The National Question – some
basic principles
This article was written for Irish Marxist Review 8 which took 'The national question today' as its theme see www.irishmarxistreview.net.
Marxists
are internationalists not nationalists.
Nationalism
is a key element in bourgeois ideology. It is one of the ideological means,
arguably in today’s world the main
ideological means, by which the capitalist class of all nations secures the
compliance and even support of the working class and of the oppressed of all
nations.
Like most
such ideological phenomena nationalism is not a fixed ‘thing’ or doctrine but
rather a cluster of attitudes and propositions which are sometimes articulated,
sometimes simply taken for granted, and frequently assumed to be ‘obvious’ and
‘common sense’. These are some of the principal nationalist assumptions which
combine in different proportions and with different emphases at different times
in different formulations of nationalism.
1. A
particular nation – ‘our’ nation, whether it is Ireland, America, Britain,
Germany or wherever – is somehow ‘best’, superior to other nations, as in
‘America is the greatest country on earth’ or ‘Britannia rules the waves!’ or
‘Deutschland uber alles!’.
2. One’s
national identity is one’s most important or core identity, taking precedence
over other identities such as class, gender, ethnicity, locality, occupation
etc.
3. Nations,
or the people of a given nation, are held to have certain definite national
characteristics which are somehow ‘in their blood’ or their genes and which
explain or shape national history rather than being a product of it. For
example, the British are ‘moderate’ and given to compromise or Americans are
‘freedom loving’ It should be noted that
these characteristics are often positive
as applied to one’s own country and negative when applied to other countries,
especially ‘enemy’ countries.
4. There is
a common ‘national’ interest which unites all members of a given nation, and to
which all ‘sectional’ interests (class, gender, ethnicity, locality etc.)
should be subordinate: ‘It is in the national interest for workers to exercise
wage restraint’ or ‘We all have to make sacrifices in the national interest’.
5. In
economic, political or even sporting conflicts with other nations it is a
citizen’s duty to support their ‘own’ country. This applies most forcibly in
time of war when to behave otherwise is be deemed a ‘traitor’.
6. It is
the prime job of the government and the state to represent the national
interest and that involves putting the interests of the government’s citizens
first, before the interests of ‘foreigners’ as in ‘Why are we giving so much in
foreign aid when we have problems at home? We should look after our own first’
or ‘Irish/British/ French jobs for Irish/British/ French workers’.
Of these
six assumptions listed here it is the last three that are most important politically
and most pervasive (though all are widespread) and it should be noted that many
people and, crucially, many politicians who would reject any claim of
‘superiority’ as crude and arrogant would nonetheless basically accept points
4-6. In particular the notion of a ‘national interest’ is accepted by virtually
all ‘mainstream’ politicians and frames almost all current political debate.
One of the
main reasons why nationalism is so ubiquitous and so powerful is that it
reflects a central material fact about the modern world, namely that economic,
social and political life actually is organised on the basis of nation states
more or less everywhere across the globe. What the ideology of nationalism conceals is that this ‘fact’ is of recent
origin: nationalism has a general tendency to project the history of ‘the
nation’ back to time immemorial, so naturalising it and legitimating it. Thus
we hear of Ireland in the 10th century or Italy in 12th
century as if we speaking of the same kind of entity as Ireland or Italy today
when in there was no such thing as an Irish or Italian nation state or national
consciousness at this time only Ireland or Italy as a geographical expression,
like Scandinavia or South America today). In general, nation states in the
modern sense only emerged with and as part of the development of capitalism and
the rise of the bourgeoisie from about the 16th century onwards[1]
and nationalism was from the outset a specifically bourgeois ideology.
In
opposition to this bourgeois ideology Marxist internationalism rejects each of
the six assumptions outlined above.
1. No
nation (or ‘race’ or ‘people’ or ‘culture’) is inherently or innately superior
to all or any others. Of course it is true that at particular moments in
history particular states, or parts of the world are able to establish their
economic, political and military dominance [2]
but this is historically determined, has nothing to do with innate capacity and
is invariably a temporary phenomenon. Thus Rome had a period of dominance (over
part of the world) from about 100 BCE to 400 CE , China was in the lead about
1000CE, Britain in the 19th century and the USA in the 2Oth with
China making a bid for leadership in the 21st.
2.
Individual’s have multiple ‘identities’ or identifications – nation, gender,
ethnicity, locality, family, religion, occupation, class and so on. Which
identification predominates in people’s consciousness depends on circumstances
and is the outcome of social and political struggle. Bourgeois nationalists
fight for nation to predominate, socialists fight for class.
3.
‘National characteristics’ do exist but they are a product of history and are absolutely
marginal compared to what people of different nationalities have in common.
Moreover they are of next to no explanatory use in understanding history.
Explanations of Irish resistance (say in 1916 or 1920) or Irish passivity (say
in 2011) in terms of the ‘Irish character’ have no value any more than does the
notion that the French are ‘always out on the streets’ (if only) or that Latin
Americans go in for revolutions. A distinction must be made between any concept
of inherent ‘national character’ and national traditions (including social
memory) which are historically formed and do a play a certain role in shaping
ongoing political struggles.[3]
4. Marxist
internationalism rejects the idea of a common national interest. Any nation
consists of different classes and the interests of any capitalist class, be it
Irish, German or Russian, are fundamentally opposed to the interests of ‘their’
working class whom they systematically exploit. The concept of the ‘national interest’ serves
to mask this exploitation and conflict of interests. When workers are asked to
make sacrifices ‘in the national interest’ they are really being asked to make
sacrifices to increase the bosses’ profits. In a capitalist society the
‘national interest’ always means the interest of the capitalist class.
5. If,
according to nationalism, the citizen’s duty is to support their ‘own’ country
i.e. their ruling class, the obligation of the socialist and internationalist
is to support the working class and the oppressed of their own country and
internationally. This applies especially to war and our attitude in and to wars
depends on the progressive or reactionary character of the war from the
standpoint of the working class.
6. In
opposition to the nationalist argument that ‘we’ or ‘our’ government should
look after ‘our own’ first – via immigration controls, ‘Irish jobs for Irish
workers’ or any kind of discrimination against foreigners – the
internationalist position is that ‘our own’ are the working people and
oppressed of all countries. Hence Marx and Engels’ slogan from the Communist
Manifesto – Workers of the World Unite! – has always been the basic slogan of
our whole movement.
If the
material foundation of nationalism is the aforementioned fact that in the
capitalist era ‘economic, social and political life actually is organised on
the basis of nation states’ the foundation of internationalism is the deeper
truth that despite its organisation into competing nations capitalism is
ultimately an international system. Even at its beginning in the sixteenth
century the development of capitalism in Europe depended on a process of ‘primitive capital
accumulation’ that was thoroughly global. As Marx described it in Capital:
The discovery of gold and silver
in America, the
extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population,
the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies,
the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial
hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist
production. These idyllic proceedings are the chief momenta of primitive
accumulation. On their heels treads the commercial war of the European nations,
with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of the Netherlands
from Spain,
assumes giant dimensions in England’s
Anti-Jacobin War, and is still going on in the opium wars against China,
&c.[4]
With the
Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century and the onset of the
imperialist era in the late 19th century this internationalisation
of capitalist production was greatly intensified. Again it was predicted and
analysed with uncanny accuracy by Marx way back in 1848.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its
products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must
nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its
exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production
and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has
drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood.
All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being
destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a
life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer
work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest
zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every
quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of
the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products
of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion
and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal
inter-dependence of nations…
It compels all nations, on pain
of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to
introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become
bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.[5]
The intense
globalisation of the last three decades has fulfilled Marx’s prediction
virtually to the letter. Moreover the consequence of this international
integration is the internationalisation of the phenomenon of crisis and
recession to which capitalism is subject as was seen both in the great slump of
the 1930s and the recession that began in 2008.
This in
turn lends an international character to the struggle against capitalism.
Clearly this is an uneven process in which national peculiarities and rhythms
remain – for example the level of resistance has obviously been higher in Greece than it has in Ireland over the last few years.
Nevertheless the class struggle goes through waves of advance and retreat that
are fundamentally international.
Thus there
was the ‘age of revolution’ comprising the American Revolution of 1774, the
French Revolution of 1789, the Haitian and other slave revolts of 1791 and the
’98 in Ireland. Then there was 1848 with its revolutions in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, parts of Italy, Poland, the campaign of the Chartists in Britain and the foundation of the Fenians
in America, followed by a long period of capitalist
expansion and political reaction. In the years leading up to the First World
War came a period of workers’ industrial revolt known as ‘the Great Unrest’ in Britain which included the rise of
syndicalism in France, the Wobblies in America and the Lockout in Dublin. This was interrupted by the
outbreak of the War but then the struggle resumed at a higher level with the
Easter Rising of 1916, the Russian Revolution of 1917, The German Revolution of
1918-23, the Hungarian and Finnish Revolutions, the Italian ‘biennio rosso’ of
1919-20, the Irish War of Independence and much else.
The failure
of this great revolutionary surge was then followed by a long period of
international defeat culminating in the victories of fascism and Stalinism. The
1950s and 60s saw a long capitalist boom but as the boom started to falter the
struggle revived especially in 1968 and after, with the May Events in France,
the black and anti-Vietnam War movement in the US, the international student
movement, the British industrial battles of 1972-74, the Irish Civil Rights
struggle and the start of ‘the troubles’, the Chilean Popular Unity and so
on. The 1980s and 90s – the age of
Reagan, Thatcher and neo-liberalism – were generally rightwing but the current
crisis has witnessed, since the end of 2010, a wave of revolt from Tunisia and
Egypt to Spain and the Occupy Movement.
From the
global nature of capitalism Marx and Engels at once realised that socialism
could not be achieved in one country. In The Principles of Communism (1847),
which was the first draft of the Communist
Manifesto, Engels posed the question directly:
Will it be possible for this
revolution to take place in one country alone?
And answered
No. By creating the world market, big industry
has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized
peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of
what happens to the others.[6]
Lenin reiterated the point on many occasions. For
example in January 1918:
The final victory of socialism
in a single country is of course impossible. Our contingent of workers and
peasants which is upholding soviet power is one of the contingents of a great
world army.[7]
And in November 1920 on the 3rd
anniversary of the Revolution:
We knew at that time that our
victory would be a lasting one only when our cause had triumphed the world
over, and so when we began working for our cause we counted exclusively on the
world revolution…. We have always known and shall never forget that ours is an
international cause, and until the revolution takes place in all lands,
including the richest and most highly civilized ones, our victory will be only
a half-victory, perhaps still less.[8]
Then the defense of internationalism and the goal
of world revolution became the fundamental issue in Trotsky’s struggle against Stalinism with its
doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ and in today’s globalised world the idea
of being able to construct socialism in a single country is less plausible than
ever.
For all these reasons the development of
international solidarity, international socialist organization and the struggle
against racism, nationalism and every prejudice which divides the working class
is central to socialism.
National
Oppression and National Liberation
Opposition to nationalism does not however mean
that socialists are indifferent to issues of national oppression. On the
contrary just as socialists have to be determined opponents of women’s
oppression, LGBT oppression, and religious oppression, so they must vigorously
oppose all forms of national oppression. This gives rise to an apparent
paradox. Historically the most important
form of national oppression has been the denial of the right of nations or
people to national independence or statehood. This has especially been the case
in the numerous empires that have arisen with the development of capitalism.
Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, France, Russia, Germany, Austria, Japan,
Italy, USA, Turkey etc and, above all, Britain amassed numerous colonies to
whom they denied independence – India, Ireland, Kenya, Algeria, Vietnam,
Nigeria, the West Indies, Angola, the Congo, Serbia, Georgia, to name but a
few. If socialists, in their opposition to national oppression, support the
liberation struggles of such nations or would-be nations are they not thereby
supporting nationalism or at the very least compromising with it?
This was the argument made by the great Polish –
German revolutionary socialist Rosa Lexemburg at the beginning of the 20th
Century, especially in relation to Poland.
At this time Poland
was a colony of Russia
but Luxemburg, who was profoundly internationalist, argued against supporting
Polish independence because she was convinced that the Polish nationalists were
reactionary and anti-working class and that instead Polish workers should unite
with their Russian brothers and sisters in the struggle against the Tsar. (This
was at the time of the 1905 Revolution in Russia.) In contrast Lenin argued that it was
essential for socialists to support the right of the oppressed nations within
the Russian empire – Poland,
Georgia, Latvia,
Kazakstan and many others – to self-determination including the right to secede
if they wanted it.
Luxemburg thought this was a concession to nationalism
and sowed illusions in the possibility of small nations to develop
‘independently’ within global capitalism. Lenin denied he was making any
concession to nationalism and argued that support for the right to
self-determination of oppressed nations was simply the application of
democratic principle to the national question. Moreover he insisted it was
precisely an internationalist duty
because the international unification of the working class and of all peoples,
which was the goal of socialism, could only be a voluntary unification. It
could not be imposed by capitalism or imperialism. Lenin maintained that if
socialists failed to oppose conquest, colonialism or the denial of the right to
self- determination, they would become complicit in national oppression and
cease to be internationalists.
Rosa Luxemburg was a great revolutionary
socialist and committed internationalist but there is little doubt that history
has proved Lenin right on this question. Everywhere it has existed imperialism
has generated resistance in the form of national liberation movements which
have played a hugely important and generally progressive role over the last 100
years. It is clear that socialists had to support the struggle of India,
Ghana, Kenya,
Zimbabwe and Ireland
for national independence from the British Empire, of Algeria
against French imperialism, of Vietnam
against American imperialism, of Angola
and Mozambique
in relation to Portuguese imperialism and so on.
Lenin argued that revolts in the colonies and struggles
for national liberation would objectively weaken the ruling class in the
imperialist countries and thus assist the development of the revolution in
those countries. This has been vindicated on a number of occasions: for example
the resistance by the Vietnamese in the 1960s had a huge impact in developing
resistance within the United States in terms of the black movement, the
anti-war movement, and the student revolt – indeed it was a big factor in the
revolts of the sixties internationally, including May ’68 in Paris – and then
in 1974 it was the national liberation movements in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and
Mozambique which weakened the Portuguese fascist regime to the point where it
was overthrown by the Portuguese Revolution.
But if anti-imperialism and support for national
liberation has become widespread on the socialist left (as opposed to
mainstream social democracy and Labourism which has generally been
pro-imperialist) [9] this has
often brought with it a tendency for Marxists or socialists to merge with nationalism,
or become nationalists themselves. This has particularly been the case in what
used to be called the Third World but also applies to
many western leftists who sympathise with Third World nationalism.
Historically the main responsibility for this lay with Stalinism. After 1924
Stalin, in pursuit of socialism in one country, used the Communist
International to turn the Communist parties into tools of Russian foreign
policy. Instead of leading revolutions their job became to influence powerful
allies into becoming ‘friends’ of the Soviet Union and help protect it against
foreign intervention. In many cases these allies were nationalists of one kind
or another and the nationalism started to rub off on the CPs themselves.
Alongside this Stalinism adopted a ‘stages theory’ of revolution in all the
underdeveloped countries according to which these countries were only ready for
a ‘national democratic’ revolution in alliance with the ‘patriotic
bourgeoisie’; only when this was completed was the struggle for socialism to
begin.[10]
This reinforced the transformation of ‘communists’ or socialists into radical
nationalists (as with Ho Chi Minh and the National Liberation Front in Vietnam
or Fidel Castro in Cuba
or left republicanism in Ireland).
To summarize: Marxists support the right of
nations to self-determination and the national liberation struggles of
oppressed nations but they do so as
internationalists in order to assist the international unification of the
working class and not as an end in itself.
Rogue Regimes and Terrorists
Put as an abstract question the right to national
self-determination is one most of the left and many democrats would readily
support. Moreover, to give some concrete examples, few people, if any, on the
left would deny the right to independence of India
or Vietnam or Cuba
or Ireland or
the right to majority rule in South Africa.
One reason for this is that the leaderships of these national movements
(Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Pearse and Connolly, Mandela) were widely seen as
progressive and heroic figures; another is that the ideological tool used to
discredit these movements, that they were ‘communist’, lost much of its power.
Things can stand very differently where the national regime or movement
concerned seems much less attractive or progressive, eg the regime of Gaddafy
in Libya or the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The imperialists and their hired propagandists
know this only two well. If they want to conquer, occupy, colonise or attack a
country, for their own predatory reasons, they take care to demonise its
‘regime’ or leadership first. For a long time outright racism was the main
ideological weapon used for these purposes- the natives, you see, were
‘childlike’ or ‘savages’ unfit to rule themselves – then, as noted above, it was
‘the threat of communism’. In recent years these motifs have given way to the
concepts of ‘rogue regimes’ and ‘terrorism’, both frequently (though not
always) underpinned by Islamophobia. Regime X, so the argument runs is, so
atrocious that imperialist intervention/conquest is ‘humanitarian’ and
liberatory, for the good of the people on the receiving end of it. This
argument is given plausibility by the fact that many of the regimes in question
are indeed atrocious (Saddam Hussein, Gaddafy, Assad in Syria,
North Korea and
so on).
Over the last couple of decades ‘terrorism’ has
become an all purpose label designed to justify whatever the US
government especially, but many other governments as well, might choose to do.
A given country may clearly pose no threat whatsoever to the US, UK or France
but they are ‘terrorists’ or ‘sponsor’ or ‘harbour’ terrorism, especially
Muslim terrorism, and therefore it is legitimate to bomb or invade it. Thus
neither Afghanistan, nor Iran, nor Iraq nor any Arab country has ever invaded
or made war on America or any European country in the last several hundred
years and are manifestly incapable of doing so. Ah! But they are ‘terrorists’
so ‘we have to fight them over there, so that we don’t have to fight them at
home’ as GIs are trained to say.
Socialists must reject both these justifications
for imperialism. If a country has a horrific regime, often because that regime
is armed and sustained by imperialism, this is for the people of that country
to deal with, with the solidarity of working people from other countries. [Of
course the capitalist press and politicians always downplay or rule out this
possibility of change from below]. It in no way negates that country’s right to
self-determination. Neither does the bogus issue of terrorism. ‘Terrorism’ as a
political strategy can be critiqued from the left or the right. The left
critique focuses on its inability to achieve its goals, and on its attempt to
substitute the actions of a small ‘heroic’ group for the struggle of the masses.[11]
The right wing critique is based on the notion that all political violence
except that of the ruling class and its state is criminal, immoral and , they
always say, cowardly, whereas the violence of the capitalist state and its
armed forces, which is on a vastly greater scale – think Hiroshima, Vietnam,
Iraq etc – is not only legitimate and ‘brave’ but not even recognized as
violence being invariably described a ‘fighting for our country’ or ‘peace
keeping’ or ‘ restoring order.’ Moreover the idea that the existence of
terrorism excuses or justifies imperialist intervention inverts reality in that
95% or more of terrorism, including the infamous 9/11, is in fact a response to imperialism and oppression –
a misguided response, but a response nonetheless.
Some complexities
Marxist support, on the basis of
internationalism, for the right to self-determination and for national
liberation movements against imperialism has shown itself to be a generally
valid position since it first began to be established by Marx in relation to Ireland
and Poland in
the 19th century, through to its development by Lenin, Trotsky and
other Marxists. This does not mean, however, that it is a simple absolute rule
or that there are no tricky, complex or intermediate cases. Intermediate and
complex cases always arise in life.
In the first place it is sometimes debatable
whether or not a certain group of people constitute a nation and therefore
whether or not a call for national self-determination is appropriate or useful.
There are clear cases – France is a nation, Pimlico is not[12] –
but what about US Blacks, Jews internationally, Cornwall, Northern Irish
Loyalists and so on.? In 1913 Stalin in Marxism
and the National Question advanced a ‘definition’ of a nation in terms of a
combination of certain characteristics.
A nation is a historically constituted, stable
community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory,
economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.[13]
This definition, due to its author, was to prove
influential in the international communist movement but it is a wrong and
mechanical approach. The problem is that nations like all other social and
political phenomena are not fixed entities but develop historically and that
therefore a ‘people,’ at precisely the moment their right to nationhood and
self-determination is in question, are likely to possess some but not all of these
characteristics. It is better to make the decisive criterion whether or not the
people in question, in their majority, see themselves as a nation or aspire to
nationhood (while understanding that this identification will be economically
and socially conditioned). In debating the question of self-determination for
US Blacks in 1939, Trotsky argued:
As a party we can remain absolutely
neutral on this. We cannot say it will be reactionary. It is not reactionary.
We cannot tell them to set up a state because that will weaken imperialism and
so will be good for us, the white workers. That would be against internationalism
itself…We can say, ‘It is for you to decide. If you wish to take a part of the
country, it is all right, but we do not wish to make the decision for you…
Comrade Johnson used three
verbs: ‘support’, ‘advocate’ and ‘inject’ the idea of self-determination. I do
not propose for the party to advocate, I do not propose to inject, but only to
proclaim our obligation to support the struggle for self-determination if the
Negroes themselves want it. It is not a question of our Negro comrades. It is a
question of 13 or 14 million Negroes. [14]
Another complexity arises in dealing with nations
that do not fit neatly into the division between oppressor nations and
oppressed nations. Lenin always insisted that it was necessary to distinguish
between the nationalism of oppressor nations which is thoroughly reactionary
and that of oppressed nations which has a democratic and progressive element in
it. Much historical experience has confirmed this judgement. British, French
and German nationalisms point rightwards to UKIP and the BNP,
to Le Pen and the Front National, to Hitler and to Neo-Nazism. Irish, Indian and
South African nationalism point leftwards to Pearse and Connolly, to Gandhi and
the Communist Parties, to Nelson Mandela and Steve Biko. US Black nationalism leads
to Malcolm X and to the Black Panthers.
But what of a nation like Scotland?
Scotland is not
and has not been an oppressed nation like Ireland
(or India, Kenya,
Algeria,
Palestine etc). A comparison of the historical development of Scotland
and Ireland makes
this very clear. While Scottish industrialization marched forward in tandem
with English industrialization Irish industry industry was held back. While
Scottish living standards roughly kept pace with English, Ireland
was dramatically impoverished. While the Scottish bourgeoisie became a partner
of the English in British imperialism, the Irish bourgeoisie was marginalized
and excluded. So what implications does this have for the socialist attitude to
Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence? Does it mean that support for
national self determination ceases to apply?
No, because socialists have no interest in
defending the unity of the British imperialist state and because if the
majority of Scots want independence the denial of this right by the British
state would be a violation of democracy and could, indeed, transform Scotland
into an oppressed nation. It is true that Scotland
has been a partner in British imperialism and thus an oppressor but Scottish
nationalism and the demand for independence is directed against British nationalism and is a move towards a certain
separation from British imperialism.[15] At
the same time it is necessary to emphasize that
Scottish independence would not in itself solve any of the serious
problems facing the Scottish working class and that unity and solidarity
between Scottish and other UK workers, which already exists to an extent
through the trade unions etc., should be maintained.
The case of Scotland
is only one example but it clearly has implications for other nations such as
Catalonia and Wales.
A further complexity arises when a nationalist
movement, or what presents itself as a nationalist movement, in fact becomes a tool
of imperialism (sometimes a rival imperialism). It has generally been accepted
in the Marxist tradition that in such cases support should no longer be given
to that national movement. Thus, in the First World War, Serbian nationalism
(which had developed in opposition to the Ottoman Empire
and to Austria-Hungary)
became a tool of Russian imperialism and revolutionary socialists who took an
internationalist position against the war (including the internationalists in Serbia)
ceased to support it. When the Congo
under Patrice Lumumba won its independence from Belgium
in 1960 there was immediately a breakaway by the region of Katanga,
but this was clearly being manipulated by imperialism, especially Belgian
imperialism in order to undermine the Congo
and retain control of the rich mineral resources in the area.
Matters are not always simple and sometimes lead
to controversy on the left. For example in relation to the Korean War
(1950-53), Tony Cliff, founder of the International Socialist tradition, argued
that this was not a war of national liberation against US imperialism but a
proxy war between the Soviet Union and the US, both of which had imperialist
aims in the conflict: a view which was denounced by Stalinists and ‘orthodox’
Trotskyists alike[16]
but does seem to be born out by the historical facts. However, when it came to
the Vietnam War, the IS view, along with the rest of the left, was that, despite
Soviet backing, this was a genuine national liberation struggle meriting full
support. In relation to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
in 1979 there was a debate within the British SWP as to whether the Afghan
mujahideen were a genuine movement of national resistance or simply an
instrument of US
imperialism (which clearly supported them at the time). Subsequent history
suggests the former position was correct.[17]
One thing these examples make clear is that it is
not simply the provision of military support by an imperialist power that is
decisive – the Soviet Union gave military support (for its own cynical and
imperialist reasons) to various national movements, while opposing others – but
whether the imperialist power has actually taken control of the national
movement concerned. [18] Clearly determining if this is the case in
any specific instance requires not just abstract principles but also a concrete
analysis of the concrete situation.
But this is true of the national question as a
whole and in making these concrete analyses- we present four in this issue of
IMR - it must always be remembered that while there exists in Marxism and in
socialism a presumption in favour of the right of nations to self determination
this remains a means to the end of international working class unity and, in
the final analysis is subordinate to the interests of the international working
class revolution.
John Molyneux
[1] For an excellent and wide ranging
analysis of the development of nations and nationalism (along with much else
besides) see Chris Harman, ‘The return of the national question’, International
Socialism 56.
[2] As Marx pointed out these forms of
dominance generally tend to go together and are also often accompanied by
cultural hegemony.
[3] For example the role of the Great
French Revolution in the social memory of the French people and the whole
European left throughout the 19th century, or the role of the
Lockout and the Easter Rising in the the consciousness of the Irish working
class today. We should also remember Marx’s comment that ‘The tradition of all
the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living’.
[5] Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007
[6] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
[8] As
above, Vol.31 pp397-98. And Trotsky, of course, fought a life and death
struggle over this question when Stalin in 1924 proposed, for the first time in
the history of the Marxist movement, that socialism could be built in a single
country.
[9] This has been the case ever since
ever since most European social democrats supported the imperialist First World
War in August 1914 .
[10] This stages theory was lifted from the Russian
Mensheviks, who argued that Russia was only ready for a democratic
revolution, and counterposed to Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution
according to which revolutionary socialists should put forward anti-imperialist
and democratic demands but fight for working class leadership of the democratic
revolution and its transformation into a socialist revolution.
[11] For a classic statement of this left
critique see Leon Trotsky, Why Marxists
Oppose Individual Terrorism, http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1911/11/tia09.htm.
[12] Pimlico is a district in London which was the subject of an Ealing
comedy film called Passport to Pimlico
(1949) in which the district declared independence (!).
[13] J.V.Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s1
[14] Leon Trotsky, Self- determination for the
American Negroes, http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1970/no043/trotsky2.htm
[15] This
should not be exaggerated because an independent capitalist Scotland
might very well sign up to European
imperialism via the EU.
[16] Though interestingly Cliff’s view
was shared by Natalia Sedova Trotsky in her Letter of Resignation from the
Fourth International, http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/natalia38.html.
[17] See Jonathan Neale, ‘The Afghan
Tragedy’, International Socialism 12,(1981). http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj2/1981/isj2-012/neale.htm
[18] Making just this point Trotsky in In Defence of Marxism gives a striking
example. ‘If Hitler tomorrow were forced to send arms to the
insurrectionary Indians, must the revolutionary German workers oppose this
concrete action by strikes or sabotage? On the contrary they must make sure
that the insurrectionists receive the arms as soon as possible…. But this
example is purely hypothetical. We used it in order to show that even a fascist
government of finance-capital can under certain conditions be forced to support
a national revolutionary movement (in order to attempt to strangle it
the next day) http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/idom/dm/09-pbopp.htm