|
The Four
Wellsprings of the Present Crisis
There are four
principal factors determining the current political crisis. These
are the economic crisis, the crisis generated by the national
question, the crisis of the capitalist ruling class and the crisis
of the (proletarian) working class movement.
Jointly and
separately, and in varying degrees, the first three of these four
factors give greater impetus to the present crisis and the decay of
the present system. Of central importance to the general crisis is
the economic crisis, which nurtured the other three.
Let us look
briefly at the structure of the economic crisis facing our society.
The Economic
Crisis
The beginning
of this decade saw the general crises of world capitalism deepen.
Global capitalist production was stagnant, unemployment hit record
levels, real wages were in decline and inflation was on the rise.
There was increased exploitation of the former colonies, which came
within the sphere of influence of world capitalism, and debtor
nations began to find they could not repay their loans. Inequalities
in growth therefore deepened against the background of a financial
crisis and increasing contradictions within the capitalist market
system. This, then, was the face of the general crisis.
The existing
inter-relationships among capitalist economic systems at this time
helped to make the decline of the capitalist order universal. Among
the special features of this phenomenon was the amplification of the
internal crises of capitalism. More and more money was spent on
militarisation, bureaucracies grew and parasitism, profiteering,
gambling and corruption soared. The combined effect of the greatest
depression since the 1930's, the periodic crises of the world
capitalist system and the financial crisis severely affected the
declining neo-colonial Sri Lankan economy.
The general
decline of capitalism had a particularly damaging effect on
neo-colonial capitalist economies, including Sri Lanka's.
The roots of
the crisis of capitalism in Sri Lanka stretch back to the beginning
of the colonial era. That crisis, which deepened throughout the last
century, has now engulfed society at large and spawned a grave
socio-economic and political crisis. The economic crisis is the
foundation of the present crisis and its main cause.
In an attempt
to cover this up and mislead the people, the rulers of today claim
that the main issue is the national question (ethnic question).
It is extremely
clear that the economic crisis is the main reason and accelerator of
the crisis created by the national question. But the so-called
Marxists in league with Jayewardene have tried to spin truths out of
falsehood.
Among the
indications of the depth and breadth of the current crisis are
economic signs like the growth of "surplus labour", high inflation,
the expansion of local and foreign debt, and repeated invitations to
foreign trans-nationals to exploit our national resources and labour.
Meanwhile President Jayewardene was reduced to begging at the
non-aligned Nations' New Delhi Summit for a cancellation of all
unpayable debts, while bartering away the right of our people to a
free existence (this stems from our strategic importance as a
country) by accepting loans and financial aid. Coupled with the
decline and decay in all aspects of public life, these all show
nothing more than the depth of the current crisis.
In the name of
the UNP government's 'open economic policies', all kinds of bribery
and corruption have gone on. The greed of crowned brigands combined
with the practice of taking massive commissions and the high
bribe-ratio, has sent corruption rocketing to hitherto-unheard-of
heights. Activities like the drug peddling carried on by local
racketeers in search of quick profits backed by Thai and Pakistani
profiteers and Afghan counter-revolutionaries have helped contribute
to these imbalances and collapse of the economy.
The crisis
generated by the national question
The purpose of
this study is to discuss the crisis generated by the national
question in detail and in all its aspects. At this point, we shall
limit ourselves to a brief discussion of the effect of the national
question on the economic crisis. The violent movement for an
Independent Tamil Eelam and the government. s attempts to crush it
with military force has contributed directly to the economic crisis.
The destruction of the Yal Devi and the Air Ceylon Avro, skirmishes
and the resulting destruction of life and property, the cost of
supporting the armed forces in the North and East and the
compensation payments that have to be made for loss of life and the
rapid proliferation of light and heavy weaponry which the ailing
economy cannot afford, contribute directly to the economic crisis.
Tourism, in which government planners placed great hope, is in a
state of collapse due to the negative effects of the national
question.
Meanwhile, the
need to train the local secret service not only in spying but also
to carry out terrorist acts and psychological warfare against
opponents of the government is being met by hiring officers from the
infamous internal secret service of the Zionists -- Shin Beth --
under the active patronage of U.S. Imperialism.
This has become
a cause for dissatisfaction in the countries where we sell our tea
and export our labour - the Arab world.
Our principal
export is tea. Our second is skilled and unskilled labour. We long
ago lost our traditional tea markets in the West. Last year we sold
60 percent of our tea to the Arab world. Our exports showed a
temporary increase when India, which is one of the biggest tea
producers in the world, curtailed its exports in order to expand its
domestic market. If India
decides to expand production again our tea prices will drop.
The reason our
labour is in high demand in Arab countries is that countries with
similar cultures and morality to ours, like India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh have laws prohibiting the expatriation of their women to
the Arab world as housemaids. Sri Lanka has taken advantage of its
neighbours' higher moral standards and stands almost unchallenged as
a supplier of unskilled and semi-skilled -- and unprotected --
female labour to these countries. The only challenge comes from the
Philippines. As proof, 80 percent of our 'labour exports' are women.
If Pakistan and Bangladesh decide to repeal their laws on female
labour export our already-ailing economy will undoubtedly be badly
affected. We will not be able to sell our tea or so-called surplus
labour to Israel or its fellow-conspirators, South Africa and the
United States.
Later we shall
discuss in detail the impact of the economic crisis on the national
question and vice versa. Now let us examine the crisis of the
capitalist ruling class.
The crisis of
the capitalist ruling class
Historical
sources tell us quite clearly that power-struggles were common among
the ruling classes of pre-colonial times. Ancient chronicles like
the Mahavamsa, the Chulavamsa, the Pujavaliya and the Rajavaliya
bear this out. As the British historian H W Codrington explains in
his 'A Short History of Ceylon', of the so-called high dynasty
(Lanka's first 61 kings) more than one third were violently
overthrown. Many were killed by sons, brothers, cousins or other
relatives with claims to the throne. Others were killed by
outsiders. Right through the history of Lanka's kings, all the way
up to Don Juan Periya Bandara of the Kotte kingdom, the general
result of power- struggles was regicide. Mercenaries were even
brought in from South India
to settle these squabbles among the royalty. There were many
rebellions and regional uprisings. Dutugemunu and his brother
Saddhatissa fought for power. His son Kashyapa killed King Dhatusena
and then his brother Mugalan, backed by mercenaries from South India
overthrew Kashyapa in turn.
In Asian
society in general, these struggles were not limited to royalty.
They were found at the level of the civil and military bureaucratic
aristocracy as well. On several occasions in Lanka's history, these
power-struggles opened the door to the conquest of the country by
invaders from South India or Europe.
After the
scheming sons of Vijayabahu 6 killed their father, they began
fighting among themselves. It was as a direct result of this that
the eldest, Bhuvaneka Bahu 7, began collaborating with the
Portuguese and prepared the way for the annexation of the Kotte Kingdom
by Philip 2 of Portugal.
Under the
Nayakkar dynasty the so-called aristocrats of the Kandyan kingdom
were embroiled in a power-struggle against the South Indian ruler
and his court. This eventually brought about the surrender of the
eastern and northwestern coastal areas to the Dutch, who
successfully exploited the conflict to their own ends. Later, when
the British wanted to conquer the Kingdom of Kandy, they cunningly
exploited these same conflicts when they re-surfaced. Having
betrayed King Sri Wickrema Rajasinghe because of their opposition to
the Tamil dynasty, the 'Kandyan aristocrats' the accepted the
sovereignty of George 3 because of the deep-rooted hate they had for
each other. Robert Knox, who spent 15 years in captivity in the
Kandyan kingdom, gives a lively account of the mentality of this
social stratum in his famous book, 'A Historical Relation of
Ceylon'.
From the
beginning the colonial powers grasped the essential nature of Sri
Lanka's traditional upper class -- that is, their greed for power
and wealth. They used these traits for their own ends very skilfully.
After the fall
of Don Juan Periya Bandara, also known as Dharmapala, the puppet
king who presided over the end of the Kotte kingdom, those among the
ruling class who wanted to better their prospects changed their
religion to Roman Catholicism and adopted the Portuguese language
and customs hoping for power and riches under the Portuguese. Those
who did not accept this policy either had to flee to the hills or
face extermination. Christian names became a fashion in and around
the court. They started using Lusitanian names, mixed in with
Sinhalese names to ensure themselves of maximum advantage whatever
the circumstances. This habit of changing language and religion
along with one's allegiance to suit the current colonial power in
Colombo continued throughout the colonial era.
After the Dutch
conquest Calvinism or Protestantism superseded Catholicism. It was
the 'true faith' for these seeking status under the Dutch. The
ruling class switched allegiance from their former colonial master
to whom they were so faithful, to the victorious new one because
they wanted to retain their hold on wealth and power. 'As they grew
richer they became more dependable since their loyalty guaranteed
more riches.' (K.W. Gunawardene -- 'The Foundation of Dutch Power in
Ceylon)
hence the Dutch gave this ruling elite every opportunity to enrich
themselves.
When the
counter-revolutionary forces, which toppled the Batavian Republic
--an ally of revolutionary France --, established the British as the
colonial power in Colombo the elite once again cheerfully switched
loyalties, religion and language. They were called Mudaliyars and
Muhandirams under the British, served their new lords loyally and
collected more power and wealth. Those in the elite who did not
co-operate with the British were stripped of their wealth and power
and some were exiled (Ehelepola), others destroyed (Keppetipola and
Pilimitalawa the younger). In this period, recent South Indian
migrants to the island offered the British their loyal service,
taking European and Sinhalese names simultaneously, accepting the
English language and British customs and adopting the Church of
England as their very own, scrambled rapidly up the ladder of power.
These brown sahibs were the most faithful of Britannia's servants.
In the
post-colonial era these same people began switching their religion
again -- from the Church of England to Buddhism. Even though they
continued to treat English as their mother tongue, pretended to be
champions of Sinhala. They very quickly became ''patriotic''
''anti-imperialist'' and ''socialist''. Why? Because in the
post-colonial era, Buddhism was the correct religion, Sinhala was
the correct language and patriotism was the correct path to wealth
and power. The British imperialists handed over power in this -
their most 'easily-governed colony' to this pliant class without
their so much as asking for it. Through five centuries of colonial
rule they had shed religious customs and allegiances but at no time
did they discard their greed for wealth and power.
So, slightly
less than 40 years ago their colonial masters turned these brown
sahibs into a ruling elite. They acquired the political leadership
of the 'komiskara' (literally, taking commissions or bribes --
otherwise corrupt) capitalist class that arose out of the process of
colonial exploitation. In 1946 they made what Ivor Jennings himself
called a 'marriage de convenience', forming their first political
party, the united national party -- born out of the greed for wealth
and power.
This 'marriage
de convenience' ruled the country for slightly less than four years.
Then -- once more because of its own innate greed for wealth and
power -- it fell apart. The split of 1951 yielded two equally
dangerous capitalist political parties. Two family clans formed
their nucleus -- the Senanayake/Kotelawela/Jayewardene clan in the
UNP and the Bandaranaike-Obeyesekera-Ratwatte clan in the SLFP.
These two families organised the array of forces at their command to
ensure that they could stay in power. The growing economic social
and political crisis had an impact on the balance of the
relationship between the two family groupings in these parties and
the forces at their command. Over several years, this resulted in a
palace rebellion within the SLFP, which manifested itself in the
guise of a split in the party. In the UNP too, this kind of struggle
has become increasingly apparent.
The sudden and
suspicious death of Dudley Senanayake, which happened at a crucial
time for the UNP, and the equally sudden death of his
second-in-command M.D. Banda, allowed Jayewardene to consolidate and
strengthen his family's hold on the UNP. This Jayewardene-Wickremesinghe
family clan is now in conflict with the forces, which brought it
into power. The conflict has become apparent in the struggle to find
an heir to the 79-year-old Jayewardene. The palace conspiracies to
keep the family flourishing -- including the most recent
super-conspiracy -- have plunged the ruling party into chaos. This
chaos is reflected in the other crises as well -- most clearly in
the crisis generated by the national question. These two
power-groups within the ruling party are gradually becoming
polarised among the various centres of power of the capitalist
world.
Today, the
political parties of the capitalist class in Sri Lanka are primarily
divided along racist lines. Tamil capitalism, chiefly represented by
the TULF, is demanding a separate Tamil Eelam. The other party in
this field is the Tamil Congress. Either the UNP or the SLFP chiefly
represents the Sinhala and Muslim capitalist classes. The UNP is
trying to exploit the internal contradictions within the SLFP -- its
fellow-capitalist party -- to destroy it and become the sole
representative of the Sinhala and Muslim capitalist class. With this
objective, the UNP has skilfully worked its way into the internal
conflicts of the SLFP.
The SLFP is in
turn trying to exploit internal contradictions within the UNP to
create various factions, which will help them, return to power.
These contortions of the contentious capitalist parties have helped
intensify the crisis of the capitalist class. The actions of the
Jayewardene-Wickremesinghe clan have been particularly important in
this area.
Having looked
at the enemy camp, let us turn our eyes towards our own camp -- the
camp of the proletariat.
The crisis of
the movement of the proletariat
For a variety
of reasons the leadership of the working class movement of Sri Lanka
fell into the hands of petit-bourgeois leftist groups. As a result,
the movement was reformist from its inception. The imperialists and
then the ruling capitalist class used the movement for their own
ends. The petit-bourgeois leadership of the working class movement
limited their activities to bourgeois parliamentarians and trade
union politics. Instead of establishing a working-class leadership
for the peasantry, they established the control of the capitalist
class, not merely over the peasantry but also the over workers. From
its inception, this leadership only reflected the enmity between
different leftist petit-bourgeois tendencies. One very clear example
is the fact that the Communist Party supported the UNP in the 1947
general election to defeat the LSSP -- the party with the most
similar appeal to the CP's. The leftist petit bourgeois leadership
was totally unable to provide leadership to the working class.
At the most
decisive hour in the history of the working class of this country,
this petit bourgeois leadership betrayed the aspirations of the
working class. Having joined hands with the capitalist government it
actively and openly collaborated in repressing the working-class
struggle. This historic betrayal of the working class by the petit
bourgeois leadership marked a turning point in the entire Sri Lanka
political process. The leadership dropped the working class in
favour of the ruling class at a time when the economic crisis was at
its worst and the internal contradictions of the ruling class and
party were such that they were unable to rule in their accustomed
way. This was the time when all trade unions had united under the
common banner of the Joint Trades Union Federation. The Trade Union
movement, which had been strengthened by its new unity, had put
forward 21 demands to the tottering government. In addition to the
unification of the trade unions, the leftist petit bourgeois
leadership, which had up to then been driven by personal and
theoretical schism, formed the short-lived United Left Front, which
gave a brief spurt of courage to those with socialist inclinations.
The subjective and objective conditions were running in favour of
the creation of a pre-Revolutionary situation. Recognising the
threat to its interests, the ruling capitalist classes swiftly
bought over the leftist petit bourgeois leadership. The majority of
this leadership went over to the SLFP while the rest joined the UNP.
The New Left
arose at this time. Its main enemies were the old lefts. The New
Left was the answer to the monumental betrayal perpetrated by the
old. It was natural that the old left should see the new left as its
grave-digger. The leadership of the old left decided that the new
left would have to be wiped out swiftly. To do so, the old left
started a slander campaign, branding the JVP as CIA agents. By doing
so, they provided cover and protection for the real CIA agents. The
leadership of the CP and the LSSP vied with each other to make this
slander campaign as effective as possible. when this effort failed
they launched a covert terror campaign to destroy the JVP, which
fought back heroically for its basic right to exist and against the
brutal repression of 1971. The leaders of the traditional left
sought to dull the awareness of the working class by open and secret
collaboration with the UNP leadership, by plots and plans based on
their hatred and jealousy against the JVP and by the historic
betrayal of the working-class movement. The actions of this
leadership weakened the working-class movement, making way for the
present counter-revolutionary situation. After having repressed the
JVP with blood and iron -- backed by military assistance from
U.S.-led international imperialistic forces -- they broke away from
their former partners the SLFP and formed their own United Front and
contested the 1977 election unsuccessfully. The UNP repeatedly
expressed its gratitude for these actions, which worked in its
favor.
The leadership
of the old left then helped the UNP destroy organized trade
unionism. They did everything they possibly could to undermine the
process of rebuilding the JVP. They showed an antagonism towards the
JVP which they should have reserved for the UNP. When the UNP
launched its own campaign of repression against the JVP, the old
left kept silent, thinking this would bring badly-needed followers
flocking back. During a discussion with Jayewardene they agreed to
the continued proscription of the JVP. Without a blush, they
participated in the sham by-elections held by the UNP. It is quite
obvious they have come to an agreement or understanding with
Jayewardene to keep silent on the continued ban on the JVP. But
anyone who thinks the JVP is a closed chapter is making a grave
mistake. It has only just begun. The old left has not only tried to
cover up their responsibility for the current political situation
but also the real current state of affairs. By doing so, they have
strengthened the hand of counter-revolution and imperialism.
This is the
sorry state in which the working-class leadership finds itself. This
is the critical state of affairs within the working-class movement.
This situation is runs strongly in favor of the forces of
counter-revolution. We must take swift action to defeat it.
The objective
conditions
The increase of
all the contradictions within the capitalist system provide one of
the objective conditions for revolutionary social change. The
ripening of these objective conditions brings about the necessary
socio-political conditions for revolutionary change. This country
has not yet reached a revolutionary stage, but the ripening
objective conditions have nudged it towards a pre-Revolutionary
stage. The mounting crisis within the ruling class and its crisis of
policy, the inability of the UNP-led ruling class to continue their
rule without some kind of change and the sufferings and privations
of the oppressed class are some of the indicators of this fact.
The state of
the subjective factor
While the
objective conditions for revolutionary social change ripen apace,
the subjective factors lag behind. This is the principal feature of
the current political situation.
'The central
question of any period of history is the subjective factor. That is,
the organization of the working class sectors and their strength of
their communist vanguard' said the Fifth International -- correctly.
(Documents of the Communist International, Moscow 1933 p 403). Sixty
long years later we can say in the same spirit that today the
central question in Sri Lanka as well is the objective factor.
It is the
primary duty of all of us to bring the subjective factor in line
with the objective conditions. The U.S. imperialists and their
henchmen -- the counter-revolutionary ruling capitalist elite --
will do everything in their power to prevent this. We will be
opening the way to counter-revolution if we are unable to bring the
subjective factor in line with the objective conditions.
The rising
threat of fascism
The Fifth
International says this about fascism in its communiqué -- 'Fascism
is a traditional manifestation of counter-revolution when capitalist
society is in decay.'
'When the legal
recourses of the state are no longer sufficient to defeat the
working class then fascism emerges as the weapon of capitalism....'
In its thesis
on strategy the Fifth International further states, 'the capitalist
class can no longer rule by the old methods... The capitalist class
therefore uses fascism and social democracy alternately ...'
These
statements are quite clearly very relevant to the current political
situation in Sri Lanka.
The UNP leadership not only feels but is fully aware of the current
crisis facing it. To face this situation they increasingly use
fascist methods. Conflicts created by flaunting the threat of
foreign aggression and similar steps offer clear evidence of this.
The need to
crush the left-wing proletariat
The ruling
class understands very well that the objectively conditions for
revolutionary social change are ripening fast and they are unable to
stop this process. So they have decided not to allow the subjective
factor to develop -- that is, the development of the
class-consciousness of the proletariat and the organization of the
vanguard of the working class. The direct result of this strategy is
the repression directed against the JVP, the main party of the left
in the country -- the party of the left-wing proletariat. The
history of repression shows that it brings about undreamt-of and
unwanted results for the ruling class. If we handle this correctly
we will not only be able to revolutionize the subjective factor, we
will be able to take it forward. So Jayewardene and his advisers,
supporters and cronies may unknowingly spend their whole strength
working towards a revolutionary change in society. In truth, our
class enemies under certain circumstances have the capacity to
unwittingly do a great deal of the work towards revolutionary
change.
The
slander-campaign against the JVP
Some government
leaders have not hidden the fact that the government's main goal is
to use the crisis generated by the national question to meet its own
objectives. This explains the slander campaign against the JVP by
psychological-warfare specialist Dr. Wickrema Weerasooria and his
acolytes. This also explains the pronouncements against the JVP by
Jayewardene, Ranil Wickremesinghe, Anandatissa de Alwis and Hurulle
-- that the JVP was responsible for Black July, that the JVP tried
to overthrow the government, that the JVP supports a kind of Eelam,
that the JVP is friendly with northern and eastern terrorists -- and
assorted shameless slanders. But this slander campaign has, even
today, caused the UNP leadership great damage. They have been
unmasked by their own ravings.
It is against
this background that we are going to discuss the national question.
But to get a better grasp of the essential nature of the national
question, let us first examine the general historical evolution of
human society.
Translators'
note : we have not been able to translate the archaeological
terms in the first section of this chapter. The final edition will
have them. Two sections on the national movement and the national
state have to be added.
Tribe and Clan
The clan, bound
together by ties of blood, was the first historical form of the
human community. It was the main production unit of the primitive
social structure that emerged in the upper Paleolithic age with the
emergence of modern man -- a fact testified to by archaeologists,
ethnographists and anthropologists
"The clan may
be defined as a primary productive, social and ethnic group of
pre-class society possessing a common origin, language, customs and
beliefs and common features of everyday life and culture, a group in
which blood relations as well as relations of production play the
primary role in the performance of all activities. The clan has its
common settlements and hunting grounds." (Fundamentals of
Marxist-Leninist Philosophy)
It was in the
Paleolithic age itself that the primary division of labour occurred.
This was basically a biological division between man and woman. In
the flowering of this first historical form of human society, woman
held the most important position in the socio-economic structure.
This first historical age was based on matriarchy. The structure of
the clan was determined by the collective ownership of the methods
of production and joint endeavor. The leader of the clan was a
selected elder. Every problem of the clan was solved by its council
-- made up of all adult males and females. There was no class
aggression or dictatorial pressure in the clan because of the
absence of class and private property. (Dictionary of Philosophy,
Moscow).
Changes in the
economic activity and development brought about limited change in
the social organization. In this way several clans gathered together
in fraternal bands. A joining of several of these fraternal bands
brought about a tribe. Tribes were formed according to natural or
organic bonds. A tribe made up of several clans could have hundreds
thousands or tens of thousands of members.
While the clan
existed as an independent production unit within the tribe, a new
system of social property was developed through the tribal system.
After the birth of the tribe, community property and clan property
began to exist side by side. In the Neolithic age there took place a
development that was to prove decisive to the whole of human
history. Agriculture and herding became two distinct
socio-historical practices. This changed the entire perception of
society. Earlier, man existed solely on the bounty of nature. At
that time, production was limited to acquiring natural products and
making essential implements and tools. But at this time man began to
create his own means of sustenance.
With the rapid
development of herding as a separate endeavor in the Neolithic age,
as the primary division of labour, the importance of the role of
women within the clan began to diminish. Man became the main
productive force in society -- the master of the means of
production, livestock and later slaves. With this first large-scale
division of labour came the relatively rapid development of the
forces of production, constant exchange (barter), private property
and slavery. Primitive collectivism disintegrated and patriarchy
replaced matriarchy. (Dictionary of Philosophy).
Along with the
growth of social exchange, the division of labour and private
ownership and the disintegration of primitive collectivism and the
advent of the 'Asiatic' or slave system, and the displacement of
blood relationships and organic ties due to relations based on the
exchange of goods, tribes and clans fell apart and then coalesced
into nations.
Clan and tribe
were the historical forms of the primitive collectivist social
pattern which was the first economic pattern in the world, common to
all racial groups for over 10,000 years.
Nationality
With the
separation of animal husbandry from agriculture in the Neolithic age
and the development of handicrafts originating in the lower stone
age in the bronze-stone age ? and the beginnings of the social
division of labour and the arrival of barter and unequal relations
of property, tribal relationships broke down in the face of another
form of human community. The main basis for this new form of
community was not blood relationships or (organic ties). The basis
was instead the nature of their economic activity and the
geographical ties forged between neighboring peoples by trade or any
other economic relationship. This new form of human community was
nationality.
Formed on the
basis of class production relations that superseded the primitive
communal relations, the nationality is a community of people who
live on one territory and are bound together by a common language,
mentality, cultural features and way of life, as expressed in their
customs, morals and traditions. (Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist
Philosophy).
Nationality was
the historical form of society conforming to the patterns of
production existing in 'Asiatic' slave-based and feudal
socio-economic formations. As nationality developed it began to
limit the development of the process of production and exchange
which by now had embraced all aspects of human activity. Therefore
it was necessary to replace nationality with a new form of human
community. The patriarchal, dependent economy made way for the
production of consumer goods. These consumerist capitalist relations
dispelled the economic isolation of specific economic areas and
strengthened links between the peoples of one nationhood and
another, gave them common language and cultural characteristics and
created more stable communities. This new form of human community
was the nation.
Nation
The nation is
the widest manifestation of the human community that came into being
with capitalistic socio-economic formations. The destruction of
feudal disunity, the consolidation of economic ties between regions
in a country, the joining of regional markets into a single national
market provide the economic basis for national consolidation.
(Dictionary of Philosophy - Moscow).
The capitalist
origin of nations was brilliantly expounded by Marx and Engels in
the Manifesto of the Communist Party: 'The bourgeois keeps more and
more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the
means of production and of property. It has agglomerated population,
centralized means of production and has concentrated property in a
few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political
centralization. Independent or but loosely-connected provinces with
separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation,
became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one
code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one
customs-tariff.'
A nation is
first and foremost identified by common material conditions,
geographical and economic life, the common use of a language which
reflects a cultural and national code, the psychological make-up and
certain specific elements of the national character. (Dictionary of
Philosophy).
"Thus a nation
is a stable community of people bound together by common language,
common territory, community of economic life and certain
peculiarities of social psychology as expressed in the specific
features of the culture of the given people, which distinguish its
culture from that of other peoples. (Fundamentals of
Marxist-Leninist Philosophy)
The nation was
the form of human community corresponding best to the capitalist
mode of production. It promoted the development of the productive
forces of this society and played an important part in overcoming
political separateness. The formation of nations and national
movements helped abolish feudalism and establish capitalism.
Nations are
born out of capitalist relations of production alone. A nation
cannot exist without a common economic life. That is the difference
between a nation and nationality.
'Thus we have
three types of human community, which historically supersede one
another in the process of the progressive development of human
society -- the clan or tribal community, the nationality and the
nation. Their supplanting of one another shows that the development
of social production and the social progress that it brings demand
wider ethnic communities with greater stability and stronger
external ties.
'The types of
historical community correspond only basically, however, to certain
socio-economic formations. Situations seldom occur in history when
these types of community appear in their 'pure' form. Owing to the
unevenness of economic development one can find on our planet all
types of economic relationship and correspondingly all historical
forms of community from the primitive communal to the socialist,
from the tribal community to that of the developed nation. Generally
the tribe precedes the nationality, and the nationality precedes the
nation, but in actual history on a world scale and very often within
the framework of one people they are to be found side by side and
interacting. For this reason the tribes and nationalities that have
survived to this day in many parts of Africa, Asia and other
continents differ considerably from what they were even in the
recent past, inasmuch as they have, in some way or another, been
included in the system of new economic relations. We must bear in
mind that colonialism played a decisive role in holding back the
economic and cultural development of the peoples of many countries
and particularly in delaying the process of their emergence as
nations. (Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy)
Nations under
socialism
Under socialism
the development and the drawing closer of nations occur on the basis
of the supremacy of social property, on the basis of common social
and political relations, and the common ideology of socialist
internationalism and patriotism. The nationalities and nations that
are formed on the basis of socialism, like the 'old' nations that
are transformed on this basis, acquire new features expressing the
nature of the new social relations. The nations of socialist society
have the same basic attributes as those of the bourgeois society --
common territory, economic life, language, etc. But the content of
these attributes changes fundamentally inasmuch as these nations are
based on the socialist mode of production and share the essentially
common interests and psychological features. Under socialism nations
are not split into opposing classes, as under capitalism. The
national community therefore coincides with the social community,
with the unity of the working people based on social property and
joint activity. The further development of these nations comes about
through their voluntary and equal co- operation and mutual
assistance, which prepares them for the future merging in developed
communist society. (ibid.)
Communism and
future of nations
When they
achieve power and abolish national oppression the working class and
the whole mass of the working people usually inherit a grim legacy
in the sphere of national relations -- economic and cultural
inequality among nations, the backwardness of various tribal
communities or nationalities involving pre- capitalist relations,
and general distrust of one nationality for another. Only by
overcoming the actual inequality of nations, by arranging things so
that the more developed nations help other peoples, by consistently
practicing the principle of equality of all nations and
nationalities, the principle of fraternal co- operation, can one
draw all nations of a multi-national state into communist
construction.
The national
movement
By their
objective nature and activity the national movement of nascent
capitalism were anti-feudal. The national movements which were
active in the bourgeois democratic revolutions which overthrew
feudalism and established the bourgeois system and bourgeois
national states in western Europe in the 17th and 18th century fall
into this category. The bourgeoisie which fulfilled a progressive
task by ending feudal isolation and establishing bourgeois nation
states in the early days of the capitalism era subjugated people
throughout all five continents and oppressed them in the imperialist
era. At this time national movements arose in the colonies against
the yoke of the imperialist capitalist class. Here the national
question expresses the struggle between revolutionary democracy made
up of the workers peasants the national capitalist class and other
progressives in the colonies and the imperialist capitalist class.
Every class
that participates in the national movement enters the question
according to their class point of view. The national capitalist
class hopes to gradually replace the colonial system with its own
hegemony. The working class acts in order to abolish all oppression
including national oppression.
Under
capitalism every social movement takes on a political character
either directly or indirectly and they become socio- political
movements.
The national
state
The process of
centralizing the power of the state, which began under the feudal
system was completed under the bourgeois system. In this way the
centralized nation state was born. The mature bourgeois relations of
western Europe at one stroke did away with political isolation and
brought in the people under nations. Due to both these processes
happening at the same time, in many instances the way was cleared
for the birth of mono-national centralized states. But even within
these states themselves the continued existence of regional
languages regional customs and sometimes national minorities express
internal differences within them.
Sometimes due
to various reasons centralize states were created before absorbing
various nationalities inhabiting a certain area. In these instances
multinational centralized states were established giving a
privileged position to one or more nationalities which became the
driving force of the state by being more developed than others.
Centralized
multi-national states also come about when the ruling classes of a
developed nation holding centralized state power, subjugate other
peoples who are at a lower stage of economic development through
legislation.
Nationalism
Nationalism is
a political principle of bourgeois ideology, characterized by
isolationism, xenophobia and the expression of enmity between
nations. The seeds of nationalism lie in the special characteristics
of the capitalist development.
In reflecting
the nature of the relationships between nations under capitalism,
nationalism demonstrates two characteristics -- the chauvinistic
nationalism of a ruling nation distinguished by its contempt for
other nations and the provincial nationalism of the ruled nation
which is identified by isolationism and xenophobia. (The Dictionary
of Philosophy)
Nationalism
developed parallel with the birth of nations, the birth of national
languages and cultures and specific psychological characteristics
and national sentiments. Nationalism is the hyperbolic expression of
the importance of national interests. Nationalism views all other
social problems by subordinating them to 'national interests' or
ignoring them completely. This runs contrary to the class struggle.
It does not accept the class struggle as a progressive force. It
insults the special characteristics and needs of other nations or
nationalities and ignores them, treasuring its own irrelevant
reactionary social and political institutions.
Nationalism
also opposes the establishment of broad ties with other peoples; it
recognizes such ties only with peoples that are ethnically close to
one's own nation and is hostile to the historically progressive
process of the convergence of nations and the merging of some of
them with others, even if this process occurs in a 'natural' way, in
the course of the country's economic development and not as a result
of violent measures or forced assimilation.
The bourgeois,
reformist and ? liberals use nationalism as an irreproachable means
of subduing the class-awareness of the working class, splitting the
international working class movement, undermining the national unity
of socialist countries and justifying colonialism and wars between
nations. In a petit- bourgeois environment nationalism is widespread
and deep-rooted. Socialism, which establishes the real equality of
nations by removing the social roots of nationalism. Therefore
nationalism exists only as a relic of capitalism in the mental
make-up and behavior of the people. The working class, which
expresses its needs only through proletarian internationalism cannot
accept nationalism of any kind.
Lenin writes
thus about nationalism in his 'Critical remarks on the National
Question'
"Marxism cannot
be reconciled with nationalism be it even of the 'most just',
'purest', most refined and civilized brands. In place of all forms
of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation
of all nations in the higher unity, a unity that is growing before
our eyes with every mile of railway line that is built, with every
international trust, and every workers association that is formed
(an association that is international in its economic activities as
well as its ideas and aims).
"The principle
of the 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 an apologea 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.
"The awakening
of the masses from feudal lethargy and their struggle against all
national oppression for the sovereignty of the people, of the
nation, are progressive. Hence it is the Marxists bounded duty to
stand for the most resolute and consistent democratism on all
aspects of the national question. This task is largely a negative
one, but this is the limit that the proletariat can go to in
supporting nationalism, for beyond that begins the positive activity
of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism "To throw off the
feudal yoke all national oppression, an all privileges enjoyed by
any particular nation or language is the imperative duty of the
proletariat as a democratic force and is certainly in the interest
of the proletariat class struggle which is obscured and retarded by
bickering on the national question, but to go beyond these strictly
limited and definite historical limits means betraying the
proletariat and siding with the bourgeoisie..."
"Combat all
national oppression? Yes of course! Fight for any kind of national
development, for 'national culture' in general? Of course not. The
economic development of capitalist society presents us with examples
of immature national movements all over the world. Examples of the
formation of the big nations out of a number of small ones. Or to
the detriment of some of the small ones, and also an example of the
assimilation of nations. The development of nationality in general
is the principle of bourgeois nationalism; hence the exclusiveness
of bourgeois nationalism, hence the endless national bickering. The
proletariat however far from undertaking to uphold the national
development of every nation, on the contrary warns the masses
against such illusions, stands to the fullest freedom of capitalist
intercourse, and welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations
except that which is founded on force or privilege.
"Consolidating
nationalism within a certain 'justly' delimited sphere 'constitutionalising'
nationalism and the separation of all nations from one another by
means of a special state institution. Such is the ideological
foundation and content of cultural/national autonomy. This idea is
thoroughly bourgeois and thoroughly false. The proletariat cannot
support any consecration of nationalism. On the contrary. It
supports everything that helps to obliterate national distinctions
and removes national barriers. It supports everything that makes the
ties between nationalities closer and closer or tends to merge
nations. To act differently means siding with reactionary
nationalist phlisitinism."
''However
'justified' 'pure' 'clean' or 'civilized' nationalism may be,
Marxists can never be reconciled with it. In place of all
manifestations of nationalism, Marxism offers internationalism --
every mile of railroad track that is built, with every international
gathering, with every workers' organization formed (every
organization that is international in its economic activities and
ideals and objectives) -- these all bring before our very eyes a
growing unity."
Having examined
briefly the historical development of the human community let us now
start with a Marxist evaluation of the national question to arrive
at a rationalization of the Marxist position on this matter.
The National
Question and Marxism.
This is the
question of the conditions of the liberation and independent
development of nations. We should approach the national question
historically. Why? Because it assumes different importance and
content in different epochs. (Dictionary of Philosophy, Moscow)
According to
imperialist ideologues the only solution to the national question is
the separation and isolation of nations. Actually what all this
brings about is greater enmity among nations and the subjugation of
nations by one another. Socialist social revolution offers a
alternative avenue -- the bringing together of nations. In the age
of the birth of nations, in the first age of the rise of capitalism,
the national question was one of overthrowing feudalism and
liberation from foreign national oppression. In the imperial age
this was a question between states. It was allied with the common
question of liberation of the colonized peoples. This was most
closely linked with the question of the peasantry because most of
those who joined national movements were farmers. Every class and
every political group puts forward its own policies through the
national question. To arrive at revolutionary policies and
strategies in dealing with the national question it is necessary to
conduct a material analysis of the material facts.
Marxism-Leninism provides the perfect answer to the national
question. A basic condition of the solution is that it should be
subordinated to the needs of the proletariat and the activities
connected with the proletarian struggle.
Marxism and the
National Question
The development
of bonds of friendship among nations is an extremely complex part of
world history. The capitalist class constantly keeps trying to
divide up the proletariat into different nations and nationalities
by arousing national sentiment and setting peoples against each
other. The goal of this class is to strengthen its dominance, weaken
co-operation among peoples and divert them from the proletarian
struggle.
The
proletariat, which offers the ideology of true equality and
brotherhood of nations -- proletarian internationalism as opposed
nationalities; and endeavors to strengthen the solidarity between
the working classes and to direct them towards the path of the
proletarian struggle and to destroy bourgeois dominance.
The last
sentence of the historic Communist Manifesto -- Workers of the
World, Unite! -- very clearly states the ideological foundation of
the Marxist-Leninist teachings on the national question. History has
clearly proved correct the Marxist-Leninist position that the
national question can be solved only on the basis of class.
1. Marx, Engels
and Lenin, who evaluated the importance of the national question
never considered this to be the basic question of the revolutionary
movement. They always subordinated this question to the dictatorship
of the proletariat -- the central characteristic of
Marxism-Leninism. Every time they examined this question they did so
within the framework of the international proletarian struggle and
the fight for socialism and social progress.
Clear examples
of this position can be seen in the way in which Marx became
involved in the basic national questions which arose in Europe in
his time. Analyzing and seeking answers to the Polish, Czech,
Southern Slav and Irish national questions, he examined each one
separately and within the framework of the class question.
2. When
examining the national question from a historical- materialistic
foundation it has to be definitely stated that the Marxist position
changes according to the material conditions in different countries
and during different periods within a country.
Through the
diversity of Marx's evaluation of and his positions on the Polish,
Czech, Southern Slav and Irish national questions one can see the
difference of the Marxist position based on the changing of the
historical conditions. Marx Engels and another German
Marxist-working-class leader -- Wilhelm Liebknecht -- strongly
opposed the national movements of the Balkan Slavs pitted against
the Turkish Empire. They saw these as being backed by Czarist Russia
to hurt Turkey. Therefore, without any lack of clarity, they
subordinated the national independence of the Southern Slavs to the
needs of European democracy; they stood for Turkish identity against
Russian reaction. They did so on the basis of the material
conditions which decided the essence of these national movements.
Whereas the
German social democratic movement held this opinion till the end of
the 19th century, they changed their policy at the beginning of the
20th century in accordance with the material conditions of the time.
By this time international social democracy began to openly support
the aspirations of the oppressed nationalities of Turkey.
This happened because international social democracy became
convinced of Turkey's inevitable political disintegration due to the
politico-economic developments towards the end of the 19th century
-- also because the temporary preservation of Turkey would be
serving the reactionary purposes of the Russian autocracy. In this
way the social-democratic movement of the day -- that is, the
Marxist movement -- was carried forward with the tide of objective
developments.
Marx and Engels
held diametrically opposed views on Czech -- as opposed to Polish --
national aspirations around the time of the 1848 revolution. Giving
due consideration to the special characteristics of each nation and
subjecting each question to the question of the proletariat they
decided that Czech aspirations for independence would be harmful to
revolutionary conditions and that Czech nationalism was moribund and
would soon be extinguished (history later proved this to be
factually incorrect). Marx in his work 'The revolution and counter-
revolution in Germany'
says:
"The question
of nationality gave rise to another struggle in Bohemia. This
country inhabited by two millions of Germans and three millions of
Slovenians of the Tschechian tongue had great historical
recollections almost all connected with the former supremacy of the
Tschechs. But then the force of this branch of the Slavonic family
had been broken ever since the war of the Hussites in the 15th
century. The provinces speaking the Tschechian language were
divided, one part forming the kingdom
of
Bohemia,
another the principality of Moravia a third the Carpathian hill
country of the Slovaks in part of Hungary. The Moravians and Slovaks
had long since lost every vestige of national feeling although
mostly preserving their language. Bohemia
was surrounded by thoroughly German countries on three sides out of
four. The German element had made great progress on her own
territory; even in the capital in Prague, the two nationalities were
pretty equally matched; and everywhere capital, trade, industry, and
mental culture were in the hands of the Germans. The chief champions
of the Tschechian nationality, professor Palacky is himself nothing
but a learned German run mad, who even now cannot speak the
Tschechian language correctly and without a foreign accent. But as
it often happens dying Tschechian nationality, dying according to
every fact known in history for the last four hundred years - made
in 1848 a last effort to regain its former vitality an effort whose
failure independent of all revolutionary considerations was to prove
that Bohemia could only exist henceforth as a portion of Germany
although part of her inhabitants might yet for some centuries
continue to speak a non-German language."
(Marx and
Engels, Collected Works Vol. 11, Page 46)
An article
published in the February 1852 American 'Daily Tribune' written by
Engels with an introduction by Marx on the 1848 revolution says this
about Poland --
"That the
Polish people should invoke the right of every subject nation to
self-determination and independent existence and demand that its
country should be reinstated within the boundaries of the pre-1772
Polish republic during the 1848 revolution is a very natural
thing..... "
Lenin has this
clarification to make -- ''The fundamental principle of Marxist
internationalism and socialism which intended to give the first
place to the needs of the working class struggle of the rich nations
is, 'should one nation oppress another nation, the first nation
cannot achieve liberation'. When Marx called for the liberation of
the subject nations of the Germans in 1848 from victorious German
democracy it was on the basis of the needs of the revolutionary
movement of the German workers.'' (Lenin -- the Socialist Revolution
and the Right of Nations to Self-determination)
As far we know,
Marx supported Polish independence in the name of the needs of
European democracy, which opposed power and coercion, or against the
all-powerful and mainly-reactionary influence of czarism. (Lenin
'results of the debate on self- determination)
Until 1890 when
there was a real threat of czarism and France collaborating in a
reactionary war against Germany
-- nationally independent but not imperialist -- Engels first and
foremost stood for an anti-czarist struggle. For this reason -- for
this very reason -- Marx and Engels opposed the national movements
of the Czechs and the Southern Slavs.
3. Marx was
truly opposed to decentralization and the federal system. As Lenin
himself said, Marx was a great believer in centralization. Marx
understood the progressive nature of large states and stood firmly
in favor of them. What he opposed was autocratic centralization. He
was strongly supportive of democratic centralization.
Marx writes
thus on the Pan-Slav demands for independence for all Slavic nations
which appeared in the 'Neue Rheinische Zeitung'.
''When great
kingdoms were a historical necessity in Europe, the Hungarians and
Germans strung together petty, crippled, weak small nations into a
great state, thereby enabling them to participate in the process of
historical development, which left to their own devices they would
not have been able to do. Due to the great progress in industry,
trade and communications, today there is a greater need for
centralization than in the 15th and 16th centuries. What is not
already centralized is being centralized.
Lenin expresses
thus the commitment of Marxism to centralized states.
"Marxists are
of course opposed to federation and decentralization for the simple
reason that capitalism requires for its development the largest and
most centralized possible states. Other conditions being equal the
class conscious proletariat will always stand for the larger state.
It will always fight against mediaeval particularism and will always
welcome the closest possible economic amalgamation of large
territories in which the proletariat struggle against the
bourgeoisie can develop on a broad basis. Capitalism's broad and
rapid development of the productive forces calls for large
politically compact and united territories since only here can the
bourgeois class together with its inevitable antipole the
proletarian class unite and sweep away all the old mediaeval, caste,
parochial, petty national and other barriers.
" .... The
right of nations to self determination i.e., the right to secede and
to form independent national states will be dealt with elsewhere.
But while and insofar as different nations constitute a single state
Marxists will never under any circumstances advocate either the
federal principle or decentralization. The great centralized state
is a tremendous historical step towards forward from mediaeval
disunity to the future socialist unity of the whole world, and only
via such a state (inseparably connected with capitalism) can there
be any road to socialism.
"It would
however be inexcusable to forget that in advocating centralism we
advocate exclusively democratic centralism. On this point all the
philistines in general and the nationalist philistines in particular
(including the late Dragomanov) have so confused the issue that we
are obliged again and again to spend time clarifying it.
"Far from
precluding local self-government with autonomy for regions having
special economic and social conditions a distinct national
composition of the population and so forth, democratic centralism
necessarily demands both. In Russia centralism is constantly
confused with tyranny and bureaucracy. This confusion has naturally
arisen from the history of Russia.
But even so it is quite inexcusable for a Marxist to yield to it.
(Lenin, "Critical remarks on the national question" - Collected
Works, Vol. 20, Page 45, 46)
4. Marxists
totally oppose any discrimination, limitation or special privileges
applied to any nation, nationality or language. They support the
democratic amalgamation of nations.
This is what
Lenin has to say on the subject.
"Developing
capitalism knows two historical tendencies in the national question.
The first is the awakening of national life and national movements,
the struggle against all national oppression and the creation of
national states. The second is the development and the growing
frequency of international intercourse in every form the breakdown
of national barriers the creation of the international unity of
capital of economic life in general, of politics science etc.
"Both
tendencies are a universal law of capitalism. The former
predominates in the beginning of its development. The latter
characterizes a mature capitalism that is moving towards its
transformation into socialist society. The Marxist national program
takes both tendencies into account and advocates firstly equality of
nations and languages and the impermissability of all privileges
(and also the right of nations to self determination with which we
shall deal with later), secondly the principle of internationalism
and uncompromising struggle against contamination of the proletariat
with bourgeois nationalism even of the most refined kind...
"What is left
is capitalism's world historic tendency to break down barriers,
obliterate national distinctions and to assimilate nations. A
tendency that manifests itself more and more powerfully with every
passing decade, and is one of the greatest striving forces
transforming capitalism into socialism.
"Whoever does
not recognize and champion the equality of nations and languages and
does not fight against all national oppression and inequality is not
a Marxist. He is not even a democrat. That is beyond doubt. But it
is also beyond doubt that the pseudo- Marxists who heaps abuse upon
a Marxist of another nation for being a "assimilator" is simply a
nationalist Philistine.
(Lenin,
Critical remarks on the national question, collected works, Vol. 20,
pages 28)
He adds
further:
"No one
unobsessed by nationalist prejudices can fail to perceive that this
process of assimilation of nations by capitalism means the greatest
historical progress, the breakdown of hidebound national
conservatism in the various backwoods, especially in backward
countries like Russia."
(ibid, page 30)
"Advocacy of
complete equality of nations and languages distinguishes only the
consistently democratic elements in each nations (i.e. only the
proletarians) and unites them, not according to nationality but in a
profound and earnest desire to improve the entire system of state."
"Guaranteeing
the rights of a national minority is inseparably linked up with the
principle of complete equality."
(ibid, page 42)
5. Marxism
unflinchingly supports proletarian internationalism while opposing
all types of nationalism and stands for class unity of the
proletariat of all nations. It is opposed to the division and
organization of the proletariat along national lines.
Lenin says:
"Bourgeois
nationalism and proletarian internationalism are the two
irreconcilably hostile slogans that correspond to the two great
class camps throughout the capitalist world and express the two
policies (nay the too world outlooks) in the national question. In
advocating the slogan of national culture and building up on it an
entire clan and practical program of what they called "cultural
national autonomy" the Bundists are in effect instruments of
bourgeois nationalism among the workers.
(ibid, page 26)
He adds:
"The great
Russian and Ukrainian workers should work together and as long as
they live in a single state act in the closest organizational unity
and concert towards a common or international culture of the
proletarian movement displaying absolute tolerance on the question
of the language on which propaganda is conducted. An in the purely
local or purely national details of that propaganda. This is the
imperative demand of Marxism. All advocacy of the segregation of
workers of one nation from another all attacks on Marxist
"assimilation" or attempts where the proletariat is concerned to
contrapose one national culture as a whole to another allegedly
integral national culture and so forth is bourgeois nationalism,
against which it is essential to wage a ruthless struggle.
(ibid, page 33)
6. Marxism
steadfastly opposes the capture and annexation of weak nations by
stronger nations and accepts the right of colonies and subject
peoples to secession and independence.
Lenin has on
many occasions very clearly expressed his views on this matter.
'We are not
prepared to bandy words. If a party by its activities (or by a
proposal which will affect everyone, whatever form it may take)
opposes the keeping of oppressed nations by force within one's
borders we are completely in agreement in principle with that party.
(Lenin -- Results of the debate on the right of self-determination)
We shall go
into more detail in this regard when evaluating the principle of the
right of nations to self-determination.
. The Marxist
movement stresses that when deciding revolutionary policies and
strategies in solving the national question of a country, a
materialistic analysis of the real material conditions prevalent in
the country at that time should be made and solutions found
accordingly.
What this means
is that Marxism does not offer a single set solution to the national
question without considering time and place. If this is not so, that
is putting forward specious arguments instead of Marxist dialectics.
Using the flexibility of concepts subjectively is characteristic of
specious argument (Lenin). Taking incidents out of context, applying
rules specific to one phenomenon to another, taking rules applicable
to one historical period and applying them to incidents in another,
mark the difference between specious argument and dialectics.
Therefore
Marxism does not put forward any prefabricated or general solution
to the Lankan national question. What has to be done is to subject
the Lankan national question to a dialectical analysis and find
solutions accordingly. This is what we hope to do in the second part
of this report.
Having
familiarized ourselves with the Marxist approach to the national
question it has become extremely essential for us to evaluate the
principle of the right of nations to self- determination. This is
because in recent times, this question has been taken out of context
and knowingly or unknowingly made to serve imperialist interests by
bourgeois nationalists, petit bourgeois opportunists and those whose
have got lost in the morass of their political ignorance.
Now let us
examine in detail the principle of the right of nations to
self-determination.
An inquiry into
the formula of the right of nations to self-determination
(translators note: there is a problem throughout this chapter with
the word Sinhala word 'suthraya', whether is should be translated as
'principle' or 'formula', as these two words are politically loaded)
At the
beginning of the 20th century, a global colonial network had been
brought into existence by a handful of imperialistic forces which
had subdued the entire world and subjugated many nations. The world
consisted of this colonial network -- built up over four centuries
beginning in the 16th century by some European nations such as
England,
Russia, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria
and Germany.
At the end of
the 17th century, long before the bourgeois system arose in Europe,
several European nations were busy setting up colonies, crossing the
seven seas to do so. Not only the countries and nations of Asia
Africa and the Americas, but also even in Europe some weak, and
less-developed countries and nations underwent this process of
colonization. The small weak European nations were conquered,
divided and absorbed by a few powerful European nations.
In this period
even
Portugal
and the Netherlands were conquered by Spain. The Netherlands, the
first bourgeois nation in the world, had taken ownership of colonies
in Asia, Africa and south America -- colonies such as Indonesia,
Lanka, Surinam, South Africa -- long before its own
bourgeois-democratic revolution.
England,
which built an empire upon which the sun never set, spanning all
five continents had already subjugated and absorbed under the
British crown not only Scotland and Wales but also Ireland in the
British isles.
Many European
powers like Britain, Spain, France, and Portugal were maritime
imperialists. But Russia and Austria were different. They built
empires not in far-off continents by spanning the seven seas but by
subjugating, dividing and absorbing neighboring small, weak and
less-developed nations and countries. while Austria
built an empire in central and south- eastern Europe, while
autocratic Russia built a vast empire not only in eastern Europe,
central western and northern Asia, but which also spread to the west
of North America.
The Russian
empire spread across an area even bigger than one- sixth the total
land surface of our planet. In the 18th and 19th centuries czarist
Russia conducted 33 colonial wars to subjugate countries. The
subjugation of Finland by the czar peter the great by defeating the
Swedish armies of Charles 12 at Pultowa, the absorption of most of
Poland by czarina Catherine the great in the 18th, the capture of
the northern black sea and the caucuses after defeating turkey, the
take-over of a part of Armenia by the 1878 Berlin treaty after the
defeat of Turkey by the czar in 1877, the capture of Kazakhstan by
the czar between 1816 and 1854, the capture of the small central
Asian Muslim states to the south of Kazakhstan between 1855 and
1876, the capture of the Muroviev-Sakhalin island in 1859 were very
important points in the great process of building a colonial empire
at the end of which the czarist empire had stretched upto the
boundaries of the Prussian, or German empire in the west, the
Austrian and ottoman Turkish empires in the south-west, the British
empire in the south, china and the British empire in the east. By
1895 it had come upto the borders of Afghanistan and Iran which were
then under British rule. By 1876, this vast empire, spanning the
Bering straits, covering the entire Alaskan peninsula, stretched as
far as Vancouver island on the western coast of north America.
Even the united
states of America which was established at the end of the 18th
century after fighting bravely and defeating the British imperialist
army of general Cornwallis, became a colonial empire. Invading and
capturing the lands of the red Indians, capturing Florida after a
war against Spain, the invasion and ,absorption of Mexico, capturing
California, Louisiana and in 1860, Texas, and in 1901 absorbing
Puerto Rico, the subjugation in 1903 of the Panama canal territory,
the capture of Honolulu, the subjugation of the Philippines and
buying Alaska from the czar for 8 million dollars in 1876 are all
important points in the process of the building of that empire.
In these
circumstances, the colonial problem and the national question were
bound together. This complex historical situation demanded a true
scientific solution to the national question. Marx and Engels at the
end of the 19th century and Lenin at the beginning of the 20th
century fulfilled this need successfully.
It is in the
case of
Poland
that we first hear of the formula of 'the right of nations to
self-determination' in the Marxist movement. Poland was a nation
pressed on all sides and surrounded by three empires -- namely,
headstrong Russia in the east, the Prussian empire in the west and
Austrian empire in the south. In 1772, 1793 and 1795, Poland was
broken into pieces and absorbed by these three imperial powers. by
the end of this process of division, most of Poland
-- 62 percent -- was absorbed by Russia under Catherine the great,
20 percent of Poland
-- that is Silesia was absorbed by Prussia. 18 percent of Poland --
that is Galicia -- was absorbed by Austria. what was the Marxist
position on this Poland
which was divided up and absorbed by these three imperial powers in
this manner?
This is the
message Marx and Engels sent to the commemorative rally in Geneva in
November 1880 held by the 'Rownosk (Equality)' group in memory of
the 50th anniversary of the 1830 November Polish uprising against
foreign oppression.
"The cry 'Long
live Poland!' which then resounded throughout western Europe was not
merely an expression of sympathy and admiration for the patriotic
fighters who were crushed with brutal force - with this cry men
hailed the people whose revolts ended so unhappily for itself but
always halted the advance of the counter-revolution. The people
whose best sons never ceased to fight the struggle of resistance by
everywhere going into battle under the banner of the popular
revolutions. On the other hand the partition of Poland consolidated
the holy alliance which served as a disguise for the Tsar's hegemony
over all the governments of Europe. Thus the cry long live Poland,
Death to the holy alliance, Death to the military despotism of
Russia, Prussia and Austria, Death to Mongol rule over modern
society.
This message
ends with these words:
"Thus outside
the borders of their country the Poles have played a major part in
the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat. In this
struggle they were predominantly its international combat force. May
this struggle develop among the Polish people itself, may our
propaganda and the refugee press support it and may it continue with
the unequaled endeavors of our Russian brothers; this will be yet
another reason to echo the cry of 'long live Poland'."
(Marx-Engels,
collected works, Vol. 24, Page 344, 345 - In the book the
translation is from the German edition, Berlin 1962, 19th volume
239-241, however we have reproduced the corresponding text from the
English collected works)
What is clearly
shown by this is that Marx and Engels, who analyzed the Polish
problem through the class question strengthened the slogan "let
Poland live'. In the same way, it was the same demand -- 'Poland
should be re-established within its pre-1772 borders' -- that Engels
put forward in the 'American daily tribune' which we quoted earlier.
Here what Engels offers 'the right of all oppressed nations to an
independent existence and to deal with their own affairs by
themselves' seems to be the point of origin of the formula of the
right of nations to self- determination.
The origin of
the formula
There was a
paragraph like this on Poland in the pamphlet 'guidelines for
delegates' which was presented to the general assembly of the first
international in 1867 according to the publication 'le courier
international' published 16.3.1867 in London.
'It is
necessary to destroy Russian influence over Europe by setting in
operation the right of peoples to act according to their will with
regard to themselves and the re-establishment of Poland on a
democratic and socialist base.''
It is believed
that the writings which included this paragraph was accepted by the
general assembly and that it was the policy of the first
international. But this paragraph has not been included in the
publication edited by Marx containing the proposals of the 1866 and
1868 conferences of the international workers' movement (first
international). We cannot find it in any of the other writings of
Marx, Engels or Lenin, so we cannot speak of its validity or
otherwise. But this also is in agreement with what Engels has said
about Poland elsewhere. This is specially similar to the trend of
Engels' letter of 1852. Even the courier international does not say
that the paragraph in question was written by Marx. Engels wrote the
letter in the 1852 tribune. but we cannot find that Marx himself
wrote an account of 'the principle of the right of nations to self
determination' or anything similar in intent.
The first
direct and unquestionable reference in the history of the Marxist
movement to the question of the right of self- determination is
found in the 'polish declaration' of the second international which
met at St. martin's hall in London from 27 July-1st august 1896 --
that is, the conference of the international society of
social-democratic parties, set up in 1889. exactly one year after
Engels' death -- 5th august 1895 -- three proposals on Poland were
placed before the conference.
While the
proposal for independence for Poland and proposal against that by
rose Luxembourg were defeated at the conference, the proposal of
Karl Kautsky who was a prominent leader of the then German social
democratic party and the second international itself was approved by
a majority of votes at the conference. Later he gave up Marxism and
became a 'moderate' and a traitor the international working class.
This was the
proposal of Karl Kautsky which was adopted at the London conference
of the second international.
"This congress
declares that it stands for the full right of all nations to
self-determination and expresses its sympathy to the workers of
every country now suffering under the yoke of military national or
other absolutism. This congress calls upon the workers of all these
countries to join the ranks of the class conscious workers of the
whole world in order jointly to fight for the defeat of
international capitalism and for the achievement of the aims of
international social democracy." (Quoted from Lenin's collected
works, Vol. 20, Pages 430, 431)
This is what
Lenin felt about this proposal:
"The
international's resolution reproduces the most essential and
fundamental propositions in this point of view: On the one hand the
absolutely direct unequivocal recognition of the full right of all
nations to self-determination on the other the equally unambiguous
appeal to the workers for international unity in their class
struggle. We think that this resolution is absolutely correct, and
that to the countries of Eastern Europe
and Asia at the beginning of the twentieth century. It is this
resolution with both its parts being taken as an integral whole that
gives the only correct lead to the proletarian class policy in the
national question.
"Let us deal
with the three above mentioned viewpoints in somewhat greater
detail. As is known Karl Marx and Frederick Engels considered it the
bounded duty of the whole of west European democracy and still more
of social democracy to give active support to the demand for Polish
independence. for the period of the 1840's and 1860's the period of
the bourgeois revolutions in Austria | 
E - Books
