Today’s diary will address a question that was born in the mid nineteenth century, during the wave of bourgeois-democratic revolutions that swept Europe and ultimately led to the fall of the Absolutist states that had dominated Europe for centuries, i.e., the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Prussian and Ottoman empires (http://en.wikipedia.org/... ). Termed the National Question, the issue addressed the right of self-determination of the various nations that had been swallowed up by these empires.
Before we begin, I want to thank Le Gauchiste for fantastic editing and comments, and Richard Lyon, Activist Guy, GoinSouth, Colorado is the Shiznit, and mr NY brit expat for comments on earlier drafts and guidance. I apologise in advance for the length of the diary, but wanted to include history, history of ideas to demonstrate the evolution of the discussion. For those less interested in the development of ideas and history and more on the modern relevance of this discussion, the introduction and up until part I and then Part II should serve.
This national question has been one of the most difficult and contentious questions for the radical left, largely because the struggle for an internationally united working class is superficially contradictory to the idea of nation-states. However, this surface tension disappears in light of the fact that unless there is true equality among the working classes of various nations, the promises of internationalism are largely meaningless. Internationalism is certainly contrary to the idea of nationalist ideology. So how do we address the national question today, when capital is ever more independent of national borders?
Although the left initially avoided the national question, on the grounds that it was relevant solely to the formation and mission of bourgeois democratic societies and not to the question of building international socialism, ironically today it is primarily the left that advocates self-determination for all nations and states.
But why is this still a relevant point of discussion in this period of an international capitalist economy? Hasn’t the global reach of capitalism rendered the nation-state irrelevant? In a word, no. To examine this issue, I will examine the context of the development of this question, looking to see the evolution of the discussion and why the notion of self-determination is still relevant today.
For liberals, the issue is simply one of formal national sovereignty and political self-determination: the achievement of these political forms of state organization, regardless of how savage the local capitalism is, satisfies both political liberals and the masters of the US Empire. (This is why in Egypt, the increasingly radical social demands of the working class and the poor are meeting increasingly stiff resistance from the local ruling classes and US officialdom.)
In contrast, the anti-capitalist left insists that sovereignty and self-determination have only limited meaning for emerging states in the age of globalization, when capital is independent of nation-states and governments. It is simply insufficient to call solely for political self-determination of nations economically trapped in the confines of a parasitic international capitalist system. In these emerging states, moreover, the progressive tasks (e.g., labour legislation, working day and standards legislation) normally accomplished by the local working class, are often prevented by foreign political influence and economic domination, which is always arrayed in favour of the interests of the local ruling class and against the working classes and peasantries. As such, the national question is not the end of the discussion for the anti-capitalist left. In fact, it is what comes after that is more relevant for the future.
Some History of the Question of the Right of Nations to Self-determination
I. The Revolutions of 1848 and the Decline of the Absolutist States
The national question erupted during the revolutions of 1848 in France, Germany and the Hapsburg Empire, Italy and Central and Eastern Europe (e.g., Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Balkan states, especially Serbia, and Bulgaria) (for some history of the 1848 revolutions see:http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/..., see also the treaty of Berlin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...,http://en.wikipedia.org/...; for a further clarification of the discussions from Marx, Engels and Bakunin see: http://www.icl-fi.org/...).
Marx and Engels believed that the creation of the nation-state was an historic mission of bourgeois democracy. In that context, they supported the idea that a large national state or even multi-national state created by voluntary association (in the sense of a federation of nations) would be a major progressive step forward as compared to the earlier states created by war and conquest that characterised the empires and states of feudal Europe.
During the late nineteenth century, the leading left politicians and theorists viewed the national question through the lens of a rather mechanistic version of Marxism, which taught them that history was progressing from feudalism through capitalism and inevitably toward socialism. In this scenario, the nation state was an institution necessary to capitalism whose abolition would be an essential aspect of constructing the socialist order. As a result, in many cases the socialist left appears to be unsympathetic to the plight of some smaller nations trying to reconstitute themselves independently of the absolutist states in which they had been absorbed or conquered. In other places, it appears to be incoherent as to why one nation’s right was supported, while another’s was not.
For Marxist writers of the time, socialism depended upon the level of economic development attained by these countries. In their analysis, a poor and underdeveloped nation did not have the resources or the class prerequisites to move to a post-capitalist situation (that is, a developed and conscious working class). For an anti-capitalist movement preoccupied with the end of capitalism and the creation of the next stage of socialism, underdevelopment meant insufficient levels of production of goods and necessities. In many senses, this was the reason behind the New Economic Policy (NEP) in Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/...) and why Marx opposed a Russian socialist revolution.
As to the question of the right of nations to self-determination, the left emphasized the level of development of the productive forces in a capitalist as opposed to feudal context. The preservation of nations that had been subsumed to these absolutist states in and of itself was not seen as very important. That is why initially discussions of the right to self-determination were viewed in the context of how it would impact the absolutist regimes or enable the rise of international solidarity.
An interesting example of this concerns Marx’s initial rejection of independence for Ireland (he believed that Irish capitalist economic development would proceed faster in the context of the British Empire) and then his later reconsideration. In fact, Marx’s support for Irish independence had less to do with Ireland itself, but more to do with trying to move the British working class to support international solidarity and to weaken British imperialism. Thus, Marx himself subsumed the Irish national question to the needs of international revolutionary socialism.
At the time, Tsarist Russia was perceived as the most reactionary of the absolutist states. That conditioned much of Marx’s determination of which nations were worthy of self-determination and those which he thought would be better served remaining in progressive capitalist states. Two clear examples come to mind: the desire of the Poles and the Czechs got opposite reactions from Marx and Engels due to their belief that the independence of the Poles, who were split between Russia, Austria-Hungary and Prussia, would strike a greater blow at absolutism than that of the Czechs, who were caught between Prussia and Austria-Hungary, which they deemed less reactionary.
In fact, it was this perspective that led Marx and Engels to reject the call for self-determination for all of the Slavic peoples, as they believed that Tsarist Russia advocated a pan-Slavic nationalist agenda to weaken the Hapsburg, Prussian and Ottoman empires, while Russia planned to absorb all Slavs in a reactionary Slavophilic Russian empire.
This led to a conflict with Bakunin, who articulated the anarchist perspective in which he defended and supported the right of all the Slavs to self determination. At the same time, he cautioned that joining Russia would not give them the independence they sought.
Instead he supported the right of fully independent and free Slavic countries to create a pan-Slavic federation, which would eventually lead to the creation of a world federation arising from free individuals forming voluntary organisations, leading ultimately to autonomous communes and then to autonomous provinces and upwards (for an excellent discussion of Bakunin’s fight for pan-slavism, his 1848 Appeal to the Slavs and against chauvinism, http://raforum.info/...).
II. The Age of Imperialism and the Left
As noted above, the left addresses the national question in a fundamentally distinct manner from the way in which bourgeois political parties, including conservatives, liberals and progressives address it. Essentially, bourgeois parties are satisfied when a people are able to exercise its right of self-determination by creating a politically independent state, regardless of how the underlying social formation is constructed. The problems arise when national liberation movements are not lead by an acquiescent capitalist class, but rather by groups or classes wanting to limit capitalist penetration or approaching economic development in a manner that is deemed inconsistent with the needs of the advanced capitalist countries.
The failure of bourgeois democracy to grant the same right of self-determination that they themselves demanded and gained to colonies or to smaller nations (e.g., in Europe there is still the question of the Basque, the Corsicans, the Welsh, the Scots, the Northern Irish and their demands for self-determination, autonomy or federation) led to a reformulation of the discussion.
In the cases of smaller nations still under the control of larger states, the question arises are these simply reactionary nationalist movements or is there a progressive force at work? Moreover, the question as to whether this is a question of a civil rights struggle (that is the remains of a nation has been essentially assimilated into a larger country economically, while politically facing inequality and discrimination), if it is still a nation would it be better staying in the larger countries in federation as a recognised autonomous nation or would self-determination and separation be more appropriate? Each situation must be examined independently looking at the nature of the situation, specifically, the nature of the larger state (democratic or not), the nature of the national movement (progressive or reactionary) and the overall economic situation in the world capitalist system.
A. The Second Wave of Discussions on Self-determination
The next series of discussions on the right of self-determination takes place in the context of the rising strength of working class movements and the disintegration of several empires at the turn of the 20th Century. This shifted the discussion from the role of nationalism in the establishment of capitalist relations and its role with respect to the national question and raised the question of whether these arguments can only be resolved in the context of socialism. In other words, the possibility of by-passing the capitalist phase becomes a relevant question to address for the Marxist left and had already been addressed by the anarchists and early socialists.
Moreover, the issue of what actually constitutes a nation began to be addressed more systematically [see Otto Bauer’s The National Question and Social-Democracy and Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question, (http://www.marx2mao.com/...), see also Andres Nin’s (one of the founders of POUM) criticism of Bauer, (https:/www.marxists.org...)]. The general difference between Stalin and Bauer concerned the former’s belief in the need for a territorial component of a nation, an independent (relatively) common economic life, language, culture versus the latter’s stress role of culture, national character and the idea of common destiny in recognition of national rights to self-determination.
While Lenin, Kautsky, Luxemburg, and Bukharin addressed these discussions in the context of the collapse of the Hapsburg Empire and Tsarist Russia they articulated broad principles, a number of which are relevant in discussions of colonialism and imperialism.
Lenin’s support for the right of self-determination of oppressed nations is a consistent argument throughout all his writings on the subject. The distinction between a national liberation struggle and the national question is clarified (See Lenin (1914) The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, http://www.marxists.org/...). Lenin distinguishes between the nationalism of an oppressed nation and that of oppressor nations; the principle of the right of self-determination applies to the former, not the latter. The nationalism of oppressor nations is always reactionary and chauvinistic attempting to further its control over oppressed nations. In fact, nationalism in an oppressor nation is clearly an attempt to obfuscate the real contradictions in the society and an attempt to undermine the principle of international solidarity between the working class of that country from the international working class.
In the case of oppressed nations, the question becomes one of the struggles for equality and political and economic empowerment with as much independence as possible in the context of the world economic system. Support for self-determination is essential for oppressed nations. Nationalism serves as a lever on the part of would-be bourgeoisie of oppressed nations to divide the working class in that nation from the international working class. National oppression takes a front-seat in an international struggle against their oppressor nation. The recognition of the right of nations to self-determination and the achievement of a separate nation-state enables class contradictions to manifest themselves as they are no longer hidden by the national struggle against a common oppressor.
In a series of debates between Lenin and Luxemburg (and Bukharin) two fundamental questions were raised. The first was whether true national equality can be achieved in the context of the capitalist economic system or does that require a socialist system? (for an excellent discussion of the evolution of Lenin’s ideas on the national question see: http://thecommune.co.uk/... and for addition pieces by Lenin, see The right of nations to self-determination, The Revolutionary Proletariat and The Right Of Nations To Self-Determination
http://www.marxists.org/...). The second question initially raised by Luxemburg in (1909) The National Question was (https:/www.marxists.org...), was whether the question of nations becomes redundant in the context of internationalism achieved under a socialist world economy. Her argument can be contrasted to Bakunin’s where there are no states and autonomous groupings.
For Luxemburg, the meaning of the notion of the right of self-determination independently of the economic and social conditions of the time was nonsensical. She held that right was unattainable in the context of capitalism, and was irrelevant in the context of socialism (https:/www.marxists.org...). In fact, Luxemburg, a Pole, argued that Poland should not be granted self-determination; instead the Polish working class should join in federation with the revolutionary Russian working classes due to the Polish bourgeoisie unable/unwilling to fulfill its historical role. Bukharin also maintained that advancing the right of self determination under capitalism was utopian and separated the international character of the movement. He maintained that while social democracy should never support the suppression of nations or national minorities, this was not a slogan to be advanced by socialists (http://thecommune.co.uk/...).
B. Colonialism and the right of self-determination
The fact that capitalism is a world system meant the development of oppressor and oppressed nations in the context first of colonialism (the direct, political domination of some countries by others) and then imperialism (the often indirect, economic domination of some countries by others). The wave of anti-colonialist struggles changed the dynamic of the initial discussion which was focused on the rights of nations trapped in states created during the period of Absolutism in Europe. Here we see a different situation as many of these countries especially in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East were not necessarily composed of cohesive national groups. Rather their national consciousness derived from being under occupation and economic control by a colonial empire.
Moreover, the imperial powers determined the borders between their possessions not with regard to the pre-existing relationships amongst native groupings, but instead according to what each imperialist country or empire could control or seize. This led to some peoples (or countries) developing a national consciousness far later than in Europe. Additionally in a number of cases, historical conflicts between and among different peoples forced into a single state could erupt into nationalist splits due to historical or contemporary oppression of one group by another (or even colonialism favouritism).
In some cases, there was no actual national consciousness as these borders combined many different groups or tribal entities (see Africa especially) or were created as payment by colonial empires (see for example, many states in the gulf and the Middle East created as payment by the British for help in overthrowing the Ottoman Empire). The attempt to force a national consciousness on the disparate people in the Middle East under the rubric of Arab nationalism also led to a denial of the recognition of the different cultures/tribes that made up these countries. This is not to say that these cultures or tribes are nations and that self-determination is the answer; in the context of a democratic civil rights struggle, these cultures/groups should have recognition of their differences and their cultural traditions protected.
Moreover, the level of development of their productive forces was significantly lower due to deliberate underdevelopment and combined and uneven development. This question is far easier to address equivocally. For those nations or colonies, supporting the right of self-determination is obvious not only to weaken the power of imperialism, but to ensure the national aspirations of a people under occupation and to enable them to at least make their own political choices in the context of a world capitalist system. There are still a few nations where this question is extremely relevant, the most obvious ones being the Palestinians and the Kurds where there are developed nationalist movements.
For the left, the most important thing was the weakening of the control of imperialist and colonialist nations and the enabling of the further development of the contractions of the system. This meant that these nations or states had to be able to determine their own political futures while recognising that for the most part they would be trapped in dependent economic relationships with the advanced capitalist world.
In the case of colonies, capitalism could no longer be looked upon as a progressive force. In fact, it is clearly parasitic forcing deliberate underdevelopment of some countries merely to serve their own interests for access to cheap raw materials and labour. Self-determination was always to be supported in the case of a national liberation struggle with the people themselves being allowed to determine their own political and economic futures. In fact, this was maintained as far back as Simon Bolivar's struggle against Spain. In some cases in these countries a clearly developed movement of the working-class and peasantry articulating its own agenda existed and support for them was compelling.
II. Imperialism and Neoliberalism
The lack of direct colonialisation changes things again and opens the discussion of economic relations in the context of the right of self-determination. While countries and the people living in them may not directly and openly be exploited by advanced capitalist countries, there is no question that they are both politically, economically and militarily dominated by them; this is quite evident in the case of Latin America where countries were, and are, nominally independent of the US which nonetheless subjected them not only to military intervention when they strayed from perceived US manifest destiny. However, the question now is not one which relates to a national liberation struggle directly, but a clear class conflict between the working class and peasantry in opposition to the domestic ruling classes and international capitalism.
The US intervened not only military in these countries affairs. In fact, military intervention occurred often as a last resort (or a cheap attempt at staging increased nationalism at home) and then rarely was the country occupied directly. Instead, control was returned to the native ruling classes (if possible) or to military control (if not). Political intervention in the form of support for dictatorships in countries where left and progressive parties and movements existed was common-place (e.g. Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, et al) and not solely confined to Latin America.
For the most part, domination and intervention is easier to accomplish through economic means (and then backed up with political and military intervention if needed). The lack of a coherent bourgeois democratic ideology of the peripheral ruling classes (also known as a comprador ruling class) concerned only with maintaining their own privileges and control, concentration of land in the hands of a few families and deliberate weakening of working class and peasant political movements meant weak trade unions, lack of labour and workplace legislation and a working class and peasantry open to easy exploitation by both local capitalists and foreign multinationals.
This returns us to the earlier stages of the discussion and the need for support for the majority of peoples’ ability to make political choices in the context of both a bourgeois democratic situation (hence opposition to military dictatorships), while also supporting the possibility of more egalitarian economic development to realise the aims of the working class and peasantry in these countries.
Given the interference of foreign capitalism and MNCs whose only concern is the ability to exploit both the labour and natural resources of these countries for their own enrichment, the left naturally supports domestic development to suit the needs of the majority, the human and civil rights of ethnic minorities, women and children. When these needs are clearly not being provided by the domestic ruling classes and international capitalism, the left is forced to articulate the demands of normal bourgeois democratic societies (elections, civil rights, etc). Additionally, supporting independent (rather than dependent) economic development will not only enable these countries to meet the needs of their populations, but will hopefully limit the horrific exploitation by foreign capital and corporations.
Like imperialism, Neoliberalism does not need direct physical control of economically weaker links as during the colonial period. In fact, using international tools and organisations (such as the World Bank and IMF) constraining development in certain prescribed ways to enable extreme exploitation of workers and resources is far cheaper than a formal occupation or a military intervention. The US did not need to invade Canada and Mexico, subsuming their economies to their political agenda was accomplished through NAFTA. Another example is the Eurozone in the EU, stronger economies that established a monetarist basis to the Euro placed limits on the part of smaller national governments’ economic policies and social agendas.
Globalisation and the international stranglehold of capitalism means, in reality, that capital is no longer wholly tied down to states completely. The dominance of multinational corporations has made it difficult for governments – including even those of the imperialist countries – to effectively tax and control the actions of multinational corporations (they are only at this time able to affect those operating in their countries) and, in the majority of cases, the state governments are subservient to the corporations rather than the corporations are to the various states
There is an additional consideration. Consumer capitalism clearly benefited the working class in the advanced capitalist countries (owing to rising incomes due to links of wages with productivity, and the creation of a welfare state). In fact, in many senses, the wealth and security of the working class in advanced capitalist countries came at the expense of those in the periphery where workers and peasants were kept in a state of deliberate underdevelopment to serve first as producers of raw materials and necessary goods to be used as means of production and consumption goods in the advanced capitalist world.
With the decline of profitability in the advanced capitalist world, industrial production was shifted to 3rd world countries or the capitalist periphery to cut costs in the hopes of increasing profitability for capitalist producers. Multinational corporations moved production not only to take advantage of cheaper labour unprotected by trade unions and labour and workplace regulations, but also forced privatisation schemes and created free trade zones to avoid taxation in these countries in which they operated. The economic power of multinational corporations has always been backed up by extra-governmental agencies like the World Bank to force their demands upon governments in the third world. Moreover, when all else fails there is the danger of foreign military intervention to ensure that these areas with their natural resources and labour remain open to capitalist exploitation.
As the social welfare state and state sector come under attack in advanced capitalist countries an opportunity exists to stress the importance of international solidarity. Once again, the fact that capitalism creates permanent unemployment, and that exploitation of workers takes many forms is once again brought into the forefront of the discussion. The system has once again created the basis for a unified international working class movement if we can convince workers in the advanced capitalist that the problem is a systemic one (due to the capitalist system itself) rather than the fault of foreign workers “stealing their jobs.”
Moreover, we need to support the struggles in the periphery (3rd world and emergent capitalist economies) for the same rights that were won in the advanced capitalist world. Support for international legislation to protect the working classes (length of the working day, free formation of trade unions and working class associations, unemployment insurance, pensions, health and safety legislation) can be part of the call for reform within the context of an international capitalist system. Perhaps even more importantly, unless the smaller nations are guaranteed equality, international solidarity becomes a slogan only as the last thing that workers in the periphery want is a continuation of the oppressive situation where the working classes of the advanced capitalist world is still considered to be dominant.
We are not their enemy, nor are they our enemy. The enemy is the capitalist system based upon exploitation of working people and the planet to fulfill the needs of the system for unlimited growth and profitability rather than covering the needs of the vast majority.