Lenin CW-Vol. 23.pdf - From Marx to Mao

38V. I. LENINTo discuss things in ‘general’, out of context with time andspace, does not befit a Marxist.”There you have a sample of caricaturing the concept“imperialist era”. And its caricature must be fought preciselybecause it is a new and important concept! What do we meanwhen we say that national states have become fetters, etc.?We have in mind the advanced capitalist countries, aboveall Germany, France, England, whose participation in thepresent war has been the chief factor in making it an imperialistwar. In these countries, which hitherto have been inthe van of mankind, particularly in 1789-1871, the processof forming national states has been consummated. In thesecountries the national movement is a thing of an irrevocablepast, and it would be an absurd reactionary utopia to tryto revive it. The national movement of the French, English,Germans has long been completed. In these countries history’snext step is a different one: liberated nations have becometransformed into oppressor nations, into nations of imperialistrapine, nations that are going through the “eve of thecollapse of capitalism”.But what of other nations?Kievsky repeats, like a rule learned by rote, that Marxistsshould approach things “concretely”, but he does not applythat rule. In our theses, on the other hand, we deliberatelygave an example of a concrete approach, and Kievsky didnot wish to point out our mistake, if he found one.Our theses (§6) state that to be concrete not less than threedifferent types of countries must be distinguished when dealingwith self-determination. (It was clearly impossible todiscuss each separate country in general theses.) First type:the advanced countries of Western Europe (and America),where the national movement is a thing of the past. Secondtype: Eastern Europe, where it is a thing of the present.Third type: semi-colonies and colonies, where it is largelya thing of the future.*Is this correct or not? This is what Kievsky should havelevelled his criticism at. But he does not see the essenceof the theoretical problems! He fails to see that unless herefutes the above-mentioned proposition (in §6) of our* See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 150-52 .—Ed.