by MC12

Since MIM developed its analysis of the white working class as a non-revolutionary worker-elite -- a labor aristocracy -- thanks to the work of J. Sakai in Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, it has moved to put into practice the analysis of the contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations as principal for revolutionaries on a world scale under conditions of imperialism. This advanced with the publication of MIM Theory 1: "A White Proletariat?" With MIM's subsequent development of a parallel analysis of gender oppression in MIM Theory 2/3, the development of this practice has reached a conclusive point for now.

These theoretical attempts have circled around revolutionary nationalism itself, by developing an analysis of its opposite: the reactionary nationalist alliance of the labor aristocracy with the imperialist bourgeoisie on the one hand, and the gender alliance of First World pseudo-feminism with the imperialist patriarchy on the other. MIM exposed both of these alliances as both objective and subjective: as political alliances based in the material reality of life in Amerika. The underlying conclusion of both of these is the need in the United States for a communist/revolutionary-nationalist alliance led by a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist vanguard party. MIM has not thoroughly addressed the formations of the oppressed internal nations themselves, while it has constructed the skeleton of that analysis in relief.

As MIM's social base expands, reflecting the dual purposes of uniting oppressed nations behind Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and dividing susceptible elements from the Amerikan nation, the need for filling in that revolutionary center grows. That project will follow from expanded practice among the oppressed nations as well as a comprehensive review of previous and existing revolutionary nationalist movements, and the concrete theoretical analysis of both.

"When imperialism launches a war of aggression against a country, all its various classes, except for some traitors, can temporarily unite in a national war against imperialism. At such a time, the contradiction between imperialism and the country concerned becomes the principal contradiction, while all the other contradictions among the various classes of the country … are temporarily relegated to a secondary or subordinate position."(1)

The nation, as a social and historical formation, exists in both objective and subjective reality. It is neither permanent nor unchanging; both its overall existence in human society and its specific manifestations are subject to the laws of material development. The nation rises and falls, is born and dies, as determined by the motion of forces both internal and external to itself. Nations are not created solely by the drawing of state borders, any more than nation-states are the products of their official nations alone. Not all nations have developed nation-states, and not all states have been built around specific nations.

Nations are a phenomenon of class society. Class and gender contradictions pre-existed nations. Class and gender contradictions determine national contradictions in the same way that they underlay and determine the contradiction of capitalism. National liberation changes the conditions under which class and gender struggles take place; but national liberation cannot itself resolve the class and gender contradictions.

Dominant-nation theoreticians and their political followers have largely dismissed Marxist theories of nations (the objective structures) and nationalism (the political projects), and have instead settled upon a generalized conclusion that Marxism has simply failed to treat the issue successfully. Such an argument -- as prevalent as it is in the dominant discourse -- can never be credibly advanced with regard to the Third World. There Marxism has produced the only form of treatment of the issue possible within the consistent pedagogy of dialectical and historical materialism: the fusion of revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice.

The dominant-school pundits may be correct to point out that Marx himself failed to "resolve" the national question. But Marxism, the political and philosophical theory and practice, has developed and tested many approaches to the national question, producing in the process the most significant revolutionary movements in the twentieth century: the most significant revolutions, in fact, since the birth of Marxism. And yet First World intellectuals will apparently pour scorn on the legacy of Stalin and Mao on the national question as long as there are dominant nations left in the world to produce intellectuals.

Nations and national ideologies have a dual character, within which opposing characteristics exist in contradiction. As there are subordinate and dominant nations, so too are there progressive and reactionary forces within nationalism. Within the subordinate nations the revolutionary (emancipatory) character of nationalism is dominant; within the dominant nations the reactionary (exclusionary) character holds sway. Failure to recognize or acknowledge this dual character of nations leads to an inability to understand the changing place of nationalism in history and the political imperatives resulting from that motion.

Each nation has a beginning and an end, as does the existence of the phenomenon itself. This is not a new proposition; rather it is an application and a development of the Marxist theory of nations begun by J.V. Stalin, who with the Bolsheviks advanced the first revolutionary theory and practice on the national question in the era of imperialism. That the outcome of that effort was history's first socialist revolution is testimony to the value of the theory and practice; that it is with historical hindsight less-than-perfect is testimony to the dialectical relationship between theory and practice -- and the truth of an old saying repeated by Mao Zedong: "a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit." Or, more elaborately:

"The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice."(2)

In the era of imperialism, the dual character of nations is thus: the principal contradiction on a world scale is between imperialism and the oppressed nations. This contradiction contains within it many other contradictions: principally the contradictions of class and gender. Thus, the contradictions of class and gender determine the contradictions of imperialism. Through national liberation struggles, class and gender interests are united in opposition to imperialism and national oppression, thus creating the conditions for the eventual destruction of class and gender oppression as well.

In "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination," Lenin argued that the right of self-determination belonged "wholly and exclusively" to the sphere of political democracy.(3) But by 1920 he distinguished between "bourgeois democratic" and "national-revolutionary" forms of national struggle. This change was the result of political struggles between reformist and revolutionary forms of Social-Democracy. The result was the "cardinal idea" underlying the new thesis: "the distinction between oppressed and oppressor nations."(4) And it was an idea made possible in the Bolshevik Party's eyes by the imminence of socialist revolution in Russia -- without a developed capitalist stage -- and the anticipated future alliance between national-revolutionary struggles and the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia. Lenin further argued:

"In the same way as mankind can arrive at the abolition of classes only through a transition period of the dictatorship of the oppressed class, it can arrive at the inevitable integration of nations only through a transition period of the complete emancipation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede."(5)

Recognizing the conditions under which the national contradiction is principal is the result of a political practice and historical analysis which reveals that the classes and genders within the oppressed and oppressor nations have constructed strategic national alliances for their class and gender interests. National liberation struggles have been propelled by these forces. In the oppressed nations these alliances have led to the revolutionary struggles that have been the main threats to the existence of the imperialist system itself. This is the objective course of human history in the era of imperialism; it is not merely the political choice of nationalists eager to advance "their cause" over class and gender struggle.

Nationalism is the political theory and practice of the nation, and its dual character mirrors the motion of the contradictions between imperialism and oppressed nations on a world scale. In the dominant imperialist nations, the reactionary character of nationalism determines the overall shape of the movement; in the subordinate nations the revolutionary character is principal, propelling the revolutionary national liberation struggle. Juan Gomez-Quinones says Lenin saw two directions in the movement of imperialism. Immediately, imperialism's oppression of nations was a force for their galvanization into national resistance movements; but at the same time the world-wide dominance of capital also forced the integration of nations.

"As a result of both aspects, there is an increase in nationalism, both for the oppressed and the oppressors. Thus, there is a dialectic between the bourgeois nationalism of the oppressor and the mass nationalism of the oppressed. Consequently, imperialism is characterized as an era of rising mass national consciousness."(6)

The people of the dominant nations construct class and gender alliances which use nationalism to advance their class and gender interests within dominant nations at the expense of the people of the subordinate nations. These strategic alliances are mainly two-fold: the alliance of the labor aristocracy and the imperialist bourgeoisie, and the gender alliance between dominant-nation women and dominant-nation men. The people of the subordinate nations, on the other hand, construct class and gender alliances which serve to advance the interests of their nations and attack the foundations of imperialism. Their struggle is the revolutionary nationalist struggle, comprising an alliance of the working masses with the left-wing of the national bourgeoisie and sections of the petty bourgeoisie, and an alliance between women and left-wing men of each class level in the subordinate nation. In the dominant nations, the bourgeoisie generally leads the national class alliance, and the patriarchy leads the national gender alliance. In the oppressed nations, the level of leadership gained by the proletariat (or its ideology) in the national class alliance, and the level of leadership gained by feminism within the national gender alliance, determines the revolutionary potential of the national liberation struggle. Class and gender struggles thus propel national liberation struggles: the class and gender contradictions between imperialism and the oppressed nations are prioritized over the internal contradictions (and the internal contradictions provide fuel for the fire of the overall movement).

Rather than merely a self-interested grasp at opportunity, then, the Chinese communists' participation in the national war against Japan was specifically internationalist in perspective, as articulated by Mao:

"[O]nly by fighting in defence of the motherland can we defeat the aggressors and achieve national liberation. And only by achieving national liberation will it be possible for the proletariat and other working people to achieve their own emancipation. The victory of China and the defeat of the invading imperialists will help the people of other countries. Thus in wars of national liberation patriotism is applied internationalism."(7)

Engels said of the workers in Ireland and Poland in 1882 that they had "not only the right but even the duty to be nationalistic … they are most internationalistic when they are genuinely nationalistic." Ten years earlier, Engels had argued that Irish workers should have their own national organization, because to ask them to join the British Federal Council would have been an insult.(8)

And Gomez-Quinones:

"Historically, when the working class has been led by Marxists and the class struggle linked with the national liberation struggle, there has been a progressive revolutionary development. When the two have been separated or driven apart, national aspirations are captured by the bourgeoisie and right-wing petty bourgeoisie, who use them for power and advantage."(9)

Each of these alliances within nations -- both dominant and subordinate -- is by necessity also contradictory and highly imperfect, but their overall character is one of subordinated contradiction and strategic alliance. At various times their internal contradictions become antagonistic, which motion yields opportunities for opposing nations to make divisive inroads. The division of the oppressor nations is a revolutionary development, while the division of the oppressed nations represents a setback and loss for the people's struggle against imperialism.

Thus MIM has developed a dual purpose, which includes on the one hand seeking to divide the dominant Amerikan nation by drawing off members of such potentially revolutionary elements as students and young people, and on the other hand developing united Maoist revolutionary leadership for the oppressed nations which stand in opposition to Amerikan imperialism.

Notes:

1. Mao Zedong, "On Contradiction," Collected Works Vol. 1 Foreign Languages Press: Peking, 1975, p. 331.

2. Mao Zedong, "On Practice," in Selected Readings, Foreign Languages Press: Peking, 1971. p. 67.

3. V.I Lenin, "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination." January-February 1916. From Selected Works, One Volume Edition. International Publishers: New York, 1971.

4. From the 2nd Congress of the Communist International (1920). In ibid., pp. 602-605. Emphasis added.

5. Lenin, op cit. p. 160.

6. Juan Gomez-Quinones, "Critique on the National Question, Self-Determination and Nationalism." Latin American Perspectives, Spring 1982, Issue 33, Vol. IX, No. 2. p. 70.

7. Mao, Selected Readings, op cit., p. 140.

8. Ian Cummins, Marx, Engels and National Movements. London: 1980. p. 104.

9. Gomez-Quinones, op cit., p. 77.