The Nation and the Economy

document .2

THOTSKY CN NATIONAL SELF -DETERMIN ATION

( Trotskys position on the national question has been greatly distorted by his opponents. For instance we find people seriously arguing that he was opposed to the right of nations to self-determination. Such people have dared to propagate these distortions simply because Trotskys views have not beep available in English, or any other European language for that matter. As a contribution to the clarification of Trotskys position on this vital matter we publish below two articles,specially translated from the original by Marxist Review, As far as we know this is the first time that they have been published in the English language. )

NASUE SLOVO. (3-7-1615) THE MATION AND THE ECONOMY. -I

The recognition of the right cf every nation to self-—determination is part of the programme of Russian Social Democracy. This demand has its incrigins in the period of the revolutionary struggles of national bourgesis democracy. In the last analysis it means the recognition of the right cf every nation to state independence. Following from this flows the duty of Social Democracy tc oppose actively all regimes, where the fercable cohabitation cf nations and national fragments exists. and to sonport- denending cn conditions of nlace and time - the struggles «f nations and naticnal fragments against an alien naticnal yolk. But what is more: Social Democracy by no means casts aside the programme of national democracy as the unbridled social-itmerialists would have us do.

It cannct and will not be reconcil .ed with forcable retention by a state of national groups within the large state body, ostensitly in the interests of an economic development, which is being paralysed by divisions along national lines. But neither dos#® it make its own aim a miltiplic— ation of these divisions i.e. it does not tur the national principle intosome sort of historic absolute idea.

It is absolutely cleare that Social Democracy stands always and everywhere for the interest of economic development and opposes all political measures ,capable of helding it back. However it understands economic develonment, not as a self-sufficient, extra-social, productive-technical nrecess, but as the basis of the develonment of human society into its class groupings, with its national-political superstructure, ete. This point of view was , in the last analysis, not to ensure fcr local or

national capitalism success over the capitalism of other places and countries, but to ensure the systematic growth of man's power over nature.

Accordingly the class struggle of the proletariat itself is the most important factor.ensuring further development of the productive forcesby leading them out of the imperialist blind ally onto the broad arena of socialism, A state of nationalities and national groups, which exist through force, ( Russia and Austria are examples ) may without doubt for a certain time, develope the productive forces, by creating for them a broader internal market. But by generating the bitter struggles of national groups for influnce on the state power or by evoking ‘separatist’ tendencies - that is the struggle for seperation from that power - such a state paralyses the class struggle of the proletariat as the most important force of economictand historic progress in general, The proletariat is deeply interestedin the elimination of all artificial frontiers and barriers,” in the greatest possible extension of a free arena of economic development. But it cannot buy this aim for the kind of price which, above all disorganises its own historic movement, and thus weakens and lays low the most important productive force in contemporary society..The. ..

present day social-imperialists, mainly of the German tyne, reject the idea of self-determination as a ‘sentimental!’ prejudice of the past, and recommend yeilding to the iron necessity of economic development, so they propound as the supreme criteria, above the historically Limited Claims of nations, not some absolute need of economic progress but its specific historic form, which stands before us in the guise of imperialism. In the present war this is showing itself in ~- contradiction not only with the needs of further economic progress but with even the most elementary conditions of human existance : Democracy is and remains the the condition for the development of the proletsriet and the sole form in which it can weild state power. fPhis latter demands first a growth in the political-cultural independence of masses, their economic and political association on a bread field, their collective intervention in the fate of the country. Thus a national language, the tool of human intercourse, becomes at a certain stage of development, the most important instrument of democracy. The desire for national unity has thus comprised an indefeasible aspect of the movement of the period of bourgeois revolution. We see before us in backward regions - not only of Asia and Africa but of Europe too - the awakening of historically belated nationalities. And this is of necessity assuming the form of a struggle for national unity and national independence, and coming face to fece with the imperialist desire to break through the nationally defined framework of capitalist economy and creat by means of military violence a world empire.

In this process Social Democracy in no way identifies itself with the internally contradictory imperialist me hods of solving its ripening historic tasks. But just as little, if not less does it counterpose to imperialism, and more importantly, tc the progressive historic needs it is persuing, the bare national idea, That would be to think with a pitiful yulgar utopianism a la Herve that the fate of Europe will be decisively ensured if the state map cf Europe is brought intc conformity with its national map, if - ignoring geographic conditicns and economic links - Europe is parcelled up intc neat squares, each a nation state. France and

Ae . SS = en ee a re Germany in the past period approached a type of nation state. This by no means prevented their’ policy cf colonialism, nor their present plans to expand their frontiers - to the Rhine or the Somme: An independent Hungary , Bohemia or Poland will in exactly the same way seek an.oytlet to,the. sea by means of a violation of the rights of other nationalities, as Italy. is seeking to do at the expense of ‘the Serbs or the Serbs themselves at: the., expense cf the Albanians, National democracy, awakened by capitalism, iy which strives’ to wield as many elements of nations as possible into one econ—omic unit. But-it.is this very capitalism which strives everywhere it sets down reots te-expand the limits of the internal market as widely as possible.

tc creat as many favourable cutlets as possible tc,the world market, to impose its domination over regions with an agriarian tyne economy. The naticnal principle is for national capitalism neither an absolute idea ncr the final crowning of the edifice. It is cnly the springboard for a new lean in the direction of world domination. At the present stage of.

development, t @ national idea appears as a banner cf struggle against .

feudal-particularist barbarism or foreign military aggression. In the long term, by creating a seli-sufficient psycolcgy of national egoism, it beecmes itself a tool of imperialist barberism, The task consists in reconciling the claims of nations to autonomy with the centrailised needs.of economic development.

NASHE SLOVO (9-7-I915) THE NATION AND THE ECONOMY. - II.’

Social-nationalism amazed everyone, itself above all.!y its strength.

Almost without opposition, in the first period of the war, it took hold cf the strongest parties and organisations of the proletariat. But together with this suddenly discovered pewer went an extraordinary, thoroughtly disgraceful ideological bankruptcy. Not one serious attempt to think: things through theoretically, beginning to end! Decisions and actions, on which : sccialism depends for its life or death, are explained and justified with ~ .

contradictory and haphazard reasoning, in which political intuition freed © from any theory plays the most important role. The basic argument under= © pinning the social nationalist policy of a workers party is the idea of+ defence of the fatherland’. But none of the social patricts has yet was troubled himself with the sense to explain WHAT actually in the fatherland is threatened by danger and WHAT is subject to defence, The French socialists talk about the republic and revolutionary traditions - he is defending the past. The German pat rict quotes his powerful national industry, as the basis of socialism - he is defending the present. Finally. our ‘home grown .

social-nationalists quotes the interest of future economic developmentoof Russia, repeating all the old arguments and lying enough for two - he is defending the future. Each of them with more or less resclution is making the .attemnt to proclaim his own 'national!-interest as the hicher interr : = . ; gee Ss ioe :

nationalist interest of mankind, But each such attempt only introduces into the affair a more hopeless confusion. It is one of two things: either the international interest demands the defeat of Germany (or Russia) - in which case it is pointless talking about defense of the fatherland, since after all their are people in the world for whom Germany or Russia is the fatherland. Or on the other hand defence of the fatherland is an independent principle of proletarian policy - and then it is useless to attempt to reconcile this aim with a generally obligatory line of conduct for the international proletariat. For the defense of one fatherland demands the utmost destruction of another fatherland.

At the beginning of the war, Kautsky tried to determin that basic good in the name of which the proletariat bears its class independence to the bloody alter of defence of the fatherland. This good is the nation state, In the first article we spoke what a powerful factor of historic development, national-culturel unity is. It would be necessary to add, that a state (that is the fatherland) is the more sub;.ct to defence, the more it approaches a type of nation state. It is exactly thus that Kautsky poses the question. But then the question ar’:e* *= to what éxtent the proletariat of Austro-Hungary, and more importantly of Russia also, can and must defend its fatherland? From the point of view of Kautsky, the nultinational proletariat of a monarchy near the Danube has obviously no obligations in relation to the state of the Hapsburgs. Kautsky himself arrived at this conclusion, But with the available international combinations the defence of Germany demands the defence of Austro-Hungary and Turkey, just as on the other side of the struggle of France for national unity demands the perpetuation of a powerful block of nationalities, called Russia or of a world oolonial power, Great Britain.

Together with the states of nationalities and national fragments stands the states, where a far from complete national unity is fulfilled on one side by union with states of nationalities and on the other by violaticn of the national independence of colonies. The substitution of FATHERLAND or STATE for the meaning of NATION is the most widespread argument in favour of the social-patriotic policy of the. proletarianparty.

The present war through the tendencies.exposed by it,.threatens not nations as such but that state which is the historic home of the nation. Capitalism as little brings about national unity as it does demcecracy, It awakens the : need for national unity but it also called to life tendencies, which do not allowe the fulfilment of this need. However the nation is a powerful and extremely stable factér in human culture. The nation will outlive not only the present war but capitalism itself. And in the social “t structure, free from the path of state-economic dependence, the nation will remain for a long time the most important seat.of intellectual culture = for at the disposal of the nation is the most important organ of this culture - language. The state is another matter. It developed as a result of the intersection of dynastic, imperialist and nationalist interests and of a tempory correlaticn of material forces. The state is an incomparably less stable factor in historic development than the nation.. For the past per’od economic developmemt has found a home for itself in the capitaliat state, which, with a great straining of interpretation, it has been accepted to call ‘national’,

- 39 - In ~ this state-fatherland, cultural development fcund a home almost always as a divided nation explciting or seeking tc exploit by means of the state apperatus, cther nations. As capitalist development got bound up in the framework of the state, this was fulfilled by annexations and colcnial conquests. The struggle for colenies =- that is the violation of the economic and national independence of backward countries, was the most important concern in the forrign policy of the so called nation states.

Compititicn for colonies lead to the struggle of capitalist states amon=:t themselves. thr productive forces became decisively bound up in the framework of the state. If the present day ‘'nation' state finds itself in danger, then this danger flows from the incompatcbility of its limits with the achieved level of the development of the productive forces. The danger comes net from the enemy without but from inside, from the very eccnomic develcpment, which in the language of the world war is telling us that the 'naticn* state has become a break on development and it is time to scrap it. In this sense the idea of the defenxe of the fatherland - that is of the naticn state which has outlived itself is an extremely reactionary ideclogy. The more the social patriots link the fate of the nation which by itself in no senseparalyses economic development ner hampers it from taking an all Ruropean and world dimension, with the fates of restrictive state ~ military organisaticns, the mere it is necessary for us internationalists to take upon curselves the defence of the historic rights of nations to independence and development, against these reactionary ‘patriot! defencists.

Capitalism strives to wield both the nation and the economy into the framewerk of the state. It created a powerful formation which for a whole pericd served as the arena of development for the nation just as for the economy But both the nation and the economy came into contradiction, as with the state so with each other. The state became toc restrictive for the economy By striving to broaden its base, it violates the nation. On the othérside the economy refuses to subjugate the natural movement of its forces and means to division of ethnic groups on the earths surface. The state is essentially an economic unit, it will be forced to adapt itself te the needs of economic development. The place of the closed in naticn-state must inevitably be occupied by a broad, democratic federation of leading states on the basis of the removal of all customs barriers. National unity flowing from the needs cf cultural development net only will not be destroyed by this, but on the contrary, only on the basis of a republican federation of leading countries will it be able to fird its full consummation. An indispensible for thi3 is the freeing of the framework of the nation from the framework of the economy ne and viceversa. The economy is organised on a broad arena of European united states, as the nivot of a world organisation, The political form can only be a republican federstion in the flexible and elastic framework of which every nation will be able to develop its cultural forces with the greatest of freedom. Contrary to the German and other social-annexationists we are not prepared to throw aside the recoc= nition of the right to self-determination.. Just the opposit - we think that the time ic approaching when this right can finally be realised. On the other hand we are very far from counterposing to the centalisedneeds of the econon- 'the soverrign rights of every national group and grouplet'., For in the very process cf historic development, we discover the dialectical reconciliation =f both felements! : the national and the economic. (cintinued*.1 »age 34,7 ® “ . a i