By Stephen Morgan
At root, the problems over the National
Question in the Ukraine are questions of jobs and living standards. This has
given rise to divergent misconceptions and misplaced illusions about how to
solve these problems. In reality, they are really no more than hopes born out
of desperation. Both sections of the population, Ukrainian and Russian
speaking, realize that they are staring into an economic abyss and this is
propelling them towards separation, in the absence of any other alternative.
These fears have become entangled with
the unresolved issues of what Leon Trotsky (a Ukrainian and bilingual,
Ukrainian/Russian speaker) called the accumulated insults of centuries of
cultural oppression, national exploitation and stilted development - something
which the Ukraine has never settled accounts with or recovered from.
Somewhat ironically, in a sense, the
Ukraine was the birthplace of the Slavic nation, which gave rise to the Russian
state. It was a centre of culture and learning until all this was destroyed by
centuries of Mongolian-Tartar rule. This suppressed its natural, free and
uninhibited development as a nation. Before it could begin to recover from this
historical set back, its natural territories were divided between the empires
of Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary and Russia, whose rule continued until
modern times.
As in all cases of Imperialist
domination, the culture of an oppressed nation suffers from different degrees
and forms of assimilation. Having not had the opportunity to properly develop
its own culture, the western half of the Ukraine adopted the higher culture of
its Western European rulers. Its cities became dominated by people of foreign
origin, while “Ukrainianism” survived only amongst the peasants in the
countryside, themselves ruled over by a largely foreign nobility.
On the other hand, in the eastern
Ukraine, centuries of Russian rule meant its economy and politics came under
the domination of Great Russian culture, resulting in the Russification of a
large part of the population, which took a linguistic form in the adoption of
the Russian language by many ethnic Ukrainians. Many Russians also settled in
the eastern Ukraine, but it would be wrong to describe the whole of the east of
the country as populated by “Russians” today. With the exception of the Crimea,
which only became part of the Ukraine in 1954, a majority of Russophones in the
east are Russian-speaking, ethnic Ukrainians and/or bi-lingual Ukrainians, many
of whom speak both languages at home, as well as hybrid dialects of the two.
Inevitably, Russian is also widely spoken in the capital Kiev and other cities.
The centuries of assimilation,
dismemberment and national oppression in the Ukraine manifested itself in the
very name of the people and language, which never acquired the characteristic
designation of other countries, based on the dominant nationality or ethnic and
linguistic group. Instead, the name given to them was the derogatory term of the
“borderlands” which is what the “Ukraine” means, thus undermining the people's
sense of a clearly-defined, natural identity.
In many ways, the history of a nation can
be compared to the life and evolution of an individual. Through the experiences
of its development, a people acquires a distinct identity and certain
distinguishing characteristics. It matures and, one might say, develops its own
“personality.” But to complete this process, it must, just like an individual,
eventually become an independent “adult,” sure of itself and its separate
identity and capable of standing on its own two feet.
However, the tragedy of the Ukraine is
that it was never able to break away from its Imperialist step parents and get
the opportunity to mature into an independent nation, with a clear sense
of “who it was” and what it constituted.
It has only really been an independent nation for the first time, since 1991.
Therefore, a considerable amount of the confusion, disequilibrium and
insecurity now present in the Ukraine is a manifestation of a nation trying to
overcome its retarded development and abusive childhood at the hands of outside
powers. What we have in the Ukraine today, is a crisis of self-identity,
complicated by problems of a split personality.
This is what makes the crisis over the
National Question in this country so sharp and complex. Overcoming this crisis
becomes not only a political task, but what might be termed a
“socio-psychological” challenge. In the hope of achieving this, the positive
efforts on the part of both communities to resolve their problems has to be
affirmed. But both communities also have to become aware of aspects of their
dysfunctional behaviours and relationships, which are undermining their further
development as a nation– one of which is to rely upon others and allow
themselves to be manipulated by outside forces. Therefore, the tasks to build
trust, which can unify the two parts of the country. To borrow again from
psychological terminology, the Ukraine needs to be “whole” if it is to overcome
the baggage of the past and mature into a real nation.
We could say that the uprising in the
West has been a heroic, though confused attempt to break free of a malevolent
and suffocating parent in the form of Russian Imperialism. But its weakness is
its tendency to search out a new guardian in the form of the EU and Western
capitalism. It has also brought to the fore a dark side of itself in the form
of the extreme-right's role in events. In its efforts to be free, it is also
making the mistake of trying to disown or suppress the other side of itself,
which is the Russian-speaking east. This will be disastrous. By ignoring the
need to integrate its two halves into one powerful whole, it is turning against
itself and undermining its struggle for real independence.
One example of the dysfunctional
behaviour involved, was the new Kiev government's immediate decision to
overturn the rights of Russian-speakers to use Russian as an official language
in regions, where they are a majority. This act was irresponsible, vindictive
and almost childish in character. They say an abused child often later becomes
an abuser itself. And this act mimicked the same sort of cultural and national
oppression, which the Ukrainian nation as a whole has suffered from at the
hands of Imperialist overlords. It has undermined the aim of creating of a
genuinely independent and united Ukraine.
The east immediately saw this as a threat
to its own identity, rights and independence. In a backlash, the region has
turned back towards its perceived protector in the form of Russia, a step as
equally misguided as the western half's efforts to be taken under the umbrella
of the EU. This, in turn, has forced the west away and exacerbated the division
which bedevils the Ukrainian nation. A vicious circle has thus been set in
train, which, if not stopped, will mean the regression of the Ukraine back to
an earlier state of divided territories once again under the domination of
opposing Imperialist powers.
 |
| Ukranian riot police show their new Russian passports |
Russia is, of course,
accelerating this process for its own selfish interests, but the EU and the US,
which originally was hesitant about the depth of its involvement and the level
of its commitment to a new Ukraine, may now be forced to offer a level of
protection and sustenance which will encourage the western Ukraine to break
away from its other part. So, the question is; has the level of “emotional
conflict” now gone too far for the process to be reversed? Difficult to say,
but the prognosis looks grim
Are there political demands which could
help cut across this regression and eventually turn it around? A critical
aspect of this is whether the “patient” feels the advice is doable and
feasible. The demands must offer a viable way out of the crisis if they are to
have a chance of succeeding. Sometimes, however, that proves impossible,
because of the wider circumstances in which events are taking place. With
regards to the Ukraine, this means global factors, which I'll come to in a
moment, and which we have to admit are not favourable for a successful
intervention. Therefore, all we may be able to do, is to plant the seeds of
ideas which can blossom, when hopefully more positive circumstances arise in
the future.
The first thing to say, however, is that
these demands or any political programme is not something to be “forced upon”
the Ukrainian people. It can only be the opening of a dialogue about certain
suggestions arising from similar situations in history or also the present day,
in other parts of the world. These can be helpful, but they do not provide a
magic set of demands which work in all circumstances, everywhere. They have to
be adapted and some have to be rejected, and the only people who can ultimately
decide on what is best is the Ukrainian people themselves through constructive
dialogue between members of both communities.
I have found it useful to look back at
the modern history of the Ukraine and to study the approach adopted by one of
its famous sons, Leon Trotsky. If we are careful to take into account the major
differences in the epochs and the specific circumstances in which his demands
and political programme for the Ukraine were worked out, then what he says
helps to provide us with some useful guidelines.
In the first instance, Trotsky helps
explain for us why, particularly in the west of the Ukraine today, we see such
animosity towards Moscow. He points out that the causes are to be found in the
treatment of Ukrainians under Stalin and we can we can update that today by
adding to it the continued existence of neo-Stalinist methods of rule used by
Putin, (even though Russia now has a capitalist economy.) In 1939 he wrote,
“The
bureaucracy strangled and plundered the people within Great Russia too. But in
the Ukraine matters were further complicated by the massacre of national hopes.
Nowhere did restrictions, purges, repressions, and, in general, all forms of
bureaucratic hooliganism assume such murderous sweep as they did in the Ukraine
in the struggle against the powerful, deeply rooted longings of the Ukrainian
masses for greater freedom and independence.”
He continues, in what could be a very
close description of the situation today;
“Not a trace
remains of the former confidence and sympathy of the Western Ukrainian masses
for the Kremlin........The worker and peasant masses in the Western
Ukraine....are in a state of confusion. Where to turn? What to demand? This
situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian
cliques, who express their “nationalism” by seeking to sell the Ukrainian
people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious
independence.”
In the circumstances of the 1930's, a
time just as complex, if not more complex than our own, he develops his
explanation in the following terms;
“With their
eyes turned away from the USSR and failing to receive support and leadership
from the international proletariat, the petty bourgeois and even working class
masses of the Western Ukraine are falling victim to reactionary demagogy.”
Circumstances today are different in
their details, but Trotsky reveals the interrelationship of forces at work then
and this gives us a guideline to explore the same sort of reasons for why the
Western Ukrainian masses have come under the sway of reactionary forces today.
“With their
eyes turned away from the USSR” he says. The USSR may not exist any more, but
the Western Ukrainians can still smell its body odour, even if the bureaucracy
and oligarchs have changed suits. Just as in the 1930's, the political system
in Russia repels them. Today, we can add to this the contradictory effect of
the complete collapse of the Soviet system and the former planned economy,
which means that the very idea of “socialism” has been compromised and not only
among Ukrainians, but among people around the world. The effect has been to
throw back consciousness to a point where solutions to economic and political
problems can only be conceived of by the masses on the basis of the capitalism,
which is considered to be the only viable system. Therefore, any chance of
positive attitudes towards Russia on the part of the Western Ukrainians has
been delivered a double whammy. Russia stinks of stale Stalinism and while it
is now based on a capitalist economy, that highly contradictory combination of
facts confuses the whole idea of socialism and makes it seem even less
attractive.
The next contributing factor Trotsky
mentions, is the failure “to receive support and leadership from the
international proletariat.” In the late 1930's, the victories of fascism and
the approach of world war had subdued the class struggle internationally. The
working class was weakened, confused and leaderless. Today, we are lucky that
fascism hasn't scored any recent victories, although that isn't to say that
reactionary regimes don't exist and that fascism isn't becoming a dangerous and
growing threat, but we haven't seen the colossal defeats of the working class
like those it suffered in Italy, Spain and Germany in the 1920s and 30s.
However, the effect of the collapse of
Stalinism combined with the long capitalist boom up to 2007 and the complete
degeneration of the leaders of the workers parties into unabashed defenders of
capitalism, has thrown back the political understanding and class consciousness
of the workers around the world. Therefore, the working class today is only now
beginning to reawaken, relearn and rebuild it methods of struggle and
organization in the face of a new capitalist crisis.
Consequently, although as a result of
different causes in the past, we can still make a similar point to Trotsky's,
in that another reason why the Western Ukrainians today are falling into the
hands of reactionary leaders, is because they haven't received “support and
leadership from the international proletariat” - in other words there has not yet been sufficiently
large and distinct working class struggles, such as those in earlier epochs,
which provided an alternative pole of attraction, in the form of fighting,
proletarian socialist movements.
However, that said, the uprising in the
Ukraine has been inspired by the democratic revolutions which took place in the
Arab Spring. But for exactly the same reasons cited above, those revolutions
ended up with confused and contradictory results (such as the role of the
Muslim Brotherhood and the recent support for the military in Egypt) and this
has been mirrored in the Ukraine, although with its own peculiarities. In a
distorted form, however, the democratic revolutions confirm how a mass working
class movement along genuine socialist lines could provide “the support and
leadership” Trotsky talked of, which would undermine the hold of reactionary
forces over the masses in the Ukraine, in the struggle for national
independence.
 |
| Leon Trotsky |
Trotsky also emphasized that in dealing
with the complexities of the national question, “we must proceed from facts and
not ideal norms.” The aim he said was “to clear a road for the revolution”, “to
find a bridge from reaction to revolution.” He chastised ultra-left sectarians,
who simply threw out “abstractions” in the form of slogans about world
revolution being the only solution and who ignored or denied the importance of
the democratic demands for the right of nations to self-determination,
including separation. Instead, they insisted on what they thought was the
incontrovertible and sacrosanct unity of any existing nation or federation. In
reply and precisely on the subject of the Ukraine, Trotsky suggested that
instead revolutionaries should approach the Ukrainian people in the following
terms,
“Of importance
to me is your attitude towards your national destiny and not “socialistic
sophistries.” I will support your struggle for independence with all my might”
He continued, “Assuredly, the separation of the Ukraine (from the USSR) is a
liability as compared with a voluntary and egalitarian federation: but it will
be an unquestionable asset as compared with the bureaucratic strangulation of
the Ukrainian people.”
Therefore, he said that “The slogan of an
independent Ukraine does not signify that the Ukraine will remain forever
isolated, but only this, that she will again determine for herself and of her
own free will the question of her interrelations with other sections of the
Soviet Union and her western neighbours.” Thus, “in order to freely determine
her relations with other Soviet republics, in order to process the right of
saying yes or no, the Ukraine must return herself to complete freedom of
action.”
At that time, the largest part of the
Ukraine was within the Soviet Union. Trotsky, therefore raised the slogan for a
totally independent Soviet Ukraine. This, however, was also linked to his
programme for political revolution in the USSR, to forcibly overthrow the
Stalinist bureaucracy and implement genuine workers democracy and real workers'
control and management of industry and the state.
His Ukrainian slogan was correct at that
time. He was hardly going to demand a return to an independent capitalist
Ukraine! But to repeat that slogan today, exactly in those terms, would be to
fall into the same type of sectarian sophistry we mentioned before. To raise
the slogan of an independent “Soviet” Ukraine, especially in the west of the
county nowadays, wouldn't “clear a road for the revolution,” it would throw an
impassable boulder in its way. The word “Soviet” in the Western Ukraine is immediately
associated with centralized rule from Moscow. Alternatively, Trotsky also once
used the slogan of a “united, free and independent workers' and peasants'
Ukraine” and this, I think, would be a better approach to begin from, in order
to formulate socialist slogans now.
Also, of course, the situation within the
Ukraine itself is different today. The old Western Ukraine and the old Soviet
Ukraine are now united in one Ukraine, but the same unresolved issues of
nationalism, which existed in the 1930s, remain in a modern form and a
different context. Clearly, before we can find “a bridge to the revolution” we
have to find a bridge between the two communities.
The eastern Ukraine approximates to the
old Soviet Ukraine which existed as part of the old USSR. The complex and
confused ties to Russia which linger in the consciousness of east Ukrainians
partly stem from the fact that, despite the political dictatorship of
Stalinism, the region was industrialized, urbanized and developed under the old
Soviet regime. Regardless of its shortcomings, living standards rose until the
1980s and they enjoyed reforms in terms of education, health and full
employment. If we take into consideration that the isolation of people in the
Soviet Bloc from life outside, meant there was no way to really compare these
changes with those in the West, then that progress appeared to be even more
substantial than it was and this created a basis of support and goodwill
towards the Soviet Union, which continues until today.
However, the more agricultural west of
the country never gained as much in this respect and remains generally poorer
than the East, which contributes to the sense of discrimination and
exploitation it suffered at the hands of Moscow.
For the moment in the Ukraine, the working
class finds itself lost in the national revolution. It has no independent
slogans and raises only a few specific demands on the socio-economic level. On
the political level it has not yet defined its own class identity and therefore
has been dragged along and submerged into the general opposition movement in
the west. The same is true to some degree in the east, where although class
consciousness in general terms is higher, the workers have so far been
indistinguishable for the broader masses involved in the pro-Russian protests.
Trotsky insisted that, only by first
supporting this broad struggle for democracy and self-determination, could the
trust of the masses be gained and a path be cleared for the emergence of an
independent working class movement. To have posed the need for a workers'
revolution against the right of self-determination would have been ultra-left
and would have meant losing the sympathy of the masses and arousing their
suspicion of an alternative agenda. The masses would have turned a deaf ear
towards the rest of the socialist revolutionaries' demands.
A crucial demand now would be the calling
of a united conference of all workers' organizations and trade unions from all
over the country, east and west, made up of locally elected rank and file
members, instead of bureaucrats, who may have a vested interest in keeping
workers divided. A mass rank and file conference should discuss forms of united
action by Ukrainian and Russian-speaking workers to save the country from
disintegration and to cut across the escalation of sectarian violence, as well
as the threat of continued Russian and other foreign intervention. If the
working class, who make up the majority of the population across the country,
were to stand up and speak with one voice for unity, it would constitute the
most powerful force capable of unifying the nation.
The cornerstone of the workers' movement
and socialist ideas is based on maximum possible unity. That means the unity of
the working class on a national and international basis, the unity of the
nation, peoples and groups and the struggle for the union of nation states
around the world. However, this doesn't in the least contradict the right of
nations or parts of a nation to separation, if they so wish. Sometimes circumstances
demand that nations must separate before unity and trust can be rebuilt.
However, while categorically upholding this right, both in theory and practice,
Marxists would still argue for maximum unity whenever and wherever that is
possible or desirable. This, however, might have to include some “compromises.”
Readers of this blog in the Ukraine would
have to confirm this, but my impression is that the majority of people in both
the eastern and western regions would still not like to see the partition and
separation of the country.
However, both communities are driven by
an underlying antipathy towards centralization which manifested itself in the
west's attitude towards Moscow, but which also showed itself in certain ways in
the role of regional cities in the west, like Lviv during the uprising.
People in the east, on the other hand,
have lost faith in Kiev and fear rule from the centre, which they see as
sectarian and anti-Russian. They also have legitimate fears about the dark role
of nationalists and the extreme-right in political affairs there. This is most
pronounced in the Crimea because of its ethnic Russian majority, but is also
prevalent elsewhere in Russian-speaking regions.
These various fears and doubts over
centralized authority have to be addressed before we can find a solution. It
may be that, in order to encourage maximum unity and hold the country together,
continued nationhood could only be maintained on the basis of the maximum
possible decentralization of power and self-government.
The only way to hold the Ukraine together
now, could be to pose the demand for a Ukrainian Federation with maximum
devolution of powers to the local regions and government units. This might even
include such things as autonomous self-government for the ethnic Tartars in the
Crimea, if they so wished.
Furthermore, while understanding the
fears in the east, it has to be explained that there can be no freedom of will
or action and no genuine right to self-determination, if the integrity of
Ukraine's borders are violated by Russian military forces. Therefore, we have
to unequivocally denounce the invasion of the Crimea by Russian troops or any
other part of the Ukraine and demand their immediate withdrawal.
However, if efforts at unity failed, then
genuine Marxists would unreservedly uphold the right of regions and ethnic or
linguistic groups to separate, if they so wished, probably based on a popular
referendum. There can be no hint of support for the forcible retention of any
part of the country or group of people within the existing national borders
against their own wishes.
However, as Trotsky put it back in 1939,
and hardly a word of this needs to be changed,
“The question
of the first order is the revolutionary guarantee of the unity and the
independence of a workers' and peasants' Ukraine in the struggle against
imperialism, on the one hand, and against Moscow Bonapartism on the other.”
Therefore, the demands I would present
for discussion are;
* For the unity and independence of the
Ukraine based on a voluntary Ukrainian Federation of Regions with maximum
devolved powers of self government!
* For equal rights for all ethnic and
linguistic groups and minorities!
* For the convening of a national rank
and file conference of workers from both Ukrainian and Russian-speaking regions
to discuss collective actions in defence of a united Ukraine and workers
rights.
* Immediate withdrawal of all Russian
troops from unauthorized areas of Ukrainian soil!
* No to corruption! No members of
parliament to receive more wages than an average worker!
* No to dictatorship by domestic
bureaucrats, oligarchs or the IMF, Imperialist powers and foreign capitalists!
* Aid and interest free loans for farmers
and the self-employed based on the nationalization of the banks!
* For social ownership of all major
industries, banks and services under the democratic control and self-management
of working people!
* For a free and independent Ukraine
based on a democratically-run plan of production, distribution and exchange.
* For a Democratic Socialist United
States of Europe and Eurasia!
Stephen Morgan, March 3rd,
2014
1 comment:
Post a Comment