MARX, ENGELS AND LENIN ON SOCIALISM AND NATIONALISM
Nandini Bhattacharya
INTRODUCTION
The relationship between socialism and nationalism is complex.
Socialists, especially Marxists, call for class unity and a proletarian prospect, so that a new world civilization could be built.
Since the Russian revolution was led by the committed Marxists of the Bolshevik Party or RSDRP, nation formation and national identity in revolutionary Russia had to contend with Marxist principles.
At the same time, Marxists were supporters of national equality and the emancipation of oppressed nations.
Given the multinational character of Tsarist Russia and the nationalist ferment among non-Russian peoples, Lenin, the most important Bolshevik leader, had to pay thoughtful attention to the problems born out of nationalist discontent.
When the Bolshevik regime included vast portions of Central Asia, they promised the same gospel of universal evolution of socialism to communism in these underdeveloped and economically, exploited people.
Side by side, under Lenin's leadership, the Bolshevik government had also taken up the complex issue of redressal of the grievances complained by the oppressed nationalities in this region.
Thus, from the very inception, there was a pressing need to accommodate nationalism in the Soviet Socialist parameter.
But theoretically, this made the task of Soviet socialism quite difficult and complex.
Under the banner of socialism, nationalism can be promoted only to a limited extent.
In fact, given the chance of unhindered development, they tend to become each other's impediment.
In Marxist analysis, 'nationalism' is actually a manifestation of bourgeois democractic aspiration - therefore, a phenomenon representing a particular ideology and class.
So far the Russian revolution was anti-feudal, the bourgeois-democratic radicalism of oppressed nations was considered progressive.
But if nationalism was made the final goal it came into conflict with the goal of cross-nation class-unity and the construction of a classless society (communism).
Therefore, nation, nationality, nationalism and nation state never received conceptual priority under Marxist socialism.
The Bolsheviks, like the proponents of other revolutionary Marxist currents, were internationalists.
At the same time, they, notably Lenin, had come to develop a stand concerning the right of oppressed nations to self-determination.
This meant a partial reassessment of the positions of Marx and Engels.
Nonetheless, their internationalism could cause a confrontation with nationalist aspirations in different parts of the USSR.
Central Asia, with its mosaic of peoples, felt this conflict keenly.
Nation and Class in Marx and Engels
To begin with, in the writings of Marx and Engels 'nationalism' always received a secondary status as their aim was to attain a classless society where all types of discrimination would disappear from human race - thus 'nationalism' as a form of distinctive identity creating demarcation would also disappear.
However, they had to accommodate the phenomenon, because of their experience from reality.
Nationalism was a thriving force of mid 19th century, and starting their propaganda literature in 1848, they could not completely ignore the pressure of nationalism as a strong ideology. 1
From the very outset, they were sceptical about aggressive nationalism and highlighted the fact that the concepts of empire and colony were born out of this extreme form of nationalism.
But at the same time, enough space was provided for suppressed nationalism - especially in colonial context, the colonized nation was taken with due sympathy (e.g. the case of India). 2
TO BE CONTINUED ...
MARX, ENGELS AND LENIN ON SOCIALISM
Re: MARX, ENGELS AND LENIN ON SOCIALISM
MARX, ENGELS AND LENIN ON SOCIALISM AND NATIONALISM
Nandini Bhattacharya
Nation and Class in Marx and Engels, continued ...
Marx and Engels were committed to a proletarian world revolution, which would abolish all types of exploitation and oppression, and begin the process of construction of a classless society.
This meant a dualistic attitude to nation and nationality.
On one hand, they saw nations as ultimately transient identities, to give way to some form of universal association of producers.
On the other hand, in 19th century Europe, they saw a historically progressive role for nationalism.
So they could neither ignore the promise of nationalism as a strong political movement nor could they take a uniform stand about all forms of nationalism.
Thus, they were not only to take a clear stand in support of colonial struggles (in Latin America, in India, etc.), but they were also to support those European national struggles which they felt were contributing to anti-feudal, bourgeois-democratic causes.
It must be stressed that Marx and Engels, unlike most of their contemporary socialists, began as revolutionary democrats.
Marx and Engels argued that the fight for social justice could not be successfully pursued unless it was linked to the struggle for democratic rights.
Their idea, that "working men have no country", in fact, extended their commitment to democracy.
Internationalism and democracy meant a firm commitment to Polish and Irish independence.
However, Marx and Engels had logically accepted the existence of 'nationalism' as a necessary feature of a 'historic phase' - the phase which the contemporary human society was experiencing.
Extending the same logical coherence, they believed that, nationalism as a phenomenon was the product of a particular phase of human civilization, attached to a particular social milieu and political ethos - various forms of bourgeois order.
It would gradually lose its importance, the moment the bourgeois leadership would be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
As the 'proletariats of all country' had one and a single goal according to them, the ideological back up by nationalism becomes irrelevant in their struggle.
The Communist Manifesto states, "National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto." 3
However, from the very inception of Marx and Engel's writings one can see that they were sympathetic to the nationalist movements leading to unification, such as the German, Italian, Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
But their demand for national unity was supported because of their long cultural heritage and their previous attempts of unity recorded in history.
Thus, a concrete past, in favour of national union, made them appear as 'historic' nations - as had been depicted by Hegel and accepted by Marx and Engels. 4
But, the smaller nationalities, with obscure past heritage, and especially who were a national minority with political views opposed to the mainstream national movements were disregarded as 'non-historic' nations - especially by Engels at one point.
As Engels pointed out, "Such in Scottland are the Gaels, the supporters of Stuarts, from 1640 to 1715."
"Such in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800."
"Such in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos."
"Such, in Australia, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, ..." 5
These Southern Slavs - the Serbs, the Croats, the Czechs, the Slovaks were in Engels' version, "peoples which have never had a history of their own are not viable and will never be able to achieve any kind of independence." 6
Thus, apparently it seemed that Engels grossly disregarded the national aspirations of certain communities and their future as non-historic.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Nandini Bhattacharya
Nation and Class in Marx and Engels, continued ...
Marx and Engels were committed to a proletarian world revolution, which would abolish all types of exploitation and oppression, and begin the process of construction of a classless society.
This meant a dualistic attitude to nation and nationality.
On one hand, they saw nations as ultimately transient identities, to give way to some form of universal association of producers.
On the other hand, in 19th century Europe, they saw a historically progressive role for nationalism.
So they could neither ignore the promise of nationalism as a strong political movement nor could they take a uniform stand about all forms of nationalism.
Thus, they were not only to take a clear stand in support of colonial struggles (in Latin America, in India, etc.), but they were also to support those European national struggles which they felt were contributing to anti-feudal, bourgeois-democratic causes.
It must be stressed that Marx and Engels, unlike most of their contemporary socialists, began as revolutionary democrats.
Marx and Engels argued that the fight for social justice could not be successfully pursued unless it was linked to the struggle for democratic rights.
Their idea, that "working men have no country", in fact, extended their commitment to democracy.
Internationalism and democracy meant a firm commitment to Polish and Irish independence.
However, Marx and Engels had logically accepted the existence of 'nationalism' as a necessary feature of a 'historic phase' - the phase which the contemporary human society was experiencing.
Extending the same logical coherence, they believed that, nationalism as a phenomenon was the product of a particular phase of human civilization, attached to a particular social milieu and political ethos - various forms of bourgeois order.
It would gradually lose its importance, the moment the bourgeois leadership would be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat.
As the 'proletariats of all country' had one and a single goal according to them, the ideological back up by nationalism becomes irrelevant in their struggle.
The Communist Manifesto states, "National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto." 3
However, from the very inception of Marx and Engel's writings one can see that they were sympathetic to the nationalist movements leading to unification, such as the German, Italian, Polish and Hungarian nationalism.
But their demand for national unity was supported because of their long cultural heritage and their previous attempts of unity recorded in history.
Thus, a concrete past, in favour of national union, made them appear as 'historic' nations - as had been depicted by Hegel and accepted by Marx and Engels. 4
But, the smaller nationalities, with obscure past heritage, and especially who were a national minority with political views opposed to the mainstream national movements were disregarded as 'non-historic' nations - especially by Engels at one point.
As Engels pointed out, "Such in Scottland are the Gaels, the supporters of Stuarts, from 1640 to 1715."
"Such in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800."
"Such in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos."
"Such, in Australia, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, ..." 5
These Southern Slavs - the Serbs, the Croats, the Czechs, the Slovaks were in Engels' version, "peoples which have never had a history of their own are not viable and will never be able to achieve any kind of independence." 6
Thus, apparently it seemed that Engels grossly disregarded the national aspirations of certain communities and their future as non-historic.
TO BE CONTINUED ...