Later on we shall see still other reasons why it would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state. [my emphasis]
…self-determination of nations” in the Marxists’ Programme cannot, from a historico-economic point of view, have any other meaning than political self-determination, state independence, and the formation of a national state. [my emphasis][56]
…Self-determination of nations has been understood to mean precisely political self-determination, the right to form an independent national state…
To accuse those who support freedom of self-determination, i.e., freedom to secede, of encouraging separatism, is as foolish and hypocritical as accusing those who advocate freedom of divorce of encouraging the destruction of family ties. [my emphasis] Just as in bourgeois society, the defenders of privilege and corruption, on which bourgeois marriage rests, oppose freedom of divorce, so, in the capitalist state, repudiation of the right to self-determination, i.e., the right of nations to secede, means nothing more than defense of the privileges of the dominant nation and police methods of administration, to the detriment of democratic methods. [my emphasis]
Social Democrats would be deviating from proletarian policy and subordinating the workers to the policy of the bourgeoisie if they were to repudiate the right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the right of an oppressed nation to secede…[57]
Let us state first of all that however meager the Russian Social Democratic literature on the ‘right of nations to self-determination’ may be, it nevertheless shows clearly that this right has always been understood to mean the right to secession. [my emphasis]
The reader will see that at the Second Congress of the Party, which adopted the program, it was unanimously understood that self-determination meant “only” the right to secession. [my emphasis][58]
As far as the theory of Marxism in general is concerned, the question of the right to self-determination presents no difficulty. No one can seriously question the London resolution of 1896, or the fact that self-determination implies only the right to secede… [my emphasis]
…To combat nationalism of every kind, above all. Great Russian nationalism to recognize, not only fully equal rights, for all nations in general, but also equality of rights as regards policy, i.e., the right of nations to self-determination, to secession… [my emphasis]
This article had been set up when I received No. 3 of Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta, in which Mr. VI. Kosovsky writes the following about the recognition of the right of all nations to self-determination: “Taken mechanically from the resolution of the First Congress of the Party (1898), which in turn had borrowed it from the decisions of international socialist congresses, it was given, as is evident from the debate, the same meaning at the 1903 Congress as was ascribed to it by the Socialist International, i.e., political self-determination, the self-determination of nations in the field of political independence. Thus the formula: national self-determination, which implies the right to territorial separation, does not in any way affect the question of how national relations within a given state organism should be regulated for nationalities that cannot or have no desire to leave the existing state. [my emphasis]
It is evident from this that Mr. VI. Kosovsky has seen the minutes of the Second Congress of 1903 and understands perfectly well the real (and only) meaning of the term self-determination. [my emphasis][59]
What is the meaning of continuing to put concepts in confusion, despite these indisputably clear statements of Lenin? Rendering Marxist literature incomprehensible and messing it up requires great talent!
On the one hand, a nation’s right of self-determination is being turned into a people’s right of self-determination in the twinkle of an eye (we have seen that a people’s self-determination means nothing apart from a people carrying out a revolution, for a people gaining the right to establish a separate state is only possible through overthrowing reactionaries). On the other hand the right of self-determination is deemed to be something apart from the right to establish a separate state.
If we apply the real meaning of the Safak Revisionists’ concepts, they are saying the following:
“Our movement declares that it recognizes the Kurdish people’s right to (revolution) and, if it wishes, to establish a separate state!”
Thus we have the wonderful solution (!) a Marxist-Leninist movement has brought to the national question. It is clear that this solution (!) means nothing less than defending the dominant Turkish nation’s existing privilege to establish a state.
15. Self-Determination; Right of Self-Determination
“Self-determination” and the “right of self-determination” are different things. “Self-determination” means secession, to establish a separate state. However, “the right of self-determination” means, as we have indicated above, the right of secession, the right to establish a separate state. What communists defend in all circumstances unconditionally is the “right of self-determination,” that is, the right to establish a separate state. “The right to self-determination” should never be confused with “self-determination,” or, in other words, “the right to establish a separate state” with “establishing a separate state.” Communists in all circumstances defend the former while they defend the latter dependent on conditions. Although, communists uphold the first under all circumstances, the communist movement, in Comrade Lenin’s words, “must decide the latter question exclusively on its merits in each particular case in conformity with the interests of social development as a whole and with the interests of the proletarian class struggle for socialism.”[60] Comrade Lenin compares “nations’ right of self-determination” to the right of divorce. While the right of divorce is unconditionally defended in all circumstances, a personal question of divorce, as is known, is defended in certain conditions, while in others it isn’t. In the same way that a family union is a forced union without recognition of the right of divorce, without recognition of the “right of self-determination” the unity of nationalities is also a forced unity. It is not a unity based on reciprocal trust and will. It is a rotten unity based on reciprocal enmity and coercion. Communists cannot defend such a union. They wish and advocate for a sound unity based on reciprocal trust and friendship willingly entered into. Again, communists in general prefer to be organized in large states to being organizing in numerous states, as large states founded in a broad area possess more advantageous conditions in regards to the class struggle, large-fscale production and the construction of socialism. However, communists absolutely oppose the organization of large states based on oppression and coercion of nationalities, as we have mentioned above. Unity between nationalities must be a unity based on free will and reciprocal trust. The duty of unconditionally defending the nations’ right of self-determination stems from this. And what is the attitude of the Safak Revisionists regarding this important matter of principle? To advocate the people’s right (!) to carry out a revolution, and to trample upon nations’ right of self-determination. Furthermore, by saying “the Kurdish people’s right of self-determination cannot be separated from the land revolution struggle based on the impoverished peasantry and the struggle against imperialism,” they are attaching conditions to the right of self-determination. Do not forget that this nonsensical sentence is the solution (!) the Safak Revisionists have brought to the national question. The revisionists, after criticism, were forced to substitute the word “liberation” for the “right of self-determination,” but this is and has been no obstruction to continuing to defend dominant nation nationalism on the national question.