Marxism and the National Question?

[Coggeh]

Theirs probably loads of threads on this so feel free to link me , I just couldn't find any.

I've tried reading up on this and just found I could not understand it .

Just maybe if a comrade could answer a few questions as simply as put as possible . And sorry in advance if I sound stupid:(

What is the National Question?

What position do marxists(in general) take on it ?

And what perspective do Trotskyists take on it ?

Thanks :)

[Devrim]

Try this series of articles which give a good historical overview of the question from a left communist point of view:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/034_natqn_01.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/037_natqn_02.html
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/042_natqn_03.html

Devrim

[Ismail]

... and for a Marxist-Leninist point of view:
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm
http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1929/03/18.htm

And Enver Hoxha on national determination (not the National Question per se, but yeah):

THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR SOCIALIST COUNTRY
IS AN EXPRESSION OF THE WILL OF OUR PEOPLE
(FROM THE SPEECH AT THE MEETING OF THE PEOPLE'S
ASSEMBLY OF THE PSR OF ALBANIA )
December 27, 1976

(excerpts)

The People's Socialist Republic of Albania which, as the draft-Constitution proclaims, resolutely upholds the principle of self-determination of nations and the exercise of complete national sovereignty, rejects any form of limitation of sovereignty in any field whatever. In sanctioning this stand, which stems directly from the line of our Party, the draft-Constitution proclaims: "Nobody, apart from the organs expressively defined in this Constitution, can exercise the sovereignty of the people and any of its attributes in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania and in its name." With this provision of the laws we not only give a firm reply to the false bourgeois "theories" that consider sovereignty as an "anachronistic concept", a "source of evil in the world today", etc., but we also categorically refute the "theory" of the Soviet revisionists about "limited sovereignty", in favour of the "supreme interest" of the so-called socialist community.

Every state that respects itself and others has its norms which guide it in its friendly relations. These norms differ according to the world outlook of each state. None can impose its norms on another. A thing that is agreeable or suitable to one regime may not be agreeable or suitable to another. No state leaves its opinions and viewpoints in obscurity, without expressing them, even in critical and polemical form, towards another state. It is logical that there should be truly sovereign slates, like ours, that have not agreed and do not agree to obey the "conductor's baton" and no other.

[Tower of Bebel]

I sound stupid:(
You should make up your own jargon.


What is the National Question?
That's a question of self-determination.

What position do marxists(in general) take on it ?
There's probably no position equal to all marxists. From the start there were marxists opposed to the demand of self-determination while others were in favor of it. In general Marxists fight for the biggest and strongest union of the working class. Marxists fight for working class self-determination. The question is whether or not national self-determination can be a step forward for genuine workers' power (socialism).

And what perspective do Trotskyists take on it ?
I guess there are 3 perspectives. First there is the perspective equal to the left-communist view: national self-determination in times of imperialist decay is out of the question. It can only delude the working class. It only leads to a working class tailing the bourgeoisie. Self-determination can only be guaranteed through workers' power and the socialist mode of production.
The second one fights for the most favorable outcome of every struggle for national self-determination. This means that while demanding national self-determination the communists only support a struggle which could lead to the strenghtening of the working class (as an independent organization). During the capitalist stage of imperialism a struggle for national self-determination could weaken the imperialist state order and strenghten the proletariat only if it struggles under its own banner. So there's principled support to the struggle for independence.
The third one offers unprincipled support to every force struggling for national self-determination because it could weaken the imperialist forces in favor of the proletariat. This unprincipled support could lead to socialist parties supporting reactionary groups (only) in its struggle for independence.

At first I supported the first perspective. Now I support the second.