National Liberation and Self-Determination

[MilitantWorker]

In another thread recently the following from the Communist Manifesto has been quoted:
"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The workers have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word." - Marx, Communist Manifesto
I spoke to Devrim on skype about the quote and we agreed there was some ambiguity as to it's actual meaning. Take for example the phrase "the proletariat ... must constitute itself the nation". This statement doesn't seem to make much sense in modern English, do we take it to mean "the proletariat ... must constitute itself as the nation" (as in to take state power) or as "the proletariat ... must constitute the nation itself" (with regard to German unification and the 'timidity' of the German bourgeoisie).

Devrim suggested I post the question hear to get other opinions on the matter. Is Marx really suggesting here that the proletariat does indeed have a national character which it is merely being deprived of by capitalism, reflective maybe the confusions of a class and struggle still in it's infancy? Or is he merely expressing the need for the proletariat to capture state power establish a proletarian bastion, something which is in it's birth 'national'? As I said to Devrim, maybe this is more an issue for Marx scholars and the like, though I think it is an interesting point. Your thoughts?...

[MilitantWorker]

This probably deserves a more developed response (backed by some proper investigation) but my initial thoughts are as follows:



I don't think he's saying the proletariat has a national character. The quote begins by repeating (approvingly) the accusation that Communists wish to abolish countries and nationality. As he says, workers have no country and we can't take from them what they do not have.

Nonetheless, the first struggles that workers engage in on an explicitly political terrain take place in a national context. It's no accident that, even though it was the expression of a whole wave of struggles of the international proletariat, communists still talk about the Russian Revolution or the German Revolution. Although I think this partially reflects a laziness in language as well as indicating just how deeply nationalist ideology penetrates the habitual thinking even of communists, it also reflects a certain reality.

Certainly, the struggles of the proletariat in those countries were, first and foremost, against the Russian or German states. This, of course, doesn't preclude the involvement of other bourgeoisies, such as the aid given the Whites in Russia and the backing of the German bourgeoisie from the Entente. But it was still, inevitably, those bourgeoisies who were in the front line of the combat against the workers.

So I think I agree with you when you say "Or is he merely expressing the need for the proletariat to capture state power establish a proletarian bastion, something which is in it's birth 'national'?"

It is interesting to compare this passage with point 19 of the "Principles of Communism" by Engels, released as a parallel to the Manifesto:

"Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range."

And also point 22:

"What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property."

It seems clear to me from these quotes that Marx and Engels both saw in communism the dissolution of nationalities running parallel with the dissolution of class distinctions and that private property was the root of both phenomena....

[Niccolò Rossi]

Just a bit of background on this, this is actually a re-post from the ICC forum. My original question was prompted by a thread some time ago re the 'national' character of the proletariat as argued by a [group of?] particular Stalinist[s], namely that the proletariat indeed had a national character and that revolution represented the conquest of the nation and the affirmation of the proletariat's national character. Thus, the statement "The workers have no country... the proletariat ... must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word" was interpreted to mean that the nation was stolen from the working class and the revolution represented it's conquest and the affirmation of the proletariat's national character.

P.S. I'm not sure that "National Liberation and Self-Determination" is an appropriate title for the thread given that the quoted posts don't tell with this question directly, but rather the international character of the proletariat.

[MilitantWorker]

I mean, you're more or less right, Nic...

The reason I started this thread is because some other posters and I got off topic in another thread...we had already began discussing these issues and a comrade quoted that line from the manifesto, which reminded me of the thread on the ICC subforum...so, I quoted you all hoping that the discussion would continue on this thread instead, but it hasn't...heres what was originally said..


Comrade, one can support national liberation while working for proletarian revolution, the two are not contradictory. The interests of the Palestinian working class, for instance, is in defeating the Zionist occupation of their lands; unless this is accomplished, there can be little progress for the Palestinian workers. I think our Irish comrades will agree that the Irish workers' victories against British imperialism (a struggle which must be completed, not forgotten) have helped the march of the working class.

[MilitantWorker]

I agree, comrade, but can we expect the working class of Palestine to make any significant steps toward eliminating capital and class when they are being massacred by Zionists every day? We learn from Marx that class struggle takes on a "national character", that the proletariat must "constitute itself the nation"; these are the tasks of building a revolution, and they are improbable to impossible if imperialist oppression is not defeated.

Lastly, the whole point of national liberation is that it enables the workers to achieve revolution; that is why the liberation of Palestine is intricately tied to the liberation of the American working class (for example). This is fully internationalist....