[Marxism] Kosova and the right of nations to self-determination | Links

[glparramatta]

Louis Proyect wrote:

>> Let's try an example from the US: Puerto Rico.
>>
>> What would you call a leftist from the US who opposed
>> self-determination for Puerto Rico?
>>
>> Alan Bradley
>
> This really helps things not.
>
> We are dealing with a phenomenon that has been called "Balkanization" 
> in the past. The entire African continent consists of states with 
> nationalities and ethnic groups thrown together by British or French 
> imperialism. Does it advance the cause of socialism for one 
> nationality to launch a secessionist war against another? Was Katanga 
> entitled to separate from the Congo? If Karadjis is correct in 
> interpreting Lenin's 1914 rebuttal to Rosa Luxemburg as a green light 
> to national independence, then why not? The only criterion that makes 
> sense is CLASS.


Lenin and the Bolsheviks, building on the foundations laid by Marx and 
Engels and applying them to the new era, put great emphasis on the right 
of oppressed nations to self-determination as part of their 
revolutionary arsenal, both during the Russian Revolution and in the 
struggle against world imperialism.

The demand for the right of national self-determination applies only to 
oppressed nations. It is a democratic political demand that means an 
oppressed nation has the right to determine its political relationship 
to the oppressor nation, including the right to secede and form a 
separate nation-state.

Marxists defend this right, Lenin explained, because "nothing holds up 
the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so 
much as national injustice".

The national question for Lenin and the Bolsheviks was not simply a 
theoretical question. A correct position on the question was essential 
for the success of the revolutionary movement. Russia was formed, not as 
a national state, but as a state made up of many nations.

Trotsky explained in the /History of the Russian Revolution/:

Seventy million Great Russians constituted the mass of the country. 
There were gradually added about 90 million "outlanders" ... Thus was 
created an empire, of whose population the ruling nationality 
constituted only 43%. The remaining 57% were nationalities of various 
degrees of culture and subjection, including Ukrainians 17%, Poles 6%, 
White Russians 4.5% ... The vast numbers of these nationalities deprived 
of rights, and the sharpness of their deprivation, gave the national 
problem in Tsarist Russia a gigantic explosive force.^15 
<http://links.org.au/node/164#note15>

Through defending the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, 
Lenin and the Bolsheviks showed how the workers of the oppressor nation 
could demonstrate to the workers of the oppressed nations that they were 
opposed to the national injustices imposed upon them, and lay the basis 
for an internationalist alliance between the workers of both nations 
against their common enemy—the capitalist rulers of the oppressor nation.

Does support for the right of national self-determination mean that 
Marxists support the formation of an independent state by every nation 
in all cases? Not at all. Marxists are for the abolition of national 
frontiers and for the integration of nations into a single, 
democratically centralised world socialist state, in which each nation 
would enjoy national-territorial autonomy.

As Lenin explained: "In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism 
advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher 
unity".^16 <http://links.org.au/node/164#note16>

But Lenin recognised that such an amalgamation of nations could be 
achieved only on the basis of the fullest democracy. An amalgamation of 
nations could come about only if it were thoroughly voluntary.

We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., 
freedom of secession for the oppressed nations, not because we have 
dreamt of splitting up the country economically, or of the ideal of 
small states, but, on the contrary, because we want large states and the 
closer unity and even fusion of nations, only on a truly democratic, 
truly internationalist basis, which is /inconceivable/ without the 
freedom to secede...^17 <http://links.org.au/node/164#note17>

In a slightly earlier work, Lenin put it this way:

... To accuse those who support freedom of self-determination, i.e., 
freedom to secede, of encouraging separatism is as foolish and 
hypocritical as accusing those who advocate freedom of divorce of 
encouraging the destruction of family ties. Just as in bourgeois society 
the defenders of privilege and corruption, on which bourgeois marriage 
rests, oppose freedom of divorce, so, in the capitalist state, 
repudiation of the right to self-determination, i.e., the right of 
nations to secede, means nothing more than defence of the privileges of 
the dominant nation and police methods of administration, to the 
detriment of democratic methods...

 From their daily experience the masses know perfectly well the value of 
geographical and economic ties and the advantages of a big market and a 
big state. They will, therefore, resort to secession only when national 
oppression and national friction make joint life absolutely intolerable 
and hinder any and all economic intercourse.^18 
<http://links.org.au/node/164#note18>

Lenin adds that such freedom is essential after a socialist revolution:

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/.^19 
<http://links.org.au/node/164#note19>

Does support for this demand imply support for nationalism, albeit the 
nationalism of the oppressed? This was the argument put forward by Rosa 
Luxemburg. Lenin over and over again explained that this was not the case.

/Insofar as/ the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the 
oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone 
else, /in favour/, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent 
enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed 
nation stands for its /own/ bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We 
fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and 
do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the 
oppressed nation.^20 <http://links.org.au/node/164#note20>

The working class supports the bourgeoisie [in the national question] 
only in order to secure national peace (which the bourgeoisie cannot 
bring about completely and which can be achieved only with /complete/ 
democracy), in order to secure equal rights and to create the best 
conditions for the class struggle ... What every bourgeoisie is out for 
in the national question is either privileges for its /own/ nation, or 
exceptional advantages ... The proletariat is opposed to all privileges, 
to all exclusiveness...

The demand for a "yes" or "no" reply to the question of secession in the 
case of every nation may seem a very "practical" one. In reality it is 
absurd; it is metaphysical ... With the proletariat, however, these 
demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle ... For 
the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper [the class struggle] by 
pushing the aims of its "own" nation before those of the proletariat. 
That is why the proletariat, so to speak, confines itself to the 
negative demand for recognition of the /right/ to self-determination, 
without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give 
/anything at the expense/ of another nation.^21 
<http://links.org.au/node/164#note21>

In response to Luxemburg's complaint that Lenin's support for the right 
to self-determination boosted the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries 
like Poland, where she was active, Lenin reiterated that while the 
bourgeois nationalism of /any/ oppressed nation has a general democratic 
content that is directed /against/ oppression, and this component 
revolutionaries /unconditionally/ support, any tendency towards national 
exclusiveness should be opposed. "We fight against the tendency of the 
Polish bourgeois to oppress the Jews etc. etc.", Lenin declared.^22 
<http://links.org.au/node/164#note22>

Echoing Marx and Engels, he asked:

Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot ... The 
Great-Russian proletariat cannot achieve /its own/ aims or clear the 
road to its freedom without systematically countering these prejudices 
... We are fighting on the ground of a definite state; we unite the 
workers of all nations living in this state; we cannot vouch for any 
particular path of national development, for we are marching to our 
class goal along /all/ possible paths ... we cannot move towards that 
goal unless we combat all nationalism, and uphold the equality of the 
various nations. Whether the Ukraine, for example, is destined to form 
an independent state is a matter that will be determined by a thousand 
unpredictable factors. Without attempting idle /"guesses"/, we firmly 
uphold something that is beyond doubt: the right of the Ukraine to form 
such a state ... We do not uphold the privileges of Great Russians with 
regard to Ukrainians; we /educate/ the masses in the spirit of 
recognition of that right, in the spirit of rejecting /state/ privileges 
for any nation...

We proletarians declare in advance that we are /opposed/ to 
Great-Russian privileges, and this is what guides our entire propaganda 
and agitation...

This is the only [way] to ensure the greatest chances of national peace 
in Russia, should she remain a multi-national state, and the most 
peaceful (and for the proletarian class struggle, harmless) division 
into separate national states, should the question of such a division 
arise.^23 <http://links.org.au/node/164#note23>


Nationalism

Marxists are opposed to all nationalism because it is a capitalist 
ideology. Capitalist elements urge the working class and poor to set 
aside their "sectional", i.e. class, interests for the good of the 
"nation". In response, Marxists advocate working-class internationalism: 
solidarity and unity of the workers of all nations against capitalist 
exploitation.

But, while opposing the nationalism of the bourgeoisie of every nation, 
we recognise that the nationalism of the oppressed nations, generated as 
it is by the struggle against imperialist oppression, has a "general 
democratic content". We support this struggle against national oppression.

15. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n15> Leon Trotsky, /The History of the 
Russian Revolution/, Vol 3, Monad, New York, 1980, p. 36.

16. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n16> V.I. Lenin, /Collected Works/, 
Vol 20, p. 34.

17. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n17> /ibid./, pp. 413-4.

18. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n18> /ibid./, pp. 422-3.

19. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n19> /LCW/, Vol 22, p. 325.

20. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n20> /LCW/, Vol 20, pp. 411-2.

21. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n21> /ibid./, pp. 409-10

22. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n22> /ibid./, p. 412.

23. <http://links.org.au/node/164#n23> /ibid./, pp. 413-4.