THE NATIONAL QUESTION. OUR FRAMEWORK

THE NATIONAL QUESTION. OUR FRAMEWORK

National Question

Stages of development of the national question

THE NATIONAL QUESTION. OUR FRAMEWORK
The National Question
Periods of Development of the National Question

There are three periods in the development of the national question.

a) In Western Europe:
The period of the collapse of feudalism and the unification of individuals within nations in England (excluding Ireland), France, Italy, and partly Germany. Here, the emergence of centralized states coincided with the unification of individuals within nations. This shows that nations took on state forms in their development, and since there were no significant national groups within these states, there was no national oppression in these states.

b) In Eastern Europe: Austria-Hungary, Russia:
There was no capitalist development, capitalism was in its infancy, but against the invasions of the Turks, Mongols, and other Eastern peoples, it was necessary to establish centralized states that could stop these invasions. Here, since the formation of centralized states was faster than the process of individuals uniting within nations, mixed states arose, composed of many nations existing within a single state without first becoming nations.

Characteristics of the first period:
At the dawn of capitalism, with the emergence of nations, purely national states emerged in Western Europe, devoid of national oppression; in Eastern Europe, multi-ethnic states arose, headed by a single more developed nation that subjugated the less developed nations first politically, then economically. Therefore, the mixed states of the East became the homeland of national oppression, giving rise to international conflicts, national movements, and various methods of their resolution.

Second Period:

This is the period when capitalism, in pursuit of new exploitative markets, cheap raw materials, fuel, and manual labor, expanded beyond the framework of the nation-state, which began in the free-competitive period of capitalism, to export capital and gain control of major railways and sea routes, thus leading to the emergence of imperialism, expanding its territories at the expense of its near and distant neighbours.

a) In Western Europe: Old nation-states such as England, Italy, and France cease to be nation-states; that is, they take the form of multinational states, colonial states, composed of many nations, by conquering new territories.
Thus, they become a new arena for the policy of oppression against nations and colonies.

b) In Eastern Europe: In the old multinational states, the tendency of expansion at the expense of neighboring states and the subjugation of new, weaker nationalities intensifies among the dominant nations. The characteristic of this period in Eastern Europe is the strengthening of national ties and the awakening of dependent nations such as the Czechs, Poles, and Ukrainians.
This awakening, following the disintegration of multinational states in the region at the end of the imperialist world war, led to the emergence of new national states (Poland, Yugoslavia) subjugated by the so-called great powers, and the establishment of these new bourgeois national states as the most “radical” solution to the national question by the bourgeoisie.

a) Common feature of the first and second periods: In both periods, nations are oppressed, the national war is the war of the day, and the national question remains unresolved.

b) Difference between the first and second periods: In the first period, the national question is an internal problem of multinational states treated separately, encompassing a small number of nations, the majority of which are European. In the second period, the national question, ceasing to be an internal matter of states, becomes a matter concerning many states; it becomes a matter of war between imperialist states that want to subjugate nations deprived of their rights, and also subjugate peoples and tribes outside of Europe. Thus, the national question, which previously only held significance among cultured nations, emerged from its isolated state and, first as small sparks, later engulfed the entire globe in the flame of the liberation movement, becoming a general question of colonies.

c) The imperialist “world picture” regarding the national question after World War I is as follows:

(i) A few great powers oppressing and exploiting the entire mass of dependent and “independent” (in reality, utterly dependent) national states, and the struggle among these states for a monopoly on exploiting national states.
(ii) the struggle of dependent and “independent” national states against the unbearable pressure of the “great” powers,
the struggle of national states among themselves to expand their national territories,
the struggle of each national state, considered separately, against its own oppressed national minorities,
the consolidation of liberation movements in colonies against the “great” powers,
the intensification of national conflicts within these “great” powers,
the intensification of national conflicts within national states containing a number of national minorities.
Bourgeois society has proven utterly bankrupt in its attempt to solve the national question.

Third period: The period from November 6, 1917, to the definitive victory of Communism – the Soviet era; a period in which the question of sovereign and dependent nations, the question of colonies and metropolises were relegated to the archives of history, a period marked by the collapse of capitalism and the elimination of national oppression.

The fundamental characteristics of this period, valid at every stage and formulated after the October Revolution, are as follows:

a) The October Revolution forged ties between the backward Eastern peoples and the advanced Western peoples, uniting them in a common camp of struggle against imperialism.

Thus, the national question ceased to be a specific issue, such as the struggle against national oppression, and became the general question of the liberation of nations, colonies, and semi-colonies from imperialism.

b) The development of the October Revolution showed that:

(i) The national bourgeoisie was not seeking to liberate “its own people” from national oppression. He was after the freedom to profit from the sweat of the people, to protect their privileges and capital,
(ii) The liberation of the oppressed nations is unimaginable until the local bourgeoisie is overthrown and power passes into the hands of the working masses of these nations, and until they sever ties with imperialism.
(iii) The only system capable of solving the national question, that is, the only system capable of creating the conditions for the peaceful coexistence and fraternal cooperation of separate peoples and tribes, is the Soviet system of power.
As long as the private ownership of the means of production continues under the power of capital and as long as classes exist, equality between nations cannot be achieved; as long as the private ownership of the means of production continues under the power of capital, there can be no equality between nationalities, no cooperation between the working masses of nations. The only way to eliminate national inequality, the only way to establish a system of fraternal cooperation between the working masses of oppressed and non-oppressed peoples, is to overthrow the capitalist system and establish the Soviet system.

(i) The course of the October Revolution exposed the old bourgeois understanding of the right of nations to freely determine their own destiny, under the slogan "all power to the national bourgeoisie," and this concept was discarded.
(ii) The socialist understanding of the right of nations to freely determine their own destiny, under the slogan "all power to the working masses of the oppressed nations," gained the right to be adopted and implemented.
(iii) The right of nations to self-determination and the "principle" of "defending the homeland" have not disappeared. What has disappeared are their bourgeois interpretations. We can see the revolutionary magnitude they achieved thanks to their socialist interpretations in both the East and the West.

d) Peoples who have freed themselves from the yoke of their own national bourgeoisie and also from the yoke of the "foreign" bourgeoisie—that is, peoples who have established a Soviet order in their countries—cannot protect their existence independently without the economic and military support of the Soviet Republics as long as imperialism exists. Unless the Soviet Republics unite within a single state, unless they unite as a single economic and military power, they cannot resist the allied forces of world imperialism, neither on the military nor on the economic front. The Federation of Soviet Republics is the form of this unification within a single state.

In this first stage, the third period, the Soviet era, had not yet fully gained strength because it had only just begun. The war in the East, and even in the West, had not yet had time to free itself from bourgeois nationalist influences. In this first phase, the general trend of the third period, the Soviet period, took concrete form only in the Soviet Union. In the rest of the world, there is a weak trend, but one that will surely triumph, a trend that is growing stronger. This trend has manifested itself both in the Chinese Revolutionary War and in the Spanish Revolution (the war against fascism).
In this first phase, the third period, the Soviet period, also inherited from the second period the following world picture:
(i) A few great powers that oppress and exploit the entire mass of dependent and “independent” (in reality, absolutely dependent) nation-states, and the struggle among these states for a monopoly on exploiting nation-states.
(ii) The struggle of dependent and “independent” nation-states against the unbearable pressure of “great” powers,
the struggle of nation-states among themselves to expand their national territories,
the struggle of each nation-state, considered separately, against its own oppressed national minorities,
the strengthening of liberation movements in colonies against “great” powers, the intensification of national conflicts within these “great” powers,
the intensification of national conflicts within nation-states containing a number of national minorities.
In the context of the existence of the USSR and the Soviet tendency towards a solution to the national question, several consequences of this situation were:
National liberation movements led by different social classes reflecting the differences among nations at different stages of development oppressed by imperialism became widespread.
-The developments of these movements have led in some countries to the subservience of the ruling classes to imperialism, to the stage where the national liberation question cannot progress without the hegemony of the workers (China-Spain).
The construction of socialism in the USSR became a source of support and inspiration for these forces, both in the proletariat's direct struggle for socialism and in the liberation struggle of oppressed nations.
-The financial oligarchy in the metropolises transformed into fascism within the country and into a rabid imperialism aimed at destroying and enslaving nations abroad.

• Many European countries, fearing the power of the proletarians and peasants in the class struggle and concluding that they could not protect their existence without surrendering to the great powers, surrendered national independence entirely to the fascists.
  
• World War II began as proof that the national question meant a war, a world war, between the great imperialist powers to seize and oppress other countries and peoples. But this war also emerged as a war against the Soviet liberation movement of nations, which developed in response to the oppression of nations by world imperialism. Although they fought each other directly, the common goal of all imperialist powers was the destruction, ruin, and annihilation of the USSR. In the course of this war, the German fascist attack on the USSR transformed it into a war for the liberation of all the peoples of the world, for the liberation of nations, and for democracy and peace.
  
  

a) The war against German and Italian fascism trampled on and enslaved nations that were previously free and even imperialist themselves, such as the French and Dutch, and the nations of Eastern Europe that, even if nominally, possessed their own states. The war against Japanese fascism led to an occupation that threatened the colonial nations of Asia with complete enslavement and massacre. The German and Italian fascist attack on the Soviet Union and their threat to destroy the homeland of socialism was a threat to all of humanity, bringing slavery and barbarism.
The vast majority of financial oligarchs and bourgeois who, before the war, had collaborated with German and Italian fascism in pursuit of maximum profit, sacrificing the independence of other nations to fascism, and who during the war failed to organize any tangible resistance against the occupation of their own nations, pursued a policy of complete surrender, participating in the hand-in-hand administration and plunder of their countries with foreign fascists.
In the defeated imperialist-capitalist countries (France, the Netherlands, etc.), and in colonial and dependent countries, a large segment of the big bourgeoisie and feudal lords served as despicable collaborators of their occupiers.
In all countries, from the most advanced to the least advanced, those who took action for the independence of their countries and nations, and who led the struggle for independence against fascism, were the communists who had already led the fight against fascism before the war. The communists spearheaded the fight against the occupiers by forming a united front under the leadership of the working class, encompassing all the people and even all bourgeois and aristocratic sections ready to fight for the country's independence.
The Soviet Union emerged as the leader of the liberation of nations in both the West and the East, and the true defender of the independence of every nation and country, and a common anti-fascist liberation front formed around the Soviet Union throughout the world.

b) The picture that emerged in the post-World War II international question is as follows:
On one hand, there is the imperialist camp led by the USA, which enslaved all nations to American imperialism. The rulers of imperialist nations in this camp, such as Britain and France, while selling out the independence of their nations and countries to American imperialism, continued to oppress other colonial nations with the support of American imperialism. Western Germany, Italy, and Japan were completely under American occupation. In countries liberated by the forces in this camp, instead of working with the communists fighting for their liberation to establish a democratic regime and grant independence to the colonies, the Americans and their imperialist allies, along with those who had collaborated in the fascist occupation of these countries, embarked on establishing anti-democratic regimes against the communists and the people. They organized the massacre of communists. This camp formed around American imperialism as a camp completely hostile to democracy, completely hostile to national independence, and completely warmongering.
On the other hand, there is the anti-imperialist camp, led by the Soviet Union, fighting for the liberation of all nations and countries. This camp includes, alongside the Soviet Union, the People's Democracies of Eastern and Southeastern Europe (excluding Yugoslavia after 1948), the People's Democracies of East Asia, and the national liberation movements led by communists and workers (and peasants in countries without workers) who were forced to fight against the US and its allies and the forces that fought against their own nations alongside these fascist occupiers after the war, as well as the liberation struggles of colonial and dependent countries that rose up for their independence after the war.
This camp encompassed both national liberation movements within the Soviet Union and the liberation struggles of colonial and dependent countries that rose up for their independence after the war. This camp undertook the task of protecting democracy by giving a new content and form to the struggle for democracy, both for the construction of socialism in advanced countries and for preparing the ground for the construction of socialism in less developed countries, placing nations on the path to socialism through People's Democracies. This camp undertook the task of defending national independence by supporting communists, workers, and the people who organized national liberation struggles against national traitors who collaborated with the occupiers during and after the war, and against their foreign imperialist manipulators, the Americans and their allies. This camp formed a complete security circle around the Soviet Union for the People's Democracy countries and all countries wishing to remain independent. This camp was a camp of peace against war. Yugoslavia, breaking away from this camp, inevitably became an agent state of imperialism, a slave state of imperialism, an enemy of socialism, and an enemy of national independence, thus leaving this camp and joining the imperialist camp.

(i) Even the most advanced nations can lose their independence under imperialist conditions and be enslaved by imperialism. In other words, the only guarantee of national independence for even the most advanced nations, even those that are imperialist themselves, is the destruction of world imperialism!
(ii) The ‘national’ financial oligarchs, the ‘national bourgeoisie,’ the ‘national’ feudalists are not seeking to liberate “their own people” from national oppression.
They are seeking to obtain maximum profits from the sweat of the people, to protect their privileges and capital.
(iii) The only fundamental force fighting against fascism and occupation is the masses of people led by communists and workers. The only fundamental force fighting against American imperialism and its policy of enslaving all the nations of the world and destroying nations through wars is the masses of people led by communists and workers. National independence can only be achieved by these forces and guaranteed by forming an alliance of nations and countries against imperialism, as part of a common front against imperialism. Without severing ties with imperialism, without overthrowing the local bourgeoisie from power, and without power passing into the hands of the working masses of these nations, the liberation of oppressed nations is unimaginable. Without the nations and countries that have gained independence by breaking with imperialism uniting as a single anti-imperialist front around the USSR, the preservation of national and country independence is unimaginable.
(iv) The only system capable of solving the national question, that is, the only system capable of creating the conditions for the peaceful coexistence and fraternal cooperation of separate peoples and tribes, is the Soviet system of power and people's democracy. As long as the private ownership of the means of production continues under the power of capital, and as long as classes exist, equality among nations cannot be achieved; as long as the power of capital continues, and the struggle for the means of production continues, there can be no equality between nationalities, and no cooperation among the working masses of nations. The only way to eliminate national inequality, the only way to establish a system of fraternal cooperation between the working masses of oppressed and non-oppressed peoples, is to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a system of people's democracy.

(i) The course of the Second World War and its aftermath unmasked the old bourgeois understanding of the right of nations to freely determine their own destiny with the slogan "All power to the national bourgeoisie," and this concept was discarded.
(ii) The socialist understanding of the right of nations to freely determine their own destiny was adopted and implemented with the slogan "All power to the working masses of oppressed nations."
(iii) The right of nations to self-determination and the "principle" of "defense of the homeland" did not disappear. What disappeared were their bourgeois interpretations. We have seen the revolutionary greatness they reached through their socialist interpretations in both the East and the West.

d) Peoples who have freed themselves from the yoke of their own national bourgeoisie and also from the yoke of the “foreign” bourgeoisie, that is, peoples who have established a People's Democracy in their countries, cannot protect their existence alone, separately, without the economic and military support of the neighbouring Soviet Socialist Republics as long as imperialism exists. Unless the Soviet Republics and People's Democracy countries unite in a single state or partnership, they cannot resist the allied forces of world imperialism, neither on the military nor on the economic front. The Federation of Soviet Republics is the form of unification within a single state. The international agreements system between the Soviet countries and the People's Democracies is a lower stage of this unity.

This period had gained great strength after the Second World War and would have had the decisive say had it not been defeated.

What is important is not the defeat of communism, but the fact that the war against imperialism has begun, that victories and experiences have been gained, and that this war will sooner or later reach its logical conclusion, the Soviet order and the People's Democracy order, the order of freedom and cooperation of nations.
The first and second stages are continuous and can also be considered as one stage.

This stage is the stage of the defeat of communism in the USSR and the People's Democracies that formed around it. Therefore, it is the stage of the defeat of nations and countries and national independence movements. Therefore, it is the stage of the period of imperialist wars and the defeat of peace and democracy.

At this stage, beginning with the decisions taken in the August Supreme Soviets after Stalin's death, the USSR was detached from the Lenin-Stalin policy of building communism and transformed into a state implementing a Trotskyist-Bukharinist, Titoist policy of destroying communism. This fact is so obvious that even Yugoslavia, whose policies were theoretically shown not to be those of building socialism, whose US and British agency was concretely proven, which did not aim to build socialism but rather sided with the imperialist camp as an exporter of raw materials (and labor), which favored war over peace, and which supported bourgeois dictatorship over people's democracy, was declared to be a kind of socialist state, building socialism in its own way. On this basis, in the USSR and the People's Democracies of Europe and Asia, and in Yugoslavia and Cuba, so-called plans for building socialism-communism, contrary to the Lenin-Stalin plans, were put forward and implemented. Due to this break from the Lenin-Stalin plan for building socialism-communism and the transformation it caused, the USSR failed to achieve communism, did not achieve product abundance, and the people's democracies could not continue their development, which should have led to the same result. The single world market, which these countries had created, was destroyed. During this stage, the USSR and the People's Democracies, which should have sought markets abroad for industrial and agricultural products and should have exacerbated the general crisis of imperialism due to the abundance and cheapness of their products based on automation in the world market, were reduced to the status of markets for imperialist countries, thus becoming countries that alleviated, rather than exacerbated, the general crisis of imperialism. This policy made the construction of communism impossible in the USSR, and therefore, through Trotskyist degeneration, the end of the period resulted in the destruction of socialism and the restoration of capitalism. This result was a complete disaster for the Soviet economy and politics. It is well known that this result is the very Trotskyist plan, which was revealed in major trials. The same situation applies to all people's democracies.
These developments within the USSR and the People's Democracies led to a break from internationalism within the camp of peace and democracy, to the tolerance and support of reactionary nationalism, to the production and fueling of inter-ethnic hostilities within countries and among member states of the front, and to a policy of fragmentation of national unity instead of a policy of national unity and joint development.
In all countries that were part of the USSR, this destruction led to the separation of these countries from each other, their becoming individual parts of the world imperialist system, becoming parts that supply raw materials to imperialism, and consequently, the loss of their national independence. The same situation applies to all people's democracies.
The USSR and the People's Democracies, where the question of nations was resolved through a policy of inter-ethnic cooperation and solidarity, have once again become arenas where the question of nations, inter-ethnic conflict, hostility, oppression of nations, and wars between nations have intensified. The forms that international relations took within the imperialist system have been resurrected in the ranks of these countries and in their relations with each other. Not only has there been a return to capitalism economically, but also a return to the inequality, hostility, and barbarity of imperialist capitalism in the organization of international relations. Throughout this period, the fundamental determining factor for the liberation of nations and their free unity and solidarity was the progress of the USSR and the People's Democracies towards building socialism and communism. Throughout this period, the fundamental determining factor in the deterioration of international relations instead of improvement has been the policy of diverting the USSR and the People's Democracies from the path of building socialism-communism. This is the decisive political and practical development in the question of nations and in all other areas. And this is not only true for the USSR countries and the People's Democracies. This is true for all the nations of the world! Because the organization of the development of all nations hand in hand in cooperation and solidarity as a front for peace, democracy, and independence, and thus the policy of national liberation, was directly linked to the progress of the USSR and the People's Democracies in building socialism and communism, and thus implementing the policy of national liberation.
At this stage, the following must always be kept in mind:
The fundamental pillar and cornerstone of the freedom of countries and nations is the construction of communism in the USSR and the construction of socialism-communism in the People's Democracies, and the unity of all countries, nations, and national liberation movements formed around this foundation, aiming for people's democracy, peace and democracy, anti-imperialism, internationalism, and national independence. Losing this means destruction for all countries, nations, and national liberation movements, and the domination of imperialism over them.

The foreign policy of the USSR and the People's Democracies was similarly diverted from internationalism, that is, from the policy of peace, democracy, and anti-imperialism, from the worldwide victory of communism and therefore from the policy of the liberation of nations.

1. The policy of neutrality and non-alignment.
   
   

In a world divided into two camps—the camp of imperialism and war led by the USA, and the camp of peace and democracy led by the USSR—and under conditions where the future, or freedom, of all nations and countries depended on the victory of the peace and democracy camp in the struggle between these camps, the so-called newly independent countries put forward a policy of neutrality, non-alignment, and thus defending national independence against both camps. This policy had also been put forward in the earlier, second phase, but it did not gain momentum at that stage due to the correct policies of the USSR and the People's Democracies.
The Bandung Conference, held from April 18-24, 1955, with the participation of China and Vietnam, condemned colonialism in all its forms, and the colonial and neocolonial policies of all countries were denounced. This implied that the Soviets were also engaging in colonialism. Besides China, the leading countries were Indonesia, Burma, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, and India. Turkey also participated in the Conference. Most of the 31 countries participating in the conference were directly under the influence of the US. This conference and its results were lauded at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956 and at the 8th Congress of the CCP, which was also attended by the Yugoslav Party.
In 1956, the presidents of India, Egypt, and Yugoslavia (i.e., Tito, Nasser, and Nehru, agents of imperialism and warmongers) met in Broni to discuss the issue of 'peace'.
The Bandung conference and the Broni meeting were followed by the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement, which held its first founding meeting in Belgrade in 1961. The organization's policy was to 'stand in the middle between the Eastern and Western blocs in the Cold War'. The founding leaders of the organization were Yugoslavia (Tito), India (Nehru), Indonesia (Sukarno), Egypt (Nasser), Ghana (Kwarme), and Burma (U Nu). Cuba and Algeria were among the founding members. Libya became a member in 1964, Vietnam and North Korea in 1976, and Chile in 1973! Almost all the newly ‘independent’ countries became members. This group was indirectly approved in the Khrushchev program (1961) and explicitly in the Brezhnev program (1986) of the CPSU. It was practically always supported throughout the post-1953 period. In 2012, the group had 120 members. Thus, the policy of neutrality, encompassing all countries and between the two camps, was created under the leadership of the USSR and the People's Democracies, with their contribution and support, under Tito's wing. This policy, instead of defending peace and democracy, the freedom of countries and nations against imperialism under the leadership of the USSR, was nothing more than a policy of subjugating all countries and nations to the USA under the leadership of Titoist Trotskyists. The peace and democracy camp, formed under the leadership of the USSR and which should have grown and developed day by day, was nothing more than a policy of destruction, a policy of maintaining and preserving the subservient status of all countries in the world to the imperialist system. This policy is one that countries can be independent while maintaining the existence of imperialism and remaining within the imperialist system, and moreover, that true independence can only be achieved if it is also defended against communism. It is unequivocally an anti-communist and imperialist-serving policy.

a) Theories of the path to socialism and the possibility of different types of socialism, which are generally correct insofar as they adhere to general principles, but which are used by enemies as a tool to destroy communism, are explicitly theories that socialism can be built in countries that are part of the imperialist system, such as the Titoist-Khrushchevite type, and that countries that are part of the imperialist system can also be socialist. This theory has been thoroughly corrupted into the idea that countries under overt bourgeois rule can build socialism by embarking on a ‘socialist path’. Based on this, such countries have received significant economic aid. Thus, on the one hand, economic aid was provided to these countries, which were parts of the imperialist system, thereby alleviating the general crisis of imperialism and expanding, rather than narrowing, the imperialist market; on the other hand, this aid was also used to distort the economies of the USSR and the People's Democracies, to distance them from their efforts to build socialism-communism, and thus to destroy socialism-communism.

b) While countries were part of the imperialist system and imperialism maintained its existence, economic aid was provided to almost all countries that were parts of the imperialist system, with the aim of promoting their independence and encouraging their separation from imperialism. Thus, the general crisis of imperialism was alleviated, the imperialist market was expanded instead of being narrowed, and on the other hand, this aid was used to distort the economies of the USSR and the People's Democracies, to distance them from their efforts to build socialism-communism, and thus to destroy socialism-communism.

c) Weapons and weapons manufacturing technology were exported to all these countries, thus practically implementing a policy of contributing to the war policy of the imperialist system, rather than a policy of independence and war prevention against imperialism. These countries did not emerge as advocates and implementers of peace policies as parts of the peace and democracy front; on the contrary, they acted as implementers and disseminators of imperialist war policies, using the weapons provided to them by the USSR and the People's Democracies. The USSR and the People's Democracies were also transformed into countries actively involved in such war policies.
Thus, these so-called neutral countries and countries wishing to be independent from imperialism became instruments of war between countries and national oppression within their own countries, rather than arenas of national independence, peace, and democracy, and imperialist war policies gained full momentum throughout the world. Consequently, the dependence of nations and countries on imperialism was reinforced.

3. Under these conditions, communist and democratic parties, which were working for the victory of communism in their own countries and for the independence of their nations, were driven into a complete deadlock. In their struggles for democracy and peace, and in their efforts to seize power through democratic means, they were forced into a conflicted position regarding the identification of their goals and enemies in their fight against the local enemy supported by the USSR and the People's Democracies. They were doomed to defeat not through the support of the USSR and the People's Democracies, but through their betrayal and abandonment. In this way, the communist policy of peace and democracy, and the policy of national liberation, were defeated, while support was given to the imperialist policy of war. The revolution and the revolutionaries were defeated, and the barbarity of imperialism triumphed.
   
   

4. While the destruction of communism and the impossibility of its construction were being organized, and the powerful allies of peasant nations were being alienated and driven to ruin, peasant wars were encouraged under the name of people's war against imperialism and its local collaborators, peasant nations and peasants were declared the leading force, and thus national struggles, detached from the cities (the modern industrial proletariat) and powerful socialist nations, were left to defeat. In this way, the communist policy of peace and democracy, and the policy of national liberation, were defeated, while support was given to the imperialist policy of war. Revolution and revolutionaries were defeated, and the barbarity of imperialism was victorious.
   
   

5. The United Nations organization was transformed from an organization that regulates international relations on the basis of the independence of nations and the sovereignty of countries into a tool for oppressing nations under US hegemony. The USSR and the People's Democracies, along with the US and other imperialists and the so-called free countries acting as their followers, participated in policies under the UN umbrella that trampled on the independence of nations and the sovereignty of countries.
   
   

(i) A few great powers that oppress and exploit the entire mass of dependent and "independent" (in reality, absolutely dependent) nation-states, and the struggle among these states for a monopoly on exploiting nation-states.
the intensification of national conflicts within these “great” powers,
(ii) the struggle of dependent and “independent” national states against the unbearable pressure of the “great” powers,
the struggle of national states among themselves to expand their national territories,
the struggle of each national state, considered separately, against its oppressed national minorities, the intensification of national conflicts within national states containing a number of national minorities.
This period is the period of the complete surrender of national bourgeois and feudal lords to imperialism in order to prevent the victory of communism. Even in the face of overwhelming and destructive pressures, they do everything in their power to preserve and not overthrow the imperialist system.
Even at the cost of their own destruction, even at the cost of being slaughtered by imperialism, and even at the cost of their countries and nations being dragged into barbarism, they choose the victory of imperialism in the choice between communism and imperialism.
They seek refuge in the hegemony and protection of imperialism against the inevitable victory of communism. They sell the freedom of their nations to imperialism. They sacrifice democracy, individual freedoms and rights, and peace within their nations, countries, and increasingly between nations and countries—which should be brought to the stage of direct democracy within their ranks—to the war policies of imperialism.
Bourgeois society is completely bankrupt and deceitful in its approach to solving the national question.

(i) The old bourgeois conception of the right of nations to freely determine their own destiny and to establish their own independent states, under the slogan "All power to the national bourgeoisie," has been definitively proven useless and unusable. This concept must be discarded.
(ii) The socialist conception of the right of nations to freely determine their own destiny, under the slogan "All power to the working masses of the oppressed nations," must be adopted and implemented.
(iii) The right of nations to self-determination and the "principle" of "defense of the homeland" have not disappeared. What has disappeared are their bourgeois interpretations. We will see again throughout the world the revolutionary glory that they will achieve through their socialist interpretations. (iv) Peoples who have freed themselves from the yoke of their own national bourgeoisie and also from the yoke of the "foreign" bourgeoisie—that is, peoples who have established a People's Democracy or Soviet system in their countries with the aim and content of Direct Democracy—cannot, as long as imperialism exists, protect their existence alone without the economic and military support of countries that have reached the same position and without the support of all the world's proletarians and peoples who have not yet reached this position.
Unless the Soviet Republics and People's Democracy countries unite in a single state or partnership, unless they unite as a single economic and military force or partnership, and unless they gain the support of all the world's proletarians and peoples living under capitalist-imperialist conditions, they cannot resist the allied forces of world imperialism either militarily or economically. The Federation of Soviet and People's Democracy Republics is the form of unification within a single state against the allied forces of world imperialism. The Communist International, which must be re-established, is the organization of the support for this unity by the entire world proletariat and peoples.

c) Therefore;

The fundamental and most urgent task before us is the reconstruction of communism, the winning over of all communists to this reconstruction activity, and thus, under the leadership of strong communist parties, guaranteeing the overthrow of imperialism, the liberation of nations, and the achievement of democracy and peace.
The criterion we will use to determine whether movements active in this or that country, in this or that nation, are revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, that is, whether they should be supported or not, must be more than the demand that Lenin previously found acceptable (that the specific movement in question should not oppose communism's unification of workers of various nationalities under one roof and the organization of the people).
Today, when the future of all nations depends on the victory of communism in its struggle against imperialism and the proletariat's struggle against the financial oligarchy, the revolutionary or counter-revolutionary nature of all politically active groups and parties must be measured by which side they concretely and practically support in this struggle, and whether they contribute to the victory of communism. In this context, all politics that aim to achieve and protect the freedom of their nations and countries within the imperialist system, that do not concretely contribute to the politics of communism's destruction of imperialism, and that are inevitably fighting against this politics, are counter-revolutionary.
In the conditions of either communism or barbarism in which we live, all individuals and political movements must determine and declare where they stand and which politics they support and which they oppose.
It is impossible to be a democrat, and therefore a revolutionary, by harming communism, despising it, or refusing to work for its victory.
In this period and stage, when the future of all nations is tied to the victory of communism, and in these days when we live under the barbarity of imperialism, it is impossible to progress in any other way.

d) National wars and their positions.

Today, from the wars waged by the great imperialists against small countries and nations, to the wars of these small nations against the great powers, the problem hinges on the aims for which these wars are waged.
All wars that aim to protect the imperialist system, that ultimately preserve imperialism, and that do not aim for or make a concrete contribution to the victory of communism are reactionary and counter-revolutionary wars.
They only contribute to the war politics of imperialism, which can only survive through war and the complete chaos and barbarism it produces among peoples and nations, and emerge as part of this war, chaos, and barbarism politics. We communists condemn all these wars. From our perspective, all these wars and the environment of chaos and barbarism constitute indirect, not direct, support. That is, all the anti-communist partners in war, chaos, and barbarism, to the extent that they weaken themselves through their internal wars, indirectly support us in overthrowing them through what they do and will do to each other.
However, the following point must be noted here. With this policy of war and chaos, with this barbarism, the forces of imperialism, which are inevitably weakening themselves, could not stand on their own without these policies, and at the same time, they are using and will continue to use this war, chaos, and barbarism as a means of total attack, massacre, and destruction against communism. All the forces of imperialism that are involved in this war, this chaos, this barbarism, and that want to operate under imperialist conditions, are and will continue to cooperate to prevent the reorganization and victory of communism.

e) As long as private ownership of land, factories, that is, the means of production, continues, the struggle among the bourgeoisie for their possession must continue. As long as societies continue to be governed and organized by the bourgeoisie, relations between nations will also be organized on the basis of exploitation and coercion. It is impossible for the bourgeoisie to organize relations between nations on the basis of voluntary cooperation. History and the relations between bourgeois groups today clearly demonstrate this.
Previously, the term "nation" referred to a community living in a geographical area, sharing a common language, economic unity, and culture. The bourgeoisie could be the head of the nation. However, this began to disappear with the Soviet revolution. With the Soviet revolution, the bourgeoisie abandoned its nation and adopted a policy of securing its own future hand in hand with foreign bourgeoisies against its own nation.
Therefore, it should not be overlooked that the creators of the national question were not only foreign imperialists, but also the local imperialist bourgeoisie integrated with them (and the politics of the petty bourgeoisie is also an imperialist policy).
Now, the sections of the oppressed nation that will be freed from bondage thanks to national freedom and independence are the people outside the bourgeoisie and feudal lords, mainly the workers, peasants, and the poor. The bourgeoisie and feudal lords have lost their national identity.
During and after the Second World War, it was the communists and proletarian movements that raised the flag of the nation and led the struggle for the nation's freedom and independence. These movements received support from the peasantry in the countryside, whose backs were broken by imperialist oppression, though not to the same extent as the proletariat, and from the progressive petty bourgeoisie and intellectuals in the cities.
However, today, in conditions where communism and the organization of the proletariat are in disarray, the progressive petty bourgeoisie and intellectuals have surrendered to imperialism in order to protect their own interests, following in the footsteps of feudalists and big bourgeois who prefer to fill their pockets by selling the honor of their nations to the World Bank and the IMF. This understanding of the bourgeoisie's defense of national interests is based on the idea of increasing their wealth by maintaining their place in this system without breaking away from the imperialist world. However, it is also true that the petty bourgeoisie and intellectuals are inevitably radicalized by the devastation caused by the crises of the imperialist powers. The ability of these segments to break away from the politics of living by submitting to imperialism depends on the organization and strength of the working class. Faced with a strong revolutionary working-class movement, a section of the petty bourgeoisie and intellectuals will approach the working class in the struggle against the imperialist bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie and feudal lords and their parties, however, even when directly attacked by foreign imperialists, will not be able to abandon their hostility towards communism and the proletariat, seeing the destruction of the imperialist system as the only way to preserve their existence.
We determine that in the current period, the question of the liberation of nations rests definitively on the shoulders of the communists and the proletariat, and that we are forced to shoulder this burden under conditions where we are weak and, because we are without the USSR, even weaker. There is no other way left for the liberation of nations.
Either communism or barbarism!

f) The first and second stages discussed above are directly linked. They are linked on the basis of the victory and development of Communism and the USSR.
The third stage is the preparation for the break from these two stages, it is the transformation stage. The fourth stage, in which we are currently, has been reached through this transformation.

The fourth phase we are in is a definitive reversal phase. It is a return to the pre-October Revolution era in international relations.

However, this reversal in the organization of international relations is not simply a return to the pre-October era, to the pre-USSR era.
The general crisis of imperialism is extreme. Crisis management, both in the economy and in politics, is the general style of governance. It has taken reaction to barbarism. It disregards law and order in international relations, imposing and regulating crises with weapons. All bourgeois are unable to give democracy to their nations on the one hand, and unable to protect the freedom of their nations on the other.
In these political and social conditions, communism imposes itself as the only alternative for the solution of all problems, including the question of nations. The revolution that emerged with the introduction of microchips in production technology constitutes proof of this necessity from another perspective.
The defeat of communism is complete and certain. But the need for communism and the conditions for communism have never been as evident as they are today. Under these conditions, and despite all the difficulties, we can set out with certainty of the victory of communism, the defeat of imperialism, the freedom and unity of nations, and the ultimate triumph of internationalism.
We have nothing to lose. We have a whole world to gain!
Long live all the nations, tribes, and peoples of the world!
Long live the proletariat and its communism, the leader and unifier of all nations, tribes, and peoples!