The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1924-09-06
Continued from Page 81

"Aidynlyk," the organ of the Turkish
Communist Party published series
of articles urging the Communist
Party to support the development of
national capitalism against foreign
capitalism. Here we notice among
our Turkish comrades the tendency
which once upon time characterized
in Russia the legal Marxism of Mr..
Strive who urged the working class
to support the development of CAPT
talism in Russia. And just as in the
times of Russian Struvism, some of
sour Turkish comrades seemed at first
inclined to oonfound the interests of
the development of the productive
forces of the country with the inter
ests of the development of capitalism.
Altho our Turkish comrades have
made good their mistake after it was
pointed out to them, we must never
theless draw up instructions which
would prevent the repetition of the
same thing in other young sections of
the Communist International.
(c) The third group Of questions is
that which has been raised now by
the discussion in the press Of mum
Der of Communist Parties, especially
in Germany and in the Balkans. At
the Second Congress we adopted the
principle of national self-determina-
ton including complete separation.
But who is entitled to this right of
complete separation? This conten-
tious question, which we have settled
long ago, is unfortunately still Great
ing much confusion in the minds of
many comrades. Russian comrades
know that at the Eighth Congress of
our party we also had nihiIistic devia-
tions in connection with this question.
There were comrades who held the
opinion that during the period of i'm.
perialism only the proletariat Of the
country in question. had the right to
separation. Other ultra-left elements
went even further, for they asserted
that questions of "seIf-determination
including Separation" are not within
the competence of this or that ma
tional proletariat. In the opinion of
these ultra-left Russian Party com
rades, the question of "self-determina-
ton" must be subject to the interests
of the proletarian fight as whole,
and that therefore the only body en-
titled to the right to self-determina-
ton" must be the Comintern. Com
rades, this example shows you to what
absurdities we were reduced in our
Russian discussion. Many stormy
years have passed since then, and as
far as our party is concerned this
question is definitely settled. We de-
cided that this problem must rest on
careful analysis of the concrete his
toric conditions under which the self
determination of the nation in ques-
ton takes place.
Let us take two concrete examples.
The occupation of the Ruhr has brot
the national question before the Ger
man Communist Party. At first there
was a tendency within the latter
WHICH UculSu ludl Tie OCCupdlAOn VI
the Ruhr places the German Com
munist Party under the obligation of
raising the national question in Ger
many. This was an erroneous tend
ency which reflected the influence of
Rosa Luxemburg's theory. At the
same time number of articles by
Comrade Thalheimer appeared in the
die Internationale" which went to
the other extreme. His version of
"self-determination" and the neces.
sity of making use of national discon-
tent in Germany ignored the fact that
Germany has a highly developed in
dustrial proletariat, and that Germany
is also in the period of transition
from capitalism to socialism. Com
rade Thalheimer appeared to base the
tactical lines for the Communist
Party on the assumption that all class
contradictions had disappeared in
Germany, and that in connection with