The Worker and his Nation — A true interpretation of Marx and Engels One of the basic statements of the Communist Manifesto, and one which has given rise to great argument, is that "the workingmen have no country." The most prominent discussion on the matter was probably that between Rosa Luxembourg and Lenin, and in which many other prominent socialists such as James Connolly, partook. Marx and Engels in the Manifesto, stated that — "The communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The workingmen have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all aquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitue itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word." Some critics have concluded from this that Marx and Engels totally refuted the idea of nationality and were enemies of any aspirations towards national liberation. This is certainly not so. The basic statement must be placed in its proper historical context. The terms "nation" in English and French are both ancient and ambiguous. Sometimes they refer to a society with a culture, history and language fo its own, — sometimes they are used to describe a state based on such a society. In the last century, this ambiguity was particularily relevant, since both Germany and Italy did not become united states until European revolutions of 1848. Until then they were nations united in language, history and culture, but not nations in terms of political organisation. In order to explain these differences, and to avoid ambiguity, the terms nationality (English), nationalite (French) and nationalitat (German) were used to convey nationhood in the former sense, while nation, (English and French) or Vaterlant (German) were used to denote a nation in the latter sense. Marc and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto between December 1847 and January 1848 when the pressure of nationalism and liberalism was urging for an united German nation — state and when the united Italian nation —state was at its height. In defending these developments, the continental liberals argued that a state (nation in the latter sense of the word) was needed to project, to enhance and to protect nationality (nation in the former sense). The liberal/nationalists, thus argued that a Vaterland was imperative to defend and uphold a Nationalitat: a united democratic German State (in contrast to the minor German provinces under Prussian or Australian rule) would be a prime vehicle for the German nation to convey and protect its nationality. But, said Marx and Engels in the original German Manifesto – "DIE ARBEITER HABEN KEIN VATERLAND." i.e. "The workingmen have no nation- state." Marx and Engels never denied the workingmen their Nationalitat, their nationality, which they should endorse and treasure. In contrast they stated that the workingmen did not own, and had no allegiance to, a Vaterland, a state. Under capitalist rule, they argued, nationality was subject to greed for maximum profit. From the capitalist point of view the worker in the factory could be English, French or German and if the worker of one nationality was a cheaper source of labour than another, then he should be the one to be employed. And if hte capitalist of another nation paid greater wages than that of this country, then should not the worker go there to work? Clearly, under capitalism, the trend was for the worker ro become cosmopolitan, without a nation a culture or a home. If the creation of a nation- state was used as an excuse or a reason for protecting the workers' nationality, then, argued Marx and Engels, under progressive capitalist and international rule, the excuse was false: "die arbeiter haben Kein Vaterland." Under capitalism, the worker has no state to protect and enhance his nationality. Marx and Engels were not rejoicing in this, they were complaining. At the same time they were answering Mazzini and other continentalliberals/ nationalists in the same terms as were used by them to claim the exictence of large nation-states. Other sections of the Communist Manifesto have given rise to argument that Marx and Engels wished the demise of national characteristics. For example they state that :- "National differences and antagonisms between people are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bousgeoisie, 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 to an end, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put to an end., In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end." National characteristics can vanish for many reasons : 1) because nations themselves refute and ignore them, 2) the political system deliberately undermines them, and 3) that technological 4 developments give rise to wider commerce between people and causing decay of national differences. Reasons 1) and 2) cannot be justifies, but there is sufficient justification for reason 3). It is not two-faced to argue that national characteristics are worthy of protection, and also that wider communication between people is desireable. The choice between the two arguments is subtle and a balance may be found between them. To reject and destroy the development of railways and shipping in order to isolate national differences is no answer, nor is it desirable to ignore national characteristics while extending railway and shipping links. It can be gleaned from other works of Marx and Engels, that this was their mode of thinking. The cherished the need for national characteristics while accepting the value of technological improvements. They supported and defended both values, without refuting one or the other. A basic theme of the Connunist Manifesto is the link between national oppression and class oppression, between the liberation of nations and the liberation of classes. Marx's attitude towards the situation in Ireland complies with this line of thinking. He drew attention to the weakness of the English working-class in its antagonism towards the Irish. The liberation of the English working-class was thus intergrated with the liberation of Ireland would be a basic neccessity in liberating the English workers. The same attitude was taken towards national-liberation movements in India, Hungary, Poland, Germany and Italy. The Marxist interpretation of nationalism was developed further by Lenin. In his pamphlet 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism' (1917) he explained the link between capitalist monopolism and the oppression of lesser nations, that is, colonialism. The struggle for national liberation and against imperialism was thus the prime vehicle for the world socialist revolution. The truth of Lenin's economic interpretation, and his political conclusions, cannot be doubted. The theory has benome fact throughout the so-called 'Third World' since 1945. Events in Vietnam, Cambodia, Mozambique, Angola, Etheopia — bear witness to the vitality of Lenin's arguments. The struggle for socialism and national liberation is one and the same, and basic to the historical developments of the twentieth century. "Complete equality of rights for all nations: the right of nations to self-determination; the unity of the workers of all nations" — Lenin.
