Why were the Marxists opposed to oppressed nations creating a new class state, or weakening the political unity of existing states? Because they recognised that the drive to the creation of unified nation states, in the 19th century, went along with the development of capitalism, and of national markets, and, for all the reasons Marx described, was an historically progressive development, itself essential to the creation of the economic, social and political structures, required for Socialism, and that process did not end with the creation of the nation state. Just as the process of concentration and centralisation of capital leads to the creation of huge monopolies, and multinational companies, so it also creates a world economy, but also requires the development of ever larger single markets, in which capital operates on a level playing field, with a common currency, fiscal rules and so on. It is what led to the US Civil War to create such a huge single state, and led to WWI and II, and subsequently the creation of the EU.
As Trotsky put it,
“Capitalism has transferred into the field of international relations the same methods applied by it in “regulating” the internal economic life of the nations. The path of competition is the path of systematically annihilating the small and medium-sized enterprises and of achieving the supremacy of big capital. World competition of the capitalist forces means the systematic subjection of the small, medium-sized and backward nations by the great and greatest capitalist powers. The more developed the technique of capitalism, the greater the role played by finance capital, and the higher the demands of militarism, all the more grows the dependency of the small states on the great powers. This process, forming as it does an integral element of imperialist mechanics, flourishes undisturbed also in times of peace by means of state loans, railway and other concessions, military-diplomatic agreements, etc. The war uncovered and accelerated this process by introducing the factor of open violence. The war destroys the last shreds of the “independence” of small states, quite apart from the military outcome of the conflict between the two basic enemy camps.”
In other words, in the age of imperialism, it was simply idealistic, bourgeois-liberalism, utopianism and reactionary to propose breaking up monopolies, and seeking to revert to smaller, competing capitals, and, similarly, to try to stand in the way of these much larger states and economic blocs. The repeated wars between states, and the subjugation of smaller states was the manifestation of that. The only progressive alternative to that, was not a defence of the nation state, but Socialism. Indeed, Trotsky, made precisely that point in respect of Ukraine.
“The Fourth International must clearly understand the enormous importance of the Ukrainian question in the fate not only of Southeastern and Eastern Europe but also of Europe as a whole. We are dealing with a people that has proved its viability, that is numerically equal to the population of France and occupies an exceptionally rich territory which, moreover, is of the highest strategical importance. The question of the fate of the Ukraine has been posed in its full scope. A clear and definite slogan is necessary that corresponds to the new situation. In my opinion there can be at the present time only one such slogan: A united, free and independent workers’ and peasants’ Soviet Ukraine”.
And, in contrast to the social-imperialists of the USC, but also to the social-pacifists of StW, Trotsky goes on,
“This program is in irreconcilable contradiction first of all with the interests of the three imperialist powers, Poland, Rumania, and Hungary. Only hopeless pacifist blockheads are capable of thinking that the emancipation and unification of the Ukraine can be achieved by peaceful diplomatic means, by referendums, by decisions of the League of Nations, etc. In no way superior to them of course are those “nationalists” who propose to solve the Ukrainian question by entering the service of one imperialism against another. Hitler gave an invaluable lesson to those adventurers by tossing (for how long?) Carpatho-Ukraine to the Hungarians who immediately slaughtered not a few trusting Ukrainians. Insofar as the issue depends upon the military strength of the imperialist states, the victory of one grouping or another can signify only a new dismemberment and a still more brutal subjugation of the Ukrainian people, The program of independence for the Ukraine in the epoch of imperialism is directly and indissolubly bound up with the program of the proletarian revolution. It would be criminal to entertain any illusions on this score.”
That is in stark contrast to the bourgeois-nationalists today, who indeed want to resolve Ukraine's fate, by siding with one imperialist bloc or the other, one capitalist class camp or the other. And, indeed, Trotsky's article, discussing the domination of events in Ukraine by the most reactionary elements could have been written about the situation today. He says,
“The worker and peasant masses in the Western Ukraine, in Bukovina, in the Carpatho-Ukraine are in a state of confusion: Where to turn? What to demand? This situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian cliques who express their “nationalism” by seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence.”
No comments:
Post a Comment