It is difficult, it is very hard to communicate nationalistly with a socialist, if specified a conversation – a polemic of course – comes.
They talk different languages, operate with different concepts. Hence, so much in any specified discussion of misunderstandings, which first should be forcibly removed, so that a polemic about matters crucial and important, does not become a dispute over words misunderstood, so that arguments beat in each another alternatively than miss out on a vacuum.
Marxism is simply a doctrine. Nationalism is not a doctrine. This is simply a first and fundamental statement. Don't decision any further. Realizing this fundamental difference, it is inactive essential that the words "marksism" and "nationalism", with this one-sounding, unhappy ending of "ism", make an external appearance of any conceptual single plane. We would be happy to renounce the word "nationalism" to put an end to false associations of "ism" if the spite and pride did not make us support it: precisely due to the fact that it is so disgusting, precisely due to the fact that it was made a scarecrow, precisely due to the fact that it is attacked. moving distant from a word, even an unfortunate one, is the same as leaving the flag. You don't leave the flag in battle. It can be replaced and returned to the museum in peacetime.
So we stay at the word nationalism, just forget about its end "ism". It means more simply; the love of the homeland. This is not a word that defines a certain doctrine, it is simply a word that states a certain state of the apparent and twofold: the relation of man to his homeland.
Hence, the first correction of Leon Kruczkowski's article "Unwaying Nationalism and Socialist Ideals"[1]. Nationalism is not “the bourgeois ideology, by bourgeoisy in the 19th century introduced into history”. Nationalism has been older since both the 19th century and from bourgeoisy. And the triumphs of nationalism in the 19th century are just the most classical proof of the triumph of national reality over class doctrine.
What historical fact has become the beginning of this “introduction of nationalism into the past of the 19th century”? The large French Revolution, this revolution, which according to class doctrine was to be a revolution of class-conscious bourgeoisie against tyranny and higher classes – and in the historical position we are drawn present as a revolution of national bourgeoisie against constitutive advanced layers.
A akin historical phenomenon only on an even larger scale is happening in our eyes in russian Russia. And here the revolution took place under class slogans; it was called by Marxists; it was to become a test of the correctness of doctrine. And all day it becomes more apparent that national reality overcomes the doctrine of the revolution's inspirers. The constituent layers of advanced and cosmopolitan burgherness were removed from power – folk masses and their surviving national instincts came to the political voice. From the class revolution – the national form of the fresh Russia is slow emerging. The cursed word , , , , , returned to the dictionary, only with adjective: alternatively of the Russian homeland – the russian homeland.
This change of adjective indicates an even more interesting process: the process of being utilized by instinctive, subconscious Russian nationalism, even global slogans of communist doctrine for its purposes. What the Carat failed to accomplish by russification of various elements, inhabiting the Russian empire, is accomplished by red Russia by the Sovietization of the empire. Of course, the emerging russian nation will not be the same as the Russian nation. Russianity will be only a advanced percentage, anyway over 50. The remainder of the fresh national amalgam will consist of cultural elements of another nationalities in the USSR. But it is always so in past that a nation's enlargement is made at the price of sacrifices to others.
The circumstantial cultural and economical structure of the Russian empire has made Marxism, bred in the west of Europe, contrary to all the theoretical assumptions of its creators, found the ground susceptible in Russia. Not in the United States, which according to communist doctrine, should have primarily passed through the revolution, due to the fact that the concentration of capital is already farthest, and again – theoretically – the simplest acquisition of production by the proletariat, but in Russia's regressive industrial development. erstwhile it is observed present that in the Soviets the tremendous expansion of manufacture takes place under the motto of catching up and chasing the West, it is impossible to defy the thought that the subconscious instinct of the nation was working here too: only through revolution, only through the enthusiasm of liberated masses, only through the uplifting of interior labor, externally slaverdom – that Russia could take on this race essential for the power of the nation, essential to regain its backwardness.
So it happened that the dry, soulless doctrine of Marxism, at a given historical point, became a useful tool for the Russian people. In applicable application in the USSR, it has acquired a completely different interior sense, frequently even contrary to the founding of the creators.
The internationalization of Communism, which is undoubtedly the fruit of the thought contribution to the improvement of the doctrine of communist Jews, whose form of life in the diaspora must make internationalism supporters – this internationalism, in the complex national structure of Russia, already has its character on a national level; it is simply a kith connecting the fresh russian homeland[2]. Inside the USSR, it acts in its entirety; outside it creates possibilities for further conquests (unforeseenly, due to the fact that it is adequate to do within the limits of today), and it besides gives the Soviets immense services in a diplomatic planet game: in all country they are devoted to the Komintern local people, ready to support the demonstration of the request of russian abroad policy.
Collectiveism allows the Soviets to catch up with another countries by massaging and utilizing them as in the capitalist strategy would should be the most terrible exploitation. This is, of course, work for the russian homeland, not for the capitalist; it gives it a different character. But that's why it allows Russia to catch up with Fords and Krupps.
In fact, even the communist fight against religion on Russian lands, against the decay of Orthodox church, sectarianism and Rasputin traditions, makes a sense much different than it would have had elsewhere. Who knows whether it will not be a cleansing of the ground only; where the word has already appeared: the homeland, there, and the word, God, is not so distant.
So agree with Leon Kruczkowski that the crucial content of socialism (or communism) is national—but in Soviets. due to the fact that that is where it became national, more precisely: national – russian (yet 1 more triumph of national reality over class doctrine), it must besides be anti-national, due to the fact that in consequences – anti-Polish. Socialism, or, rather, communism, is already a national religion of religion – Soviet. Whoever turns to this confession – thus gets paid. The capital of his homeland is Red Moscow. After the divided into Stalinists and Trotskys, there are most likely no more naive people who believe that the Kremlin Stalin is pursuing the planet revolution and the utopian Union of Socialist Republics of the planet Councils. The Kremlin seeks to build a powerful russian state in Russia, a state that could, of course, be rounded up by swallowing its closest neighbours, if they could be agitated for the russian national faith.
Well, we just don't want to be swallowed. The world's conflict is between nations. Nations usage doctrines, even others, and process them for their purposes (as in the Soviets today, as in the mediate Ages, the German planet utilized Roman doctrine: the Roman Empire of the German people), doctrines are a powerful weapon in the conflict of nations, but only a weapon. The content will always be the nation, its needs and interests.
On this ground, however, we may agree with Leon Kruczkowski, due to the fact that for him (which is uncommon among the people of his camp), the notion of the interests of the nation is not an empty sound. This is what I found in Kruczkowski's article, which shows that under the semblance of socialist doctrine, there is simply a healthy sense in Kruczkowski's sense... yes, yes!... nationalistic. This conviction in the article Kruczkowski reads:
"Nationalists do not represent the interests of the nation; on the contrary, they express the interests of their class, contrary to the interests of the folk masses."
Typical dispute over words. It is clear that by nationalists, Kruczkowski is simply understood by the cosmopolitan, anti-national, alleged higher layers, usurping the right to talk on behalf of the nation, and representing, in fact, capitalist egoism. Against specified "nationalists" ready to go side by side with socialist Kruczkowski. In defence of the interests of the nation.
But as on the 1 hand the nation must be defended against the exploitation of the capitalist international, alleged classes having it, so on the another hand it cannot be given to the russian proletarian nation. You gotta have an ambition to rebuild the national strategy with your own forces. Not because, as Corolec says, “every nation considers its kind of life, the thought represented by itself, to be the best.” This is indeed a national megalomania. On the another hand, all nation, worthy of the name of a nation, should have the ambition to make a kind of life that would be the best.
The kind of life, created by the Soviets, surely has many features better than the present in Poland, and not the attractive liberal-capitalist-fascist mess. russian achievements in the area of justice of the distribution of social income are so right that all Miedzinski talks about it present in the Sejm. These achievements of socialism must spread worldwide. On the another hand, the full kind of life created by the Soviets may rise serious doubts. The first sin, the sin of materialistic doctrine, is avenged.
Here we are at the second fundamental point of the dispute: materialism – idealism. I do not claim or claim that socialism does not have its ideals. Of course, he has them, which does not request to be proved by examples of heroism in socialist fights, as Kruczkowski does. large conquistadors and tiny colonial agents of capitalism besides have beautiful cards of heroism in their history, from which it is not yet apparent that they are idealists; it is adequate that they were athletes.
Socialist ideals are unquestionable and known, but they are materialistic ideals, precisely these demands of justice in the area of the distribution of social income. It's important, very important. It is essential to meet but exhausting at best half of human needs. The another half: spiritual needs, are treated in a socialist strategy as superstructure. Luxury. Extra in off-hours. The full strategy of capitalist production, calculated to take man out of humanity and make him look like a device so that he does not think and rebel – socialism takes over without change, providing only a individual with a fair share of profit. It cannot have a dynamic developmental strategy based on specified a system. After the most stunning adjutant successes of catching up and chasing the “dead West” – it must break down. Break down the psyche of the production slaves.
Well, building a strategy that would reconcile the demands of gathering material and spiritual needs, which would break with a division of necessity and pleasure, which by restoring the work of human creative character would supply everyone with the top good: the pleasance of creation – this is the task that we put on Polish national ambition. A task far more thrilling than a meek joining a russian giant strategy machine.
Stanisław Piasecki
************
Stanisław Piasecki (1900–1941) is simply a journalist, writer and national activist. He was the editor-in-chief of the weekly “Easy from the Bridge” in which he promoted national and conservative ideas. In the interwar period associated with the environment of the National-Radical Camp. He criticized both communism and liberalism, advocating for a strong state and national culture. After the outbreak of planet War II, he became active in conspiracy activities. Arrested by the Germans in 1940, he was shot by the Gestapo in Palmira in 1941.
