I found the most recent article on the question of nationalities superior to the take of any ultra-lefts but still the victim of a certain economism. One thing that I think the author confuses is the idea that Marxists have no interests in rights. Obviously, political rights are not enough and insufficient for liberation, yet by no means did Marx think that they weren’t necessary. Marx thought that the proletariat had to take part in the fight for defending the democratic rights of the proletariat but do so from its own class independent perspective. While you are correct in pointing out the challenges that come with attempting to do this in national liberation fronts, I would argue that the national liberation revolutions were progressive not simply because they allowed a level of capitalist development in the periphery but because they extended basic democratic rights to the majority of humans enslaved by colonial domination, allowing them to become subjects of world history. I would also argue that there are places where the national question is still an issue to be grappled with, for example, Palestine and Puerto Rico are the first examples that come to mind. I generally agree that we should maintain Marx’s approach of looking at the concrete struggles at play to determine if a national struggle is progressive, however.
On the issue of self-determination, many Leninists do take the advocacy for the right of self-determination as an endorsement of separatism. This is not the case for Lenin though. Lenin is not arguing that the nations oppressed by the Russian Empire should necessarily separate, but that they should have the right to do so, even if we encourage against it. As Lenin says in The National Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. for example, ““In order not to infringe on the right to self-determination”, therefore, we are duty bound not “to vote for secession”, as the wily Mr. Semkovsky assumes, but to vote for the right of the seceding region to decide the question itself.” Engels also seems to have held a similar position, saying that if a revolution were to occur in England, one of the steps of the new government would be to remove British troops from India and other colonies, as socialism could not be imposed by “colonial bayonets”. While it is true the death of major colonial empires has made the issue of national self-determination less of an issue that is as in Lenin’s time, there are still instances today where these issues could exist. For example, if a revolution were to sweep the United States, what about Puerto Rico? Of course, we would welcome them as equals into our workers’ state and give reparations, but what if the majority of the populations was for independence instead? In my opinion, it would make more sense to respect their right to independence, as if the US imposed socialism in Puerto Rico it would be distorted by national chauvinism.
Communist greetings,
Donald Parkinson
