Advertisement

Reconciling the Basic Contradiction

  • Walter A. Kemp

Abstract

This chapter will examine the views of some of the major socialist theorists and look at how they tried to reconcile the basic contradiction between nationalism and communism, both ideologically and politically. It will become apparent that socialist theorists had difficulty defining and coming to grips with nationalism for the same reason sociologists do, namely that it is a diversified phenomenon that defies monocausal explanations.1 They suffered from the additional handicap of being uncompromisingly shackled to economic determinism which, because of its historico-materialist perspective, regarded nationalism as nothing more than an epiphenomenon of capitalism. Their inability to tackle nationalism head-on created a cognitive dissonance between the strict parameters of ideology and the complexities of reality: a gap which, as it widened, led to a paradoxical situation wherein the socialists hardened their ideological intransigence at the same time as they made political decisions which were inconsistent with these same ideological statements.

Keywords

National Culture National Minority Social Democratic Party National Movement National Question 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Ephraim Nimni, ‘Great historical failure: Marxist theories of nationalism’, Capital and Class, 25 (Spring 1985), p. 58. See also Paul James, Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community (London: Sage, 1996).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roman Szporluk, Communism and Nationalism: Karl Marx versus Friedrich List (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 32 and 49.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. L. Talmon, The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution: The Origins of Ideological Polarisation in the Twentieth Century (London: Secker & Warburg, 1980), p. 8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Regis Debray, ‘Marxism and the national question’, New Left Review, 105 (September–October, 1977), p. 30.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karl Marx, as cited in V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution (London: Penguin, 1992; first published in 1914), p. 46. Lenin does not quote the source.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (London: Penguin Books, 1985), p. 102.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    In her thought-provoking book Really Existing Nationalisms: A Post-Communist View from Marx and Engels (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), Erica Benner argues that Marx and Engels never posited a zero-sum relationship between nationalism and internationalism. Her thesis is that, in their eyes, the main threat to international co-operation among workers came not from attempts by oppressed people to form separate states, but from the conservative and hegemonic internationalism of the dominant class. Under such a system there would be scope for both socialist nations and states. See particularly p. 200.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    As cited in Ronaldo Munck, The Difficult Dialogue: Marxism and Nationalism (London: Zed Books, 1986), p. 24.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    This sets off a whole debate among sociologists about whether national consciousness is created or grows of its own volition. Compare Gellner and Anderson with someone like Anthony D. Smith. For an overview of the debate between the organic or synthetic (invented) nature of nationalism see Anthony D. Smith, ‘Gastronomy or geology? The role of nationalism in the reconstruction of nations’, Nations and Nationalism, 1/1 (March 1995a), pp. 3–23.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    Walker Connor, The National Question in Marxist—Leninist Theory and Strategy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 8.Google Scholar
  11. 15.
    Tom Nairn, The Break-Up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-Nationalism (London: NLB, 1977), p. 337.Google Scholar
  12. 18.
    Horace B. Davis, Nationalism and Socialism: Marxist and Labor Theories of Nationalism to 1917 (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967), p. 14.Google Scholar
  13. 19.
    Munck 1986, p. 23. See also Benner 1995, pp. 152–9.Google Scholar
  14. 20.
    As cited in Ian Cummins, Marx, Engels and National Movements (London: Croom Helm, 1980), p. 145.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    Ibid. pp. 234–5.Google Scholar
  16. 24.
    Friedrich Engels, ‘The Prague rising’, NRZ (18 June 1848), in Fernbach (ed.) 1973, 127.Google Scholar
  17. 27.
    See Cummins 1980, p. 42; Szporluk 1988, pp. 153–7; and Paul Vysny, NeoSlavism and the Czechs 1898–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), pp. 6–8.Google Scholar
  18. 29.
    A. J. P. Taylor, Introduction in The Communist Manifesto, p. 33. For an alternative interpretation see Benner 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 37.
    Edward Hallett Carr, Nationalism and After (London: MacMillan & Co., 1945), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
  20. 38.
    Geoffrey Stern, The Rise and Decline of International Communism (Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1990), p. 22.Google Scholar
  21. 39.
    John Schwarzmantel, Socialism and the Idea of the Nation (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), p. 80.Google Scholar
  22. 40.
    Ephraim Nimni, Marxism and Nationalism: Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis (London: Pluto Press, 1991), p. 63.Google Scholar
  23. 42.
    Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), Nationalism (A report by a study group of members of the RIIA, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939), p. 312.Google Scholar
  24. 43.
    As cited in C. D. Kernig (ed.), Marxism, Communism and Western Society: A Comparative Encyclopedia (New York: Herder & Herder, 1973), vi. p. 41.Google Scholar
  25. 44.
    As cited in Leszek Kolakowski and Stuart Hampshire (eds.), The Socialist Idea: A Reappraisal (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1974), p. 138.Google Scholar
  26. 45.
    Tom Bottomore and Patrick Goode (eds.), Austro-Marxism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), p. 44.Google Scholar
  27. 52.
    For evidence of the national biases of the German members of the AustroMarxists, see Andrew Gladding Whiteside, Austrian National Socialism Before 1918 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1962), pp. 66–7.Google Scholar
  28. 53.
    Talmon 1980, p. 138. For more, particularly their opposition to Hungarian separation, see Oscar Jaszi, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929), pp. 180–82.Google Scholar
  29. 54.
    From Karl Renner, ‘Der Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Nationen’, as cited in Kann 1950, vol. 2, p. 161. For more on Renner see pp. 157–67.Google Scholar
  30. 56.
    For more see Nicholas Stargardt, ‘Origins of the constructivist theory of the nation’, in Sukumar Periwal (ed.), Notions of Nationalism (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1995), pp. 83–105.Google Scholar
  31. 57.
    Among the passages contained in the programme are: 1. Austria is to be transformed into a democratic federation of nationalities.Google Scholar
  32. 2.
    The historic Crown lands are to be replaced by nationally homogeneous self-ruling bodies, whose legislation and administration shall be in the hands of national chambers, elected on the basis of universal, equal and direct franchise.Google Scholar
  33. 3.
    All self-governing regions of one and the same nation are to form together a nationally distinct union, which shall take care of this union’s affairs autonomously.Google Scholar
  34. 4.
    A special law should be adopted by the parliament to safeguard the rights of the national minorities.Google Scholar
  35. 5.
    We do not recognize any national privilege; therefore we reject the demand for a state language. Whether a common language is needed, a federal parliament can decide. The programme also declares ‘that it recognises the right of each nationality to national existence and national development’. Ronaldo Munck, ‘Otto Bauer: towards a Marxist theory of nationalism’, Capital and Class, 25 (Spring 1985), pp. 86–7. For an analysis of the Brunn Congress and for more on the Austrian Social Democrats see Arthur G. Kogan, ‘The Social Democrats and the conflict of nationalities in the Habsburg monarchy’, The Journal of Modern History, 21/3 (September 1949), pp. 204–17.Google Scholar
  36. 60.
    The resentment went both ways. Many areas where Czechs moved from the countryside to the cities and displaced German workers became hotbeds for German (Austrian) national socialism. See Whiteside 1962.Google Scholar
  37. 65.
    Peter Zwick, National Communism (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1983), p. 38.Google Scholar
  38. 69.
    John F. N. Bradley, Czech Nationalism in the Nineteenth Century (Boulder, Colo.: East European Monographs, 1984), p. 61.Google Scholar
  39. 75.
    See the chapter entitled, ‘German orthodoxy: Karl Kautsky’, in Leszek Kolakowski (ed.), Main Currents of Marxism: its Rise, Growth, and Dissolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), vol. II, particularly pp. 32–40.Google Scholar
  40. 78.
    As cited in Richard Abraham, Rosa Luxemburg: A Life for the International (Oxford: Berg, 1989), p. 42.Google Scholar
  41. 82.
    Gilbert Badia, Rosa Luxemburg: Journaliste, Polemiste, Revolutionnaire (Paris: Editions Sociales, 1975), p. 483.Google Scholar
  42. 89.
    Demetrio Boersner, The Bolshevik Revolution and the National and Colonial Question (1917–1928) (Westport, Conn.: Hyperion Press, 1957), p. 36.Google Scholar
  43. 95.
    The Imperial Manifesto strengthened the Russian character of the Duma to the exclusion of other national groups. The electoral law disenfranchised the peoples of Central Asia and drastically reduced the number of deputies from Poland and the Caucuses, thereby creating disaffected nationalities which became important allies to the Bolsheviks.Google Scholar
  44. 96.
    In August 1912, at the conference in Vienna (referred to by the Bolsheviks as the Conference of Liquidators) the Mensheviks and other right-wing Marxist groups concluded that national cultural autonomy was not contrary to the party’s program of guaranteeing national self-determination. In 1917 national cultural autonomy became part of the Menshevik party platform. See Richard Pipes, The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism 1917–1923 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), p. 34.Google Scholar
  45. 104.
    See V. I. Lenin, ‘Theses on the national question’, LCW, vol. 19, pp. 243–51 for criticism of Bauer and Renner.Google Scholar
  46. 105.
    Raymond Pearson, ‘Historical background’, in Alastair McAuley (ed.), Soviet Federalism, Nationalism and Economic Decentralisation (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991), p. 17.Google Scholar
  47. 107.
    The precedent for this was Article 9 of the Party programme which was laid down at the All-Russian Social Democratic Labour Party’s 2nd Congress of 1903. But this was a statement of principle, not of policy.Google Scholar
  48. 117.
    For an examination of the origins of this concept in the writings of Marx and Engels see Benner 1995, 142–52.Google Scholar
  49. 119.
    V. I. Lenin, ‘On the national pride of the Great-Russians’ (1914), in LCW, vol. 21, pp. 103–4.Google Scholar
  50. 122.
    Lenin’s first choice was not Stalin, but the Armenian Stepan Shaumyan, author of National Cultural Autonomy (1906), who was not, however, able to go.Google Scholar
  51. 123.
    In Stalin (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 134, Isaac Deutscher claims that Stalin wrote a second essay on national minorities while in exile in Kureika (in the sub-polar tundra on the river Yenissey), but that essay was never published.Google Scholar
  52. 124.
    Some suggest that because Stalin’s knowledge of German was limited Bukharin, who was in Vienna at the time, was a key contributor to the work. Others suggest Lenin wrote a good deal of it. For a discussion of the work’s authorship see Samed Shaheen, The Communist (Bolshevik) Theory of National Self-Determination (The Hague: W. Van Hoeve, 1956), pp. 66–72.Google Scholar
  53. 125.
    Joseph Stalin, ‘Marxism and the national question’ (1913), in Marxism and the National and Colonial Question (hereafter MNCQ) (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1936), p. 5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter A. Kemp 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter A. Kemp

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations