ALLIANCE MARXIST-LENINIST (NORTH AMERICA) NUMBER 39: ISSUE MAY 2001
MARX AND ENGELS ON NATIONALISM, AND CLASS STRUGGLE:

Part One: Are Scotland And Wales True Nations?


INTRODUCTION
    Given the extraordinary insights of J.V.Stalin in his classic "The National Question", Marxist-Leninists tend to overlook the writings of Marx and Engels on the National Question. That is to a point acceptable. However, to mis-construe or to selectively quote them, in order to prove a previously held bias, is unacceptable. The appendix carries an exchange in the ISML e-List, showing a tendency in this direction. This was prompted by disagreements upon the "National Question" in - Britain, the United Kingdom, or England, Scotland and Wales.
This article aims to:
First examine the general theory around the National Question as seen by Marx and Engels;
Secondly to briefly re-examine the modern day debate, on the National Question in those islands labeled as "British Isles". We will ask whether from the point of view of Stalin's definition of a nation, Scotland and Wales constitute true "nations"?
       Stalin's definition of a nation is as follows:     We refer the reader to the excellent analysis by the late Comrade W.B.Bland. His article on behalf of the Communist League (Britain)for the NCMLU is at the following Alliance web-site: National Question-Bland. or at the following NCMLU web-site: National Question-Bland.

    Unfortunately Comrade Bland did not conclude his work. In addition, his article was not intended to outline the views of Marx and Engels on Britain in detail. It is these two aspects that form the content of this current article, that is intended to supplement Bland’s analysis.

    Stalin’s article "the National Question" rightly, is a foundation for Marxist-Leninist. But this article, largely reflects the era of mature socialist revolutions and colonial liberation struggles. Earlier Marxist analysis was immersed in problems of nation building in the era of capitalist democratic revolution against feudalism, especially in Western Europe.

    There are three broad periods of step-wise developments in the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint on the National Question. These may be summarised as follows:

    This framework models the main contributions made by Marx and Engels, Lenin, and finally Stalin, to the National Question. Marx and Engels pioneered the analysis of colonialism as their articles on India, China and Ireland testify. But, their immediate revolutionary problems centred on the transition in Western Europe, from the feudal mode of production to a capitalist one. Similarly, Lenin did assist translating theory into the practice of forming a multi-national socialist society. But he was centred on the two-stage revolution in Russia, and the bulk of creation of a multi-national socialist society occurred after his death, under Stalin’s leadership.

    The modern current situation follows a temporary defeat of socialism world-wide, with a resurgence of imperialism. Naturally this situation had not been analysed by Marx, Engels, Lenin or Stalin.

    This modern current situation, has resulted in a heightened alienation of workers. In Scotland and Wales, this has becomes transformed into "national hopes", for the quiescent-dormant remnants of nations. These had never resolved their "national" cultural wishes. Had socialism been developed, these remnant nations could have been enabled into a socialist federation. But in the current lull in the working class movement, such stalled grievances are frequently re-lit as a mythical  "national solution" for the working class.

    But this "solution" is a false path. Coming as it does: Within the era of resurgent imperialism; in these countries where all feudal transitions have been long effected; when the economic integration with England has long been completed; and when the socialist revolutionary era is now longer just dawning but is at least at midday.
    This Nationalist false by-way, only divides the working class further and even more delays the working class goal – Socialism.

Alliance has previously examined the National Question, largely with reference to the works of Lenin and Stalin. We noted relevant writings of Marx and Engels, as for instance upon the United States of America. However, we have not focused on Marx and Engels vis-à-vis the national question.

    It is time that this omission, be rectified in our view. Current fashions, set by Trotskyites such as Tom Nairn, dictate that Marx and Engels "did not analyse the British experience". Nairn writes:

"The marked deficiencies of analysis have unfortunately an influential origin in the history of British writing: The deficiencies of Marx and Engels’ own views on the British state. …. From mid century onwards the main theorists of the following century’s revolutions lived in the most developed capitalist society, …Yet they wrote very little on its state and hegemonic structures. Their long exile coincided largely with an era of quiescence and growing stability in Britain, and this seems to have rendered them largely incurious about their immediate political milieu. The absence of curiosity led them to persist in a view (very marked in other occasional letters and articles on Britain) of the state as a façade or mask of capitalist realties".
Nairn Tom; "The Break-Up of Britain"; London; 1977; page 18-19.     Epriam Nimni takes a step further, and insists that Marx and Engels were "insensitive " to the national question. Unsurprisingly Nimni finds that the only ‘Marxist" that is sensitive to the "multidimensionality of the national problem" is Otto Bauer: "Marx and Engels were, to put it mildly, impatient with and intolerant of ethnic minorities. This is clear from their private correspondence, the most infamous example of which is the characterisation of Lassalle as a "Jewish Nigger"…….
Only those Marxist theories capable of breaking with the abortive rigidities of the above named parameters (i.e. of Marx and Engels-Editor) have managed to provide a more sensitive analysis of the national phenomena. The work of Otto Bauer and the Austro-Marxists would be the single most important exception to this misleading stance of classical Marxism."
Nimni, Ephraim: "Nationalism And Marxism Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis"; London 1991; p.30; p.42-43.     Tom Nairn is to the British ‘left’, the prime exponent of ‘national’ separation. Regrettably this influence has now influenced Marxist-Leninists. We highlight Marx and Engels own views, to assist in debunking both Nairn and Nimni. At the same time, some Marxist-Leninists also calim that Marx and Engels viewed Scotland and Wales as nations that should be supported as such.
    To garner Marx and Engels as authoritative supports of Welsh and Scottish nationalism was the aim of recent exchanges on the International Struggle Marxist-Leninist e-list [See Appendix]. If true, their view would be potent, as Marx and Engels lived in Britain for a large part of their lives [and contrary to Nairn] played an active role in the working class and progressive movements of their adopted country.


Outline of Text     We argue that Marx and Engels recognised only two unequivocal nations in the sceptr’ed Isle – Britain [Sometimes they called it England] and Ireland.

Part One: THE NATIONAL QUESTION ACCORDING TO MARX AND ENGELS

Overall Synopsis: General key concepts on nation formation: Marx and Engels assessed each national claim and movement from the vantage point of the working class. This required an analysis of each national movement’s contribution to the overall political movement of the working class – both nationally and internationally.

i) The Marxist final goal: Formation of a class with one goal – socialism;
Synopsis: Marx and Engels argued that nationalist interests could not distract the working class from their final goal - socialism. But the working class needed to capture national state power as an interim step. They saw the culmination of bourgeois society as "civil society" – a highly centralized state that began to exert an international erosive power on the world’s nationalities.
    Marx and Engels discovered that revolutions in the mode of production both enabled and demanded societal changes. This intellectual discovery was the foundation of historical materialism. This philosophy allowed a view of how the modern state had come into being. The process of the formation of the "Civil Society", was therefore the result of a real social history, not dependent upon theories, mankind’s wishes, nor on Statecraft and the actions of ‘princes’: "The form of intercourse determined by the existing productive forces at all previous historical stages, and in its turn determining these, is civil society. The latter, as is clear from what we have said above, has as its premises and basis the simple family and the multiple, the so-called tribe…. Already here we see how this civil society is the true source and theatre of all history, and how absurd is the conception of history held hitherto, which neglects the real relationships and confines itself to high-sounding dramas of princes and states."
Marx Karl and Engels Frederick: "The German Ideology"; "Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition Of The Materialist And Idealist Outlook [5.Development of the Productive Forces As a Material Premise of Communism]"; Volume 5; Moscow; 1976; p.50. or a version is at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845-gi/part_b.htm#b1     This real social history had created the necessity for a centralized state, a need voiced as society emerged from the "ancient and medieval communal society". It was from the beginning, a need expressed by the bourgeoisie for their society - bürgerliche Gesellschaft: "Civil society embraces the whole material intercourse of individuals within a definite stage of the development of productive forces. It embraces the whole commercial and industrial life of a given stage and, insofar, transcends the State and the nation, though, on the other hand again, it must assert itself in its foreign relations as nationality, and inwardly must organise itself as State. The word "civil society" [bürgerliche Gesellschaft] emerged in the eighteenth century, when property relationships had already extricated themselves from the ancient and medieval communal society. Civil society as such only develops with the bourgeoisie; the social organisation evolving directly out of production and commerce, which in all ages forms the basis of the State and of the rest of the idealistic superstructure, has, however, always been designated by the same name".
Marx Karl and Engels Frederick: "The German Ideology"; "Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition Of The Materialist And Idealist Outlook [10.The Necessity, Preconditions & Consequences of the Abolition of Private Property.]"; Volume 5; Moscow; 1976; p.89. or a version is at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845-gi/part_b.htm#b1     As history wore on, it evolved a force that transcended narrow national boundaries and eroded national isolation, creating a "world history": "History is nothing but the succession of the separate generations, each of which exploits the materials, the capital funds, the productive forces handed down to it by all preceding generations, and thus, on the one hand, continues the traditional activity in completely changed circumstances and, on the other, modifies the old circumstances with a completely changed activity. …..
The further the separate spheres, which interact on one another, extend in the course of this development, the more the original isolation of the separate nationalities is destroyed by the developed mode of production and intercourse, and the division of labour between various nations naturally brought forth by these, the more history becomes world history. Thus, for instance, if in England a machine is invented, which deprives countless workers of bread in India and China, and overturns the whole form of existence of these empires, this invention becomes a world-historical fact. Or again, take the case of sugar and coffee which have proved their world-historical importance in the nineteenth century by the fact that the lack of these products, occasioned by the Napoleonic Continental System, caused the Germans to rise against Napoleon, and thus became the real basis of the glorious Wars of liberation of 1813. From this it follows that this transformation of history into world history is not indeed a mere abstract act on the part of the "self-consciousness", the world spirit, or of any other metaphysical spectre, but a quite material, empirically verifiable act, an act the proof of which every individual furnishes as he comes and goes, eats, drinks and clothes himself."
Marx Karl and Engels Frederick: "The German Ideology"; "Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition Of The Materialist And Idealist Outlook [6. Conclusions From the Materialist Conception of History: History as a continuous Process, History as Becoming World History, The necessity of Communist Revolution]"; Volume 5; Moscow; 1976; p.50-51. or a version is at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845-gi/part_b.htm#b1     In all this momentous change, what attitude was the working class to take? The main aim for Marx and Engels was unequivocally the seizure of state power by the Working peoples. This was something that was getting closer, as capital "centralised" and "divided" society more and more. The ‘nation’ of which Engels wrote his famous book "The Condition of the Working Class in England", showed the "inevitability" of the coming crisis:     As the priority of the working class was the social revolution, it naturally meant that they should not be fooled into narrower goals such as nationalism. But Marx and Engels were not Utopians, and saw that the first immediate step was the winning of state power by the working class – it must become "the leading class of the nation".
    It was only in this sense that the working class was "national".
    There was little doubt that the working class victory in several countries, would allow the dissipation of national wars and jealousies. This is expressed in their famous Communist Manifesto as follows: " The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word. National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.
The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end."
Marx Karl, Engels Frederick: Manifesto of the Communist Party": 1848; In Collected Works; Volume 6; Moscow 1976; pp. 502-03. Or at: http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/CM47.html#s2 The bourgeoisie had managed to break all national boundaries and were sweeping all parts of the world into one vast market: "The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures there arises a world-literature."
Marx Karl, Engels Frederick: Manifesto of the Communist Party": 1848; In Collected Works; Volume 6;Moscow 1976; 486. Or at: http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/CM47.html#s2     In all this, the revolutionary goal remained to achieve power. What situations were the most conducive to that goal? It was only democratic states that could sweep away vestiges of feudalism. It was this that impelled Marx and Engels to support revolutionary democratic struggles resulting in the bourgeois revolution – as a prelude to the proletarian revolution: "The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.. . . . The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution."
Mrax And Engels: "The Communist Manifesto"; Ibid; IV: Position Of The Communists In Relation To The Various Existing Opposition Parties" CW Volume 6; p. 518-9. Or at: http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/CM47.html#s4

ii) The Dialectical View of Nations: Some have a future and some have a past; The Case Of German States Taking Over Polish and Bohemian Slavonic lands
Synopsis: Marx and Engels recognised that nations came into being and died. Those that died were absorbed by more vigorous nations. However even when absorbed, remnants would often try to gain national status. In the case of Poland – this was progressive as it eroded both German and Russian imperial absolutism. For other nations – those in the "South Slavonic" grouping, their resort to reactionary alliances such as the Pan-Slavic League dominated by Russia rendered them insupportable. Support to a national struggle was not immediate, but contingent on the overall goals of the international working class.

    For Marx and Engels, all national movements were seen through the prism of one over-riding goal: Namely, to break feudalism, smash absolutist states, and assist the rise of democratic states. This alone could give the best lift-off to the take-over of the state by workers and would assist the workers revolution.
    Marx and Engels recognised that national states come into being and pass out of being. They argued that nations that were waning would not disappear quickly, nor even without attempts at re-establishing a claim to nationhood. To re-establish such a claim, some nations (or remnants of nations) might even ally themselves to reactionary causes. But if they did that, they ran the risk of completely relinquishing whatever historical ‘rights’ they claimed.
    In fact Marx and Engels distinguished between the national question of Poland and that of Bohemia and Croatian precisely because of this. It is well known that Marx and Engels supported the cause of Poland’s national independence. It is less understood that they repudiated the case for Czech independence. What were their grounds for this difference?
    We review the penetration by first German nobles, then by the German trading and manufacturing middle classes, into Slavonic Europe. Engels pointed out that a general process had occurred whereby the "Tschechs" – or Czechs and Poles were overtaken by a more dynamic social grouping of German nationality. The process is similar to that of the colonial penetration of imperialism into colonies:

    "The whole of the eastern half of Germany as far as the Elbe, Saale and Bohemian Forest, has as it well known, been re-conquered during the last thousand years from invaders of Slavonic origin. The greater part of these territories have been Germanised to the perfect extinction of all Slavonic nationality and language……
    But the case is different along the whole of the frontier of ancient Poland and in the countries of the Tshechian tongue, in Bohemia and Morovia. Here the two nationalities are mixed up in every district, the towns being more or less German while the Slavonic elements prevails in the rural villages, where however it is also gradually disintegrated and forced back by the steady advance of German influence…"
    Engels, Frederick : "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: VIII. Poles, Tschechs, And Germans"; 1852.; In Collected Works Marx and Engels; Volume 11; Moscow 1979; p. 43; Or At:
    http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s8
    Underlying the new domination is the superior social level, consistent with the more advanced mode of production that the Germans had adopted:
    "The Slavonians, and particularly the Western Slavonians (Poles and Tschechs), are essentially an agricultural race; trade and manufactures never were in great favor with them. The consequence was that, with the increase of population and the origin of cities in these regions, the production of all articles of manufacture fell into the hands of German immigrants, and the exchange of these commodities against agricultural produce became the exclusive monopoly of the Jews, who, if they belong to any nationality, are in these countries certainly rather Germans than Slavonians. . . . . The importance of the German element in the Slavonic frontier localities, thus rising with the growth of towns, trade and manufactures, was still increased when it was found necessary to import almost every element of mental culture from Germany; after the German merchant and handicraftsman, the German clergyman, the German schoolmaster, the German savant came to establish himself upon Slavonic soil. And lastly, the iron thread of conquering armies, or the cautious, well-premeditated grasp of diplomacy, not only followed, but many times went ahead of the slow but sure advance of denationalization by social development. Thus, great parts of Western Prussia and Posen have been Germanized since the first partition of Poland, by sales and grants of public domains to German colonists, by encouragements given to German capitalists for the establishment of manufactories, etc., in those neighborhoods, and very often, too, by excessively despotic measures against the Polish inhabitants of the country."
    Frederick Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: VIII. Poles, Tschechs, And Germans"; 1852.; In Collected Works Marx and Engels; Volume 11; Moscow 1979; p. 44-46; or at:
    http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s8
    This was the climate up to 1848 – a seamless penetration of German capital, which led to German domination over Poland. The 1848 Revolution struck the notes of national liberation however, and this awakened the Polish aspirations:
    "In this manner the last seventy years had entirely changed the line of demarcation between the German and Polish nationalities. The Revolution of 1848 calling forth at once the claim of all oppressed nations to an independent existence, and to the right of settling their own affairs for themselves, it was quite natural that the Poles should at once demand the restoration of their country within the frontiers of the old Polish Republic before 1772."
    Frederick Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: VIII. Poles, Tschechs, And Germans"; 1852.; In Collected Works Marx and Engels; Volume 11; Moscow 1979; p. 45; Or a version is at:
    http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s8
    What policy should progressive Germans support, asked Engels? He recognised that the people of Poland had been over-taken by an apparently more advanced society in the first place:
    "Should whole tracts of land, inhabited chiefly by Germans, should large towns, entirely German, be given up to a people that as yet had never given any proofs of its capability of progressing beyond a state of feudalism based upon agricultural serfdom? The question was intricate enough."
    Frederick Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: VIII. Poles, Tschechs, and Germans"; 1852.; In Collected Works Marx and Engels; Volume 11; Moscow 1979; p. 45; or a version is at:
    http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s8
    This would imply that the national rights of Poland were not predominant in the equation. Nonetheless, for Engels, the solution demanded that all geopolitical forces be resolved in a simultaneous equation. This therefore, of necessity had to include the major absolutist state left that threatened European working class aspirations– i.e. Russia. In this transformed equation, the ‘advanced party’ in Germany would have to support Polish national Statehood, regardless that the ‘middle classes’ fearing revolutionary spirit would reject Polish nationhood:
    "The only possible solution was in a war with Russia. The question of delimitation between the different revolutionized nations would have been made a secondary one to that of first establishing a safe frontier against the common enemy. The Poles, by receiving extended territories in the east, would have become more tractable and reasonable in the west; and Riga and Milan would have been deemed, after all, quite as important to them as Danzig and Elbing. Thus the advanced party in Germany, deeming a war with Russia necessary to keep up the Continental movement, and considering that the national re-establishment even of a part of Poland would inevitably lead to such a war, supported the Poles; while the reigning middle class partly clearly foresaw its downfall from any national war against Russia, which would have called more active and energetic men to the helm, and, therefore, with a feigned enthusiasm for the extension of German nationality, they declared Prussian Poland, the chief seat of Polish revolutionary agitation, to be part and parcel of the German Empire that was to be. The promises given to the Poles in the first days of excitement were shamefully broken. Polish armaments got up with the sanction of the Government were dispersed and massacred by Prussian artillery; and as soon as the month of April, 1848, within six weeks of the Berlin Revolution, the Polish movement was crushed, and the old national hostility revived between Poles and Germans. This immense and incalculable service to the Russian autocrat was performed by the Liberal merchant-ministers, Camphausen and Hansemann."
    Frederick Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: VIII. Poles, Tschechs, And Germans"; 1852.; In Collected Works Marx and Engels; Volume 11; Moscow 1979; p. 45; Or a version is at: http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s8
    The other main area of German penetration, which led in 1848 to a revival of the National question was Bohemia . This is now the site of modern day Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. There, Engels argued that a national struggle should not be supported. Engels outlined why he held a view that "Bohemia could only exist .. as a portion of Germany" - as follows:
    "The question of nationality gave rise to another struggle in Bohemia. This country, inhabited by two millions of Germans, and three millions of Slavonians of the Tschechian tongue, had great historical recollections, almost all connected with the former supremacy of the Tschechs. But then the force of this branch of the Slavonic family had been broken ever since the wars of the Hussites in the fifteenth century. The province speaking the Tschechian tongue was divided, one part forming the kingdom of Bohemia, another the principality of Moravia, a third the Carpathian hill-country of the Slovaks, being part of Hungary. The Moravians and Slovaks had long since lost every vestige of national feeling and vitality, although mostly preserving their language. Bohemia was surrounded by thoroughly German countries on three sides out of four. The German element had made great progress on her own territory; even in the capital, in Prague, the two nationalities were pretty equally matched; and everywhere capital, trade, industry, and mental culture were in the hands of the Germans. . . . . .
    But as it often happens, dying Tschechian nationality, dying according to every fact known in history for the last four hundred years, made in 1848 a last effort to regain its former vitality — an effort whose failure, independently of all revolutionary considerations, was to prove that Bohemia could only exist, henceforth, as a portion of Germany, although part of her inhabitants might yet, for some centuries, continue to speak a non-German language."
    Frederick Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: VIII. Poles, Tschechs, And Germans"; 1852.; In Collected Works Marx and Engels; Volume 11; Moscow 1979; p. 46; or a version is at: http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s8
    Engels was so negative about the outlook for Bohemia-Czech-Moravian nationalism because of two factors:
    Firstly its historic role had been superseded by a more dynamic nation – that of Germany, as outlined by him above; and
    Secondly because it had allied itself to a reactionary dangerous enemy of the entire European working class that threatened its’ single ultimate aim: Socialism. This enemy was Russia (and also Austria at times), and the joint movement where the smaller Slavonic nationalisms united together with Russia, adopted the name Pan-Slavism.
    Engels analysed Pan-Slavism as a reactionary force, a force that incidentally is still bruited at various times even nowadays by those who claim "Marxist-Leninist" views. In contrast to them, on "Pan-Slavism", Engels was firm.
    Engels described the various nationalities comprising the allied movement, as having an overall aim of "subjugating the civilized West under the barbarian East":
    "Bohemia and Croatia (another disjected member of the Slavonic family, acted upon by the Hungarian, as Bohemia by the German) were the homes of what is called on the European continent "Panslavism." Neither Bohemia nor Croatia was strong enough to exist as a nation by herself. Their respective nationalities, gradually undermined by the action of historical causes that inevitably absorbs into a more energetic stock, could only hope to be restored to anything like independence by an alliance with other Slavonic nations. There were twenty-two millions of Poles, forty-five millions of Russians, eight millions of Serbians and Bulgarians; why not form a mighty confederation of the whole eighty millions of Slavonians, and drive back or exterminate the intruder upon the holy Slavonic soil, the Turk, the Hungarian, and above all the hated, but indispensable Niemetz, the German? Thus in the studies of a few Slavonian dilettanti of historical science was this ludicrous, this anti-historical movement got up, a movement which intended nothing less than to subjugate the civilized West under the barbarian East, the town under the country, trade, manufactures, intelligence, under the primitive agriculture of Slavonian serfs."
    Frederich Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: IX. Panslavism--The Schleswig-Holstein War"; 1852. In Marx And Engels Collected Works; Volume 11, Moscow; 1979; pp. 46-47.  Or at:  http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s9
    Engels pointed to the real political reality and force, which could effect this wish for nationalism. This real force was the counter-revolutionary Russian Absolutist State:
    "But behind this ludicrous theory stood the terrible reality of the Russian Empire; that empire which by every movement proclaims the pretension of considering all Europe as the domain of the Slavonic race, and especially of the only energetic part of this race, of the Russians; that empire which, with two capitals such as St. Petersburg and Moscow, has not yet found its centre of gravity, as long as the "City of the Czar" (Constantinople, called in Russian Tzarigrad, the Czar's city), considered by every Russian peasant as the true metropolis of his religion and his nation, is not actually the residence of its Emperor; that empire which, for the last one hundred and fifty years, has never lost, but always gained territory by every war it has commenced. And well known in Central Europe are the intrigues by which Russian policy supported the new-fangled system of Panslavism, a system than which none better could be invented to suit its purposes. Thus, the Bohemian and Croatian Panslavists, some intentionally, some without knowing it, worked in the direct interest of Russia; they betrayed the evolutionary cause for the shadow of a nationality which, in the best of cases, would have shared the fate of the Polish nationality under Russian sway. It must, however, be said for the honor of the Poles, that they never got to be seriously entangled in these Pan-slavist traps, and if a few of the aristocracy turned furious Pan-slavists, they knew that by Russian subjugation they had less to lose than by a revolt of their own peasant serfs. The Bohemians and Croatians called, then, a general Slavonic Congress at Prague, for the preparation of the universal Slavonian Alliance. This Congress would have proved a decided failure even without the interference of the Austrian military."
    Frederich Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: IX. Pan-Slavism--The Schleswig-Holstein War"; 1852. In Marx And Engels Collected Works; Volume 11, Moscow; 1979; pp. 47.
    Or a version is at: http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s9
    It was primarily on these grounds that Marx and Engels consistently supported the Polish movement. It will be remembered that the Polish revolt precipitated a movement for international solidarity that resulted in the First International – the International Working Mens’ Association (IWMA):
    "You say:
    "That the imperial yoke oppressing Poland is a brake equally hampering the political and social emancipation of both nations- the Russian just as much as the Polish";
    You might add that Russia’s violent conquest of Poland provide a pernicious support and real reason for the existence of a military regime in Germany, and as a consequence, on the whole Content. Therefore workmen, on breaking Poland’s chains, Russian socialists take on themselves the lofty task of destroying the military regime: that is essential as a precondition for the general emancipation of the European proletariat."
    Marx, Karl: The General Council of the International Working Men’s Association to Committee Members of the Russian Section in Geneva."; March 24th, 1870; London. In Collected Works; Volume 21: Moscow 1981; p.110.
    Consistently the diplomatic writings of Marx and Engels sounded the theme of vigilance against Russian absolutism. This was one of the reasons for their opposition to Mikhail Bakunin who supported Pan-Slavism, who had formed a secret alliance with Russian absolutism.
    The whole area’s history was redolent of the birth and the dying of nations. Marx and Engels felt that this was not only the story of the Germanic and Slavonic areas of Europe, it was the story of the entire area of Europe and even beyond – to the Americas:
    "Thus ended for the present, and most likely for ever, the attempts of the Slavonians of Germany to recover an independent national existence. Scattered remnants of numerous nations, whose nationality and political vitality had long been extinguished, and who in consequence had been obliged, for almost a thousand years, to follow in the wake of a mightier nation, their conqueror, the same as the Welsh in England, the Basques in Spain, the Bas-Bretons in France, and at a more recent period the Spanish and French Creoles in those portions of North America occupied of late by the Anglo-American race - these dying nationalities, the Bohemians, Carinthians, Dalmatians, etc., had tried to profit by the universal confusion of 1848, in order to restore their political status quo of A. D. 800. The history of a thousand years ought to have shown them that such a retrogression was impossible; that if all the territory east of the Elbe and Saale had at one time been occupied by kindred Slavonians, this fact merely proved the historical tendency, and at the same time physical and intellectual power of the German nation to subdue, absorb, and assimilate its ancient eastern neighbors; that this tendency of absorption on the part of the Germans had always been, and still was one of the mightiest means by which the civilization of Western Europe had been spread in the east of that continent; that it could only cease whenever the process of Germanization had reached the frontier of large, compact, unbroken nations, capable of an independent national life, such as the Hungarians, and in some degree the roles: and that, therefore, the natural and inevitable fate of these dying nations was to allow this process of dissolution and absorption by their stronger neighbors to complete itself. Certainly this is no very flattering prospect for the national ambition of the Pan-slavistic dreamers who succeeded in agitating a portion of the Bohemian and South Slavonian people; but can they expect that history would retrograde a thousand years in order to please a few phthisical bodies of men, who in every part of the territory they occupy are interspersed with and surrounded by Germans, who from time almost immemorial have had for all purposes of civilization no other language but the German, and who lack the very first conditions of national existence, numbers and compactness of territory? Thus, the Pan-Slavistic rising, which everywhere in the German and Hungarian Slavonic territories was the cloak for the restoration to independence of all these numberless petty nations, everywhere clashed with the European revolutionary movements, and the Slavonians, although pretending to fight for liberty, were invariably (the Democratic portion of the Poles excepted) found on the side of despotism and reaction. Thus it was in Germany, thus in Hungary, thus even here and there in Turkey. Traitors to the popular cause, supporters and chief props to the Austrian Government's cabal, they placed themselves in the position of outlaws in the eyes of all revolutionary nations."
    Frederick Engels: "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: XIV. The Restoration Of Order—Diet And Chamber"; 1852; In Marx And Engels Collected Works; Volume 11, Moscow; 1979; pp. 70-71. Or a version is at: http://www.marx2mao.org//M&E/RCR51.html#s14
    On the whole, the main reason that the bourgeoisie may not achieve their historical role of actually forming a nation - is dominance by a more vigorous nation. However, another element may enter the drama – that is the fear of the bourgeoisie that they cannot restrain their own working class from further revolution:
    "It is a peculiarity of the bourgeoisie, in contrast to all other ruling classes, that there is a turning point in its development after which every further expansion of its agencies of power, hence primarily of its capital, only tends to make it more and more unfit for political rule. "Behind the big bourgeoisie stand the proletarians". In proportion as the bourgeoisie develops its industry, commerce, and means of communication, it increases the numbers of the proletariat. At a certain point - which is not necessarily reached everywhere at the same time or at the same stage of development - it begins to notice that its proletarian double is outgrowing it. From that moment on, it loses the strength required for exclusive political rule; it looks around for allies with whom to share its rule, or to whom to cede it entirely, as circumstances may require. These allies are all reactionary by nature."
    Engels,Frederick : "The Peasant War In Germany" - Engels' Preface To The Second Edition of 1870; Collected Works; Moscow 1985; Volume 21; p.97; Another translation of this is to be found at : http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850-pwg/pwg0a.htm

iii) Workers of one nation, must assess whether a given national struggle furthers the ultimate goals of the international working class
Synopsis: The workers of an oppressing nation must break ranks with their own bourgeoisie and support the struggle of the workers of the oppressed nations. Unless the workers of the oppressing nation do this, they will not be able to free themselves.

    The workers of an oppressing nation must recognise that their own revolution demands that they support the oppressed nation, against their own bourgeoisie. This was especially so for England, which Marx felt could not be treated simply as any country, along with all other countries. It must be treated as "the metropolis of capital."
    England was in a special status since it had outstripped the world in the degree to which it had become the state home of full blown un-restrained capital:

"Although revolutionary initiative will probably come from France, England alone can serve as the lever for a serious economic Revolution. It is the only country where there are no more peasants and where landed property is concentrated in a few hands. It is the only country where the capitalist form, that is to say, combined labour on a large scale under capitalist masters, now embraces virtually the whole of production. It is the only country where the great majority of the population consists of WAGES-LABOURERS. It is the only country where the class struggle and the organisation of the working class by the TRADES UNIONS have acquired a certain degree of maturity and universality. It is the only country where, because of its domination on the world market, every revolution in economic matters must immediately affect the whole world. If landlordism and capitalism are classical features in England, on the other hand, the material conditions for their destruction are the most mature here. …...England cannot be treated simply as a country along with other countries. It must be treated as the metropolis of capital".
Marx, Karl: "Letter to Dr Kugelmann"; March 28; 1870: In Collected Works; Volume 21: Moscow; 1985; pp.118-119; OR at:  http://www.geocities.com/hari6kumar/amarx-confidential.html      But if England was the fulcrum of world capitalism, the fulcrum of the English revolution was in Ireland, and the British workers should recognise that they could not participate in the enslavement of the Irish worker – if only in order to obtain their own liberation from capital: "5) Question of the General Council Resolutions on the Irish Amnesty.
If England is the BULWARK of landlordism and European capitalism, the only point where official England can be struck a great blow is Ireland. In the first place, Ireland is the BULWARK of English landlordism. If it fell in Ireland, it would fall in England. In Ireland this is a hundred times easier because the economic struggle there is concentrated exclusively on landed property, because this struggle is at the same time national, and because the people there are more revolutionary and more exasperated than in England. Landlordism in Ireland is maintained solely by the English army. The moment the forced Union between the two countries ends, a social revolution will immediately break out in Ireland, though in outmoded forms. English landlordism would not only lose a great source of its wealth, but also its greatest moral force, i.e., that of representing the domination of England over Ireland. On the other hand, by maintaining the power of its landlords in Ireland, the English proletariat makes them invulnerable in England itself. "
Marx Karl: "Letter to Dr Kugelmann"; March 28; 1870: In Collected Works; Volume 21: Moscow; 1985; pp.119-120; or at: Kugelmann     Not only was support to the Irish struggle imperative from the point of view of the revolutionary balance of forces, it was also imperative because the forced emigration of the poverty stricken Irish had created a "divide-and-rule" situation whereby the capitalist could use division to his own immediate ends: "In the second place, the English bourgeoisie has not only exploited Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irishmen, but it has also divided the proletariat into two hostile camps. The revolutionary fire of the Celtic worker does not go well with the solid but slow nature of the Anglo-Saxon worker. On the contrary, in all the big industrial centres in England there is profound antagonism between the Irish proletarian and the English proletarian. The average English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers wages and the STANDARD OF LIFE. He feels national and religious antipathies for him. He regards him somewhat like the POOR WHITES of the Southern States of North America regarded black slaves. This antagonism among the proletarians of England is artificially nourished and kept up by the bourgeoisie. It knows that this scission is the true secret of maintaining its power.
Moreover, this antagonism is reproduced on the other side of the Atlantic. The Irish, chased from their native soil by the bulls and the sheep, reassemble in the United States where they constitute a huge, ever-growing section of the population. Their only thought, their only passion, is hatred for England. The English and American governments - that is to say, the classes they represennt-play on these feelings in order to perpetuate the international struggle which prevents any serious and sincere alliance between the working classes on both sides of the Atlantic, and, consequently, their common emancipation."
Marx Karl: "Letter to Dr Kugelmann"; March 28; 1870: In Collected Works; Volume 21: Moscow; 1985; p.119-120.
http://www.geocities.com/hari6kumar/amarx-confidential.html     In Conclusion, the workers of England should recognize that "any people that oppresses another people forges its own chains". To this end the IWMA adopted resolutions for the Irish struggle, moved by Marx: "Ireland is the only pretext the English Government has for retaining a big standing army, which, if need be, As has happened before, can be used against the English workers after having done its military training in Ireland.
Lastly, England today is seeing a repetition of what happened on a monstrous scale in ancient Rome. Any people that oppresses another people forges its own chains.
Thus, the position of the International Association with regard to the Irish question is very clear. Its first concern is to advance the social revolution in England. To this end a great blow must be struck in Ireland. The General Council's resolutions on the Irish amnesty serve only as an introduction to other resolutions which will affirm that, quite apart from international justice, it is a precondition to the emancipation of the English working class to transform the present forced Union – i.e., the enslavement of Ireland - into equal and free confederation if possible, into complete separation if need be." Marx Karl: "Letter to Dr Kugelmann"; March 28; 1870: In Collected Works; Volume 21: Moscow; 1985; p.120-121; or at:
http://www.geocities.com/hari6kumar/amarx-confidential.html

"After studying the Irish question for years I have come to the conclusion that the decisive blow against the ruling classes in England (and this is decisive for the workers’ movement ALL OVER THE WORLD) CANnot be struck in England, but only in Ireland. …Ireland is the BULWARK of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of this country is not simply one of the main sources of their material wealth: it is their greatest moral power. They represent, IN FACT, the domination of England over Ireland. Ireland is thus the, grand moyen [cardinal means] by which the English aristocracy maintains its domination in England itself."
Marx to Meyer & Vogt. 9th April 1870. In Collected Works Volume 43; Moscow; 1988;pp471-476.

 Conclusion to Part One: The Legacy to Lenin and Stalin:

    The broad analysis of the national movements as seen by Marx and Engels has been summarised. At least these following general principles of their thought are identified:

    It is of course true, that in some details Marx and Engels were wrong – for instance the Czech and Slovak peoples did obtain national status.
    Neither Marx nor Engels claimed to be infallible for all time, and could not predict each and every twist in the national struggle of all peoples.
    At their time in history there were logical reasons to argue as they did.
    Nonetheless, they laid out broad approaches by which communists must approach the national struggle.
    It is worth briefly asking, if the principles we have adduced from their work was challenged by either of their successors, Lenin or Stalin? We answer yes.

1) Both Lenin and Stalin pointed out that nations have a dialectical real existence, in that they have a life and death:
    J.V.Stalin:

"But the unity of a nation diminishes not only as a result of migration. It diminishes also from internal causes, owing to the growing acuteness of the class struggle. In the early stages of capitalism one can still speak of a "common culture" of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. But as large-scale industry develops and the class struggle becomes more and more acute, this "common culture" begins to melt away. One cannot seriously speak of the "common culture" of a nation when employers and workers of one and the same nation cease to understand each other."
J. V. Stalin, "Marxism And The National Question"; Part II The National Movement"; In: Works, Vol. 2, pp. 339-340; Moscow, 1954; http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/MNQ12.html#c2     2) Both Lenin and Stalin pointed out that nation building was a key part of the process of elimination of feudalism: J.V.Stalin: "The process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations. Such, for instance, was the case in Western Europe. The British, French, Germans, Italians and others were formed into nations at the time of the victorious advance of capitalism and its triumph over feudal disunity….. From what has been said it will be clear that the national struggle under the conditions of rising capitalism is a struggle of the bourgeois classes among themselves. Sometimes the bourgeoisie succeeds in drawing the proletariat into the national movement, and then the national struggle externally assumes a "nation-wide" character. But this is so only externally. In its essence it is always a bourgeois struggle, one that is to the advantage and profit mainly of the bourgeoisie."
J. V. Stalin, "Marxism And The National Question"; Part II The National Movement"; In: Works, Vol. 2, pp. 313; 319; Moscow, 1954; http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/MNQ12.html#c2     3) Both Lenin and Stalin pointed out that the working class should not automatically support all demands for national status: J.V.Stalin: "The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation, repressed on every hand, is naturally stirred into movement. It appeals to its "native folk" and begins to shout about the "fatherland," claiming that its own cause is the cause of the nation as a whole. It recruits itself an army from among its "countrymen" in the interests of . . . the "fatherland." Nor do the "folk" always remain unresponsive to its appeals; they rally around its banner: the repression from above affects them too and provokes their discontent. Thus the national movement begins. The strength of the national movement is determined by the degree to which the wide strata of the nation, the proletariat and peasantry, participate in it. Whether the proletariat rallies to the banner of bourgeois nationalism depends on the degree of development of class antagonisms, on the class-consciousness and degree of organisation of the proletariat. The class-conscious proletariat has its own tried banner, and has no need to rally to the banner of the bourgeoisie."
J. V. Stalin, "Marxism And The National Question"; Part II The National Movement"; In: Works, Vol. 2, pp. 317; Moscow, 1954; http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/MNQ12.html#c2

"But the policy of nationalist persecution is dangerous to the cause of the proletariat also on another account. It diverts the attention of large strata from social questions, questions of the class struggle, to national questions, questions "common" to the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. And this creates a favourable soil for lying propaganda about "harmony of interests," for glossing over the class interests of the proletariat and for the intellectual enslavement of the workers."
J. V. Stalin, "Marxism And The National Question"; Part II The National Movement"; In: Works, Vol. 2, pp. 319; Moscow, 1954; http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/MNQ12.html#c2

"This, of course, does not mean that Social-Democracy will support every custom and institution of a nation. While combating the coercion of any nation, it will uphold only the right of the nation itself to determine its own destiny, at the same time agitating against harmful customs and institutions of that nation in order to enable the toiling strata of the nation to emancipate themselves from them. The right of self-determination means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it wishes. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations have equal rights. This, of course, does not mean that Social-Democracy will support every demand of a nation. A nation has the right even to return to the old order of things; but this does not mean that Social-Democracy will subscribe to such a decision if taken by some institution of a particular nation. The obligations of Social-Democracy, which defends the interests of the proletariat, and the rights of a nation, which consists of various classes, are two different things".
J. V. Stalin, "Marxism And The National Question"; Part II The National Movement"; In: Works, Vol. 2, pp. 321-322; Moscow, 1954; http://www.marx2mao.org//Stalin/MNQ12.html#c2

     4) Both Lenin and Stalin pointed out that the working class of an oppressor nation must support the oppressed nation.
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY PART ONE
- Engels, Frederick;1845; "Condition of the Working Class in England"; In Collected Works; Volume 4; Moscow; 1975;
- Engels, Frederick : "Revolution and Counter-Revolution: VIII. Poles, Tschechs, And Germans"; 1852.; In Collected Works Marx and Engels; Volume 11; Moscow 1979;
-Engels,Frederick : "The Peasant War In Germany" - Engels' Preface To The Second Edition of 1870; Collected Works; Moscow 1985; Volume 21;
- Marx Karl, Engels Frederick: Manifesto of the Communist Party": 1848; In Collected Works; Volume 6; Moscow 1976;
- Marx Karl and Engels Frederick: "The German Ideology"; "Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition Of The Materialist And Idealist Outlook [5.Development of the Productive Forces As a Material Premise of Communism]"; Volume 5; Moscow; 1976;
- Marx, Karl: The General Council of the International Working Men’s Association to Committee Members of the Russian Section in Geneva."; March 24th, 1870; London. In Collected Works; Volume 21: Moscow 1981;
- Marx, Karl: "Letter to Dr Kugelmann"; March 28; 1870: In Collected Works; Volume 21: Moscow; 1985;
- Nairn, Tom; "The Break-Up of Britain"; London; 1977;
- Nimni, Ephraim: "Nationalism And Marxism Theoretical Origins of a Political Crisis"; London 1991;
- Stalin, J.V. "Marxism And The National Question"; Works, Vol. 2, pp. 307; Moscow, 1954.


 BACK TO TABLE CONTENTS ALLIANCE 39:
ONTO PART TWO:
2) MARX AND ENGELS VIEW OF BRITAIN, ENGLAND WALES AND SCOTLAND