European Democratic Republic: The nationality question

So, perhaps I should have started this topic earlier, but this thread reminded me that Europe is mostly a national question powder keg. What does this mean for the slogan of a European Democratic Republic? should it be a "federative republic" (meaning that national minorities would have a special status somehow)? Or would the principle of subsidiarity ("home rule") be enough? And what does this say about minority culture, language and overall identity?

In my view this question can be tackled in a "one size fits all" manner and would see the following elements:
- Subsidiarity: Everything that could reasonably be done on a local level, should be.
- Neutral common language throughout Europe: In the past I've promoted Esperanto as such a common language, but it could conceivably be another one. The point is that a neutral language imposes no cultural dominance by an "outside party". Ideally all Europeans would only have to know two languages: Their local language and a common language, thus preserving local culture.
- Redrawing the European map: While a common republic, borders could internally be (re)drawn to accommodate for national minorities. Since subsidiarity is the guiding principle, this adds little "extra", but could help to dissolve the national question.

I think we should eschew federation-like structures. These formalise national questions and often don't see the required unity that our class needs (this should be our main motive). On the other hand: In some cases it'll be a tactical issue to pursue a federation-like structure to achieve unity in the first place. For example, Basque country is probably a live issue in that sense.

Lastly, I would like to point to this article to get a first idea what we're talking about:

Pan and Pfeil (2004) count 87 distinct "peoples of Europe", of which 33 form the majority population in at least one sovereign state, while the remaining 54 constitute ethnic minorities. The total number of national minority populations in Europe is estimated at 105 million people, or 14% of 770 million Europeans.[1]

Note that not all of these 54 minorities have a national question, but a large part do. My question is: Which do? I mean, everyone can name the more popular examples, but what would be a definitive list? In other words: How would the map of the European Democratic Republic look like (without delving too much into crystal balls and blueprints)?

You know, comrade, you kinda just provoked me into go on another off-board "Euroworker" spin on this topic (before this weekend for sure).

You just had to press my buttons, didn't you?

This is a side question really. What propels the national aspirations of peoples (the will to form a separate nation state)?

To me these aspirations seem to be tied to the aspirations of the (petty) bourgeoisie in two ways:
- the creation of an internal market: one language, one coin, one culture, ... (19th century Germany f.e.);
- and the principle of devide and rule: aggravate the differences between two or more peoples ... (Post-war Belgium f.e.).

The old minimum programme of social democracy integrated many radical demands of the bourgeoisie (self-determination, universal suffrage, the republic, people's militias ...) but gave it a socialist twist: first the means to bring them about were the growth and struggle of the workers' movement and, second, by themselves these demands, taken together, only formed the means to reach an even higher goal, that of socialism.

In the end, a second question must be raised: how do we translate this method to the current situation?

To me these aspirations seem to be tied to the aspirations of the (petty) bourgeoisie in two ways:
- the creation of an internal market: one language, one coin, one culture, ... (19th century Germany f.e.);
- and the principle of devide and rule: aggravate the differences between two or more peoples ... (Post-war Belgium f.e.).

Fundamentally, I agree. However it remains the case that large swathes of working class people will remain to self-identify as "Scottish", "Basque" or whatever for quite some time. And as long as they feel not to be on an equal footing, there can be no full resolution of the national question.

The old minimum programme of social democracy integrated many radical demands of the bourgeoisie (self-determination, universal suffrage, the republic, people's militias ...) but gave it a socialist twist: first the means to bring them about were the growth and struggle of the workers' movement and, second, by themselves these demands, taken together, only formed the means to reach an even higher goal, that of socialism.

In the end, a second question must be raised: how do we translate this method to the current situation?

I think the question of a minimum programme is related but a different subject. Or maybe I'm not seeing the connection?

I think the question of a minimum programme is related but a different subject. Or maybe I'm not seeing the connection?

There's only a national question when a people aspires to become a nation. Many peoples are perfectly fine with living among or under other people's because of a historic, economic or demographic relationship. Some peoples aren't even culturally united or developped enough to be in the position of becoming a nation one day, while capitalism, through its tendencies towards relative internationalisation, will further downgrade the importance of the nation state in some respect. The reason why the national question has been tied to the struggle of the bourgeoisie for reform in much of modern history, is because they act as the representatives of the people (so they can use the people to attain their goals). In my opinion the following question arises: how and when do we, socialists, take up or formulate the demand for the self-determination (of a certain people)? Do we have to wait for a "national" bourgeoisie to rise up? (Although the bourgeoisie in the Tsarist empire was weak, it existed and it formulated its own nationalistic demands for reform.) Do we have to actively take up the struggle for self-determination? Or do we only have to constrain ourselves to the right to self-determination?

Because of this I find it very hard to determine which minorty deserves to become a nation under some kind of European workers' republic, when there is no such republic.

Do we have to actively take up the struggle for self-determination? Or do we only have to constrain ourselves to the right to self-determination?

As I said in the OP, I'm strongly in favor of the former. Subsidiarity - or "as decentralised as possible, as centralised as necessary" - should really be enough to resolve (potential) national questions in most cases. But on the other hand, where the issue does live, perhaps "something more" is required (even if only a formality status).

Because of this I find it very hard to determine which minorty deserves to become a nation under some kind of European workers' republic, when there is no such republic.

Perhaps "drawing a map" is indeed a little far-fetched.

Why this discussion is important is because it informs us how we should relate to this question in the workers movement: How do we win workers who are bothered with a "national question" to the communist cause?

A proposed map for the middle east:


Something like this could be done in Europe?