Original article in Ukrainian by Serhiy Hrabovskyi
Viktor Medvedchuk and his ideological colleagues at SDPU(o) aver that Ivan Franko was a social-democrat.
The early Ivan Franko was a social-democrat; however later, Franko adopted Ukrainian national-democratic views. This is the view held by critics of “frankotization,” such as Bohdan Chervak in his article “Ivan Franko: a social-democrat?”
Victor Yushchenko and “Our Ukraine” members also claim Ivan Franko, going as far as to draw a direct line of philosophical connection with the Ukrainian writer and poet.
Then who really was Ivan Yakovych Franko?
Avoiding in-depth analyses of Franko’s political, social and economic views, I must note that Bohdan Chervak appears to be closest to the truth. Chervak disagrees with “frankotization” whether by the SDPU(o), the Socialists, or the PSPU. As for connection between Franko and “Our Ukraine,” Chervak delicately omits any commentary.
Here are a few clarifications.
Firstly, even during the “orthodox” social-democratic days of the young writer, Ivan Franko advocated social-economic changes through peaceful means. This was bold revisionism.
Secondly, in his own words written some time later, “…I never belonged to the faithful of that religion, and had the courage, amidst put downs and disregard, to bravely carry my flag of old-fashioned people-based socialism, which is based on ethic and humanistic cultivation of masses, a flag standing for general availability of education, science, critical thinking, human and national freedom. The flag does not stand for party dogma and despotism of its leaders; it does not represent the bureaucracy or parliamentary corruption, which would supposedly lead to the ‘bright’ future.”
The difference in views held by Ivan Franko and the traditional social-democrats can be undeniably seen in his 1891 article “From the field of science and literature.”
In that work, discussing the specifics of the political life of his decade, Franko notes: “Until recently, never have the national (narodni) masses partake in the civic life, and in that which can be called “making history”…strongly developed is the individualism and yet, so is the feeling of a community – these are the main mottos of our time. At first glance, they are diametrically opposed, but at the core they are mutually complementing.”
To the above, Franko adds in a different article that “the primary foundation for the political emancipation of the masses, I consider – if you will – three items: universal literacy, universal military obligation, and universal suffrage.”
As for the national factor: according to Ivan Franko, every answer to economic and political problems is incomplete if it excludes national considerations. Social-democrats by nature are socialists first, and Ukrainians later, rather than vice versa as should be: “…a synthesis of all ideas is a structure incorporating all bricks; it is an idea about a full, unobstructed, free life (moderated only by compromises which a peaceful coexistence between neighbors requires), and the development of the nation. Outside the national framework, there are hypocrites – who are happy to cover their true intention of dominating one nation over another using international ideals, and sentimental idealists - who are happy to cover their own separation from their nation using “universal” phrases of all humanity.”
Finally, let’s not forget Ivan Franko’s classical work “What is Progress?” where discussion is about the dangers inherent in the realization of the social-democratic ideals: “Life in Engels’ people state (narodna derzhava) would have been correct, organized and proper like a good clock. However this view has its flaws that awaken heavy doubts. This all-powerful state would be omnipresent with a heavy burden in the lives of common men. Personal freedom and personal thought of every person would disappear, vanish since the state will find these harmful and unnecessary. The ultimate goal of education would be to raise enslaved people who are simply convenient, income generating extensions of the state. People would grow up and live in such a dependence, and under such state supervision about which in today’s most absolutist police states there is not even a discussion. This people state would become a large people jail (narodna tyurma). And who would serve as the jail guards? Who would hold the steering wheel of that state?...Those who do, would have in their hands an immense power over the lives and fate of millions of their comrades; the type of power not known by biggest despots... And possessing this power in their hands, if only for a short time, how easily could these guards hold on to it forever!”
So according to Franko, social-democrats coming to power would be dangerous for the people, and this party should not be allowed to win in an election.
In “Literary-Scientific Journal” of 1904, Ivan Franko writes about the history of the socialist movement: “…Socialism today, especially for masses less educated, has far more of a religious character, relying on strict dogmas and cults of personality rather than a character of a science.”
Right or not, Franko certainly was correct about at least a part of the social-democratic movement of his day. After reading the above, can anyone reasonably assert that Ivan Franko was a supporter of social-democratic ideas?
And now about the rights of Victor Yushchenko and his team who consider themselves direct spiritual scions of Ivan Franko.
Here is another excerpt by Franko, which will allow us to make some conclusions: “I do not like the Ukrainians. Amongst them, I found so little character, and so much bickering, egoism, two-facedness and pride that truly I do not know for what I must love them. Understandably, I know a couple of exceptions, but these same caveats only support the general conclusion… Even our Ukraine, I do not like. For me to love her as a geographic concept, I am too big an enemy of empty phrases; I saw too much of the world for me to say that no where is there such beautiful nature as in Ukraine. For me to love her history, I know all too well, all too passionately how I love the universal virtues of justice, brotherhood and freedom that show me how little in the history of Ukraine there are examples of a civic spirit, of true loyalty and true love. Or maybe I should love Ukraine on race basis – that race which is undisciplined, sentimental, without morale and free will, incapable of a political life in her own garbage, a race full of anomalies? Or maybe I should love the bright future of Ukraine that future which I do not know and for which I see no reasons to be bright?...”
In his speeches, Yushchenko likes to talk about the Tripillian culture, about ancestral dreams and ancestral pride that we are Ukrainians; if anyone finds similar views in Franko, then this author is ready to admit that he is wrong.
Unlike the modern statesmen, here is how Ivan Franko explained his patriotism:
“My Ukrainian patriotism – it is not a sentiment, not a national pride, it – a heavy yoke, placed by fate on my shoulders. I can tremble; I can quietly curse the fate, but I cannot throw down this bondage, cannot go look for another homeland, because then I would be loathed by my own conscience.”
Perhaps neither Medvedchuk with Moroz, nor Yushchenko with Poroshenko have any right to make claims to be ideological scions of Ivan Franko?
Serhiy Hrabovskyi, assistant editor-in-chief of Suchasnist’
