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

52V. I. LENINtriumphant conclusion: “This example [Norway] neatlyfits into our pattern.”There you have a sample of the logic of imperialist Economism!Our theses point out that finance capital can dominatein “any”, “even independent country”, and all thearguments about self-determination being “unachievable”from the point of view of finance capital are therefore sheerconfusion. We are given data confirming our propositionabout the part foreign finance capital played in Norwaybefore and after her secession. And these data are supposedto refute our proposition!Dilating on finance capital in order to disregard politicalissues—is that the way to discuss politics?No. Political issues do not disappear because of Economism’sfaulty logic. British finance capital was “at work” inNorway before and after secession. German finance capitalwas “at work” in Poland prior to her secession from Russiaand will continue to “work” there no matter what politicalstatus Poland enjoys. That is so elementary that it is embarrassingto have to repeat it. But what can one do if the ABCis forgotten?Does this dispense with the political question of Norway’sstatus? With her having been part of Sweden? With the attitudeof the workers when the secession issue arose?Kievsky evades these questions because they hit hardat the Economists. But these questions were posed, andare posed, by life itself. Life itself posed the question:Could a Swedish worker who did not recognise Norway’sright to secession remain a member of the Social-DemocraticParty? He could not.The Swedish aristocrats wanted a war against Norway,and so did the clericals. That fact does not disappear becauseKievsky has “forgotten” to read about it in the history ofthe Norwegian people. The Swedish worker could, whileremaining a Social-Democrat, urge the Norwegians to voteagainst secession (the Norwegian referendum on secession,held on August 13, 1905, resulted in 368,200 votes for secessionand 184 against, with about 80 per cent of the electoratetaking part). But the Swedish worker who, like the Swedisharistocracy and bourgeoisie, would deny the Norwegiansthe right to decide this question themselves, without the