Right, let’s get something out of the way before we start:
Left-wing national movements. Yes, they exist.
No, they shouldn't be conflated with bourgeois nationalism.
Rather than the bourgeoisie's obscuring of class distinctions in favour of unity
around a national identity, the purpose of left-wing national movements is solely to end
national oppression by the imperialist powers. Where such national oppression exists - the
oppressed nations - the movement for national liberation, too, exists.
And this national liberation is primarily what we're primarily going
to be focusing on here today. Now that that’s out of the way, let’s dive into
the Bolshevik position on the national question. Welcome to Socialism 101, a series designed to
help educate people with no prior knowledge on the basics of socialism and communism
from an ML and MLM perspective with short and easily-digestible videos.
If this sounds interesting to you, then hit subscribe and turn on the notification bell below.
If you’d like to support Marxist educational content, toss a euro/dollar per month over
on Patreon to keep this series going. If you’re not in a position to support
financially, you can help out by sharing these videos around on social media.
Now, before we get into the question of what constitutes an "oppressed nation",
we need to dial it back and ask the more general question: what is a nation?
In 1913's "Marxism and the National Question", Stalin explained the Bolshevik answer to this:
“A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the
basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up
manifested in a common culture.” So, these are the five aspects that define
a nation: a shared (1) history; (2) language; (3) territory; (4) economy; and (5) culture.
Of these five aspects, one may stand out and be more prominent than the rest,
and inversely certain aspects may be less significant for certain nations.
So it’s quite a dynamic and flexible understanding of what constitutes nationhood.
Importantly, and in contrast to right-wing conceptions of a nation,
Marxism and the National Question states that “A nation is not a racial or tribal,
but a historically constituted community of people.”
Much to the disappointment of the white supremacists.
With that being said, it is correct to speak of the black, or New Afrikan,
nation within the boundaries of the current United States on the basis of these five criteria.
Vladimir Lenin acknowledged this nationhood when he wrote in 1922 that "all Communist
parties should render direct aid to the revolutionary movements among the dependent
and underprivileged nations (for example, Ireland, the American Negroes, etc.) and in the colonies."
From this particular case of New Afrikan nationhood,
we can also note the difference between the often-conflated nation, state, and country.
The country is the territory. The nation is the people. And the state is the apparatus used by
the ruling class to secure its class domination. These often overlap, particularly with regard to
modern "nation-states", but don’t always refer to the same thing.
We see the confusion caused by these conflations particularly
with the topics of patriotism and nationalism. Now, patriotism for a nation-state is synonymous
with nationalism for that nation-state because it’s a nation-state. For example,
there's objectively no difference between American patriotism and American nationalism – even if
proponents of American patriotism may try to claim there is some abstract difference
because they’ve been told their whole lives that “nationalism is bad but patriotism is good”.
However, nationalism and patriotism aren't synonymous in the absence of such a nation-state.
For example, it's not yet possible to speak of a "New African patriotism" because a country has yet
to be established. For the time being, it is only possible to speak of a "New African nationalism"
that supports the interests of the nation, or the people, rather than for a country.
Now, while the Bolsheviks took a principled stand of upholding proletarian internationalism first
and foremost, they also made sure to resolutely oppose all forms of national oppression.
To this end, they made nations’ right to self-determination central to their
programme - even going as far as to support oppressed nations' right to secede and form their
own separate states, if they should so desire. Whether they choose to leave one state and form
their own, or seek some kind of alternative arrangement, Lenin was very clear that it's
the duty of all communists to fully support the national movements of the oppressed nations, based
on the desire of that nation – up to and including providing material support for their movements.
This doesn't necessarily mean communists have to blindly support every nation's secession by
default, instead we support the right for each nation to make that decision for themselves.
Ultimately, communists seek all nations coming together and uniting under proletarian
internationalism. But such international arrangements can only be entered into
completely voluntarily, with full respect to each nation's right to self-determination.
This is crucial for the oppressed nations. But how do we figure out if a nation should
be described as “oppressed”? Today, we generally determine
which are the oppressed nations and which are the oppressor nations based on their relation to
imperialism and it's five distinguishing aspects, as explained in the previous Socialism 101
video "What is Capitalist Imperialism?". The oppressor nations are those of the
capitalist-imperialist nation-states, such as the United States of America.
As for the oppressed nations, some oppressed nations have their own bureaucratic-comprador
capitalist states, which facilitate their national oppression by imperialism. We see
this in most African, Asian and Latin American countries, and also certain European countries.
Other oppressed nations don’t have their own nation-states and instead exist within, or across,
other state territories. To use the example of the US again, there are numerous oppressed
nations within its boundaries, including many indigenous nations and the New Afrikan nation.
In these cases, the oppressed nations are often referred to as "internal colonies".
Now, the purpose of identifying oppressor nations and oppressed nations is to help us
figure out the best approach to moving forward towards the dismantling of imperialism and the
establishment of socialism internationally. To the class-conscious proletariat of
the oppressor nations, who are exploited along class lines but not national lines,
Lenin provides this advice: "The proletariat of the oppressing nations
cannot confine itself to the general hackneyed phrases against annexations and for the equal
rights of nations in general, that may be repeated by any pacifist bourgeois. The proletariat
cannot evade the question that is particularly “unpleasant” for the imperialist bourgeoisie,
namely, the question of the frontiers of a state that is based on national oppression.
The proletariat cannot but fight against the forcible retention of the oppressed
nations within the boundaries of a given state, and this is exactly what the struggle
for the right of self-determination means. The proletariat must demand the right of
political secession for the colonies and for the nations that “its own” nation oppresses.
Unless it does this, proletarian internationalism will remain a meaningless phrase;
mutual confidence and class solidarity between the workers of the oppressing and oppressed
nations will be impossible; the hypocrisy of the reformist and Kautskyan advocates of
self-determination who maintain silence about the nations which are oppressed by
“their” nation and forcibly retained within “their” state will remain unexposed."
Conversely, the revolutionary socialists of the oppressed nations must also work
to unite the proletariat of both the oppressed and oppressor nations.
As Lenin writes, "The Socialists of the oppressed nations, on the other hand,
must particularly fight for and maintain complete, absolute unity (also organizational) between the
workers of the oppressed nation and the workers of the oppressing nation. Without such unity it
will be impossible to maintain an independent proletarian policy and class solidarity with
the proletariat of other countries in the face of all the subterfuge, treachery and trickery of the
bourgeoisie; for the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations always converts the slogan of national
liberation into a means for deceiving the workers; in internal politics it utilizes these slogans as
a means for conducting reactionary agreements with the bourgeoisie of the ruling nation"
Unfortunately, Lenin was proven correct on that final point over the course of the twentieth
century as countless anti-colonial movements, in the absence of a clear proletarian line,
fell into the hands of bureaucratic-comprador bourgeoisies who, in exchange for breadcrumbs
from the table of imperialism, became facilitators of neo-colonial exploitation and the continued
domination of their own oppressed nations. The moral of the story is: the struggle for
national liberation must never be separated from the struggle for socialism, and the struggle for
socialism must never be separated from the struggle for national liberation.
As Lenin’s updated slogan for 1920’s Second Comintern Congress states, “Workers and
oppressed peoples of all countries, unite!” Today we’ve taken a look at the Bolshevik
position on the National Question. According to this, a “nation” is a community of people
with a shared: (1) history; (2) language; (3) territory; (4) economic life; and (5) culture.
In contrast to bourgeois nationalism, which obscures class division and seeks to unite
a people behind a national identity, left-wing national liberation movements simply seek to end
national oppression by the imperialist powers. Successful national liberation struggles weaken
global capitalist imperialism, and thus go hand-in-hand with the class struggle
to win power for the proletariat from the bourgeoisie internationally. Consequently,
the Bolshevik position is to resolutely support nations’ right to self-determination, and provide
full support (materially and otherwise) to the national movements of the oppressed nations.
Now - before fully wrapping up – any time these questions of nationalism and patriotism come up,
somebody chimes in about “socialist patriotism” with the Mao quote: “Can a Communist, who is an
internationalist, at the same time be a patriot? We hold that he not only can be but must be.”
And this is usually used by right-opportunists to justify Great-Nation chauvinism for the
imperialist powers, such as American Patriotism or British Patriotism. But usage of this Mao quote in
such a context is mistaking the particular for the general. This quote is not from a general theory
text that Mao wrote, like On Contradiction or On Practice. It’s from a 1938 speech,
The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War, which was solely addressing the
Chinese communists in the context of the Sino-Japanese War. Later in that passage,
Mao states that “in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism.”
And that’s what this was, a war of national liberation, of an oppressed nation subject to
imperialist aggression. So, patriotism was appropriate for them in this particular context¬
of national oppression and imperialist aggression – not just as a general rule.
If there’s no specifically national oppression, then there’s no war of
national liberation and there’s no basis for the patriotism that Mao describes here.
Now, in the same passage, Mao explains the task of communists from the oppressor nations:
“The Communists of Japan and Germany are defeatists with regard to the wars being
waged by their countries. To bring about the defeat of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler
by every possible means is in the interests of the Japanese and the German people, and the more
complete the defeat the better. This is what the Japanese and German Communists should be doing
and what they are doing.” So Mao is explaining here that the oppressor-nation communists
should be revolutionary defeatists, rather than patriots. Unfortunately, that final sentence “This
is what the Japanese and German Communists should be doing and what they are doing” is omitted from
the version of this passage included in Mao’s Red Book, and can only be found in the full speech
of The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War. This has contributed to the
confusion surrounding this passage. But, make no mistake, Mao is stating
in no uncertain terms that the role of oppressor-nation communists is not to be
patriots, but to oppose their nation-states and instead be revolutionary defeatists.
In contrast to the imperialist national aggressors, Mao explains, “China's case
is different, because she is the victim of aggression. Chinese Communists must therefore
combine patriotism with internationalism.” Reading beyond the first two sentences of this
passage, as well as putting it within its historical context of the Chinese war of
national liberation, shows that it actually completely contradicts what the Great-Nation
chauvinists are trying to suggest it does. Now, others curious about this question of
“Socialist Patriotism” may ask “What about Soviet Patriotism?”
To understand patriotism for dictatorships of the proletariat, Walter Rodney, explains that,
"The notion of patriotism must be understood in a class context - one can be patriotic in
defense of a capitalist state or in defense of a workers’ state. These are two different things,
for when a worker is patriotic in a capitalist state he is just serving as his own oppressor.
But bourgeois historians use the word as a cover for their class interests.”
Likewise, the so-called “socialist patriots” of today who wave the imperialist American
and British flags, too, are using “patriotism” as a cover for their
own reactionary pro-imperialist class interests. Remember, the Bolsheviks didn’t wave the flag of
Tsarist Russia, and the Chinese Communists didn’t wave the Flag of the Qing Dynasty,
so why should anyone wave the flag of the imperialist bourgeoisie?
As stated in Marxism and the National Question, “The class-conscious proletariat
has its own tried banner, and has no need to rally to the banner of the bourgeoisie.”
Right, there are a number of readings that you should dive into to further your understanding of
the Marxist position on the national question. First, for a general outline, read Stalin’s
Marxism and the National Question. Chapter Six of Foundations of Leninism also provides a useful
short overview of the Bolshevik position. Make sure not only to read Stalin but also
Lenin’s writings on the matter. You’ll find a collection of them on Marxists.org simply titled
Lenin on the National Question. Particularly the writings highlighted in bold text.
Definitely read Mao’s speech The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War,
but make sure to read it in the context of an oppressed nation
engaging in a war of national liberation. I also strongly recommend reading Ibrahim
Kaypakkaya’s 1972 “On the National Question” for information on the Kurdish national question.
Also worth reading is Appendix to Notes on Bureaucratic-Comprador Capitalism,
Article One which explains how to distinguish between imperialist nations and oppressed nations
using Lenin’s criteria as outlined in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of
Capitalism within the modern-day context. For an excellent short video explaining the
Bolshevik position on the national question, make sure to watch The Marxist Project’s “Lenin
in Five Minutes: The National Question”. And for a great longer-form discussion of
this topic, make sure to have a listen to the Red Menace podcast’s “On Patriotism”.
Right, thanks very much for watching this video. Hopefully you’ve found it useful
in one way or another. Thanks especially to the supporters on Patreon who’ve made this possible.
Thank you Southern Comrade, Ian McShea, Yugopnik, Ian Snyder, Jacob Jaffe, Boricua Guerilla,
Ryan Hodgson, soup, Madeleine, sonic232, Sagan, Michaela Schmid, Christian Nipales,
Alfonso Dingo Torres , Mecholova, Rotgardist, Todd Sprang, NikedeSade, zakasi, Anglo-Irish Bolshevik,
Amy Schmidt, Eli Leslie, Thomas Rawson-Wood, Bobby Block, Jason Schmidt, Del Seibold, TrainHXIII,
Mitch Schiller, Saoirse Ní Bhaoighealláin, Roja, MLMinPractice, Brian Ruiz, Eric Lindahl, Zekay
Goodie, kyle rapp, Robert Jarczak, Doctoma, Ayob Farah, bekey, Pastor Joubert, MrMiyamoto, Kyle
King, Reverend Lawn Gnome Hollywood, Wonderbad, JT Chapman, Joseph Sheppard, Jack Shneidman,
Comrade Amara, WealthForThe99Percent, Sp00p. Cheers everyone, agus slán go fóill.