Rosa Luxemburg and the National Problem:
The Similarity of Luxemburg’s Theory
to “Austrian Marxism”

Writen by Hiroyoshi Hayashi (1993)
Translated by Roy West

5. The “National Self-Determination” of Poland

Luxemburg was firmly opposed to the right of national self-determination for Poland. It may seem strange that Luxemburg, as a member of the oppressed Polish people, would take this position. But was she instinctively opposed to national self-determination from as a true internationalist? Did she generally reject all nationalism? We have already seen that this was not in fact the case. She was in fact extremely nationalistic in the opportunistic sense. Thus, the fact that she was so strongly opposed to national self-determination for Poland seems at first glance to be strange.

However, by looking more carefully at her thought, its consistency becomes clear. This reveals the real meaning behind her opposition to Polish national self-determination stripped of its “leftist” veil.

Luxemburg emphasized the unity and united struggles of the workers in all of Russia. She thus declared her opposition to anything that weakened these joint struggles, i.e. “all separatist aspirations” that “raise an artificial barrier” between the workers movements in Russian and Poland, which she described as being “by nature directed against the interests of social progress and revolutionary development; or in other words, they are manifestations of reaction.” (p. 180)

She held this argument because she thought that the economic development of Poland could only be connected to that of Russia and would be so in the future. She attempts to “determine” that the development of capitalism in Poland could only occur in connection to Russian capitalism: “The Polish bourgeois-capitalistic development fettered Poland to Russia and condemned the idea of national independence to utopianism and defeat.” (p. 179)

Another reason that Luxemburg was opposed to the right of self-determination for Poland was that this was traditionally a slogan of reactionary power in Poland (i.e. the aristocrats and landowners), and a slogan of bourgeois reaction in general, and thus becomes “a vessel for all types of reaction, a natural shield for counter-revolution.” (p. 180) In the following passage, Luxemburg sums up why capitalistic development in Poland cannot be easily separated from that of Russian development:

But at the same time, the national idea, after the final failure of the program of the nation-state and national independence, was reduced to a general and undefined idea of national separation, and, as such, Polish nationalism became a from of social reaction blessed by tradition. The national idea became a collective ideological shield for the reactionary aspirations of the whole camp of bourgeois classes, nobility, middle class, and petite bourgeoisie. (p. 180)

Luxemburg was unable to understand that the development of economic ties and the right of national self-determination are different problems. National self-determination is a political right, and is not directly the identical to the question of whether strong economic ties exist or not. Here is precisely the significance of the slogan of the right of national self-determination. If it were the case that being economically subordinated denied the right of national self-determination, of course there would be almost no nations to which it would apply.

Luxemburg does not understand the meaning or limitations of the right of national self-determination, or bourgeois rights in general. Lenin often compared the right of national self-determination to the right of divorce?that is, recognizing the right of divorce does not mean that everyone will or must use it. Bourgeois rights are essentially the same. The use of the right depends on the concrete situation; the significance this may hold can only be evaluated according to the concrete situation and the content of the action. To recognize the right of divorce does not mean that we would encourage all couples to divorce, or that all divorces are justified and necessary. So we could not support or agree to all divorces. There could be a number of divorces we don’t agree to, and cases where we would even try to prevent a divorce. However, if the people involved definitely wanted to divorce, even if we are opposed, we can only accept their decision. The same is true for bourgeois rights. In this case, we would try to make the divorce as “peaceful” and satisfactory as possible for both people, and try to achieve a more happy and fortunate outcome?of course this only applies when such assistance is possible.

Likewise, in the case where two or more nations want to separate, we can only acknowledge this. The question of whether we think this has progressive or reactionary significance or whether we approve or oppose this is a different question. Even if we oppose the separation and think that it can only have reactionary significance, once this separation has been realized, it is clear that we can only acknowledge this.

The case that needs to considered in particular, is the one in which the working class is one of the “parties” directly concerned?i.e. the question of what position the working class should take concerning the historical task of national self-determination in one’s own country. For example, the question of what attitude workers in Poland should take towards Polish national self-determination.

Luxemburg asserted that the working class should not raise the reactionary bourgeois slogan of national self-determination, but should rather patiently adopt a “defensive” policy, and that it would be sufficient to adopt the standpoint of “national cultural autonomy” within the framework of the Russian state (this does not necessarily signify the reactionary state of Czarism, i.e. can also refer to the democratically reformed bourgeois state?as we shall see later). She saw this as the essence of the national policy of the proletariat.

It should be noted that her idea has certain difficulties both theoretically and practically. Within Poland, national self-determination had become a reactionary slogan, which denied internationalism, dominated by the bourgeois power who called for self-determination solely in order to realize their own class rule. Under such a situation, there could be a situation where the Social Democrats in Poland would raise an internationalist stance on the surface instead of the right of national self-determination. In short, here on the basis of a shared principled position, a certain amount of flexibility is allowed.

Even in this case, however, the socialists in Poland would not deny national self-determination in general, and would not even oppose the right of national self-determination in Poland in the manner of Luxemburg. The position to be taken by the Social Democrats in Poland would be only to maintain a negative standpoint towards the national self-determination of bourgeois reaction, and in this way at the same time show an attitude of firm opposition to Russian nationalism, and the Russian suppression of Poland. Without this standpoint, moreover, socialists in Poland would be unable to deeply reach the working masses in Poland.

Rosa Luxemburg and the National Problem: Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Abstract Denial of Nationalism
3. Are the National Tasks Bourgeois Tasks?
4. The Theory of the “Nation-State” and the Class Interests of the Workers
5. The “National Self-Determination” of Poland
6. Centralized Power and Regional Autonomy
7. Luxemburg’s Concept of Nation
8. Luxemburg Begins to “Select” or Screen Nations
9. National Cultural Autonomy and National Self-Determination