Marxism and the National Question
Written By: Lars Ulrik Thomsen
“Complete equality of rights for all nations; the right of nations to self-determination; the unity of the workers of all nations—such is the national programme that Marxism, the experience of the whole world, and the experience of Russia, teach the workers.”
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination - Lenin (1)
In an article in the magazine International Critical thought; Marxism and the National Question: Domenico Losurdo’s Contribution to the Dialectics of the National and International (2019) the three authors Diego Pautasso, Marcelo Fernandes and Gaio Doria gives a historical, philosophical and political explanation of the subject.(2)
The question of national sovereignty is the main link in the political chain for the labour movement in the beginning of the 21st century. This is closely connected with the new stage in State Monopolistic Capitalism and in Imperialism, with the deepening and general crisis in capitalism.
The article begins with a historical explanation of the subject where the authors shows the contradiction in the labour movement over the years, beginning from the foundation of the First International in London in 1864. It is surprising that the authors criticise Marx and Engels for not giving a clear definition of the subject: “Marx and Engels never elaborated a systematic and specific study on the national question, but numerous references to this topic have appeared throughout their works. Marxists usually consider this to be one of the major gaps in the original theoretical elaborations of Marxism (Traverso and Löwy 1990).” (p. 1 f.) This is a strange critique and it reminds of the similar critique on the matter of logic, where some authors ask why Marx and Engels didn’t write a complete science of logic. Considering the vast amount of scientific work done by the classics, it is a strange critique.(3)
In the third section the authors give a thorough treatment of the debate between Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg on the national question at the beginning of the 20th century. What is remarkable in this context is that the authors completely forget about the crux of Lenin's article on national self-determination, where he explicitly mentions that this question should be seen in its historical and economic context.(4) The authors are also treating the history of the Soviet Union in a rather eclectic way both in the third and fourth paragraph. This subject is so complicated that it should be treated in much larger and broader context.
The fourth paragraph is the most extensive concerning the contribution of Domenico Losurdo. Here are some very valuable thoughts about the consequences of the counter revolution in 1989, and how imperialism has been using the political vacuum after the dissolution of the Soviet Union:
“Our times, as Losurdo points out, are marked by an international order marked by crises, a society of spectacle and wars. The neoliberal attack on the welfare state not only intensifies inequalities in the economic sphere, but adds to the fragility of democracy, its institutions and social entities in the political sphere, and neo-colonialism and interventionism at the international level. This neo-colonialism is updated by the glorification of war, by the intensification of psychological warfare (Psywar), by the revolution in military affairs (RMA), by the mobilization of communications for destabilization (Internet, social networks, etc.). In fact, coup d’états have become more sophisticated, not limited to military barracks, assuming new characteristics such as criminalization and destabilization, promotion of grass roots support from outside, as well as scenarios aimed at creating outrage and terror to make calls for “humanitarian assistance.” That is, these are events in which the West mobilizes its unprecedented soft power—deciding unilaterally when elections are regular and violence is legitimate—to establish “democratic protectorates” (Losurdo 2016) (p.13).
“The interweaving of the national-international question is part of the complex theory of social conflict (and the dynamics of class struggle”
The concept of “neoliberalism” is not a Marxist definition of capitalism and imperialism in our time.(5) But apart from that, the quotation from the article gives a precise picture of how imperialism is becoming more and more illegal, when it comes to even its own framework of international law. This is also an argument for emphasising the importance of national sovereignty in the political debate. In their conclusion the authors remark:
“The debate on the national question is crucial because it is the issue. If it is left unanswered the autonomy of a country (sovereignty) and national development cannot be achieved; the capacity to formulate public policies and to contemplate diverse social and identity demands are unattainable; the mechanisms of operation of the state apparatus and its institutions cannot be democratized. Hence, as Losurdo points out, it is important that the national question should be understood in terms of a general theory of social conflict, insofar as the forms of oppression and exploitation appear intertwined, overlapping, hierarchized, and structured by class conflict.” (p. 15)
This is crucial for the labour movement that the fight for national sovereignty should be seen as part of the class fight between labour and bourgeoisie. This has become quite evident after half a century of political and economic domination by the European Union. It is very much like the freedom fight during the German occupation in WW2, where the majority of the bourgeoisie supported the German invasion, e.g. in Denmark.(6)
Finally, the authors conclude:
“In conclusion, the interweaving of the national-international question is part of the complex theory of social conflict (and the dynamics of class struggle). In the era of full ‘globalization’ and liberal hagiography, the sinuosity of the national question reaffirms the imperative of national struggles for development and sovereignty (Losurdo 2006).
“Without neglecting class struggles and while imperialism still exits, the amalgam of emancipatory processes will be the national question. If this is ignored, one assumes the risk of submitting to a certain abstract cosmopolitanism of no great political consequence. In synthesis, all the work of Losurdo addresses, directly and indirectly, the national question to approach anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, interventionism, processes of development, etc. In this sense, Domenico Losurdo recovers and develops the best Marxist tradition, one focused on debating national issues in contemporary reality.” (p.15)
These are very valuable thoughts and they mark the essence of the article by the three authors Diego Pautasso, Marcelo Fernandes and Gaio Doria. The questions treated here are of the utmost importance and can only be understood in the context of epistemology and a historical and economic treatment of our present situation.
Bibliography
1- V.I. Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 2. paragraph, Lenin’s Collected Works, Progress Publishers, 1972, Moscow, Volume 20, pp. 393-454
2- To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2019.1695533
3- V.I. Lenin, What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats; Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 1, pages 129-332.