Sunday 28 February 2021

Marxism, Zionism and the National Question - Constraints On The Creation of Nation States (5/5)

Marxism, Zionism and the National Question


Constraints On The Creation of Nation States (5/5)


This strategy was developed to deal with a situation where there were numerous actually oppressed nations, as part of the Tsarist Empire. It does not apply, therefore, to say Scotland, which is not oppressed by England, and has shared in the spoils of British imperialism. But, as with Norway and Sweden, Scotland is not equal to England. The experience of Brexit has shown that. Both English and Scottish Marxists must argue that Scottish independence would be a reactionary decision, by dividing Scottish and English workers, yet, here too, the onus rests with English workers and socialists to demand that it is up to the Sots to determine that, free from any restriction imposed on them by the British parliament.

A nation may never establish its own nation state, because a) it is just too small to have been able to create a large single national market, in which capitalism and a bourgeoisie can develop, b) it may be large, but occupies a large territory in which it is dispersed, so that no large local markets for industrial products arise in its towns, so that no basis for capitalist production arises, c) its technological development is at a low level, as with the Asiatic Mode of Production, or the indigenous peoples of North and South America, Australia, and Africa, d) it has been a colony of some other larger nation, or has been annexed by it.

In the case of a), these small nations may overcome this by joining together in a multinational state, or federation. Although, therefore, the nation state may be the ideal form, it is not necessarily the only form in which capitalist development, and the creation of the capitalist state may occur. Switzerland, was one example of such a multinational capitalist state. But, Lenin also sets out why some small nations may seek to remain attached to a larger nation in a multinational state.

“Not only was Austria for a long time a state in which the Germans preponderated, but the Austrian Germans laid claim to hegemony in the German nation as a whole. This “claim”, as Rosa Luxemburg (who is seemingly so averse to commonplaces, platitudes, abstractions...) will perhaps be kind enough to remember, was shattered in the war of 1866. The German nation predominating in Austria found itself outside the pale of the independent German state which finally took shape in 1871. On the other hand, the Hungarians’ attempt to create an independent national state collapsed under the blows of the Russian serf army as far back as 1849.

A very peculiar situation was thus created—a striving on the part of the Hungarians and then of the Czechs, not for separation from Austria, but, on the contrary, for the preservation of Austria’s integrity, precisely in order to preserve national independence, which might have been completely crushed by more rapacious and powerful neighbours! Owing to this peculiar situation, Austria assumed the form of a dual state, and she is now being transformed into a triple state (Germans, Hungarians, Slays).”


But, of course, this joining together into a multinational state was also a feature of the most successful capitalist state of the 19th century – Britain. On the one hand, the English feudal state had arisen after the various kingdoms of the Heptarchy had been unified, but also, as a result of the subordination of the Welsh and Cornish nations. Having formed this English state, however, England also joined together with the Scottish state, in the Act of Union of 1707, creating a multinational British state. This Act of Union, entered into voluntarily on both sides, was however, different to the 1801 Act of Union with Ireland, which amounted essentially to simply a formal annexation of Ireland, in the face of continued opposition by the Irish population.

If we take b), then, an example of how this is again overcome by federation is the creation of the United States, or Canada, or Australia, where sparse settler populations, create a national economy on the basis of bringing together states, which are of a size, which, in Europe, would have justified a single state. This process is facilitated, in all these cases, by the fact that, as settler colonies, the European settlers brought capitalist production, and the market with them. Capitalism, in these cases, does not have to wait for commodity production and exchange to develop sufficiently for capitalism to arise, and so for a bourgeoisie to develop as ruling class, and create a nation state on that basis. This is the same basis upon which Zionism, as also a colonialist ideology, establishes itself in Palestine, with Zionist colonists occupying the land, and directly transferring capitalist production and the capitalist state into it.

In the case of c), such nations inevitably find themselves annexed or colonised, as happened in North and South America, large parts of Asia, and Africa. Capitalism is introduced from outside, leading to a social revolution, which transforms the society. Some small indigenous peoples disappear, others are enslaved, driven on to reservations and so on. Large indigenous populations eventually, and largely on the back of this development, are themselves formed into national movements that seek, and are enabled to win, independence. Marx and Engels speak of true colonies being those where European settlers form the dominant population, such as North and South America, and Australia, as opposed to the situation, as in India, and other parts of Asia and Africa, where they are a minority, and simply subordinate the majority population.

Some have compared the position of Palestinians, in relation to Israel, as being like that of blacks in South Africa under apartheid, but a more accurate parallel is probably that of Native Americans in North America, who were put into reservations. Except, of course, that Native Americans have a right to move out of the reservations, and, also, its recognised that the reservations are under the remit of the US Federal State, even though they enjoy autonomy, and as such, the native Americans enjoy the same political rights of any other US citizen, to be able to vote and to become members of Congress and so on.



No comments: