Re: The Right of Nations to Self Determination

[howie@xxxxxxxx (Howie Chodos)]

Responding to Roderick Hay, Jerry wrote:


>  To give a couple of examples.  The nationalism of the ANC in South
>  Africa was not the same as the nationalism of the white working class
>  during the apartheid period.  Similarly, the nationalism of the Irish
>  is different from the nationalism of the British.  Nationalism can be a
>  essentially reactionary force in certain areas and historical contexts
>  and an essentially progressive force in other areas and contexts.
>  Consequently, national self-determination can be a reactionary concept
>  in some contexts (and should be opposed by class-conscious workers and
>  Marxists) and a progressive concept in other contexts (and should be
>  supported by class-conscious workers and Marxists).

On the whole I agree with this, and want to explore further some of these
distinctions. It seems to me that an important point with regard to the
right of self-determination and the attitude of Marxists to it has to do
with who one is. This distinction goes back to Lenin and the 3rd
International, if memory serves, and means that Marxists/communists in an
"oppressed" nation and those in an "oppressor" nation will often have to
adopt different attitudes towards particular cases.

It is essential for people in an oppressor nation to unconditionally support
the right of self-determinaton for a nation oppressed by its own
bourgeoisie. Otherwise they are guilty of what has been called "great nation
chauvinism". If one is located within a nation which not only already enjoys
its right to self-determination, but has translated this right into a
dominant position over another nation, to simply assert that workers have no
nation, and therefore the oppressed nation should not struggle for its right
to self-determination, becomes tantamount to saying that I enjoy a right
which I am going to deny you. Furthermore, to the extent that my nation
dominates yours, this type of argument can serve as a cover for me to
continue to benefit from my relatively privileged position compared to those
in the oppressed nation (even if within my own nation I am in a subordinate
position in relation to my own ruling class).

The flip side of this argument has been that Marxists from within the
oppressed nation must try to offer an alternative to the various programs of
the indigenous bourgeoisie, and oppose "narrow nationalism" which sees
things solely in terms of nations, and evacuates other questions such as
class. Narrow nationalism usually ends up serving as a cover for the class
interests of the dominant group within the oppressed nation.

Of course, all these are theroretical principles, whose application in
practice is not often an easy matter. Moreover, they are all at the level of
the struggle for reforms and not at the level of the struggle for socialism.
An analogy that seems to me to fit, at least in part, would be with
defending the right to unionize regardless of the politics of a particular
union. We would fight for the union to have the most progressive politics
possible, but failing that would nonetheless continue to support the right
to organize. Another analogy that has often been used is with the right to
divorce. Here we defend it as a right even if we do not always advocate its
implementation. That depends on the concrete circumstances.

Howie Chodos



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------