Paper presented in Seminar on Centenary of Lenin’s Death at Karachi, Pakistan.

The Irtiqa Institute of Social Sciences, Karachi held a two day conference, “Walking with Lenin” on 25-26 August 2024. The event, organised on the occasion of Lenin’s death centenary, brought together scholars and participants to engage in critical discussions on Leninism’s enduring relevance in contemporary political and social contexts.

The first session of the second day focused on the theme “Leninism and State Formation,” featuring three insightful papers. One of the highlights was Turkish scholar Mustafa Yalciner’s presentation “On Lenin’s Approach to the National Question.”. (EB)

I greet the distinguished participants and the audience, and on the centenary of his death, I salute the memory of the great master Lenin and his timeless works.

Lenin, who developed and realised the approaches and ideas of Marx and Engels, including the national question, is still alive with his works, and Marxism-Leninism continues to enlighten our path.

We know that Lenin was first and foremost an internationalist, against all forms of nationalism. "Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the ‘most just' and civilised. Instead, Marxism advances internationalism..." On the other hand, it is Lenin's view that "the bourgeois nationalism of every oppressed nation has a general democratic content directed against oppression".

In an emerging capitalist society, the principle of nationality is historically inevitable, and Marxists recognise the historical justification of national movements unquestionably. But this acceptance does not take the form of a defence of nationalism and supports only the progressive aspect of national movements against national oppression.

Bourgeois nationalism puts the nation and its development before everything else and is based on its superiority over others; this is the source of its monopolistic character, from which endless national fights arise. The conscious worker, on the other hand, does not look at the world through the national "window", does not take nationality as a basis and warns the masses to stay away from national fights.

Lenin, in his debate with Rosa Luxemburg, formulated the following: "Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favour, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.”

Marxists, however, unquestionably defend the right of nations to self-determination. This is conditioned by the existence of national oppression and inequalities of rights. The essence of this right is the right of oppressed nations to secede and establish their national states.

It is the “large scale” that is favourable to the development of the productive forces and the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie; "Other conditions being equal," says Lenin, "the class-conscious proletariat will always stand for the larger state”.

However, under capitalism, usually "other conditions are not equal"; what becomes the rule is national oppression and claims to supremacy and national struggles. Moreover, "the tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which the requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied... for the entire civilised world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period."

Exploitation and oppression will continue in the "national state", but Marxists cannot ignore the powerful economic factors which give rise to the aspiration for national states, and they cannot deny the right of oppressed nations to statehood.

The unconditional recognition of the right to national self-determination is, of course, also valid for the period of imperialism.

But the recognition of this right does not mean that every national movement and secession will be supported. The right to statehood will be recognised, as Lenin said, "... whoever does not recognise and champion the equality of nations and languages, and does not fight against all national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist";  but Marxists do not support demands for national privileges, reactionary national movements or the creation of states which reinforce reaction. It is one thing to recognise the right, it is another to support its implementation in one form or another.

On the other hand, to recognise this right is not to adopt the division of workers according to nationalities; that would be to adopt nationalism and to play into the hands of the bourgeoisie. While recognising the right of oppressed nations to separate states, Marxists advocate the strictest unity and the organisation of all workers, of whatever nationality, into a single party, within the borders of a given state in which they fight the bourgeoisie.

*

Lenin begins his notable article of 1913, "Critical Remarks on the National Question", as follows:

"It is obvious that the national question has now become prominent among the problems of Russian public life. The aggressive nationalism of the reactionaries, the transition of counter-revolutionary bourgeois liberalism to nationalism (particularly Great-Russian, but also Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, etc.), and lastly, the increase of nationalist vacillations among the different “national” (i. e., non-Great-Russian) Social-Democrats, who have gone to the length of violating the Party Programme—all these make it incumbent on us to give more attention to the national question than we have done so far.”

How different is any country today from Tsarist Russia regarding the importance of the national question? Even if we only mention the Kashmir question, are India and Pakistan, for example, very different? Or Turkey and Iran, where the persecution of the Kurds never stops? Not to mention Israel, which is committing genocide in Palestine. Is Russia, which foments religious Chechen nationalism, invades Ukraine calling it an "artificial nation" and where Putin blames Lenin for approval of Ukraine's secession, any different today than it was before? What about China, which does not even recognise the right to life for Uyghurs? How different could they be from Tsarist Russia, when European countries drown migrants in the seas, and the USA builds a wall on the border with Mexico, continue racial discrimination and police kill black people?

Moreover, another reality of the world is international aggression, which does not recognise national rights, plunders the resources of other nations and violates their independence through occupations.

Britain dominated India and Pakistan until the mid-20th century. Pakistan now enjoys political independence, but how independent is it in reality? What is the measure of the independence of Turkey today, which gained its independence through a war of liberation against occupation? The American and NATO bases in Turkey provide intelligence and support for the "Iron Dome" of Israel, which Erdogan accuses in words.

Lenin, gives the example of "dependent countries which ostensibly enjoy political independence, but which in reality are caught in the web of financial and diplomatic dependence", and says that Argentina was "almost a commercial colony of England", while Portugal “had been for two hundred years... under English protectorate". With their relations with the USA, China and Russia, how much less financially and diplomatically dependent are Iran, Pakistan and Turkey, despite their political independence, than Argentina and Portugal of the past?

When Lenin was alive, the world was divided economically and territorially between the imperialist states; the demands for redivision had dragged humanity into world wars. Today, are we not witnessing the renewal of the division of the world and the imperialist competition dragging humanity into a new great war?

China, which was not taken into account in the previous divisions, and Russia, which is recovering after the collapse, on the one hand, and the USA, Japan and the European imperialists after the Ukraine War, on the other, are facing each other, expanding and preparing for war by arming and getting into blocs. China, Turkey's primary import partner, with its 70 billion dollars investments in Pakistan and 400 billion dollar deal with Iran, is in a race against American imperialism. With an eye to future gains in this race, China, for example, has extended the maturity of Pakistan's 2 billion dollars loan, but has also seized Sri Lanka's Hambantota port and Zambia's national broadcasting corporation in return for their debts. The Europeans and the USA have been doing similar things for a long time now, for example, with its "Troika" the EU caused Greece to lose the port of Piraeus to China, after they put Greece into a "debt crisis". Rival imperialist blocs treat oppressed nations as colonies.

The world is therefore not very different from the world analysed by Lenin. Just as it is divided between rival imperialists and between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, so the world is "divided into a large number of oppressed nations and a small number of oppressor nations possessing enormous wealth and great military power", which Lenin emphasises is "the distinguishing feature of imperialism".

The change is in the table of "types of countries" defined by Lenin concerning the national question with the collapse of the colonial system. Lenin divided countries into three main types: 1) "the advanced capitalist countries of the United States and Western Europe" where "progressive bourgeois national movements [have] long since ceased", 2) Eastern Europe where the national question has not yet been resolved, and 3) Colonial and semi-colonial countries such as China, Iran and Turkey, where capitalism is underdeveloped.

Today, it can be said that there are no colonial and semi-colonial countries left. With few exceptions, there are no countries with little capitalist development, not caught in the webs of finance capital, with no division of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. The world consists of countries with political independence. The colonial system has been replaced by neo-colonial relations, and with their economic, financial and diplomatic dependence, the political independence of many countries, as Lenin said, is only in appearance.

The world is now divided into a small number of imperialist countries and a large category of independent countries with varying degrees of dependence.

And, of course, the national question continues to exist in all its splendour.

In the same article, Lenin states the following:

“Developing capitalism knows two historical tendencies in the national question. The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of national states. The second is the development and growing frequency of international intercourse in every form, the break-down of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc. Both tendencies are a universal law of capitalism. The former predominates in the beginning of its development, the latter characterises a mature capitalism that is moving towards its transformation into socialist society.”

From this, the following conclusions follow:

1) The tendency characteristic of mature capitalism, the multiplication of relations between nations and the internationalism of capital, is represented by monopolies and imperialism. Kautsky's "ultra-imperialism" is absurd; monopolies and imperialism still compete for the share of the world as rivals with a "national" tendency centred in certain states - the USA, China, Russia, Germany, etc. But monopolies and imperialism no longer have a positive relationship with their own "nation". The amount of imperialist capital reproduced in the countries where it is exported almost equals the amount at home, and the monopoly capital and imperialist bourgeoisie spread all over the world are already international. Not only because such as the examples of Apple and the automotive monopolies' for capital, production and supply chains being realised in different countries, and the volume of world trade. The internationalisation of capital with its institutions such as the EU, NATO, SCO, IMF, WB, WTO, military bases in foreign countries and politically strategically coordinated activities is incomparable with the Lenin period.

It is not only the imperialist bourgeoisie that no longer represents national interests. Apart from its lower sections, the bourgeoisie of the dependent countries that cooperate with imperialism is also part of the international bourgeoisie; its interests, which are in contradiction with the interests of the nation, are linked to the interests of the imperialist bourgeoisie with which it is united.

2) Under imperialism, the "awakening of national life and movements" has not ceased. In the past, it mainly targeted feudal fragmentation and oppression. However, capitalism, with its development in the colonies and dependent countries has now brought them under its wheels, has limited the influence and role of feudalism, and imperialist plunder and tyranny are now the main causes of national awakening. Imperialism today is also the main source and stronghold of national tyranny.

Lenin states that the treatment of the national question cannot be immutable. He considers it "a strict requirement of Marxist theory that the question should be formulated within certain historical limits and that, in the case of one country in particular, the peculiarities which distinguish that country from others should be taken into account". From this point of view, in the period of the rise of capitalism, when the national question was a struggle between the bourgeoisies of different nations for the dominance of the market, he states that "there is only one solution to the national problem, and that solution is consistent democracy", noting that "insofar as it can be solved in the capitalist world, the world of profit, squabbling and exploitation ".

With the acceleration of the internationalisation tendency of capital and capitalism, the national question ceases to be an internal problem of individual countries and acquires an international character. With the October Revolution, it turned into a question of the liberation of oppressed nations, colonies and semi-colonies from the plunder and tyranny of imperialism. In his "Theses" on "Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", written in early 1916, Lenin puts the national question in a different light:

He begins by stating that "Victorious socialism... must not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations... to free political secession", and goes on to say that "The socialist revolution... is not one single battle, but a whole epoch of intensified class conflicts, a long series of battles on all fronts… battles… which can culminate only in the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. It would be a fundamental mistake… to delete any of the points of the democratic programme, for example, the point of self-determination of nations, on the ground that it is ‘infeasible’, or that it is ‘illusory’ under imperialism". And he concludes as follows: "… not only the right of nations to self-determination, but all the fundamental demands of political democracy are ‘possible of achievement’ under imperialism, only in an incomplete, in a mutilated form and as a rare exception... The demand for the immediate liberation of the colonies is also “impossible of achievement” under capitalism without a series of revolutions. This does not imply, however, that Social Democracy must refrain from conducting an immediate and most determined struggle for all these demands… On the contrary, it implies that it is necessary to formulate and put forward all these demands… in a revolutionary way; not by keeping within the framework of bourgeois legality, and leading up to the socialist revolution, which will expropriate the bourgeoisie.”

The solution to the national question no longer lies in consistent bourgeois democratism. Lenin formulates this in his "Theses for the Second Congress of the Communist International". The fourth of the "Theses" is as follows: “From these fundamental premises it follows that the Communist International’s entire policy on the national and the colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landowners and the bourgeoisie. This union alone will guarantee victory over capitalism, without which the abolition of national oppression and inequality is impossible.”

Firstly, while there is still the question of the liberation of the nations under national oppression and inequality of rights in various countries, the transformation of the national question into the question of the liberation of the oppressed dependent and colonised nations from the imperialist yoke is also valid today.

Secondly, the programme of the working class on the national question is now based on the solidarity of the workers and labourers of all countries in the struggle against the ruling bourgeoisie and the big landowners and their power. By the second of the same theses, the solution of the national question as the question of liberation from imperialist tyranny is now linked to the struggle for the overthrow of the power of the bourgeoisie and the establishing of socialist democracy.

Thirdly, not only the imperialist bourgeoisie and its domination were targeted by the Great October Revolution. Lenin's theses also distinguished between the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations and colonies and the national movements, making their support conditional, and, with special emphasis on the preservation of the independence of the proletarian movement, drew attention to the deception of imperialism and the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations united with it under the mask of "building independent states".

In the "Report of the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions" submitted by Lenin to the Congress, the attitude towards national movements is clear: "...the imperialist bourgeoisie is doing everything in its power to implant a reformist movement among the oppressed nations too. There has been a certain rapprochement between the bourgeoisie of the exploiting countries and that of the colonies, so that very often, perhaps even in most cases, the bourgeoisie of the oppressed countries, while it does support the national movement, is in full accord with the imperialist bourgeoisie, i.e., joins forces with it against all revolutionary movements and revolutionary classes… We should and will support bourgeois-liberation movements in the colonies only when they are genuinely revolutionary, and when their exponents do not hinder our work of educating and organising in a revolutionary spirit the peasantry and the masses of the exploited. If these conditions do not exist, the Communists in these countries must combat the reformist bourgeoisie…”

The theses are undoubtedly valid today, when the colonial system has collapsed and the system of politically independent states has become generalised, albeit limited by multifaceted relations of dependence and independence remaining in appearance. In parallel with the export of capital and the economic division of the world, the process of the development of capitalism in almost every country and the formation of foreign as well as domestic monopolies has also been the process of the merger with imperialism of the upper sections of the bourgeoisie in the independent countries which have fallen into the web of dependence. Now the big bourgeoisie of the dependent countries, if it has not developed as an imperialist bourgeoisie under special conditions, has not only compromised with imperialism, but has become collaborationist and completely reactionary by linking its interests and destiny with those of the imperialist bourgeoisie. It has completely betrayed its own nation, with which it has no unity of interests. And together with imperialism it is the target not only of social liberation but also of the struggle for national liberation.

A direct consequence of the theses for the present is that the national liberation movements which can be supported in the dependent countries are really revolutionary movements, movements of the main lower classes, of the workers and peasants. Despite their tendency to compromise, revolutionary movements of the lower sections of the bourgeoisie can only be possible if they are directed to struggle against imperialism under special conditions, such as occupation. Apart from exceptional cases, the actions of the reactionary bourgeoisie in power in dependent countries cannot be regarded as "anti-imperialism" and supported because of their deceptive "pro-independence" rhetoric. The "colour revolutions" of the bourgeois cliques that we have witnessed in the recent past, usually instigated and supported by the rivals of the imperialists with whom the ruling bourgeoisie collaborates, are not supportable movements in this category.

The attitude towards the struggles of the oppressed nations has become even more important today, when the imperialist states, whose rivalry is intensifying, seek to gain superiority over each other by provoking and supporting national movements against their rivals.

Undoubtedly, as Lenin pointed out, "the fact that the struggle for national liberation against one imperialist state can, under certain conditions, be used by another 'great' state for its equally imperialist interests does not dissuade Marxists from recognising the right of nations to self-determination". Marxists unconditionally recognise the right of oppressed nations to self-determination. But this does not mean that a national movement against one imperialist state, supported by a rival imperialist state, must be supported. The struggles to be supported is determined by a concrete analysis of the conditions and the nature of each struggle.

One cannot fight against one imperialist relying on another one. Even if they use "anti-imperialist" rhetoric, reactionary movements that are linked to the struggle for hegemony between the imperialists and become an element of it cannot be supported, regardless of their claims. The actions of the ruling bourgeoisie of the NATO and SCO member countries, supposedly on behalf of the whole nation, with claims such as "anti-occupation" and "protecting and defending the independence and sovereignty of their countries", in order to deceive the people they oppress and bring them along with them, can be given as an example. There is no doubt that the nations of Ukraine and Iran, for instance, need national and social emancipation with the right to self-determination, and for this purpose, they need a real struggle targeting their own bourgeoisie. However, no matter how much it claims to be against the occupation, the Zelensky government and the war it wages in Ukraine, which is the field of the imperialist struggle between Russia and NATO, cannot be supported, nor can one support the rule of the Mullahs in Iran, who call on their oppressed people to fight against the USA in alliance with Russia and China in the name of "the independence and sovereignty of Iran", or the struggle they wage to maintain their rule.

*

Marxism-Leninism, the doctrine that Lenin took over from Marx and Engels, is the doctrine of the emancipation of the working class; it expresses the interests of the working class and is based on the class struggle.

The antagonism between the oppressed peoples and imperialism is one of the main antagonisms in the world, but the antagonism and struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie constitute the ground on which the working class has been based and subordinated other struggles since the days of Lenin. The Leninists treat the national question in the service of the interests of the emancipation struggle of the working class, and its solution lies in the unity of the struggle for national and social liberation.

Click here to return to the October 2024 index.