The Workers and the Fatherland

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

I

The passage in question discusses the attitude of the workers to their country. It reads:

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 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 vanishing gradually from day to day, 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.

And on a preceding page, the Manifesto says:

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

These passages have been cited innumerable times in socialist literature, usually in order to justify the negative attitude of the socialist labour movement towards bourgeois patriotism and chauvinism. Often, however, the attempt has been made to temper the stern language of these passages and to give them a contrary, nationalist meaning. As an example we may cite H. Cunow, the well-known German Social Democratic theoretician. He discusses the above passages in his book on Marx's Theories of History, Society and State. According to Cunow, all that Marx and Engels wanted to say was:

Today (1848) the worker has no country, he does not take part in the life of the nation, has no share in its material and spiritual wealth. But one of these days the workers will win political power and take a dominant position in state and nation and then, when so to speak [?] they will have constituted themselves the nation, they will also be national and feel national, even though their nationalism [!] will be of a different kind than that of the bourgeoisie.

This interpretation by Cunow stumbles over a little phrase, the phrase 'so far' ('Since the proletariat.... must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national'), which indicates that Marx and Engels did not expect the proletariat to remain 'national' for ever... Cunow's interpretation became the standard one in the reformist literature; but after World War II, it found acceptance in the Communist camp as well. Thus, we read in the 'Introduction' of the edition of the Manifesto published by the Stern-Verlag in Vienna in 1946:

When Marx says in the Communist Manifesto: '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', we must understand that it is precisely in our time that the working class acts as a national class, as the backbone of the nation in the struggle against fascism and for democracy. The working class of Austria is fighting today to win its Austrian fatherland by creating an independent, free and democratic Austria.

This evidently is not only equivalent to Cunow's interpretation, but even goes beyond it. In complete contrast to these nationalistic interpretations is what Lenin wrote in his famous essay 'Karl Marx':

The nation is a necessary product, and inevitable form, in the bourgeois epoch of social development. The working class cannot grow strong, cannot mature, cannot consolidate its forces, except by 'constituting itself the nation', without being 'national' ('though not in the bourgeois sense of the word'). But the development of capitalism tends to break down national boundaries, does away with national isolation, substitutes class antagonisms for national antagonisms. In the more developed capitalist countries it is perfectly true that 'the workers have no fatherland' and that 'united action' of the workers, in the civilised countries at least, 'is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Yet even Lenin's interpretation is not satisfactory either. While, according to the Manifesto, the proletariat, even after winning political supremacy, will be 'so far, itself national', Lenin restricts this 'being national' only to the beginnings of the working class movement, before the working class 'comes of age'. In a fully developed capitalist society, says Lenin, the workers more than ever will have no fatherland!...

That much about various interpretations of the quoted passages of the Manifesto. It may not appear strange that a number of socialist authors attempted to find their real meaning. It is much stranger that, in the course of time, these passages became a sort of credo, that far reaching programmatic slogans were derived from them, even if the words of the Manifesto were not fully understood... This applies in particular to the statement that the workers have 'no country'. It was much easier to repeat it constantly than to explain this apparently simple sentence and bring it into agreement with the everyday practice of the Socialist (and later the Communist) parties. And, unfortunately, this practice seemed more and more to give the lie to the authors of the Manifesto....

II

What then is the actual meaning of the statements of the Manifesto? In what sense do the workers have 'no country', and how is it that, nonetheless, even after acquiring supremacy, they will still remain 'so far, national'? To answer this question, it would seem, we must first examine the terminology of the Manifesto.

It is well known that the terms of 'nation' and 'nationality' are not always and everywhere used in the same sense. In English and in French, for example, a 'nation' is usually taken to mean the population of a sovereign state, and the word 'nationality' is taken to be either a synonym of citizenship or to designate a mere community of descent and language (a 'people' - German 'Volk') - whereas in Germany and in Eastern Europe both terms refer primarily to communities of descent and language.

Marx and Engels, especially in their early writings, almost always followed the English and French usage. They used the word 'nation' primarily to designate the population of a sovereign state (by way of exception, they also applied this term to 'historical' peoples, such as the Poles, who had been - temporarily - deprived of a state of their own). 'Nationality', on the other hand, meant to them: (1) either belonging to a state, that is, a people having a state; or (2) a mere ethnic community. Accordingly, this is almost the only term they used in relation to the so-called 'peoples without history', such as the Austrian Slavs (Czechs, Croats, etc.) and Romanians, or to 'remnants of peoples', such as Gaels, Bretons and Basques. And just this concept of 'nationality' - in sharp contrast to that of 'nation' (by which they understood a people which had a state of its own and therefore its own political history) - was most characteristic of the terminology of Marx and Engels! We cite some examples:

The Highland Gaels and the Welsh [said Engels in the journal The Commonwealth in 1866] are undoubtedly of different nationalities to what the English are, although nobody will give to these remnants of peoples long gone by the title of nations, any more than to the Celtic inhabitants of Brittany in France....

And in the article 'Germany and Panslavism' (1855) he says of the Austrian Slavs:

We can distinguish two groups of Austrian Slavs. One group consists of remnants of nationalities, whose own history belongs to the past and whose present historical development is tied up with that of nations of different race and speech.... Consequently, these nationalities, although living exclusively on Austrian soil, are in no way constituted as different nations.

In another place Engels says:

Neither Bohemia nor Croatia possessed the power to exist as nations by themselves. Their nationalities, gradually undermined by historical factors which cause their absorption by more vigorous races, can expect to win back some sort of independence only if they link themselves with other Slavic nations (Engels refers here to Russia).

How much importance Engels attached to the terminological differentiation of the concepts of 'nation' and 'nationality' can be seen from the article cited from The Commonwealth, in which he makes a sharp distinction between the 'national' and the 'nationality' questions, between the 'national' and the 'nationality' principles.

He approved only the first principle, vigorously rejecting the second. (As is well known, Marx and Engels mistakenly denied a political future to the 'peoples without history' - Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Ukrainians, Romanians, etc.)

III

The Communist Manifesto too provides a number of instances of this use of terminology. When it speaks, for example, of the 'national industries' being undermined by the development of capitalism, it evidently refers to industries confined to the territory of a given state. The 'Nationalfabriken' (in the English version, 'factories owned by the State') referred to at the end of the second section are, of course, to be understood in the same sense. And in the sentence: 'Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier and one customs tariff', the words 'nation' and 'national' refer evidently to the state, the people having a state, and not to the nationality in the sense of descent and language. Finally, when in the Manifesto Marx and Engels speak of a 'national' struggle of the proletariat, this means something quite different from the reformist and neo-reformist interpretations. This is clear from the following passage, which portrays the origin of the proletarian class struggle:

At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the work-people of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them.... It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes.

Here the 'national' struggle of the proletariat, i.e. the struggle waged on the scale of the entire state, is equated directly with the class struggle, since only such a centralisation of the struggles of the workers on the scale of the state could oppose the workers as a class to the class of the bourgeoisie and give these struggles the stamp of political struggles. To return to the passage cited at the outset, when Marx and Engels speak of the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie as one that is at first national, they evidently have in mind a struggle waged at first within the framework of a single state, as is clear from the reason given, that 'the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie'. But from this point of view the statement of the rise of the proletariat to be the leading class of the nation, its constituting itself the nation, likewise takes on a very definite meaning. It says that the proletariat must at first be guided by existing state borders, must rise to be the leading class within the existing states! That is why it will at first be so far, national - 'though not in the bourgeois sense of the word' - for the bourgeoisie sees its goal as political detachment of the peoples from each other and exploitation of foreign nations by its own. On the other hand, the victorious working class will from the beginning work towards the elimination of national hostilities and antagonisms of peoples. By its hegemony it will create conditions under which 'the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end'. From this, and only from this standpoint, it is possible to understand what the young Engels meant when he wrote of the 'abolition' or 'annihilation' of nationality: certainly not the 'abolition' of the existing ethnic and linguistic communities (this would have been absurd!), but of the political delimitations of peoples. In a society in which (in the words of the Manifesto) 'the public power will lose it political character' and the state as such will wither away there can be no room for separate 'national states'!...

IV

We feel that our analysis of the terminology of the Manifesto is more than a mere philological 'hair-splitting'. It has shown that the passages in question relate primarily to 'nation' and 'nationality' in the political sense and are therefore inconsistent with earlier interpretations. This applies especially to the thoroughly arbitrary and sophistical explanation by Cunow, who tried to derive a specific 'proletarian nationalism' from the Manifesto and reduced the internationalism of the working class movement to the desire for international co-operation among peoples. But neither did the Manifesto preach that the proletariat should be indifferent with respect to national movements, should display a sort of 'nihilism' in question's of nationality! When the Manifesto says that the workers 'have no country', this refers to the bourgeois national state, not to nationality in the ethnical sense. The workers 'have no country' because according to Marx and Engels, they must regard the bourgeois national state as a machinery for their oppression - and after they have achieved power they will likewise have 'no country' in the political sense, inasmuch as the separate socialist national states will be only a transitional stage on the way to the classless and stateless society of the future, since the construction of such a society is possible only on the international scale! Thus, the 'indifferentist' interpretation of the Manifesto that was customary in 'orthodox' Marxist circles has no justification. The fact that by and large this interpretation did little harm to the socialist movement, and in some sense even furthered it, is due to the circumstance that - although in a distorted way - it reflected the inherent cosmopolitan tendency of the workers movement, its effort to overcome national narrow-mindedness and the 'national separations and antagonisms between peoples'. In this sense, however, it was much closer to the spirit of Marxism and of the Manifesto than the nationalistic interpretation of Bernstein, Cunow and others.