Appendix I: Communists on the Nation
Scientific
Socialism – Marxism – is international in
scope, both in its aims and in the objective circumstances for achieving
them. This does not mean that a revolution can only be successful
if it is carried out at one moment on an international scale. Leon
Trotsky has been, most often, reported, inaccurately, as arguing
this. However, he made his position to the contrary quite clear.
‘We
had a socialist revolution in the Soviet Union. I participated
in it.
The Socialist revolution signifies the seizure of power by
a revolutionary class, by the proletariat. Of course, it cannot
be accomplished simultaneously in all countries. Some historic
time
is given for every country by its conditions. A socialist revolution
is not only possible but inevitable in every country. What
I affirm is that it is impossible to construct a socialist society
in the
environment of a capitalist world.’ ‘On the Eve
of World War II’ – Interview 23.7.39, from Writings
of Leon Trotsky (1938-1939), New York, 1969 Merit Publishers.
Subsequently
Trotsky reinforced this statement:
‘Help
comes to him who helps himself. Workers must develop the
revolutionary struggle in every country, colonial or imperialist,
where
favourable conditions have been established, and through
this set an example
for the workers of other countries. Only initiative
and activity, resoluteness and boldness can give reality to the
call
'Workers
of the world, unite'. – Manifesto on the Imperialist War
and the Proletarian Revolution, 1940.
What proletarian
internationalism does mean is that socialist revolutionaries in
each country strive against
developing
the national demands
of their working classes into policies complete in themselves
or into
spheres where they will alienate the workers of other
nations from true internationalism. Lenin, the great authority
on this, wrote
in ‘Critical Remarks on the National Question’:
‘Marxism
cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the ‘most
just', purest, most inspired and civilized brand.
In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism,
the
amalgamation
of all nations in the higher unity, a unity that
is growing before our eyes with every mile of railway line that
is built, with
every
international trust, and every workers' association
that is formed (an association that is international in its economic
activities
as well as in its ideas and aims).
‘The principle of nationality is historically inevitable
in bourgeois society and, taking this society into
due account, the Marxist
fully recognises the historic legitimacy of national movements. But to
prevent this recognition from becoming an apologia
of nationalism, must be strictly limited to what
is progressive in such movements
in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois
ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness.
‘The awakening of the masses from feudal lethargy, and their
struggle against all national oppression, for the sovereignty
of the people, of the nation are progressive. Hence, it is the Marxist's bounden
duty to stand for the most resolute and consistent
democratism
on all aspects of the national question. This task is largely a negative
one. But this is the limit the proletariat can go
to in supporting nationalism, for beyond that begins the 'positive' activity
of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism.
‘To throw off the feudal yoke, all national oppression, and
all privileges enjoyed by any particular nation or language, is
the imperative duty of the proletariat as: a democratic force, and is certainly
in the
interests of the proletarian class struggle, which
is obscured and retarded by bickering on the national question. But to go beyond
these strictly limited and definite historical limits
in helping
bourgeois nationalism means betraying the proletariat
and siding with the bourgeoisie. There is a borderline here, which is often
very slight. . . .’ – Questions
of National Policy and Proletarian Internationalism, pp.27-28,
Progress Publishers,
Moscow,
1967.
Later, in his
article. ‘The Right of Nations
to Self-Determination’,
he deals with the matter again:
‘The
proletariat . . . while recognising equality and equal rights to
a national state . . . values above all and places foremost
the alliance of !the proletarians of all nations, and assesses
any national demand, any national preparation, from the angle of
the workers'
class struggle.’
And: ‘The International's resolution reproduces the
most essential and fundamental propositions
in this point of view: on the one hand,
the absolutely direct, unequivocal recognition
of the full right of all nations to self-determination, on the other
hand, the equally
unambiguous appeal to the workers for international
unity
in their class struggle.’
‘Under
Socialism, states, territories or provinces will exist only as
geographical expressions, and have no existence as sources of
governmental power, though they may be
seats of administrative bodies.’ – Socialism
Made Easy, Plough Book Service,
1971, p.40.
What does this
mean in practice? Connolly never defined his concept of
a nation.
(He seems
to have confused ‘Nation’ with ‘Race’.)
Lenin accepted (indeed, he may even have
inspired JV Stalin's definition:
‘A historically
evolved, stable community of language, territory, economic life,
and psychological make-up manifested in a
community of culture . . .
'. . . like every other historical phenomenon (it) is subject
to the law of change, has its history, its
beginning and end.’
This cannot develop
before the rise of capitalism. As Lenin remarked: ‘Throughout
the world, the period of the final
victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked
up with national movements.
For the complete victory
of commodity production, the bourgeoisie
must capture the home market, and there must be politically
united territories
whose population
speak a single language, with all
obstacles to the development of that language and to
its consolidation in literature eliminated.
Therein is the economic foundation
of national movements. Language
is the most important means of
human intercourse. Unity and unimpeded development
of language are the most important
conditions for genuinely
free and extensive commerce on
a scale commensurate with modern capitalism, for a
free and broad grouping of the population
in all its various
classes and, lastly, for the establishment
of a close connection between the market and each and
every proprietor, big or
little, and between seller and
buyer.
‘Therefore,
the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation
of national states, under which these requirements of modern
capitalism are best satisfied.
The most profound economic factors drive towards the goal and,
therefore, for the whole of Western Europe,
nay, for the entire civilised
world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist
period.’ – Lenin
op cit. pp.46-47.
But economic
differences – the law of combined and uneven development – mean
that all nations do not appear
at the same moment in time. To quote Stalin again:
‘The British,
French, Germans, Italians and others formed themselves into nations
at the time of the victorious advances of capitalism
and its triumph over
feudal disunity.
‘But the formation of nations in these instances at the
same time signified their conversion
into independent national states. The British, French, and other nations at the
same time, British, French,
etc., states. Ireland,
which did not participate in this process does not alter the general picture.
‘Matters proceeded somewhat differently in Eastern Europe. While
in the West the nations
developed into states, in the East multi-national states were formed, each
consisting of several nationalities. Such
are Austria-Hungary
and Russia. In Austria, the Germans proved to be politically the most developed,
and they took it upon themselves
to amalgamate the
Austrian nationalities into a state. In Hungary, the most adapted for state
organisation
were the Magyars – -the
kernel of the Hungarian
nationalities – and it was
they who united Hungary.
In Russia, the role of the welder of nationalities
was assumed by the
Great Russians, who were headed by an aristocratic military bureaucracy, which
had been historically
formed and was
powerful and well organised.
‘Such was
the case in the
East. This peculiar
method of formation
of states could
take
place only where feudalism had not yet been eliminated, where capitalism
was feebly developed,
where the nationalities
which had been
forced
into the background had not yet been able to
consolidate themselves
economically into integrated nations.
‘But capitalism also began to develop in the Eastern states. Trade
and means of communication
were developing. Large towns were springing up. The nations were becoming
economically consolidated. Capitalism,
erupting into the
tranquil life of the ousted nationalities, was
arousing them and
stirring them into action. The development of the press and the theatre,
the activity
of the Reichstat (Austria) and
of the Duma (Russia)
were helping to strengthen 'national sentiments'. The intelligentsia that
had arisen was being imbued with 'the national
idea' and was acting
in the same direction.
‘But the ousted nations, aroused to independent life, could no
longer shape themselves into
independent national states, they encountered the powerful resistance of
the ruling strata of the dominant
nations, which had long ago assumed
the control of the state. They were too late!
‘In this way the Czechs, Poles, etc., formed themselves into nations
in Austria; the
Croats, etc., in Hungary; the Letts, the Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Georgians,
Armenians,
etc., in Russia. What had been
an
exception in Western
Europe (Ireland) became the rule in the East.
‘In the West, Ireland responded to its exceptional position by
a national movement. In the East,
the awakened nations were bound to respond in the same fashion.’
Similarly,
in Asia, national demands were made after the appearance of the Western
European
nation-state.
‘The revolutions
in Russia, Persia, Turkey and China, the Balkan wars – such
is the
chain of world events of our period in our 'Orient'. And only
a blind man could fail
to see in this chain of events the awakening
of a whole
series of bourgeois-democratic national movements which strive
to create nationally
independent and nationally uniform states.’ – Lenin
op. cit. p.56.
The
stimulus for the Asiatic
national
movements
and
for the subsequent
struggles
that they had to
fight
was not
the growth
of capitalism
within a
multi-nation state, but
of course,
the development
of the
capitalism
of
established
national
capitalist
states into
imperialism.
As Lenin
wrote, in his analysis
of this
phenomena:
‘The
characteristic feature of the period under review is the final
partition
of the globe – final, not in the sense that a repartition is impossible, on the contrary, repartitions are possible
and inevitable – but
in the sense that the colonial policy of the capitalist
countries
has completed the seizure of the unoccupied territories
on our planet.’ – Imperialism,
the Highest Stage of Capitalism, p.90, Foreign Languages
Press, Peking,
1969.
The
reasons
for
this
are
simple:
‘The principal
feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of
monopolist combines, of the big capitalists. These monopolies
are most firmly established when all the sources of raw materials
are captured by one group, and we have seen with what zeal the
international capitalist combines exert every effort to make it
impossible for
their rivals to compete with them by buying up, for example, iron
ore fields, oil fields, etc. Colonial possession alone gives the
monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the
struggle with competitors, including the contingency that the latter
will
defend themselves by means of a law establishing a state monopoly.
The more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage
of raw materials is felt, the more intense the competition and
the hunt for sources of raw materials throughout the whole world,
the
more desperate is the struggle
for the acquisition of colonies.’ p.98.
‘Finance
capital is interested not only
in the already discovered sources of
raw materials, but also in potential
sources,
because present--day
technical development is extremely
rapid, and land which is useless
today may be made fertile tomorrow
if new methods
are
applied (to devise these new methods
a big bank can equip a special
expedition of engineers, agricultural experts,
etc.), and if large
amounts of capital are invested.
This also applies to prospecting
for minerals, to new methods of
working up and utilising
raw materials,
etc., etc. Hence the inexorable striving
of finance capital to enlarge
its economic territory and even
its territory in general. In the
same way that the trusts capitalise
their property at two or three
times its value, taking into account
its 'potential' (and not present)
profits and the further results
of monopoly, so finance capital
strives
in general to seize the largest
possible amount of land of all
kinds in all places, and by every means,
taking into, account potential
sources of raw materials and fearing
to be left behind in the fierce
struggle for the last scraps of undivided
territory, or for the recognition
of those that have already been
divided.
‘The interests pursued
in exporting capital also give
an impetus to
the conquest of colonies, for
in the colonial market it is easier
to employ
monopolist methods (and sometimes they are the only methods
that can be employed) to eliminate
competition, to make sure of contracts
to
secure the necessary connections, etc.’ Ibid,
pp99-100.
This
process was
described also,
by Leon
Trotsky in
his article ‘The
Nation and the Economy’.
(This was denounced by Lenin
for its form but its content is relevant):
‘France
and Germany in the past period approached a type of nation state.
By no means did this prevent their policy of colonialism,
nor their present plans to extend their respective frontiers to
the Rhine and the Somme. An independent Hungary, Bohemia or Poland
will,
in exactly the same way, seek an outlet to the sea by means of
the violation of the rights of other nations, as Italy is seeking
to
do at the expense of the Serbs and as the Serbs themselves are
seeking at the expense of the Albanians. National democracy is
awakened by
capitalism which strives to weld as many elements of nations as
possible into one economic unit. But it is this very capitalism
which strives
everywhere it sets down its roots to expand the limits of the
internal market as widely as possible, to create as many favourable
outlets
as possible to the world market, to impose its domination over
regions with an agrarian type of economy. The national principle
is for
national capitalism neither an absolute idea nor the final crowning
of the edifice. It is only the springboard for a new leap – in
the direction of world domination. At the present stage of development,
the national idea appears as a banner of struggle against feudalism,
particularist barbarism or foreign military aggression. In the
long term, by creating a self-sufficient psychology of national
egoism,
it becomes itself a tool of capitalist enslavement of weaker
nations: an indispensable tool of imperialist barbarism.’ Nashe
Slovo 3.7.15. Reproduced in
Marxist Review No. 2, January-February,
1973.
With
these facts,
in mind:
‘There
is every sign that imperialism will leave its successor, Socialism,
a heritage of less democratic frontiers, a number of annexations
in Europe and in other parts of the world. Is it to be supposed
that victorious socialism, restoring and implementing full democracy
all
along the line, will refrain from democratically demarcating state
frontiers and ignore the sympathies of the population?’ – Lenin,
Question of National Policy
and Proletarian Internationalism,
pp.128-129.
In
fact, the
Socialist must
distinguish between
nations. In
the World
Wars of
the twentieth
century, the
leading participants
(apart, by
its socialist
Government, from
the USSR
in the
Second World
War) were
all struggling
equally as
oppressors (as
Trotsky pointed
out above).
But at
the same
time, there
were nations
such as
the Irish,
the Arabs,
and the
Chinese (and,
indeed, many
of the
oppressor nations
that had
the misfortune
to be
occupied, such
as the
French) whose
struggles were
on a
different level:
they were
oppressed nations
struggling against
imperialism (in
the first
cases) and
to complete
(or renew)
the tasks
of historically-bourgeois
revolutions. Such
struggles had
to be
supported, albeit
conditionally.
‘Limitations
of freedom of movement, disenfranchisement, suppression
of language, restriction of schools, and other forms of repression affect
the workers no less, if not more than the bourgeoisie.
Such a state of affairs can only serve to retard the free development
of the intellectual forces of the
proletariat of subject
nations. There can be no possibility of a full development of
the intellectual faculties of the
Tartar or Jewish worker if he is not allowed
to
use his native language at meetings and lectures, and if his schools are
closed down.
‘But the policy of national repression is dangerous
to the cause of
the proletariat also on another account. It diverts the attention of large
strata of the population from social questions,
questions of the class struggle, to national questions, questions
'common' to the proletariat
and the bourgeoisie. And this, creates
a favourable soil for lying-propaganda regarding 'harmony
of interests', for glossing over the
class interests of the proletariat and
for the
intellectual enslavement of the workers. This creates a serious obstacle
to the work of uniting the workers of all nationalities.
If a considerable proportion of the Polish workers are still
in intellectual
bondage to the bourgeois nationalists, if they still stand
aloof
from the international labour movement, it is chiefly because the
age-long anti-Polish policy of the 'powers that be' creates
the soil for, and
hinders the emancipation of the workers from this bondage.
'But the policy of repression does not stop here. It not infrequently
passes from a 'system' of oppression to, a 'system' of inciting
nations against each other, to a 'system' of massacres and
pogroms. Of course,
the latter is not everywhere and always possible, but where
it is possible – in the absence of elementary civil rights – it
frequently assumes horrifying proportions and threatens to
drown the cause of unity of workers in blood and tears. The
Caucasus and
South Russia furnish numerous examples of 'Divide and Rule' – such
is the purpose of the policy
of inciting nations against
each other. And where such a policy succeeds it is tremendous
evil for the proletariat and a serious obstacle to the work
of uniting the workers
‘But
the workers
are interested
in the complete
amalgamation
of all
their comrades into a single international army, in their speedy and final emancipation
from intellectual subjections to the bourgeoisie,
and in the
full and
free development,
of the intellectual
forces
of their
brothers,
whatever
the nation
to which
they belong.
‘The workers therefore combat and will continue to combat the policy
of national oppression in all its forms, subtle or crude, as also the policy
of inciting nations against each other in all its forms.’
Thus
Stalin (Marxism and the National Question).
Lenin is equally definite:
‘In their
fear of playing into the hands of the bourgeois national-ism of
oppressed nations, people play into the hands, not merely of the
bourgeois but of the reactionary nationalism of the oppressor
nation.’ – Lenin
op. cit. p.10.
'If we do not want to betray socialism we must support
every revolt against our chief enemy, the bourgeoisie of
the big states,
provided it is not the revolt of a reactionary class. By refusing to support
the revolt of annexed regions we become objectively, annexationists.
It is precisely in the 'era of imperialism', which is the
era of nascent social revolution, that the proletariat will today give especially
vigorous support to any revolt of the annexed regions so
that tomorrow
or simultaneously, it may attack the bourgeoisie of the ‘great'
power that is weakened by the revolt.’ Ibid. p.137.
‘In my writings on the national question I have
already said that an abstract presentation of the question
of nationalism
in
general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily
be made between
the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of
an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation.’ Ibid.
p.168.
‘Social
Democracy stands always and everywhere for the interests of
economic development and opposes all political measures capable
of holding it back. However, it understands economic development,
not
as a self-sufficient, extra-social, productive-technical
process, but as the basis for the development of human society
into its class
groupings, with a national, political superstructure,
etc.
This view-point leads in the last analysis, not to insuring
for local or national
capitalism success over the capitalism of other places
and countries, but to insuring the historic progress and systematic
growth
of man's
power over nature. The class struggle of the proletariat
itself is the most important factor ensuring the further development
of the
productive forces – by leading them out of the
imperialist blind alley into the broad arena of socialism.
A state
of nationalities and national groups which exists through
force
(Russia and Austria
are examples) may, without doubt for a certain time,
develop the productive forces by creating for them
a broader internal
market.
But, by generating the bitter struggle of national
groups for influence on the state power, or by working
'separatist'
tendencies – that
is the struggle for separation from that power – such
a state paralyses the class struggle of the proletariat
as the most important
force of economic and of general historic progress.
The workers are deeply interested in the elimination
of all
artificial
frontiers
and barriers in the greatest possible extension of
a free area of development. But they cannot buy this
aim for a
kind of price which,
above all, disorganises their own historic movement,
and thus weakens and lays low the most important force
in contemporary
society.’ The
Nation and the Economy – I.
On this basis
both Lenin and Trotsky could approve the Easter Rising. Lenin approved
on several occasions the participation
of Socialists
in national struggles.
‘K. Kautsky
. . . opposed Rosa Luxemburg and proved that her materialism was
extremely 'one-sided' . . . according to Kautsky, the International
could not at the time make the independence of Poland a
point of
its programme; but the Polish socialists were fully entitled
to put forward such a demand. From the socialist's point of view
it was
undoubtedly a mistake to ignore the tasks of national liberation
in a situation where national oppression existed.‘ – Lenin
op. cit. p.82.
‘The working class should be the last to make a fetish of the national
question, since the development of capitalism does not
necessarily awaken all nations to independent life. But to brush aside the mass
national struggles once they have started, and to refuse
to support
what is progressive in them means, in effect, pandering
to nationalistic prejudices, that is recognising 'one's own nation' as a model
nation
or, we would add, possessing the exclusive privilege of
forming a state.’ – Ibid. p.87.
‘We
would be very poor revolutionaries if, in the proletariat's great
war of liberation for socialism, we did not know how
to utilise every popular movement against every single disaster imperialism
brings
in order to intensify and extend the crises.’ Ibid.
p.162.
To defeat the
reactionary tendencies that exist in the national claims of even
an oppressed nation, Lenin declared:
‘A
Social-Democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation
the second word in our general formula: 'voluntary integration' of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as
an internationalist, be in favour of both the political independence
of his nation
and its integration with the neighbouring states of X, Y, Z,
etc.
But
in all cases he must act first against small-nation
narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the whole
and the general,
subordinate the particular to, the general interest.’ Ibid.
p.152.
In his 1915 article
quoted above, Trotsky put forward the call for a United States
of Europe in a desperate attempt to encourage
internationalism
on the part of the national movements of the workers.
Connolly can be seen not to have opposed this line (as
some have claimed he did): he made it clear that the Irish
national
revolt
was but the beginning of a European Socialist one:
‘Ireland
may yet set the torch to a European conflagration that will not
burn out until the last throne and the last capitalist
bond and debenture will be shriveled on the funeral pyre of
the last war
lord.’ – Irish Worker, 8th August, 1914.
In the
second place, the revolutionary socialist in the oppressed
country has a duty to maintain the democratic nature of
that country's national struggle.
‘The proletariat demands a democracy that rules
out the forcible retention
of any one of the nations within the bounds of the state.
In order not to infringe the right to self-determination, therefore,
we are
duty-bound . . . to vote for the right of the seceding region
to decide the question itself.‘ – Lenin, op. cit. p.9.
‘The right to secession presupposes the settlement of the question
by a parliament (Diet, referendum, etc.) of the seceding region, not by a central parliament.’ – Ibid. p.100.
‘By transforming capitalism into socialism the proletariat creates
the possibility of abolishing national oppression – the
possibility becomes reality only – 'only'! – with
the establishment of full democracy in all spheres,
including the delineation of state
frontiers in accordance with the 'sympathies' of the
population, including complete freedom to secede. And
this, in turn
will serve as a basis for developing the practical elimination of even the
slightest national friction and the least national
mistrust, for an accelerated drawing together and fusion
of nations
that will be
completed when the state withers away.’ p.130.
‘The
national programme of working class democracy is: absolutely
no privileges for any one nation or any one language; the
solution of the problem of the political self-determination of nations,
that is, their separation as states by completely free, democratic
methods; the promulgation of a law for the whole state by virtue of which
any measure (rural, urban or communal, etc., etc.)
introducing
privilege of any kind for one of the nations and militating against the
equality of nations or the rights of a national minority shall
be declared
illegal and ineffective, and any citizen of the state
shall have the right to demand that such a measure be annulled
as unconstitutional,
and that those who attempt to put it into effect
be punished’ – p.15.
‘The
bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general
democratic content that is directed against oppression,
and it is this content that we unconditionally support.
At the same time we strictly distinguish
it from the tendency towards national exclusiveness,
we fight against the tendency of the Polish bourgeois to oppress
the
Jews, etc., etc.’ – p.62.
In the last resort
application of the principles of self-determination are dependent
on the Marxist
analysis of the specific circumstances
of their spheres of action:
‘There
can be no question of the Marxists of any country drawing up their
national programme without taking into account all
these general historical and concrete state conditions.’ – Lenin,
Ibid. p.52.
‘The several demands of democracy, including self-determination, are
not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic
(now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual
concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected.
It
is possible that the republican movement in one country
may be merely an instrument of the clerical or financial monarchist intrigues
of
other countries; if so, we must not support this particular,
concrete movement, but it would be ridiculous to delete the demand for a republic
from the programme of international Social-Democracy on
these grounds.’ – Ibid.
p.146.
‘No democratic demand can fail to give rise to abuses, unless the
specific is subordinated to the general; we are not obliged
to support either 'any' struggle for independence or 'any' republican
or anti-clerical
movement. Secondly, no formula for the struggle against
national oppression can fail to suffer from the same 'shortcoming'. – Ibid.
p.154.
It is in the
manner defined above that Marxists must formulate their tasks in
reference to the national question
in Ireland.
|
|
