As we see, the sense of Doronenko’s words is following: it was necessary to take Sultan-Galiev’s advice, then USSR wouldn’t collapsed. In fact, Doronenko reasons here as far-sighted bourgeois: it is necessary to abandon extremes of colonialism for the sake of maintaining of the empire. Here he practically doesn’t differ from Putin who consider the collapse of USSR as “the greatest tragedy of XX century”.
Nevertheless, the article is worthy of notice.
Let’s examine the article of American Maoists which concerns Sultan-Galiev and modern Islamic revolution (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/countries/panislamic/islam1007.html . On converting to Islam: the invisible schism in the international communist movement. October 23 2007). We shall not analyze all this article – there are many confusions there, which have arisen from lack of knowledge of facts, from typical prejudices of modern Maoists and the like (for example, the author sympathizes with Russian fascist Limonov who converted himself to Islam at the call of Bin Laden; contemptuously names white American poor “white trash”; represents Lenin’s theory of the “weakest link” as Stalin’s thesis; doesn’t distinguish between class essence of Al Qaeda and that of Taliban etc.). We shall analyze only the points which are interesting to us.
The author regrets that because of Sultan-Galiev was executed by Stalin, Sultan-Galiev’s ideas remained unknown in the West. He recognizes that Stalin was guilty of the split between him and Sultan-Galiev: author says that “Stalin did not see the next 75 years and he felt too much pressure from Trotsky–the concentrated expression of an incipient Russian labor aristocracy and already existing Russian settlers moving into Muslim territories” (of course, it is absurdly to blame Stalin’s chauvinism on Trotsky). According to author, Trotskyism is “just a particularly coherent and articulate version of Menshevism”. This assertion is correct only in part. Trotsky’s position was inconsistent, and in it there was not only Menshevism, which counts on the revolution in Europe and practically doesn’t pay attention to peoples of oppressed nations, but also the criticism of Stalin’s chauvinism, though inconsequent.
Here are some places from this article:
“The typical impression we receive from the imperialists and their pseudo-Marxist defenders is that Muslim nationalists are hopelessly irrational…”
“According to long-time CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, Osama Bin Laden is very practical, not inclined to irrationality. In fact, he says that Osama Bin Laden is more realistic than his own political leaders, and this is among other reasons that numerous CIA analysts had to resign from Mideast duties: “I fear, al Qaeda sees the world clearer than we””
“Given the poor quality of our media, the topic of Al Qaeda is one we can be sure we do not know much about. If Scheuer is correct in his historical depiction of Al Qaeda, then Al Qaeda is the most significant anti-imperialist organization in the world”
“…there is more reality to “Allah is coming” than “the Western worker is coming.” The people of Islam are already on the move as oppressed and exploited people. The Taliban member on average is less utopian than the average phony communist globally pretending that Euro-Amerikan workers are exploited and still about to rise up at any minute. The Taliban knows about war against imperialism concretely, while the Western so-called “working class” knows about the couch. Liberation fighters in Afghanistan have known the joy of defeating Soviet social- imperialism and now some of the same people are fighting U.$ . imperialism. Unfortunately, the Trotskyists in contrast, are able to spout the same worthless tripe for more than 80 years running without a single revolution to their credit since Lenin’s death. So things became upside down: the Trotskyists claimed to be scientists though completely unconnected from reality and the Taliban claimed to be religious though composed of fighters of considerable practical experience against imperialist troops. That is the dialectical sort of twist Marx prepared us for but did not expect”
“There is a wing of Islam that needs to receive 1000 times more weight in our global understanding as communists than Trotskyism does”
“Passive reflective types have claimed so-called science, what Marx derided as contemplative materialism, now best exemplified by Trotskyism”
“Not the West, not I$ rael, not Russia and not China–so in our times the entry point of discussion has to be Sultan-Galiyev or Osama Bin Laden himself”
It is necessary to add to author’s words, that Stalinists are the same “priests of Marxist parish” as Trotskyists.
Other article about Sultan-Galiev at the same site (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/countries/panislamic/index.html, Sultan Galiev: Starting a Re-Appraisal) gives more answers than questions.
“Whether or not Stalin was right in 1923, we can say for sure that Sultan-Galiev’s ideas deserve more respect today”
We see that the position of author of those 2 articles is contradictory, which tries to reconcile Stalinism with Sultan-Galiev’s ideas, and even if the author refuses the former in favor of the latter, he does it very hesitatingly.
Manabendra Nath Roy. Indian M. N. Roy which is named “apparently the greatest modern Indian materialist” (http://advaita.fatal.ru/Books/murti.html), was the delegate of Comintern conventions and even one of founders of Mexican Communist Party. His name is mentioned in Lenin’s collected works (see Collected works, 5th edition (Russian-language), vol. 41, p. 241, 242, 245): Roy’s drafts along with Lenin’s drafts served as a basis for Comintern theses on national and colonial questions. Roy’s views can be judged by the fragment of his letter to S. Yu. Rutgers (apparently, it was written about 1920):
“Although I am convinced of inevitable collapse of capitalist society, which has reached the highest stage of development in Europe and USA, I increasingly come to the conclusion that proletariat of western-European countries and USA will need external force in order to enter into final struggle. Kapp’s incident and absolute lack of initiative from the side of German communists in the moment when they have such fair chance, give the ground for my conclusions. I also rather well know the psychology of English working class. I doubt strongly of their ability to perform conscious revolution in the near future. Proletarian solidarity turned out to be rather sad show last two years, when Russian comrades alone fight against reactionary forces of the whole world. My opinion is such: it is necessary to attack strong positions of capitalism in Europe and America at flanks and rear. Much time, energy and money is spending in order to organize frontal attack, which doesn’t yield any considerable result as yet. It is necessary to devote more time to organization strong attacks on USA from Latin American countries and on European capitalism from Asian colonies. This conviction has led me to the idea of Latin American bureau. I also propose to create East bureau somewhere, in Persia or Afghanistan. At the head of this bureau must be the people with clear vision of international situation. In spite of their so-called less developed class consciousness, masses in the countries of Latin America and the East less infected with bourgeois culture and traditions, which create certain conservatism in European and American industrial proletariat. They are driven to revolution every day; they speak about revolution too much; but this instinctive conservatism prevents them from heading it. They must be pushed into revolution, and for this it is necessary to take certain measures. Thus, in my opinion, the only solution is the great mass upheaval in mentioned countries. It will mean the collapse of western (including American) industrial system. And inevitable result of such collapse will be the enormous response among proletariat of Europe and USA”.
Roy’s words that “proletarian solidarity turned out to be rather sad show” would be topical today too, if one replaces the words “Russian comrades” with the words “Chechen comrades”, aren’t they?
Incidentally, in above-mentioned place of Lenin’s writings it is said that it is erroneous to name national-liberation movements bourgeois-democratic, because by this the distinction between revolutionary wing and reformist one of these movements is eliminated, especially since imperialists try to instill reformism even in oppressed peoples. Today is the same. Left activist NKVD criticizes me for the consideration Taliban’s wing of Islamism as proletarian one; he says that it is petty-bourgeois. And at the same time he praises the strike of minibus drivers in Mahachkala (Dagestan), i.e. that sort of struggle, by which Russian imperialists want to divert the attention of North Caucasus people from revolutionary struggle against military.
Also NKVD criticizes me for my “morbid” love to Islamists. He doesn’t see dialectics. He ignores that Russia’s population today is only 2% of the world population, moreover, this percentage decreases; that the percentage of oppressed Muslim peoples, on the contrary, increases; that the percentage of immigrants (Uzbeks, Tajiks etc.) among Russia’s population increases; that Russian proletariat can’t win without the alliance with Islamic revolution, without learning from this revolution. Also NKVD doesn’t see dialectics in the sense that materialism, Marxism is dialectical doctrine, which is renewed, as Engels said, with every new scientific discovery, with every new social phenomenon. But we shall talk about it below.
Let’s return to Roy. In the later 1920’s he has divided in opinion from Stalin. During 1930’s he spent time in prison in India for the struggle against British imperialism. A short time later he was released from prison, he has published the work “Historical role of Islam” (1939).
Let’s examine this work. Roy clearly demonstrated in it, that original Islam was revolutionary ideology, primitive materialism (primitive – relative to our time, but for its own time it stood very highly), which degraded later, in several centuries, transforming to reactionary ideology, to idealist obscurantism (similar to evolution of Soviet official “Marxism-Leninism” from 1920’s to 1980’s). Be delighted with revolutionary mission of original Islam in overthrow oppressors and empires of that time, Roy, however, doesn’t idealize its religious prejudices, criticizing them; he doesn’t idealize Prophet Mohammed. I think that proletarians of the 3rd world wouldn’t bear any resentment against Roy that he, recognizing Mohammed one of the greatest revolutionary of all times and peoples, defined his “contacts” with Allah as the result of mental disorder caused by too intensive thought activity etc. (many revolutionaries of the newest age were also ill with mental disorder – Pisarev, for example – and this fact doesn’t detract from the value of their works). Incidentally, this work is presented at one of Indian Muslim sites.
We, Leninists, dislike deeply those who try to divert the attention from the present to ancient history as Kautsky did. But this Roy’s work is another case. The purpose of this work for Roy was overcoming the distrust of one part Indian society – Hindus – to another part – Muslims, and also the purpose was the struggle against traditional Islam, i.e. against Muslims’ religious prejudices, which were far from original Islam, in which there was much more materialism than idealism.
Today India already became independent, it entered into imperialist stage and oppresses itself other peoples – for example, it participates in suppression Talibs (the features of this entering were noticed already by Roy, he wrote about “spiritual imperialism” of Indian nation). Certain part of Indian Muslims (Jammu and Kashmir etc.) is still oppressed, but other part of them is assimilated into Indian nation, becoming its part enjoying full rights (like Bashkirs and Tatars within Russian nation), and among them there are many representatives of middle class.
By tiburi from Pixabay