|
Rosa Luxemburg and the National Problem:
The Similarity of Luxemburg’s Theory
to “Austrian Marxism”
Writen by Hiroyoshi Hayashi (1993)
Translated by Roy West
3. Are the National Tasks Bourgeois Tasks?
A further theoretical basis for Luxemburg opposition to the right of national
self-determination was that it “completely ignores” the theory of class
society. In other words, it denies “proletarian self-determination.”
When Luxemburg says that the national question has to consider the theory
of class society, this means that the national tasks are historical tasks
carried out and solved by the bourgeoisie. Of course, this is an undeniable
proposition. She says that in capitalistic society there is no question
of a “collective and uniform will” or the self-determination of the “nation,”
and that to say this in modern society would amount to pretending that
the interests of the bourgeoisie were the interests of the nation as a
whole, thereby involving or subsuming the working class within their class
interests. The French bourgeoisie carried out the revolution in the name
of the people and the German bourgeoisie behaved in the same way in 1848.
Thus, the working class should not fight for the slogan of the “people’s
rights,” i.e. the defense of the right of national self-determination.
This circumstance shows that the “rights of nations” cannot be a yardstick
for the position of the Socialist Party on the nationality question. The
very existence of such a party is proof that the bourgeoisie has stopped being the representative of the entire mass of the people, that the class
of the proletariat is no longer hidden in the skirts of the bourgeoisie,
but has separated itself off as an independent class with its own social
and political aspirations. Because the concepts of “nations,” of “rights,”
and the “will of the people” as a uniform whole are, as we have said,
remnants from the time of immature and unconscious antagonism between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the application of that idea by the class-conscious
and independently organized proletariat would be a striking contradiction?not
a contradiction against academic logic, but a historical contradiction. (pp. 137-8)
Therefore, under capitalism the concept of “the people” and the right
of national self-determination cannot be the slogan of the working class,
since no unified people exist under capitalism, and what exists is rather
scattered individuals and opposing social classes. Only socialist society
can truly create social ties between these individuals and harmonize their
interests, and prior to socialism it is a deception to think that there
can be a socially unified will.
Abstractly speaking, Luxemburg’s view is correct. But this was only true
at the time in Western Europe and other places where bourgeois society
had developed. For the working people living in the many parts of the world
stuck in feudalistic conditions and suffering under the rule of foreign
imperialism, achieving democracy (one of its forms being self-determination)
was certainly not a trivial matter! However, Luxemburg argues that democratic
rights in general and the right of self-determination are different.
Therefore, the analogy which is drawn by partisans of the “right of nations
to self- determination” between that “right” and all democratic demands,
like the right of free speech, free press, freedom of association and of
assembly, is completely incongruous. These people point out that we support
the freedom of association because we are the party of political freedom,
but we still fight against hostile bourgeois parties. Similarly, they say,
we have the democratic duty to support the self-determination of nations,
but this fact does not commit us to support every individual tactic of
those who fight for self-determination. (p. 139)
In fat, Luxemburg is the one who is being “completely incongruous.” That
is, she is unable to correctly understand that as a bourgeois right, self-determination
has essentially the same historical significance as other bourgeois rights
such as the freedom of association or speech. Not only is this a theoretical
mistake, but it is also clear that historically the realization of national
self-determination in economically backward states is often deeply connected
to the achievement of bourgeois democracy. The right of national self-determination
is also a bourgeois right?that is, on the basis of capitalism, this means
nothing more than that states are formally (i.e. politically) independent,
and reciprocally equal and free. Just as bourgeois democracy in general
does not deny the rule of monopoly capital, national self-determination
does not negate the fact that large states actually rule smaller, weaker
states.
Luxemburg lacks this understanding, however. On the one hand, she opposes
the right of national self-determination, while on the other hand?as we
shall later see in more detail?she seeks a realistic “national” policy
of the working class. This standpoint of showing a strong aversion to the
right of national self-determination, while at he same time seeking a “realistic”
national policy, are the direct and indirect complementary sides of her
theory that form its essence. She opposes the bourgeois slogan of the right
of national self-determination with that of the right of proletarian self-determination.
Social Democracy is the class party of the proletariat. Its historical
task is to express the class interests of the proletariat and also the
revolutionary interests of the development of capitalist society towards
realizing socialism. Thus, Social Democracy is called upon to realize not
the right of nations to self-determination but only the right of the working
class, which is exploited and oppressed, of the proletariat, to self-determination.
Form that position Social Democracy examines all social and political questions
without exception, and from that standpoint it formulates its programmatic
demands. Neither in the question of the political forms which we demand
in the state, nor in the questions of law or education, of taxes or the
military, does Social Democracy allow the “nation” to decide its fate
according to its own vision of self-determination. All of these questions
affect the class interests of the proletariat in a way that questions of
national-political and national-cultural existence do not. But between
those questions and the national-political and national-cultural questions,
exist usually the closest ties of mutual dependence and causality. As a
result, Social Democracy cannot here escape the necessity of formulating
these demands individually, and demanding actively the forms of national-political
and national-cultural existence which best corresponds to the interests
of the proletariat and its class struggle at a given time and place, as
well as to the interests of the revolutionary development of society. Social
Democracy cannot leave these questions to be solved by “nations”. (pp.
140-1).
This is a terribly difficult to understand passage because Luxemburg eliminates
bourgeois tasks, such as national self-determination, from the tasks of
the proletariat, since this is fundamentally the historical or realistic
task of the bourgeoisie, rather than the task of the Social Democratic
Party. She makes the extremely general point that the task of the Social
Democratic Party is to fight for the interests of the working class. At
the same time, however, she says that since “all problems” are reciprocally
related and connected, they should be examined and an effort made to solve
them, and that this solution cannot be left up to the nations. Consequently,
the Social Democratic Party should naturally make an effort to realistically
solve the problem of national self-determination, and there would be no
reason to make an exception here.
Luxemburg’s position is not consistent: on the one hand she denies the
democratic tasks, while on the other hand addresses them. Luxemburg says
that the problem of national self-determination is essentially different
from the demands for women’s equality or the eight-hour workday, and that
it is not the same as a bourgeois right, and she seems to start from a
strong reaction against nationalism. But, on the other hand, she doesn’t
show the same reaction towards bourgeois rights in general. This makes
her standpoint seem even stranger. In terms of democratic tasks in general,
she approves of them as long as they are also an object of the struggles
of the working class, but at the same time she is vehemently opposed to
the bourgeois right of national self-determination, because it is a bourgeois
task and not the task of the workers.
But did Luxemburg rely deny nationalism? What she denied was the right
of national self-determination, but on a more profound level didn’t she
fall into the a conciliatory standpoint towards nationalism?the same theory
of “cultural national autonomy as the Austrian Marxists. Wasn’t her vehement
refusal of national self-determination nothing more than a leftist pose
hiding this petty bourgeois program? This is what we shall consider here.
Luxemburg’s so-called “self-determination of the proletariat” is exceedingly
vague. In the case of the “right of national self-determination,” it
is clear that it is historically and politically a question of bourgeois
right. Moreover, the “right of national self-determination” has nothing
to do with a situation involving the liberation of the proletariat. What
does it mean to speak of the “self-determination” of the proletariat?
Does this mean that the working class obtains political power, rules by
itself and realizes socialism? If so, there would be absolutely no need
for a vague expression such as “self-determination” which leads to confusion.
In such a case it would be clear from the beginning that the working class
had gained power. In other words, when raising the question of national
self-determination, this presupposes the case of bourgeois emancipation,
whereas “self-determination” does not become an issue in the case of
the liberation of the working class. Of course, this is distinguished conceptually,
but in practice things are more complex. For example, the profound emancipation
of a country (equality) can only be realized in connection to socialism,
but at that stage it is already not a question of the liberation of the
nation (equality), but the sublation of the nation?i.e. the question of
which “nation” people belong to already loses its essential social significance
and becomes irrelevant!
Those who contrast the “right of self-determination” of the working class
to the right of national self-determination, and in this way believe that
latter is “not realistic” or can somehow be negated, have failed to understand
the essence of the problem. Unfortunately Rosa Luxemburg is one of these
people.
Luxemburg denied the right of national self-determination for Poland, in
the sense that she thought that it should not be held up in general as
the slogan of national self-determination for the Russian Social Democratic
Party. She cites the example of someone who said that it was all right
for the Russian party to call for national self-determination, but not
for the Polish party to do this, as an example of the duality or schizophrenia
of the Social Democratic Party. For her, this argument shows that it is
a mistake for workers to raise the slogan of national self-determination.
The Polish Social Democratic Party, as one part of the Russian Social Democratic
Party, should not have a different programmatic standpoint than that of
the Russian party as a whole, but the Russian party raised the demand of
the right of self-determination, while the Polish party, if it wishes to
have a class program different from that of the demands of bourgeois nationalists
in Poland, would have to be in contradiction with this standpoint, and
this would split or weaken the line of the Social Democratic Party which
should be united.
Thus, Social Democracy of all Russia, united both in ideas and factually,
has two different propositions. As a whole, it stands for the “nations”;
in its constituent parts, it stands for the separate proletariat of each
nation. But these positions can be quite different and may even be completely
opposed to each other. (pp. 147-8)
However, the fact that the Russian party members?i.e. those members belonging
to the oppressing nation?should raise the right of national self-determination,
while those in the Polish party should not does not mean that they are
“reciprocally opposed” (quite the opposite!), since the national program
is one part of the Social Democratic Party program, and not everything,
and that this does not deny in the least that within the framework of their
general commonality, the Social Democratic parties within each country
might raise independent slogans depending on the particular nature of the
objective situation in which they are placed.
Rosa Luxemburg and the National Problem: Contents
- Introduction
- The Abstract Denial of Nationalism
- Are the National Tasks Bourgeois Tasks?
- The Theory of the “Nation-State” and the Class Interests of the Workers
- The “National Self-Determination” of Poland
- Centralized Power and Regional Autonomy
- Luxemburg’s Concept of Nation
- Luxemburg Begins to “Select” or Screen Nations
- National Cultural Autonomy and National Self-Determination
|
