Lenin's “Own Words”(Part Five: Theories of the State, Nation and War)

16. On the Problem of the Nation

Marxism and Nationalism

“Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just,’ ‘purest,’ most refined and civilized brand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity…

“The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois society and, taking this society into due account, the Marxist fully recognizes the historical legitimacy of national movements. But to prevent this recognition from becoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness…

Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for ‘national culture’ in general? -- Of course not.” (“Critical Remarks on the National Question” Collected Works Vol. 20 p. 35)

Would Stalinistic “communists” who read these lines of Lenin be unlikely to grasp their meaning. It seems highly doubtful that they would be able to understand this argument that the struggle against national oppression is justified but that the struggle for autonomous “national” development must be rejected -- which almost seems to be written for the sake of today’s “leftwing.” The established leftwing would make no effort to understand what Lenin is saying and would likely dismiss it out of hand, saying that “things today are different.”

As is clear from the expression that Marxism is internationalism and “cannot be reconciled with nationalism,” Lenin “principally” treated internationalism and nationalism as opposite concepts. This is perfectly correct, and Lenin would not have been a Marxist had he argued otherwise. Nationalism, no matter what form it takes, is essentially bourgeois. The nation, state, national borders, culture, language and every other sort of difference related to “national peculiarities” are in fact various phenomena that correspond to the bourgeois development of human history. Therefore the ideology of Stalin=Mao, which combines “proletarian internationalism with proletarian nationalism,” is a notion that is bourgeois, not Marxist. Lenin’s support for the struggle against national oppression (but not nationalism) does not stem from a principled meaning, but rather from realistic, concrete necessity. Seen historically, the struggle to awake the masses from their feudalistic slumber and create a nation-state (bourgeois state), and the national struggle to achieve freedom from the colonial rule of imperialistic states, are justified and progressive. Marxists (the class-conscious proletariat) must therefore support these struggles. However, this is totally separate from the struggles for nationalism, “national culture” or the struggles of Japanese farmers for “autonomous development” or “defense of national industries.” Lenin’s view of supporting the struggles against national oppression, but not supporting nationalism, and rather fighting against it, is not an abstract statement of Marxist general principles, but rather an application of principles to concrete, living reality, and underlying this runs the true interests of the proletariat, which is a manifestation of the essence of Leninism.

Arguments of Petty Bourgeois Nationalists

“If a German under Wilhelm or a Frenchman under Clemenceau says, ‘It is my right and duty as a Socialist to defend my country if it is invaded by an enemy,’ he argues not like a Socialist, not like an internationalist, not like a revolutionary proletarian, but like a petty-bourgeois nationalist. Because this argument leaves out of account the revolutionary class struggle of the workers against capital, it leaves out of account the appraisal of the war as a whole from the point of view of the world bourgeoisie and the world proletariat, that is, it leaves out of account internationalism, and all that remains is a miserable and narrow-minded nationalism. My country is being wronged, that is all I care about -- that is what this argument amounts to, and that is where its petty-bourgeois nationalist narrow-mindedness lies.” (The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, pp. 78-9)

The Japanese Communist Party not only says that it would be the duty of communists to protect the “fatherland” if a neutral Japan were to be invaded by an imperialist state, but even go so far as to say that all countries have an inate right to defend their own state! The JCP has clearly surpassed the petty bourgeois nationalists of the Second International in their propagation of bourgeois nationalism. Of course, introducing the idea of a “neutral Japanese state” cannot justify their view since such an idea is an illusion that only exists in their own minds. Setting aside this reactionary fantasy, what remains of their position is the advocacy bourgeois nationalism in the most stupid and vulgar form, and not only the abandonment of the struggle against nationalistic prejudice among the masses, but the actual fostering of such prejudices. By bringing up the empty expression of neutrality, without raising the issue of the rule of capital, they replace the class struggle to overthrow the rule of capital and abandon the standpoint of the proletariat. This is the view that represents cowardly nationalistic pacifists, not of the revolutionary proletariat, and they have fallen to the level of the Second International opportunists and nationalists that Lenin discusses above.

On "National Culture"

“The elements of democratic and socialist culture are present, if only in rudimentary form, in every national culture, since in every nation there are toiling and exploited masses, whose conditions of life inevitably give rise to the ideology of democracy and socialism. But every nation also possesses a bourgeois culture (and most nations a reactionary and clerical culture as well) in the form, not merely of ‘elements,’ but of the dominant culture. Therefore, the general ‘national culture’ is the culture of the landlords, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. This fundamental and, for a Marxist, elementary truth, was kept in the background by the Bundist, who ‘drowned’ it in his jumble of words, i.e., instead of revealing and clarifying the class gulf to the reader, he in fact obscured it. In fact, the Bundist acted like a bourgeois, whose every interest requires the spreading of a belief in a non-class national culture.” (“Critical Remarks on the National Problem” Collected Works Vol. 20 p. 24)

Here is something that Lenin wrote against the idea of “cultural=national” system of self-government, that is, the idea that it is a good thing to divide the school system along nationalistic lines. This was the position of the opportunistic, vulgar intelligentsia in . Lenin harshly criticized the idea that instead of promoting the solidarity and consolidation of the proletariat of all nationalities, they should be artificially separated. In Russia, the Bundists (Jewish nationalists) proposed such ideas. In opposition to these views, Lenin proposed the slogan of “the international culture of democracy and the world working-class movement,” and said “we take from          each national culture only its democratic and socialist elements; we take them only and absolutely in opposition to the bourgeois culture and the bourgeois nationalism of each nation.” (Ibid. p. 24)

The JCP supports the nationalistic separation of Koreans in into Korean national schools and have actively struggled for this. However, they are occupying the same position of the Bundists “who acted like” the bourgeoisie.” The JCP argues that since Japanese imperialism historically oppressed Koreans, to compensate for this it is natural to recognize Korean universities, and they have even pointed out that the members of the Japanese ruling class living in other East Asian countries send their children to Japanese schools (like Americans send their children to American schools in Japan and elsewhere).In other words, they attempt to convince the bourgeoisie by appealing to their conscious and playing to their nationalism. Against such arguments, we must echo Lenin’s view that: “The place of those who advocate the slogan of national culture is among the nationalist petty bourgeois, not among the Marxists.” (Ibid. p. 25)

Arrangement of Class Power Worldwide

“From this it is seen how most of the nations which fought at the head of others for freedom in 1789-1871, have now, after 1876, on the basis of highly developed and ‘overripe’ capitalism, become the oppressors and enslavers of the majority of the populations and nations of the globe. From 1876 to 1914, six ‘great’ powers grabbed 25 million sq. kilometres, i.e., an area two and a half times that of Europe! Six powers are enslaving over half a billion (523 million) inhabitants of colonies. For every four inhabitants of the ‘great’ powers there are five inhabitants of ‘their’ colonies. And everybody knows that colonies are conquered by fire and sword, that the populations of colonies are brutally treated, that they are exploited in a thousand ways (by exporting capital, concessions, etc., cheating when selling them goods, subordination to the authorities of the ‘ruling’ nation, and so on and so forth.)” (“Socialism and War” Foreign Languages Press Peking pp. 9-10)

At the time Lenin said that at the center of the program of a proletarian party must be the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations” (he also emphasized this at the Second Congress of the Comintern). The reason that Lenin insisted on this distinction is that the petty bourgeois socialists of the time (such as Kautsky) had rendered it ambiguous and offered up apologies for imperialism by saying that although imperialism did exploit colonies, it also promoted economic development and raised the cultural level, etc.

Lenin positively viewed the participation of oppressed nations in the struggle against imperialism and the bourgeoisie in the “great power” nations, and he called upon the proletariat in these nations to ally with the oppressed nations in a common struggle against the imperialist bourgeoisie. This is why the Comintern adopted the slogan: “Proletarians in all countries and oppressed nations, unite!” This was an adaptation of the slogan from the Communist Manifesto under concrete, historical conditions. Although Lenin positively viewed the struggles of oppressed nations, he still thought that ultimately the struggle of the socialist proletariat in the great power countries was the decisive element for the overthrow of capitalism. In this respect, Lenin differs completely from those Maoists and bourgeois intellectuals who, demoralized by the delays in the decisive struggle against capitalism in the economically advanced countries, have advanced theories of [socialist] revolution arising in economically backward countries or theories of revolution in the “peripheral countries.” What, then, can be said about the arrangement of class power globally today? Can this be said to be the common struggle of the proletariat and national independence movements against the rule of U.S. imperialism? The majority of the former colonies, however, have attained political independence, and capitalism has been rapidly developing in these countries. In this sense, the common struggle of the proletariat of all countries is now finally coming close to being a reality.

Imperialism and Wars of National Liberation

“The socialist revolution is not a single act, it is not one battle on one front, but a whole epoch of acute class conflicts, a long series of battles on all fronts, i.e., on all questions of economics and politics, battles that can only end in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It would be a radical mistake to think that the struggle for democracy was capable of diverting the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding, overshadowing it, etc. On the contrary, in the same way as there can be no victorious socialism that does not practice full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy.

“It would be no less a mistake to remove one of the points of the democratic program, for example, the point on the self-determination of nations, on the grounds of it being ‘impracticable’ or ‘illusory’ under imperialism. The contention that the right of nations to self-determination is impracticable within the bounds of capitalism can be understood either in the absolute, economic sense, or in the conditional, political sense.

“In the first case it is radically incorrect from the standpoint of theory…

“In the second case the assertion is incomplete and inaccurate.” (“The Socialist Revolution and the Rights of Nations to Self-Determination,” Collected Works Vol. 22 pp. 144-5)

Petty-bourgeois reformist tendencies (the Structural Reformists) and “democratic” tendencies (JCP) today are always quoting this passage from Lenin, which they have attempted to use to justify their own opportunism. The JCP claims that the struggle for democracy will “more surely” bring about socialism. This, of course, bears no relation at all to what Lenin is saying here. In the case of the JCP the struggle for democracy is one-dimensionally exaggerated and turned into something autonomous and absolute, while the struggle for socialism is abandoned.

Lenin’s statement that “the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy” appeared in a 1916 article. This idea was proposed in relation to the question of imperialism and democracy (and national self-determination as one element of this).

The situation at that time was the height of the first imperialist world war. During this imperialist war, which began in July 1914, a type of military dictatorship appeared not only in the autocratic states of Germany and Russia, but also in the republics such as France, with the state becoming a sort of militaristic prison in which democracy was suppressed and the exploitation and oppression of the proletariat increased a hundred fold.

At the same time, with the intensification of imperialism and reaction, national oppression also intensified, and the colonies were mobilized for the imperialist war, so that the colonies and “home country” acted as one. The intensification of the imperialistic rule and plunder of the colonies, however, also prepared the way for a broad movement of national liberation following the war.

With this objective historical situation as the backdrop, a “leftwing” radical tendency appeared within the debate over imperialism and democracy (nationalism) that was represented by Polish Social-Democrats such as Rosa Luxembourg (Junius), Radek (Parabellum), the Dutch Social-Democrats, Piatakov (P. Kievsky), Bukharin and Trotsky. According to their “leftwing” (‘read: New Left) communists’ view: (1) national self-determination is impossible since the oppression of the weaker nations by imperialism can only ultimately be overcome through the overthrow of imperialism and therefore through world socialist revolution; (2) National self-determination is detrimental because it reproduces the national boundaries that imperialism has eliminated; (3) National self-determination, furthermore, is unnecessary, since socialism has nothing in common with national boundaries. Therefore, in both imperialist states and colonies, the call for the overthrow of imperialism and creation of a socialist republic is sufficient as a slogan against national oppression. Piatakov criticized Lenin, saying that he had “replaced unified international action with dualistic propaganda.”

Lenin opposed these tendencies. He said that national self-determination was not only possible, but actually inescapable, and even though it only represented a single reform and the realization of democracy, it was an important process for the socialistic assimilation of the world’s nationalities, repeatedly emphasizing that what was necessary was the “bringing together of nationalities on the basis of a free alliance between the proletariat of all countries, rather than by means of force.”

Autonomy of the Proletarian Party in National Wars

“The need for a determined struggle against attempts to give a communist coloring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries; the Communist International should support bourgeois-democratic national movements in colonial and backward countries only on condition that, in these countries, the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks, i.e., those of the struggle against the bourgeois-democratic movements within their own nations. The Communist International must enter into a temporary alliance with bourgeois democracy in the colonial and backward countries, but should not merge with it, and should under all circumstances uphold the independence of the proletarian movement even if it is in its most embryonic form.” (“Draft Thesis on the National and Colonial Question,” Collected Works Vol. 31 pp. 149-50)

After Lenin wrote this draft thesis, he made a report at the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions at the Second Congress of the Comintern, and as a result of the Third International’s consideration of whether or not it was correct to support bourgeois-democratic movements in economically backward countries, the conclusion was reached hat it would be correct to instead use the term “national-liberation movement.” The distinction between a bourgeois-democratic movement and a national-liberation movement is not simply a linguistic game. The majority of the population in economically backward countries is made up of peasants, who represent capitalistic relations, so it is clear that any national movement is fundamentally a bourgeois-democratic movement. Despite this, however, the distinction between the two terms is necessary because the reformist movement of the national bourgeoisie also appears and there is a rapprochement between the bourgeoisie in the exploiting countries and the bourgeoisie in the colonies, while at the same time the revolutionary-democratic movement of the proletariat and peasantry develops. The reformist bourgeois parties appeared in China under the Kuomintang and in India under the National Congress, while the revolutionary movement of national liberation rallied under the banner of the Comintern (Third International). Lenin supported the movement of the reformist bourgeoisie if they were truly revolutionary and did not impede the revolutionary education and organization of the broad masses and supported their movement, but thought that otherwise communists should struggle against the reformist bourgeoisie, and expose their dangerous nature.

When we consider Lenin’s warning within the Comintern, we can’t help feeling a certain deep emotion, since under Stalin this advice from Lenin was completely turned around. The classic example of this is the Chinese revolution. At the peak of the Chinese revolution (1925-27), Stalin advocated the block of four classes and the alliance between the Kuomintang and the Communist parties, i.e., the policy of tailing after and combining with the bourgeois nationalist Kuomintang party, thereby negating the independent struggles of the proletariat and peasantry, calling on them to trust the national bourgeoisie. This policy was ultimately disarmed the proletariat in the face of the betrayal of Chiang Kai-shek and the counter-revolutionary coup d’etat. This temporarily destroyed and pushed back the revolutionary movement in China which had began to show an enormous development.

<<Before  ||  Lenin Index  ||  Next>>