Right to Self-Determination (was Re: Anti-Zionism Is Racism)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Wed Aug 1 11:15:51 PDT 2001


At 5:02 PM -0400 7/28/01, Max Sawicky wrote:
>I have noted previously on PEN-L that some leninist
>support for nationalism is totally hypocritical,
>since it is premised entirely on opposition to
>the U.S. or Europe, not on any commitment to
>ideas of freedom or autonomy per se. But we
>don't have many leninists here on LBO, and perhaps
>none for whom my criticism applies.

At 4:58 PM -0400 7/29/01, Max Sawicky wrote:
>If, on the other hand, you support a
>particular nationalism on the grounds that
>peoples *in general* have a *right* to be free
>from foreign domination, then you are obliged
>to support all nationalisms, not just the ones
>the U.S. opposes.

It is not true, however, that the recognition of the right to self-determination equals an unconditional support for all nationalisms, and Lenin made the distinction clear:

***** The bourgeoisie, which naturally assumes the leadership at the start of every national movement, says that support for all national aspirations is practical. However, the proletariat's policy in the national question (as in all others) supports the bourgeoisie only in a certain direction, but it never coincides with the bourgeoisie's policy. The working class supports the bourgeoisie only in order to secure national peace (which the bourgeoisie cannot bring about completely and which can be achieved only with complete democracy), in order to secure equal rights and to create the best conditions for the class struggle. Therefore, it is in opposition to the practicality of the bourgeoisie that the proletarians advance their principles in the national question; they always give the bourgeoisie only conditional support. What every bourgeoisie is out for in the national question is either privileges for its own nation, or exceptional advantages for it; this is called being "practical". The proletariat is opposed to all privileges, to all exclusiveness. To demand that it should be "practical" means following the lead of the bourgeoisie, falling into opportunism.

The demand for a "yes" or "no" reply to the question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very "practical" one. In reality it is absurd; it is metaphysical in theory, while in practice it leads to subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie's policy. The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot say in advance whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given nation seceding from another nation, or in its equality with the latter; in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development by pushing the aims of its "own" nation before those of the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation.

<http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch04.htm> *****

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list