Charlie's right in his reply to George, but of course he should have
mentioned the best Marxist treatment of this problem so far, that is
Trotsky's work on the Permanent Revolution.
Based on the work of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and quoting copiously from
them, Trotsky shows how the progress of capitalism has made the bourgeoisie
into a completely non-revolutionary force, even in oppressed and exploited
countries where the bourgeois revolution has still not yet been carried
through.
But, as Charles makes clear, the problems involved in the lack of a
bourgeois revolution are material and by no means merely ideological. And
the fact that the bourgeoisie is incapable of leading a bourgeois
revolution (these days, post-Nicaragua and the Sandinistas, we'd have to
add the petty-bourgeoisie, too, as against what happened in Cuba with the
Castroite guerrilla leadership while the Soviet workers state still existed
as a bridgehead of the proletariat in the worldwide class struggle) -- the
fact that the bourgeoisie is incapable of leading a bourgeois revolution
does NOT mean that these basic democratic demands no longer need to be met.
They do, as we can see every day in the struggles of oppressed
nationalities for basic democratic rights, such as political independence,
national self-determination, an end to slavery (South Africa until a few
years ago, for instance) etc.
However, the great watershed in the revolutionary movement is to be found
between the stage theorists, on the one hand, such as the Stalinists with
their theory of Socialism in One Country (ie socialism can be achieved on a
purely nationalist basis, regardless of the condition of the world market),
Two Stage Revolution (almost pure in Mandela/ANC/SACP South Africa: "first
we carry out the bourgeois revolution, ending "feudalism", slavery,
apartheid (or whatever the superexploitation of the country concerned might
be in each individual case), and only then, when the democratic bourgeois
republic has let the working class develop its forces and the requisite
level of political culture, will we consider the socialist revolution.
This is of course objectively counter-revolutionary.
The way Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky saw it, and this was proved in
practice by October, was that it had become the task of the working class
to lead the popular (non-proletarian) masses in the fight for democratic
rights AT THE SAME TIME and NECESSARILY leading the working class for the
seizure of state power, because only the accession of the working class to
power would provide the social guarantee needed to consolidate and develop
the newly-won rights. Any retaking of power by the bourgeoisie would lead
to an immediate loss of rights or their complete emasculation. When the
Finnish bourgeoisie won the civil war in 1918, for instance, their first
reaction was to look to Germany for a King!! Only the German revolution and
the dumping of the Kaiser stopped that particular piece of historical
lunacy.
All this means that the "global" approach to revolution, which claims that
there are no just national struggles any more, it's all class struggle and
nothing else (eg among Trots, the Sparts and the CWI-Militant) which
renders such positions on Ireland, say, completely useless, fails to see
the dialectic of combined national/popular struggle for democratic rights
and workers struggle for a socialist state. The Bolshevik mass slogans for
October were Bread, Peace, Land -- giving leadership in the mass popular
struggle. This combined with the socialist slogan of power -- All Power to
the Soviets -- brought sufficient force to bear on the Tsarist
reactionaries, the bourgeois counter-revolutionaries and their
petty-bourgeois and labour-aristocrats running dogs that a workers state
was set up and was able to survive the most murderous counter-revolutionary
invasions and internal chaos.
What Stalinism did to this after 1924 is another story, but the need to
understand the Permanent Revolution to understand both national struggles
and revolution worldwide is absolutely clear.
For the best examples of the theory of the Permanent Revolution applied to
history as it happens, read Trotsky on the Chinese Revolution in the late
twenties and on the Spanish Revolution throughout the thirties.
Particularly in the latter case in relation to Catalan nationalism and
potential problems of Balkanization.
Today the focus of course is on Kosova, East Timor and Chechnya, where the
combination of national aspirations and socialist working-class leadership
is conspicuously absent, and the results are accordingly appalling -- for
even if self-determination is achieved, which is a good thing, the class
leadership of the newly independent state will make all the difference as
to whether the new state is economically viable and really independent.
Cheers,
Hugh
==================================
>In feudalism, there were manors, which were self-sufficient economic
>units. With the rise of capitalism, nation-states came about, defined by
>greatly expanded economic linkages, that is a leap in the division of
>labor and socialization of labor. So, in this sense the "nation" is a
>bourgeois entity. But it is not just , ideological, but a material
>reality, a reality in the relations of production. This material reality
>does not contradict your claim that it is in the interests of the
>bourgeoisie, and not the workers of each nation. Marx and Engels reflected
>your sentiment below by their doctrine of proletarian internationalism.
>However, to overcome the nation and nation-state, it is necessary to
>recognize the material or economic as well as ideological nature of them.
>
>Also, there has been in the history of capitalism a partially progressive
>role for organizing anti-colonial liberation movements on the basis of the
>unity of oppressed nations vis-a-vis oppressor imperialist nations.
>
>Today, the big bourgeoisie are becoming significantly transnationalized,
>which introduces another complication. In other words, now it is in the
>interest of the big bourgeoisie to promote the notion of no national
>boundaries in their pursuit of neo-liberal free trade. So soon you may
>find the bourgeoisie promoting ideas similar to yours that the idea of a
>nation is an illusion.
>
>CB
>
>
>
>>>> "George Pennefather" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/26/99 03:25PM >>>
>As I see it "nation" is an ideological construct. It is designed to
>mobilise a cross class
>unity in the interests of the "national" bourgeoisie". The nation as a
>community is an
>expression of the reified nature of social relations among people. The
>nation is a reified
>community. It is a community formed in which there is absent any real
>direct communal
>relations between people. Since it is not directly class based it is, in a
>sense, an
>artificial community based on an idea or concept --the nation. Nation,
>then, is false
>community. It is community based on imagination rather than objective
>conditions. It is an
>idealist community with, in a sense, no real basis in fact. Consequently
>the national
>community is a very irrational community which is very obstructive in the
>development of a
>correct materialist conception of social relations and the nature of
>capitalism.
>
>In short there never have been nor can be nations. It is merely an
>ideological construct.
>It is an idea or image used to regulate and control the behaviour of the
>masses in the
>interests of capitalism.It is a regulative idea or image designed to
>obstruct the working
>class from organising along class line and thereby form a working class
>community and its
>corresponding solidarity.
>
>To instill the illusion that there exist nations the bourgeoisie by means
>of the state
>constrain the working class within specific form of culture and politics.
>They impose on
>the working class a common set of themes: language; sport; art; emblems;
>imagery and
>pageantry. By the time the bourgeoisie are finished with them the working
>class are
>brainwashed into believing that they form part of a particular nation.
>This national
>consciousness is superimposed on class consciousness thereby suppressing
>any sense of
>class consciousness and solidarity.
>
>Warm regards
>George Pennefather
>
>Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at
>http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
>
>
>
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
