The following document was written in July 1985 as part of a discussion in the Workers Socialist League on the question of Israel-Palestine. It opposed what was to become the position of the WSL, of supporting a Two State solution, as well as opposing the position of the democratic secular state. Both positions, the document argues, are founded on Nationalism rather than Proletarian Internationalism, and are, therefore, two sides of that same Nationalist coin. As such, both positions are a far cry from the positions developed by Lenin, the Bolsheviks and the early Comintern, even though many on the Left, argue for the Democratic Secular State position, as though what they were arguing was a continuation of those policies. In fact, as I have argued previously, in the documents on Imperilaism, those nationalist ideas are, in fact, just a sign of the degree to which socialist politics has been corrupted by the influence both of Stalinist National Socialism, and Third Worldist petit-bourgeois nationalism.
As it becomes clear that neither of those solutions, today 25 years on, offer any solution to either Palestinian or Israeli workers, others on the Left have begun to argue for the kind of wider socialist solution to the problem argued for in this document. The CPGB, for instance in its recent discussions frames things in a far more socialist and internationalist way than do many on the Left. Moreover, as the document demonstrates, by numerous quotes, such an approach is founded firmly on the ground of Marxism, and of Lenin’s application of it, to the National Question. It is an antidote to that cancer of Nationalism that has been gnawing away at the soul of the Marxist Left for the last 80 years. Where possible links to Lenin's writings have been given. With the widespread misrepresentation of these views that 80 years of Stalinist and nationalist influene have had on the marxist movement, I would highly recommend comrades read these documents of Lenin in full.
*************************************************************************************
Lenin on Separation and Amalgamation
“One such idea is refined nationalism, which advocates the division and splitting up of the proletariat on the most plausible and specious pretexts, as for example, that of protecting the interests of ‘national culture’, national autonomy or independence’, and so on and so forth.
The class conscious workers fight hard against every kind of nationalism, both the crude, violent Black Hundred nationalism, and that most refined nationalism, which preaches the equality of nations together with… the splitting up of the workers’ cause, the workers’ organisations, and the working class movement according to nationality. Unlike all the varieties of the nationalist bourgeoisie, the class conscious workers, carrying out the decisions of the recent (Summer 1913) conference of the Marxists, stand not only for the most complete, consistent and fully applied equality of nations and languages, but also for the amalgamation of the workers of the different nationalities in united proletarian organisations of every kind”
( Lenin – “Corrupting the Workers With Refined Nationalism” emphasis as in original)
Lenin continues,
“To the bourgeoisie, however, the demand for national equality very often amounts in practice to advocating national exclusiveness and chauvinism; they very often couple it with advocacy of the division and estrangement of nations. This is absolutely incompatible with proletarian internationalism, which advocates, not only closer relations between nations, but the amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities in a given state in united proletarian organisations.”
Lenin was writing about the national problem as it specifically affected Tsarist Russia. Tsarist Russia was the greatest prison house of oppressed nations of all time. Not only did it contain within it a vast range of oppressed nationalities, but the pogroms that these nations faced at the hands of the Black Hundred gangs were far more severe than any oppressed nationality faces today. Yet, despite this oppression, despite these nations, by and large, living in defined geographical areas, we see Lenin advocating not separation, not the setting up of separate states, but advocating “amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities”. This is in stark contrast to those who advocate the setting up of a separate Palestinian state as a solution to the national question in Palestine/Israel. Lenin describes this “advocacy of the division and estrangement of nations” as “absolutely incompatible with proletarian internationalism.”
Lenin on Self-Determination and the Right of Secession
The advocates of a two-state solution, however, base their argument on another facet of Lenin’s writings on the national question i.e. the right of nations to self-determination. So, let us see what Lenin actually had to say on this score.
“We must always and unreservedly work for the very closest unity of the proletariat of all nationalities, and it is only in isolated and exceptional cases that we can advance and actively support demands conducive to the establishment of a new class state or to the substitution of a lesser federal unity etc. for the complete political unity of a state.”
Lenin – “The National Question in Our Programme
“Does recognition of the right of nations to self-determination really imply support of any demand of every nation for self-determination? After all, the fact that we recognise the right of all citizens to form free associations does not at all commit us, Social Democrats, to supporting the formation of any new association; nor does it prevent us from opposing and campaigning against the formation of a given association as an inexpedient and unwise step.”
(ibid)
“… is Social Democracy in duty bound to demand national independence always and unreservedly, or only under certain circumstances;”
“The bourgeois democrat (and the present day socialist opportunist who follows in his footsteps) imagines that democracy eliminates the class struggle, and that is why he presents all his political demands in an abstract way, lumped together, ‘without reservations’, from the standpoint of the ‘whole people’, or even that of an eternal and absolute moral principle. Always and everywhere the Social Democrat ruthlessly exposes this bourgeois illusion, whether it finds expression in an abstract idealist philosophy or in an absolute demand for national independence.”
(ibid)
Much of what Lenin says here is relevant to those who argue for the Two States solution. In their documents they talk about “whole people” i.e. the Palestinian nation or the Jewish nation without making any distinctions in respect of the different interests and motivations of the contending classes within these nations. At the same time the right to self-determination is turned into a kind of absolute moral principle, driving them on to the conclusion that in order to exercise this self-determination each nation must have its own territory, and its own state.
In fact, there is a confusion on their part stemming from a failure to understand the difference between “recognising the right of nations to self-determination” and supporting demands for self-determination. Socialist internationalism requires us to recognise the right of nations to self-determination, and to oppose any attempts by an oppressor state to deny that right to the oppressed nation. But, it does not require us to support the call for self-determination. On the contrary, it requires us to oppose separation except in “isolated and exceptional cases.”
“… a Social Democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation the second word of our general formula: “voluntary integration of nations”.
( Lenin – The Discussion on Self Determination Summed Up )
“People who have not gone into the question thoroughly think that this is ‘contradictory’ for the Social Democrats of oppressor nations to insist on the ‘freedom to secede’, while the Social Democrats of oppressed nations insist on the ‘freedom to integrate.’ However, a little reflection will show that there is not, and cannot be any other road to internationalism and the amalgamation of nations, any other road from the given situation to this goal.”
(ibid)
In other words Marxists in “small nations” have a duty, “except in isolated and exceptional cases” to oppose calls for secession. On the contrary, they should argue for voluntary integration. On the other hand Marxists in the oppressor nation have a duty to stress the right to secede of the oppressed nation. But, even then stressing the right to secede is not the same as advocating or supporting the call for separation. On the contrary, the Marxists in the oppressor nation at the same time as stressing the right to secession would still be bound to oppose such a call, to counterpose working class unity and a fight for the equality of nations within the given state. For example, when devolution was an issue we argued that if Scotland or Wales voted to secede they had a right to do so, but at the same time we argued strongly against secession.
The next question that has to be asked, therefore, is does Israel/Palestine fall into the category of an “isolated and exceptional case”? The feature of Israel/Palestine that makes the problem difficult is that two nations lay claim not to two separate pieces of land, but to the same piece of land. Whilst there are concentrations of each nationality in different areas there is an intermingling of populations throughout the State, and no identifiable or suitable frontiers for a new state. Certainly, a new state on the West Bank and Gaza would leave national minorities trapped in both states. From this standpoint alone, Israel/Palestine does not suggest itself as a suitable candidate.
Lenin was clear on his attitude where there was an intermingling of nations.
“We Latvian Social Democrats, living in an area with a population that is very mixed nationally, we, who are in an environment consisting of representatives of the bourgeois nationalism of the Letts, Russians, Estonians, Germans etc. see with particular clarity the bourgeois falsity of the slogan ‘cultural – national autonomy’. The slogan of the unity of all and every organisation of workers of all nationalities, tested in practice in our own Social Democratic organisation, is particularly dear to us.”
Draft Platform for the Fourth Congress of Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area
So, for Lenin the intermingling of nationalities within one state, far from being one of the ‘isolated and exceptional cases’, in which to advocate the establishment of a new class state, was, in fact, the best condition for illustrating “the bourgeois falsity of the slogan of cultural national autonomy.”
An idea of what kind of “isolated and exceptional cases” Lenin had in mind is given in the following.
“There are two nations in Russia that are more civilised and more isolated by virtue of a number of historical and social conditions and that could most easily, and most ‘naturally’ put into effect their right to secession. They are the peoples of Finland and Poland.”
However,
"The experience of the Revolution of 1905 has shown that even in these two nations, the ruling classes, the landowners and the bourgeoisie, reject the revolutionary struggle for liberty and seek a rapprochement with the ruling classes of Russia and with the Tsarist Monarchy, because of their fear of the revolutionary proletariat of Finland and Poland.
Social Democracy, therefore, must give most emphatic warning to the proletariat and other working people of all nationalities against direct deception by the nationalistic slogans of ‘their own’ bourgeoisie, who with their saccharine or fiery speeches about ‘our native land’ try to divide the proletariat and divert its attention from their bourgeois intrigues while they enter into an economic and political alliance with the bourgeoisie of other nations and with the Tsarist monarchy.”
Lenin – Theses on the National Question
Lenin on “National Culture”
Martin in IB 135, places a lot of emphasis on non-economic oppression of the Palestinians.
“Rosa Luxemburg once commented that no material oppression has ever provoked such tenacious resistance as intellectual, cultural and national oppression.”
Lenin polemicised with the Polish Socialist Party over this issue, and is scathing in his attitude to those who talk of “national culture”.
“Reference is frequently made to Austria in justification of the slogan of ‘national-cultural autonomy’. As far as this reference is concerned it must be remembered that: first, the point of view of the chief Austrian theoretician on the national question, Otto Bauer, (in his book ‘The National Question and Social Democracy), has been recognised as an exaggeration of the national factor and a terrible underestimation of the international factor even by such a cautious writer as Karl Kautsky.”
Draft Platform for the Fourth Congress of Social-Democrats of the Latvian Area
Under the heading “National Culture” in Critical Remarks on the National Question , Lenin comments,
“The slogan of national culture is a bourgeois (and often also a Black Hundred and clerical) fraud. Our slogan is: the international culture of democracy and of the world working class movement.”
And,
“The elements of democratic and socialist culture are present, if only in rudimentary form, in every national culture, since in every nation there are toiling and exploited masses whose conditions of life inevitably give rise to the ideology of democracy and socialism. But, every nation also possesses a bourgeois culture (and most nations a reactionary and clerical culture as well) in the form not merely of ‘elements’ but of the dominant culture. Therefore, the general ‘national culture’ is the culture of the landlords, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. This fundamental and, for a Marxist, elementary truth was kept in the background by the Bundist, who drowned it in his jumble of words, i.e. instead of revealing and clarifying the class gulf to the reader, he in fact obscured it. In fact, the Bundist acted like a bourgeois, whose every interest requires the spreading of a belief in a non-class national culture.”
Further on, Lenin spells things out even more starkly.
“Those who seek to serve the proletariat must unite the workers of all nations, and unswervingly fight bourgeois nationalism, domestic and foreign. The place of those who advocate the slogan of national culture is among the nationalist petty bourgeois, not among the Marxists.”
And,
“Whoever, directly or indirectly, puts forward the slogan of Jewish ‘national culture’ is (whatever his good intentions may be) an enemy of the proletariat, a supporter of all that is outmoded and connected with caste among the Jewish people; he is an accomplice of the rabbis and the bourgeoisie. On the other hand those Jewish Marxists who mingle with the Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other workers in international Marxist organisations, and make their contribution (both in Russian and in Yiddish) towards creating the international culture of the working class movement – those Jews, despite the separatism of the Bund, uphold the best traditions of Jewry by fighting the slogan of ‘national culture’.
Lenin and Equal Rights for Nations Within One State
In IB135, Martin states,
“Generally, no situation of serious national oppression can be resolved by proposing to amalgamate oppressor and oppressed nations on the basis of individual equal rights.”
But again, Lenin argues the opposite. Already, many quotes have been given where Lenin argues for amalgamation rather than separatism as an answer to the national question for the terribly oppressed nations of Tsarist Russia. But, Lenin also had something to say on the question of equal rights too.
In 1914, the RSDLP group in the Duma introduced a “Bill for the Abolition of all Disabilities of the Jews and of all Restrictions on the grounds of Origin or Nationality.” The text of the Bill was printed in Pravda along with a statement. Part of the statement reads,
“It goes without saying that the jewish question can effectively be solved only together with the fundamental issues confronting Russia today. Obviously, we do not look to the nationalist – Purishkevich Fourth Duma to abolish the restrictions against the Jews and other non-Russians. But, it is the duty of the working class to make its voice heard. And the voice of the Russian workers must be particularly loud in protest against national oppression.”
Lenin, in an article in Pravda shortly after wrote,
“It is a point of honour for the Russian workers to have this Bill against national oppression backed by tens of thousands of proletarian signatures and declarations…. This will be the best means of consolidating complete unity, amalgamating all the workers of Russia, irrespective of nationality.”
Where for Martin the idea of equality for separate nations is utopian, for Lenin it was a basic demand around which to mobilise the working class, especially of the oppressing nation, and “the best means of consolidating complete unity, amalgamating all the workers… irrespective of nationality.” Where, for those who support the Two State solution, anti-Jewish sentiment amongst Palestinians on the one hand, and anti-Palestinian sentiment amongst Jews on the other, (i.e. nationalism) is something to be accommodated to by advocating separation, for Lenin it was something to be resolutely, and at all times combated. Where for the Two Statists “national culture” is something important and to be protected, for Lenin it was insignificant compared to international working class culture, and was a “bourgeois (and often Black Hundred and clerical fraud)”. For Lenin, “national culture” was to be opposed by the international working class culture of democracy and socialism.
The United States of Israel and Palestine
I have argued in favour of a United States of Israel and Palestine as a solution to the national question in Israel/Palestine. In my opinion this formula is in accordance with the positions of Lenin on the national question outlined above, and with the method of Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution.
I would outline my basic argument as follows. The Palestinians are an oppressed nation. We support their struggle against oppression. Whist we recognise the right of the Palestinians, in those areas where they are a majority, to secede from Israel, and whilst we oppose any attempts by the Israeli State to deny them that right, we do not advocate or support calls for secession, or for the establishment of a separate state. Instead we call for the greatest possible unity of the Palestinian and Jewish workers in common working class organisations to work towards a working class solution to the national problem, and to the socialist transformation of the existing state.
We oppose the “outmoded”, “bourgeois” concept of “national culture” with the international culture of the working class – democracy and socialism. To the Jewish workers we give the advice of Marx, ”No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations.” The Jewish working class should call for the withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories, and campaign for equality for the Palestinians as “the best means of consolidating complete unity, amalgamating all the workers…irrespective of nationality.”
Opposition to national culture, as Lenin points out, does not mean, for example, that teaching in schools in mainly Palestinian areas should be conducted in Yiddish, or vice versa. It means that there should be no one official language.
“Tiny Switzerland has not lost anything, but has gained having not one single official language, but three – German, French and Italian… If Italians in Switzerland often speak French in their common Parliament they do not do so because they are menaced by some savage police law (there are none such in Switzerland), but because the civilised citizens of a democratic state themselves prefer a language that is understood by a majority”.
Critical Remarks On The National Question
In point 5 of the RSDLP Theses on the National Question (Lenin Collected Works Vol 19) or RSDLP Theses on the National Question the basis for a settlement to the question of national rights is provided.
“All areas of the state that are distinguished by social peculiarities or by the national composition of the population, must enjoy wide self-government and autonomy, with institutions organised on the basis of universal, equal and secret voting.”
Point 6 continues,
“Social-Democrats demand the promulgation of a law, operative throughout the state, protecting the rights of every national minority in no matter what part of the state. This law should declare inoperative any measure by means of which the national majority might attempt to establish privileges for itself or restrict the rights of a national minority (in the sphere of education, in the use of any specific language, in budget affairs, etc.), and forbid the implementation of any such measure by making it a punishable offence.”
I have argued for such an approach in Palestine/Israel so that whilst national majorities could exercise “wide self-government and autonomy it would at the same time “protect the rights of (either) national minority (where they were a minority) in no matter what part of the State.”
“The proletariat cannot achieve freedom other than by revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the tsarist monarchy and its replacement by a democratic republic. The tsarist monarchy precludes liberty and equal rights for nationalities, and is, furthermore, the bulwark of barbarity, brutality and reaction in both Europe and Asia. This monarchy can be overthrown only by the united proletariat of all the nations of Russia, which is giving the lead to consistently democratic elements capable of revolutionary struggle from among the working masses of all nations.”
(ibid)
Similarly, we say to Jewish and Palestinian workers – you cannot achieve freedom other than by revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the Zionist State. The Zionist state precludes liberty both for Jewish and Palestinian workers, and is, furthermore, the bulwark of US imperialism in the Middle East. This state can be overthrown only by the United struggle of Jewish and Palestinian workers.
“In civilised countries we observe a fairly full (relatively) approximation to national peace under capitalism only in conditions of the maximum implementation of democracy throughout the state system and administration (Switzerland). The slogans of consistent democracy (the re public, a militia, civil servants elected by the people, etc.) unite the proletariat and the working people, and, in general, all progressive elements in each nation in the name of the struggle for conditions that preclude even the slightest national privilege—while the slogan of “cultural-national autonomy” preaches the isolation of nations in educational affairs (or “cultural” affairs, in general), an isolation that is quite compatible with the retention of the grounds for all (including national) privileges.
The slogans of consistent democracy unite in a single whole the proletariat and the advanced democrats of all nations (elements that demand not isolation but the uniting of democratic elements of the nations in all matters, including educational affairs), while the slogan of cultural-national autonomy divides the proletariat of the different nations and links it up with the reactionary and bourgeois elements of the separate nations.
The slogans of consistent democracy are implacably hostile to the reactionaries and to the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie of all nations, while the slogan of cultural-national autonomy is quite acceptable to the reactionaries and counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie of some nations.”
(ibid)
Similarly, in Palestine/Israel. Alongside the demands for national equality, we should advocate a struggle for general democratic demands (scrap the standing army, establish a militia, election of all officials etc) “as a means to unite the proletariat unite the proletariat and the working people, and, in general, all progressive elements in each nation in the name of the struggle for conditions that preclude even the slightest national privilege”
But, more is necessary. As Trotsky argues in Permanent Revolution, the only force capable of consistently carrying out the above programme to its conclusion is the working class. Once the Jewish and Palestinian workers have been mobilised around the demands of consistent democracy, Marxists have to deepen the struggle into one for a socialist transformation. We have to link our socialist programme into the Democratic Programme. As Lenin put it,
“… when economic and political issues, and socialist and democratic activities are united into one whole, into the class struggle of the proletariat, this does not weaken but strengthens the democratic movement and the political struggle, by bringing it closer to the real interests of the mass of the people, dragging political issues out of the ‘stuffy studies of the intelligentsia’ into the street, into the midst of the workers and labouring classes, and replacing abstract ideas by real manifestations of political oppression from which the greatest sufferers are the proletariat, and on the basis of which the Social Democrats conduct their agitation.”
(Lenin – “Tasks of the Russian Social Democrats”)
The United Socialist States of the Middle East
Given the sub-imperialist nature of the Israeli State and its role as agent of US imperialism in the region, any Marxist programme must aim to break the link with the US, and unite not only Jewish and Palestinian workers, but the working class of the Middle East in a struggle for a United Socialist States of the Middle East.
At the present time because Jewish workers feel threatened by the surrounding Arab states, there is an understandable (if misguided) feeling of security from having the US as a military shield. (Just as the Falkland islanders looking to the British State for protection against Argentina was understandable if misguided.) Only by uniting the Jewish and Arab working class of the Middle East can that feeling of the need for the support of the US be undermined.
Given the size of the military budget in Israel, Transitional demands calling for a freeze on military spending and a diversion of resources to useful production would find a powerful resonance amongst the Jewish workers once they could be convinced that “their main enemy was at home”. At the same time workers in the Arab states would be strengthened in similar calls for freezing military budgets in their own states, which are themselves motivated on the basis of the threat from Zionist expansion.
The present nation state structures in the Middle East are a barrier to progress. The Palestinians have suffered not only at the hands of the Israeli State, but at the hands of the bourgeois Arab States too. Communalism is rampant in Lebanon, whilst the workers of Iran and Iraq continue to be slaughtered in a war that appears to have no foreseeable end.
Israel is wracked by economic crisis and its economy would sink were it not for the US. Even the oil producing states, despite the investment that has been undertaken, remain rent based economies whose fortunes go up and down with the price of oil. For the workers of the Middle east only a socialist transformation of society, and a socialist federation of the Middle East, offers any prospect of ending communalism and national antagonisms, and of lifting them from grinding poverty in which most of them live.
Algebraic
The slogan of the United States of Israel and Palestine is an algebraic formula. It is not an ultimatistic demand for socialist revolution. On the contrary, it is a demand aimed at the Jewish and Palestinian workers, mobilising them to fight for a consistently democratic solution to the national problem. We seek to deepen that struggle by linking to it Transitional Demands. We say to the workers, “We believe that only a socialist transformation is capable of completely resolving your problems. At present you may not agree with us, and may believe these demands can be met without the need for socialist revolution. We will fight alongside you for those demands and we believe that in the process of the struggle we will convince you that we are right.”
The formulae is algebraic, therefore, in that it mobilises the workers, but does not limit, in advance, the scope of that mobilisation simply to a democratic solution.
The formula is algebraic in another sense too. By focussing on uniting Jewish and Palestinian workers it creates the best conditions for the Palestinians in those areas where they form a majority to secede, if they so choose, and for Jewish Marxists to defend that right against attempts by the Israeli State to prevent it.
Imagine the following scenario. The Jewish and Palestinian workers (or at least a significant section) unite to fight for a United States of Israel and Palestine. However, after a serious struggle they find themselves defeated by the Israeli State. At which point the Palestinian workers say – “o.k. comrades we tried and failed. We want to exercise our democratic right to secede. You have witnessed in struggle that we have no desire to drive you into the sea, and we guarantee that our state will not be used against you. We call on you to defend our right of secession.”
It ought to be clear to anyone that under such conditions of having worked together in joint working class organisations, and taken part in a common struggle, a much better basis is laid for removing the fears of the Jewish workers, and of winning their solidarity than currently exists. Lenin outlines a similar situation vis a vis Norway and Sweden.
“Incidentally, autonomy, as a reform, differs in principle from freedom to secede, as a revolutionary measure. This is unquestionable. But, as everyone knows, in practice, a reform is often merely a step towards revolution. It is autonomy that enables a nation forcibly retained within the boundaries of a given state to crystallise into a nation, to gather, assess and organise its forces, and to select the most opportune moment for a declaration….in the ‘Norwegian’ spirit. We the autonomous diet of such and such a nation, or of such and such a territory, declare that the Emperor of all the Russias has ceased to be King of Poland etc.”
This is still not to say that under such conditions we should advocate secession, but that if such a demand was raised the best conditions would have been created for defending it as a right against the attempts of the Israeli state to prevent it.
Conclusion
I believe that the United States of Israel and Palestine, and the programme outlined above is better than the Democratic Secular State and two States solutions. In my opinion both of the other two solutions are stagist. They put forward the perspective merely of finding a bourgeois democratic solution to the national problem in Palestine/Israel, and leave the question of the struggle for socialism as something to be considered only after the national problem has been resolved.
Both the democratic Secular State and the Two States solutions also accommodate to bourgeois nationalism and fail to locate the working class as the only agent capable of carrying out a consistently democratic solution. Both fail to distinguish between the interests and motivations of the contending classes within the two nations, and so doing sink into accepting the idea that there is some non-class national culture.
Because they are both bourgeois solutions neither of the two alternatives in fact offer a consistently democratic solution. The democratic Secular State would effectively just run the film of the history of Palestine in reverse, whilst the Two State solution would leave large national minorities trapped in each state, and would create the worst possible conditions for guaranteeing the rights of those that were trapped.
I believe, therefore, that we should adopt the slogan of the United States of Israel and Palestine, and the programme that I have outlined as the only solution which is consistently democratic, which counterposes internationalism to nationalism, which “reveals and clarifies the class gulf” rather than “obscuring” it in the concept of "national culture" and talk of “whole people”. It is also the only demand which, by focussing on uniting the working class, as the only force capable of solving the problem, has an inherent class struggle logic into which Marxists can key with appropriate Transitional demands. As such, it is the only solution which puts socialism on the agenda.
No comments:
Post a Comment