In relation to the Irish worker he feels himself a member of the ruling nation and so turns himself into a tool of the aristocrats and capitalists of his country against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class. Marx and Engels, Ireland and the Irish Question, This, he acknowledged, was a reversal of his earlier view:.
For a long time, I believed that it would be possible to overthrow the Irish regime through English working class ascendancy. Deeper study has convinced me of the opposite. The English working class will never accomplish anything before it has got rid of Ireland.
- From Head To Soul For Men.
- Patient Care and Professionalism.
- Elements of Differential Topology.
- The How to be British Collection Two.
The lever must be applied in Ireland. And it followed from this that the Irish question should now move to the forefront of working class politics in England. The experience of rethinking the Irish question tended to be of more general importance for Marx and Engels. The empire of the Russian Tsars contained dozens upon dozens of oppressed national communities. In trying to organize a working class movement across the Tsarist empire, Russian Marxists inevitably came up against nationalist aspirations.
Many Russian Marxists dismissed these, suggesting that national issues had no place in a Marxist movement. But over time, the national question came to play a more and more important role in his thinking. By the First World War, he had developed a fairly distinctive attitude towards the issue. First, in an imperialist world order there is a hierarchy among nations which inevitably produces nationalist revolts. Second, the key problem for Marxists is how to find their bearings as internationalists in a world dominated by national conflicts.
Fourth, the biggest obstacle to doing so is the nationalism of workers in the dominant nations which as Marx argued about English workers in the case of Ireland leads them to identify with their ruling class; and which reinforces the nationalism of workers in the oppressed nations since the latter do not see workers in the dominant nation as the least bit sympathetic to their aspirations to be free from national oppression.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
What follows from this, according to Lenin, is that Marxists should support the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, including their right to form an independent state. Lenin insists that nationalism represents crucially a political division within the working class. The marxist approach takes this political division as its starting point in an effort to overcome it.
To this end, the key question is not the economic viability of a given nation-state, but what tactics will be most effective in building working class solidarity and internationalism. To win workers in an oppresor nation to such a position would represent a major blow to nationalist identifications.police-risk-management.com/order/cell/rabuk-localizzare-il.php
Marxism, Nationalism and National Struggles Today – New Socialist
Lenin made it clear that this did not mean that marxists would like to see more and more independent nation-states set up. On the contrary, as internationalists Marxists favoured federations that brought more workers into a common political life. But, all such federations should be voluntary. Forcible, coercive or oppressive forms of political association were to be opposed:. If we demand freedom of secession for the Mongolians, Persians, Egyptians and all other oppressed and unequal nations without exception, we do so not because we favour secession, but only because we stand for free, voluntary association and merging as distinct from forcible association.
Supporting the right of nations to self-determination thus became a key element in a strategic approach towards building international solidarity of workers. Not to support that right means to align oneself objectively with the dominant nationalism. At the same time, argued Lenin, it is such principled opposition to the dominant nationalism that will enable workers in the oppressed nation to move from nationalism to socialism.
This approach has considerable strengths in enabling socialists to engage seriously with actual national struggles without abandoning their internationalist objectives. At the same time, these writings offer little more than guidelines. After all, defending the right to secede does not tell one under what conditions one should advocate it. Attention to the writings of Marx and Lenin is no substitute for concrete analysis of actual struggles in real conditions.
Rather than providing a formula that can simply be applied in each and every context, they are a starting point to guide analysis. To try to use them as anything more is to substitute sloganeering for serious analysis. The world communist movement shifted from internationalism to nationalism under the impact of the degeneration of the revolution of in Russia and the rise of Stalinism.
It was one of the great historic contributions of Leon Trotsky to have resisted the notion of the struggle for socialism as a national one and to have held firm to marxist internationalism. For all their terrible problems, trotskyist groups played an important role in keeping such ideas alive at a time when nationalism dominated the left.
The theory of permanent revolution was a brilliant and original contribution to marxist thought. Rejecting the schematic, linear, and mechanistic idea that every society must pass through given historic stages before the struggle for socialism can be posed, Trotsky argued for concrete analysis of the class dynamics in any given society in the context of its relationship to the world economy.
Frightened that a revolutionary movement for liberal democracy would spark mass strikes and bring an insurrectionary proletariat to the streets fighting for its distinctive class demands as had indeed happened in , the Russian bourgeoisie will soon desert such a struggle, he maintained. Under the impact of the revolutionary movement in China in the s, Trotsky soon extended the theory from Russia to the colonial world in general.
A Journal of Economics, Culture & Society
In the colonies, he suggested, the same pattern will apply: a frightened bourgeoisie will pull back from the anti-colonial struggle; the latter will triumph only if led by a revolutionary party of the working class. While there were some important insights gained from this argument, it ran the risk of over-generalization. In countries like India, Algeria, Pakistan, Bangaldesh and dozens upon dozens more, nationalist movements not led by the working class did indeed establish independent nation-states. The world after in fact saw a whole succession of national independence struggles in which working class movements played no meaningful role.
Whatever its strengths, it could not be used as a universally-valid prediction about national struggles in the age of imperialism. The largest U.
Now, the fact that this claim was obviously false i. Trotsky had said it, therefore it must be true. After all, if national independence could not be achieved without socialist revolution, then the achievement of national independence could only mean such a revolution had occurred. The fact that nothing resembling a socialist revolution could be identified—like millions of oppressed peoples taking to the streets and winning the rank and file of the army to their side, like mass strikes and workplaces occupations, like new institutions of popular self-government springing up in the workplaces and communities—did not seem to matter.
Catalog Record: Toward a Marxist theory of nationalism | HathiTrust Digital Library
Going much farther than had Trotsky, some groups began to argue that a hidden logic drove all nationalist struggles onto the road of socialist revolution. And, inevitably, the line between nationalism and socialism became blurred. After all, if anti-imperialist nationalism automatically grows over into socialism, then the line between the two is quite fluid indeed.
Some trotskyists who gravitated towards such views eventually went over to a more or less uncritical embrace of progressive-looking nationalism Cuban, Nicaraguan, Grenadan and gave up on the whole idea of permanent revolution and its insistence on independent working class and socialist organization within the national struggle this was the evolution of the American SWP. I make these points because they underline how important it is to resist simple formulas when assessing national struggles.
There is no general law or dynamic of national struggles today and there never has been. One of the errors of many marxists has been to search for one rather than undertaking the much more important task of developing a concrete analysis of particular national struggles at a given historic conjuncture. With this warning in mind, I want shortly to turn to some preliminary considerations on national struggles in the Canadian state. But first, I want to point out some of the areas in which the marxist account of nationalism remains weak so that we might be aware of areas of some of the work that remains to be done in developing a more thorough and comprehensive understanding of nationalism in the modern world.
This makes their legacy a most important one. But having said this, we must acknowledge that neither Marx nor Lenin really provide us with a theory for understanding the biggest problem we face in this area: the incredible power and persistence of nationalism and national identifications. I do not claim to have all the answers as to why this is so. But let me outline four partial explanations that deserve to be explored and developed.
The first issue is what might be called the attractions of citizenship. Remember that early working class movements were formed in circumstances where the vast majority of working people did not have the vote.
For that reason, the struggle for democratic rights, especially the right to vote, figured prominently in socialist agitation. Indeed, socialism—usually known by the name social democracy—often appeared to be largely about the inclusion of the working class within capitalist democracy. As a result, a whole historic tradition developed in which capitalist democracy was criticized simply for not being inclusive enough.
As a result, the question of the form of capitalist political power—the bourgeois nation-state—and its inherent problems bureaucratism, national definitions of citizenship, separation of economic and political power were rarely raised. This meant that working class movements generally sought the full rights of citizenship within capitalist democracy. One cannot deny the importance of this struggle. After all, the struggle for bourgeois democratic rights, the battle to be considered a full member of society is of fundamental significance.
- A p-Laplacian Approximation for Some Mass Optimization Problems.
- ISBN 13: 9780853455165.
- Marxism, Nationalism and National Struggles Today.
But in the process, working people often became attached to this as a sort of ideal; they had little connection to political traditions which put forward a profound criticism of the inherent limits and biases of liberal democracy itself.