup of the predominantly Muslim and Turkic region of Turkestan, in effect weakening the power of that region if considered as a bloc.
The second part is more critical, and is online at:
freedomroad.org/the-october-revolution-and-the-national-colonial-question/
and:
www.peoplesworld.org/article/the-october-revolution-and-the-national-colonial-question/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment