TheNat i onal

Quest i on
Decol oni zi ngt he
Theoryof Nat i onal i sm
J ames M. Bl aut
wi t haForewordbyJ uan Mari Bras
ZedBooks Lt d.
London andNewJ ersey
TheNat i onal Quest i on was f i r st publ i shed byZedBooks Lt d. ,
57Cal edoni an Road, LondonN19BU, UK, and
171Fi r st Avenue, At l ant i c Hi ghl ands, NewJ er sey 07716, USA,
i n 1987.
Copyr i ght J . M. Bl aut , 1987.
For ewor dcopyr i ght J uanMar i Br as, 1987
Cover desi gned byAndr ewCor bet t .
Typeset byEMSPhot oset t i ng, Rochf or d, Essex.
Pr i nt ed andboundi n t he Uni t ed Ki ngdom
byBi ddi es Lt d. , Gui l df or d andKi ng' s Lynn.
Al l r i ght s r eser ved
Br i t i shLi br ar yCat al ogui ngi n Publ i cat i on Dat a
Bl aut , J ames M.
The nat i onal quest i on : Decol oni zi ng t he Theor y of
Nat i onal i t y.
1. Nat i onal i sm
I . Ti t l e
320. 5' 4 J C311
I SBN0- 86232- 439- 4
I SBN0- 86232- 440- 8 Pbk
Li br ar yof Congr ess Cat al ogi ng- i n- Publ i cat i on Dat a
Bl aut , J ames M. ( J ames Mor r i s)
Thenat i onal quest i on.
Bi bl i ogr aphy : p.
I ncl udes i ndex.
1. Nat i onal i smand soci al i sm. 2. Nat i onal l i ber at i on
movement s.

I . Ti t l e.
HXSSO. N3B53 1987

320. 5' 4
I SBN0- 86232- 439- 4
I SBN0- 86232- 440- 8 ( pbk. )
87- 13281
Acknowl edgement s

vi
For ewor dJ uan Mar i Br as

vi i
Pr ef ace

1
Pur pose

1
Pl an

2
Li mi t at i ons

5
1. I nt r oduct i on: Si x Pr obl ems f or t heTheor yof Nat i onal i sm

8
TheTheor yof Nat i onal i smandt hePr act i ce of Nat i onal
Li ber at i on

8
`The Nat i onal Quest i on' and`Nat i onal i sm'

13
Fi r st Pr obl em: I s Nat i onal i sma For mof Cl ass St r uggl e?

17
Second Pr obl em: I s Nat i onal i smAppr opr i at eOnl y t o t he
Bour geoi s- democr at i c Revol ut i on?

26
Thi r dPr obl em: Di dNat i onal i smDi f f usef r omWest er n
Eur opet o t heThi r d Wor l d?

29
Four t hPr obl em: Does Nat i onal i smBear SomeSpeci al
Rel at i onshi p t oFasci sm?

33
Fi f t h Pr obl em: I s Nat i onal St r uggl e Out of Dat e? I s t he
Nat i onal St at e an Anachr oni smi n t heEr aof
Mul t i nat i onal Capi t al i sm?

38
Si xt hPr obl em: What i s t heTheor et i cal St at us of t heConcept
`Nat i onal Mi nor i t y' , andWhyDoSomeI mmi gr ant
Mi nor i t i es Remai nUnassi mi l at ed?

48
2. Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous For ce

57
TheCl assi cal Cr i t i que. 58
Post - cl assi cal Var i at i ons

60
The Moder nTheor y andi t s Cr i t i cs

63
SomeConcl udi ng Comment s

69
3, Di f f usi oni smandt heNat i onal Quest i on

76
Nat i onal i smandDi f f usi on

77
Nat i onal i smandFasci sm

83
Neo- Nat i onal i smandCount er - Di f f usi on

88
Neo- Mar xi smandt heNat i onal Quest i on

97
4. HobsbawmontheNati onState

101
Hobsbawm' sTheses

103
ANoteonTermi nol ogy

105
AreNati onal MovementsI rrati onal ?

106
I nternati onal Capi tal i smandtheNati onState

112
HobsbawmandtheMarxi st Theoryof Nati onal i sm

121
5. TheTheoryof Nati onal Mi nori ti es

142
TheTheoryof Mi nori ti esi n Cl assi cal Marxi sm

144
Stal i n' sTheory

146
Mi nori ti esi ntheEraof I mperi al i sm

151
6. TheMythof Assi mi l ati on

159
Assi mi l ati on

160
Ghettoi zati on

163

~

andEdMarksman, col l eaguesandcompai i eros.
Resi stance

169
7. Cl assStruggl esacrossaBoundary

172
TheProbl emof Eurocentri smi ntheMarxi st Theoryof
Col oni al i smandNati onal i sm

172
I nternal andExternal Cl assStruggl e

176
Nati onal Struggl esandHi story

195
Nati onal Struggl esandCul ture

197
8. I nPl aceof aConcl usi on

212
Bi bl i ography

214
I ndex

227
Dedi catedtothememoryof Raf i Ci ntr6n, RudyLozano,
Acknowl edgements
Four of the chapters i n thi s book have beenadapted frompubl i shed arti cl es;
permi ssi onwas ki ndl y gi venbythefol l owi ngpubl i cati ons to repri nt themhere:
Sci ence andSoci ety (Chapter 2) ; Anti pode: ARadi cal J ournal of Geography
(Chapters 3 and 6) ; Monthl y Revi ew(Chapter 5) ; and the Puerto Ri can
pro-i ndependencenewspaper Cl ari dad(the ori gi nal versi onof Chapter 6) . Many
peopl econtri butedi ni mportant ways to thewri ti ngof thi s bookandthei deasi t
contai ns (but not i ts errors) . I wi sh to express my speci al grati tude to Abdul
Al kal i mat, J oseAl bertoAl varez, RamonArbona, Gi ni Bl aut Sorrenti ni , thel ate
Rafi Ci ntr6n, Oti s Cunni ngham, Horace Davi s, Loi da Fi gueroa, J ose Lopez,
Ol ga L6pez, thel ate RudyLozano, Manuel Mal donado-Deni s, J uanMari Bras,
Franci s Mark, the l ate Ed Marksman, Robert Mol teno, J ose and Mari ana
Navarro, Ansel me Remy, Antoni o Ri os-Bustamante, Di gna Sanchez, Chri s
Searl e, J ose Sol er, Ameri ca Sorrenti ni deBl aut, HowardStanton, Davi dStea,
J oseVi l l ami l , Dessi maWi l l i amsandBenWi sner.
d. M. Bl aut
Foreword
Goodtheory i s theaccurategeneral i zati on of practi ce. That i s why there i s no
goodtheory, soci al , pol i ti cal or whatever, i f i t i s not predi catedonaprofoundand
extendedpracti ceof thematter uponwhi chonei s theori zi ng.
Thi sbooki s anoutstandi ngcontri buti ontoMarxi st theoryconcerni ngnati onal
struggl e. Theauthor i s verywel l equi ppedfor thetask. I nthefi rst pl ace, hehas
beenfor thel ast 15yearsanacti vi st i nthel i berati onstruggl eof PuertoRi co. Thus,
hehasbeenpracti si ngnati onal struggl e i noneof thel ast fronti ers of col oni al i sm
i ntheworl dtoday. Secondl y, as a professi onal geographer, hei s sensi bl e tothe
si gni fi cance of physi cal l ocati on i n affecti ngthe courseof soci al and hi stori cal
processes. Thi s i s certai nl y most i mportant i nthi s case. Thegeographi cal factor
spri ngs fromhi s defi ni ti on of nati onal struggl e as "the formof pol i ti cal cl ass
struggl e whi ch i s associ ated, i n general , wi th states whi ch are external l y
governed. "
Thi svol umeconsti tutes acri ti queof past Marxi st theori es of nati onal struggl e,
nati onal i smand, i n general , Thi rd Worl dparti ci pati on i n i nternati onal cl ass
struggl e. The theori es devel oped deri ve general concepts fromparti cul ar
experi ences, asany pi eceof soundtheoryshoul d. Theparti cul ar experi encehere
i s the refl ecti on of the debates anddi scussi ons i n the Puerto Ri canl i berati on
movement, andspeci fi cal l y i n the soci al i st current of thi s movement, aswel l as
amongthePuertoRi canemi grant communi tyi ntheUni tedStates.
Basedontheseexperi ences, theauthor moveswi th great i ntel l ectual l uci di ty
andhonesty through someof the most controversi al themes of Marxi st theory:
whether nati onal struggl e i s somethi ngseparatefromcl assstruggl eor ani ntegral
andpromi nent part of i t ; andevenwhenrecogni zedas a formof cl ass struggl e,
whether i t shoul d be understood as somethi ng associ ated mai nl y wi th the
bourgeoi si eas a cl ass andwi th theperi odof earl y capi tal i smas a stageof soci al
evol uti on.
I nboth cases, heproveshi s poi nt i nfavour of a cl ass struggl e perspecti veand
theuni versal si gni fi cance of nati onal struggl efor thei nternati onal worki ngcl ass.
I t i s evi dent that Leni n has been, so far, the maj or theoreti ci an for these
proposi ti ons . Certai nl y, the pol i ti cal geni us whol edthefi rst vi ctori ous soci al i st
revol uti oni n worl dhi story was hi msel f a fronti er manfroma fronti er nati on,
whi ch madehi mparti cul arl y fi ttedfor sucha theoreti cal di scovery. Probabl y one
of hi s maj or accompl i shments as a theoreti ci anof thesoci al evol uti onof human
Foreword
ki nd was hi s rupture wi th the Eurocentri c concepti ons of Marx and Engel s
i nasmuchasi t wasnecessarytotransl ateMarxi st theori es i ntopracti cei n amostl y
non-Europeancountryl i keRussi a.
Prof essor Bl aut anal yses the proposi ti ons menti oned abovethroughout hi s
book. Asf or thedi scussi ons wi thi n thePuerto Ri canI ndependence movement
that l ed to thesetheoreti cal conf rontati ons, they have, i n myesti mati on, been
l argel y transcended by hi story. I t i s nowmoreevi dent thanaf ewyears agof or
anyone, except thosewi thveryunderdevel opedpol i ti cal mi nds, that thenati onal
l i berati on struggl eof thePuertoRi cani ndependencemovement i s of theessence
of cl ass struggl eandthat theachi evement of i ndependencef or PuertoRi coi s the
maj or contri buti on that Puerto Ri cans can make to the compl ete vi ctory of
soci al i smi n theworl d. Yet, thetheoreti cal el aborati on of thi s f act, whi ch some
day wi l l besel f -evi dent, i s sti l l necessary. Fewworks can be as val uabl e as the
present onef orthef ul l cl ari f i cati onof thesepoi nts.
I t i s, however, i n chapter sevenof thi s vol umethat theauthor makes what I
consi der a real , outstandi ng contri buti on to Marxi st theory. Hi s i deas about
Eurocentri smandgeographi cal di f f usi oni smas shortcomi ngs of Marxi st theory
ought to beseri ousl y consi dered anddevel opedi n the f uture by many other
thi nkers.
Asamatter of f act, thecreati ve, pol i ti cal f ocus of Marxi st theory has moved
substanti al l y f romEuropeto theThi rdWorl dthroughout the present century.
Li ttl enewi s comi ngf romEuropenowtoenl i ghtenthetheoryof soci al evol uti on
basedonhi stori cal materi al i smduri ngthenext epoch. Al l thedi ssi dent vari eti es
of current Europeansoci al i st thought arerootedi n thesametheoreti cal paradi gm
causedbythebasi c def ect of Marxi sm, whi chi s i ts Eurocentri c concepti onof the
hi stori cal andsoci al processesof cl asssoci eti es.
"These l i mi tati ons of Marxi st theory as a whol e", af f i rms Prof essor Bl aut
correctl y, "are, unsurpri si ngl y, f oundal so i n the theory of nati onal i smor the
nati onal struggl e. "
I hopethat thi s vol ume, andparti cul arl y thel atter chapters, wi l l bri ngf urther
devel opments of the basi c i deas di scussed, and that i t wi l l sti mul ate new
theoreti cal ef f orts f romThi rd Worl d schol ars and mi l i tants of revol uti onary
acti on.
J uanMari Bras
Vl l l
Pref ace
Purpose
I n every nati onal l i berati onstruggl etherei s concernabout thenati onal questi on:
thequesti on of howthef i ght f or pol i ti cal soverei gnty i s tobecarri edout andwhat
rol ei t shoul dpl ay i n thel arger struggl ef or soci al j usti ce. Thei ssues areal ways
compl exanddi f f i cul t, andal waystherei s asearchf orgeneral pri nci pl es, f or theory,
toprovi desomegui dancef or practi ce. ~I wi l l arguei n thi s book that theMarxi st
theoryof nati onal struggl ecanof f er thi s ki ndof gui dance, provi dedthat weadapt
the theory tothecondi ti ons that are f acedi n Thi rdWorl dl i berati on struggl es:
condi ti onsof col oni al i smandneocol oni al i sm. I wi l l al sodef endthebasi cor cl assi c
theory, as i t wasf ormul atedbyMarx, Engel s, andLeni n, agai nst thechargethat i t i s
not rel evant tonati onal l i berati on struggl es i n theThi rdWorl dof the1980s, and
agai nst the charge that i t somehowdef i nes these struggl es as reacti onary or
i nsi gni f i cant or out of date. Fi nal l y, I wi l l contri butesomenewel ements to the
theory i tsel f , andtohi stori cal materi al i sm.
Thebook evol ved as aseri es of separateessays, andI cannot cl ai mf or i t the
vi rtues of systemati c organi zati on. Each chapter i s an essay, andeach essay i s a
sel f -contai ned argument . Neverthel ess the book as a whol ehas asi ngl e poi nt of
ref erence and a si ngl e argument . The ref erence poi nt i s the Puerto Ri can
i ndependencemovement . Thenati onal questi on i s seri ousl y debatedwi thi n our
movement andamongi ts pol i ti cal andi ntel l ectual al l i es. Muchof thedebatecentres
onquesti onsof theory. I s thereacontradi cti onbetweennati onal struggl eandcl ass
struggl e? Between amul ti -cl ass nati on andani nternati onal worki ngcl ass? Are
nati onal struggl es si mpl y out of date? Thosewhobel i eve i n the exi stenceand
general i tyof suchcontradi cti onsarepronetocri ti ci zethePuertoRi canmovement
or abandoni t .
Thi s book demonstrates, f romthe poi nt of vi ewof Marxi st theory, that such
contradi cti ons donot exi st i n thecondi ti ons wi th whi ch weare concerned; that
struggl es f or nati onal l i berati on i ncol oni es andneocol oni esareavi tal , central part
of the movement towards soci al j usti cei n thesecountri es andi n theworl d. The
argument i s put f orwardat thel evel of theory, andI sayrel ati vel y l i ttl eabout Puerto
Ri coi tsel f (whi ch I treat i n another, f orthcomi ngwork: Lacuesti 6n nati onal en
PuertoRi co) . But here, as el sewhere, theoryi s wri tten f or thesakeof practi ce.
Pl an
Most struggl es agai nst col oni al i smand neocol oni al i smhave a great deal i n
common wi thone another, andi t wi l l become cl ear astheargument proceedsthat
the probl ems conf ronted i n thi s book are cruci al i ssues f or nati onal l i berati on
movements throughout the Thi rdWorl d; cruci al al so f or theoreti cal , schol arl y
debates about col oni al i sm, underdevel opment, uneven devel opment, and
i mperi al i sm. I can i l l ustrate al l of thi s by bri ef l y recounti ng the way thi s book
evol ved.
Unti l the mi d- 1970s f ewMarxi sts questi oned the axi omthat anti col oni al
struggl es are progressi ve andi mportant . Debates about the nati onal questi on i n
regardtocol oni zedpeopl es tendedtof ocus on a narrower i ssue: the probl emof
determi ni ng whether a gi ven communi ty was a nati on ( wi th the ri ght of sel f -
determi nati on i ncl udi ng secessi on) or merel y a `nati onal mi nori ty' wi thi n some
l arger nati on. Thi s i ssue was central to the nati onal questi on i n Thi rd Worl d
countri es wi thseri ous i nternal secessi oni st movements( f or exampl e i n Sri Lanka,
I ran, or Ethi opi a) , i n theSouthAf ri can andPal esti ni an l i berati on movements, and
i n the varyi ngstruggl esof Thi rdWorl dmi nori ti esi n theUni tedStates, oneof these
bei ng the PuertoRi can communi ty. ( Twomi l l i on PuertoRi cans l i ve i n the US;
three mi l l i on l i ve i n PuertoRi co. )
I n the 1970s, thePuertoRi cannati onal questi on concernednei ther theexi stence
of the nati on i tsel f nor the l egi ti macy and progressi veness of i ts i ndependence
movement. I t concerned( mai nl y) the questi on of whether PuertoRi canswi thi n the
US were part of that nati on or were a US`nati onal mi nori ty' . For Marxi sts, the
l atter posi ti on i mpl i edan obl i gati on touse mul ti nati onal , not nati onal , f ormsof
communal andpol i ti cal organi zati on, and togi ve absol utepri ori ty tothe task of
l i berati ng the US, not PuertoRi co. Themai nargument i n f avour of the `nati onal
mi nori ty' posi ti on i nvol veda Stal i nesque i nterpretati on of the Marxi st theory of
nati onsandmi nori ti es, ani nterpretati on whi chposi tsthe i nevi tabi l i ty of nati onal
assi mi l ati on. Chapters5and6of the present bookwerewri tten tocombat thi s vi ew
of Marxi st theory andof hi stori cal real i ty. Theywerewri tten ascontri buti onstothe
debate about PuertoRi cans i n theUS, but thei r arguments appl y( andhavebeen
appl i ed) to other debates about `nati onal mi nori ti es' , andto schol arl y debates
about the theory of nati onal i sm.
Thenati onal questi on becamea muchl arger i ssue f or Marxi stsi n themi d- 1970s.
Nol onger wasi t consi deredaxi omati c that nati onal struggl es agai nst col oni al i sm
are l egi ti mate, j usti f i ed, progressi ve, andi mportant. The axi omi tsel f deri ved
mai nl y f romLeni n' s cl assi c argument that col oni al i smi s a central f eature of
monopol y capi tal i sm( or i mperi al i sm) , that anti - col oni al struggl es are cl ass
struggl es, that they are di rectedmai nl yagai nst thei mperi al i st bourgeoi si e, andthat
they arecruci al tothestruggl e f or soci al i sm. Duri ngthe 1970stheLeni ni st anal ysi s
of these processes, andof i mperi al i smasa whol e, wascomi ngunder attackf roma
number of theoreti cal di recti ons, andvari ous competi ng worl dmodel s were bei ng
proposedanddef endedby Marxi sts, some of whomconsi deredthemsel ves tobe
wi thi n the Leni ni st theoreti cal tradi ti on, others outsi de i t . Most of the model s
i nterpretedi mperi al i smas, i n essence, a di f f usi on of capi tal i sm, a matter of uneven
devel opment or uneven `moderni zati on' , andnati onal l i berati on struggl es were
e ace
typi cal l y vi ewed as moments i n the ri se of capi tal i sm( or of the bourgeoi si e) i n
peri pheral countri es, not as struggl es agai nst metropol i tan capi tal i smandtoa
si gni f i cant extent agai nst capi tal i smi n general .
Al l - of thi s l ed to a si gni f i cant deval uati on of nati onal l i berati on: i t wastobe
reducedto`bourgeoi snati onal i sm' , or `narrownati onal i sm' , or tosomei deol ogi cal
andnon- cl assf orce, a f orce someti mesequatedwi thf asci sm. Whi l ethecri ti que of
Leni n' s vi ewof i mperi al i smdevel oped steadi l y throughout the the 1970s ( and
beyond) , thederi vati ve cri ti que of nati onal i smbecamei mportant mai nl yaf ter the
f al l of Sai gon, symbol i cal l y a bi rthdatef or New- Lef ti st andNeo- Marxi st cri ti ques
of Thi rdWorl drevol uti ons f romVi etnamto Angol a to Cuba. I t was i n thi s
atmospherethat anumber of newtheori esof nati onal i smor nati onal struggl e were
proposed andsome ol d ones resurrected. Most of these theori es f el l i nto two
groups. Onegrouparguedthat nati onal struggl e i sautonomousf romcl assstruggl e.
The other arguedthat nati onal struggl e i s cl ass struggl e but i t i sassoci atedmai nl y
( or onl y) wi thone cl ass, the bourgeoi si e, andone stage of soci al evol uti on, the _
peri odof earl y or ri si ng capi tal i sm.
These twotheori es have hadcorrosi ve ef f ects on the PuertoRi can l i berati on
movement, andi t i s f or thi sreasonthat I wrotetheessayswhi chf ormChapters2, 3,
and4 of the present book. The PuertoRi can movement hadbeen very nearl y
crushedi n the 1950s, but duri ngthe 1960sand1970s i t grewrapi dl y, andbecame
expl i ci tl y soci al i st andMarxi st i n resonance wi thl i berati on struggl es el sewherei n
the Thi rd Worl d. For a ti me thi s rapi d ef f l orescence of the movement l ed to
over- conf i dence and i l l usi oni smabout the ti metabl e of l i berati on. When the
expectati onsprovedtobe unreal i sti c, many Marxi stsreactedby questi oni ng not
onl y the i l l usi ons, andtheerrorsmadei n thestruggl e, but al sothebasi c l egi ti macy
of the struggl e i tsel f . Theyreactedal sotosoberi ng eventsel sewhere i n the regi on -
the i nvasi on of Grenada, the threat of i nvasi on i n Ni caragua - andtothe l arger
atmosphere of the earl y 1980s peri od, when Reagan- Thatcheri smwas ascendant,
when the soci al i st worl d was di suni ted, and when many newl y i ndependent
countri eswereexperi enci ngseri ousdi f f i cul ti es. I n PuertoRi coi t wasasked: `I sthe
' i ndependencemovement merel y"nati onal i st", or "bourgeoi snati onal i st"? I si t out
of date? I s there a"contradi cti on" between the struggl e f or i ndependenceandthe
struggl e f or soci al i sm? DoesthePuertoRi can nati on sti l l exi st asa pol i ti cal real i ty,
or hasi t, af ter ei ght decadesof US col oni al i sm, di ssol vedi ntotheUni tedStates?'
Si nceabout 1980these i ssueshavebeendebatedwi thi ncreasi ngi ntensi ty, andpart
of the debate has f ocusedon the Marxi st theory of nati onal i sm. '
Chapters2, 3, and4of thi sbookare ef f ortstodemonstrate that nati onal struggl e
~i scl assstruggl e, however muchi tscl assnaturemaybeobscuredbyethni c andother
compl i cati ons; that the pri mary contradi cti on i s the one between contendi ng
cl asses, expl oi tersandexpl oi ted; andthat nati onal movementsare progressi ve and
si gni f i cant when thei r mai n cl ass f orces are theprol etari at andother expl oi tedand
margi nal i zedcl asses, asi n struggl esagai nst col oni al i sm. Theessayswerewri tten as
theory, andthey cri ti ci zedMarxi st theoreti ci ans, but thei r underl yi ngpurposewas
toshowthat Marxi st theory i sa weaponof l i berati on, i n PuertoRi coas el sewhere,
andthat i t cannot beusedtoquesti onthe val i di ty of nati onal l i berati on struggl es, i n
PuertoRi coor anywhereel se.
4 Pr ef ace
The ar gument begi ns, i n Chapter 2, wi th a theor eti cal demonstr ati on that
nati onal i smi s not anautonomous f or ce. Next, i n Chapter 3, I cr i ti ci ze at l engtha
theor y of nati onal i smput f or war d by the Br i ti shMar xi st TomNai r n, a theor y
whi chbecame, i n Puer to Ri co and el sewher e, an i nf l uenti al statement of the
posi ti on that nati onal i smi s somethi ngdi sti nct f r omcl ass str uggl e. Nai r n' s theor y
uti l i zes the cl assi c non- Mar xi st ar gument that Thi r d Wor l dnati on`aTm`ovements
r esul t f r omthe di f f usi on, f r omEur ope, of `moder ni zati on' , al ong wi th the
ar gument that nati onal i smi s aki n to f asci smandnati onal l i ber ati on movements
themsel ves ar e somehowaki n to f asci st movements. For theser easons, al l of them
r el evant to the Puer to Ri can debates, i t seemed i mpor tant to wr i te a thor ough
cr i ti que of thi s one Mar xi st theor y.
I f nati onal str uggl e, however , i s cl ass str uggl e, thenwhi chcl asses makeuseof i t, i n
whi chhi stor i cal epochs, andf or whi chpur poses? Chapter 4 i s a cr i ti que of Er i c
Hobsbawm' s i nf l uenti al theor y that nati onal str uggl es ar e appr opr i ate onl y to the
per i od of r i si ng capi tal i smandnati onal movements ar estr ategi es appr opr i ateonl y
( i nessence) to ther i si ngbour geoi si e; that, i n the20thCentur y, nati onal movements
ar e i r r ati onal and atavi sti c. Hobsbawmposi ts a second ki nd of contr adi cti on
between cl ass str uggl e and nati onal str uggl e: wher eas Nai r n and conser vati ve
theor i sts descr i be the two as di f f er ent ki nds of phenomena, Hobsbawmdescr i bes
thel atter as ( i nessence) a stage of the f or mer , a stagethat i s nowended: nati onal
movements, i ncl udi ng nati onal l i ber ati on movements, ar e no l onger r ati onal .
, / Hobsbawm' s theor y has a nobl e ancestr y: i t der i ves f r omthe ear l y 20thCentur y
( mai nl y Luxembur gi an) ar gument that al l nati onal i sm i s bour geoi s and that
capi tal i sm, havi ngbecome i nter nati onal , no l onger needs thenati onstate. Theol d
vi ewwas attacked by Leni nandsur vi ved ther eaf ter i n the wr i ti ngs of ver y f ew
Mar xi sts. WhenHobsbawmr evi ved thi s vi ewi n the l ate 1970s, pr esenti ng i t i n a
moder ated and wel l - r easoned way, detached f r omthe ol d `al l - nati onal i sm- i s-
bour geoi s- and- bad' dogmati c, andasser ti ngi t to betheessenti al Leni ni st posi ti on,
thei mpact of hi s statement was consi der abl e. I nPuer to Ri co i t gave suppor t to two
pessi mi sti c posi ti ons whi chemer gedi nthel ate 1970s : thevi ewthat i ndependence i s
mai nl y a bour geoi s obj ecti ve, andthe vi ewthat the i ndependence movement has
become ananachr oni smi na wor l dthat i s nowi nter nati onal , not nati onal . I wr ote
Chapter 4 to counter Hobsbawm' s vi ew that nati onal movements ar e mai nl y
~ , : ' ~ bour geoi s andthat nati onal states ar ebecomi ngoutmoded, andto showthat these
concepti ons ar econtr adi ctor y to Leni n' s theor y. Thi s chapter , l i ke the pr ecedi ng
one, i s f r amedas a cr i ti que of one Mar xi st' s wr i ti ngs onthetheor y of nati onal i sm.
But acr i ti que of Hobsbawm' s theor y i s al so acr i ti que of a r ange of i mpor tant new
Mar xi st theor i es whi chquesti on the under l yi ng l egi ti macy of nati onal l i ber ati on.
TheMar xi st theor y of nati onal str uggl e needs to bepl aced mor ef i r ml ywi thi nthe
l ar ger theor y of soci al evol uti on, of hi _stoncal ma er i a s_m, andChapter 7 i s an
ef f or t towar dthi s end. Hi stor i cal mater i a i sm~ s ani ncompl ete theor ywher ei t deal s
wi th pr e- capi tal i st hi stor y andThi r d Wor l dgeogr aphy: i t i s sti l l to some degr ee
Eur ocentr i c anddi f f usi oni st . I n Chapter 7, I ar gue that cl ass str uggl e has al ways
hadanexter nal as wel l as an i nter nal component; that str uggl es agai nst exter nal or
f or ei gn r ul i ng cl asses ar e, themsel ves, cl ass str uggl es ; that they ar e as centr al to
soci al evol uti on as ar e l ocal cl ass str uggl es . Under capi tal i sm, exter nal cl ass
Pr eace

5
_ _. ~ . - -

_
str uggl es assumeaqual i tati vel y newf or m: they becomenati onal . But they evol ved
hi stor i cal l y not as di f f usi ons f r omEur opebut as one of thepr i mar yf or ms of cl ass
r el ati ons andcl ass str uggl e.
Chapter 1 l ays out the si x theor eti cal pr obl ems wi thwhi chthe book i s mai nl y
concer ned: I s nati onal i smcl ass str uggl e? I s i t bour geoi s cl ass str uggl eor somethi ng
l ar ger ? Di di t di f f use f r omEur ope? I s i t aki nto f asci sm? Ar e nati onal states and
nati onal movements anachr oni sti c? Andwhat must be doneto i mpr ovetheMar xi st
theor y of mi nor i ti es? Chapter 8si mpl y cl oses thear gument of thebook andpoi nts
to af ewof the manypr obl ems whi chr emai n unsol ved.
Li mi tati ons
Thi s book i s not acompr ehensi vetr eati se ontheMar xi st theor y of nati onal i sm. I t i s
an i nqui r yi nto those aspects of the theor y whi char eof gr eatest concer nf or Thi r d
Wor l d l i ber ati on movements. Because the nati onal questi on i s a compl ex and
contenti ous matter f or Mar xi st theor y andf or Mar xi st ( andnon- Mar xi st) pr acti ce,
I haveto makecl ear at theoutset of thedi scussi onthat thebookhas these= l i mi ted
obj ecti ves. I t does not attempt to deal wi thmost aspects of the nati onal questi on.
For exampl e:
( 1) The book f ocuses onnati onal l i ber ati on str uggl es agai nst col oni al i smand
neocol oni al i sm, str uggl es whi char e basi cal l y pr ogr essi ve. Ther e exi st many other
sor ts of nati onal str uggl e, some pr ogr essi ve, some r eacti onar y, and some
ambi guous. Al thoughI di scuss thegener al theor y under l yi ngal l f or ms of nati onal
str uggl e, I sayver y l i ttl e about r eacti onar y andambi guous f or ms. Thi s shoul dnot
beconstr uedas ani ndi scr i mi nate ar gument i nf avour of al l nati onal movements, al l
str uggl es f or statei ndependence. I nf act, theMar xi st theor y of nati onal str uggl e, as
I pr esent i t her e, pr ovi des thebest way( thoughnot ani nf al l i bl e one) to f i nd whether
a gi ven posi ti on on a gi ven nati onal str uggl e i s, or i s not, pr ogr essi ve.
( 2) Thi s bookdeal s wi ththeor y. I t appl i es theor y to j ust oneempi r i cal categor y,
nati onal str uggl es agai nst col oni al i smand neocol oni al i sm, andone speci f i c case:
Puer to Ri co. The book does not attempt to anal yse, muchl ess pass j udgment on,
any other concr ete cases of the nati onal questi on, el sewher e i n the wor l d. Theor y
wi l l not sol vethese nati onal pr obl ems, but i t wi l l hel ptowar ds thei r sol uti on.
( 3) Thi s bookdoes not di scuss the nati onal pr obl ems whi chconti nue to exi st i n
par ts of the soci al i st wor l d. These ver y r eal pr obl ems cannot be di smi ssed as
bour geoi s r emnants, but they do r ef l ect thef act that capi tal i smsti l l r ul es over mor e
than hal f of the gl obe. I n the cour se of the book ( Chapter s 2, 7, and8) I wi l l show
that, al though nati onal str uggl e i s cl ass str uggl e, i n today' s wor l d i t al so af f ects
soci eti es i n whi chexpl oi ti ng cl asses have been deposed.
Note
1. Thepr esent vol umedeal s wi ththe i ssues of theor y i nvol vedi n these debates :
her e, I wi l l not ventur e acr i ti que of posi ti ons takenby par ti ci pants . ( I do so i nLa
cuesti dn nati onal en Puer to Ri co, f or thcomi ng. ) Anti - i ndependence posi ti ons ar e
6 Pr ef ace
put f or war d by K. Santi ago, `La cuesti 6n naci onal : Al gunas tesi s i gnor adas' ,
Pr oceso(Puer toRi co) 4(1981), andCol ecti voSoci al i sta deSanJ uan, `Mar xi smo0
i ndependenti smoSoci al i sta?' , Pensami entoCr i ti co5, 35 (1983). For a r epl y to the
Col ecti vo posi ti on, see: Tal l er de For maci 6n Pol i ti ca and other s, `Cr i ti ca a l a
ponenci a del Col ecti voSoci al i sta de San J uan' , Pensami entoCr i ti co 7, 36 (1984) .
The vi ewthat the nati onal i smof the Nati onal i st Par ty (whi ch was str ong f r om
about 1930to1950) was not cl ass str uggl e i s hel dbya number of Mar xi sts. Af ewof
the l atter i denti f y the Nati onal i st Par tywi th f asci sm: see, e. g. , G. Lewi s, Puer to
Ri co: Fr eedomandPower i nthe Car i bbean (1963) . Other s whof i ndacontr adi cti on
between thi s nati onal i smandcl ass str uggl e i ncl ude J ose Lui s Gonz~l ez, EI pai s de
cuatr o pi sos (1980) and J uan Angel Si l en, Pedr o Al bi zu Campos (1976) . The
opposi ngvi ew, that (i nessence) the nati onal i smof theNati onal i st Par tywas a cl ass
str uggl e andpr ogr essi ve f or i ts per i od- a ti me, we shoul d note, whenf ewanti -
col oni al movements i n the Car i bbean and el sewher e had devel oped Mar xi st
i deol ogi es- i s put f or war dby, e. g. , M. Mal donado- Deni s, Haci aunai nter pr etaci dn
mar xi stadel a hi stor i adePuer toRi coyotr os ensayos(1977); J uanMar i Br aas, `Al bi zu
Campos: Hi s Hi stor i cal Si gni f i cance' , i n I . Zaval a andR. Rodr i guez (eds. ), The
I ntel l ectual Roots of I ndependence (1980) ; andTal l er de For maci on Pol i ti ca, La
cuesti on naci onal . ' el Par ti doNaci onal i sta yel movi mi ento obr er o puer tor r i queno
(1982) . Sever al Mar xi sts see the i ndependence str uggl e as, i n var yi ng ways and
degr ees, bour geoi s (al though theythemsel vesar e pr o- i ndependence) . A. Qui nter o-
Ri ver a f or i nstance ar gues (i n essence) that state- f or mi ng movements ar e
appr opr i atetothe per i odof ear l ycapi tal i sm, the r i seof the bour geoi si e; that Puer to
Ri co was not f ul l y capi tal i st when the US i nvaded i n 1898; that Puer to Ri co,
accor di ngl y, exper i encedonl yan `i ncompl ete bour geoi s r evol uti on' andf or thi s
r eason di d not devel op a str ong i ndependence movement compar abl e to other
col oni es (but nocol ony anywher eexper i enceda `compl ete bour geoi s r evol uti on' ) :
see hi s Conf l i ctos de cl aseypol l ti ca en Puer to Ri co(1977) and`Notes onPuer to
Ri can Nati onal Devel opment: Cl ass andNati on i n a Col oni al Context' , Mar xi st
Per specti ves 3, 1 (1980) . For a contr ar yvi ewof Puer toRi canhi stor y, i nwhi chthe
i ndependence str uggl e i s seen as an evol vi ng pr ocess, see M. Mal donado- Deni s,
Puer to Ri co: ASoci o- Hi stor i c I nter pr etati on (1972), and J . Mar i Br as, El
i ndependenti smo: supasado, supr esente, ysuf utur o (1984) . The vi ewthat Puer to
Ri cohas been absor bedi nto the Uni tedStates, f ol l owi ngthe l ogi c of capi tal i sm' s
devel opment f r oma nati onal to ani nter nati onal condi ti on, i s put f or war dby, e. g. ,
F. Boni l l aandR. Campos. SeeBoni l l a' s `Ethni c Or bi ts: TheCi r cul ati onof Capi tal s
andPeopl es' , Contempor ar yMar xi sm10 (1985) . Boni l l a ar gues, f or i nstance, that
nati ons ar e di ssol vi ng as capi tal i smbecomes i nter nati onal : `Puer to Ri cans i n the
Uni tedStates andPuer toRi cans i nPuer toRi co' , J our nal of Contempor ar yPuer to
Ri canThought 2, 2- 3 (1975) . See al so Hi stor yTaskFor ce(Boni l l a, Campos, and
other s), Labor Mi gr ati onUnder Capi tal i sm: ThePuer to Ri canExper i ence (1979) . I
cr i ti ci ze these vi ews i nLa cuesti onnaci onal enPuer toRi co(f or thcomi ng) . Thevi ew
that Puer toRi cans i n the USar e a `nati onal mi nor i ty' i s put f owar d, e. g. , i nPuer to
Ri can Revol uti onar y Wor ker s Or gani zati on, `Nati onal Li ber ati onof Puer toRi co
and the Responsi bi l i ti es of the U. S. Pr ol etar i at' , J our . Contemp. Puer to Ri can
Thought 2, 2- 3 {1975); f or the opposi ng vi ew, see, e. g. , Par ti do Soci al i sta
Puer tor r i queno, Desdel as entr ap-as (1974) ; al so see J . Bl aut, `Ar ePuer toRi cans a
Nati onal Mi nor i ty' 1' and`El mi todel a asi mi l aci 6n' (r evi sed as chapter s 5 and6of
the pr esent vol ume); f or a r epl yto`Ar ePuer toRi cans . . . ' see El Comi te, `Cr i ti ca a
una per specti va naci onal i sta de l a cuesti 6n naci onal ' , Pensami ento Cr i ti co 1, 5- 6
(1978). Sever al i mpor tant wor ks i nEngl i shdescr i be the Puer toRi cani ndependence
str uggl e: see, e. g. , Mal donado- Deni s, Puer to Ri co. . . ; L. L. Cr i pps, Puer toRi co:
The Casef or I ndependence (1974) ; L. Ber gmanet al . , Puer to Ri co: The Fl ameof
Resi stance (1977) ; and Zaval a and Rodr i guez (eds . ), The I ntel l ectual Roots of
I ndependence (1980) .
1 . I ntroducti on: Si x Probl ems
f or theTheoryof Nati onal i sm
The Theory of Nati onal i smand the Practi ce of Nati onal
Li berati on
Thesubj ect of thi s booki s cal l ed`thenati onal questi on' whenour concernwi th i t i s
practi cal andpol i ti cal , and cal l ed `the theory of nati onal i sm' (or `the theory of
nati onal struggl e' ) whenour concern i s moregeneral . Most of the topi cs deal t wi th
hereare i n thereal mof theory, andI hopethat theworkas a whol ewi l l makea
usef ul contri buti on tothetheoryof nati onal i sm. But soci al theoryi s not wri ttenf or
i ts ownsake: theunderl yi ngpurposeof thi s worki s to f ashi onaset of theoreti cal
tool s to hel p us understandwhysomenati onal struggl es i n the modernworl dare
progressi veandothers arereacti onary, andtohel pus wi n thef i rst ki ndof struggl e
anddef eat thesecond.
Moreconcretel y, thi s bookhas a def i ni tef ocusononeki ndof nati onal struggl e:
thef i ght f or nati onal l i berati on i n col oni es andneocol oni es. Most of thecurrent
andi nf l uenti al wri ti ngsabout thetheoryof nati onal i smhaveveryl i ttl ethat i susef ul
to say about thi s parti cul ar f ormof the nati onal questi on, andmuch of thework
tends to obscure and mysti f y i t, mi sj udgi ng i ts si gni f i cance and f ai l i ng to
comprehend, muchl ess expl ai n, i ts progressi verol e i nthef i ght f or soci al j usti ce. I n
the case of mai nstreamtheory - by whi ch I mean non-Marxi st, general l y
conservati ve theory -thenati onal struggl es i n col oni es and neocol oni es are
i ncorrectl y vi ewed as products of an autonomous i deol ogy, not products of
pol i ti cal andeconomi c oppressi on, ani deol ogywhi ch i s assumedto havedi f f used
outwardf romEuropetothecol oni al worl das part of aprocessof `moderni zati on' ,
wi th col oni al i smi tsel f bei ng mi si denti f i ed as a process that brought `moderni ty' ,
not poverty and underdevel opment . For those who are unf ami l i ar wi th thi s
l i terature, my sweepi ng characteri zati on of i t may seemto be unf ai r and
oversi mpl i f i ed. But i nthef ol l owi ng pagesI wi l l showthat themai nstreamtheoryof
nati onal i smi s very consi stent i n i ts mi si denti f i cati on of nati onal l i berati on
struggl es andof col oni al i sm. I ndeed, unti l recentl y, most mai nstreamEuropean
wri ters about nati onal i smqui tef ai l ed to noti ceanti -col oni al struggl es, andeven
todaythesearewi thgreat regul ari tythought tobesi mpl eproductsof thedi f f usi on
of `ci vi l i zed' European i deas to the backward f ol k of Af ri ca, Asi a, and Lati n
Ameri ca.
Mattersaresomewhat better wi thi n the Marxi st corpus of theoreti cal wri ti ngs
about thenati onal questi on, as wewoul dexpect to bethecase gi venthehi storyof
Marxi st parti ci pati on i nandsupport of anti -col oni al l i berati onstruggl es. Evenso,
wewi l l f i ndthat Marxi st theoryabout thi s f ormof the nati onal questi oni sf ar f rom
sati sf actory. Much of the current wri ti ng about thi s topi c i s vi rtual l y
i ndi sti ngui shabl e f romthemai nstreamcorpus, ascri bi ng anti -col oni al l i berati on
struggl es i nthesamewaytoapri mordi al i deol ogy, not tothe l ogi c of resi stanceto
expl oi tati onandpol i ti cal oppressi on, andi nthesamewayi nvoki ngtheEurocentri c
noti on of thedi f f usi on of `moderni zati on' . But evenwhenweset asi dethi s bodyof
workwhi chputsf orwardconservati vetheoryunder theMarxi st banner, somevery
seri ous i nadequaci es can beseen i n the Marxi st corpus of wri ti ng onthe nati onal
questi on, and most of these i nadequaci es ref l ect an i mperf ect concepti on of
nati onal l i berati on struggl es i n col oni es andneocol oni es.
Thi s has two very unf ortunateconsequences, onef or theory and theother f or
practi ce. That part of soci al theory whi ch i s supposed to deal wi th al l f orms of
nati onal struggl e, that corpus of i deas whi ch both Marxi sts and non-Marxi sts
usual l y cal l the theory of nati onal i sm, proves i nstead to beonl y a parti al theory,
appl i cabl e onl y tocertai n f orms of nati onal struggl e andnot to others - andnot,
most conspi cuousl y, to the struggl es of col oni zedandother oppressed peopl esf or
state soverei gnty. But thi s theorycl ai ms, nonethel ess, to bef ul l y general . Thusi t .
mi sconstrues the nature of nati onal l i berati on struggl es. I t f orces themi nto
theoreti cal categori es whi chtheydonot f i t . For i nstance, theyareassi mi l atedtothe
ri se of thebourgeoi si e, or tothebourgeoi s democrati c revol uti on, as though the
pol i ti cal struggl es of thebourgeoi si esof Europeagai nst vari ousarchai c states were
of api ecewi th, say, thestruggl e of Vi etnamese workers andpeasants a century
l ater, as though Vi etnameserevol uti onari es todaywere bourgeoi s, not soci al i st,
andVi etnamtoday werea capi tal i st country, not a soci al i st one. Agai n, nati onal
l i berati on struggl es aredecl ared to bea product of a pecul i ar andautonomous
i deol ogi cal f orce, thef orceof nati onal i sm, not of pol i ti cal oppressi onandeconomi c
expl oi tati on. Andsoon. What wehavetheni s atheoryof nati onal i sm, of nati onal
struggl e, whi chi s badl yf l awedbecauseoneterri bl yi mportant f ormof struggl e(and
epochof struggl e) i s mi sconstrued, whi l eat the sameti mewehavef ormul aewhi ch
`expl ai n' nati onal l i berati on struggl es i n a grossl y i ncorrect manner.
Theprobl emf or theoryi s i nf act even moreseri ous thanthi s, becauseyourea1 l y
cannot understand the modern worl d as a whol e i f you do not understand the
dynami c of that part of i t whi chhasenduredandstruggl edagai nst col oni al i sm, the
part knownasthe Thi rd Worl d. Therecan beno adequatetheoryof devel opment,
of i mperi al i sm, of accumul ati ononaworl dscal e, andof much morebesi de, i f there
i s not an adequate theory of nati onal l i berati on, of nati onal struggl e i n i ts
anti col oni al f orm. Fai l ure to understand the causes and ef f ects of thi s ki nd of
struggl ehas l ed to seri ous errors i n theori es whi ch descri be capi tal i smas a si ngl e,
essenti al l y undi f f erenti ated worl d system, one i n whi ch the di f f erence between
oppressor nati onsandoppressednati onsi s treatedas anabstract or tri vi al matter,
andi nwhi chnati onal l i berati onstruggl esaretreatedassomethi ngother thancl ass
struggl eor margi nal to cl ass struggl e. Much rethi nki ng needstobedoneabout the
`capi tal i st worl d-system' , about capi tal i smas adi f f usi ng modeof producti onwhi ch
merel y arti cul ates wi th other modes at i ts edge, about uneven devel opment as a
10 I ntroducti on
moreor l ess conti nuous process (or a many-l i nkedchai n) between an abstract
centreandanequal l yabstract peri phery, andabout manyother Marxi st vi si ons of
themodernworl d-rethi nki ng whi ch canfrui tful l y begi nwi th a fresh l ookat the
nati onal l i berati on process andthenati onal questi on.
Theory of coursehas i mmense i mportancefor practi ce. Whentheoreti ci ans
general i zeabout thenatureandmeani ngof parti cul ar categori es of soci al struggl e,
and someti mes about i ndi vi dual struggl es i n parti cul ar countri es, thi s often
i nfl uences theconduct of thesestruggl es andthesupport gi ven or wi thhel dfrom
themaround the worl d. Themaj ori ty of contemporary pronouncements about
nati onal struggl ecomi ngfromMarxi sts, at l east from`WesternMarxi sts' , havean
ambi val ent i f not negati ve tonetowards nati onal l i berati on struggl es. They are
`bourgeoi s' . Theyare`aki ntofasci sm' . They`negl ect thedomesti c cl ass struggl e' .
They are `i rrati onal ' becausethe state i s no l onger of i mportancei n a `ful l y
i nternati onal capi tal i sm' or i na`worl dsystem' . Andsoon. Suchpronouncements,
as I wi l l arguei n thi s book, are wrong. They i gnorethe real i ty of struggl es i n
col oni es, neocol oni es, andprecari ousl yfreeformer col oni es, andtheyarei gnorant
evenof themai nl i neof Marxi st anal ysi s regardi ng col oni al i sm. Thesevi ews have
hada defi ni teeffect onl i berati on struggl es, at ti mes spl i tti ngmovements, at ti mes
di scouragi ng young peopl e fromparti ci pati ng i n struggl es whi ch the pundi ts
decl areto bebourgeoi s or backwardor i rrati onal , at ti mes obstructi ngwork done
i n support of thesestruggl es i n other countri es . I si mpl y assert that aneffort to
cl ari fy thetheory of nati onal i smor nati onal struggl e, andto refutethose vi ews
whi ch arefal se, must haveconcreteval uefor thepracti ceof nati onal l i berati on.
I n thi s i ntroductory chapter, after a short di scussi on of the termi nol ogi cal
di ffi cul ti es surroundi ng such terms as `nati onal i sm' and`thenati onal questi on' , I
wi l l enunci ate si x probl ems whi ch havegreat si gni fi cance for the theory of
nati onal i smandthepracti ceof nati onal l i berati on andi ndi catehowtheyaretobe
treatedi n thebook. I wi l l al so i ndi catei nwhi ch parts of whi chchapters each of the
probl ems i s tobedeal t wi th, becauseeachof theprobl ems i s di scussedi nmorethan
oneof thechapters . Thesi x probl ems areas fol l ows :
(1)

I s nati onal i sm(heremeani ngthewhol econtent of nati onal struggl e) aformof
cl ass struggl e? Or i s nati onal i smanautonomous force?
(2)

I s nati onal struggl eappropri ateonl y tothebourgeoi s-democrati c revol uti on
andthe bourgeoi si e? Or i s i t a featureof cl ass struggl ei n general ?
(3)

Di dnati onal i smdi ffusefromWesternEuropeto the rest of the worl d?
(4)

Does nati onal i smbear somespeci al rel ati onshi p to fasci sm?
{5)

I s nati onal struggl enowaut of date? I s thenati onal stateananachroni smi n
theera of mul ti nati onal capi tal i sm?
(6)

What i s thetheoreti cal status of theconcept `nati onal mi nori ty? Andwhy, i n
thepresent era, domanyi mmi grant mi nori ti es remai nunassi mi l ated?
Thesi x basi cprobl ems arecompl etel y general andtheoreti cal i ssues, andI wi l l
deal wi ththemas such. But they al so happentobematters of veryi ntensepol i ti cal
concerntoeveryonewhoi s engagedi n a struggl efor thenati onal l i berati onof a
col ony(l i kePuerto Ri co) or aneocol ony(l i keEl Sal vador) or a freebut embattl ed
former col ony(l i keMozambi que) . Each of thesi x poi nts of theory i s frequentl y
usedas a basi s for cri ti ci smof such struggl es, cri ti ci smwhi ch tri es to arguethat
therei s somethi ngi nherentl yfl awed, or reacti onary, or atavi sti c, or tri vi al i nthese
efforts towi nor preservenati onal l i berati on- becausetheyare`nati onal i st' . Here
aresi x fami l i ar-soundi ng (though hypotheti cal ) exampl es:
1) `There i s an i nherent contradi cti on between cl ass struggl e and nati onal
struggl e. Therefore progressi ves shoul d not parti ci pate i n or support nati onal
l i berati on struggl es (or anyother ki ndof nati onal struggl e) except, onoccasi on,
tacti cal l y. '
2)

`Nati onal l i berati on struggl es, bei ng nati onal struggl es, arenecessari l yl ed by
the bourgeoi si e, not by the worki ng cl asses (or by soci al i sts), because al l
nati onal i smi s bourgeoi s nati onal i sm, andl eads tothecreati on onl y of bourgeoi s
states' (andso l i berated countri es l i keCuba, Angol a, Vi etnam, etc. , must be, by
i mpl i cati on, capi tal i st countri es, not soci al i st ones).

.
3)

`Nati onal i smi ncol oni es andneocol oni es i s not astruggl ebyexpl oi tedcl asses
agai nst col oni al oppressi onandexpl oi tati on. Suchnati onal i smi s merel ytheeffect
of thedi ffusi onfromEuropeof "thei deaof nati onal i sm", ani deawhi chori gi nated
i n Europeandwas thereafter brought by Europeans to thecol oni zedpeopl ei n a
formof tutel agetowards ci vi l i zati on. '
4)

`Al l nati onal i smappeal s to pri mi ti ve. passi ons, to "bl ood" and"tri bal i sm",
andnecessari l ydecl ares one' s ownnati ontobebetter thanai l other nati ons. These
features al so characteri zefasci sm. Nati onal l i berati on movements areof a pi ece
wi th fasci sm. '
5)

`I t i s poi ntl ess tostruggl efor nati onal l i berati onat ati mei nworl dhi storywhen
capi tal i smi s mul ti nati onal , not nati onal . Whyfi ght toestabl i shor defendastatei f
states themsel ves arenol onger i mportant?'
6)

Thi s argument pertai ns to groups whi ch aremi nori ti es i n other countri es, as
twomi l l i onPuertoRi cans- about 40per cent of thetotal popul ati onof thei r nati on
- arei n theUS: `Emi grant groups, oncethey havel eft the terri toryof thei r own
nati on, automati cal l y acqui rethenati onal i ty of thehost nati on, even whenthe
mi grati on i s a forcedmi grati on andafeatureof col oni al i sm. Therefore, mi nori ty
groups l i kethePuertoRi cans i n theUS(andTuni si ans i n France, Pal esti ni ans i n
Lebanon, Koreans i nJ apan, etc. ) shoul dnot dedi catethemsel ves to thel i berati on
of thei r homel ands' .
Each of the si x theoreti cal questi ons i s di sti nct, but the answers forma si ngl e
structureof argument . I t maybeuseful tooutl i nenowtheskel etonof thi s structure.
What i s theroot cause of nati onal probl ems? I s i t someautonomous forceof
`nati onal i sm' or `nati onal i ty' or `thenati on' ? Or i s i t cl ass struggl e? I f i t i s not cl ass
struggl e, then a theory of nati onal struggl e can go on to argue that there i s a
pri mordi al `nati onal i st i deol ogy' and that thi s i deol ogy ei ther i s part of some
12 I nt r oduct i on
br oadl y democr at i c i deol ogy of `moder ni zat i on' , whi ch di f f uses out war ds f r om
ci vi l i zed Eur ope t o an unci vi l i zed Thi r d Wor l d, or i s par t of a mor e si ni st er ,
hat e- dr i ven i deol ogy whi chembr aces f asci sm, xenophobi a, and t he ar r ogance of
nat i onal i t y.
I f , on t heot her hand, nat i onal st r uggl ei s cl ass st r uggl e, t hen t het heor ymust ask:
i s i t basi cal l y t he st r uggl e of one cl ass, t he bour geoi si e, t o f or mor enl ar ge a
bour geoi s st at e? Or i s i t depl oyed bydi f f er ent cl asses, bot hexpl oi t er s and expl oi t ed,
under di f f er i nghi st or i cal and soci al ci r cumst ances? I f nat i onal movement s f or an
i ndependent or enl ar ged st at e ar e appr opr i at e onl y t o t he bour geoi si e, and t o
bour geoi s st at es, i t woul d f ol l ow t hat t he er a of mat ur e capi t al i sm, f ul l y
i nt er nat i onal capi t al i sm, woul d be an er a i n whi chnat i onal movement s no l onger
make sense, nat i onal i smdecl i nes i n i mpor t ance, t he nat i onal st at e becomes an
anachr oni sm, and bour geoi s st at es commencet o di ssol vei nt o asi ngl ei nt er nat i onal
capi t al i st pol i t y. Andi t woul d f ol l owt hat Thi r d Wor l d l i ber at i on st r uggl es do not
r esul t f r omt heexpl oi t at i on and oppr essi on associ at ed wi t hcol oni al i sm; t hat t hey
r ef l ect , r at her , t heef f or t s of al ocal i nci pi ent bour geoi si et o `r i se' , t o f i ght f or power
(and accumul at i on) agai nst t he f or ei gn bour geoi si e. I f t hi s i s t he case, t hen ot her
cl asses, i ncl udi ng wor ker s and peasant s, ar e dr awn i nt o t he nat i onal st r uggl e
i l l egi t i mat el y, because of `f al se consci ousness' - t he t r ansf er ence of a `bour geoi s
nat i onal i st i deol ogy' t o non- bour geoi s cl asses - or f or someot her r eason t hat may
be r eal and i mpor t ant l i ke r esi st ance t o oppr essi on or di scr i mi nat i on but i s not
par t of t he di r ect st r uggl e agai nst cl ass expl oi t at i on and capi t al i sm.
But nat i onal st r uggl es ar est r uggl es f or st at epower , and st at epower i s sought by
al l cl asses i n al l cl ass st r uggl es . St at e power i s t he essent i al envi r onment f or
expl oi t at i on. St at es cannot , t her ef or e, decl i ne i n i mpor t ance, and bour geoi s
nat i onal i smsur vi ves as l ongas t hebour geoi si e sur vi ves . But expl oi t ed cl asses al so
f i ght f or st at epower , and when power i s hel d by a r ul i ng cl ass whi chi s par t l y or
whol l y ext er nal , `f or ei gn' , t hen nat i onal st r uggl e i s j ust as appr opr i at e f or t hese
cl asses as i t i s, under ot her ci r cumst ances, f or t he bour geoi si e.
Thi s gener al ar gument t akes on a speci al f or mi n t he case of col oni es and
neocol oni es . Col oni al i smi s t he oppr essi ve pol i t i cal mechani smwhi ch per mi t s
economi c super expl oi t at i on - expl oi t at i on of wor ker s at i nt ensi t i es not usual l y
possi bl e i n aut onomous capi t al i st soci et i es - and t hest r uggl e agai nst t hi s pol i t i cal
mechani smi s a cent r al par t of t he st r uggl e agai nst super expl oi t at i on. Thecol oni al
(f or ei gn) bour geoi si ei s at l east par t , somet i mes t hegr eat est par t , of t he r ul i ng cl ass
i n col oni al and neocol oni al soci et i es. The st r uggl e f or nat i onal l i ber at i on, agai nst
col oni al i sm, i s t her ef or east r uggl e i nwhi chexpl oi t ed cl asses pl ayacent r al r ol e. I t i s
ast r uggl eagai nst capi t al i smi t sel f , even t houghsomel ocal bour geoi s sect or s wi t hi n
a col ony or neocol ony par t i ci pat e i n t he st r uggl e f or t hei r own separ at e cl ass
i nt er est s . Thus nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es agai nst col oni al i sm(i n al l i t s f or ms) ar e
cl ass st r uggl es whi char e i n l ar ge par t ant i - bour geoi s . And ant i - col oni al st r uggl es
ar e, on a wor l d scal e, t he most si gni f i cant f or mof nat i onal st r uggl e t oday. Thi s
f or mhas evol ved al ongwi t ht heevol ut i on of capi t al i sm, and t odayi n most par t s of
t he Thi r d Wor l d i t i s a st r uggl e agai nst di sgui sed col oni al i sm, neocol oni al i sm.
Mor eover , i t has spr ead beyond t he geogr aphi cal Thi r d Wor l d, because moder n
capi t al i smhas f or ced manymi l l i ons of Thi r d Wor l d wor ker s t o mi gr at e t o t he
advanced capi t al i st count r i es, wher emost of t hemr emai n i n ghet t o communi t i es
and cont i nue t o exper i encesuper expl oi t at i on at a basi cal l y col oni al l evel .
Thi s book, i n sum, i s a cont r i but i on t o t he t heor y of nat i onal i smor nat i onal
st r uggl e, and at t he same t i me an at t empt t o answer f al se ar gument s dr awn
i mpr oper l yf r omt he t heor y of nat i onal i smwhi chhave been used, not al ways wi t h
consci ous i nt ent , t o at t ack nat i onal l i ber at i on movement s i n col oni es and
neocol oni es . Such ar gument s have been used, al so, t o bl ur t he vi t al and
f undament al di st i nct i on bet ween nat i onal l i ber at i on movement s, on t heonehand,
and r eact i onar ynat i onal i sm, ont he ot her . Nosuppor t wi l l begi ven i n t hi s bookt o
suchr eact i onar ynat i onal i sm, or t o bour geoi s nat i onal i sm, nar r ownat i onal i sm, or
t r i vi al - nat i onal i sm. Nat i onal l i ber at i on i s noneof t hese.
`The Nat i onal Quest i on' and `Nat i onal i sm'
Thi s book deal s wi t ha def i ni t e ki nd of si t uat i on i n soci al r eal i t y, somet hi ngcal l ed
`t he nat i onal quest i on' or `nat i onal st r uggl e' . When t hi s subj ect i s di scussed at t he
l evel of t heor y, aver y conf usi ng l abel i s at t ached: i t i s convent i onal l y cal l ed `t he
t heor y of nat i onal i sm' . The conf usi on st ems par t l y f r omt he f act t hat t he wor d
`nat i onal i sm' has sever al di f f er ent meani ngs i n Engl i sh l anguage di scour se, and
onl yoneof t hemeani ngs i s br oad enought o embr aceal l aspect s and f or ms of t he
nat i onal quest i on, t o be a pl ai n synonymf or `nat i onal st r uggl e' . Some of t hese
pr obl ems of meani ng wi l l be di scussed l at er ; f or now, I must makei t cl ear t hat
`t heor y of nat i onal i sm' i n t hi s book means exact l y `t heor y of t he nat i onal
quest i on' . Her ear e someof t he common and wel l - known f or ms of t he nat i onal
quest i on:
1)

Ef f or t s byonest at et o annex anot her st at e, or par t of anot her st at e, t o i t s own
st at et er r i t or y, and count er - ef f or t s t o r esi st suchannexat i on.
2)

Ef f or t s of somepar t of a st at et o secedef r omt hat st at e, and count er - ef f or t s t o
pr event secessi on.
3)

Ef f or t s of acol ony t o wi n i ndependence f r omt he occupyi ngcol oni al power ,
and count er - ef f or t s by t he col oni al power t o pr event t he col ony f r omgai ni ng i t s
i ndependence.
4)

Ef f or t s of a count r y whi ch i s nomi nal l y i ndependent but act ual l y l acks r eal
sover ei gnt y- t ypi cal l y, t oday, t hi s woul d be aneocol ony- t o wi n r eal sover ei gnt y,
and count er - ef f or t s by t he cont r ol l i ng st at e or st at es t o deny sover ei gnt y t o t he
dependent st at e.
5)

Ef f or t s t o f or mst at es byuni f yi ngpr evi ousl ydi st i nct or par t l ydi st i nct pol i t i cal
ent i t i es, and ef f or t s t o pr event uni f i cat i on. I n t hesesi t uat i ons st at es do not conf r ont
oneanot her as or gani c i ndi vi dual s : somecl asses and gr oups wi t hi n eachpol i t i cal
ent i t y wi l l t end t o f avour oneposi t i on on t he nat i onal quest i on, someanot her .
Ther ear eof cour se addi t i onal f or ms of t henat i onal quest i on, suchas ef f or t s t o
wi n aut onomyshor t of i ndependent st at ehood and count er - ef f or t s t o pr event t hi s
f r omhappeni ng, f or ms whi char e l ess t ypi cal but no l ess i mpor t ant . I havenot t r i ed
t o pr ovi de an exhaust i ve l i st .
What do al l t hese f or ms of t he nat i onal quest i on, of nat i onal st r uggl e, havei n
1 4 I nt r oduct i on
common?Fi r st , t hey ar e pol i t i cal st r uggl es, st r uggl es f or st at e power. Second, t hey
ar e compl ex: t hey compr ehend a gr eat r ange of soci al pr ocesses, i ncl udi ng
i deol ogi cal el ement s ( i deas, mot i ves, val ues, et c. ) , soci al andeconomi c phenomena
andgr oupi ngs, pol i t i cal movement s, and much mor e. Andt hi r d, t hey i nvol ve t wo
or mor e opposi ng f or ces : t hey ar e ` st r uggl es' , ` conf l i ct s' , ` quest i ons' , not si mpl e
uni di r ect i onal soci al or hi st or i cal pr ocesses . Mar xi st s woul dadda f our t h common
char act er i st i c of al l nat i onal st r uggl es: t hey ar e cl ass st r uggl es. But set t i ng t hi s l ast
char act er i st i c asi de - we di scuss i t i n Chapt er 2- t he ot her t hr ee woul dseemt o be
accept abl e wi t hout much cont r over sy, t o be al most sel f - evi dent . Yet t hey have
i mpl i cat i ons whi ch ar e i ndeed cont r over si al , whi ch cause gr eat di f f i cul t y f or some
mai nst r eam( conser vat i ve) t heor i st s and a f ewMar xi st s .
1 )

Si nce nat i onal st r uggl es ar e st r uggl es f or st at e power , i t i s t he st at e, not t he
cul t ur al ( et hni c) r egi on, whi ch i s t hei r pr i mar y ar ena, andt hey have no necessar y
and i nvar i ant connect i on t o cul t ur al f or ces or f act or s or gr oups, nor even t o
i ndi vi dual ` nat i ons' - a t er mI have not yet t r i ed t o expl i cat e - si nce nat i onal
st r uggl es of t en i nvol ve mul t i - nat i onal st at es and movement s .
2)

Si nce nat i onal st r uggl es i ncor por at e a wi de r ange of soci al phenomena, t hey
cannot be r educed, as amat t er of def i ni t i on or meani ng, t o i deol ogy al one.
3)

Si nce t hey ar e st r uggl es, conf l i ct s, and cont ai n opposi ng soci al f or ces, t hey
cannot be adequat el y anal ysed or expl ai nedi n t er ms of onl y oneof t he component
f or ces, apr act i ce empl oyed by mai nst r eamt heor i st s when t hey descr i be an ant i -
col oni al l i ber at i on movement as a pr oduct onl y of ` nat i onal i st f eel i ngs' , et c. , as
t hough t he col oni al power of f er s no r esi st ance t o decol oni zat i on.
We come t hen t o t he conf usi ng wor d ` nat i onal i sm' . Thi s wor d i s a t er mof
or di nar y di scour se i n Engl i sh and many ot her l anguages, and i t has var i ous
al t er nat i ve meani ngs . The i mpor t ant t ask i s t o showt he sever al ways t hat i t i s used
i n Mar xi st t heor y . Ther e ar e t wo pr i nci pal usages . They di f f er not onl y as t o
semant i c meani ng, but i n anot her and mor e cr uci al way as wel l . The f i r st meani ng
desi gnat es a set of pr ocesses whi ch ar e cl ear l y evi dent t o ever ybody: t hey ar e
common, agr eed subj ect mat t er f or any expl anat or y t heor y . The second meani ng,
by cont r ast , i s gi ven wi t hi n an expl anat or y t heor y, so t hat whenever we use wor ds
l i ke ` nat i onal i sm' or ` nat i onal i st ' we ar e i nvoki ng t hat t heor y, knowi ngl y or not .
The f i r st meani ng of ` nat i onal i sm' i s br oadl y synonymous wi t h t he phr ases
` nat i onal st r uggl e' and` t he nat i onal quest i on' . Al l t hr ee of t hese t er ms canbe used
i nt er changeabl y-
gr ammat i cal consi der at i ons asi de- t o descr i be adef i ni t e ki nd of
r eal - wor l d si t uat i on, a ` nat i onal pr obl em' , what ever i t s or i gi ns, si gni f i cance,
out come, or causal expl anat i on. Among mai nst r eamschol ar s and most ( not al l )
Mar xi st schol ar s i n Engl i sh- speaki ng count r i es and some ot her s, i t i s convent i onal
t o speak of ` t heor y of nat i onal i sm' i n descr i bi ng any sor t of di scussi on about
nat i onal st r uggl es - about t he ki nds of si t uat i ons whi chwe di scussed pr evi ousl y . I
wi l l f ol l owt hi s convent i on, t oo, al t hough i t woul d be bet t er t o cal l t hi s ki nd of wor k
` t heor y of t he nat i onal quest i on' or ` t heor y of nat i onal st r uggl e' pr eci sel y because
t he wor d` nat i onal i sm' has ot her meani ngs, some of t hemt i ed t o par t i cul ar , of t en
I nt r oduct i on 1 5
quest i onabl e poi nt s of vi ew. I n t hi s book, any t heor y whi ch t r i es t o anal yse a
nat i onal st r uggl e, or f or mul at e st r at egy wi t hi n such a st r uggl e, wi l l be cal l ed a
` t heor y of nat i onal i sm' . I st r ess t hi s smal l poi nt of t er mi nol ogy t o avoi dasour ce of
conf usi on t hat pl agues most wr i t i ngs about t he Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i sm,
conf usi onepi t omi sed i n t he f ol l owi ngcomment : ` Howcanyoudescr i be t hi s sor t of
t hi ng as t he Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i smwhen you' r e t heor i si ng about nat i onal
l i ber at i on, not nat i onal i sm?' We' r e t heor i si ng about nat i onal st r uggl es i n gener al ,
but wi t h speci al at t ent i on t o t he ki nds t hat l i ber at e.
Bef or e we t ur n t o t he second common usage of t he t er m` nat i onal i sm' i t i s
i mpor t ant t hat we consi der onever yi mpor t ant sour ce of conf usi onconcer ni ng t he
f i r st meani ng, t he one whi ch si gni f i es onl y nat i onal st r uggl e or t he nat i onal
quest i on. Some wr i t er s gi ve t he wor d t hi s meani ng but t hen bl ur t he pi ct ur e i n t he
f ol l owi ng way: even t hough t her e ar e ( at l east ) t wo cont endi ng f or ces i n any
nat i onal st r uggl e, one si de onl y i s cal l ed ` nat i onal i st ' . What t hen do we cal l t hei r
opponent s? ` Ant i - nat i onal i st s' ? The absur di t y of doi ng so shoul d be obvi ous . I n
gener al , t her e i s t he nat i onal i smwhi chi s exhi bi t ed by t he def endi ng st at e or empi r e
andt he nat i onal i smwhi chi s exhi bi t ed by t hosewhof i ght f or secessi on. Leni nmade
t hi s poi nt over and over agai n, wr i t i ng about t he ` gr eat - nat i on nat i onal i st s' , t he
` Bl ack Hundr ed nat i onal i st s' ( Gr eat Russi an j i ngos) , t he ` oppr essor - nat i on
nat i onal i st s' , and t he l i ke, and exhor t i ng soci al i st s not t o l ook onl y at t he
nat i onal i smof t he smal l nat i on f i ght i ng f or secessi on but al so t hat of t he l ar ge
nat i on or empi r e f i ght i ng agai nst secessi on, f i ght i ng t o mai nt ai n i t s t er r i t or y i nt act ,
and usual l y f i ght i ng f or t he pr i vi l ege of cont i nui ng nat i onal oppr essi on.
I n a wor d: t o oppose a nat i onal movement - t hat i s, a secessi oni st or st at e-
f or mi ng- movement - i s not t o oppose ` nat i onal i sm' : i t i s t o oppose onl y t he one sor t
of nat i onal i sm, t he onesi de of t he nat i onal conf l i ct . But i t i s so ver y easy t o f or get
t hi s poi nt and t hus t o f al l i nt o a most ser i ous t heor et i cal and pol i t i cal er r or.
Theer r or canbe descr i bed r at her st ar kl y i n t he f ol l owi ng way. AMar xi st of t he
l ar ger ( capi t al i st ) st at e or empi r e may i magi ne t hat hi s or her opposi t i on t o t he
secessi oni st movement of apar t of t he st at e or acol ony of t he empi r e i s necessar i l y a
r esi st ance t o ` nar r ow nat i onal i sm' , and t hus an embr aci ng of ` pr ol et ar i an
i nt er nat i onal i sm' ( et c . ) . But t he pol i t i cs of t he l ar ger ( capi t al i st ) st at e or empi r e i s
har dl y l i kel y t o be i nf used wi t h pr ol et ar i an i nt er nat i onal i sm. Thi s bi g st at e or
empi r e i s most pr obabl y pur sui ng i t s ownsor t of ` nar r ownat i onal i sm' , and any
Mar xi st who def ends t hi s pol i t i cs i s def endi ng nat i onal i sm, not i nt er nat i onal i sm.
By t he same t oken, t hose whost r uggl e f or secessi on, or f or what we nowadays t end
t o cal l ` nat i onal l i ber at i on' i n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ances, may ver y wel l be i nf used
wi t h pr ol et ar i an i nt er nat i onal i sm. Thei r sor t of nat i onal i smmay wel l r ef l ect a
j udgment t hat t he onl y way t o at t ai n soci al i smi n t hei r t er r i t or y i s t o f i ght f or st at e
sover ei gnt y and agai nst cont i nued gover nance by a r eact i onar y st at e. They ar e
l i kel y t o vi ewt hei r nat i onal movement as onedet achment i n t he wor l d st r uggl e f or
soci al i sm, f or a wor l di n whi ch capi t al i st st at es i n gener al have di sappear ed, al ong
wi t h nat i onal oppr essi on. And we knowt hat i n pr act i ce f i ght er s f or nat i onal
l i ber at i on, bef or e and af t er t hey gai n vi ct or y, t end t o hel p ot her st r uggl es,
el sewher e, as best t hey can. ( For i nst ance, Puer t o Ri can i ndependent i st as f ought
wi t h Bol i var , Mar t i , Fi del , t he Sandi ni st as, et c. ) The er r or , t hen, i s t o bel i eve t hat
1 6 I nt r oduct i on
onl y onesi dei n anat i onal st r uggl ei s ` nat i onal i st ' , and, wor seyet , t o bel i evet hat t he
ot her si demust be` i nt er nat i onal i st ' . Bel i evi ng t hi s, onecani magi net hat t hesubj ect
mat t er of aMar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i smi s t he pol i t i cs of secessi on, of what i s
cor r ect l ycal l ed ` smal l - nat i on nat i onal i sm' . Thenat i onal pol i t i cs of l ar gest at es and
empi r es t hen appear s t o r ef l ect ot her sor t s of causes, andt o bet hesubj ect mat t er of
adi f f er ent sor t of t heor y.
Thesecond basi c meani ng of ` nat i onal i sm' descr i bes aspeci f i c sor t of pol i t i cal
i deol ogy, pr ogr amme, andf or mof act i on, t heonewhi chweof t endescr i beas ` nar -
r ownat i onal i sm' . Theessence of t hi s phenomenon i s t he bel i ef - and t he act i ons
based on t hi s bel i ef : wear e not di scussi ng i deol ogy al one - t hat t he wi nni ng of a
nat i onal st r uggl e, t heat t ai ni ng of st at esover ei gnt y, i s al l t hat i s needed t o cur et he
mai n soci al i l l s of agi ven soci et y. Themost of t en- encount er ed f or mof t hi s pol i t i cal
phenomenon i s t he ki nd of smal l - nat i on nat i onal i smwhi ch decl ar es, usual l y i n
hi ghl y col our f ul l anguage, t hat i ndependence f r omt he ` nat i onal oppr essor ' i s al l
t hat i s needed t o sol vet hesoci et y' s f undament al soci al pr obl ems . I n pr act i ce, t hi s
posi t i on t ends t o be oneof opposi t i on t o r adi cal soci al change wi t hi n t he soci et y
i t sel f , t hat i s, wi t hi n i t s i nt er nal cl ass st r uct ur e. Whenasoci al i st t hen ar gues t hat t he
f i ght i s agai nst al l oppr essor s, domest i c and f or ei gn, he or she i s l i kel y t o be
denounced as asower of soci al di vi si ons, as onewhounder mi nes t he( met aphysi cal )
uni t yof t henat i on, and so on. Thi s, t hen, i s af or mof nat i onal i smwhi ch t ypi cal l y
opposes soci al i smor i s i ndi f f er ent t o i t , andt o whi ch i s at t ached apar t i cul ar r ol e:
t he ( pur e) nat i onal i st .
Nar r ownat i onal i smi s of t en al so ` bour geoi s nat i onal i sm' , si nce most count r i es
whi chf i ght f or nat i onal i ndependencear emor e or l ess capi t al i st soci et i es ( t hough
t hei r capi t al i smmay be t he di st or t ed t ype char act er i st i c of col oni es) , and t he
nat i onal i st s' goal maybet o achi evean i ndependent capi t al i st st at e, wi t h t henat i ve
bour geoi si e r epl aci ng af or ei gn r ul i ng cl ass . The` nat i onal i sm' whi ch char act er i zed
east er n and cent r al Eur ope i n t he l ast cent ur y was anot her f or mof ` bour geoi s
nat i onal i sm' , af or mwhi ch was, f or i t s per i od, pr ogr essi ve: i t i nvol ved nat i onal
st r uggl es l ed byt hel ocal bour geoi s cl asses andai medat cr eat i ng i ndependent st at es
wi t hi n whi ch t hese cl asses woul d hol d st at e power and have unhi nder ed
oppor t uni t i es t o accumul at e. Anot her ki nd of ` bour geoi s nat i onal i sm' , on t heot her
hand, i s t hor oughl y r eact i onar y t oday, as i t was i n t he l ast cent ur y. Thi s i s t he
expansi oni smof power f ul bour geoi s st at es, somet i mes i n t hedi r ect i on of annexi ng
nei ghbour i ng st at es, somet i mes i n t hedi r ect i on of acqui r i ng col oni es over seas . But
not al l nat i onal i smi s ` bour geoi s' or ` nar r ow' , much l ess ` r eact i onar y' . Ther ei s, f or
i nst ance, ademocr at i c f or mof ant i - col oni al st r uggl e whi ch di sl odges f or ei gn r ul e
wi t hout consol i dat i ng t he l ocal bour geoi si e, ei t her because t he movement i s
st r ongl y i nf l uenced by soci al i st s or because t he cl ass f or ces behi nd i t ar e not
pr i mar i l y bour geoi s . For Mar xi st s, t he vi ct or yachi eved by t hi s sor t of democr at i c
nat i onal i st movement i s onl y away- st at i on t owar ds l at er soci al i st t r ansf or mat i on.
But so f ar as i t goes, t hi s ki nd of nat i onal i smi s pr ogr essi ve.
Much mor e needs t o be sai d by wayof unsnar l i ng t he t er mi nol ogi cal conf usi on
whi ch sur r ounds wor ds l i ke ` nat i onal i sm' , ` nat i on' , and ` mi nor i t y' ( as i n t he
pr obl emat i c phr ase, ` nat i onal mi nor i t y' ) . Ther ewi l l be somef ur t her di scussi on of
t hese mat t er s i n Chapt er 4and el sewher e i n t he book.
I nt r oduct i on 1 7
Fi r st Pr obl em: I s Nat i onal i sma For mof Cl ass St r uggl e?
Some Conser vat i ve Vi ews
Al l t heor i es of nat i onal i smar e di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y concer ned t o expl ai n a
par t i cul ar ki nd of concr et e and obser vabl e pr ocess, somet hi ng cal l ed a` nat i onal
st r uggl e' , or a` nat i onal pr obl em' , or apar t i cul ar i nst anceof ` t he nat i onal quest i on' .
Ther e i s, f or exampl e, aver ysal i ent ` nat i onal pr obl em' i n Puer t o Ri co, andt heor i st s
woul d want t o under st and, among ot her t hi ngs, t he nat ur e of t he nat i onal
movement whi ch st r uggl es f or t he i ndependenceof Puer t o Ri co: t o under st and i t s
st r at egy, i t s soci al base, i t s act i vi t i es, t he ki ndof soci et y i t pr oposes t o cr eat e, andso
on. But byno means al l t heor i st s woul dconsi der t hi s i nst anceof nat i onal st r uggl e
as havi ng, apar t f r omand opposed t o t he i ndependence movement , an ant i -
i ndependence component , af or ce f i ght i ng t o pr event Puer t o Ri co f r omgai ni ng i t s
i ndependence.
Someconser vat i veschol ar s woul dsi mpl ydef i net heant i - i ndependencef or ces as
bei ng i r r el evant f or t he t heor y of nat i onal i sm, i f i ndeed t hey even not i ced t hese
f or ces . For t hese schol ar s, ` nat i onal i sm' as subj ect mat t er onl y embr aces t he
nat i onal movement , t hepeopl ef i ght i ng f or i ndependence or secessi on, andnot t he
peopl ewho seek t o pr event t hi s nat i onal movement f r omaccompl i shi ng i t s goal s.
Thi s i s much mor e t han a mat t er of convent i on or def i ni t i on. I t r eveal s a
f undament al i nadequacy of t he mai nst r eamt heor i es of nat i onal i sm.
Conser vat i vesoci al sci ent i st s t end t o accept , axi omat i cal l y, t hei deat hat moder n
bour geoi s democr at i c st at es l i ke t heUni t ed St at es ar e i n some absol ut esenser i ght
and r at i onal , hence t hat any secessi on movement f r omt hese st at es, or f r omt hei r
col oni al empi r es, i s a cur i osi t y, asel f - gener at ed phenomenon whi ch i s gi ven t he
name ` nat i onal i st ' and i s t hought t o have ar i sen f or r easons whi ch have l i t t l e or
per haps not hi ng t o do wi t h t he gr eat power f r omwhose t er r i t or y t hey seek t o
secede. So at heor yof nat i onal i smi n t hi s t r adi t i on woul dt end t o f i nd t heor i gi n of a
nat i onal i ndependence movement i n some r eal mt hat has l i t t l e t o do wi t h t he
condi t i ons i mposed by t he l ar ger st at e: usual l y i n somet hi ng abst r act and
i deol ogi cal cal l ed per haps ` t he i dea of nat i onal i sm' or ` t he i dea of sel f -
det er mi nat i on' . For col oni es of Eur opean power s t heconvent i onal f or mf or t hese
t heor i es i s t o suppose t hat t he i deaof nat i onal i smor sel f - det er mi nat i on di f f used t o
t he col ony f r omt he col oni zi ng power ; hence, t hat i t i s t he r ecei pt of t hi s i nf ect i ous
i dea, . r at her t han t hef act - not acknowl edged as such byconser vat i ve t heor i st s- of
soci al and pol i t i cal oppr essi on and economi c expl oi t at i on, whi ch expl ai ns t he
phenomenon of nat i onal i smandt her i se of anat i onal movement i n t he col ony. I n
sum: most , t hough not al l , conser vat i ve t heor i es of nat i onal i smt end t o see as
nat i onal i smonl y t he secessi oni st movement s, and t o i gnor e, or even deny t he
exi st enceof , what ot her s cal l ` gr eat - power nat i onal i sm' . Theyt end al so t o f i nd t he
sour ce of t hese. ` nat i onal i st ' , t hat i s, secessi oni st , movement s i n t he r eal mof i deas,
not t her eal mof economi c or pol i t i cal st r uggl e.
Thet hr ust of my ar gument her e can be conveyed r at her wel l wi t h an exampl e
f r omt he wor k of Loui s L. Snyder , oneof t he l eadi ng conser vat i ve t heor i st s about
nat i onal i smi n t heUni t ed St at es. For Snyder , nat i onal i smi s ` f i r st and f or emost a
st at eof mi nd' andonewhi cht ends i n our t i met o bei r r at i onal andxenophobi c . ' Hi s
wel l - known book, The Meani ng of Nat i onal i sm, opens i t s f i r st chapt er wi t h a
1 8 I nt r oduct i on
quot at i on f r omt he document whi ch was wr i t t en byt he Puer t o Ri can nat i onal i st
Lol i t a Lebr on as sheset out i n 1 954 f or Washi ngt on wi t h t hr ee of her Nat i onal i st
Par t ycomr ades t o oppose, wi t h ar ms, t hei mposi t i on of al awdecl ar i ngPuer t o Ri co
t o be an i nsepar abl e par t of t he US. z Snyder quot es t hesewor ds: `Bef or eGod, and
t hewor l d, my bl oodcl ai ms f or t he i ndependence of Puer t o Ri co. Myl i f e I gi ve f or
t he f r eedomof my count r y. Thi s i s a cr y f or vi ct or y i n our st r uggl e f or
i ndependence. ' ; To Puer t o Ri cans t hi s i sahi st or i c andel oquent pr onouncement by
a nat i onal her oi ne. Snyder , however , mocki ngl y cal l s i t a `penci l l ed sui ci de not e' .
Then he uses t he document , and t he i nci dent , t o make hi s cr uci al ar gument :
nat i onal i smt oday`i s a dest r uct i ve f or ce' whi ch t ends t o be i mbued wi t h`hat r ed of
t he f or ei gner ' . The i nci dent i n Washi ngt on, heasser t s, wasa`compl et el y i r r at i onal
act ( i f t hemaj or i t y of Puer t o Ri cans hadwant ed i ndependence, t heycoul dhavehad
i t ) ' .
Mypoi nt her e i s not Snyder ' s i gnor ance about Puer t o Ri co and hi s unawar eness
of t he f act t hat t he Uni t ed St at es gover nment has never so much as asser t ed t hat
Puer t o Ri co coul d have i ndependence i f t he peopl e want ed i t , or t he f act t hat si nce
1 898 t he Uni t ed St at es has t r i ed unceasi ngl y t o suppr ess t he Puer t o Ri can
i ndependence movement , of t en by f or ce of ar ms and by assassi nat i on, or t he f act
t hat t her ehasnever been al egi t i mat e pl ebi sci t e on t hemat t er of i ndependence. My
poi nt , r at her , i s t ocal l at t ent i on t oSnyder ' s nai veconvi ct i on t hat t hi s nat i onal i smi s
excl usi vel y Puer t o Ri can; t hat t he col oni al power , t he Uni t ed St at es, di spl ays no
nat i onal i smher e at al l - i n f act coul d not car e l ess about t he st at us of Puer t o Ri co
( `i f t he maj or i t y of Puer t o Ri cans had want ed i ndependence, t hey coul d have had
i t ' ) . I doubt whet her most mai nst r eam, conser vat i ve, Nor t hAmer i can schol ar s of
nat i onal i smar e as i gnor ant about Puer t o Ri co as i s Snyder , but cer t ai nl y t he
maj or i t y of t hemwoul d agr ee wi t h hi s asser t i on of subj ect mat t er. nat i onal i smi s
i nher ent l y an i dea ( and an i r r at i onal one) , andnat i onal i smi s di spl ayed mai nl y, or
onl y, by t hose who f i ght f or i ndependence, not by t hose who f i ght t o def eat
secessi oni st movement sandt o mai nt ai n t het er r i t or i al i nt egr i t yof ast at e or empi r e.
Nat i onal i smi n col oni es, l i ke Puer t o Ri co, i sj ust anot her mani f est at i on of t he ol d
Eur opean ur ge t owar ds nat i onal i ndependence, `sel f - det er mi nat i on' . I t does not
conf r ont an opposi ng nat i onal i sm. I t i s not st r uggl e.
Mai nst r eam t heor i es of nat i onal i sm ar e concer ned wi t h many ki nds of
nat i onal i smbesi de t he col oni al st r uggl es f or i ndependence ( whi ch, i n f act , har dl y
i nt er est t hemat al l ) . But t he basi c subj ect mat t er of most of t heset heor i es t endst o
cor r espond f ai r l y cl osel y t o Snyder ' s vi ew. Nat i onal i smi s i nher ent l y apr ocess i n
whi ch gr oups of peopl e wor k t owar ds t he cr eat i on of an i ndependent st at e f or
t hemsel ves, a nat i on st at e, or t owar ds t he enl ar gement of such a st at e. I t i s a
concr et e, obser vabl e, soci al or soci o- pol i t i cal pr ocess, but i t s cause, or sour ce, or
mai nspr i ng, or mot or , i s an i dea or i deol ogy. Thi s i dea i s i t sel f uncaused; or r at her i t
spr angf or t h i n Fr ance and Br i t ai n 200year s ago as si mpl yt he l ogi c of advanci ng
ci vi l i z at i on, of cr eat i ngamoder n nat i on st at e; andt hen t he i dea di f f usedt o t her est
of Eur opeand event ual l y t hecol oni es. Not e, t her ef or e, t hat t he i dea i s pr i mor di al ;
save per haps i n t he or i gi nal West Eur opean `homel ands' i t ar i ses f or no l ocal
geogr aphi cal or hi st or i cal r eason, no r eason of economi c i mpover i shment , pol i t i cal
oppr essi on, or what ever . I t r esul t s onl y f r omt he di f f usi on of an i dea.
I nt r oduct i on 1 9
Gi vent hi s f oundat i on t heor y - t hedi f f usi on of acausal l y ef f i caci ous i dea- i t i s
easyt o t ake t henext st ep andar guet hat nat i onal i smi t sel f i sj ust an i dea, andt hus t o
f or get t heconcr et esoci al pr ocessandpayat t ent i on onl yt o t heput at i ve cause, i t sel f
uncaused, t he `i deaof nat i onal i sm' . Kar l Mar x andFr i edr i chEngel s asser t ed l ong
ago i n The Ger man I deol ogy t hat conser vat i ve soci al t heor y and phi l osophy
di ssol ve al l soci al pr ocesses i nt o i deas, whi char ei n t ur n t r eat ed as pr i mor di al f act s
needi ngno expl anat i on. Most Mar xi st schol ar s, I amongt hem, woul dar guet oday
t hat amor e sophi st i cat ed andl ess myst i cal f or mof t hi s conser vat i ve doct r i ne st i l l
pr evai l s i n most ( not al l ) soci al t heor y: t he i dea r emai ns pr i or t o t he soci al f act .
Cer t ai nl yt hi s i s t r ue of t he gr eat maj or i t y of conser vat i ve t heor i es of nat i onal i sm.
The quest i on, `i s nat i onal st r uggl e a f or mof cl ass st r uggl e?' i s t her ef or e ver y
easi l y di sposed of i n t he ambi ence of conser vat i ve or mai nst r eamsoci al t heor y.
Cl assst r uggl e i s admi t t ed i nt o t hi s ki nd of soci al t heor y, i f at al l , as an ef f ect of what
i s usual l y cal l ed t he `f act or ' of cl ass: t hi s f act or , act i ng t hr ough cl ass st r uggl e,
pr oduces cer t ai n ef f ect s. The `f act or ' of nat i onal i sm ( ul t i mat el y t he i dea of
nat i onal i sm) pr oduces ot her ef f ect s. And so on. Cl ass may on occasi on pr oduce
nat i onal st r uggl e, as when an i mpover i shed soci et yof onenat i onal i t y i s r ul ed bya
cl ass of anot her nat i onal i t y and t he nat i ves gr owr est l ess - r ecal l Snyder ' s
st er eot ypi ng comment about `hat r ed of f or ei gner s' - but basi cal l y t her e i s no
i mpor t ant r el at i on, i n most of t hese t heor i es, bet ween nat i onal st r uggl e and cl ass
st r uggl e. The quest i on i s scar cel y asked.
ThePr obl emof Col oni al and Ant i - Col oni al Nat i onal i sm
Onemor egener al i z at i on about mai nst r eam, conser vat i ve t heor i es of nat i onal i sm
needst o beent er ed her e bef or e wet ur n t o t heMar xi st t heor y. Moder n mai nst r eam
t heor i es shoul d bedi vi ded i nt o t hr eet empor al gr oups: t hosewr i t t en bef or e t her i se
of Naz i sm, t hosewr i t t en bet ween 1 933andt he 1 950s, when ant i - col oni al st r uggl es
wer ebecomi ngver y i nt ense, and t hosewr i t t en af t er about 1 960. The ear l y t heor i es
t ended t o l ook al most excl usi vel y at t hewayi n whi cht he`i deaof nat i onal i sm' had
spr ead acr oss Eur ope i n some ( much- debat ed) associ at i on wi t h t he pr e- exi st i ng
nat i onal i t i es. The out come of t hi s pr ocess was a seemi ngl y nat ur al pat t er n
accor di ngt o whi ch someof t henat i onal i t i esf or med t hemsel ves i nt o nat i on st at es,
or shar ed such st at es wi t h per haps one or t wo ot her maj or nat i onal i t i es, whi l e t he
r emai ni ngpeopl esdi ssol ved i nt o`nat i onal mi nor i t i es' whi chdi d not andcoul d not
pl ay a r ol e i n st at e f or mat i on. Thus, i t was post ul at ed, t her e wasj ust one ki nd of
nat i onal i smandnat i onal movement , a ki nd whi chseekst o f or mnat i on st at es. I t l ed
ei t her t o t he f or mat i on of nat i on st at es or t o t he i l l - st ar r ed, r omant i c but r at her
pi t i abl e, movement s wi t hi n `nat i onal mi nor i t i es' whosedest i nyi t was t o di sappear
f r omt hemapor di ssol ve i nt o oneof t hegr eat empi r esor ( af t er Ver sai l l es) oneof t he
newnat i onal or mul t i nat i onal st at es. I t i s t r ue t hat at t ent i on wasspor adi cal l y pai d,
par t i cul ar l y dur i ngwar s, t o anot her f or mof nat i onal i sm, t heexpansi oni smof gr eat
power swi t hi n Eur ope, but t hi s cat egor y wasnever of much i nt er est pr i or t o t her i se
of Hi t l er . Nor was col oni al expansi oni smconsi der ed i n gener al t o be a f or mof
nat i onal i sm. s
Af t er 1 933t henakedexpansi oni smof Naz i Ger manyf or ced t heor i st st o ser i ousl y
consi der f or t he f i r st t i me t hi s f or mof nat i onal i sm, one char act er i z ed by t he
20 I nt r oduct i on
aggr andi zement of t het er r i t or y of one' s own`ci vi l i zed' nei ghbour s. Ther eaf t er , and
not abl y i n t hei mpor t ant anal ysi s of nat i onal i smby Br i t ai n' s Royal I nst i t ut e. of
I nt er nat i onal Af f ai r s i n 1939, Ger man-st yl e(and al so I t al i an- and J apanese-st yl e)
expansi oni smcame t o be t r eat ed as a speci f i c aber r ant f or mof nat i onal i sm: a
t r ansmut at i on of what had been t he nor mal or gani c gr owt hof nat i on st at es i nt o a
cancer -l i ke over gr owt h. b Nat i onal i smwas st i l l seen as an i dea. I t was t her at i onal
i deaunder l yi ngef f or t s of cer t ai n communi t i es (`nat i ons' ) t o st r i ve f or ast at e of
t hei r own, t hei r r at i onal i deaunder l yi ngef f or t s by cer t ai n ot her communi t i es (some
of t hel esser `nat i onal mi nor i t i es' ) t o st r i vef or i ndependencewhent hi s goal was f or
t hemunr eal i zabl e, and, f i nal l y, t he t r ul y i r r at i onal aber r at i on of t he i dea of
nat i onal i smby whi chgr eat st at es l i keGer many, J apan, and I t al ysought t o enl ar ge
t hei r t er r i t or y at t heexpenseof ot her gr eat st at es.
Fi nal l y, st ar t i ng per haps ar ound 1960, conser vat i ve t heor i st s of nat i onal i sm
began t o pay at t ent i on t o what seemed t o bear el at i vel y newphenomenon: ef f or t s
t o gai n t he i ndependence or l i ber at i on of col oni es . I say `seemed t o be' because
col oni al peopl es had been st r uggl i ngf or l i ber at i on t hr oughout t hecol oni al per i od,
but t hi s was scar cel y not i cedby Eur opean schol ar s unt i l t hemapof t hewor l d began
t o change bef or e t hei r eyes, i n ver y dr amat i c ways, wi t h t he appear ance of an
i ndependent I ndi a, Paki st an, I ndonesi a, and so on. Nowt hi s was at i mewhenmany
pr o-i ndependence st r uggl es wer e t aki ngt he f or mof ugl y, bl oody, conf r ont at i on
wi t h t hecol oni al power , as i n I ndonesi a, Puer t o Ri co, Al ger i a, Vi et nam, Kenya,
Angol a, and many ot her pl aces . The col oni al power s wer e not si mpl y gi vi ng
i ndependencewhen i t was asked f or .
Thus emer ged t wo r at her newquest i ons f or t he mai nst r eamt heor y of
nat i onal i sm, at heor y pr opagat ed mai nl y i n t hever y count r i es whi chwer ef i ght i ng
t o hol d on t o t hei r col oni es . Thef i r st quest i on was: Howdo you concept ual i ze t he
col oni al i ndependence movement ? Do you assi mi l at e i t t o t he ol der f or ms of
nat i onal i sm? And second: Howdo you concept ual i ze t he col oni zi ng power ' s
r esi st ancet o an i ndependencemovement ?I s t hi s, t oo, nat i onal i sm?I s t her e, t hen, a
f or mof nat i onal i smwhi ch f i ght s t o acqui r e ot her peopl es' t er r i t or y and t her eaf t er
hol d on t o i t , af or mwhi ch embr aces not mer el y t heaber r at i ons of Nazi smand
f asci smbut al so t he ext er nal pol i t i cs of sel f -consci ousl y democr at i c st at es l i ke
Br i t ai n, Fr ance, and t he USA?
I amnot t r yi ngher et o wr i t e ahi st or y of conser vat i vet heor i es of nat i onal i sm. I
amt r yi ng si mpl y t o showt hei r basi c i nadequaci es. One such, as wesaw, i s t he
t endency t o r educenat i onal pr ocesses t o i deol ogy: t o vi ewnat i onal i smas i nher ent l y
and abor i gi nal l y an i dea, not adi r ect or i ndi r ect out comeof soci al pr ocesses and
soci al st r uggl es. Asecond i s al most t ot al bl i ndness t owar d t hephenomenon of
col oni al i sm. Theact of acqui r i ngcol oni es and t heact of suppr essi ngor t r yi ng t o
suppr ess i ndependence movement s i n col oni es ar e not seen as moment s of
nat i onal i sm, but r at her as a compl et el y nat ur al di mensi on of t he moder ni zi ng,
ci vi l i zi ng pr ocess. Ther ef or e, t heanswer t o Thesecond of t he t wo newquest i ons
was: democr at i c capi t al i st st at es si mpl y do not engagei n t er r i t or i al aggr andi zement ,
and t he acqui si t i on and r et ent i on of col oni al empi r es si mpl y i s not nat i onal
aggr andi zement - not compar abl e t o t he expansi oni st nat i onal i smof t he Nazi
Ger mans, t heI t al i an f asci st s, t heJ apanese `i mper i al i st s' . I t i s, r at her , t hebeni gn
and per haps di vi nel y gui ded spr ead of `ci vi l i zat i on' t o t he unci vi l i zed. Thi s same
answer ser ves f or t he ot her of t he t wo newquest i ons: t heact of st r uggl i ng f or
i ndependencei n col oni es i s, i ndeed, anewf or mof t heo1d, 19t hCent ur y Eur opean
st at e-bui l di ng nat i onal i sm. I t i s aki nd of nat ur al acqui si t i on of nat i onal i smas t he
moder n, democr at i c, `i dea of nat i onal i sm' di f f uses out war ds f r omEur opet o t he
f ar t hest cor ner s of t he wor l d as par t of t he spr ead of `ci vi l i zat i on' and `moder ni t y' .
So ant i -col oni al l i ber at i on st r uggl es ar enot ar esponset o col oni al i smbut aki ndof
soci al and i nt el l ect ual gr owi ngup.
Per haps t hese l i mi t at i ons of t he t ypi cal mai nst r eamt heor i es of nat i onal i smdo
not seemver y i mpor t ant . I wi l l t r y t o pr oveot her wi se.
Conf or mi t y and Compat i bi l i t y of t heMai nst r eamTheor i es
I t seems t o met hat t her e i s aver y cl ear r eason f or t he l i mi t at i ons of mai nst r eam
(conser vat i ve) t heor i es of nat i onal i sm. Al l soci al t heor y t ends t o beshaped or
const r ai ned by t hesoci et y whi ch pr oduces i t , and t hi s occur s i n t wo mai n ways.
Fi r st , t her ei s aconst ant vet t i ngof hypot heses by means of whi cht hosewhi chmi ght
di st ur b t he soci al f abr i c ar e, i n many di f f er ent and of t en subt l eways, di scour aged,
whi l et hosewhi ch st r engt hen t hesoci al f abr i c ar eencour aged, of t en t o t he ext ent
t hat t hey ar e accept ed wi t hout t est or evi dence. Wemay cal l t hi s t heconst r ai nt of
`conf or mi t y' . Secondl y, each newhypot hesi s i s scr eened t o det er mi newhet her i t i s
compat i bl ewi t hexi st i ngconf or mi st soci al t heor y, a const r ai nt whi chcan becal l ed
`compat i bi l i t y' . ' Bot h const r ai nt s havehel ped t o shapet he mai nst r eamt heor y of
nat i onal i smi n many ways, amongt hemt he f ol l owi ng. ,
Fi r st , i t has been vi t al t o t he i deol ogy of capi t al i st soci et y t o concept ual i ze
col oni al i sm, apr ocess i n whi chcol oni zed peopl es ar ef or ced t o wor kand gener at e
pr of i t (sur pl us val ue) f or t hecol oni zer s, as apr ocess whi ch benef i t ed t hecol oni zed
peopl es i nst ead of har mi ng t hem. Thus col oni al i smwas not a mat t er of
expl oi t at i on, under devel opment , and cul t ur al suppr essi on, but r at her one of
`t ut el age' - t hecol oni zer ' s f avour i t ewor d - t owar ds `ci vi l i zat i on' and `moder ni t y' .
Whywas t hi s vi t al ?Oner eason f r omt hest ar t was t he need t o per suadet heci t i zenr y
i n t hecol oni zer ' s count r y t o suppor t apol i cy of i mper i al aggr andi zement . Anot her
was t heneed t o manuf act ur eand sust ai n an i deol ogy i n t he col ony i t sel f , onei n
whi ch submi ssi on woul d seemr i ght and sensi bl e. For bot h t hese r easons i t was
cr uci al t o be abl e t o depl oy t heor i es whi ch concept ual i zed col oni al i smi t sel f as a
ci vi l i zi ng, moder ni zi ng pr ocess, not one of sel f i sh - and nat i onal i st i c -
expansi oni smand domi nat i on of col oni al peopl es f or t he pur pose of br i ngi ng
weal t h t o t hecol oni zer . As t o t he conf or mi smof t hei deat hat nat i onal i smi s a
nat ur al pr ocess i n col oni es as el sewher e, t hi s i deawas so count er -conf or mi st t hat
books whi ch put i t f or war d wer esomet i mes suppr essed i n col oni es, r i ght down t o
t het i meof i ndependence. $
But r ecent t i mes haveseen anewset of conf or mi st i mper at i ves. Decol oni zat i on
occur r ed muchagai nst t hecol oni zer ' s wi l l , and of t en i n spi t eof hi s ar medef f or t s t o
hol d on t o t he col ony. I wi l l deal l at er i n t hi s book (Chapt er 4) wi t h t hef al set hesi s
t hat decol oni zat i on was avol unt ar y gi f t f r omt he col oni zer . When i ndependence
movement s wer enot opposed, t hi s i n al l cases r ef l ect ed acal cul at ed st r at egy, i n t he
f ace of mor e or l ess ant i -col oni al pr essur e, t o smoot h t he t r ansi t i on t o
22 I nt r oduct i on
neocol oni al i sm, t hat i s, t o acont i nuat i on of col oni al economi c r el at i ons af t er
f or mal i ndependencehad been obt ai ned. Thef i r st i mper at i vef or t hecol oni zer was
t o smot her t he col ony, dur i ng and af t er t he decol oni zat i on pr ocess, wi t h an
i deol ogy accor di ng t o whi ch t he col oni al economi c st r uct ur e woul d be seen as
benef i ci al t o t he col oni zed, so t hat per si st ence of t he same st r uct ur e af t er
decol oni zat i on - wi t h modi f i cat i ons t o accommodat e some l ocal cl ass i nt er est s -
woul dseembenef i ci al as wel l . An i mpor t ant par t of t hi s i deol ogywas t het enet t hat
decol oni zat i on i t sel f was mer el ya st ep i n t he or di nar ypr ocess of soci al evol ut i on;
t hat t he col onywas gai ni ng i t s i ndependence because i t had r eached mat ur i t y, no
l onger needi ng t ut el age, and t hus qui t e nat ur al l y had r eached t he st age wher e
nat i onal i smwoul d ar i seand bef ol l owed i n duecour sebyst at ei ndependence, i n t he
sameevol ut i onar y- di f f usi oni st pr ocess whi chhad pr evi ousl ybr ought nat i on st at es
t o Eur ope. I ndependencewas not , t her ef or e, af r ui t of st r uggl e. I t was agr aduat i on
cer emony.
Appr opr i at e t heor i es of nat i onal i smwer e (and ar e) needed as wel l t o f or m
compat i bl e sub- assembl i es wi t hi n a gl obal soci al sci ence model descr i bi ng t he
met r opol i t an capi t al i st count r i es, t he f or mer col oni es and ot her Thi r d Wor l d
count r i es, and t he r el at i ons and t r ansact i ons bet ween t he t wo sect or s. Thi s model
depi ct s t he wor l d, mi nus i t s soci al i st sect or , as a wor l d of equal capi t al i st nat i on
st at es, wi t ht hepoor er st at es benef i t i ngf r omt hegr eat est possi bl e i nt er cour sewi t h
t her i cher st at es, t he r esul t of whi ch wi l l beeconomi c devel opment f or t he poor er
st at es. I nst i t ut i onal changes wi l l r esul t f r omeconomi c devel opment and f r omot her
i nf l uences emanat i ng f r omt he r i cher count r i es, changes cal l ed i n aggr egat e
`moder ni zat i on' . Thus t he model depi ct s t he di f f usi on of economi c and soci al
advance- pr ovi di ng, of cour se, t hat t her ecei vi ngcount r i es pl aceno obst acl es i n t he
way of t hi s di f f usi on.
Al t hough pur veyor s of t hi s modes genui nel y bel i eve i n i t , i t i s nonet hel ess
pr of oundl y decept i ve. Thest at es i n t hesyst emar e not equal . Thesubst ance whi ch
di f f uses t owar ds t hepoor count r i es i s not economi c devel opment and moder ni zat i on:
i t i s pol i t i cal dependencyand neocol oni al expl oi t at i on. I n f act t he r eal di f f usi on i s
t hef l owof weal t h i n t heopposi t edi r ect i on, f r ompoor capi t al i st count r i es t o r i ch
ones. But t hemodel has i mpor t ant i deol ogi cal f unct i ons. I n t headvanced capi t al i st
count r i es i t l egi t i mi zes t he cont i nued expansi on of mul t i nat i onal capi t al i smal ong
wi t h t he t er r i bl y cost l y pol i t i co- mi l i t ar y i nf r ast r uct ur e needed t o suppor t i t , and
mor epar t i cul ar l y needed t o t r y t o pr event poor count r i es f r omopt i ng out of t he
syst emand choosi ng soci al i sm. I n t he neocol oni es i t l egi t i mi zes cont i nued
dependency and accept ance of mul t i nat i onal (and domest i c) capi t al i sm.
The t heor yof nat i onal i smwhi ch i s compat i bl e wi t h t hi s gl obal model i s t he i dea
t hat t hecl assi cal , Eur opean, bour geoi s, nat i on st at e, or somet hi ngver yl i ke i t , i s t he
nat ur al and necessar ypol i t i cal f r amewor k f or t hepr omi sed economi c devel opment
andsoci al moder ni zat i on, and t hat t hedi f f usi on of cl assi cal Eur opean nat i onal i sm
(of t henor mal , not cancer ous, sor t ) i s t hemechani smbywhi ch t henat i on st at e, t he
`moder n st at e' , ar r i ves i n a gi ven Thi r d Wor l d space. Thust he col oni al l i ber at i on
movement s ar edecl ar ed t o benat ur al component s of t heover al l di f f usi on pr ocess.
Al t houghconser vat i ve t heor i es of nat i onal i smdi f f er amongt hemsel ves as t o how
t he di f f usi on pr ocess i s t o be descr i bed and expl ai ned, even whet her or not i t can
I nt r oduct i on 23
succeed i n t aki ngpl acet hr oughout t heThi r d Wor l d, yet al l t he cur r ent l y popul ar
t heor i es seemt o ar guet hi s way. ' I wi l l expand ont hi s as wepr oceed, even t hough
mypr i nci pal concer n i s wi t hMar xi st vi ews on nat i onal i sm, not mai nst r eamvi ews.
Cl ass St r uggl e Theor i es
Mar x, Engel s, Leni n, Luxembur g, and most ot her Mar xi st s past and pr esent have
ar gued t hat nat i onal st r uggl ei s apar t or f or mof cl ass st r uggl e. The essenceof t he
ar gument i s r emar kabl ysi mpl e. Theshar pest and most cr uci al ki nd of cl ass st r uggl e
i s t hest r uggl e f or st at e power ; f or cont r ol of t he st at e; f or t he power over soci et y
wi t hout whi chexpl oi t at i on cannot t akepl ace. Nat i onal st r uggl e i s onef or mof t hi s
st r uggl ef or st at epower . Ther ear ei nst ances of t hest r uggl ef or st at epower i n whi ch
t her ul i nggr oup, t hecl ass or cl ass f r act i on wi t hst at epower , i s i n somesensef or ei gn
or ext er nal t o t hecl asses t hat ar er ul ed. (See Chapt er 7. ) Ther ear eambi guouscases,
of cour se, but t he gr eat maj or i t y of i nst ances and t ypes of t he nat i onal quest i on ar e
qui t e cl ear l y def i ned.
Col oni al r ul e, and t he r esi st ancet o i t , i s onesucht ype. Anot her i nvol vesasoci al
gr oupwhi ch l i es wi t hi n a l ar ger st at e, i s t er r i t or i al l y di st i nct , and, usual l y, ~i s al so
di f f er ent i n cul t ur ef r omt hehol der s of power . I n t hi s t ype, t hemi nor i t ygr oupmay
or may not bean oppr essed mi nor i t y, oppr essi on her ei mpl yi ngei t her suppr essi on
of i t s cul t ur e (most f r equent l y i t s l anguage) or expl oi t at i on of i t s wor ki ngpopul a-
t i on at a mor e i nt ense l evel t han i s f ound i n ot her par t s of t he st at e, or (t ypi cal l y)
bot h at t he samet i me. I f t hi s i s an oppr essed mi nor i t y, t her e mayor may not l xa
st r uggl e t o wr est st at e power f r omt he `f or ei gner s' . I f t her e i s such a st r uggl e, i t i s
nat i onal st r uggl e, acaseof t henat i onal quest i on. Even i f t her ei sast r uggl ef or some
degr ee of aut onomy shor t of compl et est at e i ndependence, t hat , t oo, i s a nat i onal
st r uggl e, pr ovi ded t hat aut onomy i n t hi s case i mpl i es t het r ansf er of r eal aut hor i t y
t o t hemi nor i t ycommuni t y. Ot her f or msof t henat i onal quest i on coul dbeadded i f
wewi shed t o compi l e an exhaust i ve l i st .
The cr ux of t he Mar xi st t heor y i s t hat al l nat i onal st r uggl es ar e at r oot cl ass
st r uggl es. They ar e exampl es of t he cl ass st r uggl e f or st at e power . Theyar e cl ass
st r uggl es becauset heengi ne whi chdr i ves t hemi s t heexpl oi t at i on of oneor sever al
cl asses - i n a f ewver y smal l soci et i es, i t can bet he ent i r epopul at i on - byar ul i ng
cl ass. Thi s basi c f act under l i es, and ul t i mat el yaccount s f or , al l t hepar t i cul ar ar enas
of conf l i ct , suchas l anguage, r el i gi on, wages, soci al condi t i ons, and t her est . Li keal l
cl ass st r uggl e, i t i s, or ul t i mat el y becomes, pol i t i cal : a f i ght f or st at e power .
Acl ass st r uggl e f or st at e power assumes t he nat i onal f or munder cer t ai n
condi t i ons. Cr udel yst at ed- wewi l l di scuss t hemmor epr eci sel y i n Chapt er s 2and7
- t hese ar e condi t i ons of spat i al and soci al separ at i on (or ext er nal i t y, or
`f or ei gnness' ) bet ween t hemai n sect or of t her ul i ngcl ass and t hosecl asses whi char e
nat i onal l yoppr essed or t hr eat ened wi t h nat i onal oppr essi on. Spat i al or t er r i t or i al
separ at i on i s usual l y compl et e, and i t must become so, of cour se, when an
i ndependence st r ugg}e i s successf ul (because t wo st at es cannot occupy t he same
t er r i t or y at t he same t i me) . Soci al separ at i on or di f f er ence i s a mor e compl ex
quest i on. I n i t s cl assi cal f or mul at i on, among bot h Mar xi st s and conser vat i ves,
nat i onal st r uggl es wer epr esumed t o be, nor mal l y, conf l i ct s bet ween `nat i onal i t i es' ,
a`nat i onal i t y' bei ng what t oday wewoul d cal l a spat i al l y di scr et e `cul t ur e' . But
24 I nt roduct i on
nat i onal st ruggl es can al so engagesoci al communi t i es whi charenot verydi f f erent
f romone anot her : wi t ness t he case of Nort hern I rel and, i n whi cht he onl y maj or
cul t ural di f f erence i s rel i gi on, whi l esoci al separat i oni s nonet hel ess f ai rl y di st i nct ,
except at workpl aces . Cert ai nl yt herei s nonecessi t y t hat t hesoci al uni t s engagedi n
nat i onal st ruggl es be`nat i ons' , or t hat t heword`nat i onal ' i mpl i es t hat t hei ssues are
mat t ers of cul t ure. Theymayor maynot be cul t ural , but t heyare al ways pol i t i cal .
Thecl ass st ruggl et heoryof nat i onal st ruggl e, or nat i onal i sm, i s t he maj ori t yvi ew
among Marxi st s t oday, and i t was t he vi ew of Marx, Engel s, Leni n, and
Luxemburg. Therehavebeendi ssent ers, amongt hemOt t o Bauer at t hebegi nni ng
of t hi s cent uryand a number of nec~Marxi st s t oday. But i t i s f ai r t o say t hat t he
quest i on of whet her nat i onal st ruggl e i s a f ormof cl ass st ruggl e i s one of t he
f undament al poi nt s of di sagreement bet ween Marxi smand conservat i ve soci al
t hought .
The Argument of Thi s Book
The t hesi s t hat nat i onal st ruggl e i s i ndeedcl ass st ruggl e, t hat i t i s af ormof t hecl ass
st ruggl e f or st at e power andi s not an aut onomous f orce- an`i dea' , asoci ol ogi cal
`f act or' , or what ever- i s t he cent ral argument of t hi s book, andi s expandedi n t he
next t wo chapt ers:
I t occupi es al l of our at t ent i on i n Chapt er 2, `Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous
Force' . I n t hat chapt er I showt hat t he cl ass- st ruggl e t heory of nat i onal st ruggl e
represent s t he mai nl i ne of Marxi st t hi nki ngsi nce Marx, andI t ryt oref ut e anumber
of argument s t hat have been put f orward i n recent years by Marxi st s and Neo-
Marxi st s who have t ri ed t o showt hat nat i onal i sm- bywhi ch t hey mean nat i onal
st ruggl e - i s, i ndeed, somet hi ngot her t hancl ass st ruggl e. Theargument cont i nues
i n Chapt er 3. Thi s chapt er i s a cri t i que of one such`aut onomi st ' t heory, a t heory
whi ch was devel oped by an i nf l uent i al Bri t i sh Marxi st and whi ch i s, i n. al l
probabi l i t y, t he best - known and most f ul l y el aborat ed st at ement of t hi s posi t i on
t hat one can f i nd i n cont emporaryMarxi st wri t i ng.
Theargument of Chapt er 2begi ns byexami ni ng19t hCent uryEuropeant heori es
about nat i on st at es and nat i onal st ruggl es . The i mport ant conservat i ve t heori es
post ul at ed t hat one or anot her sort of met aphysi cal `wi l l ' or `i dea' underl i es t he
st ruggl es t o creat e i ndependent st at es and t o enl arge t hem. Marx and Engel s
showed i n some of t hei r earl i er wri t i ngs t hat t he st at e i s not an i dea or a
met aphysi cal superorgani sm(wi t hi t s own `wi l l ' ) , t hat st ruggl es f or st at epower are
cl ass st ruggl es, t hat t he st at e i t sel f i s not pri or t o but rat her a product of t hese
st ruggl es, and t hat , accordi ngl y, al l of t he pol i t i cal st ruggl es concerni ngt he st at e,
i ncl udi ngmost part i cul arl y f i ght s f or st at e i ndependence and ef f ort s at Prussi an-
st yl e t erri t ori al aggrandi zement by i mperi al st at es, are at root cl ass st ruggl es .
MarxandEngel s al so showedt hat t heri si ngbourgeoi s cl ass f oundi t necessaryt o
cont rol t he st at e, t heref ore t o t ransf ormexi st i ngst at es andf ormnewones, andt hat
a l arge and l i ngui st i cal l y uncompl i cat ed nat i on st at e was t he most appropri at e
pol i t i cal f ormf or bourgeoi s rul e; f or capi t al i sm. But MarxandEngel s al soshowed,
usi ngI rel andas t hei r mai n exampl e, t hat nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl es neednot be
essent i al l y bourgeoi s i n nat ureandpart of t he pol i t i cs of t heri si ng bourgeoi si e; t hat
expl oi t edcl asses mi ght i n somef ewcases (l i ke I rel and) t ake t he l ead, and f i ght t o
I nt roduct i on 25
creat e asoci al i st st at e, not a capi t al i st one. I nsum, t he basi c t heoret i cal argument
t hat nat i onal st ruggl es are cl ass st ruggl es was madebyMarxandEngel s. Thereaf t er
Leni n and ot her 20t h Cent ury Marxi st s el aborat ed t he argument and updat ed
i t , but t hebasi c posi t i on requi red no change.
Whenwearguet hat nat i onal st ruggl e i s `at root ' cl ass st ruggl e, wehavet o beabl e
t o showt hat t he many di mensi ons of nat i onal st ruggl e, some of t hemmat t ers of
l anguage ri ght s, some mat t ers of rel i gi on, of ci vi l equal i t y, of equal opport uni t y,
andso on, are embraced wi t hi n t he i dea of cl ass st ruggl e; f or i t i s cl earl y t rue t hat
nat i onal st ruggl es somet i mes seemt o bef ar removedf romdi rect cl ass conf l i ct . I n
Chapt er 2I t ryt omaket hi s poi nt . Marxi smdoes not `reduce' t henat i onal st ruggl e
t o somet hi ng whi ch excl udes t he mani f ol d di mensi ons of human cul t ure; i t
concei ves t hese l at t er t o be f orms and arenas of cl ass st ruggl e. Most cri t i cal l y,
Marxi smdoes not reachbehi ndor under cl ass st ruggl e t o f i ndsome ot her, more
basi c, f orce or phenomenon, somet hi ng l i ke an et ernal `nat i on' , an `i dea of t he
nat i on st at e' , a `pri nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' , a pseudo- bi ol ogi cal pri nci pl e of
`t erri t ori al i t y' or `aggressi on' , or t hel i ke, somet hi ngsupposedl y aut onomous f rom
cl ass st ruggl e and more deepl yroot edi n `human nat ure' . Somef ewMarxi st s have
arguedt hat way. For Bauer, Renner, Poul ant zas, andDebray, nat i onal processes
emanat ef rom`t he nat i on' as apri mordi al (andHegel i an) ent i t y. ' For TomNai rn,
nat i onal i smi s root ed i n t he human psyche (i t i s aki n t o `dement i a' and
`i nf ant i l i sm' ) . EvenHoraceDavi s, whoi s perhaps t he best modernMarxi st schol ar
on t he nat i onal quest i on, accept s t he mai nst reamt hesi s t hat nat i onal i smi s an
aut onomous i dea, oneof t he great l i berat i ng i deas of Enl i ght enment Europe. I nt he
concl udi ngsect i ons of Chapt er 2, I di sput e t hese andot her argument s. I t ryt oshow
t hat nat i onal i sm, nat i onal st ruggl e, i s cl ass st ruggl e.
One f ormof t he `aut onomi st ' posi t i on whi ch i s qui t e domi nant among
conservat i ve wri t ers on nat i onal i smi s t he t heory of `moderni zat i on' appl i ed t o
nat i onal phenomena. Supposedl y, nat i onal i smarose as acomponent of Europe' s
moderni zat i oni n t heearl y 19t h Cent uryandt hendi f f used t hroughout t he worl das
part of t hepackageof `moderni zi ng' or `ci vi l i zi ng' i deas best owedupon backward
peopl es by Europeans. Thi s t heory requi res us t o bel i eve t hat col oni al i smwas a
`ci vi l i si ng' process, not oneof oppressi on, underdevel opment , andi nsome pl aces
genoci de. And i t cl ai ms, of course, t hat t he di f f usi on of `moderni zat i on' i s al so,
necessari l y, t he di f f usi on of capi t al i sm. For t hese andot her reasons, t he t heoryof
`moderni zat i on' i s not popul ar amongMarxi st s who have anunderst andi ng of t he
Thi rdWorl d, col oni al i sm, and i mperi al i sm, andt hi s hol ds t rue most def i ni t el y f or
t he t heory t hat Thi rd Worl d nat i onal st ruggl es are product s of Europe and
`moderni zat i on' .
One Marxi st , however, whodoes accept t hi s t heory i s TomNai rn. Chapt er 3 of
our booki s a cri t i que of t he `moderni zat i on' t heory of nat i onal i sm, and of t he
Eurocent ri c di f f usi oni smembeddedi n t hi s t heory. But t hi s general doct ri ne i s one
of t he maj or bodi es of conservat i ve t hought , andonecannot deal wi t hi t adequat el y
i n af ewpages. So I have chosen t odi rect t he cri t i que at one wri t er, Nai rn, part l y
because he i s a perf ect st and- i n f or t he many conservat i ves who hol d t hi s general
vi ew, andpart l y t o showt hat t he `moderni zat i on' t heory of nat i onal i smcannot be
reconci l ed wi t ht heki ndof Marxi smwhi cht akes proper account of col oni al i smand
26 I nt roduct i on
nat i onal l i berat i on.
I t i s t rue t hat one cannot ref ut e t he ent i re array of aut onomi s t t heori es of
nat i onal i s mby cri t i ci s i ng onl y t he Marxi s t vers i ons of t hi s t heory. St i l l , al l t he
maj or mai ns t reamt heori es of nat i onal i s ms eemf l awed andi nval i dat ed byt he s ame
f al l aci ous argument s madebycert ai n Marxi s t s andcri t i ci s ed i n Chapt ers 2and3of
t hi s book. I s eekt os how, al t oget her, t hat t heori es of nat i onal i s mare wrong i f t hey
do not reduce nat i onal s t ruggl e i n t he l as t anal ys i s t o cl as s s t ruggl e. And I have yet
t o encount er a non- Marxi s t t heory whi chgi ves caus al wei ght t ocl as s s t ruggl e.
Second Probl em: I s Nat i onal i s mAppropri at e Onl y t o t he
Bourgeoi s - democrat i c Revol ut i on?
The Dogma
Marxi s t t heory has moret hani t s s hare of dogmat i c not i ons , andoneof t he wors t of
t hes e i s what i s us ual l y ref erred t o as t he `s t age' t heory of hi s t ory. Thi s i s t he
dogmat i c bel i ef t hat ( 1) t here i s a def i ni t e, known s equence of s t ages i n s oci al

,
devel opment , ( 2) each s t age has cert ai n i nvari abl e charact eri s t i cs , and ( 3) each
s oci et y or s oci al f ormat i on mus t pas s t hrought he s ame dreary s equence of s t ages
t hat ot her s oci et i es have al ready endured. Thi s t hree- part dogmahas beencri t i ci zed
by manymodernMarxi s t t heori s t s , who have s hown, among ot her t hi ngs , t hat t he
s t age t heory was not real l y adhered t o by Marx, Engel s , or Leni n, as dogmat i s t s
have cont ended. But i t s o happens t hat t he s t age t heory has s pawned a very
i nf l uent i al t heory of nat i onal i s mor nat i onal s t ruggl e, and t hi s has not been
adequat el y cri t i ci zed as yet . And s o l ong as weaccede t o as t age t heory of nat i onal
s t ruggl e, we s hal l not have an adequat e t heory of nat i onal i s m.
Thes t age t heory of nat i onal s t ruggl e argues as f ol l ows . Nat i onal i s m, cons i dered
t o be t he ef f ort t o f orge a s overei gn s t at e - one t hat i s rel at i vel y uncompl ex i n
cul t ural t erms , a nat i on s t at e, and as part of t hi s ef f ort a body of nat i onal i s t
i deol ogy, a nat i onal movement , ands of ort h- al l of t hi s i s appropri at e onl y t o one
s t age i n s oci al devel opment : t he s t age of capi t al i s m. I t i s appropri at e, i n f act , onl y t o
one s ub- s t age: t he peri od cal l ed t hat of `ri s i ng capi t al i s m' , t he t i me when t he
bourgeoi s i e i s , s o t o s peak, get t i ng i t s act t oget her : f i ght i ng f ree of f eudal i s m,
begi nni ng t o accumul at e, and s o on. Thi s argument i s ext rapol at ed f romt he
Marx- Engel s des cri pt i on of t he rol e of t he s t at e i n t he ri s e and cons ol i dat i on of

'
capi t al i s m. That des cri pt i on i s val i d but t he ext rapol at i on i s not .
Marxand Engel s s howed t hat s t at e power i s cruci al t o al l f orms of cl as s s oci et y,
not l eas t t he capi t al i s t f orm, and t hus t he ri s i ng capi t al i s t cl as s , t he bourgeoi s i e,

i
mus t s eekt os ei ze power i n anexi s t i ng s t at e or creat e as t at e of i t s own. ThenMarx
andmorecruci al l y Engel s arguedt hat arel at i vel y l arge s t at e andonei n whi cht here
i s acommonl anguage, t hus anat i on s t at e, woul d be t he mos t us ef ul s t at e f ormf or
capi t al i s m. I t woul d not bet he onl y s t at e f orm. Marx andEngel s di d not deny t hat
t here hadbeen pre- capi t al i s t s t at es . Nor di dt hey argue t hat t he bourgeoi s i e i s t he
onl y cl as s t hat has an i nt eres t i n, and can l ead, a s t ruggl e f or s t at e power . They
wrot e mos t f ul l y about t he bourgeoi s f ormof t he nat i onal s t ruggl e, about t he
bourgeoi s s t at e, and about bourgeoi s nat i onal i s m, but t hey al s o wrot e s pari ngl y
I nt roduct i on 27
about ot her f orms . For i ns t ance, t hey arguedt hat t he I ri s h nat i onal s t ruggl e, whi ch
t hey cl earl y s awas an ant i - col oni al s t ruggl e, was more urgent f or t he expl oi t ed
cl as s es t han f or t he bourgeoi s i e, and t hey f el t t hat t he expl oi t ed cl as s es coul d and
perhaps woul d l ead t hat s t ruggl e. ( See Chapt er 5. )
The pos t - cl as s i cal peri od of Marxi s t t hought , t he t i me bet ween t he deat h of
Engel s andt hebegi nni ngof t he Fi rs t Worl dWar, was aperi odwhenMarxi s t t heory
went t hroughmanyf orms of di s t ort i onanddogmat i zat i on, not l eas t i n t he mat t er
of nat i onal i s m. I t may be t rue t hat every maj or t hi nker duri ng t hi s peri odbel i eved
t hat nat i onal movement s were ont he decl i ~e becaus e t hey were appropri at eonl y t o
t he peri od of ri s i ng capi t al i s m, a peri od whi ch s eemed t o beendi ng as capi t al i s m
mat ured. Even Leni n argued t hat nat i onal i s m, overal l , was decl i ni ng, al t hough
nat i onal movement s woul ds t i l l be ont he agendaof hi s t oryi n backwardpart s of t he
worl d l i ke Rus s i a and t he col oni al worl d. Af t er 1914, Leni n produced a very
di f f erent anal ys i s , nowargui ng, as part of hi s magi s t eri al t heory of i mperi al i s m,
t hat nat i onal i s mi s act ual l y adomi nant charact eri s t i c of advanced capi t al i s m; t hat
nat i onal s t ruggl e does not decl i ne as capi t al i s mmat ures i nt o i t s i mperi al i s t s t age;
t hat great - power nat i onal i s mbecomes more pervas i ve t han ever whi l e t he
nat i onal i s mof col oni es and ot her oppres s ed count ri es i nt ens i f i es as wel l . ( Thes e
mat t ers are di s cus s edi n Chapt ers 4and5. ) But t hes e argument s camel at er . Bef ore
1914, i t s eemed al mos t s el f - evi dent t hat `t he s t age of nat i onal i s m' was pret t y much
cot ermi nous wi t h `t he s t age of yout hf ul or "ri s i ng" capi t al i s m' , a s t age now
bas i cal l y ended.
Thi s doct ri ne recei ved i t s s t ronges t expres s i oni n t he wri t i ngs of Ros aLuxemburg
and i n a f amous and i nf l uent i al art i cl e wri t t en by J os eph St al i n i n 1913. St al i n
equat ed nat i onal movement s wi t h t he emergence of nat i ons , and t he l at t er he
decl ared t o beas s oci at ed onl y wi t h t he s t age of ri s i ng capi t al i s m. ( See Chapt ers 2
and5. ) Luxemburgwent muchf art her . Wri t i ng i nt he years 1898- 1908, s hedecl ared
t hat t hes t age of nat i onal i s mwas s t ri ct l y as s oci at edwi t ht he ri s e of t he bourgeoi s i e,
was t heref ore bourgeoi s nat i onal i s m, andt hat t hi s s t agewas nowover . Nat i onal i s m
was s t ri ct l y a f eat ure of ri s i ng capi t al i s m; t hat s t age i s nowover; s onat i onal i s mi s
dyi ng.
Thi s al l - nat i onal i s m- i s - bourgeoi s t heory has had i mmens e i nf l uence on Marxi s t
t heory andpract i ce i n more recent t i mes . I t s i nf l uence has been l argel y negat i ve.
True, i t has had t he pos i t i ve ef f ect of s ens i t i zi ng Marxi s t s t o t he real dangers of
bourgeoi s nat i onal i s m. But t he t heory has l ed very many Marxi s t s t o bel i eve,
i ncorrect l y, t hat anynat i onal s t ruggl e i n our ownt i me i s neces s ari l y bourgeoi s i n i t s
goal s andi t s l eaders hi p, hence t hat ant i - col oni al s t ruggl es i n count ri es l i ke Vi et nam
andAngol acannot be s t ruggl es f or s oci al i s m: t hey mus t be exampl es of t he bourgeoi s
revol ut i on, not t he s oci al i s t revol ut i on. And i f a Marxi s t part y i n a col ony, l i ke
Puert oRi cof or i ns t ance, f i ght s f or i ndependence as acomponent of t he s t ruggl e f or
s oci al i s m, why, t hen, i t mus t bea bourgeoi s part y wi t h bourgeoi s nat i onal i s t goal s ,
becaus e af i ght f or s t at e i ndependence i s s i mpl y nat i onal i s m, andal l nat i onal i s mi s
bourgeoi s . At t he l evel of t heory, t he al l - nat i onal i s m- i s - bourgeoi s vi ewhas l ed
manyMarxi s t s t ol os e s i ght of , andat t i mes t o denyt heval i di t yof , t he bas i c Marxi s t
t heory of nat i onal i s mas devel opedbyMarx, Engel s , andLeni n. Andt hi s vi ewdoes
precl ude any f urt her devel opment of t he t heory.
28 I nt r oduct i on
TheAr gument of Thi s Book
I conf r ont t heal l - nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s t heor y at var i ous poi nt s i n t hi s book,
but al ways as par t of a l ar ger ar gument . I n Chapt er 2, I descr i be somewhat br i ef l y
t heposi t i on t akenbyMar xandEngel s on nat i onal st r uggl eandshowt hat t heydi d
not equat e al l nat i onal st r uggl ewi t h t hebour geoi si e and t her i seof capi t al i sm. I n
Chapt er 5, I cr i t i ci se St al i n' s t heor y of nat i ons, whi ch i s cl osel y t i ed t o t het heor y
t hat nat i onal st r uggl e i s st r i ct l y associ at ed wi t hwhat St al i n cal l ed t he `epoch of
r i si ngcapi t al i sm' , and st r i ct l y associ at ed wi t h t her i si ng bour geoi si e. But t hemor e
cr uci al ar gument s agai nst t he al l - nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s t heor y ar e gi ven i n
Chapt er 4, i n whi chI cr i t i ci se anewand somewhat moder at edf or mof t hi s t heor y
put f or war d by Er i c Hobsbawm, andi n Chapt er 7, i n whi chI t r y t o gener al i set he
t heor y of nat i onal st r uggl e t o cl asses and modes of pr oduct i on ot her t han t he
bour geoi si e and capi t al i sm.
Chapt er 4, `Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on- St at e' , i s a cr i t i que of a t heor y of
nat i onal i sm, Hobsbawm' s, whi chi s i n many r espect s an i mpr oved andmoder ni zed
ver si on of t he al l - nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s t heor y, and whi ch ar gues t owar ds a
bl eakl y negat i ve j udgment of nat i onal st r uggl es, i ncl udi ng nat i onal l i ber at i on
st r uggl es . Hobsbawmmai nt ai ns t hat nat i onal i sm, meani ngt henat i onal st r uggl et o
cr eat esomet hi ngl i keanat i on st at e, was r at i onal i n t he19t hCent ur y but no t onger i s
so. Hepr esent s t hecl assi cal ar gument s accor di ngt o whi cht her i se of capi t al i sm
cal l ed f or t hecr eat i on of nat i on st at es . But , says Hobsbawm, capi t al i smno l onger
needs t he nat i on st at e, hence nat i onal movement s i n t he pr esent cent ur y ar e
i r r at i onal ; ar e, i n ef f ect , at avi st i c . Fr omher e he goes on t o cr i t i ci ze al l moder n
f or ms of nat i onal st r uggl e, i ncl udi ng t heant i - col oni al f or ms . Whi l e Hobsbawm
does not deny t hat somemoder n nat i onal st r uggl es have ai med at and achi eved
soci al i sm, heconsi der s t hi s t o bear ar esor t of out come, muchl ess si gni f i cant i n t he
moder n wor l d t han t he cr eat i on of what he vi ews as f r i vol ous mi ni - st at es and
r eact i onar y or si mpl y i r r at i onal soci al movement s.
I of f er t hr eebr oad ar gument s agai nst t he t heor y t hat al l nat i onal st r uggl e i s
`bour geoi s nat i onal i sm' . Fi r st , i n Chapt er 4, t hecr i t i que of Hobsbawm, I di spl ay
someof t heevi dence t hat cl asses ot her t han t he`r i si ng bour geoi si e' have hadi t i n
t hei r i nt er est t o f i ght f or st at epower i n nat i onal st r uggl es . Nat i onal aggr andi zement ,
i ncl udi ng col oni al expansi on, has been a st r at egy of t he mat ur e, f ul l `r i sen' ,
bour geoi si es of i mper i al st at es f or aver y l ongt i me, and i n t hepr esent cent ur y t hi s
ki nd of gr eat - bour geoi s nat i onal i smhas been abasi c char act er i st i c of t heageanda
causeof wor l dwar s. By t hesamet oken, t hei nt er nat i onal i zat i on of capi t al i sm, and
most r ecent l y t hegr owt h of mul t i nat i onal cor por at i ons, has not ( as Hobsbawm
cl ai ms) l ed t o adecl i nei n t hei mpor t ance of t henat i onal st at e. Capi t al i smneeds
st at e power , t oday as yest er day, and t her ef or e t he nat i onal st r uggl es over
sover ei gnt y f or col oni es and neocol oni es ar eas i mpor t ant i n t he pr esent age of
i nt er nat i onal capi t al i smas t hey wer ei n pr i or ages; pr obabl y mor eso. But t hemost
t el l i ng evi dence agai nst t he a11- nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s t heor y comes f r omt he
wor ki ng cl asses . Wor ker s, poor peasant s, and mar gi nal i zed pet t y- bour geoi s
segment s, andpar t i es r ef l ect i ng t hei r cl ass i nt er est s, havepl ayed maj or r ol es i n most
nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es agai nst col oni al i smand neocol oni al i sm. I n many of
t hesest r uggl es, as i n Vi et nam, Angol a, andCuba, t hewor ki ngcl asses havepl ayed a
l eadi ng r ol e. And t hest at es t hey have cr eat ed ar enot bour geoi s but soci al i st .
Thesecond ar gument agai nst t heal l - nat i onal i sm- i s~bour geoi s vi ewconcer ns t he
hi st or y of Mar xi st t heor i zi ngabout t her at i onal quest i on, a mat t er deal t wi t h at
l engt h i n Chapt er 4 and br i ef l y i n Chapt er s 2and 5. Nei t her Hobsbawmnor t he
ot her wr i t er s whomI cr i t i ci zeseemt o beawar et hat Leni n, i n t heper i od 1914- 1921>
r ef ut ed t hebel i ef t hat nat i onal st r uggl es ar enecessar i l y bour geoi s, t hat her ef ut ed
t he ol der vi ew( associ at ed mai nl y wi t h Luxembur g) , and i n f act devel oped an
essent i al l y newt heor y about t henat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es agai nst col oni al i sm,
showi ngwhyt hesear e( par t l y, at l east ) wor ki ng- cl ass st r uggl es andar epar t of t he
`r i se' not of capi t al i smbut of soci al i sm. Heal so r ef ut ed t het heor y t hat moder n,
i nt er nat i onal capi t al i smhas l ess need of t he st at e and t hat nat i onal l i ber at i on
st r uggl es ar epasses heeven gavet hi s l at t er t heor yaname, `i mper i al i st economi sm' ,
f ul l y a hal f - cent ur y bef or et het heor y becamepopul ar amongMar xi st s. I t i s cl ear
t oday t hat anyone who mai nt ai ns t hat nat i onal movement s ar e necessar i l y
bour geoi s, andt hat nat i onal l i ber at i on al ways l eads t o capi t al i sm, not soci al i sm, i s
ar gui ng agai nst a l ong est abl i shed and qui t esol i d body of Mar xi st t heor y. And
agai nst t hef act s .
Chapt er 7, `Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss a Boundar y' , i s an at t empt t o br oaden or
gener al i zet heMar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i sm. I t pr esent s anot her ar gument agai nst
t heal l - nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s t heor y, becausei t t r i es t o showt hat t hecondi t i ons
under l yi ngnat i onal st r uggl ear echar act er i st i c of cl ass soci et y i n gener al , not onl y of
capi t al i sm. I n al l f or ms of cl ass soci et y si nceanci ent t i mes, t houghnot i n al l speci f i c
soci et i es, t her eexi st t wosor t s of cl ass expl oi t at i on, an i nt er nal andan ext er nal sor t ,
t hel at t er i nvol vi ngmember s of a pr oduci ngcl ass i n anot her soci et y whi cht hef i r st
soci et y' s r ukngcl ass has conquer edor ot her wi secomet o domi nat e. I ar guet hat t he
t wo sor t s of expl oi t at i on ent ai l t wo somewhat di f f er ent f or ms of cl ass st r uggl e,
par t i cul ar l y as r egar ds t hest r uggl ef or st at e power. I concl udet hat t hest r uggl et o
cont r ol t hest at ewhen i t i s i n t hehands of acl ass whi chi s ext er nal ( f r omt hepoi nt of
vi ewof t he l ocal pr oduci ng cl ass) i s t he speci f i c f or mof cl ass st r uggl e whi ch i n
moder n t i mes becomes nat i onal st r uggl e. Thi s i s not an ar gument t hat nat i onal i sm,
or nat i onal st r uggl e, i s as ol d as cl ass soci et y i t sel f ; i t i s mer el y an ar gument t hat
nat i onal i smt oday i s si t uat ed i n a f or mof cl ass st r uggl e, ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e,
whi chi t sel f i s as ol d as cl ass soci et y and i s t her ef or ea f undament al cat egor y f or
hi st or i cal mat er i al i sm. I t har dl y needs t o be added t hat t hi s ar gument i s
i ncompat i bl e wi t h t he t hesi s t hat nat i onal st r uggl e i s st r i ct l y a t r ai t of ear l y-
bour geoi s soci et y and st r i ct l y a st r at egy of t her i si ng bour geoi si e.
Thi r d Pr obl em: Di d Nat i onal i smDi f f use f r omWest er n Eur ope
t o t he Thi r d Wor l d?
Eur ocent r i e Di f f usi oni sm: ACapsul eVi ew
J ust about al l conser vat i ve soci al t heor y and muchMar xi st t heor y i s af f l i ct ed wi t h
Eur ocent r i c di f f usi oni sm, t he expl i ci t or i mpl i ci t vi ewt hat soci al evol ut i on i n
gener al occur s f i r st i n Eur ope, or west er n Eur ope, or t heWest , and t hen di f f uses
out war ds t o t her est of t hewor l d. I poi nt ed out ear l i er t hat di f f usi oni smi s acr uci al ,
cent r al par t of mai nst r eamcapi t al i st t hought ; i t i s t he basi c r at i onal e f or
30 I nt r oduct i on
col oni al i smand neocol oni al i sm. The f oundat i on of capi t al i st i deol ogyi s t he set of
bel i ef s whi chr at i onal i zes capi t al i st cl ass r el at i ons and t he expl oi t at i on of l abour ,
and di f f usi oni sm i s t he f i r st i deol ogi cal st or ey bui l t upon t hi s f oundat i on: i t
r at i onal i zes t he ext er nal por t i on of capi t al i sm, t he pol i t i cal domi nance of Thi r d
Wor l d ar eas and t he super expl oi t at i on of Thi r d Wor l d l abour .
I n Mar xi st t hought , bycont r ast , di f f usi oni smcont r adi ct s Mar xi sm' s f oundat i ons.
For one t hi ng, i t assumes a basi c i nequal i t y among t he peopl es of t he ear t h as
r egar ds t hei r pot ent i al i t i es f or soci al evol ut i on. For anot her , i t i nser t s i n Mar xi st
t heor yt hebel i ef t hat t he spr ead of capi t al i st t r ai t s f r omt headvanced ( cor e) sect or
i s, somehow, evol ut i onar i l y nat ur al andpr ogr essi ve, apar t of t he`Enl i ght enment ' .
Thi r dl y, i t wr ongl y at t r i but es some basi c hi st or i cal pr ocesses of Thi r d Wor l d
count r i es t o di f f usi on f r omEur ope. Oneof t hemost i mpor t ant of t hesepr ocesses i s
t henat i onal movement f or st at e i ndependence. Ther ef or e adi f f usi oni st ver si on of
t he Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i smmust be t heor et i cal l y i nval i d and pol i t i cal l y
t r oubl esome. An i mpor t ant t ask of t hi s book i s t o combat di f f usi oni sm.
I t can har dl ybedeni ed t hat Eur opeanpol i t i cal andeconomi c cont r ol spr eadout
over t heAmer i cas i n t he 16t ht o 18t hCent ur i es, t hat most of Asi aand Af r i cawer e
conquer ed i n t he 19t hCent ur y, and t hat t hi s pr ocess of col oni al and semi - col oni al
expansi on pr oduced not onl yaf l owof weal t hi nwar ds, t owar ds Eur ope, but al so a
r eci pr ocal f l ow i n t he out war d di r ect i on, a f l ow of Eur opean popul at i ons,
Eur opean col oni al pol i t i cal f or ms, and Eur opean commodi t i es. Al l of t hi s i s r eal
di f f usi on, i n bot hdi r ect i ons, and i t needs t o beexpl ai ned. But t heexpl anat i on need
not i nvoke some i nnat epr ogr essi veness of Eur opean cul t ur e, sucht hat i t woul d be
consi der ed somehownat ur al t o bel i eve t hat Eur ope was mor e advanced and was
pr ogr essi ng mor er api dl y t han t he non- Eur opean wor l d at eachepochi n wor l d
hi st or y and down t o t he pr esent . Thi s bel i ef i s Eur ocent r i c di f f usi oni sm. I have
ar gued el sewher et hat Eur opewas no f ar t her al ongi n soci al evol ut i on t han Af r i ca
or Asi a( pai nt i ngon a cont i nent al - si zed canvas) at anyt i mepr i or t o 1492. " I n my
vi ewt he si ngl e advant age whi ch Eur ope' s mer cant i l e- mar i t i me communi t i es
enj oyed over t he compet i ngmer cant i l e- mar i t i me communi t i es of Af r i caand Asi a
was l ocat i on. Eur opean cent r es wer esome5, 000mi l es cl oser t o t heNewWor l dt han
anycompet i ngnon- Eur opean cent r e, hencewer emuchmor el i kel y t o makecont act
wi t hNewWor l d pl aces and peopl es f i r st , and wer e t her eaf t er cer t ai n t o monopol i ze
t he i mmense f r ui t s of pl under and expl oi t at i on. I ar gue f ur t her t hat t hese New
Wor l d sour ces of weal t h expl ai n t he mor e r api d r i se of mer cant i l e capi t al i smi n
West er n Eur opet han el sewher e, and t hus t hebour geoi s pol i t i cal r evol ut i ons of t he
17t hCent ur y. ' z Andaf t er capi t al i smhad t aken power i n i t s `home' count r i es and
t hus coul d expl oi t apot ent i al pr ol et ar i at bot hat homeand i n t hecol oni es, i t i s not
har d t o see why Eur ope t hen ent er ed a per i od of aut onomous pr ogr ess and
si mul t aneousl y squel ched t heeconomi c and pol i t i cal pr ogr ess of ot her par t s of t he
wor l d.
Ot her wr i t er s havedevel oped ot her hi st or i cal model s whi chexpl ai n Eur ope' s r i se
wi t hout concedi ng any speci al qual i t i es of pr ogr essi veness t o Eur opeans. But i t i s
never t hel ess t r ue t hat many Mar xi st s and near l y al l conser vat i ves cont i nue t o
bel i eve i n a f undament al Eur ocent r i c di f f usi oni sm. Theybel i eve, f i r st , t hat Eur ope
di d i ndeed have pr ogr essi ve qual i t i es l acki ng i n ot her soci et i es i n anci ent t i mes -
t hey coopt anci ent Egypt , Pal est i ne, et c . , as `Eur ope' s cul t ur al hear t h' - or i n
medi eval t i mes, or per haps al ways. They bel i eve, next , t hat t he col oni al expansi on
of Eur opewas i nnat el y apr ocess of di f f usi ngci vi l i zat i on, not apr ocess of gat her i ng
i n al l f or msof weal t hand di f f usi ngonl yt he i nf r ast r uct ur eneeded t o obt ai n f ur t her
weal t h( al ongwi t hr el at i ve sur pl us popul at i on) . Thi s par t i cul ar bel i ef t endst o f or m
i t sel f i nt o t hef ai r yt al et hat Eur opebest owed `t heEnl i ght enment ' on t her est of t he
wor l d wi t hi n t he f r amewor k of col oni al i sm, and t hat t he mai n i ngr edi ent of
di f f usi ngEnl i ght enment was adi f f usi on of what ar ecal l ed `t hei deaof f r eedom' and
`t he i dea of democr acy' ( whi ch, bei t not ed, ar et hever y ant i t hesi s of col oni al i sm) .
Fi nal l y, and most cr uci al l y, t hese wr i t er s bel i eve t hat t he cur r ent r el at i onshi p
bet ween t he capi t al i st Eur opean count r i es ( i ncl udi ng f or mer Eur opean set t l er
col oni es, l i ke t heUni t ed St at es) and t heThi r d Wor l d i s pr edomi nant l y acont i nui ng
di f f usi on of t hi s sameEnl i ght enment . For someMar xi st s, i t i s mer el yt hespr ead of
enl i ght eni ngcapi t al i smt o ar eas f al sel y t hought t o bepr i mi t i veand `t r adi t i onal ' , or
t he ( myt hi cal ) spr ead of i ndust r i al i zat i on and of t he hi gh l i vi ng st andar ds of
advanced capi t al i smi t sel f . For t hese Mar xi st schol ar s, and f or j ust about al l
non- Mar xi st schol ar s, al l of t hi s i s par t of a si ngl e pr ocess, most of t en cal l ed
`moder ni zat i on' . Eur ope' s advanced capi t al i smi s engaged si mpl yi n t heal t r ui st i c
di f f usi on of moder ni t y.
Di f f usi oni st Theor i es of Nat i onal i sm
One of t he supposed di mensi ons of `moder ni zat i on' i s t he `moder n st at e' .
Somet i mes t hi s i s expr essed i n nakedl y i deol ogi cal t er ms: Eur ope, havi ng gi ven
bi r t ht o t he `i deaof f r eedom' , t he `i deaof democr acy' , et c. , i s nowdi f f usi ng t hese
moder n i deas t o non- Eur ope. And t he i deas of f r eedomand democr acy ar e
consi der ed, i n t hi s same i deol ogi cal l y det er mi ni st ar gument , t o be t he r oot s of
nat i onal i sm. Mor econcr et el y: nat i onal i smi s a pr ocess gener at ed byt he Eur opean
i dea of f r eedom, t hat i s, t he i dea t hat peopl e shoul d gover n t hemsel ves i n a
sover ei gn st at e; and i t i s t he di f f usi on of t hi s i dea whi cht hen causes t he r i se of
nat i onal movement s i n non- Eur opean ar eas. Ther ef or e col oni es, i n t hi s
f or mul at i on, become nat i onal i st i c and devel op i ndependence movement s, not
because t hei r i nhabi t ant s ar e oppr essed and super expl oi t ed, but because t hei r
col oni al r ul er s br ought t hemEnl i ght enment .
I st at ed ear l i er i n t hi s chapt er t hat ever yoneof t hemoder n conser vat i ve t heor i es
of nat i onal i smof whi chI amawar eempl oys somef or mof t hi s di f f usi oni st doct r i ne.
Eur opei nvent ed nat i onal i sm, f or what ever r easons- i t i s on t hi s quest i on of r eason
t hat conser vat i ves debat eoneanot her ' s t heor i es- and, havi ngi nvent ed i t , t heyt hen
di f f used i t out war ds t o t heot her peopl es of t hewor l d. I f oner ej ect s t hi s f or mul a, as
I do, howdoes onego about r ef ut i ngi t ? Thepr obl emi s t hat t hi s bundl eof t heor i es
i s r i di ngpi ggy- back on t hemuchmor er obust doct r i neof Eur ocent r i c di f f usi oni sm,
and one cannot r eadi l y get at t he one wi t hout f i r st get t i ng at t he ot her .
The Ar gument of Thi s Book
Tn t hi s book I cannot di sposeof di f f usi oni sm, oneof t hedeepest , most per vasi ve,
andmost cr uci al wor l d- model s i n West er n conser vat i ve t hought . So I have had t o
cont ent mysel f wi t hamor eaccessi bl et ar get : TomNai r n' s pr esent at i on of onef or m
32 I nt r oduct i on
of t he t heor y of nat i onal i smas t he di f f usi on of Eur opean `Enl i ght enment ' and
`moder ni zat i on' . Nai r n pr ocl ai ms hi s vi ewt o be Mar xi st , and t hi s pr ovi des t he
excel l ent oppor t uni t y t o cr i t i ci ze, not si mpl yt he di f f usi oni st vi ewof nat i onal i sm,
but al so t hecont ent i on t hat t hi s vi ewi s somehowcompat i bl e wi t hMar xi st t heor y.
HenceChapt er 3.
The di f f usi oni st t heor y of nat i onal i smput f or war d by Nai r n and conser vat i ve
wr i t er s makes anumber of asser t i ons about t hepast and pr esent wor l d whi chI t r y
t o r ef ut e as mi sst at ement s of f act . Fi r st , col oni al i smdi d not br i ng t he i deas of
f r eedom, nat i onal sel f - det er mi nat i on, et c . , t o t hecol oni al subj ect s. Ont hecont r ar y,
such i deas wer e suppr essed, because col oni al i smas a syst emwas (and st i l l i s i n
pl aces l i ke Puer t o Ri co) t ot al l yundemocr at i c and t hecol oni zer s of necessi t y t aught
submi ssi on and obedi ence, not t heRi ght s of Man. Second, ant i - col oni al st r uggl es
wer e(and ar e) not si mpl yt hebour geoi s- democr at i c r evol ut i on di f f usi ngout war ds
f r omEur ope t o t he wi der wor l d. Ther e wer e bour geoi s el ement s, but t he basi c
mot or i n t hesest r uggl es was, and i s, i nt ense expl oi t at i on and t he r esi st ance t o t hat
expl oi t at i on, andat t hesamet i mei nt enseoppr essi on t o per mi t t hi s expl oi t at i on t o
t akepl aceandagai n t her esi st ancet o oppr essi on. Thi r d, and ver ymuchader i vat i ve
of t he f or egoi ng ar gument , nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es do not si mpl y spr ead
capi t al i smt o t heout er wor l d, vi aabour geoi s- democr at i c r evol ut i on l ed bya`r i si ng
bour geoi si e' . Theyar eanewf or mof soci al st r uggl ewhi chmay, cer t ai nl y, br i ngi nt o
exi st enceanovel f or mof bour geoi s- domi nat ed soci et y (as i n I r an andmanyt ypi cal
neocol oni es) but may, and f r equent l y does, br i ngi nt o exi st ence asoci al i st soci et y.
Nai r n, al ong wi t h t he Neo- Mar xi st s who put f or war d t he same or si mi l ar
ar gument s, and al ong wi t h most conser vat i ves, compl et el y deni es t he f act t hat
soci al i st count r i es exi st i n t he Thi r d Wor l d, and t he di f f usi oni st t heor y of
nat i onal i smpr ovi desper haps t hecr uci al i deol ogi cal pr opf or t hi s pol i t i cal posi t i on.
Aver y di f f er ent cr i t i que of t he Eur ocent r i c di f f usi oni st t heor y of nat i onal
st r uggl eand some r el at ed doct r i nes i s put f or war d i n Chapt er 7. Her eI devel opa
t heor et i cal posi t i on whi ch vi ews nat i onal st r uggl e as t he pr oduct of what I cal l
`ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e' , t hat i s, t heki nd of pol i t i cal st r uggl e whi ch t akes pl acewhen
par t or al l of t he r ul i ng cl ass i s i n some sense `ext er nal ' or `f or ei gn' vi s- a- vi s t he
pr oduci ngcl asses. St at es, as or gani zed pol i t i cal syst ems gover ni ngmasses of peopl e
and def i ni t e t er r i t or i es, have been i n exi st encesi nce t he dawn of cl ass soci et i es. So
has expl oi t at i on of ext er nal pr oduci ng cl asses, and so, t oo, has cl ass r esi st ance t o
t hi s pecul i ar l y i nt ense f or mof expl oi t at i on. Thi s was not pr oper l y `nat i onal
st r uggl e' unt i l r ecent cent ur i es, but i t wasan aut ocht honousf or mof cl ass st r uggl e i n
al l hi st or i cal epochs and cl ass modes of pr oduct i on. Thus nat i onal l i ber at i on
st r uggl es agai nst col oni al i smand neocol oni al i smar e r esponses t o t he di f f usi on of
Eur opean col oni al i smand i t s f or mof capi t al i sm, but t he nat i onal st r uggl e i s
gener at ed byt hecol oni zed peopl e t hemsel ves; i t i s not si mpl y apr oduct of an i dea
of nat i onal i smwhi ch di f f used out war ds f r omEur ope. Onawi der canvas, Chapt er 7
t r i es t o r espond t o t he much l ar ger doct r i ne t hat t he onl y pl ace wher e soci al
evol ut i on or i gi nat es i s Eur ope and i t s pl ant ed set t l ement s i n ot her cont i nent s.
Four t hPr obl em: Does Nat i onal i smBear Some Speci al
Rel at i onshi p t o Fasci sm?
I nt r oduct i on 33
I deol ogi es of Nat i onal i smand Fasci sm
I f nat i onal i smi s a f or mof t he cl ass st r uggl e f or st at e power , t hen we shoul d not
expect i t t o be associ at ed wi t h one speci f i c i deol ogy, because each cl ass or cl ass
combi nat i on i n eachki nd of nat i onal st r uggl e woul dhavean i deol ogi cal posi t i onof
i t s own, and t hese woul d mor eover di f f er f or di f f er ent hi st or i cal . epochs and
geogr aphi cal ci r cumst ances . Thi s ar gument hol ds t r ueeven i f wel i mi t t heuseof t he
wor d nat i onal i smt o ef f or t s t o cr eat e newsover ei gn st at es and ef f or t s t o enl ar ge
exi st i ng st at es, and do not descr i be as nat i onal i st t he opposi ng ef f or t s t o pr event
secessi on or r esi st annexat i on. Even i n t hi s r est r i ct ed usage, i t woul dbei ncor r ect t o
assi mi l at e t o one i deol ogi cal posi t i on such di f f er i ng nat i onal movement s as, f or
i nst ance, t he 19t h Cent ur y smal l - nat i on bour geoi s nat i onal movement s, t he 19t h
Cent ur y col oni al (i ncl udi ng set t l er - col oni al ) expansi ons of l ar ge bour geoi s st at es,
t he bour geoi s nat i onal i smof i mper i al i st st at es i n t he pr esent cent ur y, t he ant i -
col oni al l i ber at i on movement s whi char enar r owl ynat i onal i st (t hat i s, cont empl at e
no maj or soci al change af t er i ndependence), and t he ant i - col oni al l i ber at i on
movement s whi ch ar eMar xi st i n i deol ogy, ar egr ounded i n expl oi t ed cl asses, and,
as i n Vi et nam, car r y a nat i onal l i ber at i on movement f or war d t o t he poi nt of
cr eat i ng asoci al i st soci et y. Ther e ar e manyki nds of nat i onal st r uggl e, many cl ass
posi t i ons, and manyi deol ogi es.
Never t hel ess, i t i s wi del ybel i eved t hat t her ei s asi ngl e, char act er i st i c i deol ogyof
nat i onal i sm, and t hi s vi ewl eads i nt o al l sor t s of specul at i on about t her el at i onshi p
bet ween nat i onal i st i deol ogyand ot her i deol ogi es, most not abl yt hoseof soci al i sm
and f asci sm. Among Mar xi st wr i t er s t her e i s anyt hi ng but unani mi t y on t hi s
quest i on of t he si ngul ar i t y and speci f i ci t y of nat i onal i st i deol ogy. Those Mar xi st
schol ar s who have a good under st andi ng of nat i onal movement s i n t he moder n
Thi r d Wor l dar eunl i kel y t o consi der t heat t endant i deol ogi es of nat i onal l i ber at i on
t o be homol ogous wi t h, f or i nst ance, t he wi l dl y myst i cal doct r i nes of some
Eur opean nat i onal movement s of t he l ast cent ur y, or wi t hot her equal l y di ssi mi l ar
nat i onal i st i deol ogi es. For exampl e, Hor ace Davi s, one of t he f or emost Mar xi st
schol ar s of nat i onal i sm, speaks st r ongl y agai nst t he t endency t o l umpnat i onal
movement s and t hei r i deol ogi es t oget her and r ender asi ngl e mor al j udgment onal l
of t hem. Nat i onal i sm, hepoi nt s out , i s aneut r al t ool whi chcan beused as aweapon
of dest r uct i on or an i mpl ement of pr ogr ess, dependi ngon whopi cks i t upand uses i t
- and, as I woul dadd, dependi ng on whi chcl asses use i t at whi cht i mes and pl aces
and f or whi ch pur poses. "
ThoseMar xi st s who accept t heal l - nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s t heor yar ei ncl i ned,
ont he ot her hand, t o accept t he not i on of aspeci f i c, si ngul ar , nat i onal i st i deol ogy:
i t i s si mpl y par t of bour geoi s i deol ogy. Thi s ar gument i s seduct i ve, because t her e
cer t ai nl y i s a char act er i st i c f ami l y of cl osel y r el at ed i deol ogi es whi chwecor r ect l y
cal l t he i deol ogi es of `bour geoi s nat i onal i sm' . Even wi t hi n t hi s r est r i ct ed f ami l y,
however , t her e i s muchvar i at i on. The bour geoi s nat i onal i smof , f or i nst ance, t he
19t h Cent ur y nat i onal movement s of t he Gr eeks, Czechs, Ser bi ans, Nor wegi ans,
Lat i n Amer i cans, Chi nese, et c . , i s ver ydi f f er ent f r omt hebour geoi s nat i onal i smof
34 I nt r oduct i on
t he expandi ng col oni al empi r es and di f f er ent as wel l f r om t he bour geoi s
nat i onal i smassoci at ed wi t h l at er f asci st movement s.
Er i c Hobsbawmmakes t he case, whi chI conf ut ei n Chapt er 4of t hi s book, t hat
nat i onal i smr eal l y i s a si ngul ar soci al ent i t y and i t s char act er i st i c i deol ogy was
appr opr i at e t o some, t hough not al l , of t he 19t h Cent ur y nat i onal movement s of
r i si ngcapi t al i sm, but i s no l onger appr opr i at e t o anyt hi ng. Thi s i deol ogy i n t oday' s
wor l d i s si mpl y - Hobsbawm' s wor d - ` i r r at i onal ' . I amsur e t hat Hobsbawm
consi der s t he nat i onal i smof i nsi gni f i cant Rur i t ani as t o have a di f f er ent sor t of
i r r at i onal i t y f r omt hat of f asci st I t al y or Nazi Ger many, al t hough he does not
addr ess t hi s poi nt . But hi s basi c ar gument r emai ns cl ear : nat i onal i st i deol ogy ar ose
i n connect i on wi t h t he r at i onal st at e- f or mi ng nat i onal movement s of r i si ng 19t h
Cent ur y capi t al i sm, and t hi s same i deol ogy t oday, when st at e f or mat i on i s no
l onger ( i n hi s vi ew) r at i onal , has i t sel f become i r r at i onal . Ant i - col oni al l i ber at i on
movement s ar e not speci f i cal l y except ed f r omt hi s j udgement .
An al t oget her di f f er ent ar gument i s madeby t heneo- Mar xi st TomNai r nandby
t he conser vat i ve t heor i st s of nat i onal i sm( not abl y Er nest Gel t ner ) whomNai r n
f ol l ows r at her cl osel y, as we wi l l seei n Chapt er 3. For t heset heor i st s, nat i onal i sm
ar ose once, i n one pl ace, and a di st i nct i ve nat i onal i st i deol ogy was not onl y
associ at ed wi t h i t but ser ved as i t s hi st or i cal mot or . Then nat i onal i smdi f f used t o
t her est of t hewor l dandso t oo di di t s i deol ogy, whi chwenowseepoppi ngupi n t he
f ar t hest cor ner s of t he Thi r d Wor l d wi t h an appear ance not unl i ke t hat of i t s
Eur opean f or ebear s.
Ther e ar e t wo mai n f or ms of t hi s model , each associ at ed wi t h i t s own ki nd of
post ul at eas t o t henat ur e of t heor i gi nal Eur opean nat i onal i sm, andeachl eadi ngt o
a ver y di f f er ent concl usi on about t he nat ur e of nat i onal i st i del ogy and i t s
r el at i onshi pt o ot her i deol ogi es, not abl y f asci sm. The mor e wi del y accept ed of t he
t wo f or ms consi der s nat i onal i sm t o be si mpl y t he l ogi c of ear l y capi t al i st
democr acy, t he pr oduct of what Hobsbawmhas cal l ed t he ` dual r evol ut i on'
( pol i t i cal and i ndust r i al ) . Gi ven t hi s concept i on, t he di f f usi ng i deol ogy of
nat i onal i smi s l i kel y t o be seen as t he di f f usi on of t he qui t e beni gn i deol ogy of
democr acy, f r eedom, andmoder ni t y, f r omi t s supposed Br i t i shandFr ench hear t h.
But t he ot her f or mi dent i f i es or i gi nal nat i onal i sm, not wi t h democr at i c Br i t ai n
andFr ance, but wi t h undemocr at i c Ger many. I nf act i t f ocuses on somet hi ngwhi ch
i s somet i mes cal l ed t he` Ger mani ct heor y of nat i onal i sm' , usi ngt hewor d t heor y t o
mean bot h an oper ant i deol ogy andan anal yt i cal st r uct ur e. As I showi n Chapt er 2,
t her ewer et woset s of or i gi nat i ngci r cumst ances f or ear l y Ger man nat i onal i sm. One
was t hepol i t i cal ef f or t t o uni f y t he Ger man st at es i nt o acohesi ve nat i on st at e; t he
ot her was t hei deol ogy whi chsuppor t edt hi s pol i t i cal pr ogr amme. Thei deol ogy was
aqui t e myst i cal doct r i ne, der i vi ng f r omHer der , Fi cht e, Hegel , and some ot her s,
accor di ngt o whi ch t heGer man nat i on i s a super or gani smwi t h a` wi l l ' and` spi r i t '
of i t s own, and t he Ger man ci t i zen i s someonenot at al l f r ee as t o wi l l andr i ght s,
but mer el y a cel l or component par t of t he st at e or gani smand subj ect t o i t s
super or di nat e ` wi l l ' . ( I di scuss t hi s t heor y i n Chapt er 2. ) I t i s evi dent t hat t hi s
doct r i ne i s ver y di st ant f r omt he doct r i ne of t heRi ght s of Man, of democr acy and
f r eedom, al t houghat t empt s t o combi net het wodoct r i nes wer esomet i mes made, as
by Her der andMazzi ni , andademocr at i c var i ant of t heGer mani c doct r i ne became
I nt r oduct i on 35
si gni f i cant i n t he l at er 19t h Cent ur y. TheGer mani c doct r i ne t ends t o r omant i ci ze
t he uni t y of t he ci vi l - communi t y, usi ng l anguage as t he most i mpor t ant common
and uni f yi ng t r ai t of t hat communi t y, and deni es bot h t he r eal f r eedomof t he
i ndi vi dual andt he exi st ence of i nt er nal conf l i ct i ng cl asses.
The or i gi nal Ger mani c doct r i ne acqui r ed a st r ong f l avour of expansi ve
nat i onal i smwi t h t he addi t i on of Rat zel ' s t heor y of Lebensr aum, ` l i vi ng space' ,
dur i ng t he Bi smar ck er a, t he t heor y accor di ngt o whi ch t he Ger man nat i onal
or gani sm, l i ke al l ot her or gani sms, has t hei nher ent need, and t her ef or e somehow
t he i nher ent mor al r i ght , t o gr ow and t hus t o expand. I t i s uncl ear , however ,
whet her t hi s por t i on of t heGer mani c t heor y di f f used t o t hewi der wor l dal ongwi t h
t her est of t he doct r i ne. Onemust addal so t hat t her i se of t heLebensr aumdoct r i ne
i n Ger many owed at l east as much t o pr agmat i c Bi smar cki an ef f or t s t o emul at e
Br i t i sh and Fr ench col oni al expansi on as i t di d t o Hegel and t he ot her myst i c
t heor i st s of Ger man nat i onal i sm. I n any event , t he Ger mani c or ( as I descr i be i t i n
Chapt er 2) Hegel i an i deol ogy di f f used i nt o many par t s of Cent r al and East er n
Eur ope, and i nt o I t al y, somet i mes wi t h ademocr at i c cast , somet i mes not , but
al ways r et ai ni ng t hemyst i cal i deaof t hehi gher spi r i t ual uni t y of t he nat i on and i t s
i nher ent r i ght and need t o have asover ei gn st at e of i t s own.
Amongconser vat i ve wr i t er s about nat i onal i smt oday, i t i s aver y commoner r or ,
t r aceabl eper haps t o t he ol dGer mani c t heor y, t o conf uset wover y di f f er ent bodi es
of i deas: anal yt i cal t heor i es about nat i onal i smandi deol ogi cal doct r i nes whi char e
pr opagat ed and used by nat i onal movement s and t hei r spokespeopl e. Thi s
conf usi oni s al l owed, andpr obabl y expl ai ned, by t hef act t hat t heunder l yi ngt heor y
whi ch t hese wr i t er s accept i t sel f asser t s t hat i deol ogy i s pr i mor di al , aut onomous,
anddet er mi nat i ve. What t hi s t ypi cal l y l eads t o i n pr act i ce i s at endency t oi magi ne
t hat t he Ger mani c t heor y of nat i onal i smi n f act i s nat i onal i sm. Consi der , f or
i nst ance, t he f ol l owi ng def i ni t i on of ( supposedl y r eal - wor l d) nat i onal i smby a
wel l - known, i nf l uent i al , and ver y conser vat i ve t heor i st about nat i onal i sm, El i e
Kedour i e:
Nat i onal i smi s a doct r i ne i nvent ed i n Eur ope at t he begi nni ng of t he 19t h
cent ur y. I t pr et ends t o suppl y acr i t er i on f or t he det er mi nat i on of t he uni t of
popul at i on pr oper t o enj oy agover nment excl usi vel y i t s own, f or t he l egi t i mat e
exer ci se of power i n t hest at e, andf or t her i ght or gani zat i on of asoci et y of st at es .
Br i ef l y, t he doct r i ne hol ds t hat humani t y i s nat ur al l y di vi ded i nt o nat i ons, t hat
nat i ons ar eknown by cer t ai n char act er i st i cs whi chcanbeascer t ai ned, and t hat
t heonl y l egi t i mat e t ype of gover nment i s nat i onal sel f - gover nment . '
Kedour i esi mpl y di smi sses al l t heor i es of nat i onal i smwhi ch al l ude t o expl oi t at i on
andoppr essi on as causal f or ces, andhe i gnor es al l nat i onal movement s whi chf i ght
f or t he est abl i shment of mul t i nat i onal st at es and ot her such non- nat i onal uni t s.
And r ef er r i ng speci f i cal l y t o ant i - col oni al movement s, Kedour i e cl ai ms t hat t he
under l yi ng f or ce, or mot or , or cause of such movement s i s t he doct r i ne or t heor y
quot ed above.
Avar i ant of t hi s appr oach, wi t h l i ke conf usi on bet ween oper ant doct r i ne and
t heor y, i s empl oyed by t he neo- Mar xi st TomNai r n i n hi s pr esent at i on of what he
want s t o cal l a Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i sm, t he t heor y whi ch i s cr i t i ci zed i n
36 I nt roduct i on
Chapt er 3 of t hi s book. ' S He, t oo, bel i eves t hat i deol ogyi s t he mot or of nat i onal
movement s, andt hat nat i onal i st i deol ogyi ngeneral i s si mpl yt heGermani c t heory,
wi t hi t s myst i ci sm, i t s i dea of hi gher uni t y, and so on, and t hat al l of t hi s di f f used
around t heworl d and, i n t heari d at mosphereof underdevel opment , ki ndl ed t he
vari ous nat i onal movement s . Nat i onal i sm, f or Nai rn, i s t he di f f usi on of t he
Germani c t heory around t he worl d, whi l e, backi n Germany, t hi s same t heory
nurt ures f asci sm.
S o wecomet o f asci sm. Nai rn i s by no means al onei n bracket i ng f asci smwi t h
nat i onal i sm, connect i ngbot hat t he l evel of i deol ogyor doct ri neandassumi ngt hat
eachdoct ri net henhas asi mi l ar out come: f asci st movement s are t hus l i ke nat i onal
movement s andvi ceversa. Nai rnconsi ders f asci smt o beamuch- i nt ensi f i edf ormof
nat i onal i sm, but t hi s caveat does not al t er hi s basi c equat i onof t het wo. Al ongwi t h
ot hers who arguet hi s way, Nai rn makes essent i al l y t wo argument s t osupport t he
supposed homol ogyof nat i onal i smandf asci sm. Thef i rst onef l ows di rect l y f rom
t hemodel accordi ng t o whi ch t he Germani c doct ri neof nat i onal i smi s, i n f act ,
nat i onal i sm, or at l east causes nat i onal processes and nat i onal st ruggl es . Weare
si mpl y provi ded wi t ht he st andard hi st ori cal account of t heri se of t he i deol ogy of
Nazi sm( t heexampl eof f asci smunder di scussi on) out of earl yGermannat i onal i sm,
Bi smarcki an expansi oni sm, andt heGermannat i onal i smof t heFi rst Worl dWar. I
need not repeat t heaccount ; i t i s subst ant i al l y correct and i s not verycont roversi al
as adescri pt i onof t hef orerunners of Nazi i deol ogy. But Nai mgoes muchf art her:
hecl ai ms t hat t hi s i deol ogi cal hi st oryi s t het ruecauseof t heri seof Nazi sm, i nst ead
of poi nt i ng t o non- i deol ogi cal processes whi ch l ed t o t he accept ance of t hi s
i deol ogy, andt oal l t herest of t heNazi horror . ' 6 I nsum: nat i onal i smi s decl aredt o
comef romt he samehi st ori c root as Nazi sm; t heref orebot harecommonbranches
of asi ngl e t ree, t heroot of whi chi s i deol ogi cal .
Thesecond argument purport s t o be empi ri cal . I t poi nt s out t hat t he Nazi s
engaged i n real t erri t ori al aggrandi zement , i n real expansi oni st nat i onal i sm, and
used an ext remef ormof t heol der Germani c doct ri ne t o j ust i f y Nazi aggressi on
agai nst ot her st at es . Thus Nazi smbot h depl oyed expansi oni st nat i onal i smand
j ust i f i ed i t wi t h a t heory of nat i onal i sm. Noneof t hi s i s i n di sput e. But Nai rn' s
argument t hengoes ont oi nf er t hat t heuseof nat i onal i st pract i ceanddoct ri net urns
Nazi smi t sel f i n essencei nt o acase of nat i onal i sm.
But t heGermani cdoct ri nedoes not underl i emost nat i onal movement s, past and
present , and cert ai nl y not t he movement s of nat i onal l i berat i on i n col oni es .
What ever myst i ci smand romant i ci smand emot i onal i smwe f i nd i n t hese
movement s bet rays nohomol ogywi t hNazi sm; i ndeedi t i s hardl ydi f f erent f romt he
romant i ci smand emot i onal i smand, yes, myst i ci smwe f i nd i n most soci al
movement s, i ncl udi ngsoci al i st movement s . ( Woul dt hesehavegai nedanyvi ct ori es
had t heyeschewed emot i onal i sm? Cananysoci al i st or t radeuni oni st whohas ever
wal ked api cket l i ne honest l y cl ai mt hat soci al i smi s unemot i onal - i s purecol d
rat i onal i t y?)
Furt hermore, f asci smas acat egory i s muchl arger t han Nazi smas acat egory. I
t hi nk i t cannot beest abl i shed t hat , f or i nst ance, t heI t al i an and S pani shf orms of
f asci smwere root ed, even i deol ogi cal l y, i n t he Germani c doct ri ne. As t o t he
empi ri cal evi dence, Nazi smi ndeed engaged i n aggressi ve, expansi oni st nat i onal
I nt roduct i on 37
st ruggl e, but sodi dt hedemocrat i c st at es i nt hei r col oni al expansi on. I nt erest i ngl y,
t heNazi s empl oyedqui t eordi narycol oni al i st i deol ogyas part of t hei r i deol ogyof
expansi on; t hey cl ai med t he ri ght t o wi n back a col oni al empi re. " Mussol i ni ' s
f asci smengaged i n expansi ve nat i onal i smi n an al most cl assi cal l y col oni al i st
manner, even t hought he decl ared ai mwas t o rebui l d t heRomanEmpi re. And
Franco' s f asci smdi d not pl ace muchemphasi s on enl argement of t hest at e as
cardi nal pol i cy. Agai nweare remi nded of t het rut hof HoraceDavi s' observat i on
t hat nat i onal i smi s a t ool whi ch can be pi cked up and used i n many ways,
progressi ve and react i onary. Expansi venat i onal i sm, st at e- f ormi ng nat i onal i sm,
def ensi ve nat i onal i sm, ant i - secessi oni st nat i onal i sm, and al l t he ot her f orms of
nat i onal st ruggl e are ut i l i zed and engaged i nby agreat number of di f f erent soci al
f ormat i ons, andt hef act t hat Nazi smandsomeot her f ascsmmakeuseof nat i onal
st ruggl e does not permi t us t o argue t hat t herei s homol ogybet ween f asci smand
someof t heseot her nat i onal i sms, l east of al l wi t ht he ant i - col oni al movement s f or
nat i onal l i berat i on.
TheArgument of Thi s Book
Chapt er 3, whi ch cri t i ci zes Nai rn' s t heory of nat i onal i sm, i s t hevehi cl e f or my
argument t hat f asci smbears no i nherent rel at i onshi pt o nat i onal i sm. Asect i on of
t hat chapt er ( `Nat i onal i smand Fasci sm' ) deal s speci f i cal l y wi t hNai rn' s at t empt t o
connect t het wo, but equal l y rel evant are t hepart s of t hat chapt er whi chcri t i ci ze
Nai rn' s t hesi s t hat cl assi cal Germani c nat i onal i sm, doct ri neand pract i ce, i s i nf act
t heonenat i onal i sm, and t hat i t was t hi s model t hat di f f used around t he worl d.
Thecri t i quef ocuses mai nl yonNai rn' s cont ent i ont hat `moderni zat i on' , because
i t proceeds unevenl y, set s upapsychol ogi cal f rust rat i on- react i on i nt heel i t egroups
of any gi ven `moderni zi ng' area, a subconsci ous, even psychopat hol ogi cal
expl osi on aki n t o dement i a and t hi s i s nat i onal i sm. When ext remel y vi ol ent , i t
emerges as f asci sm( whi ch, f or Nai rn, i s t he `archet ype' of nat i onal i sm) . To at t ack
t hi s t heoryonemust anal yseseparat el yeachof t hreecont ent i ons . Fi rst , t herei s t he
cont ent i on t hat bot h nat i onal i smand f asci smcan be expl ai ned, hi st ori cal l y, i n
t erms of an i deol ogi cal pri mecausewhi ch i s decl ared t o beaut onomous, acause
uncaused except i n some i ndef i nabl e way by a f rust rat i on- react i on t o
`moderni zat i on' . I arguet hat nei t her nat i onal i smnor f asci smcanbeexpl ai nedas an
ef f ect of a f ree- f l oat i ng i deol ogy; t hey are prof oundl y compl ex soci al phenomena
i nwhi chi deol ogypl ays apart , but bynomeans adet ermi ni ngpart . S econd, t herei s
Nai rn' s cont ent i on t hat bot hf asci st andnat i onal i st movement s are ul t i mat el y l ed
andused byrul i ngcl asses . Qui t eof t ent hi s i s not t hecase i n nat i onal i st movement s,
i nsomeof whi cht hecruci al rol ei s pl ayed byexpl oi t edcl asses, andbyt hei deol ogy
of Marxi sm, whi chi s hardl y comparabl et o t hei deol ogy of f asci sm. Andt hi rd,
Nai rn cont ends t hat bot hnat i onal i smand i t s `archet ype' , f asci sm, emergei neach
part of t he gl obe at j ust t he appropri at e t i me i n rel at i on t o t he arri val of
`moderni zat i on' . I showt hat no space- t i me correl at i on exi st s t o j ust i f y t hi s
argument . I n f act , Germanyand I t al y becamemoderni zed, i neveryval i d senseof
t hat t erm, ahal f - cent ury or morebef oret he ri se of f asci sm. What wecorrect l y cal l
`nat i onal i st i deol ogi es' spanagreat rangeof soci al ref erent s, onl yoneof whi chi s
f asci sm.
3 8 I nt roduct i on
Fi f t h Probl em: I s Nat i onal St ruggl eOut of Dat e? I s t heNat i onal
St at ean Anachroni smi n t he Era of Mul t i nat i onal Capi t al i sm?
Conservat i veVi ews of t he Nat i onal St at e
Earl i er i n t hi s chapt er I not edt hat conservat i ve t heori zi ng about nat i onal i smwent
t hrough a si gnal change around 1960 when t heori st s began seri ousl y t o
concept ual i ze decol oni zat i on and t he ant i - col oni al nat i onal movement s, and
sought t of i nd apl acef or t heseprocesses i n t hegeneral t heoryof nat i onal i sm. The
out comeof t hi s changewas t hewi deaccept anceof a f ormul at i on, real l y part of t he
`moderni zat i on' doct ri ne, whi ch can becal l ed t heevol ut i onary- di f f usi oni st t heory
of t he nat i onal st at e.
Thi s i s a t wo- part argument . Fi rst , a cert ai n number of ori gi nal nat i onal st at es -
Bri t ai n andFrancef or somet heori st s ; t hese t wo pl us Germanyandperhaps I t al y,
t heUS, andoneor t woot her count ri es f or ot her t heori st s - emergedqui t enat ural l y
duri ngt he19t h Cent ury. Then, second, t hi s ori gi nal f ormof st at edi f f used out wards
t ot he rest of t heworl d: t oeast ernEuropebef oreandaf t er t heFi rst Worl dWar ; t o
Asi a, Af ri ca, t heCari bbean, et c. , af t er t heSecondWorl dWar. Thepeopl eof t hese
recei vi ng areas wereseen as evol vi ng t owards t hel evel of pol i t i cal mat uri t y earl i er
at t ai nedby`t heWest ' , t hel evel at whi ch t hey woul dadopt t henat i onal st at eas t hei r
pol i t i cal f orm. Wenot ed earl i er t hat t hi s t heory served an i mport ant i deol ogi cal
purpose i n expl ai ni ng decol oni zat i on as a moment i n t he supposedl y nat ural ,
beni gn, andsmoot h evol ut i onof col oni es f romt hecondi t i onof col oni al `t ut el age' , -
t hrough t he graduat i on ceremony of decol oni zat i on, t o t he mat ure, adul t ,
condi t i on of dependency and neocol oni al i sm. The t heory rat i onal i zed post -
col oni al economi c and pol i t i cal dependency as cont i nued evol ut i on t oward
`moderni t y' andas t he onl y road t o economi c devel opment .
Theevol ut i onary- di f f usi oni st t heory of t henat i onal st at eseems nowt o bel osi ng
f avour amongconservat i ve schol ars . Some of t hem, at l east , areput t i ng f orwarda
very di f f erent t heory, one remi ni scent i n manyways of a t heory whi ch was wi del y
accept ed bef ore t he peri od of decol oni zat i on. Thi s newt heory consi ders t he
nat i onal st at e t o be a charact eri st i cal l y West ern i nst i t ut i on, somet hi ng t hat cannot
di f f uset oot her areas andpeopl es . Thi s vi ewi s of a pi ecewi t h col oni al i st i deol ogy i n
i t s earl i er i ncarnat i on. E. H. Carr, f or i nst ance, i n 1942 depl ored t he f act t hat t he
pri nci pl e of sel f - det ermi nat i onof nat i ons as enunci at ed by t heWi l soni ans i n 1919
was nowbei ng ext endedt ot he non- Europeanworl d. Sai dhe, `t hedays of t hesmal l
i ndependent nat i onal st at e, t heembodi ment of t hei deal s of 1919, arenumbered' . '
a
Andqui t econsi st ent l y he descri bed t he i dea of decol oni zat i on as `react i onary' . "
Al f redCobban, anot her Bri t i sh aut hori t y onnat i onal i sm, assert ed i n 1944t hat `t he
more backward peopl es . . . shoul d be t rai ned t o operat e a syst em of l ocal
aut onomy . . . Sel f - det ermi nat i ondoes not meangi vi ng peopl es power t hey donot
want andcannot use' , t hi s i n a bookof hi s ent i t l ed Nat i onal Sel f - Det ermi nat i on. 2
Thegeneral posi t i on, t hen, was t hat smal l and newst at es, most l y col oni es, coul d
not vi abl y exi st i n t he comi ng (post - war) worl d; t hat t he pri nci pl e of sel f -
det ermi nat i onandt heabsol ut eri ght of soverei gnt y hadt o besubordi nat edt osome
syst emby whi ch a f ewgreat st at es woul dmanaget heaf f ai rs of t herest , presumabl y
t o t heTat t ers' benef i t . Thi s woul dof coursemeana perpet uat i onof t hepri nci pl es of
col oni al and semi - col oni al rul e, al ong wi t h t hecount erpart of t hi s as pract i sed by
I nt roduct i on 39
t he Uni t ed St at es, namel y, gunboat di pl omacy and peri odi c i nvasi on and
occupat i on of smal l nei ghbouri ng st at es pl us a dol l op of ordi nary col oni al i smi n
count ri es l i ke Puert o Ri co.
Theevol ut i onary- di f f usi oni st t heory has not provedt o bea very goodpredi ct or
of t he modern worl d of st at es . Decol oni zat i on di d not produce t he expect ed
l andscape of st abl e, devel opi ng, capi t al i st st at es . Some f ormer col oni es chose
soci al i sm. Therest coul dnot be mai nt ai nedi n aneconomi cal l y neocol oni al (hence
prof i t - generat i ng) st at us wi t hout a great deal of i nt erf erence i n t hei r i nt ernal af f ai rs,
part of i t economi c, part of i t pol i t i cal , part of i t overt l y or covert l y mi l i t ary. The
ki ndof st at ewhi ch capi t al i smwant s andneeds i n t heThi rd Worl d si mpl y does not
ari senat ural l y, i n accordancewi t h evol ut i onary- di f f usi oni st pri nci pl es . Del i berat e
i nt ervent i oni s needed, anddoes not al ways work. Compoundi ngt heprobl emi s t he
f act t hat t hemaj ori t y of t hemember st at es of t heUni t edNat i ons nol onger support
t he powerf ul capi t al i st st at es . I nt he 1950s and 1960s, when t hese powerf ul st at es
cont rol l edaut omat i c maj ori t i es i n t heGeneral Assembl y andt heSecuri t y Counci l ,
t here was scarcel y any concern over t he f act t hat manymember st at es weresmal l
and weak. But as vot i ng pat t erns changed, as, f or i nst ance, maj ori t i es begant o vot e
f or resol ut i ons demandi ng sel f - det ermi nat i on f or Puert o Ri cans and Pal est i ni ans,
West ern pol i t i ci ans and mai nst reamschol ars began t o condemn l oudl y t he so-
cal l ed `mi ni - st at es' , and al so t o condemnt he not - properl y- i nt egrat ed- and- so- not -
t rul y- nat i onal st at es of t heThi rd Worl d whi ch were cert ai n t o decompose duet o
t hei r supposednon- vi abi l i t y (but hardl yever decomposei n real i t y), andevent ual l y
t o condemn t he Uni t ed Nat i ons i t sel f .
Hence t he need f or andsuppl y of anewt heory. Or at l east t heprol i f erat i on of
argument s, someol d, somenew, denyi ng t hat t rue nat i onal st at es havedi f f used t o
t he Thi rd Worl d and assert i ng t he vi rt ues of l i mi t ed soverei gnt y as supposedl y
bei ng best sui t ed f or t hemaj ori t y of t henewst at es . Part of t hi s f ormul at i onhas been
a cri t i que of t heconcept of t henat i onal st at ei t sel f . (I use`nat i onal st at e' i nst eadof
`nat i on st at e' becauset heemphasi s i n t hepresent di scussi on i s on mat t ers rel at i ng
t o power and soverei gnt y, not on quest i ons of nat i onal i t y and t he l i ke. More on
t hese concept s i n Chapt ers 4and5. ) Supposedl y t heworl di s nowgoi ng t hrough a
dual process, bot h t endenci es worki ng agai nst t he cont i nued si gni f i cance of t he
nat i onal st at e. Ont he one hand, i t i s argued, we see et hni c or nat i onal i t y groups
demandi ng somef ormof aut onomy or i ndependencei n event hel argeandpowerf ul
West ern count ri es, t hus a t endency t owards decomposi t i on of t he t radi t i onal
nat i onal st at e. Ont he ot her hand, i t i s argued, we see t he growi ng i mport ance of
mul t i pl e- st at e al l i ances, l i ke NATO(but not l i ke t heUN), whi ch areemergi ngas t he
t rue cent res of power, t hemodern count erpart s of t he ol d col oni al and cont i nent al
empi res . I needhardl y addt hat t het ransf ormat i oni s vi ewed as f unct i onal not onl y
f or cont rol l i ng t roubl esome Thi rd Worl d count ri es but al so f or preservi ng worl d
capi t al i smi t sel f .
Not al l probl ems can be t ackl ed, much l ess sol ved, i n one bookon t henat i onal
quest i on. My perspect i ve i s Marxi st , and my mai n concern i s wi t h poi nt s of vi ew
and t heori es expressed and debat ed wi t hi n t he Marxi st corpus of wri t i ngs on
nat i onal i smand t he nat i onal quest i on. But qui t ea f ewMarxi st s and neo- Marxi st s
haverecent l yj oi nedt hei r conservat i vecol l eagues i n argui ng t hat t henat i onal st at e
40 I nt roduct i on
i s out of dat e. Marxi st s, however, cannot deal wi t h t hi s quest i on unl ess t hey deal
wi t hanot her oneas wel l . They haveal ways support ednat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl es
i n col oni es and neocol oni es . Nowsome fewMarxi st s and a fl ock of neo- Marxi st s
quest i onevent hesest ruggl es, argui ng al so t hat nat i onal st ruggl e i n general i s out of
dat e. Thi s t hesi s must cl ai mour at t ent i on.
Marxi st s and Neo- Marxi st s on t he Decl i ne of t he Nat i onal St at e and Nat i onal
St ruggl e
The i dea t hat nat i onal st at es are decl i ni ng i n i mport ance, or never have been
i mport ant under moderncapi t al i sm, i s bei ngadvancedi n vari ous forms t hesedays
by a number of neo- Marxi st s, i ncl udi ng Nai rn, Wal l erst ei n, andArri ghi , andby at
l east onet radi t i onal Marxi st : Hobsbawm. I f st at es arebecomi ngor soonwi l l become
uni mport ant andperhaps wi l l wi t her away under capi t al i sm, i t woul d fol l owt hat
nat i onal movement s, even nat i onal l i berat i on movement s, are nowpasse and
i rrel evant . Somearguet hat t heformerl y progressi vemovement s have nowbecome
react i onary, and t hey are fond of quot i ng Rosa Luxemburg' s famous comment
about t he Pol i sh i ndependence movement :
[Knowi ng) t he obj ect i ve movement of hi st ory . . . we are prot ect ed . . . from
mi st aki ng, as revol ut i onary act i vi t y, aspi rat i ons t hat have l ong si nce been
t ransformed by t he forces of soci al evol ut i oni nt o t hei r react i onary opposi t es. z '
Obvi ousl y t he t rut hor fal si t y of t hi s argument i s of consi derabl e si gni fi cancefor t he
t heory of nat i onal i sm. Obvi ousl y al so, i t i s of si gni fi cance for al l t he nat i onal
st ruggl es i n whi ch Marxi st s are t oday engaged. For exampl e i t i s cl ear t hat ,
al t hough Puert o Ri can Marxi st s were vi rt ual l y unani mous unt i l recent l y i n t hei r
convi ct i on t hat t he fi ght for soci al i smi n Puert o Ri co requi res a fi ght for
i ndependence, for nat i onal l i berat i on, as anabsol ut el y necessaryst epi n t hepat ht o
soci al i smi n t hat count ry, voi ces arenow, for t hefi rst t i mei n recent memory, bei ng
heard t o suggest t hat t he fi ght for i ndependence may not be a proper fi ght for
soci al i st s . Why?Becauset hi s, supposedl y, i s t heerawhen st at es aredi ssol vi ng, and
nat i onal st ruggl es havebecomepasse. (Oneor t wovoi ces add: `Al l nat i onal st ruggl e
i s bourgeoi s! ' ) Thus t he i ssue i s i mport ant for pract i ce as wel l as t heory.
To underst and t hi s i ssue i t i s hel pful t o see i t i n hi st ori cal perspect i ve. I wi l l go
i nt o t hehi st ory of t hequest i oni n Chapt er 4, but afewwords herewi l l not beout of
pl ace. I n t he post - cl assi cal peri od of Marxi st t hought , aft er Engel s' deat h and
before t he Fi rst Worl d War, i t was convent i onal wi sdomt hat capi t al i smhad
become, or was qui ckl ybecomi ng, i nt ernat i onal , out growi ngt henat i onal st at eand
renderi ng nat i onal st ruggl es out of dat e, at l east i n t he cent res of advanced
capi t al i sm, whi l e t he prol et ari at was of course i nt ernat i onal i st i n t he nat ure of
t hi ngs . Thenat i onal st at ewas not t hought t obedi ssol vi ng, but i t was of decl i ni ng
i mport ance. Newst at es woul dnot emerge (for Luxemburg) or woul d emerge onl y
i n rel at i vel y backward regi ons (for Leni n) . Nat i onal i smwas adecl i ni ng force. And
al l capi t al i st st at es woul d i n any case soon di sappear i n t he i mpendi ng worl d
revol ut i on. At i meof opt i mi sm. Whent he Fi rst Worl dWar brokeout , however, i t
becamest art l i ngl yevi dent t hat most of t heprol et ari at of t hewarri ngcount ri es was
not yet ready for i nt ernat i onal i sm, whi l e t he capi t al i st s t hemsel ves were pursui ng
I nt roduct i on 41
t hei r own sort of i nt ernat i onal i st ai ms t hrough t he use of very nat i onal armed
forces .
Among t hose Marxi st s who opposed t he war uncondi t i onal l y, t wo st ri ki ngl y
di fferent posi t i ons emerged and were debat ed. One was Leni n' s, a vi ewi nformed
nowby hi s anal ysi s of i mperi al i smand i t s rel at i onshi p t o nat i onal st ruggl e.
Nat i onal i sm, he sai d, i s a cent ral feat ure of t he era of i mperi al i smor monopol y
capi t al i sm. Bourgeoi s nat i onal i smof t hegreat power sort becomes i nt ensi fi ed by
t he canni bal i st i c st ruggl eof great capi t al i st st at es t o st eal one anot her' s col oni es
and ot her sources of rawmat eri al , market s, and t he l i ke. And nat i onal l i berat i on
st ruggl es become more i nt ense t han ever, i n col oni es and ot her sort s of oppressed
nat i ons .
Rangedagai nst Leni n weret heLuxemburgi ans, Bukhari n, Radek, Trot sky, and
ot hers, whoi nsi st ed - i n t hemi dst of t heWorl dWar- t hat nat i onal st ruggl es and
t henat i onal st at e are of decl i ni ng i mport ance. Sai d Trot sky, `The War heral ds t he
break- upof t henat i on- st at e' . z z Sai dRadek, `I mperi al i smrepresent s t het endency of
fi nance capi t al t o out grow t he bounds of a nat i onal st at e' . 23 Sai d Pyat akov,
i ndependencefor t he col oni es i s `unachi evabl e' under capi t al i sm. z And so on.
Thus Marxi st s were debat i ng t he i ssue of t he decl i ne of nat i onal st at es and
nat i onal st ruggl e nearl y sevent y years ago. Andt hey aredoi ng sost i l l . Meanwhi l e,
st at es have not di sappeared fromt he pol i t i cal mapof t he worl d and remai n as
i mport ant as ever, whi l e nat i onal st ruggl es goonwi t hunabat edi nt ensi t y fromEl
Sal vador andPuert o Ri co t o Nami bi a and Ti mor .
Bet weent het i meof t he Russi an Revol ut i onandt he 1960s, t hei deat hat nat i onal
st at es are decl i ni ng andnat i onal st ruggl es arepasse was not , as far as I can t el l , of
muchcurrencyamongMarxi st s . I n t hel ast decadeor so, however, t here has beena
resurgence of t he ol d nat i onal - st at es- and- nat i onal - st ruggl es- are- out - of- dat e
posi t i on and ot her vi ews not unl i kei t , some represent i ng cross- fert i l i z at i on from
t heconservat i ve decl i ne- of- t he- nat i onal - st at et heori es di scussed previ ousl y. Apart
fromEri c Hobsbawmand perhaps one or t wo ot her t radi t i onal Marxi st s, t he
exponent s of t hi s general posi t i on t endt o beneo- Marxi st s (at ermwhi chdesi gnat es
- and usual l y sel f- desi gnat es- wri t ers whohave onefoot i n Marxi smandt heot her
pl ant ed safel y i n some non- Marxi st body of soci al or phi l osophi cal t hought ) .
Amongt heneo- Marxi st s, t hreebroadcurrent s of i deas seemt oagreei n argui ng t he
decl i ne of t hest at e.
Oneof t hese current s of i deas i s merel y an updat ed formof t he ol d t endency
cal l ed economi sm, t he vi ewt hat pol i t i cal processes i n general are not of cri t i cal
i mport ance i n capi t al i st soci et y and pol i t i cal i nst i t ut i ons do not deserve seri ous
at t ent i on. The ori gi nal `economi st s' i n t urn- of- t he- cent ury Russi a advocat ed
economi c st ruggl es anddownpl ayedpol i t i cal st ruggl es . I n t hel at er debat es wi t ht he
Luxemburgi ans, Bukhari n, andot hers who, duri ngt heWorl dWar, procl ai medt he
decl i ne of st at es, Leni n l abel l ed t hei r poi nt of vi ew`i mperi al i st economi sm' ,
meani ngeconomi smsui t ed t o t heneweraof i mperi al i smor monopol y capi t al i sm:
i t cl ai medt hat , si ncecapi t al i smi n i t s i mperi al i st st agei s nowful l y i nt ernat i onal , t he
merel y nat i onal st at e i s l osi ng i t s si gni fi cance, and st ruggl es focusi ngont hi s t arget ,
such as nat i onal st ruggl es, are decl i ni ng i n i mport ance.
Today' s economi smmakes a st ri ki ngl y si mi l ar argument . To begi n wi t h i t
42 I nt r oduct i on
r esur r ect s t he ol d f or mul a about capi t al i sm havi ng become i nt er nat i onal , not
nat i onal . Second, i t f ocuses on t he act i vi t i es and si gni f i cance of mul t i nat i onal
cor por at i ons and ar gues t hat t hese cor por at i ons, whi ch i t consi der s t o be t he
char act er i st i c ent i t i es of pr esent - day capi t al i sm, ar e abl e t o f unct i on i n al l capi t al i st
st at es andt o cr oss st at e boundar i es at wi l l ; hence t hey somehowr educe t he st at et o
i nsi gni f i cance. Thi r dl y, a l i nk- up i s made wi t h t he or i gi nal economi smby
descr i bi ng t he geogr aphyof t he ent i r e wor l d as, i n essence, a uni f or msur f ace, not
r eal l y di vi ded up i nt o di scr et e pol i t i cal spaces . Pol i t i cal boundar i es i n no way
i nhi bi t t he f l owof mul t i nat i onal economi c pr ocesses . Thus t her e i s nowa wor l d-
space i n whi ch economi c di st ance al one gover ns t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he
cent r es of advanced capi t al i smand t he per i pher al r egi ons .
Ther e i s some i r ony i n t he f act t hat Leni n' s t er m, `uneven devel opment ' , i s now
t he code f or t hi s pur el y economi c model of t he wor l d: i r oni c because Leni n mor e
t han any ot her t heor i st i n 20t h Cent ur y Mar xi smunder scor ed t he pol i t i cal
component i n wor l dcapi t al i smof t he i mper i al i st epoch. Uneven devel opment , f or
neo- economi sm, i s on t he onehand ast at i c concept denot i ngt he unevenness of t he
l andscape of devel opment , and on t he ot her hand a pur el y di f f usi oni st concept of
st eady f l ows out war ds f r omt he cent r es of advanced capi t al i sm, f l ows i n whi ch
di st ance, not pol i t i cal di f f er ent i at i on, det er mi nes t he r at e and di r ect i on of change.
Thus what was once a sl ope of decr easi ng devel opment wi t hi n a si ngl e capi t al i st
count r y, as, a cent ur y ago, f r omi ndust r i al sout her n Engl andt o nor t her n Scot l and
or f r omwest er n Russi at o Si ber i a, i s nowasl ope ext endi ngout t o t he opposi t e ends
of t he ear t h, and t he i nt r a- st at e spat i al expansi on descr i bedf or Br i t ai n by Mar xi n
Capi t al and f or Russi a by Leni n i n The Devel opment of Capi t al i smi n Russi a i s
supposed t ohaveext ended i t sel f ont o awor l dscal e. Thi s i gnor es or evendeni es t hat
t her e i s a di f f er ence bet ween uneven devel opment wi t hi n a count r y and uneven
devel opment acr oss st at e boundar i es . And t he act i vi t i es of mul t i nat i onal
cor por at i ons i n t he f ar t hest cor ner s of t he ear t h t oday ar e supposed by neo-
economi smt o be mer el y a scal e enl ar gement of t he act i vi t i es of i nt r a- nat i onal
cor por at i ons i n t he f ar t hest cor ner s of t hei r own count r i es yest er day. So t he
pol i t i cal f or ms i n t heper i pher al par t s of t he wor l d t oday- cl assi cal col oni al i smas i n
Puer t o Ri co, new- st yl e col oni al i smas i n Sout h Af r i ca and Ti mor , and neo-
col oni al i smas i n most ot her count r i es of t he Thi r d Wor l d - ar e consi der ed t o be
i r r el evant , or near l y so. For t he neo- economi st s, t he pol i t i cal map of t he wor l d no
l onger hol ds any i nt er est .
At hor oughcr i t i que of neo- economi smi s much needed, but i t cannot be vent ur ed
i n t he pr esent vol ume. I t i s needed because t hi s i s an i mpor t ant st r ai n of r adi cal
t hought whi chdeni es t he r el evance of pol i t i cal pr ocesses t o t he ext ent t hat i t t r i es t o
const r uct nomi nal l yMar xi st t heor i es i n whi ch pol i t i cal pr ocesses ar e suppr essed.
Somet i mes i t empl oys such t heor i es t o downpl ay t he i mpor t ance of pol i t i cal act i on
andt o i nj ect pessi mi smi nt o such act i on, suggest i ng t hat t hi s ki nd of st r uggl e cannot
accompl i sh much so l ongas t he r eal bast i ons, t he mul t i nat i onal cor por at i ons and
r el at ed economi c st r uct ur es, r emai n unconquer ed. Acr i t i que of t hi s posi t i on woul d
i ncor por at e, among ot her t hi ngs, t he f ol l owi ng ar gument s (some but not al l of
whi ch ar e sket ched i n Chapt er 4of t hi s book) : f i r st , capi t al i smcannot f unct i on
wi t hout st at e power; suchpower i s no l ess cr i t i cal t o i t s act i vi t i es t odayt han i t was i n
I nt r oduct i on 43
t he past ; andsuch power r esi des i n t he st at e and basi cal l y nowher e el se. Second,
mul t i nat i onal cor por at i ons t oday, l i ke t he i nt er nat i onal andcol oni al cor por at i ons
of pr i or t i mes (t he East I ndi aCompani es, Uni t ed Fr ui t , Lever Br os . , et c. ), ar e based
i n t he advanced capi t al i st st at es : t hey ar e mul t i nat i onal onl y i n t hei r scal e of
accumul at i on, accumul at i on whi ch ver y l ar gel y f l ows back t o t he home of f i ce and
i t s sur r oundi ngst at e - a st at e whi ch al so pl ays aver y power f ul pol i t i cal r ol e i n t he
cor por at i on' s wor k, as t he US di df or I TT i n Br azi l and Chi l e. Thi r d, t he act i vi t i es
of capi t al i smon a wor l d scal e cannot accur at el y be anal ysed i f we i magi ne t hat
spat i al r el at i ons and l ocat i ons have onl y an economi c si gni f i cance; t hat uneven
devel opment i s t he basi c dynami c; and t hat i mper i al i sm, wi t h i t s pol i t i cal
char act er i st i cs l i ke col oni al and neocol oni al st at es andpol i t i co- mi l i t ar y i nt er ven-
t i ons, i s er ased f r omour ment al mapof t he wor l d.
Asecond nat i onal - st at es- ar e- out - of - dat e posi t i on i s associ at ed wi t h met aphysi cal
neo- Mar xi st s l i ke Gi ovanni Ar r i ghi , I mmanuel Wal l er st ei n, and t he Tat t er ' s
associ at es at t he Fer nand Br audel Cent er f or t he St udy of Economi es, Hi st or i cal
Syst ems, andCi vi l i zat i ons, of t he St at e Uni ver si t y of NewYor k. Thi s posi t i on, or
f ami l y of r el at ed posi t i ons, myst i f i es, or r e- myst i f i es, capi t al i sm, so t hat i t becomes
somet hi ng di f f er ent f r omand gr eat er i n scal e t han al l t he mer el y empi r i cal
pr ocesses t aki ng pl ace on t he ear t h' s sur f ace.
Wal l er st ei n' s gr oupempl oys what i t cal l s `wor l d syst emanal ysi s' . Thi s i s af or m
of neo- Mar xi smdi st i ngui shed- I empl oy car i cat ur e her e, but not unf ai r l yso- by i t s
i nsi st ence t hat t he capi t al i st wor l dsyst em, at t he gl obal scal e, det er mi nes al l par t i al
pr ocesses, suchas pol i t i cs, and al l par t - r egi ons, such as st at es . Thi s i s ver y cl ose t o
pur e Hegel i an hol i sm. The capi t al i st wor l d- syst emi s not def i ned by i t s par t s and
t hei r i nt er r el at i ons . Rat her , t hi s syst emi s somet hi ng gr eat er t han par t s and
r el at i ons, and i t det er mi nes t hei r nat ur e, behavi our , andhi st or i cal evol ut i on. `I t ' i s
not empi r i cal l y i dent i f i ed, and t hus cl osel y r esembl es Hegel ' s undef i nabl e `wor l d
spi r i t ' (and ot her undi scover abl e ent i t i es of r omant i c phi l osophy, l i ke t he `l i f e
f or ce' ) . Mar x' s cr i t i que of Hegel ' s myst i cal andhol i st i c t heor y of t he st at e as `spi r i t '
mi ght ser ve al so as a cr i t i que of t he met aphysi cs of `wor l d- syst emanal ysi s' ?s
I n any event , t he `wor l d- syst em' school put s f or war d some empi r i cal
pr oposi t i ons whi ch supposedl y der i ve f r omt he hi gher `wor l d- syst em' pr ocesses,
and whi ch have concr et e andt r oubl esome meani ngi n t he r eal wor l d, not l east f or
nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es . Fi r st , si nce t he capi t al i st wor l d syst emmai nt ai ns i n
some myst er i ous way a hegemoni c cont r ol of pol i t i cal pr ocesses t hr oughout t he
wor l d, no st at e exi st s out si de i t s spher e of cont r ol , and no st at e i n t he ent i r e wor l d,
t her ef or e, i s r eal l y soci al i st . 26 Second, sover ei gnt y i s an i l l usi on, si nce t he
over ar chi ngwor l d syst emcont r ol s ai l st at es. 2' Thi r d, decol oni zat i on di dnot r esul t
f r oml i ber at i on movement s, nor t hese f r omt he pecul i ar i t i es of col oni al oppr essi on
andsuper expl oi t at i on; r at her , decol oni zat i on occur r ed si mpl y when t he capi t al i st
wor l d- syst emhad ent er ed acycl i c phase - Wal l er st ei n bel i eves f i r ml y i n r epet i t i ve
hi st or i cal cycl es - i n whi ch `i nf or mal empi r e' seemed mor e desi r abl e t han
col oni es . z 8 Four t h, and by t he same t oken, al l ant i col oni al r evol ut i ons, wi t hout
except i on, have f ai l edt o achi eve f undament al soci al change. 2' Andf i nal l y, as aki nd
of summi ng- up of al l of t he f or egoi ng, t he st at e i s not of f undament al i mpor t ance
and st r uggl es f or st at e- sover ei gnt y ar e somewhat f r i vol ous. '
44 I nt r oduct i on
Ar el at ed posi t i on i s Gi ovanni Ar r i ghi ' s pecul i ar `geomet r y' of wor l d pr ocesses
under capi t al i sm. Ar r i ghi i s an admi t t ed Kant i an, and he bel i eves t hat t he basi c
f or ces det er mi ni ng t he hi st or i cal t r aj ect or y of t he moder n wor l d ar e ul t i mat el y
spat i al , i n an absol ut i st , Newt oni an or Kant i ansense. Thus he deduces what he cal l s
t he `cr i si s of t he nat i on- st at e' , t he l at t er seen as a mer e spat i al cel l i n t he geomet r yof
t he wor l d. I n t hi s geomet r y, scal ar f or ces l i ke i mper i al i sm- Hobson' s concept , not
Leni n' s, whi ch Ar r i ghi di smi sses - ar e seen as act i ng i ndependent l y of ot her scal ar
f or ces l i ke capi t al i sm. " The `cr i si s of t he nat i on- st at e' der i ves f r omt hese wor l d-
scal e absol ut e- spat i al f or ces, whi ch seeml i kel y soon t o er ase st at es f r omt he
geomet r i ci an' s bl ackboar d. I n sum, t hese ar e t wo f or ms of neo- Mar xi smwhi ch
post ul at e not empi r i cal l y obser vabl epr ocesses, but wor l d- embr aci ngmet aphysi cal
f or ces, as t he expl anat i on f or what one t heor i st ( Ar r i ghi ) bel i eves t o be t he decl i ne
of t he nat i onal st at e andt he ot her ( Wal l er st ei n) t he i nsi gni f i cance of t he st at eandof
st r uggl es t o cont r ol i t .
At hi r d poi nt of vi ewar gues, somewhat par adoxi cal l y, t hat t he nat i onal st at e i s
decl i ni ng because nat i onal i smi s on t he i ncr ease. Thi s vi ewi s wi del y hel d among
conser vat i ves and i s best r epr esent ed among neo- Mar xi st s by TomNai r n, whose
t heor y of nat i onal i smi s cr i t i ci zed i n Chapt er 3. Thi s gener al posi t i on r eal l y goes
back t o conser vat i ve t heor i es of nat i onal i smandt o one ear l y Mar xi st posi t i on, t hat
put f or war d by Ot t o Bauer bef or e t he Fi r st Wor l d War . ( I di scuss Bauer ' s t heor y
br i ef l y i n Chapt er 2. ) Nat i onal i smi s seen as an et hni c f or ce, even a psychol ogi cal
f or ce ( i n t he Ger mani c sense of `f ol k- psychol ogy' ) , andnot as a f or mor pr oduct of
cl ass st r uggl e nor even as a f or ce t hat i s i n some ot her way a vect or of pol i t i cal ,
soci ah and economi c pr ocesses. Et hno- psychol ogi cal nat i onal i smi s supposed t o
oper at e aut onomousl y t o cr eat e nat i onal st r uggl e and ( Bauer di ssent i ng her e) t o
f i ght f or and cr eat e nat i on st at es, t hat i s, st at es coi nci dent wi t h cul t ur al l y def i ned
nat i onal t i es, i n a pr ocess, r eal or myt hi cal , whi ch i s somet i mes cal l ed t he `pr i nci pl e
of nat i onal i t i es' . Thi s i s t he pr i nci pl e t hat each nat i onal i t y must have i t s ownst at e
and each st at e i t s own nat i onal i t y. But , t he ar gument cont i nues, t hi s same et hni c
nat i onal i smhas t he power t o dest r oy st at es whi ch ar e mul t i nat i onal or compl exi n
et hni c t er ms, andi t i s t hi s l at t er f or ce whi chpr edomi nat es t oday. Most of t he l ar ge
st at es of t he wor l dar e, we ar e t ol d, bei ng br oken upby et hni c nat i onal i sm, because
al l of t hemar e t o one ext ent or anot her mul t i nat i onal , or cul t ur al l y compl ex.
Wi t ness t he separ at i st movement s wi t hi n Canada, Br i t ai n, Fr ance. Spai n, and t he
newst at es of t he Thi r d Wor l d.
But t hi s ar gument f ai l s f or t wo r easons: f act s do not suppor t i t and t heor y does
not r ender i t r easonabl e. Most st at es of t he wor l dwer e not cr eat ed by et hni c gr oups
act i ng al one, and r el at i vel y f ewl i ber at i on st r uggl es, past and pr esent , have been
gr ounded i n onecul t ur e or nat i onal i t y. I t i s r eal l y amyt h of conser vat i ve i deol ogy
t hat t ypi cal nat i onal st r uggl es ar e, or wer e, r oot ed i n t he `f ol k' , t hei r `myt hol ogy' ,
t hei r `t r adi t i onal l eader s' , and t he l i ke. ( By t hi s I do not mean t hat cul t ur al i ssues
and st r uggl es ar e uni mpor t ant i n l i ber at i on movement s. The f i ght t o r et ai n t he
Spani sh l anguage, f or i nst ance, has been a cr uci al par t of t he st r uggl e i n Puer t o
Ri co. ) Nat i onal movement s t ypi cal l y ar i se ei t her i n some combi nat i on of a r i si ng
bour geoi si e and one or mor e oppr essed pr oduci ng cl asses or , i n moder n t i mes, a
st r uggl e by one or mor e oppr essedandsuper expl oi t ed cl asses f i ght i ng t o r emove t he
I nt r oduct i on 45
bur den by gai ni ng cont r ol of t he st at e i n a pr ocess of nat i onal l i ber at i on. I n ei t her
case t he most basi c f or ces i mpel l i ng t he nat i onal movement ar e cl ass f or ces, not
et hni c f or ces. However , t he nat i onal movement s maycl eave al ong et hni c l i nes, f or
any number of wel l - known r easons, and t hi s i s easi l y mi si nt er pr et ed as evi dence
t hat et hni c conf l i ct s per se ar e at t he r oot of t he st r uggl e .
I amof cour se over si mpl i f yi ng, andt her e i ndeed ar e nat i onal conf l i ct s whi char e
gr ounded i n et hni c conf l i ct , al t hough or di nar y capi t al i st oppr essi on and
expl oi t at i on i s al most al ways behi nd t he et hni c conf l i ct . But et hni c nat i onal i smi s
not t ypi cal , andwhen i t occur s i t i s r ar el y t he basal f or ce. Mor eover , no onehasever
pr oduced a def ensi bl e t heor y t o expl ai n whycul t ur es, et hni c gr oups, nat i onal i t i es,
shoul d, i n f act , i nvoke t he `pr i nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' - t hat i s, why t hey shoul d
demand t hei r own st at es i nst ead of accept i ng equal member shi p i n a democr at i c
mul t i nat i onal st at e, unl ess expl oi t at i on and oppr essi on agai nst t hemand not
agai nst some ot her communi t y i mpel s t hemt o go i t al one. TomNai r n t r i es t o
pr oduce such a t heor y, andmuch of myChapt er 3i s devot ed t o showi ngt hat t heor y
t o be i nval i d.
Fi nal l y, we come t o t he posi t i on put f or war d by Er i c Hobsbawm, a r espect ed
Mar xi st hi st or i an who bel i eves t hat nat i onal st at es ar e cr umbl i ng under t he
pr essur e of `f i ssi par ous nat i onal i sm' , t hat st at es i n gener al ar e l osi ng t hei r
i mpor t ance, and t hat nat i onal st r uggl es f or st at e power ar e now, qui t e si mpl y,
i r r at i onal . Hobsbawm' s ar gument i s many- f acet ed and subt l e, and i t gai ns speci al
st r engt h f r omhi s t hor ough command of moder n Eur opean hi st or y. I t i s now
consi der ed by some t o be t he most ser i ous endeavour by a Mar xi st , usi ng Mar xi st
t heor y, t o at t ack al l modemnat i onal i sm, i ncl udi ng t he r eact i onar y and t he si l l y
f or ms of nat i onal i sm, but i ncl udi ng al so t he nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es of our
t i mes . Al l t hese ar e decl ar ed t o be i r r at i onal .
Hobsbawm' s ar gument wi l l be anal ysed i n det ai l i n Chapt er 4. For now, I wi l l
summar i ze i t ver y supe~ci al l y i n a f ewwor ds. Hobsbawmmeans by `nat i onal i sm'
t he pr ocess of st at e- f or mat i on and t he pr ocess of st at e- enl ar gement by
aggr andi zement of nei ghbour i ng t er r i t or y, but not col oni al aggr andi zement whi ch
he appear s t o consi der a di f f er ent pr ocess. Nat i onal i sm i ncl udes a pol i t i cal
movement , a concr et e nat i onal st r uggl e, and a nat i onal i st i deol ogy. The i deol ogy
maybedemocr at i c or undemocr at i c, r eal i st i c or unr eal i st i c, but i t i s a qui t e def i ni t e
i deol ogi cal message, one t hat ext ol s t he nat i onal col l ect i ve, i nvokes t he i dea of
nat i onal uni t y, and consi der s ot her nat i ons t o be i nf er i or t o one' s own. 32 Thi s
def i ni t e sor t of soci al pr ocess was a r at i onal par t of t he over al l devel opment of
capi t al i smi n 19t h Cent ur y Eur ope. I t was not j ust `bour geoi s nat i onal i sm' but i t
was i ndeed associ at ed wi t h t he r i se of t he bour geoi si e and - cr uci al l y, f or
Hobsbawm- t he f or mat i on of st at es whi ch wer e appr opr i at e t o a cer t ai n scal e of
economy, t he `nat i onal economy' . But now, i n t he 20t h Cent ur y, t he economyof
capi t al i smi s i nt er nat i onal , not nat i onal , and nat i onal st at es no l onger have t he
cr uci al t i e t o a nat i onal - scal e economy. Hencet he exi st i ng st at es ar e i n danger of
spl i t t i ng up under t he pr essur es of et hni c nat i onal i sm, and t hose whi ch wer e bor n
vi a decol oni zat i on t ended t o be `mi ni - st at es' because, agai n, of t he i r r el evance of
si ze t o t he pr esent - day f or mof capi t al i sm. And, f i nal l y, nat i onal movement s whi ch
ar e f i ght i ng t oday t o f or mnewst at es ar e i r r at i onal . Thi s i s t he cent r al t hr ead of
46 I nt r oduct i on
Hobsbawm' s t heor y, t hough i t i s much mor e compl ex and subt l e t han I have
conveyed.
Yet i n t he l ast anal ysi s Hobsbawm' svi ewi s not ent i r el y di f f er ent f r omt he ol d
Fi r st -Wor l d-War vi ewst hat wer e cr i t i ci zed by Leni n as`i mper i al i st economsm' ,
and t he vi ewepi t omi zed i n Luxembur g' s comment about `aspi r at i ons t hat have
l ong si nce been t r ansf or med by . . . soci al evol ut i on i nt o t hei r r eact i onar y
opposi t es' . Hobsbawmdoes not say t hat nat i onal l i ber at i on movement s ar e
`r eact i onar y' , but hequest i onst hei r `r at i onal i t y' . Yet hei s, wi t hal , ast r ongsoci al i st
and no f r i end of col oni al i smor neocol oni al i sm. Theseand ot her cont r adi ct i onswi l l
cl ai mour at t ent i on i n Chapt er 4.
TheAr gument of Thi s Book
I t i sper t i nent her e t o r epeat someof t he wor dsof t hepar agr aphwhi chopened t hi s
chapt er . Most of t he t opi cs deal t wi t h i n t hi s bookar e i n t he r eal mof t heor y, but
t heor y i s not wr i t t en f or i t s own sake, and t heunder l yi ngpur pose of t he pr esent
wor ki s t o f ashi on aset of t heor et i cal t ool s t o hel punder st and why some nat i onal
st r uggl es i n t he moder n wor l d ar e pr ogr essi ve and ot her s ar e r eact i onar y. Those
who mai nt ai n, whet her f r oma conser vat i ve, a Neo-Mar xi st , or a Mar xi st
per spect i ve, t hat nat i onal st r uggl e i sout of dat e and t he nat i onal st at e i s, or i s f ast
becomi ng, an anachr oni sm, ar esuggest i ngt hat no nat i onal st r uggl e i n t he moder n
wor l d i s t r ul y pr ogr essi ve, and t hat al l ar e si mpl y out moded and i nsi gni f i cant ; and
whet her or not t hey maket hi ssweepi ngj udgment , t hei r t heor et i cal posi t i onsmake
i t f or t hem.
Of al l t he t heor et i cal posi t i ons about nat i onal i smwhi ch have an i mpact on
pr act i ce, on st r uggl e, t hi s one i s pr obabl y t he most cr i t i cal l y i mpor t ant . I t er odes
suppor t f or ant i -col oni al nat i onal st r uggl es, l i ke t he st r uggl e i n Puer t o Ri co. I t
r ender smor edi f f i cul t t hef i ght f or t r ue i ndependencei n neocol oni asand t hef i ght t o
pr eser ve t r ue i ndependence i n f r ee but embat t l ed count r i es l i ke Ni car aguaand
Angol a. And, par adoxi cal l y because i t i s over t l y ant i -nat i onal i st , i t r emoves t he
t heor et i cal t ool s we have f or i dent i f yi ng, anal ysi ng, and t hen opposi ngt he t r ul y
r eact i onar y nat i onal i smswhi chdot t he wor l d' sl andscape, si mpl y becausei t l umps
al l nat i onal movement st oget her asnei t her pr ogr essi ve nor r eact i onar ybut , r at her ,
as anachr oni st i c.
I t r y t o answer t he nat i onal -st r uggl es-and-nat i onal -st at es-and-nat i onal -movement s-
ar e-anachr oni st i c posi t i on - i t i s r eal l y agal axy of posi t i ons- at var i ouspl acesi n
t hi s book. The most f undament al r esponse i s t hi s: nat i onal st r uggl e i s one ver y
i mpor t ant f or mof t he st r uggl e f or st at e power . Capi t al i sm, l i ke ever y ot her cl ass
mode of pr oduct i on, must cont r ol t he st at e i n or der t o or gani ze and pol i ce t he
behavi our of cl asses, t he cl ass r el at i ons of pr oduct i on, t he pr ocess of pr oduct i on,
t heaccumul at i on and di sposal of sur pl us, and much mor ebesi des. Whencapi t al i sm
ceasest o cont r ol t hest at e i t ceasest o exi st . Or , st at ed di f f er ent l y, whent he capi t al i st
st at e di ssol ves, i t wi l l not di ssol ve i nt o ast at el ess `capi t al i st wor l d-syst em' or a
capi t al i st wor l d economy. I t wi l l t r ansf or mi t sel f i nt o t he soci al i st st at e or di ssol ve
i nt o bar bar i sm.
The concr et ear gument sar e l ai d out i n det ai l i n Chapt er s3 and 4. Chapt er 3 i s a
cr i t i que of Nai r n' svi ewof nat i onal i smwhi chsuppor t shi st hesi st hat Gr eat Br i t ai n
I nt r oduct i on 47
i s br eaki ngupunder t he t ensi ons of et hni c nat i onal i sm, and t hat moder n st at esi n
gener al ar e t hr eat ened byt hi si r r at i onal f or ce. Myr esponsei s t o quest i on t he t heor y
behi nd t hese asser t i ons. I showhowi t i s gr ounded i n t he br oader t heor y of t he
di f f usi on of `moder ni zat i on' , whi ch I cr i t i ci se. I t i s essent i al l y a psychol ogi cal
t heor y of nat i onal i smwhi ch di sengages t he pol i t i cal pr ocessf r omcl ass st r uggl e.
Fi nal l y, Nai r n' s ar gument r el at es howi t supposedl y came t o pass t hat t he
cent r i f ugal di f f usi on of `moder ni zat i on' , and i t s di scont ent s, somehowr ever sed
di r ect i on and br ought nat i onal i smbacki nt o Br i t ai n and ot her advanced-capi t al i st
st at es, t her et o `br eakt hemup' . Thi s ar gument I at t ack i n i t s t ur n, si mpl y showi ng
t hat none of t hi s happened.
But t he st r ongest and most consequent i al st at ement of t he gener al posi t i on t hat
nat i onal st r uggl esar e passbi s Hobsbawm' s, and al l of Chapt er 4i sdevot ed t o an
anal ysi s and cr i t i que of hi s vi ew. Heput s f or t h f our mai n t heses. Thef i r st i s t he
asser t i on t hat nat i onal movement swer e r at i onal i n t he l ast cent ur y but ar e so no
l onger . I r ai se t he quest i on whet her 19t h-Cent ur y nat i onal movement sr eal l y di d
wor k t owar ds `r at i onal ' nat i on-st at es, of t he appr opr i at e si ze f or a `nat i onal
economy' , showi ngt hat mi ni -st at es exi st ed t hen as t hey do now, and t hat st at e-
maki ng t ended t o be essent i al l y conj unct ur al and pr agmat i c. Even t he cl assi c
nat i on-st at es wer e i n f act seat s of huge empi r es, whi ch wer e t hei r own `nat i onal
economi es' . Fi nal l y, I r ej ect Hobsbawm' s i nt er pr et at i on of t he decol oni zat i on
pr ocessasone whi ch cr eat ed mi ni -st at es: i t cr eat ed st at es r oughl ycongr uent wi t h
pr e-exi st i ng col oni es, and what mi ni -col oni es exi st ed became mi ni -st at es, f or a
r eason t hat had ver y l i t t l e t o do wi t hj udgment sabout economi c r at i onal i t y.
Hobsbawm' s second t hesi s asser t s t hat sover ei gnt y has l ost much of i t s
i mpor t ance i n t he pr esent envi r onment of i nt er nat i onal i zed capi t al i sm. I r epl y by
showi ngt hat pr esent -day capi t al i smneeds t he st at e as muchasever i t di d bef or e,
and t hat neocol oni al st at es i n par t i cul ar need t o be st r ongt o pl ay an appr opr i at e
pol i ci ng r ol e i n Thi r d Wor l d cl ass r el at i ons t o ensur e t he cont i nued f l owof
super -pr of i t s.
Hobsbawm' s t hi r d t hesi s i s t hat st r uggl es agai nst neocol oni al i smar e not
nat i onal st r uggl es; t hat t heel i mi nat i on of most cl assi cal col oni es meanst he vi r t ual
end of genui ne nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es. I r epl y t hat neocol oni as do not have
r eal sover ei gnt y, and par t , t houghnot al l , of t hei r l i ber at i on must consi st i n f i ght i ng
f r ee of ext er nal pol i t i cal domi nat i on and economi c cont r ol , t hi s bei nganat i onal
st r uggl e.
Hobsbawm' sf our t h t hesi sconcer nst hehi st or y of Mar xi st i deas on t he nat i onal
quest i on. He mai nt ai ns t hat Mar xi st s have al ways t ended t o r el at e t o nat i onal
movement si n a`pr agmat i c' way, t hat Leni n' spol i ci eson t henat i onal and col oni al
quest i onswer ei ndeed `pr agmat i c' , and t hat Leni n i n f act had no t heor yof nat i onal
st r uggl e: mer el y aset of mor al l y and pol i t i cal l ysound but nonet hel ess `pr agmat i c'
j udgment s. I n r espondi ngt o HobsbawmI devel opat l engt han anal ysi sof Leni n' s
t heor y and showt hat pr agmat i smhad not hi ng t o do wi t h i t . I n f act , Leni n
devel oped t heskel et al st r uct ur e of t hemoder n Mar xi st t heor yof nat i onal st r uggl e,
t he t heor y whi ch has been put i nt o useas apr i nci pl ed ( not `pr agmat i c' ) basi s f or
l i t er al l y al l Mar xi st -i nf or med nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es i n t he modemwor l d. I
showt hat Leni n ent i r el y r ever sed t he pat t er n of t hought char act er i st i c of post -
48 I nt r oduct i on
cl assi cal ( or `Second I nt er nat i onal ' ) Mar xi sm. He showed, f i r st , t hat nat i onal
st r uggl es i nt ensi f y, i nst ead of decl i ni ng, as capi t al i sment er s i t s i mper i al i st , f ul l y
i nt er nat i onal , phase; and second, t hat nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es ar epar t of t he
wor l d st r uggl e f or soci al i sm, and not , as pr evi ousl y t hought , mer el y bel at ed
bour geoi s- democr at i c r evol ut i ons whi chmust event uat e i n capi t al i st st at es or ( as
Luxembur g and Bukhar i n, among ot her s, ar gued) must f ai l al t oget her .
I n Chapt er 7 of t hi s book T r et ur n t o t he same ar gument . Leni n' s t heor y of
nat i onal st r uggl e has been mi sunder st ood by many moder n Mar xi st s besi des
Hobsbawm. I t i s i mpor t ant t hat weset t he r ecor d st r ai ght : t hat weunder st and t he
t heor yand under st and al so why i t has pr oven so power f ul i n t hel i ber at i onof T hi r d
Wor l d count r i es . Beyond t hi s, t hose who ei t her mi sunder st and t hi s t heor y or
negl ect i t ar e essent i al l y t he same cr i t i cs who asser t , wi t h Hobsbawm, Nai r n,
Debr ay, Ehr enr ei ch, and many ot her s, t hat t her e i s no Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal
st r uggl e- of nat i onal i sm. Oneof t heai ms of t hi s book i s t o pr ove t hemwr ong.
Si xt hPr obl em: What i s t heT heor et i cal St at us of t he Concept
`Nat i onal Mi nor i t y' , and Why Do SomeI mmi gr ant Mi nor i t i es
Remai n Unassi mi l at ed?
T r adi t i onal Bel i ef s, Conser vat i ve and Mar xi st
I t i s ver y di f f i cul t t o under st and what i s happeni ng i n t he var i ous t ypes of mi nor i t y
communi t i es i n t hecapi t al i st wor l d t oday, and t o devel op pr ogr essi ve pr act i cei n
and r el at i ng t o t hesecommuni t i es, wi t hout an adequat et heor y. But t hemost wi del y
accept ed t heor i es i n bot h t he conser vat i ve and Mar xi st t r adi t i ons do not at al l
suf f i ce. T hi s hol ds t r uef or mi nor i t i es of al l t ypes, but i t i s pai nf ul l y t r uef or mi nor i t y
communi t i es whi ch ar e f or med, and t her eaf t er sust ai ned, by col oni al i sm.
Col oni al i sm, f or Mar xi st s, i s t heuseof pol i t i cal oppr essi on t oenf or cea si t uat i on i n
whi ch abnor mal l y hi gh pr of i t s can be ext r act ed f r omt he l abour of a col oni zed
peopl e, or f r omt hei r l ands and nat ur al r esour ces . Mar xi st s have no di f f i cul t y
i dent i f yi ng t hemi nor i t y communi t i es whi chexi st i n t hi s condi t i on, communi t i es i n
ghet t os, `nat i ver eser ves' ( or `r eser vat i ons' ) , `bant ust ans' , mi gr ant - l abour camps or
bar r acks, and so on. But Mar xi st s have not r eal l y l ear ned howt o concept ual i ze
t hese communi t i es i n pol i t i cal t er ms, and t hi s means, aboveal l , under st andi ng t he
cont ent and i mpor t anceof t hei r demands f or pol i t i cal sel f - det er mi nat i on; i n sum,
t he nat i onal quest i on. Conser vat i ves, f or t hei r par t , do not usual l y r ecogni ze
col oni al i smi n most of i t s mani f est at i ons, and t hei r t heor i es about t hese mi nor i t i es
( and ot her s) t end t o be f ar of f t hemar k.
I n t hi s book I wi l l put f or war d a Mar xi st t heor y appl i cabl et o mi nor i t i es cr eat ed
and sust ai ned by col oni al i sm. T hebasi c t heor y was out l i ned by Mar xand Engel s i n
t hei r anal ysi s of t heI r i sh communi t y i n Engl and, and i t was devel oped f ur t her and
gener al i zed t o t hecol oni al wor l d by Leni n. However , a shar pl y di f f er ent t heor y of
mi nor i t i es was l ai d downby St al i n, and t hi s t heor y- i t i s nowuni ver sal l y cal l ed t he
t heor y of nat i onal mi nor i t i es - has gai ned muchwi der ci r cul at i on amongMar xi st s
t oday. St al i n' s t heor y badl y di st or t s t he char act er of mi nor i t i es f or med and
sust ai ned by col oni al i sm, but t hi s f act has not been cl ear l y under st ood; nor i s i t
r eal i zed t hat anot her and mor eappl i cabl e t heor y exi st s. I n Chapt er 5 I wi l l di scuss
I nt r oduct i on 49
bot ht heor i es and showwhy t he one i s essent i al l y usel ess and t he ot her i s ver y
power f ul . Chapt er 6t hen f ocuses on oneki nd of col oni al i sm- r el at ed mi nor i t y, t he
ghet t oi zed communi t i es of i mmi gr ant wor ker s, mai nl y f r omT hi r d Wor l d ar eas,
whi char e nowf ound i n ever y advanced capi t al i st count r yof t hewor l d. I n Chapt er
6 t he emphasi s i s on empi r i cal char act er i st i cs of t hesecommuni t i es and t henat ur e
of t he nat i onal st r uggl e wi t hi n t hem. T he case of Puer t o Ri can mi gr ant
communi t i es i n t he Uni t ed St at es i s t hemai n f ocus of bot hchapt er s: an exampl e,
and al so a caseof gr eat i mpor t ancei n i t s ownr i ght . For al l of t hesecases I wi l l show
why t het heor y of `nat i onal mi nor i t i es' , and t her el at ed t heor y of `assi mi l at i on' , ar e
qui t e i nappr opr i at e.
I n conser vat i ve Eur opean t hought of t he 19t h and ear l y 20t h Cent ur i es, a
`nat i onal mi nor i t y' or `mi nor i t y nat i onal i t y' - t he t wa t er ms wer e usual l y
consi der ed synonymous - was a l i ngui st i cal l y and cul t ur al l y di st i nct mi nor i t y
wi t hi n a gi ven st at e. Conser vat i ve schol ar shi p i n t hese mat t er s t ended t o be ver y
cl ose t o pol i cymaki ng, and i n noneof t hegr eat Eur opean st at es of t he l ast cent ur y
was t her e any pol i cy of gr ant i ng i ndependence t o t hese mi nor i t i es, under any
ci r cumst ances what ever . ( Sweden' s gr ant i ngof i ndependencet o Nor way at t het ur n
of t he cent ur y was a par t i al except i on. ) T her ef or e, di scussi ons about nat i onal
mi nor i t i es ei t her concer ned i ssues suchas ci vi l equal i t yand r i ght s gover ni ngt heuse
of t he mi nor i t y' s l anguage, or t hey concer ned t he t hr eat of secessi on. Mi nor i t i es
t ended t o becal l ed `nat i onal ' , i nst ead of mer el y `t r i bal ' or `cul t ur al ' or `l i ngui st i c' ,
when t hey seemed t o havepol i t i cal pal pabi l i t y; whent hey i nvoked, or t hr eat ened t o
i nvoke, t he `pr i nci pl eof nat i onal i t i es' , whi chdemands st at e i ndependenceunder
t he sl ogan `eachnat i onal i t y i t s st at e, eachst at e i t s nat i onal i t y' . Whi l epar t i sans of
secessi on t ended t o i nvoke t heor i es showi ng why t hei r `nat i on' war r ant ed
i ndependence, t hemai nst r eamt heor et i ci ans of t he st at es concer ned t ended t o put
f or war d t heor i es expl ai ni ng why t hecommuni t y concer ned was mer el y a `nat i onal
mi nor i t y' , not a `nat i on' , and t her ef or e was undeser vi ng of i ndependence. I n a
wor d, t het heor yof nat i onal mi nor i t i es was i mpl i ci t l y t het heor y of non- nat i ons, t he
t heor y whi chj ust i f i ed t hedeni al of t he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on and put f or war d
al t er nat i vepol i ci es r egar di ng t he gover nance of any gi ven mi nor i t y.
T he cr eat i on of newst at es i n Eur ope af t er t he Fi r st Wor l d War was t he f i r st
i mpor t ant i nst ance i n whi ch pol i cy- maker s di scussed howt o t ur n nat i onal
mi nor i t i es i nt o sel f - gover ni ng nat i on st at es, and dur i ngand af t er t hi s per i od t her e
was a l ot of schol ar l y concer n about t he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on f or t hese
Eur opean nat i onal mi nor i t i es . However , as I wi l l expl ai n i n Chapt er s 3 and 4, t he
post - war st at e- maki ngpr ocess was not pr i mar i l y a mat t er of t henat i onal quest i on,
nor was t he f amous Wi l soni an pr i nci pl e of sel f - det er mi nat i on put i nt o pl ay as a
pur el y et hi cal , democr at i c pr i nci pl e. T henewst at es wer ecr eat ed out of def eat ed
and di si nt egr at ed empi r es : Ger many, Aust r i a- Hungar y, T ur key, and t he west er n
par t of f or mer l y T sar i st Russi a. T her ef or e newst at es of onesor t or anot her had t o
becr eat ed i n any case, gi ven t hat t he ol d i mper i al gover nment s wer enot t o be
r est or ed and t he smpi r es r econst i t ut ed. Whi l et her ewer eser i ous at t empt s - ai ded
by ser i ous schol ar shi p - t o make t he newst at es congr uent wi t h cul t ur al
communi t i es, t hi s seems t o havebeen mot i vat ed mai nl y by a concer n t o cr eat e
st at es whi chwoul d besuf f i ci ent l y st abl et or ender t hemi mmunet o Bol shevi sm. So
50 I nt r oduct i on
conser vat i ve t heor i zi ng about nat i onal mi nor i t i es r emai nedessent i al l y amat t er of
i nt er nal st at e or gani zat i on, not of sel f - det er mi nat i on, and i t r emai ns so t oday.
Acompl et el y di f f er ent t heor y of mi nor i t i es emer ged i n t he USand t he ot her
advancedcapi t al i st count r i es i nt o whi chl ar genumber s of i mmi gr ant swer ef l owi ng.
Thi s was t he f amous doct r i ne of t he `mel t i ng pot ' , t he expl i ci t t heor y t hat al l
i mmi gr ant swoul dbeassi mi l at ed i nt o t he host nat i onal i t y i n al l i mpor t ant r espect s,
i ncl udi ng l anguage. (The t heor y was si mpl y not i nvoked f or Af r i can sl aves,
Mexi cans, and ot her non- Eur opeans. ) Under l yi ngt he t heor y, t oday as i n t hepast ,
ar eanumber of cr uci al assumpt i ons about why peopl emi gr at eandabout t he soci al
envi r onment i n t he host count r y. Non- Mar xi st soci al t heor i st s, wi t h r at her f ew
except i ons, adopt a vi ew of human deci si on- maki ng whi ch Mar xi st s l abel
`vol unt ar i sm' . Appl i ed t o t he t heor y of mi nor i t i es, t hi s becomes a pai r of basi c
pr oposi t i ons. Fi r st , democr at i c capi t al i st soci et i es cr eat e enough oppor t uni t y so
t hat anyone can achi eve any r easonabl e l i f e goal whi ch one wi l l s f or onesel f and
f ai l ur e i s due, conver sel y, t o al ackof wi l l . Second, peopl e i mmi gr at et o t hi s ki nd of
soci et y vol unt ar i l y. They doso f or t heobvi ous r easont hat l i f e i s bet t er her et hani t
i s i n t he home count r y. These ar e not f or ced mi gr at i ons. Fol l owi ng f r omt hese
pr oposi t i ons i s t he pr edi ct i on t hat each i ndi vi dual mi gr ant wi l l under go -
vol unt ar i l y - anassi mi l at i on pr ocess, and at t he aggr egat e l evel , communi t i es of
i mmi gr ant s wi l l onl y t empor ar i l y r emai n nat i onal l y di st i nct . Theghet t os, i n ot her
wor ds, wi l l di ssol ve or wi l l ser ve as r ecept acl es f or successi ve nat i onal gr oups of
i mmi gr ant s.
The t heor y of assi mi l at i on cannot cope wi t h t he huge moder n mi gr at i ons of
wor ker s, mai nl y f r omThi r d Wor l dar eas, i nt o t he ci t i es of t headvancedcapi t al i st
count r i es. I n no case has one of t hese i n- comi ng nat i onal communi t i es become
assi mi l at ed, and t he ghet t os i n whi ch each was i ni t i al l y f or ced t o l i ve ar e st i l l , i n
al most al l cases, f i l l ed wi t h t he same nat i onal l y di st i nct gr oup(except wher et her e
has beenf or ced r el ocat i on as a r esul t of gent r i f i cat i on or apar t hei d) . The l i ber al
f or mof t hi s t heor y i nvokes t he expl anat i on t hat r aci st i deol ogy account s f or t he
l ackof assi mi l at i on of t hesegr oups, but r aci smi t sel f i s deemedat r ansi ent , cur abl e
condi t i on, so t hat t hei nevi t abl e assi mi l at i on wi l l soonoccur , as pr edi ct ed. Thus t he
t heor y of mi nor i t i es whi ch i s appl i ed t o i mmi gr ant s, as opposed t o i ndi genous
mi nor i t i es, i s mer el y at heor yof t hedi ssol ut i on of mi nor i t i es. Andt hi s expl ai ns why
t he st r uggl es of mi nor i t y gr oups f or sel f - det er mi nat i on ar e r at her consi st ent l y
mi sunder st ood. Sel f - det er mi nat i on i s an i r r at i onal goal i f a nat i onal communi t y
has i mmi gr at ed vol unt ar i l y and wi t h t he i nt ent of becomi ng assi mi l at ed.
AmongMar xi st s, t het heor y of mi nor i t i es whi chi s most wi del yaccept edt oday i s
ar el i c of t he ki nd of Mar xi st t hought whi ch pr evai l ed bef or e t he Fi r st Wor l dWar
and i s nowqui t eout of dat e. Li keconser vat i ve t heor y, i t i s domi nat edby t hei dea of
t he `mel t i ngpot ' , t he t heor y of assi mi l at i on. Mar xi st s i n t hose t i mes bel i evedt hat
moder n capi t al i sm i s er asi ng nat i onal di f f er ences, absor bi ng mi nor i t i es i n t he
nat i onal st at es whi ch cont ai n t hem, assi mi l at i ng i mmi gr ant wor ker s i nt o t he host
nat i onal i t i es, and, over al l , bl endi ng al l nat i ons t oget her i nt o an i nt er nat i onal
capi t al i st wor l d i n whi ch nei t her t he bour geoi si e nor t he pr ol et ar i at woul d be
ser i ousl y di vi dedby nat i onal i t y. TheBol shevi ks shar edt hi swor l dvi ewbut wi t han
i mpor t ant r eser vat i on: i n backwar d and oppr essed ar eas l i ke Russi a and t he
I nt r oduct i on 51
col oni al wor l d t her e woul d st i l l be vi abl e and pr ogr essi ve nat i onal movement s.
Ther ef or e t hey demanded, i n t hei r par t y pr ogr amme, t hat t he nat i ons i n t he
Russi an empi r e be gr ant ed t he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on, of secessi on. Thi s
demand occasi oned some Ol ympi an pol emi cs among Russi an r evol ut i onar i es,
mai nl y pi t t i ng Leni ni st s agai nst t hosewho(wi t h Luxembur g) opposedt he r i ght of
sel f - det er mi nat i on and t hose who (wi t h t he Bundi st s) demanded, not st at e
i ndependence, but nat i onal aut onomy wi t hi n t he empi r e and, mor e vexi ng st i l l ,
or gani zat i onal aut onomy f or al l nat i onal sect or s wi t hi n t he par t y.
Themai npol emi cal sal vo agai nst nat i onal - aut onomi smwas anar t i cl e wr i t t enby
St al i n i n 1913, `Mar xi smand t he Nat i onal Quest i on' . I t needs t o be sai d of t hi s
ar t i cl e t hat i t i s consi der edt o beani mpor t ant t heor et i cal st at ement by al l Mar xi st s,
i ncl udi ng t hose whe have not hi ng f avour abl e t o say about St al i n, and by many
non- Mar xi st schol ar s as wel l . ' z But cont ai ned i n t hi s ar t i cl e i s an assi mi l at i oni st
t heor y of mi nor i t i es whoseval i di t ydepends ont he l ar ger val i di t y of t het heor yt hat
nat i onal di f f er ences ar e weakeni ng, nat i ons ar e i nt er - bl endi ng, and t hat
nat i onal i smi s di sappear i ng- at heor y di spr oven by event s i n 1914and r enounced
by Leni n i n hi s l at er wr i t i ngs on t henat i onal quest i on. I t i s t hi s out - dat ed t heor y,
conveyed down t o our own t i me i n St al i n' s aut hor i t at i ve (f or many r easons) essay,
`Mar xi smandt heNat i onal Quest i on' , whi ch i s t hesi ngl e most ser i ous pr obl emf or
t he Mar xi st t heor y of mi nor i t i es t oday.
St al i n ar gued, i n essence, t hat t he Bol shevi ks r ecogni zed onl y t wocat egor i es i n
t henat i onal quest i on: nat i ons andnon- nat i ons. Nat i ons hadt he r i ght of secessi on,
and, gi ven t hi s pot ent i al t r aj ect or y t owar ds i ndependent st at ehood, t hey had t he
r i ght (whi ch, hopef ul l y, t hey woul d not exer ci se) t o or gani ze t hei r r evol ut i onar y
par t y as a separ at e ent i t y, a nat i onal movement . But gr oups whi ch wer e not r eal
nat i ons had no such r i ght s, and coul d demand no f or mor degr ee of aut onomy.
(Lat er , i n t he Sovi et Uni on, many ki nds of par t i al aut onomy f or nat i onal gr oups
wer e r ecogni zed, but t hi s t ends t o be f or got t en by t hose whosedogma i s t he 1913
St al i n. ) Todef endt hi s posi t i on, St al i nput f or war dt woar gument s. Thef i r st was hi s
def i ni t i on of anat i on. Thesecondwas hi s char act er i zat i on of non- nat i ons, whi chhe
cal l ed nat i onal mi nor i t i es (a common t er mi n t hosedays) . I n def i ni ngt he nat i onhe
asser t ed t hat i t was somet hi ngwhi chappear ed, hi st or i cal l y, i n onl y oneper i od: t he
t i me of ear l y or r i si ng capi t al i sm. Thi s meant t hat a `nat i onal mi nor i t y' i n 1913
coul d not gr owi nt o a nat i on. Li ke al l nat i onal mi nor i t i es, i t woul d become
assi mi l at ed i nt o t hehost nat i on, at l east t o t he ext ent t hat i t coul dcl ai mnopol i t i cal
aut onomy. Thi s, t hen, was t he St al i ni st t heor y of nat i onal mi nor i t i es. Any
nat i onal l y di st i nct i ve communi t y whi ch i s not anat i oncanexpect t o become, i n al l
pol i t i cal l y i mpor t ant r espect s, assi mi l at ed, i n t hecour se of t he gener al wor l d- wi de
pr ocess of i nt er nat i onal i zat i on under capi t al i sm.
Mar xi st s have compi l eda ver y good r ecor d on t henat i onal quest i on. Not of t en
have t hey suppor t ed r eact i onar y nat i onal i smand not of t en have t hey f ai l ed t o
suppor t genui ne movement s f or nat i onal l i ber at i on. " But t hi s has been
accompl i shedl ar gel y i n spi t e of St al i n' s t heor y of nat i ons and nat i onal mi nor i t i es .
My poi nt i n di scussi ng i t her e i s t o expl ai n why t he t heor y needs t he ki nd of
t hor oughgoi ng anal ysi s and cr i t i ci smwhi ch I at t empt t o gi ve i t her e (mai nl y i n
Chapt er 5) . I t s most ser i ous and f undament al f l aw, f r omt he poi nt of vi ewof t he
52 I nt r oduct i on
di scussi on i n t he pr esent wor k, i s t hat i t per pet uat es t he ver y wr ongi deas about
mi nor i t i es whi chwer ehel d by Mar xi st s andconser vat i ves al i ke i n t heper i od bef or e
t he Fi r st Wor l d War ( a war whi ch i n any case di spr oved t he myt h t hat nat i ons,
nat i onal i sm, and nat i onal st r uggl es ar e di sappear i ng i n moder n capi t al i sm) . The
pr e- war per i od was a t i me when i t was t hought t hat most mi nor i t y pr obl ems, l i ke
most ot her nat i onal pr obl ems, wer e sol vi ng t hemsel ves t hr ough t he uni ver sal
sol vent of moder n `i nt er nat i onal ' capi t al i sm. Thi s has not happened.
Mar x and Engel s' ver y di f f er ent vi ew of mi nor i t i es di d not at al l assume
assi mi l at i on t o be t he i nevi t abl e or nor mal out come of event s . I t was el abor at ed
somewhat by Leni n i n hi s t heor et i cal wr i j i ngs about t he nat i onal quest i on af t er
1914and i n hi s pr act i cal and t heor et i cal wor k i n f ashi oni ng t heSovi et Uni on. But
t hi s al t er nat i ve t heor y i s not wi del y known, andmost Mar xi st s( af l east i n capi t al i st
count r i es) bel i eve, or si mpl y assume, t hat t he St al i ni st `mel t i ngpot ' t heor y i s t he
cl assi cal f or mul at i on . And when t hey f i ght f or mi nor i t y r i ght s, as t hey usual l y do,
t hey t end t o i magi ne t hat i t i s a mat t er of set t i ngasi de t heor y i n t he name of
`r eal i sm' . But t heor y shoul d bea gui det o pr act i ce, not a hi ndr ance.
The St al i n vi ewi s st i l l a ver y ser i ous hi ndr ance t o Mar xi st pr act i ce i n cer t ai n
ki nds of nat i onal pr obl ems i nvol vi ng mi nor i t i es . I t has i nt er f er ed wi t h an
under st andi ng of t he st r uggl e of nat i ve peopl es, i ncl udi ng nat i ve Amer i cans, f or
sel f - det er mi nat i on . I t has hi nder ed t heor y and pr act i ce i n anot her cat egor y of
pr obl emassoci at ed wi t h t he ki nd of mi nor i t y cr eat ed by l ong- di st ance l abour
mi gr at i on f r omt he col oni al and neocol oni al wor l d t o t he cent r es of advanced
capi t al i sm, a t ot al of per haps f or t ymi l l i on wor ker - mi gr ant s, i ncl udi ngt womi l l i on
Puer t o Ri cans i n t he US. I n St al i n' s t heor y, al l such mi nor i t i es ar e doomed t o
assi mi l at i on: t hemel t i ngpot . Suchassi mi l at i on has not occur r ed, however . Rat her
t he opposi t e has t ended t o be t he case, wi t h ghet t oi zed i mmi gr ant mi nor i t i es
f i ght i ngsuccessf ul l y agai nst t hedest r uct i on of t hei r communi t i esandt hei r cul t ur es,
andf i ght i ngas wel l f or t hel i ber at i on of t hecol oni al or neocol oni al count r ywhi ch i s
t hei r homel and. Ani mpor t ant exampl ei s t hecase of Puer t o Ri cans whohave been
f or ced t o mi gr at e f r omt he col ony of Puer t o Ri co t o t he ci t i es of t he US. Ot her
i nst ances st r et ch ar ound t hewor l d: f or exampl e, Mexi cans i n t heUS, Al ger i ans i n
Fr ance, Tur ks i n West Ger many, Kor eans i n J apan. Mi nor i t i es of t hi s sor t , i n
St al i n' s 1913t heor y, have l ost t hei r member shi p i n t hei r own nat i on, andt o st r uggl e
as member s of t hat nat i on, andf or t hel i ber at i on of t hat nat i on, must somehowgi ve
evi dence of `nar r ownat i onal i sm' , or `Bundi sm' . But t o appl y t hi s dogmai s t o use
Mar xi smagai nst , not f or , t he l i ber at i on of oppr essed peopl es- acont r adi ct i on i n
t er ms.
The Ar gument of Thi s Book
Chapt er 5 of t hi s book deal s wi t h t he Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal st r uggl e as i t
appl i es t o mi nor i t i es i n gener al andt o onemi nor i t y i n par t i cul ar : t hePuer t o Ri cans
i n t heUni t ed St at es. Thepoi nt of depar t ur ei s a di sagr eement amongMar xi st s as t o
t he nat i onal i t y of t wo mi l l i on Puer t o Ri cans who nowl i ve i n t he Uni t ed St at es .
Some Mar xi st s ar gue t hat t hi s communi t y i s no l onger par t of t he Puer t o Ri can
nat i on. I t i s, t heysay, a `nat i onal mi nor i t y' ( usi ngSt al i n' s t er m) andt hus an i nt egr al
par t of t he Nor t h Amer i can nat i on. Ther ef or e i t shoul d not or gani ze i t sel f i n
I nt r oduct i on 53
pol i t i cal andcommuni t yf or ms of st r uggl e whi char eexpl i ci t l y Puer t o Ri can: t hi s i s
`nat i onal excl usi veness' , `nar r ownat i onal i sm' , et c. The r epl y i s : t her e i s no val i d
ar gument , f r omMar xi st t heor y or f r omt hef act s sur r oundi ngt hecol oni zedPuer t o
Ri can nat i on and t he f or ced mi gr at i on of 40%of i t s peopl e t o t he Uni t ed St at es,
whi chj ust i f i es t hej udgment t hat Puer t o Ri cans i n t heUni t ed St at es havel ost or ar e
l osi ngt hei r Puer t o Ri can nat i onal i t y. Ther ef or e t her e i s no val i d pr i nci pl e whi ch
decr ees t hat t hi s communi t yshoul d gi ve up i t s nat i onal f or ms of st r uggl e, and i t s
i nt egr al par t i ci pat i on i n t he st r uggl e t o l i ber at e Puer t o Ri co. Thi s i s an i ssue of
t heor y wi t h i mmensepol i t i cal i mpl i cat i ons . Andi t i s an i ssue t hat has been debat ed
i n many ot her cases of t hi s gener al f or m, i n Fr ance, J apan, and el sewher e.
To r esol ve i ssues of t hi s sor t one must have a def ensi bl e t heor y whi ch descr i bes
t hedynami cs of mi nor i t i es i n gener al . Thear gument of Chapt er 5i s an at t empt t o
showt hat St al i n' s t heor y does not ser ve; t hat anot her Mar xi st t heor y does do so;
and t hat t hi s l at t er t heor y does not empl oy t he i dea of `nat i onal mi nor i t i es' as a
speci al f or mof communi t ywhi chmust , necessar i l y, di ssol ve t hr ough assi mi l at i on
i nt o t he sur r oundi ngor host nat i on. I showt hat St al i n' s t heor y i s r oot ed i n t wo
pr oposi t i ons whi ch ar e i nval i d. The f i r st asser t s t hat t her e i s an absol ut el y gener al
and i nvar i abl e def i ni t i on of `nat i on' , such t hat one can expl i ci t l y j udge al l
communi t i es as t o whet her t hey ar e i ndeed nat i ons or mer el y f al l i n t he r esi dual
cat egor y of `nat i onal mi nor i t y' , t he cat egor y whi ch, f or St al i n, f or bi ds not mer el y
sel f - det er mi nat i on but nat i onal f or ms of st r uggl e. I showt hat St al i n' s concept of
nat i on, accur at e f or t ur n- of - t he- cent ur y Eur opean nat i on- st at es, i s not appl i cabl e
t o t he maj or i t y of pr esent - day nat i ons, l east of al l t o col oni al nat i ons. St al i n' s
second pr oposi t i on i s t he hi st or i cal pr i nci pl e t hat nat i onal mi nor i t i es ar e
under goi ngan i nevi t abl e pr ocess of di ssol ut i on, of assi mi l at i on. I poi nt out t hat t hi s
was t r ue at t hebegi nni ngof t he cent ur y under many ci r cumst ances of devel opi ng
capi t al i sm ( such as l ong- di st ance l abour mi gr at i ons t o Eur opean and Nor t h
Amer i can i ndust r i al cent r es) , but not i n al l ci r cumst ances t hen, nor i n many
ci r cumst ances t oday.
We t hen t ur n t o t he al t er nat i ve t heor y whi ch, by cont r ast , r el at es mi nor i t y
dynami cs t o t hehi st or i cal pr ocesses of t he20t h cent ur y, t he er a of i mper i al i sm. Thi s
i s Leni n' s t heor y of nat i onal st r uggl e, whi ch i s a sub- assembl y of hi s t heor y of
i mper i al i smand cont ai ns i t s own sub- assembl y: a t heor y of mi nor i t i es . Mar x and
Engel s had shown much ear l i er t hat Br i t i sh col oni al i sml ed t o t he st r engt heni ng.
not weakeni ng, of t he nat i onal st r uggl e i n I r el and and amongt heI r i sh i n Engl and
who, sai d Engel s, r emai ned I r i shi n nat i onal i t y. Leni n t hen bui l t t hegener al model .
I mper i al i sm l eads not t o a decl i ne of nat i onal st r uggl e, nat i ons, et c . , but t o
i nt ensi f i ed nat i onal st r uggl e, i ncl udi ngi nt er - i mper i al nat i onal st r uggl e andcol oni al
l i ber at i on st r uggl es . Thear ena of col oni al st r uggl es i s not det er mi ned by a pat t er n
of capi t al i st nat i ons and `nat i onal mi nor i t i es' , but by col oni al i sm, whi ch cr eat es
newnat i onal f or ms. I n par t i cul ar , sai d Leni n. f or ced mi gr ant s ar e `f or ei gn
wor ker s' , not i mmi gr ant s of t he ol der ( Eur opean) sor t . Today we can t hus ar gue
t hat Puer t o Ri cans i n t he Uni t ed St at es, l i ke many ot her gr oups f or ced t o mi gr at e,
under col oni al or neocol oni al condi t i ons, t o cent r es of advanced capi t al i sm, t end t o
r et ai n t hei r nat i onal i t y i n t heghet t os, r eser vat i ons, andbar r acks i n whi cht hey l i ve.
Chapt er 6bui l ds an empi r i cal t heor y t o expl ai n and descr i be t he condi t i on of
ghettoi zed mi nori ti es and to showpreci sel y why they do not. di ssol ve through
assi mi l ati on. The argument begi ns, i n essence, whereMarx, Engel s, andLeni n l ef t
of f . I t shows that monopol y capi tal i smi n the 20th century, but parti cul arl y i n the
peri od af ter 1945, f i nds i t necessary togreatl y i ntensi f y the i mportati onof `f orei gn
workers' as a modern evol uti on of the process of i mperi al i smi n general and
col oni al i sm i n parti cul ar . Col oni al i smi s a pol i ti cal envi ronment f or super-
expl oi tati on, that i s, arti f i ci al l y l ow- wagel abour, andmoderncapi tal i smf i nds i t to
beas necessary tomai ntai namassi vesuper- expl oi tedl abour f orceat pl aces central
to the systemas i t does i n peri pheral regi ons, that i s, the worl d of col oni es and
neocol oni es. I argue thenthat the ghettos and comparabl e spaces of segregati on
(South Af ri can townshi ps, mi grant- l abour camps, etc. ) are mai ntai ned through a
pol i ti cal control process aki nto col oni al rul e though not i denti cal to i t - thi s i s not
l i teral ' i nternal col oni al i sm' , except i n South Af ri ca - but nonethel ess aprocess
servi ngthecol oni al f uncti on of mai ntai ni ngapopul ati onof workers i n acondi ti on
i n whi ch they are f orced toaccept super- expl oi tati on. Thi s process i s central to
modern capi tal i sm, sowe can assume that f orced mi grati onwi l l conti nue, ghettos
wi l l not di sappear, and nati onal l y di sti nct popul ati ons of super- expl oi tedworkers
wi l l remai n or growl arger . Assi mi l ati onwi l l not take pl ace because, f or capi tal i sm
to conti nue super- expl oi ti ng thi s worker- popul ati on, i t must enf orce spati al and
cul tural segregati on. Thi s l eads tof orcedcul turechangeof anon- assi mi l ati ve sort
(even i f a l anguage change occurs, as i t of ten does under col oni al i sm) . And
resi stance to i t i s al ways astruggl e f or sel f - determi nati on: a nati onal struggl e. I n
cases l i ke that of Puerto Ri cans i n USci ti es, the nati onal struggl e i n the ghetto i s
part of the l arger struggl e f or thel i berati on of the nati onal terri tory. Thef i nal step
i n thi s argument i s toshowthat thestruggl es i n ghettoi zedcommuni ti es are, i ndeed,
part of the struggl e f or workers' ri ghts and f or soci al i smi n the host country.
Thi s book does not try to pronounce upon the myri ad ki nds and cases of the
nati onal questi on whi ch are to be f ound i n the worl d today. Thi s hol ds true f or
mi nori ty struggl es as f or other nati onal struggl es . Our mai n concern i s the
underl yi ngtheory and i ts appl i cati on to onestruggl e: that of Puerto Ri cans i n the
Uni tedStates andi nthecol ony of PuertoRi co. But what wewi l l haveto say about
the theory of mi nori ti es has i mportant i mpl i cati on f or many ki nds of mi nori ty
struggl es i n many parts of the worl d, struggl es of i ndi genous communi ti es
(i ncl udi ngNati veAmeri cans) as wel l as i mmi grant communi ti es. Thi s i s one of the
`si x probl ems f or the theory of nati onal i sm' whose sol uti on shoul d l ead to more
progressi ve and more ef f ecti ve practi ce on the nati onal questi on.
Notes
1 . L. Snyder, TheMeani ngof Nati onal i sm(1957) .
2. The l awwas passed by the US Congress i n 1950, rati f i ed i n an arti f i ci al
pl ebi sci te- i ndependence was not on the bal l ot andi ndependenti stas boycottedthe
process - i n 1952, and accepted as `sel f - determi nati on' by the UNi n 1953 (under
strong USpressure) . I n 1954Lol i taLebron andthree others f romtheNati onal i st
I ntroducti on 55
Party attacked Congress to bri ng worl d attenti on to the si tuati on. See M.
Mal donado- Deni s, PuertoRi co: ASoci o- Hi stori c I nterpretati on (1972) .
3. Snyder, Meani ng of Nati onal i sm, p. 3.
4. I bi d.
5. Aparti al excepti on was the treatment of the i ntensi f i ed expansi oni smof the
peri od 1870- 1914, andparti cul arl ytheso- cal l edscrambl ef orAf ri ca. Conservati ve
schol ars of ten vi ewthi s process as somethi ng rooted i n i deol ogy, an i rrati onal or
whi msi cal desi re to extend the power and presti ge of one' s nati on by terri tori al
expansi on, aki nd of nati onal i sm. See, e. g. , Carton Hayes. `Nati onal i sm' , i n E.
Sel i gman(ed. ) , Encycl opedi aof theSoci al Sci ences (1933) . Seeal so Royal I nst . of
I nternati onal Af f ai rs, Nati onal i sm(1939) .
6. Royal I nsti tute, Nati onal i sm.
7. I di scuss these constrai nts i n `The Di ssenti ng Tradi ti on' , Annal s Assoc. of
Amer. Geographers and i n `Some Pri nci pl es of Ethnogeography' . Phi l osophy i n
Geography (1979) .
8. For exampl e, anti - col oni al i st wri ti ngs of GeorgePadmorewerebannedduri ng
the 1950s i n the Bri ti sh West I ndi es and perhaps i n al l Bri ti sh col oni es.
9. See, f or i nstance, A. Smi th. Theori es of Nati onal i sm(1971) , f or a revi ewof
manysuchtheori es (i ncl udi ngSmi th' s own) . Seeal so: K. Deutsch, Nati onal i smand
i ts Al ternati ves (1969) ; E. Gel l ner, Thought and Change (1964) ; E. Kedouri e,
Nati onal i smi n Asi a and Af ri ca (1970) ; H. Kohn, `Nati onal i sm' , i n I nternati onal
Encycl opedi a of the Soci al Sci ences . 2nd ed. (1968) , p. 11 ; K. R. Mi nogue,
Nati onal i sm(1970) .
10. The peri odI cal l `post- cl assi cal ' i n thi s book i s usual l y consi dered to be the
peri od of the Second I nternati onal . However, the Second I nternati onal has
survi ved i n one f ormor another down to the present, so the peri odi ci ty i s
ambi guous. Morecruci al l y, I thi nk, the begi nni ngof theFi rst Worl dWar, , i n 1914,
and the devel opment of Leni n' s theory of i mperi al i sm, i n 1914- 16, seemto mark
adeci si ve break- poi nt between the post- cl assi cal andmodern peri ods i n Marxi st
thought . The `cl assi cal ' peri od, of course, i s the ti me of MarxandEngel s, and ends
wi th Engel s' death i n 1895. The outbreak of the Worl dWar demonstrated that
many post- cl assi cal theoreti cal doctri nes were i nval i d (or were no l onger val i d) ,
whi l eLeni n' s theory of i mperi al i smprovi ded thef oundati on f or anunderstandi ng
of capi tal i smas i t hadbecomeby 1914. For thetheory of nati onal i smi n parti cul ar,
as I wi l l argue throughout thi s book, there i s acl earl y demarcated post- cl assi cal
peri od wi th i ts own domi nant theoreti cal posi ti on, or f ami l y of rel ated posi ti ons .
Leni n' s theory of i mperi al i smcontai ned, as I showi n Chapter 5, acomprehensi ve
theoryof nati onal i sm, di sti ncti vel ydi f f erent f romLeni n' s earl i er vi ew, andthecore
of the mai nstreamMarxi st theory of today.
11 . I cri ti ci ze the Eurocentri c- di f f usi oni st vi ewof hi story i n `Where Was
Capi tal i smBorn?' Radi cal Geography (1977) . The argument i s summari zed i n
Chapter 7, bel ow.
12. See my `Where Was Capi tal i smBorn?' and J . Bl aut, `I mperi al i sm: The
Marxi st Theory and I ts Evol uti on' Anti pode 7, 1 (1975) .
13. H. Davi s, TowardaMarxi st Theory of Nati onal i sm(1978) . Al so see hi s now
cl assi cal work, Nati onal i sm and Soci al i sm: Marxi st and Labor Theori es of
Nati onal i smto 1917(1967) .
14. Kedouri e, Nati onal i sm, p. 28.
15. T. Nai rn, TheBreak- Up of Bri tai n (1977) .
16. I bi d. , pp. 345- 348.
56 I nt roduct i on
17. SeeM. Townsend, `Hi t l er and t he Revi val of German Nat i onal i sm' , i n E.
Earl e (ed. ) Nat i onal i smand I nt ernat i onal i sm(1950) ; al so Y. Gobl et , Pol i t i cal
Geographyand t he Worl dMap(1955) .
18. E. H. Carr, Condi t i ons of Peace(1942) , pp. 63-64.
19. I bi d.
20. A. Cobban, Nat i onal Sel f -Det ermi nat i on (1951) , p. 133.
21. `Foreword' t ot heant hol ogy ThePol i sh Quest i onandt heSoci al i st Movement
i n H. Davi s (ed. ) , TheNat i onal Quest i on: Sel ect ed Wri t i ngs of Rosa Luxemburg
(1976) , p. 94.
22. Quot ed i n Davi s, TowardaMarxi st Theoryof Nat i onal i smp. 84.
23. Quot ed i n TheNat i onal Quest i on: Sel ect ed Wri t i ngsof RosaLuxemburg, p.
303.
24. Quot ed i n V. I . Leni n, `ACari cat ure of Marxi smand I mperi al i st
Economi sm' , Works23, p. 37.
25. K. Marx, `Cont ri but i on t o t heCri t i queof Hegel ' sPhi l osophyof Law, ' Marx
and Engel s Works 13. For i nst ance, Marxwi t heri ngl ycri t i ci zes Hegel ' s pract i ce of
i nvert i ng subj ect and predi cat e so t hat empt y or myst i cal cat egori es, l i ke t he
Hegel i an `i dea' , `spi ri t ' , `wi l l ' et c. , seemt o have genui ne empi ri cal at t ri but es:
`I nst ead of concei vi ng t hemas predi cat es of t hei r subj ect s, Hegel gi ves t he
predi cat es an i ndependent exi st ence . . . ' (p. 23) ; `Hedoes not say "t hemonarch' s
wi l l i s t he f i nal deci si on", but "t hewi l l ' s f i nal deci si on i s t he monarch". Thef i rst
proposi t i on i s empi ri cal . Thesecondpervert s t heempi ri cal f act i nt o amet aphysi cal
axi om' (p. 25) . CompareWal l erst ei n: `Theunf ol di ngof t hei nst i t ut i onal st ruct ures
of t heworl d-syst em-t hecl asses, t hest at es, t hepeopl es, t hehousehol ds-hasbeen
ref l ect ed i n t he cul t ural mosai c of t he worl d-syst em, ' i n `Pat t erns and Prospect i ves
of t heCapi t al i st Worl d-Economy' , Cont emporaryMarzi sm9(1984) . p. 66. Ami l d
exampl eof worl d-syst emi st rei f i cat i on i s mycol l eaguePet er"i ' ayl or' s assert i on t hat
t he scal e of t he worl deconomyi s `t he scal e of real i t y' , i n cont rast t ot he st at eor
nat i onwhi chi s `t hescal eof i deol ogy' andt heci t ywhi chi s `t hescal eof experi ence' ,
i n `Geographi cal Scal es wi t hi nt heWorl d-EconomyApproach' Revi ew5(1981) .
Pp.
3-11.
26. Wal l erst ei n, `Cri si s as Transi t i on' , i nDynami csof Gl obal Cri si s (1982) , p. 51.
27. Wal l erst ei n, `Pat t erns and Prospect i ves' , p. 27.
28. Wal l erst ei n, `TheFut ureof t he Worl d-Economy' , i n Processes of t he Worl d
Syst em(1980) , p. 175.
29. I bi d.
30. Wal l erst ei n, `Cri si s as Transi t i on' , pp. 48-49.
31. `Thecurrent cri si s of t henat i on-st at e . . . i s mani f est ed bot h i n t he t endency
t o mul t i nat i onal and/ or nvul t i st at e aggregat i ons and i n t he paral l el process of
i nt ernal decomposi t i on of nat i on st at es i nt o et hni cal l y more or l ess homogenous
regi onal ent i t i es' , Gi ovanni Arri ghi , TheGeomet ryof l mperi al i sm(1979) , p. 110. No
evi dencei s gi veni n support of t hi s assert i on, possi bl ybecauseArri ghi bel i eves, wi t h
Kant , t hat `[ t here] i s no i nnat e charact eri st i c i n t hi ngs t hemsel ves' (p. 30) .
32. See, f or i nst ance, E. H. Carr, AHi st ory of Sovi et Russi a: TheBol shevi k
Revol ut i on, 1917-1923(1951) , vol . 1, pp. 421-422; Boyd C. Shaf er, Nat i onal i sm:
Myt h andReal i t y (1955) . p. 41.
33. I n t hi s connect i on see Davi s, TowardaMarxi st TheoryChaps. 4-9.
2. Nat i onal i smas an
Aut onomous
Force
I f cl ass st ruggl ei st hemot or of hi st ory, as Marxi st scont end, t henwhat i s t herol eof
nat i onal st ruggl e, or nat i onal i sm?Thet radi t i onal Marxi st answer ~ot hi s quest i on i s
qui t est rai ght f orward: nat i onal st ruggl e i s si mpl yaf ormof cl ass st ruggl e. Thi svi ew
was expounded byMarxand Engel s, was el aborat ed by Leni n and more recent
t heori st s, and i s accept ed byt he great maj ori t y of Marxi st s t oday. I t i s rej ect ed,
however, bya number of Marxi st and neo-Marxi st schol ars, amongt hemNi cos
Poul ant zas, Regi s Debray, TomNai rn, J ohn Ehrenrei ch, andHoraceDavi s. For
t heseschol ars, nat i onal i smi s not af ormof cl ass st ruggl enor evenaproduct of cl ass
st ruggl e. I t i s an aut onomous f orce: asecond mot or of hi st ory.
I nt hi s chapt er I wi l l t ryt oshowt hat nat i onal i smi s not af orceaut onomousf rom
cl ass st ruggl e. I wi l l present t het radi t i onal Marxi st vi ew- t hat nat i onal st ruggl e i s
onef ormof t hecl ass st ruggl e f or st at e power- andI wi l l def end t hi s vi ewagai nst
someof i t s Marxi st cri t i cs. I t i s t ruet hat t he cl ass st ruggl e vi ewof nat i onal i smhas
f requent l y been di st ort ed i nt o oneor anot her dogmat i c and si mpl i st i c argument
about t henat i onal quest i on, andt hese posi t i ons cert ai nl ydoneed t o becri t i ci zed.
For i nst ance, nat i onal movement s f or st at e i ndependence are not si mpl ypol i t i cal
st rat egi es of onecl ass, t he bourgeoi si e, agai nst anot her cl ass, or of onebourgeoi s
cl ass group agai nst anot her . Andt he cl ass st ruggl e vi ewshoul d not l ead t o an
underest i mat i on or negl ect of cul t ure, nat i onal i t y, or of i deol ogy(i n t he mi st aken
bel i ef t hat i deol ogyi s somet hi ngdi f f erent f romcl ass st ruggl e) . But onecancri t i ci ze
t heseand ot her di st ort i ons of Marxi st t heorywi t hout di scardi ngwhat must surel y
bet he most cruci al pi l l ar of Marxi st t heoryi t sel f , t he posi t i on t hat pol i t i cal and
soci al st ruggl es - i ncl udi ngnat i onal st ruggl es - are ul t i mat el y cl ass st ruggl es.
I f oneweret ryi ngt o const ruct aMarxi st t heoryof nat i onal i smst epbyst ep, t he
f i rst st epwoul d bet o showt hat nat i onal i smi s a f ormof cl ass st ruggl e, not an
aut onomous f orce. Thi s st ep must bet aken al so i f one i s t o demonst rat e t hat
nat i onal l i berat i on movement s agai nst col oni al i smand neocol oni al i smare, i n
pri nci pl e, part of t he cl ass st ruggl eagai nst capi t al i sm.
Therearet woprel i mi naryi ssues. Thef i rst i samat t er (agai n) of t ermi nol ogy. The
argument t hat nat i onal i smi saf ormof cl ass st ruggl eext ends t o t hreei mport ant but
di f f erent meani ngsof t hewordnat i onal i sm: nat i onal i smas asynonymf or nat i onal
st ruggl e; nat i onal i smas t henat i onal movement or t hesi deof anynat i onal st ruggl e
whi ch f i ght s f or, not agai nst , st at e i ndependence; and, f i nal l y, nat i onal i smas
`narrownat i onal i sm' . I n ot her words, nat i onal i smi n al l of t hese senses i s cl ass
st ruggl e.
58 Nati onal i smas anAutonomous Force
The second i ssue has to do wi th the Marxi st concept of cl ass struggl e. For
conservati ve theori sts, cl ass struggl e i s treated ( i f at al l ) as oneof manydi screte
f actors tobebl endedtogether i nsomegreat f actor- anal yti c attempt at expl anati on.
Nati onal i smi s asecondof thesei sol ated f actors. Rel i gi on i s athi rd, andso on. I n
thi s f ormul ati on, the f actor or f orce of nati onal i smi s autonomous f romthat of
cl ass, al most bydef i ni ti on. For Marxi sts, however, cl ass struggl ei s boundupwi th
cul ture; i t i s not ani sol atabl ef actor . Putti ngthematter si mpl y: i nal l cl ass soci eti es
wi thout excepti on, and i n cl assl ess soci eti es ( so- cal l ed `tri bes' ) whi chare under
external pressure f romcl ass soci eti es, the pri marysource of conf l i ct - that i s, of
oppressi on, resi stance, andul ti matel ychange- i s thestruggl e between, onthe one
hand, a rul i ng cl ass whi chi s tryi ng to expl oi t, amass surpl us, andretai n i ts power
and possessi ons, and, on the other hand, a produci ng cl ass whi ch i s resi sti ng
expl oi tati on and tryi ng to sei ze pol i ti cal power f or i tsel f . Thi s, as I say, i s the
pri marysource of conf l i ct andchange, thoughnot the onl yone.
For our purpose, thecruci al poi nt i s that thi s process of cl ass struggl emakes use
of al l trai ts andi nsti tuti ons of cul tureas i ts i nstruments andarenas of expl oi tati on
and resi stance. Theref ore rel i gi ous conf l i cts, educati onal struggl es, work pl ace
struggl es, andal l theother, i ncl udi ng nati onal . struggl es, donot f uncti on paral l el to
cl ass struggl e but are themsel ves mechani sms of cl ass struggl e. I t i s f or thi s reason
that Marxi sts can assert that cl ass struggl e i s the motor of hi storywi thout f al l i ng
i ntosomenarrowdetermi ni sm, economi cor otherwi se. Sotosumupthetradi ti onal
posi ti on: pol i ti cal struggl e, theef f ort of gi vencl asses tosei zestatepower, i s acruci al
arena of cl ass struggl e, and nati onal i sm, or nati onal struggl e, or the nati onal
questi on, i s onef ormof thi s pol i ti cal struggl etosei zestate power . I t i s, tobesure, a
verydi sti ncti ve f orm. But i t i s not anautonomous f orce.
TheCl assi cal Cri ti que
The theoryof nati onal i smas an autonomous f orce was cri ti ci zed byMarx and
Engel s i nsomeof thei r earl i est wri ti ngs . Thi s cri ti quewas i nf act thef i rst stagei nthe
f ormul ati on of a di sti ncti vel yMarxi st theoryof nati onal i sm.
I n Germanyi n the 1840s two conservati ve theori es of nati onal i smwere
promi nent . Both deri ved mai nl y f romHegel ' s concept of the state, or more
properl ythe nati on state, as a super- organi c, metaphysi cal enti ty, a whol ewhi ch
was, ontheonehand, substanti al andcorporeal , and, ontheother hand, spi ri tual -
what Hegel descri bedas `spi ri t' , `wi l t, and`i dea' . Hegel ' s corporeal nati on state,
depl oyedwi thHerder' s andFi chte' s thesi s that anati oni sdef i nedbyi ts cul tureand
pri nci pal l yi ts l anguage, provi dedthetheoreti cal andi deol ogi cal f oundati onf or the
typi cal German nati onal i st vi ew, that al l German- speaki ng peopl e and the l and
uponwhi chtheyresi def orma metaphysi cal whol e, anorgani c nati on, desti nedto
become a uni f i ed and soverei gn German state. ' Hegel hi msel f , however, was a
Prussi annati onal i st, not aGermani cor pan- Germani cnati onal i st, andhi s concept
of thesuper- organi c nati onstatehadbeenrather caref ul l yconstructedtoprovi dea
phi l osophi cal argument that the true, real , andrati onal nati on state was Prussi a,
i ncl udi ng both i ts German- speaki ng and non- German- speaki ng terri tori es, and
capabl e al so of i mperi al expansi on as and when the government sawf i t . z Thi s
purpose was served byconcei vi ng the nati on state to be not a corporeal but a
Nati onal i smas anAutonomousForce 59
spi ri tual enti ty, an`i dea' i denti f i edwi ththemonarch, suchthat i t was the`wi l l ' of
the monarchwhi chconf errednati onal i tyuponhi s subj ects. '
Thi s theoryof the nati on as i dea was emi nentl y sui ted to mul ti nati onal and
i mperi al states. I t was thei deol ogi cal basi s f or argui ngthat the empi re, not thel ocal
cul tural group, was the true source of nati onal i tyandthe true obj ect of nati onal
l oyal ty; thi s theoryaccordi ngl ybecamethepri marytheoryof nati onal i smusedby
apol ogi sts f or col oni al i smandempi ref romActontoToynbee. Theother Hegel i an
theoryi nturnf ormedthebasi sf or themuchbetter knownbut muchl ess i mportant
theoryof nati onal i smbased on l anguage, or morepreci sel yon l anguage as the
i ndi cator f or a corporeal , super- organi c nati on. Thi s l atter theorycameto be
knownas the `pri nci pl e of nati onal i ti es' , the pri nci pl e that eachl anguage group,
however smal l , somehowhas the ri ght, duty, anddesti nyto becomea soverei gn
state.
Athi rdconservati vetheoryof nati onal i smemergedl ater i nthe 19thCenturyout
of Hegel ' s theory. of thenati onstateas ani dea. For Hegel thei deaandwi l l of the
nati on were trul y and rati onal l y expressed by the monarch. I n bourgeoi s
democrati c thought, however, thei deaandwi l l of thenati onweresupposedto be
present i n theheads of al l ci ti zens, not merel ythegoverni ng el i te. Thus emergedthe
partl yHegel i an, partl yneo- Kanti ani deathat thenati oni scol l ecti veconsci ousness;
that the`i deaof thenati on' trul yi s thenati on. Thei mportanceof thi s vi ewi s that i t
underl i es the most i mportant conservati ve theori es of nati onal i smtoday. These
theori es arguethat thei deaof thenati onemergedf i rst i nwesternEurope, real i zi ng
i tsel f i n the nati on states of Bri tai nandFrance, andthen di f f used, mai nl ythrough
the di stri buti ve agencyof col oni al i sm, to the outer real ms andmorebackward
peopl es, wherethi s i dea, thi s gi f t f romtheEuropeans, transf ormed i tsel f i nto the
f reneti c demandbycol oni al peopl es f or i ndependence and a seat i n the Uni ted
Nati ons. Accordi ngto thi s wi del yacceptedtheory, nati onal l i berati on movements
di dnot ari se as a response to expl oi tati on andoppressi on; theywere merel ythe
af ter- ef f ects of the di f f usi on of the European i dea of the nati on.
Marx and Engel s di d not have occasi on to cri ti ci ze thi s thi rd theory of
nati onal i sm. ( I t was, however, di sputedbyKautsky, Leni n, andStal i nwhen, much
l ater, i t enteredMarxi st di scourse throughthe wri ti ngs of Otto Bauer . ) Thepure
Hegel i an theoryof thesuper- organi c andmetaphysi cal nati onstatewas powerf ul l y
attacked i n Marx' s earl y cri ti que of the Hegel i an phi l osophy of l aw. Soon
af terwards, i n The Germanl deol ogy, MarxandEngel s attackedthecompl ementary
noti on that the state i s an i dea, an i ntel l ectual product ; and thi s cl assi cal
demonstrati on i s sti l l perf ectl yusabl etodayf or anattackonthedi f f usi oni st theory
of nati onal i smwi thi ts contenti on that the i dea of the nati on spreads of i ts own
accord, andthus creates newnati ons, f or no materi al reasons By1848, Marxand
Engel s haddef i ni tel yestabl i shed the posi ti on, i n the Mani f esto, that struggl es f or
state power are cl ass struggl es, andthat the state i s not pri or to soci ety, cl ass, and
cl ass struggl e but i s aproduct thereof . 6 I nl ater wri ti ngs, Marxand( mai nl y) Engel s
di sposedof thesecondHegel i antheory, that therei ssomei mmanent nati onal i smi n
l anguagegroups. Al thoughMarxandEngel s f i rml y, i ndeedacti vel y, supportedthe
Germanuni f i cati on movement, on the grounds that i t woul d benef i t the worki ng
cl asses, theyrej ectedthemysti ci smof l anguage- basedGermannati onal i sm. There
60 Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous Force
i s not one st at e i n Europe, sai d Engel s, i n whi chonl y one l anguagei s spoken. ' He
t herebyrej ect ed t he i dea t hat nat i on st at es areassoci at ed onet o onewi t h l anguages,
and i n so doi ng he, and Marxal so, rej ect ed t he `pri nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' .
I n t he Mani f est o we see t he begi nni ngs of a second st age i n t he emergence of a
di st i nct i vel yMarxi st t heory of nat i onal i sm. Hereandi n l at er works i t i s argued t hat
a ri si ng cl ass must sei ze or f orma st at e i n i t s st ruggl e f or power, and t hat i n t he
speci f i c case of t heri si ng bourgeoi si et hi s cl ass f i nds best sui t edt o i t s economi c and
pol i t i cal needs arat her l argest at eandonenot seri ousl y f i ssured byi nt ernal cul t ural
andpol i t i cal boundari es . Sucha nat i on st at e, t hesi ze perhaps of Bri t ai nor France
or a uni f i ed Germany, seemed t he best vehi cl e f or t he devel opment of capi t al i sm
andt he si mul t aneous devel opment of prol et ari an cl ass st ruggl e. However, Marx' s
and Engel s' t heory of st at e vi abi l i t y - i t was, by t heway, t hecl osest t hey came t o a
t heory of nat i ons - was a mat t er of t endenci es, not ri gi d rul es. Anat i on as smal l as
I rel and was consi dered t o bevi abl e, andgrossl yl argei mperi al st at es, l i ke Aust ri a-
Hungary and Turkey, were on t he whol e t reat ed as unvi abl e, as l i kel y t o
decompose. $ Si ze, or concent rat i on, was not , t heref ore, seen as al ways and
necessari l y progressi ve. But t he f ormat i on of new, vi abl e st at es, whet her t hrough
uni f i cat i on, as i n Germany, or t hrough secessi on, as i n Pol and, was, i ndeed,
progressi ve. Thus nat i onal st ruggl e was i t sel f progressi ve under speci f i abl e
condi t i ons .
I n t he t hi rd st age of Marx' s and Engel s' t heory of nat i onal i sm, t hey argued t hat
not onl y t hebourgeoi si ebut al so t heworki ngcl ass needs t ost ruggl e f or st at epower,
and t hus not al l nat i onal i smi s what t oday we cal l bourgeoi s nat i onal i sm. St at ed
di f f erent l y: t herei s al so nat i onal st ruggl e i n t he f i ght t o overt hrowcapi t al i smand
real i ze soci al i sm. Marxand Engel s di d not f ul l y devel op t hi s argument , no doubt
because t hey expect ed, or at l east hoped, t hat t he prol et ari an revol ut i on woul d
spread very rapi dl y across t he worl d and t hus render al l cl ass st at es obsol et e. But
t hey made t he argument qui t e f orcef ul l y i n t he cases of Germany, Pol and and
I rel and. For I rel and i n part i cul ar, i t was argued t hat t he expl oi t ed cl asses f ormed
t he core of t he nat i onal l i berat i on movement , and t he f orei gn- t hat i s, Bri t i sh-
bourgeoi si e f ormed t he mai n( t hough by no means t he onl y) cl ass enemy. 9
I t was l ef t f or Leni n and l at er Marxi st s t o general i ze t he rel at i onshi p bet ween
nat i onal st ruggl e andt heprol et ari an st ruggl e f or soci al i sm. Thi s part of t heMarxi st
t heory of nat i onal i smi s exceedi ngl y i mport ant , not l east f or an underst andi ng of
t he charact er and i mport ance of nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl es i n count ri es l i ke
Vi et nam, Cuba, and Puert o Ri co. But t hi s mat t er does not concern us i n t hi s
chapt er . Our concern i s wi t h t he way Marx and Engel s di sposed of t he t wo
essent i al l y Hegel i an f orms of t he t heory of aut onomous nat i onal i sm, t heori es
whi cht reat ed t henat i on or st at eas anaut onomous ent i t y, i n t heonecase corporeal
and i n t heot her spi ri t ual , i n t heonecase t heexpressi on of t hemet aphysi cal uni t yof
a cul t ure, i n t he ot her t hat of an i mperi al st at e. Marx and Engel s showed t hat
nat i onal st ruggl e i s, and can onl y be, a f ormof cl ass st ruggl e.
Post - cl assi cal Vari at i ons
The t heory of nat i onal i sm as an aut onomous f orce ent ered Marxi smat t he
begi nni ng of t he 20t h Cent ury. Ot t o Bauer and Karl Renner, t heoret i ci ans of t he
Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous Force

61
Aust ri an Soci al Democrat i c Part y, put f orward hi ghl y phi l osophi cal argument s i n
def enceof t hei r part y' s posi t i on on t henat i onal quest i on i n t he Aust ro- Hungari an
empi re. ' Theposi t i onprocl ai med t heri ght of al l nat i onal groups wi t hi n t heempi re
t o ci vi l equal i t y and a measure of aut onomy i n cul t ural mat t ers, but rej ect ed t he
ri ght of sel f - det ermi nat i on - t hat i s, t he ri ght of secessi on- and t herebyuphel d t he
t erri t ori al i nt egri t y of t heempi re. " Thecore of Bauer' s ( and l ess consequent i al l y
Renner' s) argument was t he neo- Kant i anandul t i mat el y Hegel i anproposi t i on t hat
nat i ons are i n essence i deas, f orms of consci ousness . They arevery ol d and deepi n
t hehumanpsyche. Theyhavel i t t l e or not hi ngt o do wi t hcl ass st ruggl e andt hest at e,
t hese bei ng evol ut i onary f eat ures of cl ass soci et y. Theref ore nat i onal st ruggl es are
not cl ass st ruggl es, not st ruggl es f or st at e power, f or i ndependence. Nat i onal
st ruggl es ai monl y at prot ect i ng cul t ural ri ght s, such as t he ri ght t o use one' s own
l anguage i n school s andl ocal government . I t f ol l ows t hat soci al democrat s shoul d
uphol d such ri ght s but shoul d not support st ruggl es f or nat i onal i ndependence,
becausest at epower i s agoal of cl ass st ruggl e, not of nat i onal st ruggl e. Thest at e, as
Karl Renner put t hemat t er, `i s qui t e i ndi f f erent t o t he nat i on' . ' Z
The Aust ri an t heory penet rat ed Russi a and became an i deol ogi cal weapon
agai nst t he Bol shevi k posi t i on t hat al l nat i ons wi t hi n t he Russi an empi re hadt he
ri ght of sel f - det ermi nat i on, t hat i s, of secessi on. Bot hLeni nandSt al i n at t acked t he
Aust ri an t heory. Leni n cal l ed i t , correct l y, an `i deal i st t heory' , one i n whi ch
nat i onal phenomenawerei n essencereduced t o consci ousness. " St al i n count ered i t
i n hi s i mport ant 19 13 essay, `Marxi smand t he Nat i onal Quest i on' , i n part by
cri t i ci zi ng i t s met aphysi cs andi n part byproposi ng a t heory of nat i ons of hi s own, a
t heory i n whi chnat i ons were expl i ci t l y st at ed t o beproduct s of cl ass st ruggl e, and
moreespeci al l y product s of t hepol i t i cal st ruggl es of t heri si ngbourgeoi si e. " Leni n,
f or hi s part , of f ered nodef i ni t i on of t henat i on; i t can evenbeargued t hat he di d not
have af ul l y f ormed t heory of nat i ons i n t hi s pre- Fi rst Worl dWar peri od, al t hough
j ust af ewyears l at er, i n t hecourse of devel opi ng hi s t heory of i mperi al i sm, heput
f orward a corol l ary t heory of nat i onal i sm, nat i ons, and nat i onal l i berat i on i n t he
i mperi al i st epoch, a t heory whi chremai ns t oday t he basi c Marxi st posi t i on. ' S Fqr
present purposes I need merel y not e t hat Leni n, i n t he pre- war peri od, argued
st rongl y andrepeat edl y t hat nat i onal st ruggl e i s cl ass st ruggl e andt hat t he i dea of
t he nat i on cannot be di vorced f romt hei dea of t he st at e and t he st ruggl e f or st at e
power . ' 6
Thet heory of nat i onal i smas an aut onomous f orce di d not , t o my knowl edge,
have a di rect i nf l uence on Marxi st t hought f romabout t he t i me of t he Bol shevi k
revol ut i on t o t he earl y 19 70s. Thet heory di d, however, havean i ndi rect i nf l uence,
mai nl yt hrought he survi val i n rei f i ed ( or pet ri f i ed) f ormof t wopre- revol ut i onary
argument s, onest emmi ng f romLuxemburgandt heot her f romSt al i n. Luxemburg
hadargued t hat nat i onal st ruggl e i ndeed i s cl ass st ruggl e, but i t i s t hecl ass st ruggl e
onl y of t he bourgeoi si e and onl y of t he peri od of earl y or ri si ng capi t al i sm. That
peri od havi ng passed, sai d Luxemburg, nat i onal st ruggl e i s nowout of dat e. New
nat i on st at es are most unl i kel y t o be f ormed. Thus workers shoul d not support
nat i onal movement s because t hese are no l onger progressi ve and are unl i kel y t o
succeed. Wherever workers dosupport suchmovement s, t hi s i s t o beconsi dered an
at avi st i c at t i t ude, a survi val .
Perhaps a hundred newnati on states have been formed si nce Luxemburg
enunci atedthi s posi ti on, qui te afewof themthrough the efforts of the worki ng
cl asses, yet someMarxi sts todayconti nuetoadvancethe Luxemburgi anposi ti on.
They cl ai mthat there i s a contradi cti on between cl ass struggl e and nati onal
struggl e, that cl ass struggl e no l onger takes the nati onal form, and i f i t sti l l
occasi onal l y assumes that form, thi s can onl y bea bel ated epi sode of the ol d
bourgeoi s revol uti on. Moreover, we are tol d, nati onal struggl e i s out of date
because nati ons, and i ndeed states, are di ssol vi ng: capi tal i smi s becomi ng
i nternati onal . Al l of theseargumentswerebasi cal l yansweredsome65years agoby
Leni n. " Andtoday we noti ce that nati onal struggl es agai nst col oni al i smand
neocol oni al i smaresti l l ragi ngfromPuerto Ri co to Ti mor, whi l e gori l l a regi mes
andfasci st movements provebythei r prol i ferati on that the statei s as i mportant to
capi tal i smtoday as ever i t was i n the past . There i s no contradi cti onbetween
nati onal struggl eandcl ass struggl e. Thecontradi cti oni s not betweenthe formsof
struggl e but betweenthe contendi ngcl asses.
Thesecondway i nwhi chthetheoryof autonomousnati onal i smhas i nfl uenced
modernMarxi smi nvol ves a rei fi cati on of Stal i n' s 1913 defi ni ti on of the nati on
(whi ch we di scuss i n Chapter 5, bel ow) . Stal i n l i sted four attri butes whi ch al l
nati ons must have: commonterri tory, commoneconomy, commonl anguage, and
(i nessence) commoncul ture, pl us anhi stori cal cri teri on: nati ons ari seonl yduri ng
the`epochof ri si ngcapi tal i sm' . Al l of theattri butes must bepresent, accordi ngto
Stal i n, or thecandi date i s not trul y anati on. Stal i nhi msel f admi ttedl ater that hi s
defi ni ti on hadbeen appropri ate onl y to onepart of theworl dandto the pre-war
era, andthat Leni n' s anal ysi s of i mperi al i smhadthoroughl ychangedthe termsof
thequesti on. Hereferredtomul ti l i ngual states l i keCzechosl ovaki a andYugosl avi a
as `nati onal states' . Heworkedwi thLeni nto bui l dnewnati ons i n theSovi et Uni on.
Andso on. ' 8
Yet manyMarxi sts conti nueto bel i evethat al l truenati ons conformto the 1913
defi ni ti on. Thi s gi ves thetheoryof autonomous nati onal i smachancetosl i pback
i ntoMarxi smthroughtheback door . I t doessoi ntwoways, bothof whi chi nvol ve
converti ngthe nati oni ntoacorporeal , al most Hegel i anenti ty. Fi rst, i f onebel i eves
that agenui ne nati on i s not present unl ess al l theattri butes areobservabl e, one
argues i n effect that behi ndthese external attri butes there i s adefi ni te enti ty, an
essenti al nati on, muchas wei denti fy aparti cul ar speci es of bi rdbyi ts attri butes of
pl umageyet weal ways assumethat beneaththepl umagetherei s thereal , essenti al
bi rd. Thi s essenti al i st approach l eads onetowards theHegel i anargument that the
nati oni tsel f i s anenti ty, anacti ve subj ect i nhi story, autonomousnot merel yfrom
cl ass struggl e but fromsoci al processes i n general .
Thesecondprobl emrel ates tothekeyattri buteof the nati on: commonterri tory.
Leni n, Stal i n, andKautsky al l argued, i n opposi ti on to Bauer, theBundi sts, and
others, that anati onmust possess terri tory, andthey were absol utel y ri ght . But
there aretwo utterl y di fferent ways i n whi chi t canbesai d that anati onpossesses
terri tory. What I woul ddescri be as theLeni ni st way i s astrai ghtforwardpol i ti cal
thesi s. I f any nati onal communi ty proposes to wi nfor i tsel f asoverei gnstate, that
state must have terri tori al expressi on: must havedefensi bl e borders; must have
spaceover whi chi t exerci ses pol i ti cal control ; must appear onthepol i ti cal mapof
Nati onal i smas anAutonomous Force

63
theworl d. Stateddi fferentl y: our i nterest i n nati ons i s pol i ti cal , a matter of sel f-
determi nati onandthus of thepotenti al for formi ngi ndependent states. But such
sel f-determi nati on i s meani ngl ess unl ess the future state can cl ai ma speci fi c
terri tory, for there canbeno state wi thout temtori al expressi on.
Theother way i n whi chterri tory canenter i nto thedefi ni ti on of thenati on i s
pl ai nl y metaphysi cal . I n thi s sense, terri tory i s thought somehowto beanactual
part of thenati on. Thenati onthereby becomes astrange super-organi sm, partl y
humanor soci al andpartl y envi ronmental or terri tori al - exactl y what Herder and
Fi chtethought i t to bei nthei r noti onof theGermannati onal organi sm. I f nati ons
possess terri toryi n thi s sense, theycannot bemovedfromoneterri torytoanother.
Nati onal boundari es must remai nfi xed(theyarepart of thenati on, l i ketheski nof
an organi sm) . Di spersed or fragmentedmi nori ti es cannot be reassembl ed i nto
compact terri tori al communi ti esandgi vensoverei gntywi thi nthat terri tory. Nati ve
Ameri can nati ons whi ch have been spati al l y di spl aced or di spersed under US
capi tal i smwoul dbeunabl etorecl ai mnati onal terri tory, andnati onal soverei gnty,
i n afuturesoci al i st soci ety (al thoughthei r ri ght toful l soverei gnty i s ani ndel i bl e
part of thesoci al i st agenda) . Andso on. I f weempl oythi s concept of the nati onas
peopl e-fi xed-to-terri tory, weagai nel evatethenati oni ntoanenti ty i ndependent of
cl ass processes andcl ass struggl e. I f thi s concept appearsi nStal i n' s 1913essay, i t i s
mai nl y because at that ti me i t seemed to Marxi sts that nati ons were, i ndeed,
arti facts of an earl i er era, even i f somenati onal movements mi ght sti l l struggl e
successful l y toformstates, andtheterri tori al expressi onof nati ons seemedqui te
fi xed. `Si ncewhen' , askedStal i ni nhi s 1913essay, `haveSoci al Democrats begunto
occupythemsel ves wi th"organi zi ng" nati ons, "consti tuti ng" nati ons, "creati ng"
nati ons?"' Yet fi ve years l ater Leni nwas begi nni ngto do preci sel y that i n the
emergi ngSovi et Uni on.
TheModernTheory andi ts Cri ti cs
Duri ngthemi d-1970s thereappeared a rashof arti cl es and books attacki ng the
tradi ti onal Marxi st theory of nati onal i sm. There haveal ways been such attacks
fromconservati vesoci al thi nkers, andfromodd l i ttl e pol i ti cal sects whi chtry to
keep al i ve the Luxemburgi an vi ewthat al l nati onal struggl e i s bourgeoi s and
reacti onary. But theattacks I amreferri ngtorepresent anewanddi fferent trend.
TheseareMarxi st theori sts attacki ngthei r owntheory. J ohnEhrenrei chcal l s our
understandi ng of nati onal i sm`shal l ow' and decl ares, `I t' s ti meto admi t that as
Marxi sts wesi mpl y haveno adequateunderstandi ngof thephenomenon' ? Tom
Nai rn procl ai ms the theory of nati onal i smto be `Marxi sm' s great hi stori cal
fai l ure' . z' Andso on. Theattacks comefromanumber of theoreti cal andpol i ti cal
perspecti ves, andi t i s not my i ntent torevi ewthemhere. I proposetodi scuss three
speci fi c formul ati ons, al l of whi ch are seri ous theoreti cal arguments and al l of
whi chcontendthat nati onal i sm, or nati onal struggl e, i s aforceautonomousfrom
cl ass struggl e.
The fi rst formul ati on i s Ni cos Poul antzas' s argument that the nati on i s
somethi ngautonomousandsubstanti al (i naHegel i ansense), somethi ngwhi chacts
on hi story i ndependentl y of cl ass processes. Thesecondi s Nai rn' s argument, put
forward as Marxi st yet hardl y di sti ngui shabl e fromthe standard conservati ve
pWo~tionaismis anautonomous i eoogica

or ce, apr oucto
`moder nization' and `unevendevel opment' buthar dl y connected at al l tocl ass
str uggl e. Thethir df or mul ationis Hor ace Davis' s ar gument, aser ious andschol ar l y
one butnonethel ess mistaken, that national str uggl e and cl ass str uggl e ar e in
essence compl ementar y, cl osel y inter connected butquite distinct. Br ief mention
wil l al sobe madeof Regis Debr ay' s position, whichsubstantial izesthenationeven
mor e thanPoul antzas' s does, and of Ehr enr eich' s el abor ationof the Nair ntheor y
tothe pointwher ecl ass str uggl e disappear s f r omthe pictur e entir el y .
The l ate Nicos Poul antzas was engaged, inthe per iod j ustbef or e his death, in
constr ucting atheor y of pol itics whichpaid l ip- ser vicetoLeninyetwas pr of oundl y
anti- Leninist_ Cl ass str ueel e r emained. f ur Pnnl ant~ac. the titul ar mntnr nf hictnr v.
butthe contending cl asses dissol ved intoaswar mof ambiguous `cl ass f r actions' ,
amongwhich itwashar dtotel l whowasstr uggl ing with whom. Mor e r el evantf or
us wasPoul antzas' s par al l el ef f or ttoshowthatthe state is notthe agentof cl ass r ul e
andthedir ectobj ectof cl ass str uggl e thatLeninisttheor y makes itouttobe, butis,
r ather , adistinctand separ ate entity. NoMar xistwoul d deny some institutional
distinctness, evenpar tial autonomy, tothe capital ist state, butPoul antzas went
muchf ui' t_h_er , T__n_ _h_1 _s l ast_ book, State, Por ~er , Social ism, the state wasr eif ied intoa
substantial obj ect, something which Poul antzas pr oposed todeal with `f r omthe
standpointof its mater ial ity' . zz Buthowdoes the state acquir e its `mater ial ity' ?
Fr omthe nation.
Poul antzas' s nationis ver y much akintoHegel ' s nationstate. I t is cor por eal ,
impl icitl y super - or ganic, as ol das if notol der thancl ass society, yetl ikel y toper sist
`evenaf ter the wither ingaway of the state' . 23 I t is an`obj ectboth theor etical and
r eal ' . 2 I tpossesses whatPoul antzas cal l s `tr anshistor ical ir r educibil ity' . zs As if al l
of this wer e notsuf f icientl y metaphysical , Poul antzas f inal l y gr oundsthe nation-
her e he is Kantian, notHegel ian- inpur e space and pur e time. Zb The nation,
ther ef or e, is atr ul ybasic, tr ul yautonomous entity, something`tr anshistor ical ' , and
somethingwhichobviousl y cannotbe r educedtocl asspr ocesses andcl ass str uggl e.
This r ock- of - ages nationser ves as themoor ingf or Poul antzas' s state. Thestate is
substantial , mater ial , and autonomous because it is anchor edinthe nation- is, in
thel astanal ysis, anationstate. Thestate' s specif ic autonomy f r omcl ass str uggl e is
expl ained inthesame way: the state is r ooted notincl ass butinadeeper andmor e
abiding substance, the nation.
Poul antzas does, it is tr ue, ar gue thatthe nationchanges its f or mwith each
successive modeof pr oduction, and this intur nf acil itates thetr ansf or mationof the
state f r om, f or instance, its f eudal f or mtoits capital istf or m. Buthis ar guments on
this and r el ated matter s need notdetainus. I tis the centr al ar gumentwhich is of
concer n, and this canbe summar ized as f ol l ows: the nationis notf undamental l y a
pr oductof cl ass str uggl e: itis pr ior to, mor e basic than, andautonomous f r omcl ass
str uggl e. I tsomehowunder l ies thestate, giving the l atter its mater ial ity andpar tial
autonomy f r omcl ass str uggl e. By impl ication, al l national str uggl e mustsomehow
be der ived, notf r omcl ass str uggl e, butf r omthe histor ical l y and l ogical l y pr ior
phenomenon, the nation. Poul antzas of cour se r eal ized howf ar al l this depar ts
f r omtr aditional Mar xisttheor ies of national ismand the nation. `We have to
r ecognize' , he said, `thatther e is noMar xisttheor y of the nation' . z'
National ismas anAutonomousFor ce

65
Regis Debr ay substantial izes and r eif ies the nationtoanevengr eater extent, in
f acttothe extentof absur dity. `I twas the nation' , he said inaninter view, `which
f ir st l ed me toquestionMar xismser iousl y' . 28 `We must l ocate the nation
phenomenonwithingener al l aws r egul ating the sur vival of the human
species . . . againstdeath. Againstentr opy' . z 9 Thenationcomesf r omthe needf or
`anencl osur e r ender ingthecol l ectivity or ganic . . . adel imitationbetweenwhatis
inside andwhatis outside' . 3 `The pr ol etar iatagainstthenationis l ike woodagainst
ir on' . " I namanner r eminiscent of Hegel , Debr ay moves f r eel y betweenthe
super - or ganic and the psychic, betweenthe nationas thingandas idea: ther e is, f or
Debr ay, a`national instinct' , etc. ' 2 Heis asser tingthatnational ism, embodiedinthe
nattnnis notnnl yantnnnm~nc Fr . +m. . l ooootr . . . . l 01 . t l t: mor el , . . . . . , ~o:

. . . . t. , . , t
"""" " , ", ". ~, . , ~. , . . . a. . aaa acauuuuuggm. vu, . uaaaaaaaway aaavm. ampvmnaaa. .
TomNair n, having dismissed the tr aditional Mar xisttheor y of national ismas
`Mar xism' s gr eat histor ical f ail ur e' , pr oceeds, with much chest- thumping, to
pr ovideus with whathe pr ocl aims tobe anewandbetter theor y. I wil l have agr eat
deal tosay aboutthattheor y inChapter 3, butitis impor tantinthe pr esentcontext,
and at the expense of some r epetition, tosummar ize Nair n' s ar gument that
national ism( meaning al l of national str uggl e) is autonomous f r omcl ass str uggl e
a. ^ad iS, ir i eSSeiace and oiagir ~, $r l idea.
Nair nbegins with whatis essential l y the typical non- Mar xistviewof national ism
today. The pointof depar tur e is the supposed emer gence of the ideaof the nation
state, har dl y distinguished f r omthe ideaof f r eedom, f r omFr ench and Br itish
society twocentur ies ago. The ideaof the nationstate, or national ism, is then
supposedtohave dif f used outwar ds tother estof thewor l das par tof the packageof
Eur opeanideas l abel l ed `moder nization' . This theor y of the spr ead of national ism
is thus mer el y acomponentof the l ar ger theor y of Eur ocentr ic dif f usion. ( See
Chapter 3 . ) J ustinpassing wemay note howcur ious it is tobe tol d thatideas l ike
f r eedomand national sover eignty wer e spr ead ar ound the wor l d by Eur opean
col onial ism- their absol ute negation. 3 '
TomNair naccepts this basic theor y with onl y twomodif ications, both
essential l y cosmetic . Fir st, the theor y of moder nizationis r ecastintothe Mar xist
l exicon: dif f usionbecomes`unevendevel opment' , andthel ike. ' Second, thespr ead
of national ismis notsimpl y descr ibed as the spr ead of the idea, national ism.
Rather , the unevenness of devel opmentstimul ates, inthe backwar d r egions, an
unconscious andir r ational attitude- Nair ngets ver ypseudo- Fr eudianatthis point
- r esul ting f r omenvy, r age, and f r ustr ationover unf ul f il l ed expectations. This
ir r ational outbur stseizes upontheideaof national ismand emer ges as national ist
ideol ogy, the national movement; etc. ' S The actor s inthis pr ocess ar etheel ites of
backwar dar eas: itis they whoar e f r ustr ated and envious, andwhother ef or e decide
tof ightf or state sover eignty, f or anindependentnationstate, inor der tospeed the
devel opmentpr ocess, mobil izing the necessar y mass suppor tf or this ef f or tby
means of ideol ogical tr icker y.
That is the entir e expl anator y model . National ism r emains the ideaof
independence, of f r eedom( l ear ned, wesuppose, under the l ash) . National ismdoes
notr ef l ectexpl oitation, or oppr essionof themasses ( whopl ay noactive r ol e inthe
theor y) , or , f or thatmatter , imper ial ism. Nair nseems nottobel ieve inimper ial ism,
pr ef er r ing the conser vative model of the wor l d inwhich the pr evail ing centr es
66 Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous Force
peri phery rel at i on i s t heout wardspread of ` ci vi l i z at i on' , ` moderni t y' , ` rat i onal i t y' ,
and ` enl i ght enment ' - al l Nai rn' s words - al ong wi t h t he spread of progress:
progress under capi t al i sm. None of t hi s has much t o do wi t h Marxi sm.
Nai rn' s t heory of nat i onal i sm, l i ke so much of what i s current l y cal l ed ` Neo-
Marxi sm' , i s i n essence conservat i ve t hought f i t t edout i n Marxi st garb. The ef f ect
here, as el sewhere, i s somewhat si l l y. Unf ort unat el y, conservat i vet heory i t sel f i s not
si l l y: muchof i t i s, af t er al l , t hei deol ogy of expl oi t at i on. AndNai rn' s t heory i s by no
means si l l y i n i t s deducedconsequences . Nat i onal i smf or hi mi s at root i nst i nct i ve,
unconsci ous, even a ` dement i a' . When t hi s expl osi ve psychol ogi cal react i on t o
moderni z at i onoccurs i n st rong count ri es, i t produces f asci sm. Fasci sm, says Nai rn,
i s t heessence, t he` archet ype' , of nat i onal st ruggl e, andf asci smi s t heref orei mpl i ci t
i n al l nat i onal movement s, al l nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl es. Nai rn can argue t hi s
waybecausehel i ar carvednat i onal st ruggl e away f romcl ass st ruggl e, andbecause
nat i onal l i berat i on does not ref l ect f or hi ma pol i t i cal response t o col oni al and
neocol oni al expl oi t at i on, but i nst eadi s merel y asort of psychosi s of moderni z at i on,
andone whi ch occurs i n t he el i t e, not t he workers. I need hardl y poi nt out t hat
expansi oni st nat i onal i sm, nat i onal st ruggl e f or conquest , i s not al ways associ at ed
wi t h f asci sm; i t i s more charact eri st i cal l y a f eat ure of cl assi cal col oni al i sm:
` mani f est dest i ny' , ` t he Bri t i shraj ' , andso on. I wi l l saynot hi ngmoreat t hi s poi nt
ont hesubj ect of t herel at i onshi pbet weennat i onal i smandf asci sm(weret urn t o t he
probl emi n Chapt er 3) except t o observe, f i rst , t hat nat i onal st ruggl e vi ewedas cl ass
st ruggl e wi l l necessari l ybeassoci at edwi t h al l sort s of soci al f ormat i ons, f asci st ones
i ncl uded, and second, t hat you wi l l f i nd hardl y anyone who has worked i n or
support ed any genui ne nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl e, anywhere, who woul d agree
wi t h Nai rn t hat f asci smi s i mpl i ci t i n t hat st ruggl e.
Asecond consequence of Nai rn' s t heory emerges f romt he j udgement t hat
nat i onal st ruggl e i s unrel at ed t o expl oi t at i on, cl ass st ruggl e, and t he worki ng
cl asses. Thi s l eads hi mt o def end t he l egi t i macy of Prot est ant separat i sm i n
Nort hern I rel andandal so t he nat i onal i smof I srael i s andwhi t eSout h Af ri cans . 36
Al l of t hi s f ol l ows f romhi s t hesi s t hat nat i onal i smi s not associ at ed wi t h worki ng
cl ass st ruggl e. Oddl y, Nai rn cl ai ms t he aut hori t y of Leni n f or t hi s vi ew. I n real i t y,
Nai rn' s posi t i on i s anamal gamof Luxemburg' s argument t hat al l nat i onal i smi s
bourgeoi s, t he Hegel i an andneo-Kant i anargument t hat nat i onal i smi s merel y an
i dea, andt hesi mpl e conservat i vet heory of ` moderni z at i on' . I t i s not Leni ni st or f or
t hat mat t er Marxi st .
J ohn Ehrenrei ch t akes t he same basi c argument a st ep f art her al ong t he same
road. I n a recent art i cl e (whi ch he ri ght l y cal l s ` a work of dest ruct i on, not of
creat i on of newt heory"' ) he cl ai ms t hat ` Marxi st s have f ai l ed i n t hei r ef f ort s at
i ncorporat i ng t he real i t y of nat i onal i smi nt o t hei r t heoret i cal underst andi ng,
and . . . t hi s f ai l ure i s deepl y root ed i n t he nat ure of Marxi st t hought i t sel f. ' 8
I ndeed, t he ` t heoret i cal const ruct s of Marxi smandt hereal i t y of nat i onal i smhave
not been shown t o be compat i bl e' . ' 9 For Ehrenrei ch, t he dri vi ng f orce i n t he
modernworl dhas beent heaut onomous i deol ogi cal f orceof nat i onal i sm, not cl ass
consci ousness or cl ass st ruggl e or even cl ass i t sel f . Marxi st s have been wrong not
onl y i n t hei r anal ysi s of nat i onal i smbut al so, andmore f undament al l y, i n t hei r
anal ysi s of cl ass. Marxwas wrongabout t heprol et ari at . Theworki ngcl ass does not
Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous Force 67
makehi st ory. Nat i onal st ruggl e andcl ass st ruggl e aredi st i nct , but nei t her of t hem
bri ngs us cl oser t o soci al i sm. Ehrenrei ch i s a soci al i st anda more-or-l ess Marxi st ,
but hesees no wayout of t hi s t heoret i cal bl i ndal l ey. Hesi mpl y decl ares hi msel f t o
be a pessi mi st . `
Anumber of ot her Marxi st t heori st s havet akent heposi t i on t hat nat i onal i smi s
an aut onomous f orce whi ch i s basi cal l y i deol ogi cal andnot , l i ke cl ass i deol ogi es,
deri vedf romcl ass processes andcl ass expl oi t at i on. HoraceDavi s i s perhaps t he
onl y one among t he t heori st s hol di ng t hi s basi c posi t i on who present s a t rul y
t hought f ul and schol arl y argument , and hi s argument t heref ore deserves caref ul
at t ent i on. Themai nst at ement i s i n hi s i mport ant book, TowardaMarxi st Theoryof
Nat i onal i sm. " Davi s i s al so t heaut hor of anearl i er, veryval uabl e st udy of pre-Fi rst
Worl dWar Marxi st vi ews on t he nat i onal quest i on, andhe edi t ed andwrot ean
i nt roduct i on t o avol umeof Luxemburg' s wri t i ngs ont hi s subj ect . ZI n noneof t hese
t hree works does Davi s real l y t ry t o def i ne, or descri be i n preci se det ai l , what he
means by ` nat i onal i sm' , andt he f ewrel evant passages l ead us back t owards t he
t radi t i onal t hesi s t hat nat i onal i smi s a European i dea andmovement of t he earl y
19 t h Cent urywhi ch has di f f used t o t he rest of t heworl d. " I n hi s newwork, Davi s
di rect l y chal l enges t he vi ewt hat nat i onal i smi s a f ormof cl ass st ruggl e. The
chal l enge t akes t wo f orms.
Fi rst , Davi s rei nt erpret s t he vi ews of Leni nandLuxemburgandargues t hat bot h
of t hemvi ewednat i onal i smas, at root , ani dea, andmore preci sel y a moral i dea or
precept . Usi ng t hi s i nt erpret at i on, Davi s ret urns t o t he cl assi c debat es and
concl udes t hat LuxemburgandLeni nwere i ndeedi n basi c agreement : bot h i nsi st ed
on an endt o nat i onal oppressi on. Davi s t hen argues t hat Leni n' s mai n di f f erence
wi t h Luxemburg, namel yhi s def enceof , andher at t ack on, t hepri nci pl eof t heri ght
of sel f -det ermi nat i on of nat i ons, was a rel at i vel y uni mport ant di sagreement ,
becausenat i onal oppressi on coul dbe at t ackedef f ect i vel y wi t hout demandi ngst at e
soverei gnt y
. s
I n sum: t he moral posi t i on t akenby t he t worevol ut i onary t hi nkers
was t he same; t he st rat egi es were di f f erent ; but Leni n' s st rat egy was not
f undament al l y more ef f i caci ous t hanLuxemburg' s. Davi s t hen makes t he curi ous
assert i on t hat Leni n' s st rat egy, t hat of uphol di ng t he ri ght of sel f -det ermi nat i on,
was act ual l y rej ect ed by t he maj ori t y of Bol shevi ks at t hei r Ei ght h Congress i n
19 19 . ` 6
Space permi t s onl y a bri ef rej oi nder t o t hi s argument . Fi rst , Leni n' s pri nci pal
argument i n 19 03 andt hereaf t er was t hat nat i onal oppressi on cannot beendedor
even cont rol l ed under capi t al i sm wi t hout an i nsi st ence on t he ri ght of sel f -
det ermi nat i on. Luxemburg' s st rat egy woul dnot succeedbecausei t si dest eppedt he
cruci al i ssueof st at epower. Second, by underest i mat i ng t hedi f f erence bet weent he
Luxemburgi an and t he Leni ni st posi t i ons, Davi s arri ves at a concept i on of t he
Leni ni st posi t i on whi ch i s not at al l Leni ni st , because, whi l e i t i ncorporat es t he
st rat egy of general st ruggl e agai nst nat i onal oppressi on, i t abandons t he st rat egy of
i nsi st i ng_on t heri ght of sel f -det ermi nat i on. Davi s i s l edby t hi s posi t i on t o def i ne as
Leni ni st someposi t i ons on t henat i onal quest i on whi charehardl y t hat . (Suret yi t i s
i naccurat e t odescri be Chi na' s nat i onal i t y pol i cy as ` Leni ni st ' whenChi naref uses t o
accord t he ri ght of sel f -det ermi nat i on, of secessi on, t o her i nt ernal mi nori t y
nat i ons) . ' Thi rd, Davi s i s wrong i n cl ai mi ng t hat Leni n' s posi t i on on sel f -
68

Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous Force
det ermi nat i onwas def eat ed at t he 1919part y congress . I t i s t rue t hat t hephrase `t he
ri ght of sel f - det ermi nat i on' was del et edf romt hepart y programmeat t hat congress.
But t hi s was doneat Leni n' s suggest i on. Hemai nt ai nedt hat t hephrase `t he ri ght of
sel f - det ermi nat i on' was dangerousl y ambi guous, andhe hadbeen argui ng si nce
1917 ( perhaps earl i er) t hat i t shoul d be repl aced i n t he part y programmeby t he
unequi vocal phrase `ri ght of secessi on' . Thi s vi ewprevai l ed. Leni n was not
def eat ed.
s
Davi s' s secondchal l enget o t he cl ass- basedt heory of nat i onal i smcal l s at t ent i on
t o t hree di f f erent ki nds of nat i onal st ruggl e i n whi ch, he bel i eves, cl ass st ruggl e i s
not or was not si gni f i cant l y i nvol ved. Fi rst , Davi s ci t es Ami l car Cabral , I t hi nk
i nappropri at el y, t o t heef f ect t hat cl ass st ruggl e cannot bet hemot or of hi st ory si nce
t here wi l l cont i nue t o be a hi st ory af t er cl ass soci et y has gi ven way t o cl assl ess
soci et y, andsi nce, i mpl i ci t l y, t herewas hi st ory bef ore cl asses emerged. ' Cabral di d
i ndeeddi scuss t hepresumpt i vemot or of hi st ory bef ore andaf t er t heperi odof cl ass
soci et y, but he di d not deny t he aut hori t y of cl ass st ruggl e f or t he peri od i n
bet ween. s And i n f act i t was Engel s who f i rst poi nt ed out t hat t he operat i ve
sent ence i n t heMani f est o, `Thehi st ory of al l hi t hert o exi st i ng soci et y i s t hehi st ory
of cl ass st ruggl e' , ref ers onl y t o what he cal l ed `wri t t en hi st ory' , meani ngt hehi st ory
of soci et i es wi t h cl assl ess' As t o t he cl assl ess f ut ure, Davi s does not ( andwoul dnot
be abl e t o) present a case t hat nat i onal st ruggl es wi l l persi st when cl ass st ruggl es
have ended on aworl d scal e. I n a cl assl ess worl d, nat i ons wi l l nodoubt persi st as
cul t ural , not pol i t i cal , ent i t i es . But what wi l l t hey have t o f i ght about ?
Next i n l ogi cal order, Davi s argues t hat t he cl ass- based t heory of nat i onal i sm
cannot account f or t he f act t hat nat i onal st ruggl es occurri ng i n our own t i me
somet i mes i nvol ve cl assl ess `t ri bal ' soci et i es, such as t hose i n Af ri ca ( t he area
di scussed i n connect i on wi t h t hi s quest i on) . sz Thi s i s an i mport ant andcompl ex
probl em, andI donot havet hespacet o showhere preci sel y whynat i onal st ruggl es
i n t hi s cat egory are al so, at root , cl ass st ruggl es. Three proposi t i ons wi l l have t o
suf f i ce. Fi rst , t hef act t hat asmal l soci et y i s i nt ernal l y cl assl ess does not i mpl yt hat i t
i s not i nt egrat ed i nt o a syst em of cl ass expl oi t at i on. Surpl us val ue has been
ext ract ed, under col oni al i smand neocol oni al i sm, i n count l ess ways and i n great
amount s, f romessent i al l y al l t heso- cal l ed t ri bal soci et i es, i n Af ri ca andel sewhere,
andt heresi st ance of t hesepeopl ehas been a f ormof cl ass st ruggl e. Second, most of
t he so- cal l ed t ri bes are i ndeed cl ass- st rat i f i ed soci et i es, and f or most of t he
remai nder, i n pl aces l i ke Af ri ca, i t i s arguabl e t hat t hey were, i n f act , cl ass soci et i es
bef ore t he earl y col oni al peri od, whi ch t runcat ed f eudal pol i t i cal st ruct ures,
dest royed prooo- capi t al i st ci t y st at es, and drove many peopl es t o f ormcl osed
corporat ecommuni t i es i n def enceagai nst sl ave- rai di ng andot her mani f est at i ons of
cl ass expl oi t at i on, di rect and i ndi rect . Thi rd, whi l e i t i s cert ai nl y t rue t hat t he
overal l envi ronment of i mperi al i smproduces many very seri ous i nt ercommunal
st resses of t he sort cal l ed `t ri bal i sm' , t he pl ai n f act i s t hat very nearl y al l of t he
ant i - i mperi al i st st ruggl es whi chwont hrough t o i ndependence, t o st at esoverei gnt y,
were mul t i cul t ural , not t ri bal . Thei ndependent st at es of Af ri ca andt he rest of t he
Thi rd Worl d t ypi cal l y possess t he spat i al boundari es of f ormer col oni es, not of
t ri bes .
There remai ns one ot her f ormof cat egory of nat i onal st ruggl e whi ch, accordi ng
Nat i onal i smas an Aut onomous Force

69
t o HoraceDavi s, i s somet hi ngot her t hancl ass st ruggl e. Thi s i s t het ype of nat i onal
l i berat i on st ruggl e whi ch, i n Davi s' s vi ew, i s not cl ass st ruggl e becausei t i s wagedby
al l cl asses. He si ngl es out Cuba f or speci al at t ent i on. Accordi ng t o Davi s t he
ant i - Bat i st a phaseof t heCubanrevol ut i on was anat i onal i st st ruggl e but not acl ass
st ruggl e. `Fi del Cast ro . . . was anat i onal i st bef ore hewas asoci al i st ' . 5' `Cast roand
Guevarabegan wi t h Cuban nat i onal i smand aprogrammet hat was democrat i c i n
t heconvent i onal sense . . . Soci al i smwas added l at er, f orced on t hemby t hel ogi c
of t he si t uat i on' . 5 I n a word, t heant i - Bat i st a st ruggl e was purel y nat i onal i st . I n
addi t i on, Davi s bel i eves t hat al l cl asses i n Cubapart i ci pat ed i n t hest ruggl e. But we
have t he st at ement s of Fi del and numerous ot her sources t o showt hat t hese
cont ent i ons arenot correct . Fi del was arevol ut i onary soci al i st , and`t he l ogi c of t he
si t uat i on' f orced hi mt o recogni z et hat nat i onal l i berat i on was ont hedi rect rout et o
soci al i sm. Furt hermore, we knowt hat t he revol ut i on was waged by expl oi t ed
cl asses- urbanandrural workers andsmal l peasant s - pl us margi nal i z ed sect ors of
t hepet t y andmi ddl e bourgeoi si e. Theenemywas a l argel y( but not ent i rel y) f orei gn
bourgeoi si e and l ocal subal t ern groups. ss I n Cubaas everywhere el se, t henat i onal
st ruggl e i s i ndeed a cl ass st ruggl e.
Davi s i s t heref orequi t ewrongi n cl ai mi ng t hat count ri es l i ke Cubaf urni sh proof
t hat `Leni n' s anal ysi s . . . of t he cl ass basi s of nat i onal i sm i s i n need of
ref ormul at i on' . sb Leni n' s t heoryneeds no ref ormul at i on. What i t mai nl y needs i s t o
be brought up t o dat e.
Some Concl udi ng Comment s
Marxi st s t end t o quest i on t hei r ownt heory when t hi ngs are not goi ng wel l i n t he
worl d of pract i ce, and t hat i s as i t shoul d be. Unt i l t hemi d- 1970s nat i onal st ruggl e
seemed t o beessent i al l y as Leni n had descri bed i t : a f ormof t hecl ass st ruggl e f or
st at epower, af ormt hat woul d be progressi ve, react i onary, or merel y di versi onary
dependi ngupont hecl asses and cl ass- combi nat i ons t hat were engagedi n st ruggl e.
But t he 1970s present edMarxi st s, andsoci al i st s i n general , wi t h some di squi et i ng
si t uat i ons . Not al l of t he decol oni z at i on st ruggl es had produced soci al i st st at es .
Seri ous conf l i ct s were appeari ng bet ween soci al i st st at es and bet ween nat i onal
communi st part i es. I n t headvanced capi t al i st count ri es t hecl ass st ruggl e was not
advanci ngat a very i mpressi ve pace. Andso on. Al l of t hi s l ed t o a ret hi nki ng of
many port i ons of Marxi st t heory, andi n part i cul ar t o a wi despread quest i oni ng of
Leni n' s basi c model s of i mperi al i smandt he nat i onal st ruggl es whi ch i t generat es.
Thi s i s part of t heexpl anat i on f or t he f act t hat t he basi c cl ass st ruggl e t heory of
nat i onal st ruggl e began, i n t hat peri od, t o be quest i oned seri ousl y. Thet heory t hat
nat i onal i smi s somesort of aut onomous f orcewas domi nant , i ndeedhegemoni c, i n
schol arl y ci rcl es, andi t was t o beexpect edt hat someMarxi st schol ars woul d t ry t o
repl ace t he cl assi cal t heory ( as i t hadevol ved f romMarx t o Leni n t o Cabral and
ot her modern t heori st s) wi t h t he mai nst reamt heory or a syncret i c merger of t he
t wo.
But anot her phenomenon was al so cont ri but i ng t o t he cri t i que of t he Leni ni st
t heori es of i mperi al i smandnat i onal st ruggl e. I n t he 1960s andearl y 1970s, Marxi st
t heory became wi del y accept ed as an anal yt i c f ramework among evol ut i onary
soci al i st s andanarchi st s i n t he capi t al i st count ri es, but t heori st s i n t hese soci al i st
70 Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous Force
t radi t i ons f ound i t necessary t o cl eanse Marxi smof i t s unaccept abl e Leni ni st
at t ri but es; t o creat e a`pure' Marxi sm. Thi s seems t o have beent he mai ncont ent of
t heprocess whi chi s of t encal l ed t he`renai ssance of Marxi st t heory' . Onecoul dt reat
Leni n' s model s i n ei t her of t wo ways: re- i nt erpret t hemor rej ect t hem. Thef i rst
met hod was used by many t heori st s t o cl ai m, f or i nst ance, t hat Leni n' s t heory of
i mperi al i smwas merel y a t heory of t he di f f usi on ( vi a `uneven devel opment ' - t he
code word) of capi t al i sm, not a t heory posi t i ng superexpl oi t at i on, nat i onal
oppressi on, andnat i onal l i berat i on f or t heThi rd Worl d. Thus t he i mpl i cat i onof a
qual i t at i ve di f f erence bet ween t he t wo capi t al i st sect ors and t he argument t hat
nat i onal l i berat i on i s a cent ral part of t he worl d- wi de cl ass st ruggl e are avoi ded.
Leni ds t heory of nat i onal st ruggl e was approached i n a di f f erent way: i t was
di st ort ed, t hen t hedi st ort ed versi onwas shownt o bef al seandwas rej ect ed. Leni n-
andmoregeneral l y t hecl ass st ruggl e t heory of nat i onal i sm- was supposed t o have
hel d t hat nat i onal i smwas adecl i ni ng f orce i n t hemodern worl d; hence t he t heory
was wrong. Leni n was supposed t o have t reat ed nat i onal i smas necessari l y
bourgeoi s and react i onary; henceLeni nwas wrong. And he was supposed t o have
consi dered cl ass st ruggl e i t sel f t o be somet hi ng non- nat i onal , a si mpl e
conf ront at i onbet weenl abour andcapi t al i n whi chet hni c or cul t ural consi derat i ons
were i rrel evant or react i onary; hence Leni n was wrong agai n. But t he Marxi st
t heory of nat i onal i smbased on cl ass st ruggl e di d not make t hese argument s af t er
about 1914. Sot hel ogi cal basi sf or t hesecri t i ques i s, i n f act , erroneous. TheMarxi st
t heory of nat i onal st ruggl e i s i n many ways i mperf ect , andneeds t o bebrought upt o
dat e. But t he basi c t heory i s sound.
I wi l l cl ose t hi s chapt er wi t h t hree bare comment s concerni ng aspect s of t he
Marxi st t heory of nat i onal i sm, or nat i onal st ruggl e, whi ch seemt o me t o need
f urt her work, i n order t o bri ng t he t heory up t o dat e i n t erms of t he present - day
worl d and our knowl edge of i t . Bri ngi ng i t upt o dat e wi l l not render i t perf ect or
compl et e. But at t hepresent j unct ure I t hi nk i t i s more i mport ant t o recogni ze t he
st rengt h, andessent i al adequacy, of our t heory of nat i onal i smt hant o worryabout
i t s i mperf ect i ons . Bet hat as i t may, myt hreesuggest i ons- t hey wi l l beel aborat edi n
l at er chapt ers - are t he f ol l owi ng:
1. Al t hough most Marxi st s t oday agree t hat nat i onal st ruggl e i s i ndeed cl ass
st ruggl e, t here st i l l remai ns t he subordi nat e yet very i mport ant quest i on: cl ass
st ruggl e by whi chcl ass or cl asses? ManyMarxi st s st i l l bel i eve, i n t he f ace of al l t he
evi dence, t hat t he bourgeoi si e i s t he onl y cl ass f or whi ch nat i onal i sm has
f unct i onal i t y i n cl ass st ruggl e ( because, supposedl y, nat i ons areonl y f ormed by t he
bourgeoi si ei n t hecourse of i t s ri se) . Weshoul d, f i rst of al l , correct t herecord and
showt hat t hi s t ypi cal l y pre- Fi rst Worl d War vi ew, whi ch has survi ved mai nl y
because i t has behi nd i t t heaut hori t y of LuxemburgandSt al i n ( of t he 1913essay),
was answered very t horoughl y by Leni n i n hi s wri t i ngs on t he nat i onal quest i on,
and on i mperi al i sm, af t er 1914. Weshoul d t hen show, f or each of many nat i onal
l i berat i on st ruggl es, howt he newt heory' s predi ct i ons proved t o be correct , and
morepart i cul arl y howt he nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl e proved t o beani nseparabl e
part of t hecl ass st ruggl e f or soci al i sm. Thi s al so appl i es t o quest i ons of st rat egy f or
st ruggl es not yet won. I n t hecase of Puert o Ri co, f orexampl e, i t needs t o becl earl y
underst ood by al l Marxi st s t hat t he st ruggl e f or i ndependence i s not a separat e
Nat i onal i smas anAut onomous Force

71
mat t er f romt he st ruggl e f or soci al i sm, and cannot t heref ore be cal l ed `narrow
nat i onal i sm' or `bourgeoi s nat i onal i sm' or somehowi n `cont radi ct i on' t o t he
st ruggl e f or soci al i sm. For Puert o Ri co and, I suppose, every ot her col ony, t he
achi evement of i ndependence, of st at esoverei gnt y, i s anabsol ut el yvi t al goal f or t he
worki ngcl ass on i t s pat h t o soci al i sm.
2. Wecert ai nl y shoul d updat e our t heory of nat i ons. Thi s, t oo, begi ns wi t h a
correct i on of t herecord. St al i n' s 1913 essay does not present `t he' Marxi st t heoryof
nat i ons. Leni ndevel oped a much more adequat et heory i n t he peri od 1914- 1922,
andAmi l car Cabral , amongot hers, has expanded Leni n' s t heory. Therest i l l remai n
anumber of pract i cal probl ems, t wo of whi chdeservement i onhere. Fi rst . St al i n i n
1913, and most Marxi st s at t hat t i me, bel i eved t hat nat i ons emerge onl y i n t he
peri od of earl y, ri si ng capi t al i sm, and di e or di ssol ve wi t h t he soci al i st revol ut i on.
But nat i ons havebeenbornsi nce 1913 under al l manner of ci rcumst ances, soci al i st
as wel l as capi t al i st , and more cruci al l y, nat i ons can al so be dest royed under
capi t al i smi t sel f . I n t he case of Puert o Ri co, f or exampl e, we can have noi l l usi ons
t hat t he Puert o Ri can nat i on possesses some met aphysi cal i mmort al i t y. I t wi l l
survi veonl y i f t hepeopl ef i ght i n def enceof t hei r cul t ureandt owards t hei r f reedom.
Thesecond pract i cal probl emhas t o dowi t ht hat part of t he 1913t heory whi ch i s
of t encal l ed `t he t heory of nat i onal mi nori t i es' . I n St al i n' s essay, i t i s cat egori cal l y
assert ed t hat mi nori t y communi t i es f ormed by l ong di st ance l abour mi grat i on are
dest i ned t o become assi mi l at ed i nt o t he host nat i onal i t y. s' Thi s was t rue i n t he
pre- i mperi al i st epoch, when rapi dl y expandi ng demand f or l abour l ed t o l ong
di st ance l abour mi grat i onand somet hi ng l i ke a`mel t i ng pot ' at t heend of t het ri p.
But eveni n t hosedays t herewas l i t t l e assi mi l at i on under non- Europeancondi t i ons,
as wi t h t he Chi nese i n Sout heast Asi a. East I ndi ans i n t he Cari bbean, and many
ot her cases. Broadl yspeaki ng, mi grat i on i n col oni al ci rcumst ances di d not l ead t o
assi mi l at i on. Today, under i mperi al i st ci rcumst ances, wehavef or exampl eghet t os,
mi grant l abour camps, reservat i ons, bant ust ans, and t he phenomenon known as
`guest workers' i n Europe - al l communi t i es whi ch were f ormed by f orced
mi grat i onof onesort or anot her under i mperi al i sm. As amat t er of f act , . bot hEngel s
and Leni n poi nt ed out l ong ago t hat mi grat i ons of t hese sort s do not l ead t o
assi mi l at i on . sS Weneed at heory of mi nori t i es f or t he peri od of i mperi al i sm, t he
peri od when i n- comi ng workers t end not t o be mel t ed down i nt o t he host
nat i onal i t y. To paraphrase Leni n: i n t he peri od of i mperi al i sm, t he nat i onal
quest i on becomes more acut e, not l ess so. Real i zi ng t hi s, we shoul d f i nd ways t o
f orge great er uni t y of t he worki ng cl ass i n t he i mperi al i st cent res.
3. Nat i onal st ruggl e i s cl ass st ruggl e, but i t i s nonet hel ess a very di st i nct i ve f orm
of cl ass st ruggl e. As I wi l l arguei n Chapt er 7, i t can be t hought of as `ext ernal cl ass
st ruggl e' . I t occurs when t hesoci al rel at i ons of product i on ext end across a spat i al
boundary. I t hi nki t s t ypi cal f ormi nvol ves a rul i ng cl asswhi chi s expl oi t i ng bot han
i nt ernal produci ng cl ass and anext ernal one, t he l at t er consi st i ng of peopl e f roma
di f f erent soci et y who, t hrough conquest or some ot her means of pol i t i cal
domi nat i on, have been f orced t o del i ver surpl us t o t hi s ( f romt hei r poi nt of vi ew)
ext ernal rul i ng cl ass. l uset hemost general t erms here becauseI t hi nk i t has beena
st ruct ural f eat ure of al l cl ass modes of product i on - not , however, al l speci f i c soci al
f ormat i ons - si nce anci ent t i mes. Perhaps i t ref l ect s t he cri si s whi ch must af f l i ct
72 Nati onal i smas an Autonomous Force
anysoci etywheni ncremental surpl us cannol onger be extracted fromthe i nternal
or domesti c producers wi thout bri ngi ng on rebel l i on or mass fami ne. Gi ven
suffi ci ent power, a rul i ng cl ass may then turn to external workers for the
i ncremental surpl us. I t maywi peout theexternal rul i ngcl ass or extract tri butefrom
i t. I t may establ i shanyof a number of di fferent rel ati ons of producti on wi ththe
external workers. ( I t mayeven wi pe themout and send i nternal workers to farm
thei r l and. ) 59 I suggest merel y that thi s l i ne of thought may l ead towards a
general i zati onof our theoryof nati onal struggl e, maki ngi t atheoryappl i cabl e to
al l cases i n whi chcl ass struggl e takes the nati onal form.
NOteS
1 . SeeG. W. F. Hegel , ThePhi l osophyofHi story( 1 956) andPhi l osophyof Ri ght
( 1 952) ; J . G. vonHerder, Refl ecti ons on thePhi l osophyof theHi storyof Manki nd
( 1 968) ; J . G. Fi chte, Addresses to the GermanNati on ( 1 922) . For Hegel , nati on and
state are roughl ysynonymous.
2. SeeK. Lowi th, FromHegel to Ni etzsche( 1 967) . AsLowi thpoi nts out, Hegel , the
State Phi l osopher of Prussi a, `el evates the real i ty of the Prussi an State to a
phi l osophi cal exi stence' ( p. 238) . Al sosee F. Engel s' Ludwi gFeuerbachandtheEnd
of Cl assi cal GermanPhi l osophy( 1 976) , p. 5 ; andHegel ' s Phi l osophyofRi ght, p. 208,
and Phi l osophyof Hi story, pp. 427, 437, 456.
3. Hegel , Phi l osophyofRi ght, p. 1 82. Al so seeMarx' s i mportant comment onthi s
passage i n hi s `Contri buti on to the Cri ti que of Hegel ' s phi l osophyof Law' i nK.
Marxand F. Engel s, Works ( MEW) 3, pp. 38, 72.
4. Marx, `Contri buti on to the Cri ti que' , pp. 3- 1 29, 1 75- 87.
5 . Marx and Engel s, The GermanI deol ogy, i n MEW5 . The term`theory of
nati onal i sm' ( or `theoryof nati onal struggl e' ) i s a modernl abel for these subj ect
matters; Marx and Engel s deal t wi ththemunder di fferent l abel s.
6. Marxand Engel s, Mani festo of the Communi st Party, i n MEW6.
7. Engel s, `What HavetheWorki ngCl asses ToDowi thPol and?' i nD. Fernbach
( ed. ) , Karl Marx: Pol i ti cal Wri ti ngs 3 ( 1 974) , p. 383.
8. See, e. g. , Engel s, `What i s to Becomeof Turkeyi n Europe?' i n MEW1 2, and
`TheBegi nni ng of theEnd i nAustri a' , i bi d. 6.
9. For Pol and, see, e. g. , Engel s `What Havethe Worki ngCl asses ToDowi th
Pol and?' For I rel and, see the anthol ogy, Marx and Engel s, I rel andand the I ri sh
Questi on( 1 971 ) , esp. pp. 1 47, 1 62, 281 , 285, 293, 302- 4, 332. ForGermany, see, e. g. ,
Marx and Engel s' 1 848 work `Demands of the Communi st Partyof Germany' ,
MEW7. Thefi rst of the 1 7demands reads as fol l ows: `Thewhol eof Germanyshal l
bedecl aredasi ngl eandi ndi vi si bl erepubl i c' ( p. 3) . Thesentencefol l owi ngthel i st of
demands states, `I t i s to the i nterest of the German prol etari at, the petty
bourgeoi si e, and the smal l peasants to support these demands wi thal l possi bl e
energy' ( p. 4) .
1 0. O. Bauer, Di eNati onal i tatenfrage anddi eSozi al demokrati e( 1 907) , K. Renner,
Der Kampf der Osterrei chi schen Nati onen umder Statt ( 1 903) , and other works.
Smal l excerpts of Bauer' s and Renner' s wri ti ngs on the nati onal questi on are
transl ated i nT. Bottomoreand P. Goode, Austro- Marxi sm( 1 978) .
Nati onal i smas anAutonomous Force

73
1 1 . I refer here to the 1 899 Brunn programme, quoted i n ful l i n Bauer, Di e
Nati onal i tl i tenfrage, pp. 527- 528. Bauer' s proposal s for changes i n thi s party
programme( to i nsert `cul tural - nati onal autonomy' ) arenot rel evant tothepresent
di scussi on ( but see Chapter 5 bel ow) .
1 2. Quoted i n Bottomore and Goode, Austro- Marzi sm, p. 1 20.
1 3. V. I . Leni n, Works 20, p. 398; and 41 , p. 31 5 .
1 4. J . V. Stal i n, Works 3.
1 5. SeeChapter 5 bel ow.
1 6. See, e. g. , Leni n' s `Cri ti cal Remarks onthe Nati onal Questi on' . Works 20.
1 7. See, i n parti cul ar, Leni n' s `A Cari cature of Marxi smand I mperi al i st
Economi sm' , Works 23, and `Report of the Commi ssi on on the Nati onal and
( : ol oni al Questi ons' , 31 . Al so see Chapter 4 of the present vol ume.
1 8. SeetheStal i nanthol ogy, Marxi smandtheNati onal - Col oni al Questi on( 1 975) ,
esp. pp. 1 21 , 1 38, 1 55, 282- 83.
1 9 . Stal i n, Works 3, p. 340.
20. J . Ehrenrei ch, `The Theoryof Nati onal i sm: ACaseof Underdevel opment' ,
Monthl yRevi ew27, 1 ( 1 977) , p. 57. Al so see Ehrenrei ch, `Soci al i sm, Nati onal i sm
andCapi tal i st Devel opment' , Revi ewofRadi cal Pol i ti cal Economi cs 1 5, 1 ( 1 983) .
21 . T. Nai rn, TheBreak- Up of Bri tai n( 1 977) , p. 329.
22. N. Poul antzas, State, Power, Soci al i sm( 1 978) .
23. I bi d. , p. 93.
24. I bi d. , p. 94.
25. I bi d.
26. I bi d, pp. 97- 1 1 9 . For i nstance: `Terri toryand tradi ti on . . . are i nscri bed i n
the . . . underl yi ngconceptual matri ces of spaceand ti me' ( p. 97) . `The State does
not havetouni fya pre- exi sti ng"i nternal " market, but i nstal l s a uni fi ed market by
marki ngout the fronti ers of what therebybecomes the i nsi de of the outsi de' ( p.
1 06) . `The modern nati on makes possi bl e the i ntersecti on of [ the spati al and
temporal ] matri ces and thus serves as thei r poi nt of j uncture; the capi tal i st State
marks out the fronti ers wheni t consti tutes what i s wi thi n( the peopl e- nati on) by
homogeni zi ng the before and after of the content of thi s encl osure. Nati onal
uni ty. . . therebybecomes hi stori ci tyofaterri toryandterri tori al i zati on ofahi story'
( p. 1 1 4) . `Theterri toryandhi storycrystal l i zed bytheState rati fythedomi nanceof
thebourgeoi s vari ant of thespati o- temporal matri x over i ts worki ng- cl ass vari ant'
( p. 1 1 9) . Andsoon, and on, and on. . .
27. I bi d, p. 93.
28. R. Debray, `Marxi smand the Nati onal Questi on: I ntervi ewwi thRegi s
Debray' , NewLeft Revi ew1 05 ( 1 977) , p. 25.
29. I bi d, p. 27.
30. I bi d, p. 28.
31 . I bi d. , p. 33.
32. I bi d. , p. . 35 .
33. The reader mayconsul t A. D. Smi th' s Theori es of Nati onal i sm( 1 971 ) , i n
whi chj ust about every( non- Marxi st) theoryof nati onal i smi s bri efl ydescri bed, to
appreci ate howfewof these theori es depart fromwhat I cal l here the typi cal form
( di ffusi on of a moderni zi ngi dea) .
34. Nai rn, TheBreak- UpofBri tai n, pp. 334- 41 . I cri ti ci zeNai rn' s theoryi ndetai l
i n Chapter 3.
35 . I bi d. , pp. 96- 1 04. 335- 59 . `To say that the assorted phenomena . . . of
nati onal i smhave a "materi al " basi s and expl anati on i s aki n to sayi ng that
74 Nati onal i smas anAutonomous Force
i ndi vi dual neurosi s has asexual expl anati on . . . "Nati onal i sm" i s thepathol ogyof
moderndevel opmental hi story, as i nescapabl eas "neurosi s" i nthei ndi vi dual , wi th
a si mi l ar bui l t- i n capaci ty f or descent i nto dementi a, rooted i n the di l emmas of
hel pl essness thrust upon most of the worl d ( the equi val ent of i nf anti l i smf or
soci eti es) , and l argel y i ncurabl e' ( p. 359) .
36. I bi d. , pp. 188- 89, 216- 55. See Chapter 3 of the present vol ume.
37. Ehrenrei ch. `Soci al i sm, Nati onal i smandCapi tal i st Devel opment' , p. 29.
38. I bi d. , p. 1 .
39. I bi d. , p. 4.
40. I bi d. , pp. 5- 9, 28- 29, 32.
Qt . HRTl avi c Tnmnrdn A. f r . - i ci Thonr, r of Nn~i nnnl i cm11Q~7R1 . _ . _ _ . - . _ _ . . _

_ . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . ,

. y ~

. . . . . . . . . . .

, .

,
42. H. B. Davi s, Nati onal i smand Soci al i sm( 1967) , and. R. Luxemburg( H. B.
Davi s, ed. ) , TheNati onal Questi on: Sel ectedWri ti ngs of RosaLuxemburg( 1976) .
43. Davi s, Nati onal i smandSoci al i sm, pp. i x- xi v, andTowardaMarzi st Theoryof
Nati onal i sm, pp. 3- 13, 22- 25, 28- 29.
44. I n Toward a Marxi st Theory of Nati onal i sm, Davi s ref ers to `one of the
f avouri tedogmasof Marxi sm, that thecl ass struggl ei s themotor f orceof progress'
( p. 223) . `Marxi sts, whohave stressed cl ass expl oi tati on as al most theonl yf ormof
expl oi tati on, have cometorecogni ze at l ongl ast that nati onal expl oi tati on canbe
j ust as seri ous and l ong- l asti ngas cl ass expl oi tati on' ( pp. 159- 60) . `Leni n . . . took
the cruci al step of i ncorporati ng nati onal expl oi tati on al ongsi de of cl ass
expl oi tati on' ( p. 246) . Al so see pp. 27, 66, 83. 200. 205, 229.
45. I bi d. , pp. 54- 65.
46. I bi d. , pp. 54, 68- 69. 90.
47. I bi d. , p. 18. ( `I n Chi na, the Leni ni st nati onal i ty pol i cy has been an
outstandi ng success' , p. 181. )
48. See Leni n' s Works 24, p. 472, and 26, p. 175. Thi s i nterpretati on i s wi del y
accepted amongl ef t hi stori ans, i ncl udi ng somewhoare unsympatheti c to Leni n.
See. e. g. , F. Cl audi n, The Communi st Movement: Part 1 ( 1975) , p. 254; and C.
Bettel hei m, Cl ass Struggl es i n the USSR. Fi rst Peri od( 1976) , p. 420.
49. Davi s. Toward aMarxi st Theory of Nati onal i sm, pp. 220- 28.
50. A. Cabral , `Decl arati on of Pri nci pl es' , i n Portuguese Col oni es: Vi ctory or
Death( 1971) , esp. pp. I 10- 17.
51. Engel s' f ootnote to the 1888Engl i shedi ti onof theMani f esto. SeeMarxand
Engel s, Works 6. p. 482.
52. Toward a Marzi st Theory of Nati onal i sm, pp. 202- 40. Davi s al so devotes
consi derabl eattenti on i nthi s book toanother contemporaryf ormof ( ul ti matel y)
cl assl ess soci ety: the soci al i st countri es. ( I wi l l not, nor does Davi s, enter i nto the
questi on of whether remnant cl asses exi st i nthesecountri es. Obvi ousl ytheydoexi st
i nsomeof them. ) Davi s shows that muchprogress has been madetowards sol vi ng
thenati onal questi on i nthesoci al i st part of theworl d. Hewoul dperhaps agreewi th
methat persi stence of nati onal conf l i cts therei s attri butabl e i nthef i nal anal ysi s to
external pressure f romthecapi tal i st worl d, l eadi ng, f or i nstance, to thesurvi val of
non- soci al i st i deol ogi es whosepol i ti cal expressi on maybea demandf or autonomy
or secessi on ( al ongnati onal cl eavage- l i nes) f romthesoci al i st states; l eadi ngal soto
tensi ons between soci al i st countri es whi ch woul d not exi st ( or at any rate remai n
seri ous) i n the absence of a capi tal i st threat to each country' s revol uti on. These
matters areoutsi dethe scopeof thepresent essay. I merel yneedto poi nt out that the
survi val of suchnati onal conf l i cts i na( sti l l l argel ycapi tal i st) worl di s i nterpretabl e
wi thi n the cl ass- based Marxi st theory of nati onal i sm.
Nati onal i smas an Autonomous Force

75
53. I bi d. , p. 189.
54. I bi d. , p. 191.
55. I bi d. , p. 192. For aCubanvi ewof thesematters, seetheReport of theCentral
Commi tteeof the Fi rst Congress of the Cuban Communi st Party, 1975, i n Fi rst
Congress of the Communi st Party of Cuba: Col l ecti on of Documents ( 1976) , pp.
16- 62( `Hi stori cal Anal ysi s of the Revol uti on' ) .
56. Davi s, TowardaMarxi st Theoryof Nati onal i sm, p. 200.
57. Stal i n, Works 3, p. 339. Leni nhel dsi mi l ar vi ews i nthepre- war peri od, but hi s
vi ews l ater changed dramati cal l y as I showi n Chapter 5.
58. Engel s, i n Marx and Engel s, I rel andandthe I ri sh Questi on, pp. 302- 4and
408- 12; Leni n, `The Soci al i st Revol uti on and Sel f - Determi n_ _ a_ _ t_ i _ ~_ n_ _ ' W~_ rk_ _ c 22 n
151, and `Revi si onof the PartyProgramme' , 26, p. 168.
59. Nati onal struggl e i n pre- capi tal i st modes of producti on need not i mpl y the
exi stence of nati ons. However, whenthe ri gi di denti f i cati on of thebi rth of nati ons
wi ththeri se of capi tal i smhas beendi scarded, webegi n, i nevi tabl y, to thi nkabout
theexi stence of pre- capi tal i st nati ons. TheVi etnamese consi der thei r nati on tobe
veryol di ndeed. ( See, e. g. , NguyenKhacVi en, Tradi ti onal Vi etnam: SomeHi stori cal
Stages, 1970, esp. pp. 5 and 151- 52. ) The pol i ti cal , cul tural , and economi c
f ragmentati on of medi eval Europe tends to bl i nd us to the f act that pol i ti cal l y,
cul tural l y, andeconomi cal l ywel l - i ntegrated and terri tori al l y demarcatedsoci eti es
werei nf act rather commoni nother conti nents, andf romveryearl yti mes. Onthese
matters, see Chapter 7.
I f
3 .
Di f f usi oni smandt he
Nat i onal Quest i on
`The t heor y of nat i onal i smr epr esent s Mar xi sm' sgr eat hi st or i cal f ai l ur e. ' Wi t h t hi s
st er n i ndi ct ment , TomNai r n begi ns hi s essay `The ModemJ anus, an essay
desi gned t o expl ai n t hi s f ai l ur e ( whi ch was `i nevi t abl e' , he says, but `can nowbe
under st ood' ) andt o pr ovi de us at l ast wi t h at r ul y adequat e t heor y of nat i onal i sm. '
But t he essay i t sel f i s af ai l ur e. Thet heor y of nat i onal i smwhi ch i t at t acks has not
been wi del y hel d by Mar xi st s si nce 1914. AndNai r n' s t heor y i s anyt hi ng but
adequat e. I t i s anat t empt t o const r uct aMar xi st ver si onof what i s t odayt he t ypi cal
mai nst r eamposi t i on: nat i onal st r uggl es ar e not cl ass st r uggl es but ar e ef f ect s of an
aut onomous i deol ogi cal f or ce, nat i onal i sm, whi ch di f f used f r omEur ope t o t he
dar ker cor ner s of t he ear t h. Z Nai r n' s t heor y i s di f f usi oni st andi deal i st . But i t has
become ver y i nf l uent i al as aMar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i sm, andas a t heor y whi ch
expl ai ns Thi r dWor l dl i ber at i on movement s i n t er ms of t he i deol ogy of di f f usi ng
capi t al i sm( mi sl abel l ed `uneven devel opment ' ) . For t hese r easons i t war r ant s a
det ai l ed cr i t i que. The cr i t i que can al so be gener al i zed t o most ot her t heor i es of
I P

nat i onal i smas an aut onomous i deol ogi cal f or ce. And, as I wi l l suggest i n t he
concl udi ng sect i on of t hi s chapt er , i t r ai ses quest i onsabout apecul i ar l y el i t i st sect or
of neo- Mar xi st t hought .
`The t ask of a t heor y of nat i onal i sm' , accor di ng t o Nai r n, i s `t o see t he
phenomenonas awhol e' . ' Ever yt hi ng shoul d be seen as a whol e, of cour se, l ooked
at f r omal l poi nt s of vi ew, and so on, but Nai r n means t o be t aken l i t er al l y.
Nat i onal i smf or hi mi s awhol e phenomenon, adi scr et e pr ocess, a separ at e and
aut onomous f or ce i n hi st or y. Li ke t he t wo- f aced Roman godJ anus, i t has t wo
aspect s, onepr ogr essi ve andoner eact i onar y, but t hese ar e mer el yf acet s of asi ngl e
i ndi vi si bl e ent i t y. Thi s ent i t y, nat i onal i sm, i s not af or mor par t of cl ass st r uggl e nor
even an out come of cl ass st r uggl e, andvi ewi ngi t as such has beent he undoi ngof t he
Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i sm, t he r eason why i t i s `Mar xi sm' s gr eat hi st or i cal
f ai l ur e' . Mar xi sm, says Nai r n qui t e cor r ect l y, r emai ns weddedt ot he vi ewt hat cl ass
st r uggl e i s t he mot or of hi st or y. Not so, says Nai r n. Nat i onal i smdoes not emer ge
f r omcl ass st r uggl e: i t i s an aut onomous f or ce. Nat i onal i smandcl ass st r uggl e have
j oi nt l yf ashi onedt he moder nwor l dand, of t he t wo, nat i onal i smhas beent he mor e
i mpor t ant f act or . I t has been, says Nai r n, `t he domi nant cont r adi ct i on' . 5
Cl ass st r uggl e i s al so, as i t happens, t wo- si ded ( or , i f you pr ef er , J anus- f aced) ;
andwe can usual l y t el l r oughl ywho ar e t he expl oi t er s andwhot he expl oi t ed. But
f or Nai r n t he t wo f aces of nat i onal i smhave not hi ngmuch t o dowi t h expl oi t at i on or
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

77
cont endi ng cl asses . Onef ace poi nt s f or war ds t o an i l l - def i ned sor t of `l i ber at i on' ,
somet hi ng consi st i ng mai nl y i n f r eedomf r om`domi nat i on' . The ot her poi nt s
backwar ds t o f asci sm.
Fasci sm, says Nai r n, i s one of t he t wo f aces of J anus. Nat i onal i smi s asi ngl e,
whol e phenomenon, andf asci smi s par t of i t s ver y nat ur e. Fasci smi s i n f act t he
`ar chet ype' of nat i onal i sm. b I t i s `a cent r al sect or of t he phenomenon' . ' I t i s
t her ef or e i n some sense pr esent i n ever y nat i onal movement , ever y l i ber at i on
st r uggl e. I t i s . l i t er al l y par t of t he st r uggl e .
No Vi et namese, Cuban, or i ndeedanyone el se whohas f ought i n or suppor t eda
nat i onal l i ber at i on ct nml e i s l i kel y t o t ake ki ndl y t o at heor y whi ch br acket s Such
st r uggl es wi t h Nazi smandf asci sm, +andwhi chmor eover i nsi st s t hat t he cl ass enemy
i s not t he pol i t i cal enemyunl ess i t i s so by acci dent . Andf ewMar xi st s anywher e wi l l
t ake ki ndl y t o at heor y whi ch r el egat es cl ass st r uggl e t o asecondar yr ol e, whi ch
deni es, as Nai r n' s does, t hat cl ass st r uggl e i s t he mot or of hi st or i cal change. St i l l ,
vi ews of t hi s sor t ar e common i n var i ous sect or s of pr ogr essi ve t hought , even i n
cer t ai n cor ner s of Mar xi st t hought - i n t he advancedcapi t al i st count r i es i f nowher e
el se - andt hey cannot be di smi ssedout of handandwi t hout comment . Nai r ni n f act
def ends hi s vi ewwi t h ar easoned, t hough f aul t y, ar gument , andi t i s i mpor t ant t o
exami ne t hat ar gument andr ef ut e i t . I wi l l t r y t odo so i n t he f ol l owi ngpages. Most
of t he at t ent i on wi l l be devot edt o t he essay `The Moder n J anus' . Thi s essay l at er
r eappear edas achapt er i n Nai r n' s book TheBr eak- Up of Br i t ai n, wher e i t suppl i ed
t heor et i cal ammuni t i on f or an ar gument t o t he ef f ect s t hat nat i onal i st f or ces i n
Scot l and, Wal es, andNor t her n I r el and ( among P r ot est ant s) ar e r i si ng t o success:
ar e br eaki ng up Br i t ai n. g Some of our at t ent i on wi l l al so be devot ed t o ot her
chapt er s of Nai r n' s book, not f or t he pur pose of comment i ng on t he nat i onal
quest i on i nanypar t of t he Br i t i sh I sl es- t hat i s not our concer n i n t he pr esent book
- but because Nai r n' s t heor et i cal posi t i on i s el abor at ed i n var i ous par t s of The
Br eak- Up of Br i t ai n.
Nat i onal i smandDi f f usi on
The f i r st quest i on t o be asked about Nai r n' s t heor y, as about any t heor y of
nat i onal i sm, i s pr eci sel y what i t deal s wi t h; what i t s subj ect mat t er i s; what
empi r i cal l y i dent i f i abl e ent i t y or pr ocess i t pr oposes t o descr i be andexpl ai n. I t i s
cl ear t hat Nai r n want s t o use t he wor d `nat i onal i sm' i n pr i mar i l y an i deol ogi cal
sense, as denot i ng such t hi ngs as t he i deas peopl e have of t he nat i on st at e, t he
psychol ogi cal i mpul se t o f or mani ndependent st at e, t he pol i t i cal i dea or doct r i ne
whi chembodi es t hat goal , andal so acompl exof t r ul y deep psychol ogi cal pr ocesses
whi chNai r nassoci at es wi t h t hi s i dea, goal , anddoct r i ne: pr ocesses whi chhe l abel s
wi t h wor ds l i ke `i nst i nct ' . `compul si on' , and even `dement i a' . But Nai r n i s not
concer nedt o const r uct at heor yabout t he i deol ogy ( or i deol ogi es) of nat i onal i smas
such, andhi s t heor y i s not si mpl yat opi c i n t he hi st or yandgeogr aphyof i deas. ( Let
i t be not ed t hat a t heor y about nat i onal i st i deol ogi es woul d i n i t sel f be aval i d
sci ent i f i c cont r i but i on, pr ovi ded i t st oppedshor t of expl ai ni ng al l t he i mpor t ant
phenomena of nat i onal st r uggl e as mer e ef f ect s of an i deol ogi cal pr i me cause. )
Nai r n does i ndeed f ocus hi s at t ent i on mai nl y on mat t er s of i deol ogy and
psychol ogy but he moves smoot hl y andeasi l yf r omt hi s r eal mt o a set of soci al and
78 Di f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
pol i t i cal pr ocesses whi ch he cl ear l y consi der s t o be i nvar i ant ef f ect s of nat i onal i st
i deol ogy. Nai r nt hus vi ews hi ssubj ect mat t er as embr aci ngbot h aset of i deol ogi cal
pr ocesses andan ent ai l ed set of soci al andpol i t i cal pr ocesses, t he f or mer i n some
sense expl ai ni ng t he l at t er .
But hi s t heor y does not post ul at e i deol ogy as apr i me cause. Unl i ke many ot her
t heor i st s about nat i onal i sm, Nai r nmakes ver y cl ear what he consi der s t o be t he
soci al - he cal l s t hem` hi st or i cal ' - pr ocesses whi ch engender nat i onal i st i deol ogy.
Thepr obl emi s t hat t hese pr ocesses have ver y l i t t l e t o dowi t h mat t er s of cl ass, cl ass
st r uggl e, or economi c expl oi t at i on. Nai r nr eaches behi ndal l such soci al , pol i t i cal ,
andeconomi c f act s t o somet hi ngmor e f undament al , somet hi ngwhi chhe cal l s ` t he
cr udest di l emmaof moder n hi st or y" . 1hi s i s not hi ng l ess t hant he ai i egeddi f f u~i ui i
of pr ogr ess .
Nai r n' s concept of pr ogr ess i s compl et el y i n t he cl assi cal t r adi t i onof Eur ocent r i c
di f f usi oni sm. He subscr i bes t o t he t hr ee basi c t enet s of t hi s posi t i onandi n f act uses
t hemas t aci t assumpt i ons f or hi s t heor y of nat i onal i sm. The f i r st t enet hol ds t hat
t he i mpor t ant t r ai t s of pr ogr ess, or ci vi l i zat i on, or moder ni zat i on, have al ways
appear edf i r st i n Eur ope ( or , f or t he pr esent mi l }enni um, i n West er n Eur ope) , t hat
t hi s pat t er n wi l l appl y i n t he f ut ur e as i t has i n t he past , andt hese t r ai t s of pr ogr ess
di f f use out war ds f r omEur ope t ot he r est of t he wor l d, ar r i vi ng at anygi venpl ace at
al at er dat e andof t eni ndamagedcondi t i on. Thesecondt enet hol ds t hat t hese t r ai t s
ar e ul t i mat el y mat t er s of t he i deol ogi cal r eal m: t hey ar e ` i deas' , ` i nvent i ons' , andso
on, andt hus t he pr i or i t y of Eur ope i s i n t he l ast anal ysi s ani nt el l ect ual pr i or i t y, a
mat t er of qui cker andbet t er t hi nki ng, or , as di f f usi oni st s si nce MaxWeber have
consi st ent l y expr essedi t , amat t er of gr eat er ` r at i onal i t y' . Thet hi r dt enet hol ds t hat
cent r i f ugal di f f usi on i s t he domi nant pr ocess by whi ch t he Eur opean cent r e
i nt er act s wi t h t he ext r a- Eur opean per i pher y, andt her ef or e t hat t he out war dspr ead
of pr ogr ess, moder ni zat i on, ci vi l i zat i on, andso on, i s f ar mor e si gni f i cant i n ever y
sense ( i ncl udi ng t he mor al one) t hant he cent r i pet al pr ocesses, such as t he i nf usi on
of sur pl us val ue, t echnol ogy, andl abour f r omt he per i pher y t o Eur ope. ( I nt he ol d
days col oni al i smwas of t enj ust i f i edwi t h t hedi f f usi oni st ar gument t hat noamount
of weal t h dr awnout of t he col oni es coul dpossi bl y r epay t he Eur opeansf or t hei r gi f t
of ` ci vi l i zat i on' . ) The t hi r d t enet , i n shor t , deni es t he i mpor t ance of economi c
i mper i al i sm, past andpr esent . What happens i n t he per i pher al count r i es i s not
i mper i al i sm and under devel opment but , on t he cont r ar y, pr ogr ess and
moder ni zat i on.
Mar x hi msel f was somet hi ngof adi f f usi oni st , al t hough he was l ess Eur ocent r i c
t han any ot her Eur opean t hi nker of hi s t i me. But asur vi val of di f f usi oni smi nt o
l at e- 20t h Cent ur y Mar xi st t hought i s somet hi ng el se ent i r el y . Mar x di dnot have
access t o i nf or mat i onabout ext r a- Eur opean ci vi l i zat i ons, past andpr esent : we do.
Mar x l i vedat at i me andpl ace wher et he most advancedt hi nker s st i l l bel i eved t hat
agr i cul t ur e, met al wor ki ng, andevent he humanspeci es i t sel f hadappear edf i r st i n
Eur ope: we knowbet t er . I n Mar x' s t i me, schol ar l y wor k was so ent wi nedwi t h
Chr i st i ani t y t hat i t seemed i mpl ausi bl e t hat aut onomous pr ogr ess, or even
r at i onal i t y, woul dbe f ound i n non- Chr i st i an l ands: we have sl oughed of f such
pr ej udi ces . Today t he Mar xi st t r adi t i on of t hought has l ar gel y f r eed i t sel f f r om
Eur ocent r i c di f f usi oni sm, t hough not ent i r el y so ( see Chapt er 7 of t hi s book) , andi f
Di f j usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

79
aMar xi st pr oposes t o def end such a di f f usi oni st posi t i on t oday he or she must
gr ound i t , not i n Mar xi sm, but i n conser vat i ve t hought . Thi s hol ds t r ue most
poi nt edl y f or TomNai r n. Hi s t heor y of nat i onal i smowes mor e t o Weber i an
t heor i es of Eur opean r at i onal i t y, al ongwi t h mor e r ecent conser vat i ve t heor i es of
` moder ni zat i on' , t hani t does t o any t r adi t i on i n Mar xi sm. Let me nowexpl ai n.
The key concept f or an under st andi ng of nat i onal i sm, accor di ng t o Nai r n, i s
unevendevel opment . But Nai r ngi ves t hi s t er maver y speci al meani ng. I t i s t o be
cont r ast ed, f i r st of al l , wi t h ` evendevel opment ' . Thi s t oo, has aspeci al meani ng. I t
does not car r y t he or di nar y i mpl i cat i on of geogr aphi cal evenness or uni f or mi t y.
Nai r ni s adi f f usi oni st : devel opment begi ns i n Eur ope andspr eads out war ds; even
____, __- __ "

_~_ . , .

. . . 1,

. , , a: ac ~: , .

, . : r 1, A~~h n~r t of t he net i nher v
l 1CVG1Vt l l l l t 711t i J J 1111Y1y J t i l vvt u, vi eaa uaaauoav

. . . . . " . . . " ~" " y . " - - - - - - - - - r - - - r - - w
acqui r i ng t he moder ni zi ngt r ai t s at t he appr opr i at e t i me. I n sum: or der l y pr ogr ess
on t he per i pher y i n a di r ect i on pr ef i gur ed by t he cent r e. Uneven devel opment , by
cont r ast , i s, f or Nai r n, t he condi t i on whi ch occur s when di f f usi on i s di sr upt ed,
def l ect ed, or f r ust r at ed; when per i pher al r egi ons ar e, as i t wer e, ant i ci pat i ng t he
or der l y, on- t i me ar r i val of t he t r ai t s of moder ni zat i on anddevel opment , but t he
t r ai t s f ai l t o ar r i ve.
Nai r n says r at her l i t t l e about t he causes of uneven devel opment , t hat i s, t he
r easons why di f f usi on f ai l s t o pr oceedas pr edi ct edandwhy per i pher al r egi ons
exper i ence t he f r ust r at i on of unsat i sf i ed expect at i ons. He bl ames i t i n par t on t he
per ni ci ous i nf l uence of t he count r i es of advancedcapi t al i sm, whose domi nat i on of
t he per i pher al count r i es, t oday as i n t he past , t ends t o hi nder anddi st or t t hei r
devel opment . Thi s i s af ami l i ar Mar xi st t hesi s, but what i s i mpor t ant about Nai r n' s
pr esent at i on of t he t hesi s i s t he l i mi t eduse he makes of i t . Ther e i s some di scussi on
of domi nat i on anddependency but scar cel y any ment i onof expl oi t at i on or even,
f or t hat mat t er , col oni al i sm. Occasi onal l y per i pher al count r i es ar e descr i bed as
` oppr essed' , but t hi s seems t o be mer el y asynonymf or ` domi nat ed' , andt o have
l i t t l e i f anyt hi ng t o dowi t h expl oi t at i on. But i f expl oi t at i oni s l ef t out of t he pi ct ur e,
we ar e no l onger deal i ng wi t h t he Mar xi st t heor y of i mper i al i smi n any of i t s
var i ant s. Thi s t heor y ar gues t hat per i pher al soci et i es, col oni es andneocol oni es,
have exper i enced andar e exper i enci ng expl oi t at i on so sever e t hat l i t t l e or no
devel opment t akes pl ace; t hat t he pr evai l i ng t r end t oday may even be t owar ds
deepeni ng under devel opment . Nai r n' s model mer el y has t he advancedcount r i es
exer ci si ng apol i t i cal domi nat i onover t he poor ones, adomi nat i onwhi ch somehow
i nhi bi t s devel opment but does not amount t o a pol i t i co- mi l i t ar y super st r uct ur e
i nst al l edspeci f i cal l y f or t he pur poseof maxi mi si ng t he possi bi l i t i es f or expl oi t at i on
by compani es basedi n t he domi nant count r i es - t he cl assi cal Mar xi st model of t he
pr ocess.
Thedi f f er ence bet weent he t wo model s i s qui t e f undament ah not l east f or Nai r n' s
t heor y of nat i onal i sm. I f expl oi t at i on i s t he basi s of t he pr ocess, we wi l l l ook f or ,
andf i nd, acl ass of peopl e i n t he domi nat edcount r y who ar e expl oi t ed, andwe
woul dexpect t o f i nd nat i onal l i ber at i onmovement s emer gi ngwi t h t hei r r oot s i n t he
expl oi t edcl asses andwi t h aver y def i ni t e cl ass st r uggl e f unct i on: t hat of f i ght i ng
agai nst f or ei gnr ul e not because f or ei gner s ` domi nat e' but because t hey expl oi t . For
Nai r n, however , pol i t i cal domi nat i on seems t o have no basi s i n expl oi t at i on. I t
seems t o consi st i n not hi ngwor se t han a deni al t o t he el i t e cl asses i n t he domi nat ed
80

Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
socyo~

e oppo uni f i es o g er r ae wef : or pr ogr ess . n

i s model ; ~e
vi ct i ms of uneven devel opment ar e t he el i t es of per i pher al count r i es. These gr oups
f eel t hat t hei r ambi t i ons ar e bei ng t hwar t edbyext er nal domi nat i on. But ext er nal
domi nat i on i s not even r equi r ed byNai r n' s model . I n some per i pher al count r i es
t her e i s mer el yenvyof t he mor e hi ghl ydevel opedcount r i es, andan i mpul seont he
par t of t he el i t e t o cut shor t t he nor mal devel opment pr ocess i n an ef f or t t o cat ch up.
I n bot h cases, t he el i t es f eel achar act er i st i csense of f r ust r at i on, andexper i ence a
char act er i st i cr eact i on. Thi s i s nat i onal i sm.
Nat i onal i sm, t hen, emer ges as apsychol ogi cal f r ust r at i on r eact i on on t he par t of
t he el i t es of backwar d count r i es t o t he t r auma of uneven devel opment . The
r eact i on_ accor di ng t ci Nai r n i s `emnt i ~nal ' `i nct i nr t i ve' and `i r r at i onal ' f al l
r ef er ences i n t hi s chapt er ar e t o~TheBr eak- Upof Br i t ai n unl ess ot her wi se i ndi cat ed) .
Nat i onal i smi s
t he pat hol ogyof moder n devel opment hi st or y, as i nescapabl e as `neur osi s' i nt he
i ndi vi dual , wi t h . . . asi mi l ar bui l t - i n capaci t yf or descent i nt o dement i a, r oot ed
i n t he di l emmas of hel pl essness t hr ust upon most of t he wor l d( t he equi val ent of
i nf ant i l i sm. . . ) ( p. 359)
These psychol ogi cal sympt oms appear amongt he el i t e, who, i n Nai r n' s t heor y, ar e
t he vi ct i ms of uneven devel opment . But i r r at i onal i t y, subj ect i vi sm, andt he l i ke,
r eappear at anot her poi nt i n t he t heor y, andher e t heyaf f ect t he masses . The el i t e
cannot bui l d an ef f ect i ve nat i onal movement , t o wi n f r eedomf r omdomi nat i on,
wi t hout t he par t i ci pat i on of t he masses . Nai r n' s `masses' do not , however , pl aya
l eadi ng, much l ess an i nt el l i gent , r ol e i n t he nat i onal i st pr ocess. Theyar e
`mobi l i zed' byt he el i t e f or t he pur pose of assembl i ngt he f or ces neededt o wi nt he
st r uggl e. Hence t he movement i s cal l ed byNai r na`popul i st ' one: l edbyt he el i t e, f or
i t s own pur poses, but dr awi ngi n t he masses as wel l . However , says Nai r n, t he
masses can onl ybe mobi l i zedbyr esor t t o t he subj ect i ve andt he i r r at i onal .
Such mobi l i zat i on canonl ypr oceed, i n pr act i ce, vi aapopul ar mass st i l l l ocat ed
cul t ur al l yupon af ar ant er i or l evel of devel opment , upon t he l evel of f eudal or
pr ef eudal peasant or `f ol k' l i f e . That i s, upon a l evel of ( al most l i t er al l y) `pr e-
hi st or i c' di ver si t yi n l anguage, et hni cchar act er i st i cs, soci al habi t s, andso on.
Thi s anci ent and( i n amor e accept abl e sense of t he t er m) `nat ur al ' f or ce i mposes
i t s ownconst r ai nt s upont he whol e pr ocess, l endi ngi t f r omt he out set pr eci sel y
t hat ar chai candyet necessar ycol our , t hat pr i meval - seemi ng or i nst i nct i ve
aspect whi ch mar ks i t so unmi st akeabl y. ( p, 101)
Andagai n:
[ Nat i onal i sm] had t o f unct i on t hr ough hi ghl yr het or i cal f or ms, t hr ough a
sent i ment al cul t ur e suf f i ci ent l yaccessi bl e t o t he l ower st r at a[ The l ower st r at a! ]
nowbei ngcal l ed t o bat t l e. Thi s i s whyar omant i ccul t ur e qui t e r emot e f r om
Enl i ght enment r at i onal i sm al ways went hand i n hand wi t h t he spr ead of
nat i onal i sm. The newmi ddl e- cl ass i nt el l i gent si a hadt o i nvi t e t he masses i nt o
hi st or y; andt he i nvi t at i on hadt o be wr i t t eni n al anguage t heyunder st ood. . . I t
i s unnecessar yher e t o expl or e t he pr ocess i n det ai l . Ever yone i s f ami l i ar wi t h i t s
out l i ne, andwi t h much of i t s cont ent . We al l knowhowi t spr ead f r omi t s
West - Eur opean sour ce, i n concent r i cci r cl es of upheaval andr eact i on: t hr ough
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

81
Cent r al and East er n Eur ope, Lat i n Amer i ca, and t hen acr oss t he ot her
cont i nent s . Uni f or med i mper i al i smof t he 1880- 1945 var i et ywas one epi sode
i n t hi s l ar ger hi st or y, as wer e i t s der i vat i ves, ant i - col oni al war s and `de-
col oni zat i on' . We have al l st udi edt he phenomenaso consi st ent l yaccompanyi ng
i t : t he `r edi scover y' or i nvent i on of nat i onal hi st or y, ur bani nt el l ect ual s i nvoki ng
peasant vi r t ues whi ch t heyhave exper i enced onl yt hr ough t r ai n wi ndows on
t hei r summer hol i days, school mast er s pai nf ul l yacqui r i ng`nat i onal ' t ongues
spoken onl yi n r emot e val l eys, t he i nf i ni t yof f or ms assumed byt he bat t l e
bet ween scat hi ng cosmopol i t an moder ni st s and emot i onal def ender s of t he
Fol k . . . andso on. ( p. 340) .
I have quot edNai r n at some l engt h her e because t hi s passage t el l s us agr eat deal
about hi s t heor y. The concr et e post ul at e about t he di f f usi on of nat i onal i sm
( `concent r i cci r cl es' , et c. ) wi l l cl ai mour at t ent i on l at er . The st r ange, even, f or a
Mar xi st , bi zar r e, descr i pt i ons ( or di nar y peopl e ar e `pr ehi st or i c' , `nat ur al ,
`pr i meval ' , col oni al i st s ar e `scat hi ng cosmopol i t an moder ni st s' whi l e t hose who
f i ght agai nst col oni al i smar e `emot i onal def ender s of t he Fol k' , et c. ) wi l l be passed
over wi t hout comment . Her e I want t o cal l at t ent i on t o Nai r n' s t hesi s t hat t he
masses do not ent er hi st or yont hei r own, andf or t hei r own mat er i al - t hat i s t o say
cl ass - ends . Theyar e l ed( or `i nvi t ed' ) i nt o bat t l e byt he el i t e, spi nni ngnat i onal i st
f ai - t al es t he `i nvent i on of n i on 1 hi st o ' et c. . Ther ef or e nat i onal i smi s not r y ( at a r y, )
cl ass st r uggl e of t heor di nar ysor t , pi t t i ngexpl oi t er s agai nst expl oi t ed. I s i t , t hen, t he
speci al sor t of cl ass st r uggl e whi ch t akes pl ace bet weencompet i ngbour geoi s cl ass
communi t i es, one per i pher al and t he ot her met r opol i t an? No, says Nai r n, t he
per i pher al el i t es ar e not , as t he t r adi t i onal Mar xi st ar gument woul dhave i t , bei ng
gr ound under bymet r opol i t an capi t al i sm, and f i ght i ng t o pr eser ve t hei r cl ass
posi t i on andhopef ul l yt o r i se . Theyar e j ust suf f er i ng a sense of f r ust r at i on. Thei r
nat i onal i sm i s basi cal l yt he envyof someone l ooki ng over t he wal l i nt o hi s
nei ghbour ' s l ar ger , mor e col our f ul , gar den.
Nat ur al l yenough, Nai r n' s nat i onal i smwas i nvent ed i n Eur ope . Hi s model of
or i gi ns has a l i t er al cent r epi ece, a `West - Eur opean sour ce' , an `Angl o- Fr ench
cent r e' ( p. 98) . At t he endof t he Napol eoni cwar s t her e emer gedt womoder n nat i on
st at es, Br i t ai n andFr ance . Coi nci dent wi t h what Nai r n cal l s `t he t i dal wave of
moder ni zat i on' ( pp. 96, 98, 338) , `t r ansmi t t ed out war ds andonwar ds' ( p. 99) i n
`concent r i cci r cl es' ( pp. 98, 340) , t her e spr eadal so t he i deaof i mi t at i ngt he West er n
Eur opean nat i on st at e, an i dea whi ch, t r ansl at ed i nt o pr act i ce, became nat i onal
movement s andnat i onal i sm. The f i r st t r ue nat i onal i smar ose i n Ger manyandI t al y,
count r i es whi ch Nai r n, f ol l owi ngWal l er st ei n ( anot her di f f usi oni st i n our mi dst ) ,
cal l s `semi - per i pher al ' . Thent he t i dal wave advanced`t hr ough Cent r al andEast er n
Eur ope, Lat i n Amer i ca, andacr oss t he ot her cont i nent s' ( p. 340) . El sewher e i n hi s
bookNai r ni nser t s J apanaf t er east er nEur ope andbef or e `t he r est of t he gl obe' ( p.
98) , but on t he whol e t he geomet r yof t he model r emai ns i nt er nal l yconsi st ent . Thi s
i s hel pf ul t o acr i t i c, because t he model can be t est ed f ai r l yeasi l ybyr ef er ence t o
par t i cul ar dat es and pl aces: di d t he di f f usi ng t r ai t , nat i onal i sm, ar r i ve at t he
expect edt i me andi n t he expect edmanner ? Thi s i s byno means t he onl ybasi s f or a
cr i t i ci smof Nai r n' s t heor yof nat i onal i sm, but i t qui ckl yr eveal s j ust howdef ect i ve
t he t heor yi s.
82 Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
-~re~mans~al i ans were pro a y t We i nvent ors of t e~port ant
conservat i ve t heori es of nat i onal i sm, but GermanyandI t al y were bynomeanst he
f i rst count ri es t o generat e a nat i onal movement and ent er t he process of
nat i onal i sm: t hat i s, t ost ruggl e f orst at e soverei gnt y t hroughuni f i cat i on( as i nt hese
t wo cases) or t hrough secessi on ( as i n most ot hers) . The German nat i onal
movement hadnopal pabl e real i t y bef ore t he 1820s; t he I t al i an, l at er st i l l . Byt hen
nat i onal movement s hadari sen andt ri umphed i nt he Uni t edSt at es ( 1783) , Hai t i
( 1804) , andmost of t he Lat i n Ameri can mai nl and ( c. 1820) . Andby t he t i me
uni f i cat i on hadbeen achi evedbyGermanyandI t al y, anumberof ot hercount ri es,
amongt hemGreece andBel gi um, hadwont hei ri ndependence. Nai rn' s space-t i me
model si mpl ydoes not f i t _
I f wenext t race t he spreadof nat i onal movement s wi t hi n Europe down t hrough
t he 19t h Cent ury andi nt o t he 20t h, t here does, i ndeed, seemt o be a broadl y
west -t o-east spread, as requi redbyNai rn' s di f f usi on model , al t hough except i ons
l i ke Greece, Bel gi um, andNorway, must benot ed. But t hi s space-t i me movement
was not real l y associ at edwi t ht he process t hat Nai rn put s f orwardas expl anat i on.
The bourgeoi s st at es whi ch emergedi n cent ral andeast ern Europe gai ned t hei r
i ndependence not t hrough adi f f usi on east wardof nat i onal i sm, al ong a sl ope of
`uneven devel opment ' , but t hrough a conj unct i on of t wo processes ext ernal t o
Nai rn' s t heory. Onewas t he def eat of Germany, Aust ri a-Hungary, andTurkeyi n
t he Fi rst Worl dWar( somet hi ngwhi chhadpreci ous l i t t l e t o dowi t h t he f rust rat i on
of t he Bohemi an andCroat i an el i t es) . Thesecondwas t he Bol shevi k revol ut i on.
I t woul dbei dl e t ospecul at e about what t hepost -warmapof Europe woul dhave
l ookedl i ke hadt here beenno Bol shevi k revol ut i on, wi t h i t s echoesi nHungaryand
Germany. Cert ai nl y t he danger of spreadi ng revol ut i on compel l edt he vi ct ori ous
powers t of orm, at Versai l l es andl at er, abandof bourgeoi sst at es i nt he buf f er zone
bet ween Sovi et Russi aandcapi t al i st France, st at es whi chwere rat her sci ent i f i cal l y
carvedout so as t o maxi mi ze t hei rpot ent i al vi abi l i t y -i n t hi s case meani ngsaf et y
f romrevol ut i on -by mi ni mi zi ng et hni c compl exi t y as much as possi bl e wi t hout
creat i ng weak mi ni -st at es . Havi ng sai dt hi s, I have t o concede t hat one sort of
di f f usi on process was, i ndeed, i nvol ved i n t hi s overal l process. Thi s was t he
perf ect l y wel l -known spread of capi t al i sm, andt he brut e necessi t y on t he part of
youngbourgeoi s cl ass-communi t i es i noppressedareas of east ernEurope t o st ri ve
f ort he est abl i shment of ast at e i nwhi ch noot hercl asscommuni t ywoul dbe abl e t o
prevent t hemf romaccumul at i ng capi t al . But , as Leni n, Luxemburg, andBauer
coul dal l agree, t hi s necessi t y di dnot have t oresul t i nsecessi on, andt heref ore t he
di f f usi on of capi t al i smwas not at al l t he same t hi ngas t he di f f usi on of t he nat i on
st at e.
Let us nowrecal l Nai rn' s `t i dal wave of moderni zat i on' , whi ch i s supposedt o
have carri ed nat i onal i sm`i n concent ri c ci rcl es' out across t he ext ra-European
worl d. The word`moderni zat i on' i s, t o begi n wi t h, very sl i ppery. WhenMarxi st s
appl y t hi s wordt o t he col oni al count ri es andt he col oni al peri odt hey ordi nari l y
mean si mpl y`capi t al i sm' ( f or, i n t he I ogi c of hi st ori cal mat eri al i sm, capi t al i smi s
more`modern' t hanf eudal i sm) . `Moderni zat i on' does not at al l i mpl y, t oMarxi st s,
economi c devel opment , an i ndust ri al revol ut i on, or asi gni f i cant i mprovement i n
t he l i ves of worki ngpeopl e. I ndust rydi dnot spreadt ocol oni es. The condi t i ons of
Di f f usi oni smandt heNat i onal Quest i on

83
l i f e i n most col oni es grewmarkedl yworseduri ngt he col oni al peri od: wet hi nk, f or
i nst ance, of t he i ncrease i nt hef requency andseveri t y of f ami nes i nI ndi aduri ngt he
Bri t i sh occupat i on, t he evi dent decl i ne i n l i f e expect ancyduri ngt hat peri od, andso
on. 9 For Marxi st s, t hen, t he word`moderni zat i on' , l i ke t he word`devel opment ' ,
descri bes aprocess t hat i s now, i n newl yi ndependent count ri es, j ust barel y get t i ng
underway, So, t oput i t bl unt l y: t here has beenno`t i dal waveof moderni zat i on' , no
`great shock-wave' ( p. 338) or `expandi ng wave' ( p. 102) or `march of West ern
Progress overt he gl obe' ( p. 337) . Sucht hi ngs are cogni t i ve model s i nani deol ogi cal
uni verse whi ch has no empi ri cal ref erence, andare, moreover, much more t han
wrongheadedi deas: t hey are const ruct ed myt hs, desi gned t o persuade peopl e of
scmet hi : ~g t hat : i arxi st s knewt o be f ai re: That capi t al i smcan bri ng progress and
prosperi t y t o t he poorcount ri es of t he worl d.
Yet t he i deaof a`t i dal wave of moderni zat i on' i s necessary t o Nai m' s t heory.
Nat i onal i smf or hi mi s t he mechani smwhi ch al l owedcount ri es t o ent erupon what
he cal l s `t he f orcedmarchout of backwardness anddependency' ( p. 343) , hence t o
overcome uneven devel opment andgrowmodem. No such `f orcedmarch out of
backwardness' has t aken pl ace i n t he worl d of f ormer col oni es, t he worl dof
peri pheral nat i onal i sm, except i nt he case of soci al i st count ri es, acase whi chNai rn
seems t o di sal l ow ( he appl i es t he word `soci al i st ' t o no count ry ot her t han
Yugosl avi a) . Thus not i dal wave, andno Nai rni an nat i onal i sm.
Di f f usi oni st model s cannot expl ai n t he space-t i me pat t ern of decol oni zat i on,
much l ess peri pheral -count ry nat i onal i sm i n general . Among successf ul l y
decol oni zi ngnat i onal l i berat i onmovement s, t he mai nsequence runs f romHai t i t o
ot herpart s of Lat i nAmeri ca, t oI rel and, t o I ndi a, t oI ndonesi a, andt hereaf t er i na
seemi ngl yrandomspace-t i me pat t ernacross t he rest of Asi a, Af ri ca, andt he West
I ndi es ( except i ng onl y a f ewnot -yet -l i berat ed col oni es, l i ke Puert o Ri co and
Nami bi a) . As t ot he process behi ndt hi s pat t ern, i t i s of course mucht oo compl ext o
epi t omi ze i na sent ence or t wo of descri pt i on, but i t ref l ect s nei t her di f f usi on nor
moderni zat i on. I t ref l ect s, i n bri ef , t he ri se of cl asses whi ch, suf f eri ngexpl oi t at i on
ormargi nal i zat i onundercol oni al rul e, adopt ednat i onal i smas t he cent ral st rat egy
t o rel i eve t hemsel ves of t hese burdens, ast rat egy whi ch, i f not suf f i ci ent -wi t ness
t he neocol oni es of t hi s worl d-was at t he veryl east necessary. I gnori ngt hi s process
ent i rel y, Nai rn gi ves us i nst eadamodel of t he di f f usi on of an`i rrat i onal ' i deol ogy
andpol i t i cal movement , as t hough resi st ance t o expl oi t at i on were i t sel f i rrat i onal .
Nat i onal i smandFasci sm
The next probl emf or Nai rni s t oexpl ai n hownat i onal i sm, t hi s i rrat i onal i deol ogy
borneout wardf romEurope on t he `t i dal waveof modemi zat i on' , came, somehow,
t o i nf ect t he core count ri es: GermanyandI t al y duri ng t he f i rst part of t he present
cent ury, andt henot hercount ri es, most especi al l y t hat bast i onof worl dcapi t al i sm
andbenef i ci ary ( not vi ct i m) of unevendevel opment , t he Uni t edKi ngdom. ( Let us
recal l , i t i s t he nat i onal i smof Scot l and, Wal es, andNort hern I rel andt hat Nai rn i s
mai nl y concerned t o expl ai n anddef end. ) Nai rn harks back t o t he t i me when
Germany andI t al y were somewhat backwardcount ri es, i n compari son t oBri t ai n
and France, were count ri es i n whi ch, accordi ng t o Nai rn' s t heory, uneven
devel opment engenderednat i onal i st movement s. Then Nai rn ski ps hal f a cent ury
84 Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
or mor e, not pausi ng t o expl ai n howi t was t hat nat i onal i smper si st edi n t hese
count r i es af t er uni f i cat i on hadbeen accompl i shedanddownt hr ough al onger aof
massi ve i ndust r i al devel opment andr i si ng pr osper i t y, an er a whi ch sawGer many
sur pass Fr ance andnear l y cat ch upwi t h Br i t ai ni n most economi c spher es. Fi nal l y,
says Nai r n, t he ol dnat i onal i smof Ger many andI t al yef f l or escedi nt o f asci sm. The
t r ansf or mat i on was, f or hi m, qui t e nat ur al . Fasci sm i s not hi ng mor e t han
hyper t r ophi ednat i onal i sm. I t i s t he `ar chet ype' of nat i onal i sm, or nat i onal i sm
`car r i edt o i t s " l ogi cal concl usi on" , as an aut onomous mode of soci o- pol i t i cal
or gani zat i on' ( p. 347) . I t i s nat i onal i smwr i t l ar ge.
m~, a o. . ~. . * , . , o. . t , ~. ~, . , i . . . , . , h ;~h . , , r ;r ~hPr nmr c nnal l t V nat i onal i smbecomes
~ , y. _, _, ~ __, . ____- R_____, , _________ . _
f asci sm, i s gi venmeagr e at t ent i on. Ger many, I t al y, andJ apan( whose `mi l i t ar i sm'
Nai r nbr acket s wi t h f asci sm) wer e l at e- devel opi ngcount r i es of t he semi - per i pher y,
hence t hey hadbecome nat i onal i st i n t he usual Nai r ni an way. But , si nce t hey wer e
semi - per i pher al r at her t han per i pher al , l at e- devel opi ngr at her t hanunder devel oped,
t hey managedt o become st r ong st at es . Thus t hey acqui r ed `moder n soci o-
economi c i nst i t ut i ons enabl i ng t hemt o mobi l i ze andi ndoct r i nat e t hei r masses
ef f ect i vel y' . Andt hus `t hese soci et i es wer e abl e t o r eal i ze t he i deol ogy of
" nat i onal i sm" wi t h unpr ecedent edf or ce' ( p. 346) . But somet hi ngel se seems t o have
been i nvol ved: a `f ear of " under devel opment " ' , a sense t hat t hei r `posi t i on
r emai nedpr ecar i ous' .
I n t he f i r st hal f of t hi s cent ur y [Ger many, I t al y, andJ apan] wer e conf r ont ed
wi t h t he f act , or t he i mmedi at e l i kel i hood, of br eakdown. For al l of t hemt hi s
i mpl i edr el egat i on: per manent conf i nement t o t he secondar y, semi - per i pher yr yc
st at us, excl usi onf r omt he cor e- ar ea' s `pl ace i n t he sun' . Physi cal or mor al def eat ,
t he menace of i nt er nal col l apse, or ( as t hey sawi t ) cont i nuedor r enewed
aggr essi on by t he cent r al i mper i al power s - t hese wer e t he mot i ves t hat i mpel l ed
t hemi nt o ast i l l mor e i nt ensi ve f or mof nat i onal i st mobi l i zat i on. ( p. 347)
t hat i s, f asci sm, I n comment i ng on t hi s exposi t i on, I wi l l not dwel l on t he al most
Hegel i an way Nai r nhas of ascr i bi ngpsychol ogi cal pr oper t i es t o whol enat i ons. Nor
wi l l I st r ess t hat t hi s passage i s f ul l of f act ual er r or s. ( For i nst ance, t hat pr i or t o
t he f asci st er a, t her e hadbeen no `def eat ' f or I t al y andJ apan, andno `br eakdown'
f or J apan. ) Ther e ar e, r at her , t wo poi nt s t o be made. Fi r st : whi l e al l schol ar s f i nd
some r el at i onshi p bet weenpost - Fi r st Wor l dWar t r aumas andt he r i se of f asci sm,
Nai r n' s at t empt t o pr esent t he l at t er as, on t he one hand, apsychol ogi cal r eact i on
and, on t he ot her hand, a nat i onal i st r eact i on, i s f ar - f et ched, andcer t ai nl y not
est abl i shedas val i di n t he f ewsent ences quot edabove, t he onl y ar gument pr ovi ded.
Andsecond, i f we addt hese sent ences about t he r i se of f asci smt oNai r n' s di r ect and
si mpl e equat i on of nat i onal i smwi t h f asci sm, we have an ent i r e t heor y of f asci sm,
al bei t at heor y pr esent edwi t h nei t her ar gument nor evi dence. Toexpl ai nf asci smi s
not at al l my i nt ent i n t he pr esent essay. But t o showt hat f asci smi s somet hi ng
absol ut el y unr el at edt o nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es i n oppr essedcount r i es, and
onl y sympt omat i cal l y r el at edt o nat i onal i smi n gener at e i s a necessar y par t of t he
ar gument .
Ther e i s much di sagr eement about t he r el at i onshi p bet ween f asci sm and
nat i onal i sm. The pr obl em i s a muddl e of concept ual di f f i cul t i es, schol ar l y
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

85
di sagr eement s, andpol i t i cal di f f er ences . Oner eason why we shal l not easi l y sol ve i t
i s t he f act t hat we have no ver y goodt heor y of f asci smi t sel f . I f we di d, t her e woul d
not be heat eddebat es ont he Lef t as t o whet her t her e i s or i s not adanger of f asci sm
emer gi ngi n t he l i ber al capi t al i st st at es, nor conf usi on as t o whet her cont empor ar y
gor i l l a r egi mes i n count r i es l i ke Chi l e, Guat emal a, Sout h Kor ea, Thai l and, andso
on, shoul dbe descr i bedas f asci st . Anot her r eason i s t he f act t hat nat i onal i smi s
usual l y, but not al ways, asi gni f i cant f eat ur e of f asci st count r i es. To be speci f i c,
most but not al l of t hese count r i es have t endedt o engage i n expansi oni st nat i onal
st r uggl e andt o evol ve t he cor r espondi ngi deol ogi cal f or mul ae whi chr at i onal i zet he
conquest andsubj ugat i on of ot her t er r i t or i es andpeopl es. ( Loyal t y t o t he st at e i s
al ways, of cour se, emphasi zed, but t odescr i be t hi s i deol ogi cal el ement , i n i sol at i on,
as nat i onal i st , or t o f i ndnat i onal i smwher ever i deol ogy of t hi s sor t i s di spl ayed, i s t o
empl oy aconcept of nat i onal i smso br oadas t o be usel ess, andat t he same t i me
much t oo nar r owsi nce i t excl udes al l soci al andpol i t i cal pr ocesses i mpl i edi n t he
concept of `nat i onal st r uggl e' , t he char act er i st i c Mar xi st synonymf or `nat i onal i sm' . )
Fr anco' s Spai nandSal azar ' s Por t ugal di dnot engage i n expansi oni st advent ur es,
apar t f r omt he usual campai gns t o paci f y por t i ons of col oni al t er r i t or i es . I t al i an
f asci smcer t ai nl y hadt he cl assi c f eat ur es of expansi oni st nat i onal i sm, r epl et e wi t h
t he r het or i c of r ebui l di ng t he RomanEmpi r e. But Mussol i ni ' s col oni al expansi oni n
Et hi opi a andeven Al bani a was not much mor e t han abel at edf or mof cl assi cal
col oni al i mper i al i sm, andt he r het or i c may have been nomor e out r ageous t han t he
i deol ogy of `mani f est dest i ny' i n t he Uni t edSt at es andcompar abl e i deol ogi es of
i mper i al i sm i n Br i t ai n andFr ance. Fasci st I t al y i ndeeddi spl ayeda r aci st and
ant i - semi t i c i deol ogy ( t hough per haps not much mor e so t han t he Uni t edSt at es at
t hat t i me) , but i t s mai n hat r edwas r eser ved, i n a per ver sel y l ogi cal way, f or
soci al i st s . And, i n any case, t he assumpt i on ( made by Nai r n among ot her s) t hat
r aci smandant i - semi t i smar e somehowi dent i f i abl e wi t h nat i onal i smi s qui t e f al se.
I n nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es t he bel i ef - syst ems deal not wi t h whoi s super i or and
whoi s i nf er i or , but wi t h whoi s f r ee andwho i s not . I n i mper i al i st expansi oni smt he
bel i ef - syst ems may i ndeedbe nakedl y r aci st but t hey may al so be ( super f i ci al l y)
egal i t ar i an anddemocr at i c, as when t he Br i t i sh publ i c i s assur edby i t s l eader s t hat
t he Empi r e i s bei ngenl ar gedi n or der t o ci vi l i ze t he savages, or when t he Amer i can
publ i c i s assur edt hat t he Kor ean andVi et namwar s ar e ai medat pr eser vi ng
f r eedomanddemocr acy i n t hose l ands. Nat i onal i st movement s may be pr ogr essi ve
or r eact i onar y; l i kewi se t hei r i deol ogi es .
Ther eal l y compl ex case i s Nazi sm. I t i s qui t e t r ue t hat one of t he i deol ogi es of
nat i onal i sm, oneof many, t akes t he f or mof a bel i ef - syst emwhi chj ust i f i es f or ei gn
conquest ongr ounds t hat t he peopl e t o be conquer edar e i nf er i or t o t he conquer or .
Nazi smcer t ai nl y empl oyedt hi s f or mul a, andusedi t t o cover t r ul y i nhumanact s .
But cer t ai n poi nt s needt o be made, not t o amel i or at e but t o assi st i n gener al i zat i on.
For one t hi ng, t he r ef er ence gr oup was t ypi cal l y not t he nat i onal cat egor y,
`Ger mans' , but t he pseudo- r aci al cat egor y, `Ar yans' , For anot her t hi ng, asi mi l ar
r aci st i deol ogy andi t s at t endant behavi our wer e f ar f r omuncommon dur i ng t he
cour se of col oni al expansi on. ( Recal l Ai me Cesai r e' s compar i son of col oni al i sm
andNazi smi n Di scour se on Col oni al i sm. ) Under col oni al i sm i n gener al , non-
Eur opeans t endedt o be consi der edi nf er i or or even subhuman, andwhet her t hey
weregenoci dal l y massacred, ensl aved, or merel y subj ect edt o col oni al expl oi t at i on
as wagel abourersdepended most of al l ont hei nt erest s andpower of t hecol oni zi ng
count ry, not on di f f erences of i deol ogy.
Four t hi ngs seemt o met o becruci al hereabout t heNazi case. Fi rst , t he` i nf eri or'
peopl e, hencet he vi ct i ms, were whi t eand European. Second, genoci dal massacre
reached t echnol ogi cal hei ght s: t he gas chambers at Auschwi t z were i ncomparabl y
more ef f i ci ent t han t he USCaval ry at Wounded Knee. Thi rd, race hat eand geno-
ci de werebei ng preached andpract i sed i n modern t i mes, not i n t he bad ol d days
of hi st ory. ( But comparabl ei deas andact s, on a smal l er scal e, werest i l l t o bef ound
i n t hecol oni al worl d, i ncl udi ngPuert o Ri co, i n t heNazi peri od. Andracehat ewas
by no meansabsent i n t hedemocrat i c count ri es i n t hi s peri od: i t i s no acci dent t hat
t he Ameri can Nazi s t oday make common cause wi t h t he Ku Kl ux Kl an. ) And
f ourt h was t he speci al hol ocaust vi si t ed upon t heJ ews .
Therei s onemodel i n whi ch al l f our of t hese f eat ures are at l east schemat i cal l y
expl ai ned, andi t does not deri ve t hemf romnat i onal i sm. ( Says Nai rn: raci smand
ant i - semi t i smare` deri vat i ves' of nat i onal i sm. Raci smandant i - semi t i smare very,
veryol d, as Nai rn wel l knows, and nat i onal i smi n hi s t heorygoes backonl y t o t he
l ast cent ury. Anot her error andanot her cont radi ct i on. ) I n t hi s al t ernat i ve model ,
t hecent ral andcruci al basi s f or Nazi i deol ogy i s t hei mperat i veof f unct i onal i t y i n
one hi st ori cal cont ext and t owards one goal : def eat i ng t he i deol ogi es of t he
communi st s andsoci al democrat s, t hi s at at i mewhen capi t al i smwas i n a st at eof
col l apse i n Germany and revol ut i on t hreat ened. The i deol ogi cal argument s and
model s had t o convi nce t he workers and pet t y bourgeoi si et hat t he enemy was not
t herul i ng cl ass, i n i t s publ i c or pri vat egui se; t heenemywas ext ernal t o t hesoci et y,
and t hi s enemy was t he cause of al l of Germany' s i l l s . Transl at ed i nt o t he
subj ect i ve, emot i ve l anguage needed t o re- di rect t he passi onat e f eel i ngs of an
al ready i nf l amed peopl eaway f romhat red f or capi t al i smandest abl i shed aut hori t y,
t he messagebecame oneof bl ameand hat red f or al l t hose groups who coul dbe
i dent i f i ed as ` enemy' , i ncl udi ng t he i nt ernal ` enemy' , t he J ews, and ext ernal
` enemi es' compri si ng f orei gn government s, pl ot t i ng t o hol d Germany i n a
permanent condi t i onof povert y, andf orei gnpeopl es, enj oyi ng prosperi t y onl ands
and resources st ol en f romt hei r ri ght f ul owners, t he Germans. I wi l l not t ry t o
expl ai nwhyGerman workers permi t t ed t hemsel ves, f or at i me, t o bepersuadedby
t hi s i deol ogy. I merel y wi sh t o emphasi zet hef act t hat Nazi i deol ogy i s much more
pl ausi bl y expl ai ned i n t hi s model t han i n Nai rn' s t heory, accordi ng t o whi ch
everyt hi ng i s expl ai ned by i nvoki ng t he pri me cause and aut onomous f orce of
nat i onal i sm. I t seems t o met hat Nazi expansi oni st nat i onal i smshoul d, i t sel f , be
expl ai ned by somet hi ng more f undament al : t he def ensi ve cl ass st ruggl es of
capi t al i sm.
Much of t he horror t hat was t he Nazi epoch i n Germany can be expl ai ned by
i nvoki ng t he Marxi st t heory of col oni al i sm. Thepl ace t o begi n i s wi t h Leni n' s
t heory about t he causes of t he Fi rst Worl d War, a t heory whi ch assert ed t hat t he
basi c cause of t hi s war was col oni al i sm. To be more speci f i c : ( I ) t he newera of
i mperi al i smwas onei n whi ch col oni al i smhadbecome morecruci al f or capi t al i sm
t han ever bef ore; but ( 2) i t was an erai n whi ch t he whol eworl dhad al ready been
cl ai med( part i t i oned) as col ony or sphereof i nf l uenceby oneor anot her of t hegreat
86 D: f f usi oni smandt heNat i onal Quest i on

}
Di f f usi oni smand t he Nat i onal Quest i on

87
capi t al i st powers; and t heref ore( 3) i t was anerawhi ch woul d be charact eri zed by
canni bal i st i c f i ght i ng among t he powers f or what Leni n descri bed as t he
` repart i t i on of t he worl d' . ( See Chapt er 5) . Germany was t hus f i ght i ng mai nl y t o
ret ai n and t o enl arge her col oni al empi re, and of course she f ai l ed.
But t he i deol ogy of col oni al i smcannot have di sappeared af t er Versai l l es . I t i s
l i kel y, rat her, t o havegrownst i l l more i nt enseduri ng t hepost - war economi c cri si s .
The boundari es of col oni al i st i deol ogy are bot h broad and i l l - def i ned. They
compri senearl y al l raci smandmuchet hnocent ri sm. i deol ogi cal el ement s whi ch, as
we wel l know, weremarshal l ed i n t he servi ceof col oni al i smover several cent uri es,
al t hough t hei r ori gi n i s general l y ol der. Theseel ement s do not cl earl y di f f erent i at e
bet weent he not i ons of ` col ony' and` annexed t erri t ory' . so t hat expansi ve German
nat i onal i smwi t hi n Europewoul d beseen as havi ng t hesamebasi cj ust i f i cat i on and
purposeas expansi ve nat i onal i smi n Af ri ca or t he Paci f i c. Depl oyed i n post - war
Germany, t hi s i deol ogy becomes t he argument t hat prosperi t y can i ndeed be
regai ned, under capi t al i sm, i f Germany can succeed i n annexi ng adj oi ni ng
t erri t ori es, surrogat e col oni es whi ch, l i ke col oni es everywhere, wi l l provi de raw
mat eri al s, market s, and, moregeneral l y. val ue. a part of whi ch can f i l t er downt o
t he German worki ng cl ass and amel i orat e t hei r suf f eri ng. And of course t he
( non- German) peopl e of t hese t erri t ori es, l i ke col oni al s el sewhere, are def i ned as
i nf eri or and i n need of German ` t ut el age' ( t he si ngl e most f avoured noun i n t he
col oni al i st s' vocabul ary) . Thus t he i deol ogy of cl assi cal , capi t al i st col oni al i smi s
t wi st ed and t ransf ormed i nt o t he Nazi i deol ogy of expansi ve nat i onal i sm.
Fol l owi ngt hi s l i ne of t hought a si ngl est ep f art her, we comeuponan argument
whi ch may hel p t o expl ai nt heJ ewi shhol ocaust . TheJ ews of Germanyhadmanyof
t heat t ri but es of acol oni al peopl e. To begi n wi t h, t hey possessed resources whi ch
coul d be expropri at ed. Thi s coul d be and was j ust i f i ed i n qui t e t ypi cal col oni al i st
t erms, andt heresul t s of expropri at i on, l i ke col oni al spol i at i on el sewhere, woul dbe
seen as ani ncrease i n t heweal t h of ot her ( non- J ewi sh) Germans. Second, t heJ ews
werecul t ural l yj ust di f f erent enoughf romot her Germans t o permi t raci st i deol ogy
- al ready wi del y di f f used i n a count ry whi chhad onl y recent l y owned col oni es, and
i n whi ch ant i - semi t i smwas chroni c - t o bedi rect ed f orcef ul l y at J ews . Thi s woul d
not onl y provi det he rat i onal i zat i onf or t heexpropri at i on of J ewi sh propert y, but i t
woul d, more si gni f i cant l y, permi t t heJ ews t o serve as t he surrogat e t arget f or t he
Germanworkers' hat red of capi t al i sm( not capi t al i st s but J ewi shcapi t al i st s weret o
bl ame) , f or German hat red of t he f orei gners who, at Versai l l es, st ol e t hei r weal t h
andcaused t hei r mi sery ( t heJ ews werej ust suf f i ci ent l y ` f orei gn' i n cul t uret o serve
t hi s surrogat e rol e) , and, f i nal l y, t he Germans' need t o have col oni es and col oni al
subj ect s: ` nat i ves' . Perhaps I shoul d not say ` t he Germans' need' and` t he Germans'
hat red' , becauseweare, af t er al l , di scussi ng a caref ul l y manuf act ured i deol ogy, t hat
of Nazi sm. Al l of t heserol es creat edf or t he J ews i n Nazi i deol ogy weredesi gned t o
f ashi on a subst i t ut eenemy i n t he cl ass war .
I s f asci sm, t hen, t he ` archet ype' of nat i onal i sm? A` cent ral sect or of t he
phenomenon' of nat i onal i sm? Nat i onal i smcarri ed t o i t s ` l ogi cal concl usi on' ? ( pp.
345- 347. ) Set asi de t he quest i ons of t heory f or a moment and consi der t he real
i mpl i cat i ons of t hi s posi t i on. Tt requi res us t o bel i eve t hat al l nat i onal movement s.
i ncl udi ng nat i onal l i berat i on movement s agai nst col oni al i sm. are i nt ri nsi cal l y
88

Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
f asci st . I t r equi r es us t o bel i eve t hat t hei r sour ce i s i deol ogy, not cl ass expl oi t at i on
andt he oppr essi on t hat i s i mposed, andr esi st ed, i n connect i on wi t h expl oi t at i on.
None of t hi s i s t r ue, but i t i s al l r equi r ed by Nai r n' s t heor y. As t o t he t heor y i t sel f , I
have shown t hat i t has no subst ance. Nat i onal movement s can have f eudal i st ,
bour geoi s democr at i c, f asci st , soci al i st , andot her sor t s of i deol ogi es . Li kewi se t he
f or ces t hat oppose such movement s. Fasci st movement s canmake use of t he pol i t i cs
of nat i onal aggr andi zement , andeven t he pol i t i cs of secessi oni sm. But nat i onal i sm
has no di r ect andcl ose connect i on t o f asci sm, andt he pr obl emof f asci smcannot be
sol ved wi t hi n t he t heor y of nat i onal i sm.
1Ve0- l r ai l Or i al l Sr i l ar i a l , 0Ur i i 0T- 1J l I I USI Or i
Nai r n' s t heor y- bui l di ng ef f or t s, l i ke most ser i ous cont r i but i ons t o t he Mar xi st
t heor y of nat i onal i sm, ar e anchor edi n apar t i cul ar , concr et e mani f est at i on of t he
nat i onal quest i on. Nai r n i s concer ned wi t h what he cal l s t he `neo- nat i onal i st '
movement s of Scot l and, Wal es, and( Pr ot est ant ) Nor t her n I r el and, movement s
whi ch i n hi s vi ewwi l l br i ng about t he `br eak- up of Br i t ai n' . Nai r n has acer t ai n
amount t o say about t he evol ut i on of t hese movement s andt hei r pr esent - day
char act er i st i cs, but he knows t hat somet hi ngmor e i s neededi f he i s t o per suade t he
Lef t t o accept hi s t wo pr i nci pal cont ent i ons : t hat t hese movement s ar e, i ndeed.
i mpor t ant and t hat t hey ar e pr ogr essi ve . He t hi nks t he pr obl eml i es wi t h t he
Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i sm, wi t h i t s obsessi on wi t h cl ass st r uggl e and i t s
unr eal i st i c cont ent i on t hat nat i onal i smi s af adi ng anachr oni sm, ar el i c of t he er aof
ear l y capi t al i smandt hus a f or ce no l onger power f ul andno l onger pr ogr essi ve.
Depar t i ngf r omt hi s posi t i on - an i ncor r ect one, as I wi l l showi n t hef i nal sect i onof
t he pr esent chapt er - he r ebui l ds t he t heor y, not on t he basi s of cl ass st r uggl e but on
t he basi s of asupposedf r ust r at i on- r eact i on t o `uneven devel opment ' . As we have
seen, t hi s t heor y has no r eal evi dent i al suppor t , but i t does at l east const r uct abar el y
pl ausi bl e model f or t he count r i es of t he per i pher y and t he `semi - per i pher y'
( Ger many, et c. ) . Such count r i es ar e supposed t o have acqui r ed nat i onal i smas a
r esponse t o t he `t i dal wave of moder ni zat i on' , t he out war ddi f f usi on of pr ogr ess.
Al l ver y wel l . But howcanNai r n t hen expl ai n t he r et ur n, t he count er - di f f usi on, of
nat i onal i smf r omt he per i pher y back t o t hecent r e, back t o Br i t ai n, t her e t o emer ge
as t he new( `neo- ' ) nat i onal i st movement s wi t hi n i t s bor der s? One woul dnowbe
swi mmi ng upst r eamagai nst t he cur r ent of di f f usi on. But howi s t hi s t o be done?
Thi s quest i on i s per haps t he most i mpor t ant one we can ask about Nai r n' s
t heor y. I t i s t he put - up- or - shut - up quest i on: her e you have at heor y andt her e you
have aset of f act s, f act s about neo- nat i onal i sm, whi ch t he t heor y i s supposedt o
expl ai n, i s desi gned t o expl ai n. Wel l , t hen, expl ai n. But Nai r n di sappoi nt s us . He
has asepar at e expl anat i on f or each of t he component par t s of t hi s pr obl em: t he
r et ur n of nat i onal i sm t o t he nat i on st at es of West er n Eur ope ; t he r i se of neo-
nat i onal i sm i n Scot l and; t he r i se of neo- nat i onal i smi n Wal es; t he ( by Nai r n)
hopef ul l y ant i ci pat ed r i se of neo- nat i onal i sm i n t he Pr ot est ant communi t y of
Ul st er . These expl anat i ons have not hi ng much t o do wi t h one anot her andnot hi ng
at al l t o do wi t h Nai r n' s cent r al t heor y of nat i onal i sm. Scot l and, we ar e t ol d, i s a
`uni que' case ( p. 110) , `ahi st or i cal oddi t y' ( p. 134) , andScot t i sh neo- nat i onal i smi s
`sui gener i s' . ( p. 128) . Nai r n' s expl anat i on f or t he r i se of neo- nat i onal i sm i n
Scot l and i s t hought f ul and i nt er est i ng, but i t has not hi ng t o do wi t h Nai r n' s
`t i dal wave' andt he r est of hi s gener al t heor y. For Wal es, we ar e t ol d t hat Wel sh
`cul t ur al nat i onal i sm' , i t sel f unexpl ai ned, somehowt ur nedi nt o pol i t i cal nat i onal i sm,
and mat t er s ar e basi cal l y l ef t at t hat . The di scussi on of Nor t her n I r el andi s so
pecul i ar , and so f ul l of danger si gnal s f or Mar xi st t heor y andpr act i ce, t hat I wi l l
t r eat i t separ at el y, t hough br i ef l y, l at er i n t hi s chapt er , but t hi s case, t oo, i s gi veni t s
j

own pr i vat e expl anat i on. Even t he gener al , under l yi ng f act , t he r et ur n( as Nai r nhas
i t ) of nat i onal i smt o t he cor e count r i es andt hus t o Br i t ai n, i s expl ai nedi n awayt hat
i

has no connect i on t o t he gener al t heor y - i f , i ndeed, we can cal l t hi s par t i cul ar
const r uct i on an expl anat i on. The cl osest we come t o an expl anat i on i s i n t hi s
passage:
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

89
`Unevendevel opment ' i s not j ust t he har dl uck t al e of poor count r i es. I t dr agged
t he weal t hy ones i n as wel l . Once t he nat i onal st at e hadbeen i deol ogi zedi nt o
`nat i onal i sm' andt ur ned i nt o t he new cl i mat e of wor l d pol i t i cs - t he new
r ecei vedt r ut h of pol i t i cal humani t y - t he cor e- ar eas t hemsel ves wer e boundt o
become nat i onal i st . As t he mar ch- l ands caught up i n t he l at er ni net eent h
cent ur y, as Ger many, I t al y, and J apan emer ged i nt o . . . ext r a- r api d
i ndust r i al i zat i on . . . was i t sur pr i si ng t hat Engl andandFr ance devel opedt hei r
own f or ms of `nat i onal i sm' ? Ther e r esul t ed a st r uggl e bet ween f ounder -
member s andpar venus, wher egr eat - power nat i onal i smwas f or gedf r omt he new
not i ons andsent i ment s . I n ot her wor ds, `unevendevel opment ' i s adi al ect i c . The
t wo si des i nvol ved cont i nuousl y modi f y each ot her . Nat i onal i smmay have
or i gi nat ed as aki ndof `ant i t hesi s' t o t he `t hesi s' of met r opol i t an domi nat i on.
But i t was r api dl y, andi nevi t abl y, t r ansmi t t edt o t he whol e pr ocess. ( p. 344)
I n al l t hi s t her e i s onl yone r eal l y empi r i cal ar gument about t he count er - di f f usi on of
nat i onal i sm. I t i s t he r easonabl e- soundi ngasser t i on t hat , i f Ger many, I t al y, and
J apan ar e compel l edby vi r t ue of t hei r nat i onal i smt o go t o war wi t h Br i t ai n and
Fr ance, t hen nat ur al l y ( `was i t sur pr i si ng . . . ?' ) t hei r ant agoni st s woul d al so
become nat i onal i st , andnat i onal i smwoul dt hus di f f use acr oss t he bat t l el i nes f r om
semi - per i pher y t o cor e . But t hi s i s c) i op- l ogi c . War s have been wi t h us al ong t i me.
andt hey have hadno necessar y r el at i onshi p t o nat i onal i sm. Bel l i cose at t i t udes
may, i ndeedmust , be t r ansmi t t edf r omone war r i ng si de t o t he ot her unl ess t hey ar e
t her e al r eady, but not much el se di f f uses . Nazi smdi dnot di f f use at St al i ngr ad or
f asci smat Sal er no. Andso on. But t her e ar e ot her sor t s of obj ect i ons . For one t hi ng,
`uneven devel opment ' does not ent er t he pi ct ur e. For anot her t hi ng, Nai r n i s her e
sl i ppi ng i nt o t he ar gument an ext r aor di nar y newt heor y about `gr eat power
nat i onal i sm' . I t seems t o have di f f usedf r omGer many, I t al y, andJ apant o t he ot her
gr eat Eur opean st at es dur i ng t he pr esent cent ur y. Ther ef or e, accor di ng t o Nai r n,
t her e was no gr eat power nat i onal i smi n Br i t ai nandFr ance, not t o ment i onRussi a
andAust r i a- Hungar y, i n ear l i er t i mes, andt he t r ai t , mor eover , came t o t hese st at es
by di f f usi on. Andwher e, i n al l of t hi s, i s gr eat power i mper i al i sm?
As f or t he r est of t hi s passage, i t adds no f ur t her expl anat i on as t o how
nat i onal i smseepedback i nt o t he cor e, of f er i ng i nst eadaf ewr het or i cal f l our i shes of
t he sor t whi ch, I r egr et t o say, Mar xi st s ver y of t en use t o f i l l out i ncompl et e
ar gument s: i nvoki ng t he wor d `di al ect i c' t o paper over gaps i n r easoni ng and
unr esol vedcont r adi ct i ons; l aci ng t he t ext wi t h ar gument - pusher s l i ke `boundt o'
90 Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
and`i nevi t abl y' and`was i t sur pr i si ng t hat . . . ? ' ( and el sewher e i n Nai r n' s booka
bar r age of `t r ul y' s' and`of cour se' s' and`nat ur al l y' s' , al ongwi t h t he occasi onal `any
f ool knows t hat ' and`i t i s t he si mpl est mat t er of hi st or i cal f act . . . t hat ' ) ; and, mor e
gener al l y, r ei nf or ci ng asi mpl e andt hi n ar gument by expr essi ng i t i n t he most
el egant and convol ut ed l anguage, r epl et e wi t h obscur e al l usi ons, f or ei gn wor ds,
and r esoundi ng t hough empt y phr ases l i ke `t he newr ecei ved t r ut h of pol i t i cal
humani t y' . I l ean on t hi s poi nt f or t wo r easons. Fi r st : Nai r n' s t heor y as awhol e i s
j ust t hi s sor t of t hi n ar gument f at t enedout by r het or i c. Andsecond; t he absence of a
r eal , empi r i cal expl anat i on as t o howper i pher al nat i onal i sm, semi - per i pher al
nat i onal i sm, cor e- ar ea nat i onal i sm, and i nner - per i pher y `neo- nat i onal i sm' al l
Cnnner t nn t naet hr r i s t ent h a al ar i na n~+r hana f at al avr al r r i acc i n t hr t hanr vanAal cn
_________ _t . __a_ . __- _ . . . . . . . _. . a. . . . . D, r - . . . t . . . . . , . . - . , . . . . . , . , . . . . . . - . . . . . . , . ~_. . . . . __. , -
an i nval i dat i on of Nai r n' s most pr et ent i ous cl ai mf or t he t heor y: t hat i t br i ngs al l
t he f or ms of nat i onal i smi nt o asi ngl e expl anat i on about asi ngl e, whol e ( t hough
J anus- f aced) phenomenon. We ar e l ef t wi t h t he nat i onal i smsupposedl y gener at ed
by uneven devel opment andan al t oget her di f f er ent sor t of nat i onal i smi n t he cor e
count r i es . Andt hese t wo cat egor i es ar e, t hemsel ves, t axonomi cal l y dubi ous. The
f i r st i ncl udes nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es but i t al so i ncl udes f asci sm. The second
does not i ncl ude i mper i al i sm.
I must dwel l abi t mor e on t hi s mat t er of count er - di f f usi on. Al t hough Nai r nsays
ver y l i t t l e about t he mechani sms by whi ch nat i onal i smr et ur ns f r omi t s home i n t he
per i pher y t o ent er t he cor e count r i es, he does, nonet hel ess, cr eat e aki ndof moodi n
whi ch t hi s count er - di f f usi on seems al most nat ur al . Thi s mood- set t i ng, whi ch
per vades t he whol e of Nai r n' s book, seems agai n t o be der i ved ( per haps
unwi t t i ngl y) f r omcl assi cal Eur ocent r i c di f f usi oni sm. Cent r al t o t hat per spect i ve i s
what we may cal l `t he pr i nci pl e of i deol ogi cal cont agi on' , t hat i s, t he spr eadof i deas
f or no par t i cul ar r eason ot her t han t hei r i nnat e i nf ect i ousness . The cont agi on
occur s i n bot h di r ect i ons: cent r i f ugal l y andcent r i pet al l y, out war ds andi nwar ds. I n
t he out war d di r ect i on, i t i s t he best owal of moder ni zi ng, enl i ght eni ng t r ai t s .
I nwar ds, i t t ends t o be i dent i f i ed wi t h t hi ngs savage andi r r at i onal . The schemat i c
l ogi c of t hi s model , i n i t s cl assi cal f or m, i s as f ot l ows: si nce cul t ur al evol ut i ont ends
t o occur at t he ( Eur opean) cent r e andspr eadcent r i f ugal l y, t he out er r egi ons must
al ways be mor e backwar d t han t he i nner , because t hei r cul t ur e must r ef l ect an
ear l i er st age i n t he evol ut i onar y pr ocess. Ther ef or e any count er - di f f usi on wi l l be a
passage of ol der andt hus l ess ci vi l i zedt r ai t s i nt o t he cor e. At any gi vent i me, t her e i s
a dual i t y bet ween cor e andper i pher y - each seen as asi ngl e r egi on - whi ch maps
i nt o space such f ami l i ar ( andt oday mai nl y neo- Kant i an) opposi t i ons as r eason and
unr eason( i nst i nct , emot i on) , abst r act andconcr et e, mi nd andbody, sci ence and
sor cer y, di sci pl i ne andspont anei t y, adul t andchi l d, sane andi nsane, pr ogr essi ve
and st agnant ( `t r adi t i onal ' ) , and of cour se ci vi l i zed and pr i mi t i ve. I deol ogi cal
cont agi on, t hen, i s apassage of t he one sor t of t r ai t f r omcor e t o per i pher y andof
t he ot her sor t f r omper i pher y t o cor e .
Nai r n empl oys aver si on of t hi s model i n hi s descr i pt i ons of t he cor e and t he
per i pher y( pt us `semi - per i pher y' ) andt he cur r ent s passi ng bet weent hem. The cor e,
west er n Eur ope, i s r epeat edl y descr i bedas `r at i onal ' , or wi t h epi t het s denot i ng i t s
i nt el l ect ual st at ur e: `t he r at i onal i sm of our Enl i ght enment her i t age' , `t he
Enl i ght enment ' ( r epeat edl y used as an epi t het f or West er n cul t ur e, as on p. 338:
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on 91
- `TheEnCi gh~enment was - bot nei nt o- wi dei r eadyt ot he `Cess- dever ope~l ands' ) ,
`West er n r at i onal i t y' ( p. 337) , `west er n- f ounded "pr ogr ess"' ( p. 361) , t he `west -
wi ndof pr ogr ess' ( p. 360) , andso on. I t i s i mpor t ant t hat we keep i n mi nd t he f act
t hat , f or Nai r n, `t he West ' , or t he cor e, compr i ses onl y west er n Eur ope - per haps
onl y Br i t ai n andFr ance . So Nai r n' s posi t i on, however et hnocent r i c andel i t i st i t
may be, seems not t o be r aci st .
Nai r n does not si mpl y char act er i ze t he per i pher y as i r r at i onal , unenl i ght ened.
Hi s descr i pt i on of per i pher al cul t ur e i s devel opedi n t hr ee st eps. Fi r st , we r ead
about t he per i pher al r egi ons bef or e `t he spr eadof ci vi l i zedpr ogr ess' ( p. 99) begant o
change t hem. Bef or e t he 1790s t hey wer e `bur i ed i n f eudal andabsol ut i st sl umber '
( p. 961, i n `bar bar i sm' ( n. 1081_ t hei r masse_c_ `st i l l l t ~cat e_d cul t ur al l y unnn a f ar
ant er i or l evel . . . f eudal or pr e- f eudal . . . ar chai c . . . pr i meval - seemi ng' , ^et c .
Not i ce, by t he way, t hat Nai r n i s descr i bi ng her e t he semi - per i pher al Ger many of
Bach andt he I t al y of Vi val di , al ongwi t h Moghul I ndi a, Mi ng Chi na, andt he r est .
Thent he `t i dal wave' ar r i ves ( mai nl y, I i nf er , i n t he f or mof col oni al i sm) , al ongwi t h
t he somewhat i ndef i ni t e ef f ect s of uneven devel opment . Andf i nal l y, al l of t hi s
pr oduces anexpl osi ve r eact i on. One di mensi onof t he r eact i on i s nat i onal i sm, seen
as adoct r i ne andpol i cy, but t he over al l pr ocess i s much deeper andwi der . I n one
cont ext Nai r ni dent i f i es i t wi t h `r omant i ci sm' , whi ch he descr i bes as `t he sear ch f or
i nwar dness, t he t r ust i n f eel i ng or i nst i nct , t he at t i t ude t o "nat ur e", t he cul t of t he
par t i cul ar and mi st r ust of t he "abst r act ", et c' ( p. 104) . I n anot her cont ext he
empl oys a psychoanal yt i c anal ogy ( or homol ogy) , l i keni ng t he r eact i on t o t he
f or ces of t he unconsci ous whi ch ar e unl eashed i n chi l dhood; i nvoki ng concept s l i ke
`r egr essi on' , `i nst i nct ' , `i nwar dness' , `dement i a' , and`i nf ant i l i sm' ; anddescr i bi ng
t he whol e pr ocess as `t he pat hol ogy of moder n devel opment al hi st or y' , andas a
mani f est at i on of `t he col l ect i ve unconsci ous' ( pp. 348- 350) . I n al l t hi s Nai r ni s not
si mpl y at t achi ng descr i pt or s t o t he concept of nat i onal i sm; he i s descr i bi ng some
under l yi ng cul t ur al f or ce i n t hese per i pher al soci et i es : he i s char act er i zi ng t he
soci et i es t hemsel ves, as i n t hi s passage:
The power s of t he I d ar e f ar gr eat er t han was r eal i zed bef or e Fr eudexposed
t hemt o t heor et i cal vi ew. I n t he same way, t he ener gi es cont ai ned i n cust omar y
soci al st r uct ur es wer e f ar gr eat er t han was under st ood, bef or e t he advent of
nat i onal i st mobi l i zat i on st i r r edt hemup andr el easedt hemf r omt heol dmoul d.
( p. 349)
Havi ng been t hus st i r r edup andr el eased, t hese savage f or ces t hen spr eadbackand
f or t h acr oss t he gl obe, andbr ought neo- nat i onal i smt o Gr eat Br i t ai n.
The nat i onal i smwhi ch came i n t hi s way t o Br i t ai n i s consi der edby Nai r n t o have
l ost most of i t s vi r ul ence. Engl i sh nat i onal i smi s not descr i bed wi t h t er ms l i ke
`i nst i nct ' and`i r r at i onal i t y' . I t i s ci vi l i zed, mi l d, andr at i onal . I t i s `di gni f i ed' and
`pol i t i cal l y i ner t ' . I t i s not hi ng wor se t han a`r ever ence f or t he over al l nat ur e' of
Br i t i sh soci et y, `a f ai t h i n t he . . . syst em' , anaccept ance of `a "way of l i f e" basi cal l y
wor t h def endi ng' ( pp. 42- 44) . Thus no dement i a or i nf ant i l i sm. Nai r n expl ai ns t he
pecul i ar i t i es of Engl i sh nat i onal i smi n t er ms of t he gr adual devel opment over t hr ee
cent ur i es andmor e of ar at her st abl e andwel l i nt egr at ed soci et y, one i n whi ch t he
cl ass war has never gr own t o such pr opor t i ons as t o t ear apar t t he soci al f abr i c. I n
92 Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
f act , accordi ngt o Nai rn, t here has never real l y been much cl ass st ruggl e i n Bri t ai n.
He descri bes t hi s count ry wi t h phrases l i ke `soci al cohesi on' ( p. 69) andwri t es of
`t he Engl i sh cl ass- compromi se' ( p. 32) , t he `deep cl ass al l i ance' ( p. 59) and, f or
present - day Bri t ai n, `t he f rozen i ce of t he cl ass st ruggl e' ( p. 59) . I wi l l not comment
on t hi s curi ous ( f or aMarxi st ) vi ewof Bri t i sh soci et y andhi st ory . ' I needmerel y
not e Nai rn' s argument t hat t he ef f ect s of st eady economi c decl i ne i n t hi s cohesi ve
soci et y wi l l be aki ndof i nt ernal decomposi t i on whi ch, assi st ed by t he ext ernal
pressuresof neo- nat i onal i smi n t he Bri t i sh peri phery, wi l l bri ngabout t he `break- up
of Bri t ai n' . Thi s wi l l al so, he hopes, l eadt o abreak- up of t he `f rozeni ce' of cl ass
st ruggl e, and t hus, vi a nat i onal i sm, regenerat e soci al progress i n t hi s part of t he
worl d. I needhardl y addt hat t hi s const ruct i on bears l i t t l e resembl ance i o cui l Wuuu-
or- garden Marxi sm.
The rel at i ve st abi l i t y of Bri t i sh soci et y i s not i n di sput e. Nai rnat t ri but es i t , as do
most Marxi st s andqui t e a f ewot hers ( i ncl udi ng most not abl y Hobson) , t o t he
ext raordi nary weal t h whi chf l owedt o Bri t ai n f romt he Empi re, weal t h suf f i ci ent t o
ease t he burden of expl oi t at i on j ust enough t o keep soci al conf l i ct f romerupt i ng
i nt o revol ut i on. Hencet he Bri t i sh worki ngcl ass permi t t edi t sel f t o be l edi nt o t he
occasi onal European war on behal f of t he bourgeoi si e, andi n t hi s sense succumbed
t o nat i onal i sm( as i t al so di di n t he f ai t h- i n- t he- syst emsensedi scussedabove, andas
i t wi l l do, Nai rnhopes, i n st i l l at hi rdsense: aki ndof resurrect i on of nat i onal wi l l or
purpose whi ch may come, somehow, af t er t he `break- up' ) . But Nai rn carri es t hi s
argument about t he ef f ect s of Empi re t oof ar i n onedi rect i onandnot f ar enough i n
anot her . Too f ar i n t hat he t hi nks, wrongl y, t hat i t has l edt o a`cl ass al l i ance' , a
f reezi ng of t he cl ass st ruggl e. Not f ar enough i n t hat Nai rn qui t e f ai l s t o see t hat
Empi re - t hat i s, Bri t i sh col oni al i sm- was i t sel f i nseparabl e f romnat i onal i sm.
Empi re, f or Nai rn, i s si mpl y agi venf act , somet hi ngt hat produces cert ai nef f ect s
on Bri t i sh soci et y but does not cal l f or anal ysi s wi t hi n hi s t heory. I t i s, he says,
`uneven devel opment ' whi ch `generat es t hese "gi ven f act s" of i mperi al i smand
nat i onal i sm' ( p. 21n) ( t hereby gi vi ng f urt her magi cal powers t o `uneven
devel opment ' ) . But t he growt h of t he Bri t i sh Empi re was surel y one of t he real l y
dramat i c andsi gni f i cant cases of great power nat i onal i sm. I t was, amongmany
ot her t hi ngs, genui ne nat i onal st ruggl e, i n t hat i t i nvol vedt erri t ori al expansi onand
t he est abl i shment of Bri t i sh col oni al government over previ ousl y soverei gnst at es
andsel f - governi ngsoci et i es. dt s i deol ogy was, amongot her t hi ngs, an i deol ogy of
nat i onal i sm. I f i n cert ai n peri ods i t was l ess st ri dent t han some ot her nat i onal i st
i deol ogi es, t hi s mai nl y ref l ect ed t he f act t hat col oni al expansi on brought sel f -
evi dent rewards t o many members of Bri t i sh soci et y, who t heref ore needed l ess
i deol ogi cal proddi ng t han woul dot herwi se have been t he case. Nai rn, however,
f ai l s al t oget her t o assi mi l at ecl assi cal i mperi al i smt o t he concept of nat i onal i sm. We
recal l t hat he at t ri but es great power nat i onal i smt o t he Germans andt hei r al l i es i n
t he t woWorl dWars andi magi nes i t t o have i nf ect edast i l l - i nnocent Bri t ai ni n t hat
era. He does not consi der as nat i onal i sm t he cont i nent al and l at er overseas
expansi onof t he Uni t edSt at es, aprocess whi chwas t ypi cal l y i mperi al i st andwas
provi dedwi t h at ypi cal nat i onal i st i deol ogy, known as `mani f est dest i ny' . I f al l such
cases of i mperi al i smcan be seen as expansi ve nat i onal st ruggl e, or expansi oni st
nat i onal i sm, t hen we have t o see t he resi st ance t o such expansi on, at l east i n t he case
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

93
of organi zedst at es, as def ensi ve nat i onal i sm; andi f t hi s f ormul at i on i s accept ed, i n
i t s t urn, t hen t he nat i onal i smof peri pheral areas beganmuch earl i er t han Nai rn' s
t heory requi res andref l ect edt he st ark f act of i nvasi on, not t he crypt o- psychol ogy
of f rust rat i on wi t h uneven devel opment . And, by t he same t oken, t he nat i onal i sm
of count ri es l i ke Bri t ai n proves t o be ol der t han andf ar removedf romuneven
devel opment . Bri t i sh nat i onal i sm seems di gni f i ed and ci vi l i zed t o Nai rn onl y
because i t s more brut al and, yes, `dement ed' aspect s are compl et el y i gnored.
Nai rn cl ai ms t wo pri me vi rt ues f or hi s t heory : t hat i t expl ai ns al l t he many
mani f est at i ons of nat i onal i sm i n t erms of a si ngl e, underl yi ng process, uneven
devel opment : andt hat i t _maces each case and count ryv i n a worl d perspect i ve,
avoi di ng what Nai rn cal l s t he `count ry- by- count ry at t i t ude' accordi ng t o whi ch
each nat i onal movement i s expl ai nedi n t erms of t he i nt ernal andi di osyncrat i c
hi st ory of t hat part i cul ar count ry. Al l of t hi s i s f orgot t en when Nai rn t urns t o
Nort hern I rel and. Nowt he anal ysi s i s excl usi vel y, resol ut el y, i di osyncrat i c, as
t hough Nai mwere t ryi ngt o wi l l out of exi st ence t he l arger f orces, such as Bri t i sh
i mperi al i nt erest s andt hose of mul t i nat i onal capi t al i sm. Andt here i s no recourse t o
uneven devel opment . I ndeed, Nai rn readi l y concedes t hat Ul st er has not suf f ered
f romuneven devel opment . He does not t ry t o expl ai nhownat i onal i st movement s
mi ght ( or mi ght not ) ari se i n t he absence of t hi s pri mal f orce, but rat her present s,
i nst eadof an expl anat i on, at axonomy .
To begi n wi t h, t here are what Nai rn cal l s t he `mai nst reamof "backward" or
"underdevel oped" soci et i es anxi ous t o cat ch up' :
However, i t has never been t he case t hat t hi s mai n current exhaust s t he meani ng
of nat i onal i sm. There have al so been a number of what coul d be t ermed
`count er- current s' - exampl es of soci et i es whi ch have cl ai med nat i onal sel f -
det ermi nat i on f roma di f f erent , more advanced poi nt i n t he devel opment
spect rum. Thesesomewhat more devel opedsoci al f ormat i ons have st ruggl edf or
i ndependence agai nst t he `backward' nat i onal i t i esaroundt hem. . . I mpel l edby
t he same underl yi nghi st ori cal f orce . . . t hey represent none t he l ess eddi es i n a
cont rary di rect i on. ( pp. 248- 249)
That nat i onal movement s have ari sen i n economi cal l y advancedareas i s no secret :
wi t ness t he cases of Bel gi umandBohemi ai n t he l ast cent ury andCat al oni aand
Vi zcaya t oday. But t o pl ace al l such cases i n asi ngl e cat egory i s t o cal l f or an
expl anat i on, not si mpl y an al l usi on t o `count er- current s' and `eddi es' . No such
expl anat i on i s of f ered, however, andwe are l ef t t o i nf er t hat Nort hern I rel andhas
evol vedi nt o anat i on, anddeserves t he ri ght of sel f - det ermi nat i on, j ust because i t
bel ongs t o t he same cat egory of phenomena as Bel gi um, Czechosl ovaki a,
Cat al oni a, and so on.
The Ul st er Prot est ant t erri t ori es cl earl y bel ongt o t hi s group. Andone must put
t he same quest i on about t hemas about t he ot her members of t hi s rat her
margi nal andsel ect `ri ch men' s cl ub' . Does i t f ol l owt hat They have no ri ght t o
sel f - det ermi nat i on because t hey are ( rel at i vel y) economi cal l y devel oped? ( p.
249)
The quest i on i s of course rhet ori cal , si nce no one seems t o have made such an
accusat i on, but not i ce t he st rat egi c `does i t f ol l ow . . . ?' by whi ch t he assert i on of
94 Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
i
membershi pmt he cl ass ( or `cl ub' ) somehowaut omat i cal l y conf ers t he ri ght of
sel f - det ermi nat i on.
Nai rn next carves out asub- cat egorywi t hi n t he `ri ch men' s cl ub' consi st i ng of
set t l er col oni es. I n t hi s grouphe pl aces Nort hern I rel and, `Whi t e Sout h Af ri ca' ,
Si ngapore, and I srael , and assert s t hat I srael and Nort hern I rel and have
part i cul arl y much i n common. Agai n we are l ef t t o i nf er t hat st at ement s made
about t he cl ass, or ot her at t ri but es of i t s members, are, somehow, descri pt i ve of
Nort hernI rel and. For exampl e, t he set t l er col oni es - i ncl udi ng, mi ndyou, `Whi t e

j
Sout h Af ri ca' - are descri bedas
genui ne; sel f - SUCt $i _ _ n_ ; ng mi ddl P_ cl _ ,gg
soci et i es , , , - _ . , . , r l e

:: pl e e soci al
f ormat i ons, capabl e of i ndependence and sel f - def ence, and wi t h t hei r own
vari et y of nat i onal i sm. . . i sl ands of rel at i ve over- devel opment i n rel at i on t o
backward areas aroundt hem. ( p. 188) . . . These set t l er- based bri dgeheads of
devel opment def endanexi st i ng st at e agai nst t he `backwardhordes' surroundi ng
t hem. Theysee t hemsel ves as cust odi ans of aci vi l i zat i onwhi ch woul d`gounder'
i f t hey were pol i t i cal l y assi mi l at ed t onat i ve soci et y. ( p. 189)
Then t he compari son i s made wi t h I srael , whi ch, says Nai rn, `f or a quart er of a
cent ury . . . f ought f or i ndependence agai nst t he l ess- devel oped Arabl ands onal l
si des of i t ' ( adi st ort i onof hi st ory) andwhi ch, al ongwi t h Prot est ant Ul st er, `canbe
accusedby t he more echt - l ooki ng [ puri st i c) nat i onal i st s aroundt hemof bei ng on
somebody el se' s l and' ( p. 249) . Thus, al l - t ol d, a seri es of j udgment s - some qui t e
st range- about ot her count ri es andani nf erence t hat Nort hernI rel andacqui res t he
same at t ri but es by cl ass membershi p. Not , one woul dt hi nk, a t ypi cal exampl e of
Marxi st t heorybui l di ng.
The argument i s not ent i rel y l i mi t ed t o met aphor. Nai rn vent ures a f ew
general i zat i ons about t he hi st ory of Nort hern I rel and i n order t o sket ch i n t he
pi ct ure of agenui ne nat i on i n t he process of bei ng f ormed. " The soci et y, he says,
st ems f romal i en set t l ement ; t hat i s, t he Prot est ant communi t y t oday i s di rect l y
descendedf romset t l ers andt hus f orms aset t l ercol ony. The f act t hat I ri sh f ol kwere
t here bef orehandi s negl ect ed( remi ndi ng one of t he way Whi t e Sout h Af ri cans t ry
t oerase f romhi st ory t he knowl edge t hat t he l andt heyoccupyhadpri or owners) ,
andal so negl ect edare t he l at er hi st ori es of t hese i ndi genous I ri sh f ol k al ong wi t h
t he f act t hat some, at l east , of t oday' s Prot est ant s are descendant s of convert s ( a
commonpat t ern i n col oni es everywhere) .
Next Nai rn al l udes t o t he `uneven devel opment ' vi si t ed upon sout hern I rel and
duri ng t he 19t h Cent urybut not upont he nort h; andwi t hout t ryi ng t o expl ai n t hi s
f act he assert s t hat t he nort h- sout h di f f erent i al creat ed at t hat t i me somehow
est abl i shed t he i nexorabl e l ogi c of a boundary bet ween nort hern andsout hern
I rel and. Noment i oni s made of t he wayBri t i sh i ndust ri al capi t al i smext endedi t sel f
t o Bel f ast duri ng t he i ndust ri al revol ut i on whi l e t he rest of I rel and was
syst emat i cal l yde- i ndust ri al i zed, depopul at ed( Lomobi l i ze l abour i n Engl and) , and
i mpoveri shedbyan archet ypi cal l y col oni al i st f ormof superexpl oi t at i on, a process
descri bedbyMarxandEngel s andt odaywel l underst ood. Fai l i ng t odeal wi t h t hese
processes, Nai rn l eaves t he i mpressi on t hat Nort hern I rel and' s economi c
devel opment was sel f - generat ed, rat her t han an i nt egral part of Bri t i sh
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

95
i ndust ri al i zat i on. He i s t ryi ng t o ref ut e t he cl ai m, so of t en heard f romUl st er
Prot est ant s, t hat t heyare t rul y Bri t i sh, andt he paral l el cl ai m, heardamongUl st er
Cat hol i cs ( andmanyot hers) , t hat al l I rel and i s one nat i on.
Meanwhi l e, i na`st andardt al e of under- devel opment , peasant [ sout hern] I rel and
was . . . draggedi nt omodernexi st encebyEngl i sh i ndust ri al i smandt henf orcedt o
a nat i onal i st sel f - mobi l i zat i on agai nst t hese same f orces' ( p. 228) . I t seems, t hen,
t hat I ri sh nat i onal i smwas ant i - i ndust ri al , not ant i - Bri t i sh. The I ri sh resi st ed,
accordi ng t o Nai rn, `i n t he same way as and at t he same t i me as t he rest of
under- devel oped Cent ral and East ern Europe' ( p. 229) , and obt ai ned i t s
i ndependence i n t he same set of post - Fi rst - Worl d- War boundary- maki ng
ccr~moni es. ?: ot hi rg i s sai d, t heref ore, about t he expl i ci t l y col oni al oppressi onand
expl oi t at i on vi si t ed upon I rel and and not upon most of t he ot her non- sel f -
governi ng count ri es of Europe. Andnot hi ngabout t he powerf ul , mass based, and
ul t i mat el y vi ct ori ous nat i onal i st movement . We are l ef t t oi nf er t hat i ndependence
was, i nst ead, acasual deci si onbyt he Bri t i sh: t he Republ i c of I rel andwas j ust `one
i n t he i nt ermi nabl e l i st maki ng upt hi s post - war set t l ement ' ( p. 229) . Hence t he
boundary bet ween nort h andsout h was qui t e nat ural . `I t corresponded. . . t ot he
"devel opment gap"' ( p. 229) . SoNort hemI rel andandt he Republ i c are nat ural and
di st i nct spat i al ent i t i es, wi t h anat ural ( or at l east sensi bl e) boundary. The boundary
does not , t hen; ref l ect t he bi t t er rearguard ef f ort s of ret reat i ng Bri t i sh i mperi al i sm
t o hol dont ot hat one corner of I rel andf romwhi ch i t gai nedt he most surpl usval ue
andi n whi ch i t ret ai ned t he most i nf l uence.
Nai rn does not seemt o bel i eve t hat t he Bri t i sh hadanyi nt erest i n, or anyt hi ng
much t odowi t h, event s i nI rel and, unt i l `t he escal at i ng vi ol ence f orced . . . London
t o breakwi t h t he l ong Bri t i sh t radi t i on of rel uct ant , l ast - mi nut e i nt ervent i on i n
I ri sh af f ai rs' ( p. 251) . I t was, he says, Prot est ant vi ol ence `whi ch brought t heBri t i sh
army t o Ul st er' ( p. 238) . ( But why, t hen, are t here so manyCat hol i c pri soners i n
LongKesh?) Next at eari s shedf or t he Cat hol i c mi nori t yi nUl st er: `St randedont he
wrong si de of t he boundary, t he Cat hol i c- nat i onal i st mi nori t y j oi ned t he huge
number of Europe' s di spl aced persons and communi t i es [ whi ch] . . . dot t ed t he
l andscape f romFermanagh t o t he Bl ackSea' ( p. 229) .
Thus t he pi ct ure of Nort hern I rel and i n t he 20t h Cent ury: t he set t l er communi t y
nowf ormedi nt ot he `Prot est ant nat i onal i t y' andi nt oa`Prot est ant nat i on' ( p. 245) ,
wi t hi n a st at e possessi ng a hi st ori cal l y nat ural boundary andyet pl aguedwi t h a
mi nori t y peopl e who, f ar f rombei ng part of t he nat i on, are merel y `di spl aced
persons' whose mi sf ort une i t was t o be `st randed on t he wrong si de of t he
boundary' .
I n t he 1960s, says Nai rn, t he Cat hol i c mi nori t y became `rest l ess' ( p. 229) . I n
earl i er t i mes t here hadbeenno nat i onal i st movement amongt he Cat hol i cs because
t he t wost at es i nI rel andwere seent obe `equal l y odi ous' . Whennat i onal i smf i nal l y
arose i t di d not have a mat eri al basi s i n nat i onal oppressi on or i n t he
superexpl oi t at i on of Cat hol i c workers ( somet hi ng Nai rn f ai l s al t oget her t o
ment i on) . Rat her, t hi s newl y ari si ng nat i onal i smi s a product of prosperi t y: of
i mprovi ngcondi t i ons. At t hi s poi nt Nai rn i nt roduces a di f f erent t heory:
Et hni c conf l i ct s donot ari se nat ural l y f romt hecoexi st ence of di f f erent groups i n
96 Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
onesnci et y__. _. Tt i s whrn~gn~i t
i n
'"
c i m, ~~~tnrgr~~BngPnhrge rh~y ~`
~y rha~

. _ .
become i nt ol erabl e. Fori t i s onl yt hent hat t he di sadvant agedgroupf eel s t he f ul l
const rai nt s pl acedon i t . (pp. 227- 228)
I s i t t o be supposed, t hen, t hat hungeri s onl ynot i cedwhent he pangs l essen? Nowi t
i s t rue, of course, t hat nat i onal movement s emerge at t i mes under condi t i ons of
ri si ngprosperi t y, ri si ngexpect at i ons, andso on. Thi s was perhaps t he t ypi cal
backgroundof bourgeoi s nat i onal movement s i n 19t h Cent uryEurope. But i nour
t i me, i n t he great maj ori t yof cases, nat i onal movement s andnat i onal st ruggl es are
generat edbyexpl oi t at i on andsuf f eri ng: t hey const i t ut e acl ass- basedprocess i n
whi ch - put t i ngt he mat t er summari l y- expl oi t at i on byaf orei gn rul i ngcl ass i s
resi st edi n t he st rat egi cal l y l ogi cal way, byast ruggl e f or i ndependence, t hat i s, a
st ruggl e f or st at e power. Thi s l at t er sort of process i s not , however, acknowl edged
byNai rn, f orwhomnat i onal st ruggl es are at root f rust rat i onreact i onsbyt he el i t e,
andare t heref ore j ust apart of t hat myt hi cal scenari o, t he `revol ut i on of ri si ng
expect at i ons' . Toassi mi l at e t ypi cal nat i onal st ruggl es t o t hi s scenari o i s t obel i eve
one of t he most basi c anddangerous component s of conservat i ve i deol ogy: t hat
expl oi t at i on andoppressi on are easi ng, not worseni ng, undercapi t al i sm.
Li t t l e more remai ns t o be sai d about t hi s curi ous cogni t i ve mapof Nort hern
I rel and. Perhaps weneedmerel yaddt hat t he Prot est ant communi t yas awhol e -
not t o ment i on i t s progressi ve sect or - seems f ar l ess ent husi ast i c about secessi on
t han Nai rndoes. Nai rnconcedes t hi s t o be t rue, as he_must , but edges aroundt he
cont radi ct i on wi t h t wo argument s. He cl ai ms t hat t he t endencyof Ul st er f ol k t o
i dent i f ywi t h t he Bri t i sh was somehowa vol unt ari st i cchoi ce madequi t e l ongago,
andf ornot veryf undament al reasons; hence, byi mpl i cat i on, achoi ce t hat can be
easi l y revoked. Andhe t ri es i n everypossi bl e wayt o mi ni mi ze t he cl oseness and
i mport ance of t he rel at i onshi pbet ween Nort hern I rel andandEngl and, past and
present . Hest at es t hat t he Bri t i sh t oday, as i nt he past , have noi nt erest s at st ake i n
Ul st er. `Part i t i on was not a mere conspi racy of empi re' . `There i s no "ant i -
i mperi al i st "st ruggl e goi ngon' (p. 232) . `Great - power i nt erest s' are not i nvol ved.
`As aseparat e ent i t yNort hernI rel andhas become qui t e usel ess' t oBri t ai n (p. 236) .
And, beyondt hat , capi t al i smas awhol e `has i t s i nt erest i n removi ngt he myt hi c
"f ront i ers"of raci st domi nance andi nt er- et hni c f euds, not i n erect i ngt hemi nt o
act ual map- boundari es andcust oms- post s' (p. 236) . I f t hese assert i ons are not
t ransparent l yf al se, t he readermayt urn t o t he art i cl es byPerrons andAnderson,
ci t edprevi ousl y, f or aref ut at i on. Onl yone comment i s cal l edf orhere.
The bel i ef t hat capi t al i sm i s di ssol vi ng nat i onal f ront i ers and el i mi nat i ng
nat i onal (andraci al ) oppressi oni s hel dbymanyMarxi st s besi des TomNai rn. And
i t i s wrong. The empi ri cal evi dence agai nst i t i s sel f - evi dent . Haveanyf ront i ers been
removedf romt he mapof l at e? But what we are real l y deal i ngwi t h, here as i n al l
ot hermani f est at i ons of t he nat i onal quest i onandnat i onal i sm, i s t he st at e. Nat i onal
st ruggl e i s st ruggl e f orst at e power. Andst at e poweri s as i mport ant t ocapi t al i sm
t oday as ever i t was i n t he past . I t i s equal l y i mport ant t o t he worki ngcl ass.
Theref ore nat i onal st ruggl es are not l i kel yt o l ose t hei r i nt ensi t yf or some t i me t o
come.
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

97
Weare now, I t hi nk, i naposi t i on t o assess Nai rn's t heoryof nat i onal i smas awhol e.
I t i s present edas an ef f ort t o correct t he errors andt ranscendt he l i mi t at i ons of t he
t radi t i onal Marxi st t heory, but t he t radi t i onal t heoryi t sel f i s mi sunderst ood.
Nai rn's f i rst error, whi ch appears t o st emmai nl yf romanunf ami l i ari t ywi t h or
mi sreadi ngof post - 1914 Marxi st l i t erat ure on nat i onal i sm, i s t o bel i eve t hat t he
Marxi st t heoryof nat i onal i smassoci at es nat i onal st ruggl e wi t h, andonl ywi t h, t he
ri se of t he bourgeoi si e, andt hat t hi s t heoryt heref ore assert s t hat nat i onal i smi s
i mport ant onl y duri ngt he peri od of young, ri si ng capi t al i sm, growi ngl ess
i mport ant as capi t al i smmat ures. Tobe sure, t hi s equat i onof nat i onal i smwi t h earl y
orri si ngcapi t al i smi s t o be f oundi n most of t he nre- 1914 l i t erat ure_ and mai nl y
because i t i s enshri nedi n St al i n's i nf l uent i al (! ) essayof 1913, `Marxi smandt he
Nat i onal Quest i on', i t i s st i l l bel i evedbyaf ewdogmat i st s t oday(See Chapt er 5) .
But Marx andEngel s t hemsel ves di d not st ri ct l y equat e nat i onal i smwi t h t he
bourgeoi si e andt he peri odof i t s ri se. AndMarxi st s at t he t i me of t he Fi rst Worl d
Warbecame aware rat her abrupt l y t hat nat i onal i smwas growi ngst ronger and
morepol i t i cal l y i mport ant t han ever. AndLeni n, at t hat t i me andf or t hat reason,
provi dedat horough andadequat e expl anat i on f or t he f act t hat nat i onal i smdoes
not decl i ne but rat her i nt ensi f i es as capi t al i smmat ures i nt o i t s monopol y or
i mperi al i st phase. And, f i nal l y, Marxi st s si nce t hat t i me have vi ewed t he
i ncreasi ngl yi mport ant nat i onal st ruggl es, such as col oni al l i berat i on movement s,
as phenomenaf ul l ypredi ct edbyMarxi st t heory. (See Chapt er5) . Theref ore Nai rn
i s qui t e wrongi n assert i ngt hat Marxi st t heoryconsi gns nat i onal i smt o t he eraof
ri si ngcapi t al i sm.
Andbei ngwrongi n t hi s mat t er, he i s wrongi nanot her: aproposi t i onwhi chi s i n
a sense t he enabl i ngl egi sl at i on f or hi s own t heoryof nat i onal i sm. Accordi ngt o
Nai rn, t he t radi t i onal Marxi st t heory, preci sel ybecause i t predi ct edt he decl i ne of
nat i onal i sm, has been di scredi t edas at heory, andmoreover cannot expl ai n t he
newerf orms of nat i onal i sm, such as t he modern nat i onal movement s i n part s of
West ernEurope. Hencet he needf oranewandradi cal l ydi f f erent t heory, onewhi ch
sees nat i onal i smas af orce aut onomous f romcl ass st ruggl e. But t he premi ses are
f al se, andt hus al so t he concl usi ons.
Nai rn's secondbasi c cri t i ci smof t he t radi t i onal t heoryi s embodi edi nhi s deni al
t hat t he processes of nat i onal i smcanbederi vedf romt he processes of cl assst ruggl e.
I npart t hi s ref l ect s t he errordi scussedabove. But t hi s error asi de, Nai rndoes not
present anyanal yt i c cri t i que of t he t radi t i onal argument t hat nat i onal i smemerges
f romcl ass processes andi s af ormof cl ass st ruggl e. (See Chapt er2above. ) I nst ead
he unquest i oni ngl yaccept s t he basi c assumpt i on common t o most conservat i ve
t heori es t hat somet hi ngwhi chwel abel `nat i onal i sm' i s apri mi t i ve exi st ent , agi ven,
t obeaccept edat t he out set of anyargument . Thi s gi ven, f orNai rn, seems t o be an
i deol ogi cal (orpsychol ogi cal ) f orce. Al t houghhe f i nds i t s ant ecedent s i nsomet hi ng
cal l ed`unevendevel opment ' (not t o beconf usedwi t h t he uneven devel opment of
ordi naryMarxi st di scourse) he does not real l y t ry t o expl ai n t he nat ure and
charact eri st i cs of t he f orce i t sel f : i t remai ns a gi ven. I n t he t radi t i onal Marxi st
t heory, al l phenomenaof nat i onal i sm, i ncl udi ngt he st ri ct l yi deol ogi cal phenomena
- andmost cert ai nl yi ncl udi ngt he passi onat e andsomet i mes i rrat i onal at t i t udes
98 Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
_associ at ed-so of t enwi t h-nar t i onaf i -st nr ggt e _ -ai ~t hese-ar e consi der ed t ~f i e
mani f est at i ons of cl ass pr ocesses. ( For , l et us r ecal l , t her e i s passi on and
i r r at i onal i t y i nal l of cl ass st r uggl e, not l east i nt he Par i s commune, t he st or mi ngof
t he Wi nt er Pal ace, t he conquest of Di en Bi en Phu. ) But Nai r n does not even
exami ne t hear gument sf or acl ass basi s t o nat i onal i st phenomena: he i gnor est hem,
andt henmer el y assumes t hat nat i onal i smi s an aut onomous f or ce.
St i l l anot her di mensi on of t he t r adi t i onal t heor y i s i gnor edby Nai r n, al t hough
t hi s must be account edaner r or of commi ssi on, not omi ssi on. I r ef er t ot he f act t hat
t he t r adi t i onal t heor y, andmost of i t s var i ant s, have car ef ul l y andsyst emat i cal l y
r el at ed t he nat i onal quest i on t o expl oi t at i on. I ndeed, Mar xi st s have gener al l y
suppor t edt hose nat i onal movement s whi ch seemedt o have abasi s i nr esi st ance t o
cl ass expl oi t at i on andi mpover i shment andwi t hhel dsuppor t f r om, or suppor t ed
onl y t act i cal l y, t hose movement s whose pol i t i cal st r uggl e di dnot have t hi s concr et e
economi c andcl ass basi s. Nai r n bui l ds aquai nt model gr oundedi n what he cal l s
`unevendevel opment ' , one i nwhi ch t he pr ocess of expl oi t at i on- t he ext r act i on of
sur pl us l abour and sur pl us val ue - pl ays no par t what ever . I nst ead, `uneven
devel opment ' , or mor e pr oper l y t he f ai l ur e of anar eat o devel op, i s supposedt o
engender f eel i ngs of f r ust r at i on, of envy, amongt he l ocal el i t ss, t he l ocal expl oi t er s,
who t hen somehow`mobi l i ze' t he masses ( `t he l ower st r at a' ) i nt o a nat i onal i st
campai gn. So Nai r n' s t heor y r esembl es conser vat i ve t heor i es i n what i s per haps
t hei r most i mpor t ant f eat ur e: i t di scusses nat i onal i smwi t hout r el at i ng i t t o
economi c expl oi t at i on, and i t deal s wi t h nat i onal oppr essi on as i n essence a
psychol ogi cal andcul t ur al pr ocess andone whi ch af f ect s t he el i t e andnot i n any
i mpor t ant way t he masses: oppr essi on wi t hout expl oi t at i on.
But t he i ndi ct ment goes somewhat f ar t her . Nai r n asser t s t hat hi s vi ewof
nat i onal i sm i s basi cal l y t he same as Leni n' s, meani ng t hat he, l i ke Leni n,
appr eci at es t hepower andhi st or i cal i mpor t ance of t hi s f or ce, hence suppor t s some
nat i onal movement s i nst ead of di smi ssi ng, i gnor i ng, or at t acki ng al l such
movement s out -of -hand, as somany Mar xi st s di di nLeni n' s t i me andsome st i l l do
t oday. Nai r n t hi nks, however , t hat Leni n' s cor r ect posi t i ons wer e not gr oundedi n
t heor y: t hey wer e mer el y, he says, `pr agmat i c' . But Leni n' s vi ewof nat i onal i sm, as
we wi l l see i nChapt er 4, was not at al l what Nai r nmakes i t out t ohave been. I t was
not pr agmat i c: ont he cont r ar y, Leni nbr ought t he Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i smt o
anewandhi gher l evel by associ at i ng nat i onal st r uggl e wi t h monopol y capi t al i smor
i mper i al i sm. Nai r n says not hi ngwhat ever about i mper i al i sm, except i nt he vague
sense of `domi nat i on' , `subj ugat i on' , andunspeci f i c `oppr essi on' - t he sense used
r out i nel y by non-Mar xi st s - andi t i s i mpossi bl e t ot el l whet her Nai r nr ej ect s Leni n' s
t heor y of i mper i al i smor mer el y does not under st andi t . I donot r ef er her e t o t he
det ai l s of t hi s t heor y, such as t he hypot hesi s concer ni ngcapi t al expor t , but t o t he
f ami l y of pr esent -day model s whi ch ar e gr oundedi nLeni n' s basi c pr oposi t i ont hat
i mper i al i sm i s a pr ocess necessar y t o capi t al i sm and one whi ch engender s
under devel opment , super expl oi t at i on, andnat i onal oppr essi on. ( See Chapt er s 4
and5) . Nai r n i gnor es al l of t hi s, andhe f ai l s t o see ( or r emar k) any connect i on
bet ween nat i onal st r uggl es andi mper i al i sm, i nt er ms of cause, char act er , or ef f ect .
I nst ead he depl oys t he qui t e ant i t het i cal t heor i es of conser vat i ve soci al sci ence,
t hose whi ch depi ct t he i mpact of devel opedcapi t al i smonper i pher al count r i es as a
Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on

99
`mod-ei ni zt ng' pr ocess, one whi ch embodi esanessent i al l y psychol ogi cal and, i n a
sense, mor al pr ocess of mat ur at i on-r eachi ng ci vi l i zat i onandt hus adul t hood-and
one whi ch l eads, i f `unevenl y' , t o economi c pr ogr ess. I t i s no si n f or aMar xi st t o
make use of conser vat i ve t heor i es, but t osubst i t ut e t hemf or t he Mar xi st t heor i es of
cl ass st r uggl e andi mper i al i smi s somet hi ng el se al t oget her . Whet her or not t he
out come wi l l be a`Mar xi st ' t heor y i s qui t e besi de t he poi nt . I t wi l l be abadt heor y,
andNai r n' s i s acase i n poi nt .
Nai r n' s t heor y f i t s f i r ml y i nt o a gener al t endency wi t hi n moder n Mar xi st
t hought . By `t endency' I do not meanapol i t i cal movement , al t hough at t i mes i t
seems as t hough t heMar xi st s whomake upt hi s t endencyar eengagedi nf or mi ngan
i nt er nat i Wal nPn_Mar , r ; et er r . . . * . t . . , ~a . . , . . , t . o~~. . . at i . o e . . . . t ~; . . oh, . . . . . f ~~: . . * , ~i
______________

_. _ _. ~. __ . . . . , .
t . . , ~ . . u. . u. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u. . . . . ~ t . . v. . . uu. v. . .
schol ar s and whose t heor et i cal j our nal s wi l l somehow ser ve as so many
r evol ut i onar y spar ks. One of t he i dent i f yi ng posi t i ons t aken by t hi s gr oup of
schol ar s i s t o vi ew Mar xi smi t sel f as a si mpl e ext ensi on of t he Eur opean
Enl i ght enment . As a par al l el , cl ass st r uggl e i s vi ewedas mer el y one component i n
t he st eady upwar d st r eamof pr ogr essi ve soci al evol ut i on, a pr ocess whi ch
emanat edf r omsome anci ent or medi eval sour ce i nEur opeancul t ur e andever si nce
has gr own and ef f l or esced i n Eur ope ( or among Eur opeans) , at t he same t i me
di f f usi ng i t s f r ui t s ar oundt he wor l d.
Onamor e concr et e l evel , t hi s per spect i ve t ends t or ej ect sever al speci f i c t enet s of
Mar xi st t heor y( not t osayMar xi st pr act i ce) . Most basi c, per haps, i s i t s deni al of t he
ar gument of The Ger man I deol ogy t o t he ef f ect t hat i deas, i ncl udi ng t he
Enl i ght enment al ongwi t h t he ent i r e r eal mof i deol ogy, ar e not t he pr i me mover s of
hi st or y. Next i t deni es, or f or get s, t hat t he masses ar e t he maker s of hi st or y. ( For
TomNai r n, t he i nt el l i gent si aandt he el i t e ar e t he mai nact or s i nnat i onal i sm. For
Per r y Ander son, Nai r n' s i nt el l ect ual soul mat e and f or mer col l eague at NewLef t
Revi ew, ki ngs and st at esmen wer e t he mai n act or s i n Eur opean hi st or i cal
devel opment . ' z) Fi nal l y, i n t hi s school of t hought , expl oi t at i on t ends t obe a ver y
abst r act component of event s- i t cannot be i gnor edent i r el y t hanks t oCapi t al -and
i t i s r ar el yseen, as Mar xandEngel s sawi t , as amat t er of suf f er i ng andoppr essi on,
andt he pr i me sour ce of r esi st ance andt her eaf t er soci al change.
Ont he l evel of pr act i ce, or t he i nspect i on of pr act i ce, t hese schol ar s t endt ol ook
downon most ef f or t s i n t he r eal wor l dt o def eat capi t al i sm. Some of t hemj ust do
not accept t he i deat hat t her e have beensuccessf ul soci al i st r evol ut i ons anywher e i n
t he wor l d. Ot her s ar e l ess ext r eme i n t hei r vi ews. Al l , however , i nconsonance wi t h
t he not i on t hat soci al i smi s mer el y t he evol ut i onar y ext ensi on of capi t al i sm, and
soci al i st t hought mer el y t he ext ensi on of Enl i ght enment t hought , t end t o
under val ue t he r evol ut i onar y accompl i shment s of t he expl oi t edcl asses i nt heThi r d
Wor l d, at t he same t i me under pl ayi ng t he ef f i cacy andeven occasi onal l y denyi ng
t he exi st ence of cl ass st r uggl e at t he cent r e of t he syst em.
Nai r n, as I have sai d, bel ongs t o t hi s t r adi t i on. Cl ass st r uggl e at t he cent r e i s, i n
hi s vi ew, `f r ozen' i nt o i mmobi l i t y. I n t he per i pher y t her e seemnot t o be soci al i st
count r i es, andi nst ead of t he cl ass st r uggl e whi ch pr esent s i t sel f as a nat i onal
l i ber at i on st r uggl e t her e i s onl y af or mof el i t i st , bour geoi s nat i onal i sm, gener at ed
by envyandl ed- howcoul di t be ot her wi se?- by t he i nt el l i gent si a. Nai r n' s t heor y of
nat i onal i smt hus f al l s wi t hi n al ar ger and, on t he whol e, i nt er nal l y consi st ent body
100 Di f f usi oni smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
of neo- Marxi st t hought . The si gnat ure of t hi s ent i re st reamof schol ars and
schol arshi pi s t he deni al t hat cl ass st ruggl e i s t he mot or of hi st ory.
Onef i nal t hought . The nat i onal l i berat i onst ruggl es of col oni al andneocol oni al
nat i ons are a f ormof nat i onal i sm whi ch, I assume, every Marxi st deems
progressi ve. Let us t hen ask what rel evance Nai rn' s t heory of nat i onal i smwoul d
have f or such st ruggl es - i n Puert o Ri co, Nami bi a, El Sal vador, or anywhere el se.
Thi s t heorywoul d, t o begi nwi t h, bracket any such st ruggl e wi t h f asci sm. Second, i t
woul ddeny or i gnore t he f act t hat such ast ruggl e has abasi s i nexpl oi t at i on and,
more general l y, i mperi al i sm. Thi rd, i t woul df i ndt he i nt erest edsect ors t obe t he
bourgeoi si e andt he i nt el l ect ual s, not t he worki ngcl asses, t hese l at t er, i nNai rn' s
Theory, bei ngmerel y = mobi l i zed' i naprocess he descri bes as - popul i st . Andi mai i y,
Nai rn' s t heory woul df l at l y rej ect t he i deol ogi cal andpol i t i cal cl ai m, whi ch, I have
no doubt , i s made by every Marxi st who part i ci pat es i n a nat i onal l i berat i on
st ruggl e, t hat t he qui t e real i zabl e goal of t hat st ruggl e i s not t o el i mi nat e f orei gn-
cont rol l ed capi t al i smandsubst i t ut e i t wi t h a nat i ve equi val ent , but t o make a
soci al i st revol ut i on. For al l t hese reasons, but mai nl y f or t he l ast one, Nai rn' s
t heory must bej udged i rrel evant .
Not es
1. T. Nai rn, `The Modern J anus' , NewLef t Revi ew94( 1975) .
2. See Chapt er 1, not e 9.
3. `The Modern J anus' p. 5.
4. I bi d. , p. 3.
5. I bi d. , p. 21.
6. I bi d. , p. 17.
7. I bi d. , p. 16.
8. ' I ' . Nai rn, TheBreak- Up of Bri t ai n ( 1977) .
9. See B. N. Bhat i a, Fami nes i nI ndi a( 1967) .
10. See E. P. Thompson' s essay, `The Pecul i ari t i es of t he Engl i sh' , i n hi s The
Povert y of Theory andOt herEssays ( 1978) , f or af i ne, caust i c cri t i que of t hi s vi ewas
i t hadbeen put f orwardi n earl i er wri t i ngs by Nai rn andPerry Anderson.
11. For amoret rue- t o- l i f e geography, see essays by t woof mycol l eagues: Di ane
Perrons, `I rel and andt he Break- up of Bri t ai n' , Ant i pode 11, 1 ( 1980) , andJ ames
Anderson, `Regi ons and Rel i gi ons i n I rel and: AShort Cri t i que of t he "Two
Nat i ons"Theory' , i bi d. I amdi scussi ngNai rn' s f act ual assert i ons about Nort hern
I rel and onl y as part of my cri t i que of hi s t heory of nat i onal i sm, not as an
i nt ervent i on i n t he debat e about Nort hern I rel and, a subj ect t hat i s beyondt he
scope of t hi s book.
12. Perry Anderson, Li neages of t he Absol ut e St at e ( 1974) .
`Nat i onal i sm' , saysEri c Hobsbawm, i s `devoi dof any di scerni bl e rat i onal t heory' . '
He means by t hi s t hat ( 1) nat i onal movement s t oday are i rrat i onal , and( 2) no
rat i onal t heory exi st s t o expl ai nnat i onal i sm, whi ch i s somet hi ngt hat `has beena
great puzzl e t o( non- nat i onal i st ) pol i t i ci ans andt heori st s ever si nce i t s i nvent i on' . z
Hobsbawmi s arespect edMarxi st schol ar, but here hedi smi sses agreat deal of qui t e
rat i onal Marxi st t heori zi ng about t he nat i onal quest i on andagreat many qui t e
rat i onal st ruggl es agai nst col oni al i smandneocol oni al i sm- nat i onal l i berat i on
movement s, some of t hemgui dedby t he sameMarxi st t heory whi ch he di smi sses.
He i nsert s j ust one real qual i f i cat i on: nat i onal i smdi d have a sensi bl e, rat i onal
purpose i n 19t h Cent ury Europe, because `nat i on st at es were t he mai n bui l di ng
bl ocks of worl d capi t al i sm' i n t hose t i mes. ' But t he t i mes have changed.
Nat i onal i smt oday, i nHobsbawm' s vi ew, i s t he rat her ai ml ess t endency t o spl i t up
exi st i ngst at es i nt o smal l er ones i naprocess whi ch he descri bes as `t he f i ssi parous
nat i onal i sms of our t i me' , aprocess whi ch he t akes t o i ncl ude al l f orms of t he
st at ehood. I t i s t hi s process whi ch has no
Marxi st s t heref ore have t o deal wi t h i t
st ruggl e f or i ndependent soverei gn
`di scerni bl e rat i onal t heory' , and
pragmat i cal l y, as agi ven, a`f act ' :
Marxi st s . . , . have t o come t o t erms wi t ht he pol i t i cal f act of nat i onal i smandt o
def i ne t hei r at t i t udes t owardi t s speci f i c mani f est at i ons. Ever si nce Marx, t hi s
has f or t he most part , and necessari l y, been a mat t er not of t heoret i cal
pri nci pl e . . . but of pragmat i c j udgment i n changi ng ci rcumst ances. I n
pri nci pl e, Marxi st s are nei t her f or nor agai nst i ndependent st at ehoodf or any
nat i on . . . evenassumi ngt hat t here can beot her t hanpragmat i c agreement on
what const i t ut es `t he nat i on' i n any part i cul ar cases
But can i t bet rue t hat `Marxi st s are nei t her f or nor agai nst i ndependent st at ehood
f or any nat i on' ? Donot Marxi st s gi ve unqual i f i edsupport t ot he i ndependence of
Puert oRi co? Nami bi a? Al l col oni es? Andi s t hi s not amat t er of `pri nci pl e' , t hat i s,
somet hi ngf ul l y and, yes, rat i onal l y comprehendedwi t hi nMarxi st t heory Andi s i t
qui t e f ai r t o descri be t he i mmense corpus of Marxi st wri t i ngs on t he nat i onal
quest i on as `pragmat i c j udgment i n changi ngci rcumst ances' ? I t seems t o me t hat
Eri c Hobsbawm, f i ne schol ar t hough he i s, on t hese mat t ers i s very wrong. He i s
wrong, moreover, i nways t hat are part i cul arl yunhel pf ul f or t he nat i onal l i berat i on
st ruggl es - hardl y `f i ssi parous nat i onal i sms' - whi chare st i l l bei ngwagedi nmany
count ri es, some col oni al , some neocol oni al , andsome f ree but embat t l ed.
10 2

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
I n t hi s chapt er I wi l l t r y t o r ef ut e t he vi ewt hat i t i s nol onger r at i onal t o st r uggl e
er - ~a~i er t al - l i beaai an- - aror~he~ee~e^r ~
: ^" ' ~

~
u t ,~t ~ . v* ; ~r ~m~et
per suasi ve modemadvocat e of t hi s essent i al posi t i on. For t hi s r eason,andbecause
t he posi t i on i s unhel pf ul f or nat i onal Li ber at i on st r uggl es (t hough t hi s i s an
uni nt endedef f ect ) ,I wi l l f ocusonHobsbawm' swr i t i ngs. But Hobsbawmwi l l ser ve
as a st and- i n f or many ot her Mar xi st t heor i st s who hol d t he posi t i on t hat
nat i onal i smt oday i s basi cal l y i r r at i onal : t hat nat i onal movement sar e mor e or l ess
poi nt l ess (whet her or not t hey ar e pr ogr essi ve) andnat i onal st at es ar e mor e or l ess
obsol et e.
Thi s vi ewi s hel di n commonby t woi mpor t ant , andver y di f f er ent , cur r ent s of
Mar xi st t hought . Onesect or r ej ect st he cl assst r uggl e t heor y of hi st or y or r ef usest o
appl y i t t o nat i onal st r uggl e. For t hese Mar xi st s,nat i onal i sm(i nvar i ous senses of
t hat wor d) i s af or ce aut onomous f r omcl ass st r uggl e. Ei t her i t i s pr i mor di al i y an
i deol ogi cal phenomenon (t he `i deaof sel f - det er mi nat i on' , et c. ) , or i t emer ges i n
some myst i cal way f r omt he `nat i on' (or t he `pr i nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' ) and
i mmedi at el y assumes t hi s i deol ogi cal f or m. I t i s i r r at i onal because i t i s i deol ogy
di sengagedf r omext er nal soci al r eal i t y, andi t maybe i r r at i onal i n asecondsense,
t he sense i mpl yi ng anemot i onal ,i nf r a- i nt el l ect ual l evel of t he humanpsyche. (For
TomNai r n,we r ecal l ,i t i s t he I d. ) Enough wassai dear l i er about t hi s cur r ent of
t hought , andwe cant ur n t ot he ot her one, whi ch i s epi t omi zedby Hobsbawm.
I f i t i s agr eedt hat nat i onal st r uggl e i s cl assst r uggl e,t henoneasks r at her qui ckl y:
whi ch cl asses ar e i nvol ved, i n what sor t s of cl ass st r uggl e? Ther e i s adi st i nct i ve
t r adi t i onwi t hi n Mar xi sm- di st i nct i ve i n t he i nt el l ect ual sense but not cl ear l y soi n
t he pol i t i cal sense - whi ch i dent i f i es nat i onal st r uggl e mai nl y, or onl y, or
`r at i onal l y' ,wi t h onecl ass: t he bour geoi si e. Thenar r ow,or f undament al i st ,f or mof
t hi s posi t i on comes down t o us f r ompr e- Fi r st Wor l dWar Mar xi smand
par t i cul ar l y f r omRosaLuxembur g. I t i s t he vi ewt hat t he bour geoi si e i s t he onl y
cl ass wi t h amat er i al i nt er est i nt he nat i onal movement andi t s i deol ogy,andi n t he
nat i onal st at e, andonl y sodur i ng t he per i odof yout hf ul or r i si ng capi t al i sm; not
onl y does t he wor ki ng cl ass r ej ect ever yt hi ng `mer el y nat i onal ' but so does t he
mat ur e, f ul l y- r i sen bour geoi si e. Wi t hi n t hi s f r ame of r ef er ence, nat i onal
movement s ar e i r r at i onal f or essent i al l y al t cl ass sect or s ot her t han t he `r i si ng
bour geoi si e' . So,t oo, i s t he nat i onal st at e. I t f ol l owst hat cl assesandcl assgr oupi ngs
whi ch ar e mor e `advanced' i n hi st or i cal t er ms t han t he yout hf ul bour geoi si es
par t i ci pat e i n nat i onal st r uggl es onl y, or mai nl y, as a r esul t of i deol ogi cal
cont agi on,adopt i ng `t hei deol ogy of bour geoi snat i onal i sm' as `f al se consci ousness' .
Ther ef or e, al l nat i onal i smi s amani f est at i onof `bour geoi s- nat i onal i st i deol ogy' . I
wi l l cal l t hi s doct r i ne i n i t s pur e f or mt he `al l - nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s' t heor y,
al t hough t he t heor y asser t s t hat non- bour geoi s cl asses can be i nf ect ed wi t h
bour geoi s- nat i onal i st i deol ogy andact agai nst t hei r own cl ass i nt er est s - act ,
t her ef or e, i r r at i onal l y .
Dur i ng t he per i odwhennat i onal l i ber at i on movement swer e gai ni ngvi ct or i esal l
over t heThi r dWor l d,t he al l - nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s t heor y wasnot ver y popul ar
wi t hi n Mar xi sm,except among af ewTr ot skyi st s. b Some nat i onal movement s,of
cour se,wer e bour geoi s, but some ot her s wer e st r uggl es agai nst t he bour geoi si e,
l ocal andf or ei gn,andt he i deol ogi cal basi sof some of t hese ant i - bour geoi s st r uggl es
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

103
wasMar xi sm. Dur i ng t he 1970s, however ,t he al l - nat i onal i sm- i s- bour geoi s t heor y
r egai nedsome of i t s popul ar i t yas par t of t he cr i t i que' `Tf i i r
- -
I c=Wor Tdi sm. hi sof
cour se t r ue t hat Mar xi st s ever ywher e hadt endedt oi deal i ze nat i onal l i ber at i on
st r uggl es, t o i gnor e or expl ai n away t hei r f ai l i ngs (whi ch wer e somet i mes wel l -
hi dden behi ndor t hodox Mar xi st r het or i c) . But amor e i nf l uent i al f act or was t he
r et r eat f r omLeni ni st t heor y concer ni ng i mper i al i sm,col oni al i sm, andt he r ol e of
ant i - col oni al st r uggl es i n t he st r uggl e agai nst capi t al i smon awor l dscal e. And
per haps most i nf l uent i al was t he r et ur n by some Leni ni st s andmost soci al
democr at s t o t he apol oget i cs of di f f usi oni sm, wi t h col oni al i smseen as a
`moder ni zi ng' (f or mer l y a`ci vi l i zi ng' ) pr ocess, andant i - col oni al i smas asi mpl e
cont i nuat i on of t hat pr ocess. I n any event , af t er t he ear l y 1970s i t became
i nr r r aci al y nnni i l ar t o ar ut i P t hat Thi r dWor l dl i ber at i on movement s wer e
_ _ _ _ a_ ~ i . _ f . _ _ _ _ _ _
essent i al l y acont i nuat i on of t he bour geoi sr evol ut i on- t he r i se of capi t al i sm- and
t hat t hei r i deol ogi es, st r at egi es, andl eadi ng cl ass el ement s wer e bour geoi s.
Nat i onal l i ber at i on, i n awor d,wasbour geoi s nat i onal i sm.
Somet hi ng l i ke t hi s vi ewhas been ar gueddur i ng t he past f ewyear s by many
Mar xi st t heor i st swhoconsi der t hemsel vest obef ol l owi ngt he mai nl i ne of Mar xi st
anal ysi s t hat goesback (vi aLeni n) t oMar x. Nat i onal st r uggl e,f or t hem,i s i ndeeda
f or mof cl ass st r uggl e,but i t i s af or mt hat i s essent i al l y bour geoi s, or par t of an
essent i al l y bour geoi sr evol ut i on (what ever maybe t he cl asscomposi t i onof agi ven
movement ) . By ~ t he same t oken, an i deol ogy of nat i onal l i ber at i on i s, or
i ncor por at es,some var i et y of bour geoi snat i onal i sm,usual l y t he var i et ycal l ed`t he
pr i nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' (`each nat i on i t s st at e; each st at e i t s nat i on' ) . Al l of t he
phenomenaassoci at edwi t h nat i onal st r uggl e wer e i mpor t ant andval i ddur i ng t he
per i od when capi t al i smwas r i si ng i n Eur ope, t he 19t h Cent ur y. But t oday
capi t al i smi s f ul l y r i sen. Bour geoi s r evol ut i ons ar e essent i al l y t hi ngs of t he past .
Event he capi t al i st st at e, t ypi cal l y anat i on st at e, i s at hi ng of t he past : capi t al i sm
t oday i s i nt er nat i onal or mul t i nat i onal , not nat i onal . The most di st i ngui shed, and
most near l y per suasi ve,exponent of t hi s basi c vi ewpoi nt i s Er i c Hobsbawm.
Hobsbawm' s Theses
Hobsbawm' sposi t i oni s set f or t h i nsever al of hi swr i t i ngs,but most f ul l y i nanessay
i nNewLef t Revi ewent i t l ed`SomeRef l ect i onson " The Br eak- upof Br i t ai n" ' . ' Thi s
essay waswr i t t enasacr i t i que of TomNai r n' s vi ew,put f or t h i n TheBr eak- Up of
Br i t ai n, t hat t he nat i onal i st movement sont he Br i t i sh per i pher y (Scot l and,Wal es,
and`Pr ot est ant Nor t her nI r el and' ) ar e pol i t i cal l ysi gni f i cant - t hat t hey cani ndeed
`br eak up Br i t ai n' - andt hat t hey ar e pr ogr essi ve anddeser ve t he suppor t of
Mar xi st s. Hobsbawm' scr i t i que of Nai r ni s pr i mar i l y ananswer t ot hese ar gument s
about per i pher al Br i t i sh nat i onal i sm: t hey ar e not pr ogr essi ve, he ar gues, and,
si gni f i cant or not , t hey ar e i r r at i onal .
But Hobsbawmi s not cont ent t o mobi l i ze onl y t he ar gument swhi ch ar e speci f i c
t o t he Br i t i sh case. He i nt r oduces as wel l hi s ownl ar ger vi ewof t he nat i onal
quest i on, t he hi st or y of i t s t r eat ment i nMar xi st t hought andpr act i ce,and,most
cr uci al l y, t he pr esent andpr esumpt i ve f ut ur e st at us of nat i onal quest i ons of al l
t ypes on awor l dscal e- not hi ngl ess. Hi s car di nal pr oposi t i oni s t hat nat i onal i sm
has made l i t t l e sense i n t he pr esent cent ur y,wi l l make nomor e sense i nt he f ut ur e,
104 Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
andcannot , t her ef or e, cl ai mt he suppor t of Mar xi st s. Al l of t hi s di scussi on i s of
cour se di r ect edat f het ar getof penp~r al Bnt i sl tnat i onal i sm~T>u~Ho~sbawm~i r es
amassi ve br oadsi de at subst ant i al l y al l pr esent - day nat i onal movement s, br i ngi ng
even t he ant i - col oni al l i ber at i on movement si nt o hi ssi ght s, anddecl ar i ng modem
nat i onal i sm i n gener al t o be t he r at her poi nt l ess, i r r at i onal , `f i ssi par ous
nat i onal i sms of our t i me' . Thi s ar gument consumes most of Hobsbawm' s essay,
andt hus t he essay as awhol e i s l ess ar esponse t oNai r n t han i t i s apr esent at i on of
Hobsbawm' s own t heor y of nat i onal i sm. (Hewoul dobj ect t o t he use of t he wor d
`t heor y' i n t hi s cont ext , si nce he consi der s nat i onal i smt o be `devoi d of any
di scer ni bl e r at i onal t heor y' . Lat er i n t hi s chapt er I wi l l showt hat Hobsbawm' s
non- t heor y i s at heor y . ) Hobsbawmhaddeal t wi t h t he nat i onal quest i on i n ot her s
of hi p wr i t i nes. but t he NewLef t Revi ewar t i cl e i s_ t ot he best of my knowl edee, t he
maj or vehi cl e f or hi svi ews. 8 My cr i t i ci smof t hese vi ews wi l l f ocusmai nl y, t hough
not ent i r el y, on t hi s ar t i cl e.
I wi l l not vent ur e asyst emat i c cr i t i que of t he ar t i cl e as awhol e. For one t hi ng,
much of what Hobsbawmhas t o say about t he nat i onal quest i on, i n Br i t ai n andi n
gener al , i s val uabl e and i mpor t ant . For anot her t hi ng, I conf r ont Hobsbawm' s
t heor y i n or der t or ef ut e or t ur n asi de t hose ar gument s whi ch, i n my vi ew, ar e l i kel y
t o l ead t of al se j udgement s concer ni ng nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es not yet won,
st r uggl esmai nl yi n smal l count r i esl i ke Puer t oRi co. (The mat t er of spat i al scal e i s
r at her cr i t i cal i n Hobsbawm' s t hi nki ng, as we wi l l see. ) Anot her pur pose of my
essay, nat ur al l y, i s t o advance our gener al under st andi ng of nat i onal i sm.
Gi ven t hese pur poses, i t seems i mpor t ant t o cr i t i ci z e f our pr i mar y t heses whi ch
Hobsbawmadvances andqui t e st r ongl y def ends. Thr ee of t hese ar e r easons put
f or war d by hi mf or opposi ng, or at l east negl ect i ng, nat i onal st r uggl es i n t he
moder n wor l d. The f our t h per t ai ns t o t he hi st or y of t he Mar xi st t heor y of
nat i onal i sm, andal so r el at es di r ect l y t o pr esent - day nat i onal st r aggl es because
Hobsbawm' s t hesi s i s i n essence adeni al t hat t her e exi st s such a t heor y i n any
compr ehensi ve sense (` . . . a mat t er not of t heor et i cal pr i nci pl e . . . but of
pr agmat i cj udgement ' ) . Hobsbawm' sf our t heses canbe st at edi n summar y f or mas
f ol l ows:
(1) The nat ur e andgoal sof nat i onal movement shave changedpr of oundl y si nce t he
Fi r st Wor l dWar . Some of t he ol der f or ms wer e r at i onal , andal l coul dbe j udged
f r omt he st andpoi nt of ar at i onal t heor y . Thi s i s not t r ue of newer f or ms.
(2) The devel opment of capi t al i smhas t ended t o di mi ni sh t he i mpor t ance of
sover ei gnt y, of nat i on st at es, whi ch ar e l osi ng t hei r si gni f i cance i n pr opor t i on as
capi t al i smbecomes mor e f ul l y i nt er nat i onal .
(3) `The vi r t ual di sappear ance of f or mal empi r es ("col oni al i sm") has snappedt he
mai nl i nk bet weenant i - i mper i al i smandt he sl ogan of nat i onal sel f - det er mi nat i on. '
St r uggl esagai nst neocol oni al i smar e not nat i onal st r uggl es. Ther ef or e, nat i onal i sm
t oday i s mai nl y conf i ned t o `t he f i ssi on of "devel oped" capi t al i st st at es' .
(4) Mar xi st s have t ended t o r el at e t o nat i onal movement s as a mat t er of
pr agmat i sm, not t heor et i cal pr i nci pl e: when nat i onal movement s ar e pr ogr essi ve,
t hey ar e gi ven essent i al l y t act i cal suppor t . I n par t i cul ar , t her e i s noLeni ni st t heor y
of nat i onal i sm; t her e i s, i nst ead, aset of pr agmat i cposi t i ons, such assuppor t f or t he
r
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

105
r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on, posi t i ons whi ch t ended t o be cor r ect , al t hough
(mai nl yt uz em~ur gt anj cr i t i ct `smsoWese posi t i onsar enot ent i r el y- unf ounded. -
I wi l l di scuss each of t hese f our t heses i n t ur n, but f i r st abr i ef but necessar y
comment on mat t er s of t er mi nol ogy wi t h r egar d t ot he nat i onal quest i on i s r equi r ed.
Thi schapt er wi l l concl ude wi t h abr i ef anal ysi s of Hobsbawm' sf undament al t heor y
of nat i onal i smas asoci al pr ocess, andwi l l r el at e t hi s t heor y t o t he l ar ger Mar xi st
t heor y of nat i onal i sm.
ANot e on Ter mi nol ogy
Di scussi onsabout nat i onal i sm, t he nat i onal quest i on, t he nat i on, andsoon, ar eapt
t o l ose t hemsel ves i n af og of t er mi nol ogi cal conf usi on, so i t i s i mpor t ant t o
ct r ai aht en not ner t i nPnt mat t Pr c of t er mi nnl nQVat t he n1l t Set Of t he dI SCl l SS10n. 10
_ a_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .

. .
Pr i de of pl ace must of cour se got ot he wor d`nat i onal i sm' .
Hobsbawmuses t he wor d`nat i onal i sm' i n al l of t he senses i ndi cat edi n Chapt er 1
- appl i edt o nat i onal st r uggl e i n gener al , t o oneor bot h si des i n anat i onal st r uggl e,
t o `nar r ow' and`bour geoi s' nat i onal i sm- but he does not make t he r equi r ed
di st i nct i ons of meani ng. Thi s asser t i on wi l l be br ought down t o speci f i cs as we
pr oceed. He uses t he wor d`nat i on' br oadl y i n t he way i t wasusedby Mar x, Engel s,
Leni n, andLuxembur g, but not i n t he way i t wasusedby Bauer andSt al i n. Bot h
Bauer and St al i n supposed t hat t he nat i on i s a def i ni t e, di scr et e, whol e
phenomenon, wi t h i nvar i ant pr oper t i es (what A. N. Whi t eheadwoul dhave cal l eda
`nat ur al ent i t y' ) . " St al i n i n par t i cul ar appl i ed hi s def i ni t i on of `nat i on' as a
yar dst i ck t o det er mi ne whi ch gr oups of peopl e andnat i onal movement sdeser ved
t he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on, ongr oundst hat t hey wer e, i ndeed, genui ne nat i ons,
because onl y genui ne nat i ons hadt he capaci t y t o become i ndependent st at es. Thi s
def i ni t i on i s di scussedi n Chapt er 5.
No at t empt t o pr ovi de a r i gor ous def i ni t i on of `nat i on' was made by Mar x,
Engel s, Leni n, or Luxembur g, andHobsbawmf ol l owst hei r pr act i ce i n not i ng t hat
t her e ar e many di f f er ent sor t s of communi t i es deser vi ng t he appel l at i on `nat i on' ,
andt hat t hei r i nt er nal char act er i st i cs donot al ways war r ant aj udgement of t hei r
pot ent i al t of or masover ei gnst at e. Thus, of t he t woappr oaches t o t he concept of
t he nat i on, Hobsbawmr ej ect st he apr i or i st i c oneandadopt st he r eal i st i c one. Si nce
most Mar xi st s, i ncl udi ng t hose whohave not hi ng f r i endl y t o say about St al i n,
accept t he St al i nesque f or mof def i ni t i on, Hobsbawm' s appr oach i s r ef r eshi ngl y
undogmat i c. He uses t he wor d `nat i on' ei t her t o descr i be acommuni t y whi ch,
r eal i st i cal l y or not , i s st r i vi ng f or i ndependence, andt hus has spawnedanat i onal
movement , or t odescr i be anexi st i ng pol i t i cal communi t y whi ch may be asover ei gn
nat i on- st at e or anon- sover ei gnent i t y l i ke acol ony . Thesemeani ngsar e ver y cl ear l y
speci f i edi n cont ext , andt hus one of t he usual sour ces of conf usi on i n di scussi ons
about t he nat i onal quest i on i s ni cel y avoi ded.
Ther e i s, however , one pr obl emwi t h r egar d t o Hobsbawm' s usage of `nat i on' .
Recal l hi s doubt whet her `t her e can be ot her t han pr agmat i c agr eement on what
const i t ut es"t he nat i on" i n any par t i cul ar case' . Her e he movest owar dst he posi t i on
of Luxembur g andaway f r omt he posi t i on of Mar x, Engel s, andLeni n. Luxembur g
consi der ed nat i ons t o be, i n essence, f i ct i ons: ei t her t hey wer e t he pr oduct of
bour geoi si deol ogy beamedat t he wor ki ng cl assor t hey wer e some sor t of sl apped-
10 6

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
whencapi t al i smhadr eachedi t s mat ur e, i nt er nat i onal , st at ur e. ' 2 Mar x, Engel s, and
Leni n, on t he ot her hand, wer e ver y r espect f ul of human cul t ur al pr ocesses and
cl eavage pl anes, and, however unwi l l i ng t hey wer e t o t r y t o def i ne pr eci sel y and
uni ver sal l y what anat i on i s, t hey cer t ai nl y r ecogni zedi t s r eal i t y i n t he sense t hat
t hey per cei vedt he si gni f i cance of cul t ur al qual i t i esandgr oupi ngsi n pol i t i cal l i f e.
Hobsbawmdoes not r et r eat al l t he way t o Luxembur g' s posi t i on ( al t hough he
shar es wi t h her t he t endency t o put t he wor d`nat i on' i n quot es, as t hough nat i ons
wer e t r ul y unr eal ) . But he cl ear l y pr ef er s t o wor k wi t h t he much mor e concr et e
hi st or i cal concept of `nat i on- st at e' .
Hobsbawm' suse of t he concept of nat i on- st at e i s al so r ef r eshi ngl y undogmat i c,
al t hough I t 1S nOL W1t nOUL pi Obl emS. r i e not es Thai auat i 0i i - st ag . . , ay st ar t gut as a
st at e, t hen become homogeni zed, or at l east si mpl i f i ed, i n cul t ur al t er mst ot he poi nt
wher et he i nhabi t ant sof t he st at e see t hemsel vesas anat i on. Hobsbawmal sonot es
t hat cul t ur al l y and t er r i t or i al l y def i ned nat i onal communi t i es have noi nevi t abl e
dest i ny or cosmi c r i ght t o become sover ei gn st at es ( accor di ng t o t he myst i cal
`pr i nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' whi ch was wi del y accept ed i n t he 19t h Cent ur y, and
whi ch Hobsbawmr i ght l y cr i t i ci zes) . He not es al so t hat mul t i cul t ur al st at es,
whet her capi t al i st or soci al i st , ar e as vi abl e i n t he moder nwor l dasar e cul t ur al l y
uncompl ex st at es of t he sor t whi ch i s usual l y cal l ed a nat i on- st at e . Thus
Hobsbawm' s essent i al concept of t he nat i on- st at e i s apol i t i cal concept , not a
cul t ur al one. He doesnot t r yt odef i ne t he t er mi n anyf or mal sense, but t he meani ng
i s nonet hel ess cl ear i n cont ext . He i s concer nedabout t he subst ant i al , per si st ent ,
consequent i al st at esof t he moder nwor l d, some of t heml ar ge, ot her s smal l ( but not
ver y smal l ) , some of t hemmul t i cul t ur al , ot her s cul t ur al l y uncompl ex; t hese he cal l s
`nat i on- st at es' . Hi s f ocus i s t hus on t he pol i t i cs of st at es andst at e f or mat i on - a
per spect i ve on t he nat i onal quest i on whi chi s al l t oouncommoni n moder nMar xi st
wr i t i ngs on t hi s subj ect . Thi s f ocusdoes not l eadhi mt o negl ect mat t er sof cul t ur e,
of i deol ogy, andt he l i ke, i n f avour of mat t er s mor e col dl y `pol i t i cal ' . He i s mer el y
ar gui ng, i n essence, t hat t he Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i smi s at hear t at heor y of
pol i t i cs. AndI f ul l y agr ee.
Hobsbawm' ser r or s on t he mat t er of nat i on- st at es r el at e not t ot er mi nol ogy but
t owhat canbe t hought of ast hei r nat ur al hi st or y. He put s f or war dat heor y about
t he or i gi n, di sper sal , andi mmi nent ext i nct i on of t he capi t al i st nat i on- st at e, at heor y
whi chI wi l l cr i t i ci ze at some l engt h. Andhe pr oj ect s t he vi ewt hat ver y smal l st at es
ar e not nat i on- st at es andar e not vi abl e. Thi s, t oo, I wi l l cr i t i ci ze.
Ar e Nat i onal Movement s I r r at i onal ?
Nat i on- St at es of Yest er year
Hobsbawmmai nt ai ns t hat nat i onal movement shadapr oper f unct i on i n t he days
when t he f or mat i on of nat i on st at es wasappr opr i at e t o t he pol i t i cs of yout hf ul or
r i si ng capi t al i sm, but nat i onal movement s nol onger have t hat f unct i on or i ndeed
anyot her. He ar gues t hat t he pr i nci pal f or mof nat i onal i smi n t he 19t h Cent ur y, and
down t hr ough t he per i od of t he Fi r st Wor l dWar , was
not nat i onal i st i n t he cur r ent sense, i nasmuch as i t di dnot envi si on awor l dof
nat i on- st at esi r r espect i ve of si ze andr esour ces, but onl y one of `vi abl e' st at es of
Hobsbawmon t he t vat t on Mat e

mi
r xher - economsc ent i r ecr eat edb ca i t al i st s f or t hei r conveni ence andcast asi de

i

medi umt ol ar ge si ze . . . Theevi dence i s over whel mi ng t hat at t hi s st age t he cr ux
- _f i g

_, - ~- ~

_

_

__

.

~

~
r at i ar r al i st - movement s ~. a~- . - . ^^* se. - mus- h st axa- i ndependence as s~l ch but
r at her t he const r uct i on of `vi abl e' st at es, i n shor t `uni f i cat i on' r at her t han
`separ at i sm' - t hough t hi s was conceal ed by t he f act t hat most nat i onal
movement s al so t ended t o br eak up one or mor e of t he sur vi vi ng obsol et e
empi r es of Aust r i a, Tur key, andRussi a. "
Hobsbawmt hen l i st s amongt he 19t h Cent ur ynat i onal movement swhi ch sought
"`uni f i cat i on" r at her t han "separ at i sm"' , not onl y t he Ger man and I t al i an
movement s ( t he wel l - known cases) but al so t he Pol es, t he Romani ans, t he
Yugosl avs, t he Bul gar i ans ( wi t h Macedoni a) , t he Gr eeks, and t he Czechs and
Sl ovaks. He al so not es t hat t he i deal of medi umt o l ar ge st at es was shar edby
Mazzi ni , Mar xandEngel s, andt he Wi l soni anboundar y- maker s. Over al l , t hi s was
af or mof nat i onal i smt hat wasai medat cr eat i ng `a wor l dof . . . "vi abl e" st at es of
medi umt o l ar ge si ze' , andnot awor l d of mi ni - st at es and ot her such pecul i ar
ent i t i es.
Today, however , t he si t uat i oni s al t oget her di f f er ent i n Hobsbawm' s vi ew. Ther e
hasbeen a`Bal kani zat i on of t he wor l dof st at es' , and
anyspecki n t he Paci f i ccan l ook f or war dt oi ndependence andagoodt i me f or i t s
pr esi dent , i f i t happens t o possess al ocat i on f or anaval base f or whi ch mor e
sol vent st at es wi l l compet e, al ucky gi f t of nat ur e such as manganese, or mer el y
enough beaches andpr et t y gi r l s t obecome at our i st par adi se. '
Hobsbawmenvi si ons al l of t hi s as bot h amoder n st at e- of - bei ng andan ongoi ng
t endency: not onl y i s t he wor l d al r eady f i l l ed wi t h mi ni - st at es, but f i ssi on,
separ at i sm, at t empt st obr eakupexi st i ng nat i on st at es of t he pr oper ol d- f ashi oned
f or m, ar e `t he char act er i st i c nat i onal i st movement of our t i me' . ' S
Ther ear e sever al obj ect i ons t o t hi s model of cont r ast i ng f or ms of nat i onal i sm,
ol dandnew, andobj ect i ons al so t o Hobsbawm' s pol i t i cal geogr aphy of bot h t he
19t h and2 0t h Cent ur i es. Let us begi n wi t h hi s char act er i zat i on of 19t h Cent ur y
nat i onal movement s as ai mi ng at "`uni f i cat i on" r at her t han "separ at i sm" . ' I n
ever y case ment i onedby Hobsbawm, separ at i smwasexpl i ci t l y i nvol ved, however
st r ong may have been t he desi r e al so f or uni f i cat i on, andt hus f or t he cr eat i on of
l ar ger st at es. These wer e i ndependence movement s. The f act t hat t he Pol es, f or
i nst ance, hadt oseek i ndependence f r omt hr ee separ at e empi r es, each of whi ch hel d
a por t i on of Pol i sh t er r i t or y, does not al t er t hi s f act . Separ at i on, t hat i s,
i ndependence, hadt ocome bef or e uni f i cat i on. I ndeed, i n t he case of Pol andI doubt
whet her t he nat i onal movement coul dhave concer nedi t sel f as much wi t h t he goal
of vi abl e si ze asi t di dwi t h t he goal of f r eei ng, andt hen uni t i ngi n onest at e, al l l ands
consi der ed`Pol i sh' ( gr ant i ngt he mi ni - i mper i al i smwhi ch, as Luxembur g poi nt ed
out , went wi t h t hei deaof af ul l y r est or edPol i sh st at e, si nce manyr egi onsof hi st or i c
Pol andwer e non- Pol i sh i n cul t ur e) .
I amnot spl i t t i ng hai r s i n ar gui ngt hat t he essent i al char act er of t hese nat i onal
movement swast hei r st r uggl e f or i ndependence, exact l y as i s t he case wi t h moder n
movement s, andThe mat t er of t he si ze andshape of t he sought - af t er sover ei gn st at e
was a somewhat di f f er ent andsubor di nat e quest i on. Czechs andSl ovaks, f or
i nst ance, mi ght agr ee t ogoi t i n t andem, r at her t han separ at el y, but t hey woul dnot
108

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
_

_ agr ee t o r emai n. under f or ei Qn . r ul e . _ The_ case of Czechosl ovaki a l eads us i nt o
anot her obj ect i on. Di d t he post - Wor l d War boundar y- maker s have i n mi nd an
abst r act `vi abl e' st at e i n such acase, or di dt heyi nt end, r at her , ast at e st r ong enough
t o ( vi abl y) r esi st Bol shevi sm, wi t hi n andwi t hout ? And, mor e gener al l y, di dt hese
boundar y- maker s- asdi st i nct f r omt heMar xi st t heor et i ci ansandt he smal l - nat i on
nat i onal l eader s- gi ve af i g about vi abi l i t y f or anyof t he neweast er n Eur opean
st at es f or anyr eason ot her t han t hat of buf f er i ngandbol st er i ng t hemsel vesagai nst

' i
Bol shevi sm? The same quer yappl i es, i nci dent al l y, t ot he Wi l soni an ef f or t st oadj ust
st at e boundar i esasmuch as possi bl e t o cul t ur es andcul t ur e r egi ons, `nat i onal i t i es' .
Wast hi s much mor e t han anat t empt t omi ni mi ze t he danger of et hni c conf l i ct sand,

j
behi nd t hem, r evol ut i ons? I donot mean t osuggest t hat smal l - nat i on nat i onal i st s

I
_ ~_ _ v. c_ , . , _ _ _ . . , . _ _ . 7 . 1, . . ~0, . . . et t i e
WCl c UI 1cUI l c8111Cd wl t l l t 11C 1J Sl l C Ul CCUl i Ui l l i Va13U~VUUI . at YVwca, auuuat . aa, avm, um
si ze of t he st at e, but I wonder whet her any of t hemwoul dhave r ef usedachance t o
f or mami ni - st at e i f sover ei gnt y coul d be achi eved i n noot her way.
I wi l l goast epf ar t her nowandquest i on whet her t he 19t h Cent ur y i deal whi ch
Hobsbawmdescr i besas `awor l d. . . of "vi abl e" st at es of medi umt ol ar ge si ze' was
r eal l y much mor e t han t hat : an i deal . Bef or e pr oceedi ng t o t hi s poi nt , however , I
must r egi st er a smal l doubt about t he i deal i t sel f . Mar x and Engel s cer t ai nl y
consi der ed i t such . ' 6 However , at t he begi nni ngof t he pr esent cent ur yMar xi st s i n
bot h t he Russi an andAust r o- Hungar i an empi r es hadast hei r i mmedi at e obj ect i ve
t he est abl i shment of bour geoi s democr acy wi t hi n t he exi st i ng empi r es, not t he
br eak- upof t he empi r esi nt omedi um- t o- l ar ge- si zedst at es. The Aust r i an par t y, f or
exampl e, expl i ci t l y r ej ect edt he r i ght of secessi on f or nat i onswi t hi n t he empi r e, and

i ,
Ot t o Bauer devel oped an el abor at e ar gument i n f avour of ver y l ar ge st at es i n
gener al ( wi t h hi s eye of cour se cocked t o t hat one ver y l ar ge st at e, Aust r i a-
Hungar y) . " Even Leni n hoped t hat t he nat i ons hel d capt i ve by t he Tsar woul d
vol unt ar i l yagr ee t o r emai n wi t hi n ( or r et ur n t o) t he si ngl e st at e af t er i t hadbecome
democr at i zed. ' $ The oper at i ve wor d was `concent r at i on' ( r ead: si ze) ; l ar ge st at es
wer e t hought t o of f er t he advant agesof economi c `concent r at i on' . Thust he speci f i c
i deal of Br i t ai n- or - Fr ance- si zed st at es, andi ndeed of nat i on st at es i n gener al , was
by no means uni ver sal l y suppor t ed. One can assume al so t hat conser vat i ve
pol i t i ci ans andt heor i st s of t he Russi an, Tur ki sh, andAust r o- Hungar i an empi r es
di dnot exact l yf avour t he decomposi t i on of t hei r owni mper i al st at es i nt o medi um-
t o- l ar ge- si zed nat i on st at es, vi abl e or not .
But t he i deal of amedi um- t o- l ar ge bour geoi s nat i on st at e was per haps not
r eal i zedanywher e. Gr eat Br i t ai nandFr ance ar e of cour se t he cl assi c exampl es, t he
count r i es consi der ed t o be r eal i zat i ons of t hi s i deal . But bot h count r i es wer e st at es
wi t h huge over seas empi r es, and t hei r i nt er nal char act er i st i cs cannot r eal l y be
under st oodwi t hout t aki ng i nt o account t hi s ext er nal bondi ng. "For one t hi ng, i t i s
ver y l i kel y t hat t he weal t h and power der i ved f r omcol oni al , andot her ext er nal ,
ent er pr i se hadmuch t odowi t h cr eat i ng somet hi ng l i ke a`mel t i ng pot ' si t uat i on of
t he t ype l at er f oundi n t he Uni t ed St at es, such t hat Fr ance andGr eat Br i t ai n ( save
f or col oni al I r el and) had become par t l y mel t ed down f r ommul t i nat i onal t o
nat i onal st at us byt he begi nni ng of t he 19t h Cent ur y. For anot her t hi ng, i t can be
ar guedt hat t he r el at i vel y st abl e boundar i es of bot h Br i t ai nandFr ance dur i ng t he
19t h Cent ur y ( af t er t he Napol eoni c per i od) , and down t ot he Fi r st Wor l d War ,
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

109
r ef l cct e~i n pa~t hz-f act -t har t hei r t er r i t or i af i ex~ki ng-pl ace- out si de~-
Eur ope. Pur sui ng t hi s ar gument t o i t s l ogi cal concl usi on, one mi ght asser t t hat t he
i deal of amedi um- t o- l ar ge bour geoi snat i on- st at e i s onl yr eal i st i c, f or t hi s per i od, i f
one adds`wi t h appendedcol oni al empi r e' . Andof cour se t hi s ar gument appl i esal so
t o t he ot her col oni zi ng power s, not abl y t he Net her l ands, Spai n, and Por t ugal .
Russi a, Aust r i a- Hungar y andof cour se Tur key r epr esent ed anot her t ype of st at e:
t he l ar ge t er r i t or i al or cont i nent al empi r e . Then t her e wer e, Hobsbawm' s
gener al i zat i on not wi t hst andi ng, a f ai r number of `mi ni - st at es' : Gr eece, Ser bi a,
Bel gi um( pr i or t o t he Congoadvent ur es) . Denmar k, and a f ewot her s of l esser
si gni f i cance, t o ment i on onl y t he Eur opean cases. Thi s l eaves, by myr eckoni ng.
i mper i al Ger manyandI t al y. But uni f i cat i on i n bot h t hese caseswasr at her qui ckl y
f ol l owed bycol oni al expansi on, r el at i vel y unsuccessf ul because most of t he choi ce
pl ums hadal r eady been pl ucked.
Mygener al concl usi on on t hi s mat t er of t he 19t h Cent ur yi deal of t he medi um- t o-
l ar ge nat i on st at e i s as f ol l ows: t ot he ext ent t hat t her e was anaccept ednat i on st at e
i deal f or 19t h Cent ur y nat i onal i smi n Eur ope, i t was ut t er l y di scor dant wi t h a
compl ex r eal i t y embr aci ng ever yt hi ng f r omempi r es t omi ni - st at es, andwi t h r eal -
wor l dexampl es of t he cl assi cal bour geoi s nat i on- st at e whi ch wer e i mpossi bl e t o
copy ( except by one or t woexcept i onal l at e- comer s) because t hey came equi pped
wi t h - coul dnot exi st wi t hout - wor l d- wi de empi r es, empi r eswhi ch coul d not be
emul at edi n awor l dof f i ni t e si ze . Toal l of t hi s I woul daddanobser vat i on t hat t he
boundar y- maki ng whi ch t ook pl ace af t er t he Fi r st Wor l d War , i ncl udi ng t he
Ver sai l l es pr ocess andevent s soon t her eaf t er , di d, i n f act , cr eat e or l egi t i mi ze an
i mpr essi ve number of ver y smal l st at es, `mi ni - st at es' i n Hobsbawm' s vocabul ar y,
f r omEst oni a t o Al bani a, suggest i ng t hat t he i deal of cr eat i ng medi um- t o- l ar ge-
si zed st at es was honour ed most l y i n t he br each . St at es of t hi s si ze woul dsur el y
t hr eat en t r oubl esome compet i t i on i n t he wor l deconomy; per hapsonl yt he t hr eat of
Bol shevi smcoul d per suade t he boundar y- maker s t o accept , t o adegr ee, such
compet i t i on, andcr eat e medi um- t o- l ar ge- si ze st at es l i ke Pol and, Czechosl ovaki a,
Yugosl avi a, andt he r est .
The r eal quest i on her e i s not what nat i onal i sml ookedl i ke, what f or msi t t ook, i n
19t h Cent ur yEur ope . The quest i on i s howyoul eap acr oss t i me andspace f r omt he
19t h Cent ur y t o t he 20t h Cent ur y, andf r omEur ope t o t he Thi r dWor l d.
`Separ at i st Nat i onal i sms of t he Pr esent '
The ot her si de of Hobsbawm' s cont r adi st i nct i on bet ween r at i onal nat i onal
movement s t hen and i r r at i onal ones nowi s somet hi ng whi ch he consi der st obe a
newf or mof nat i onal i sm, char act er i st i c of t he wor l dsi nce per haps t he endof t he
SecondWor l dWar ( he i s not pr eci se ast oi t s dat e of bi r t h) . Thi snewf or m, l abel l ed
t he `separ at i st nat i onal i sms of t he pr esent ' , hasl edt o a`Bal kani zat i on of t hewor l d
of st at es' , a`t r ansf or mat i on of t he Uni t ed Nat i ons i nt o somet hi ng l i ke t he l at er
st ages of t he Hol y Roman Empi r e' ( t hat i s, t he mass of pet t y pr i nci pal i t i es of
Cent r al Eur ope i n ear l y moder n t i mes) .
The Uni t ed Nat i ons seems i n f act t o be, f or Hobsbawm, ani mpor t ant yar dst i ck
of t he newnat i onal i sm: `The maj or i t y of t he member sof t he Uni t edNat i onsi s soon
l i kel y t o consi st of t he l at e- t went i et h- cent ur y ( Republ i can) equi val ent s t o Saxe-
11 0

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
Cobur - Got haandSchwarzbur - Sondershausen' . ? - I f t he Se chel l escan have a-
g

Y.
vot e i n t he UNas goodas J apan' s . . . t hen surel y onl y t he sky i st he l i mi t f or t he I sl e
of Manor t he Channel I sl ands' . 2 '
Thi smat t er of t he UNasyardst i ck deservesacomment i n i t s own ri ght bef ore we
proceed al ongt he mai n t hreadof t he argument . Hobsbawm' s basi c cont rast
bet ween l arge, vi abl e st at es yest erday andmi ni - st at es t oday real l y requi res a
st andardf or measuri ngwhat i s, andwhat i s not , asoverei gnst at e. Membershi p i n
t he UNprovi des somet hi ngl i ke t hi s st andardi n our own t i me. But t he UNdi dnot
exi st i n t hose f ormer t i meswhi ch Hobsbawmassoci at es wi t h rat i onal nat i onal i sm.
Thequest i on i s: howdoes. one det ermi ne what was, andwhat was not , asoverei gn
st at e i n t hose days, by way of set t i ngup some sort of compari son wi t h t he present ?
. t _ _
What abOUi t 110Se Bal kan ent l t l eS Wh1Ch hadmerel y nUml ni l i ai i cyl ai i Cc i 0 ui c
di si nt egrat i ngTurki sh empi re? What about t hose many `prot ect orat es' on t he
f ri ngesof t he Bri t i sh empi re, some of whi ch( l i ke t he Mal ay St at es) were l egal l y, and
i n t hei r owneyes, soverei gn st at es wi t h merel y t reat y t i es t oBri t ai n? Andwhat
about t hose very same Germanpri nci pal i t i es i n t he daysbef ore t here wasaGerman
cust oms uni onandt hus t he begi nni ngsof auni f i edGermanst at e? ( Youcan' t have
i t bot h ways. ) Hobsbawmnot escorrect l y t hat t he soverei gnt y of t he smal l German
st at es wasl i mi t ed, but he sees nospeci al si gni f i cance i n t hi s f act of dependency
whi l e - as we wi l l di scuss bel ow- he consi ders hi ghl y si gni f i cant t he l i mi t ed
soverei gnt y of smal l ( UN- member) st at es t oday, aphenomenon whi ch he l abel s
`soverei gnt y as dependence' . 2 2 Wast here not `dependent soverei gnt y' i n f ormer
t i mes? And i f so, what basi c di f f erence i s t here bet ween Schwarzburg-
Sondershausent hen andt he Seychel l es now? Andbet weent he t wot ypesanderas of
nat i onal i sm?
Aval i ddi st i nct i on can cert ai nl y be made bet ween t wof orms of nat i onal i sm
charact eri st i c, respect i vel y, of Europe i n t he 19t h Cent ury andt he col oni al worl di n
t he 2 0t h. Al l owi ngf or except i ons - I rel and, f or i nst ance, was a' col ony wi t hi n
Europe- t he f ormer t ype canbe descri bedas adi mensi on of t he ri se of capi t al i smi n
areas( mai nl y) of east ernandcent ral Europe whi ch were suf f eri ngsome degree of
nat i onal oppressi on, oppressi on whi ch wasvi si t edonexpl oi t edcl assesbut al so, and
more consequent i al l y, on t he youngbourgeoi si e, at t he very l east i nhi bi t i ngi t s
ef f ort s t o `ri se' . The l at t er t ype cannot be underst ood apart f romt he cent ral
economi c f unct i on of col oni al i sm, whi ch was ( andi s) t he superexpl oi t at i on of
col oni al workers andpeasant s and, usual l y, rat her t horough suppressi on of t he
i ndependent sect ors of t he col oni al bourgeoi si e. Under t hese col oni al condi t i ons,
nat i onal i st movement swere ( andare) aresponse t o t he di st i nct i ve f ormanddegree
of nat i onal oppressi on whi ch has as i t s mat eri al basi st he pol i t i cal enf orcement of
superexpl oi t at i on, andnoMarxi st has any hesi t at i on i n usi ngt he t erm`nat i onal
l i berat i on movement ' i n descri bi ngt hi s f ormof nat i onal i sm. But Hobsbawm' s
cont radi st i nct i on i s somewhat di f f erent .
What I have descri bedabove as t he 19t h Cent ury ri si ngcapi t al i smf ormof
nat i onal i smi s one of Hobsbawm' s t wocat egori es. But t he second, t he modern
f orm, embraces, f or hi m, bot h t he nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl esi n col oni esandt he
`f i ssi on of "devel oped" capi t al i st st at es' . Hobsbawmsees a common process
underl yi ngbot h of t he modern f orms. Al t hough he woul dcert ai nl y not deny t he
i mort ance of a di st i nct i on _bet ween nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl es of t he ant i -
col oni al t ype andt he ot her sort sof modernnat i onal i sm, he l ays consi derabl e st ress
on what he sees as a common underl yi ngprocess andacommon resul t : t he
`Bal kani zat i on of t he worl dof st at es' , t he worl d- wi deprol i f erat i on of `mi ni - st at es' ,
t he `separat i sm' , t he `f i ssi parous nat i onal i sms of our t i me' . Moreover, he decl ares
t he ant i - col oni al f ormt o be no l onger si gni f i cant t oday because of t he `vi rt ual
di sappearance of f ormal empi res' . ( Thi s announcement wi l l seempremat ure t o
Puert oRi cans, Nami bi ans, andt he rest of t he 30 mi l l i on or sopeopl e st i l l l i vi ngi n
col oni es. ) AndHobsbawmmost poi nt edl y excl udes f romconsi derat i on t he
st ruggl es of neocol oni es, st at es whi ch are nomi nal l y i ndependent but act ual l y
dependent and not real l y soverei gn, cl ai mi ng t hat t hei r st ruggl es f or real
_~_____

. . n__ _ . :

. . t . .

. . t o~/~ri . v~Wrh~r T wi l l rxami ne i n det ai l
i ei dcYcnueuee arcrWt rcamy mauvi auWag~. . . ~~. . " " " ~~" ~" " " ~- . - . . . _. _. _________ ___ _ _ . .
l at er) . Theref ore, f or Hobsbawmt he modern `f i ssi parous nat i onal i sm' i s mai nl y
charact eri zedt oday by t he nat i onal movement si n devel opedcapi t al i st st at es l i ke
Bri t ai n, France, andSpai n.
What account sf or t hi s newsort of f i ssi parousnat i onal i sm, charact eri st i c bot h of
col oni al areas and devel oped capi t al i st st at es? The i mmedi at e cause, says
Hobsbawm, i s `a compl et e t ransf ormat i on of t he concept of st at e vi abi l i t y' . 2 ' But
howi s t hi s t obe expl ai ned? Hobsbawml i st s t hree reasons. The f i rst i s `t he process
of decol oni zat i on, whi chl ef t ahal f - gl obe f ul l of smal l t erri t ori es( orl arge t erri t ori es
wi t h smal l popul at i ons) whi chcoul dnot or woul dnot be combi nedi nt o l arger uni t s
or f ederat i ons' . Z ( `Woul dnot ' st i cks i n my craw. Does Hobsbawmbel i eve t hat t he
West I ndi es Federat i on, t he Mal i Federat i on, andsoon, woul dhave survi vedbut
f or a l ack of wi l l ?) Decol oni zat i on i t sel f i s not expl ai ned, presumabl y because
Hobsbawmexpect s hi s readers t o share wi t h hi man underst andi ngof and
opposi t i on t o col oni al i sm. Yet t here i s ambi gui t y, as when he cri t i ci zes `t he
assumpt i on t hat st at e i ndependence, or what amount st oi t , i s t he normal mode of
sat i sf yi ngt he demands of any group wi t h some cl ai mt o at erri t ori al base ( a
"count ry") ' ,
zs
andwhenhe second- guesses t he I ri sh Marxi st s andassert st hat `t he
Connol l y Marxi st - nat i onal i st pol i cy must be regardedas a f ai l ure' , st oppi ngj ust
short of t he suggest i on t hat i ndependence f or I rel andwasnot progressi ve. Z s
Hobsbawm' s secondreason f or t he presumedchange i n t he not i on of vi abi l i t y
andt he t endency t owardf i ssi parous nat i onal i smi s rel at i vel y uncont roversi al , and
he ri ght l y gi ves i t l i t t l e emphasi s. I t i s t he i nt ernat i onal si t uat i on i n our t i me whi ch
t osome degree prot ect s smal l st at es f romconquest by l arge st at es because of t he
general f ear t hat smal l wars may escal at e i nt o nucl ear conf l agrat i on. ( Yet i n t he
19t h Cent ury t oot here were many smal l st at es whi ch ret ai nedt hei r i ndependence
f or noot her reason t han t he worl dbal ance of power. ) Hobsbawm' s t hi rdreason i s
hi s cruci al one. Thi s i s not hi ngl ess t han a `change i n worl dcapi t al i sm. . . t he
rel at i ve decl i neof t he medi um- t o- l arge nat i on- st at e and"nat i onal economy" ast he
mai n bui l di ngbl ock of t he worl deconomy' . 2 ' Hobsbawm' sargument i s t hat smal l
st at es cannowprol i f erat e andf i ssi parous nat i onal movement scanf l ouri sh because
t he mai nhi st ori c checkupont hese processes nol onger operat es. Nol onger i s t here
an economi c rat i onal e ( t he `nat i onal economy' ) f or t he ol d- f ashi onednat i on st at e,
andf or t he rej ect i on of unvi abl e nat i onal proj ect s: capi t al i smi s nol onger nat i onal
i n scal e, hencenat i onal movement sare nol onger rat i onal . Hobsbawm' sargument
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

111
11 2

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
g

ant , noTf i easl f or : t heunder st andi ngof past coToma7Ti ber at i on
movement s andf or t he pur sui t of i ndependence by t hose whi ch have not yet won
t hei r st r uggl es. The f act t hat ar gument s qui t e si mi l ar t o Hobsbawm' s wer e
advancedby RosaLuxembur gsevent y or ei ght yyear sago, andwer e answer edt hen
by Leni n, i s of some i nt er est , but i t does not obvi at e t he need t o di spl ay
Hobsbawm' s ar gument s andr espond t o t hem_ Thi s wi l l be our next t ask .
I nt er nat i onal Capi t al i smandt he Nat i onal St at e
Ar eSt at es Di ssol vi ng?
Hobsbawmnot es t hat capi t al i smi s no l onger nat i onal i n scal e but i s nowqui t e
t hor oughl y i nt er nat i onal . Thi s_ he says_ has nr oduced ` a newphase i n r hP _ . _ _ _ _

_

___ . .

r _____

___

____
i nt er nat i onal economy' , zS one i n whi ch ` t he r el at i on bet weennat i onal st at es and
gl obal capi t al i st devel opment , i nt er nal l y andi nt er nat i onal l y, i s nol onger what i t
was' . z 9 Downt hr ough t he Fi r st Wor l dWar t her e was, accor di ng t o Hobsbawm, a
congr uencebet weent he nat i onal economyandt he medi um- t o- l ar ge- si ze st at e, such
t hat t hi s f or mof st at e ( i n Eur ope) wast he basi c bui l di ngbl ock of capi t al i sm. But
now, he ar gues, t he scal e of capi t al i smhas out gr own t he st at e andt he l at t er i s t hus
l ef t wi t hout i t s f unct i onal r el at i onshi p t o a ` nat i onal economy' . Ther ef or e t he
( nat i onal ) st at e i n gener al i s of much l ess si gni f i cance t oday t han i t was i n ear l i er
t i mes. And by i mpl i cat i on, any ef f or t t o cr eat e such a st at e t oday i s l i kel y t o be
i r r at i onal . Ther ei s much mor e t hant hi s t oHobsbawm' sar gument concer ni ngt hi s
put at i ve decl i ne ( di ssol ut i on, di si nt egr at i on) of st at es andr el at ed mat t er s. I had
best quot e t wol ong passages whi ch convey t he pi t h of t hi s ar gument .
TheBal kani zat i on of t he wor l d of st at es . . . [ i npar t ] r ef l ect s achange i n wor l d
capi t al i sm, whi ch Mar xi st s have not hi t her t o br ought ser i ousl y i nt o t he
di scussi on of nat i onal i sm: namel y, t he r el at i ve decl i ne of t he medi um- t o- l ar ge
nat i on- st at e and` nat i onal economy' as t he mai n bui l di ng bl ock of t he wor l d
economy. Qui t e apar t f r omt hef act t hat i nt he er aof nucl ear super power evena
f ai r l y hi gh pot ent i al of pr oduct i on, men, andr esour cesi s nol onger suf f i ci ent f or
t he mi l i t ar yst at us whi ch was f or mer l y t he cr i t er i onof a` gr eat power ' , t he r i se of
t he t r ansnat i onal cor por at i on and i nt er nat i onal economi c management have
t r ansf or med bot h t he i nt er nat i onal di vi si on of l abour andi t s mechani sm, and
changedt he cr i t er i onof ast at e' s ` economi c vi abi l i t y' . Thi si s nol onger bel i eved
t o be aneconomysuf f i ci ent l y l ar ge t opr ovi de anadequat e ` nat i onal mar ket ' and
suf f i ci ent l y var i ed t o pr oduce most of t he r ange of goods f r omf oodst uf f s t o
capi t al equi pment , but a st r at egi c posi t i on somewher e al ong t he compl ex
ci r cui t s of an i nt egr at ed wor l d economy, whi ch can be expl oi t ed t o secur e an
adequat e nat i onal i ncome. Whi l e si ze was essent i al t o t he ol d cr i t er i on, i t
appear s l ar gel y i r r el evant t o t he new. . . Of cour se, i n mi l i t ar y t er ms most
mi ni - st at es ar e negl i gi bl e; but so ar e most l ar ge st at es t oday. The di f f er ence
bet weenBr i t ai nandBar bados i n t hi s r espect i s nol onger oneof ki nd, but onl y
one of degr ee. '
The mul t i pl i cat i on of i ndependent sover ei gn st at es subst ant i al l y changed t he
sense of t he t er m` i ndependence' f or most of t hemi nt o a synonymf or
` dependence' . . . We may l eave asi de t he obvi ousf act t hat manyof t hemexi st as
i ndependent st at es onl y on suf f er ance or under pr ot ect i on . . . They ar e
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i onSt at e

113
economi cal l ydependent i nt woways: gener al l y, onanmt emat i on~- economy_
t hey cannot nor mal l y hope t o i nf l uence as i ndi vi dual s; and speci f i cal l y - i n
i nver se pr opor t i on t o t hei r si ze - on t he gr eat er power s and t r ansnat i onal
cor por at i ons. The f act t hat t hey t oday pr ef er - or f i nd i ndi spensabl e - a
neocol oni al r el at i onshi p r at her t han somet hi ngl i ke a f or mal i zeddependence,
shoul d not mi sl ead us. Ont he cont r ar y. The opt i mal st r at egy f or a neocol oni al
t r ansnat i onal economy i s pr eci sel y one i n whi ch t he number of of f i ci al l y
sover ei gn st at es i s maxi mi zed and t hei r aver age si ze andst r engt h - i . e . , t hei r
power t oef f ect i vel y i mpose condi t i ons under whi ch f or ei gn power sandf or ei gn
capi t al wi l l have t o oper at e - i s mi ni mi zed. ; '
Thi s ar ument . needl ess t o sav i s cnmnl ex an_ r l each of i t c subor di nat e posi t i ons
cal l s f or adef i ni t e r esponse. Fi r st I wi l l t r y t or espond t ot he cent r al t hr ead of t he
ent i r e ar gument , t he t hesi s t hat t he i nt er nat i onal i zat i on of t he capi t al i st economy
di mi ni shes t he si gni f i cance of sover ei gn st at es - st at es cal l ed ` nat i onal ' by
Hobsbawmt osi gni f y scal e, not cul t ur e- be t hey neocol oni esl i ke Bar badosor gr eat
power s l i ke Br i t ai n.
Wehave t o begi nwi t h basi cs. I n Mar xi st t heor y t he capi t al i st st at e i s consi der ed
t o have as i t s pr i mar y f unct i on - t her e ar e di sagr eement s about t he degr ee of
pr i macy, but t hey neednot det ai n us - t he mai nt enance of apol i t i cal envi r onment
whi ch per mi t st he capi t al i st syst em( i nal l i t s di mensi ons) t ocont i nue oper at i ng, t he
capi t al i st cl ass t ohol dont oi t s pr oper t y andpr i vi l eges, andcapi t al i t sel f t okeepon
accumul at i ng. St at i ngt he same t hi ngnegat i vel y: capi t al i smcannot sur vi ve wi t hout
pol i t i cal power , andwi t hout ast at e whi chi t cont r ol s. Fur t her mor e, t he gr eat er t he
wei ght of cont r adi ct i ons i n t he syst em, andt he cl oser i t i s t o col l apse, t he mor e
i mpor t ant t he st at e must sur el y become. Her e I use t he wor d st at e t o mean
gover nment andal l t hat goes wi t h i t , i ncl udi ng most par t i cul ar l y t he wel l - known
` monopol yof l egi t i mat e f or ce' . NowI ask: howdoesanyof t hi schange as t he scal e
of capi t al i st act i vi t y becomes mor e andmor e i nt er nat i onal , comesmor e andmor e
t o t r anscend t he scal e of t he st at e- as- sover ei gn- count r y? The f unct i on of
gover nance doesnot decl i ne i n i mpor t ance. Andnosuper - st at e emer ges, t oexpand
i n congr uence wi t h t he expandi ngsupr a- nat i onal economy.
Rat her , what occur s i s anef f or t by capi t al i smt o change t he speci f i c act i vi t i es of
t he st at e i n or der t o adapt i t t o t he neweconomi c l andscape. Thus f or i nst ance t he
advanced capi t al i st count r i es devel op r api d depl oyment f or ces ( a f or mof r eser ve
mi l i t ar y power , t o be appl i ed wher e and when needed, be i t Suez or Sant o
Domi ngo), secr et mer cenar y ar mi es, f or ei gnmi l i t ar y bases or det achment sbi l l et ed
on f or ei gn soi l at t he r equest of cl i ent st at es or wi t h t hei r acqui escence, cover t
mi l i t ar y act i on or cover t economi c andmat er i al suppor t f or mi l i t ar y act i on, pol i ce
and mi l i t ar y t r ai ni ng pr ogr ammes euphemi zed as f or ei gn ai d, and so on ad
nauseam. Let us not f or get t hat t he so- cal l ed mul t i nat i onal or t r ansnat i onal
cor por at i ons ar e st i l l r oot edi n, andgener at e most of t hei r capi t al f or , t he advanced
capi t al i st count r y whi ch i s t he ` home of f i ce' . Thest at e whi ch sur r ounds t hat home
of f i ce wi l l t end t o pr ovi de, ei t her al one or i n some f or mal or i nf or mal al l i ance,
ei t her over t l y or cover t l y, t he i nt er nat i onal pol i t i cal andmi l i t ar y suppor t neededby
i t s ownmul t i nat i onal cor por at i ons, as t he US di d i n Br azi l andChi l e f or I TT, as
Br i t ai n di d i n Br i t i sh Gui anaf or Booker s, as var i ous st at es di d i n Kat angaf or
_

~-

_

_
f

i ati st ~at -

-

nTi eseadvance
Uni onMi ni er e, andthel i ke.

Thestate as gover nment1 t

p
countr i es must r emai nas str ong as ever , to deal wi th the exter nal pr obl ems
associ atedwi th tr ansnati onal capi tal i smand, of cour se, tokeepthewor ker si nthei r
pl aceat home. Other wi sethesystemcol l apsesl i ke ahouseof car ds. Thegr eat states
donot cr umbl ei nto mi ni -states.
But thi si s sti l l onl y hal f thegl obal map. I t i s notacoi nci dencethat br utal gor i l l a
r egi meshavecometopower i nsomanyneocol oni al states, andthat democr acy i s at
best shal l ow-r ooted i nal l neocol oni es. The deeper the penetr ati oni nto these
countr i esby mul ti nati onal cor por ati onsandmor ebr oadl ybyf or ei gncor por ati ons
(many of whi ch have beenther e si nce l ong bef or e anyone used the wor d
mul ti nati onal l _ the r eal er wi l l be the i ntensi ty of expl oi tati on. Thegr eater , then,
wi l l be the associ ated oppr essi on, ai medspeci f i cal l y at mai ntai ni ngl owwagesand
gener al l y at suppor ti ng the r egi me; the gr eater , we may assume, wi l l be the
r esi stance; and, f i nal l y, the gr eater wi l l betheneedf or apower f ul stateasagent both
of r epr essi onandof i ndoctr i nati on. Asomewhat par al l el scenar i ocanbedescr i bed
f or the r ol e of the neocol oni al state i nr el ati onto domesti c capi tal i sm, much of
whi ch i s di r ectl y ti ed to and dependent onthe f or ei gncor por ati ons. I ndeed,
mul ti nati onal cor por ati onsunder cer tai nci r cumstancespr ef er tol eavepr oducti on
r el ati onsi nthehandsof domesti c compani esor eveni nthehandsof theneocol oni al
state, pr eci sel y because the state' s power to keepdownl abour costs i s someti mes
gr eater whenthe mul ti nati onal s have nodi r ect pr esence i ndomesti c pr oducti on
andmer el y buythepr oduct at ver y l owpr i cesandmar ket i t el sewher eat asati sf yi ng
pr of i t .
I t woul d pr obabl y be wr ongto ar gue that neocol oni al gover nments ar e ver y
much mor e di ctator i al andr epr essi ve thanwer e the col oni al gover nmentswhi ch
they r epl aced, becausecol oni al gover nance i s, wi thout excepti on, theanti thesi sof
democr acy. But i t i s pr obabl y tr ueasahi stor i cal tendency that r egi mestendtogr ow
mor e r epr essi ve as the thr eat of r evol uti ongr owsstr onger . Be that asi t may, the
basi c f act i s thi s: nei ther i nadvanced capi tal i st countr i es nor i nneocol oni es nor i n
pal eocol oni es (l i ke Puer to Ri co) hasthe stategr ownweaker or l ess si gni f i cant i n
moder nti mes. Hobsbawmi s si mpl y wr ong. The i nter nati onal i zati onof the
capi tal i st economyhasnot weakened thestate i nthe exi sti ng sover ei gncountr i es.
Nowher ehas i t er ased the boundar i es of exi sti ng nati on-states andchangedthe
pol i ti cal mapof the wor l d.
Hobsbawmi s concer nedwi th the str ength of states mai nl y as i t i s r ef l ected i n
thei r abi l i ty tor esi st what heseesas the f or cestendi ngtodecomposethem, f or ces
whi chheessenti al l y i denti f i es wi th nati onal i sm. I nthe 19th Centur y, hear gues, the
`nati onal economy' wasacementi ngf or cef or themedi um-to-l ar gestateswhi ch he
consi der sto havebeenthebui l di ngbl ocksof capi tal i sm, andthel ack of that cement
today i s the pr i mar y r easonf or what he cal l s the `Bal kani zati onof the wor l dof
states' , the`f i ssi par ousnati onal i smsof our ti me' . Thi si s ani nter esti ngpr oposi ti on,
but I f ai l to see any evi dence to suppor t i t .
To be pr eci se, I see no evi dence onthe wor l d pol i ti cal mapthat any
`Bal kani zati on' has takenpl ace, and no evi dence that any sor t of `f i ssi par ous
nati onal i sm' i s tendi ngtr ul y to br eak upthe advanced capi tal i st countr i es. Apar t
f r omtheBasque andQuebec cases, the centr i f ugal tendenci es di scer ni bl e todayi n
P~l .
w:
f , , .
~!,.
11 4

HobsbawmontheNati onState
HobsbawmontheNati onState

115
_

_

--.
at-some-.

.
advanced capi tal i st countr i es seemei ther to be r el ati vel y weak or to ai m
degr ee of r egi onal autonomy shor t of i ndependence. I t goes wi thout sayi ng that I
amnot tal ki ngabout theex-col oni esof advanced capi tal i st countr i es. I ntheThi r d
Wor l d, the danger of f i ssi oni s much gr eater , because the pr ocess of nati onal
i ntegr ati oni nf or mer col oni es i s of tensl owandpai nf ul , andof tenhi nder ed by the
machi nati ons of f or ei gneconomi c andpol i ti cal f or ces. But, per hapssur pr i si ngl y,
ther ehasbeenonl y onesi gni f i cant secessi onthusf ar i nthef or mer l y col oni al wor l d
-the spl i tti ng of f of East Paki stan, nowBangl adesh, f r omthousand-mi l e-di stant
West Paki stan-and ther e have beenenough contr ar y cases, wher e secessi on
movementswer e def eated, or never ar ose, to suggest that nogener al tr endtowar d
. . teF. , . * . . , o. , t~t: . . o

~t~, the Th; r `t Wnr 1Atnr l av
sl
Staw uug. . , . . . , . . u~. ~. . . . . . . ~. ~. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _
I s Decol oni zati ona `Bal kani zi ng' Tendency?
TomNai r n, i nhi sbook TheBr eak-Upof Br i tai n, mai ntai ned that ther ei s i ndeed a
gener al tendency, i nthe wor l das a whol e, towar dsstatef r agmentati on, andthat
thi stendency i spr ogr essi ve. Hobsbawmdi sputesthel atter pr oposi ti onbut accepts
the f or mer , cal l i ng thi s tendency the `f i ssi par ous nati onal i sms of our ti me' , the
`Bal kani zati onof thewor l dof states' , andso on. Heputs f or war dr easonsf or thi s
tendency (f or exampl e, `a change i nwor l dcapi tal i sm' ) but does not r eal l y suppor t
thesecausal pr oposi ti onswi thar guments. He r el i esmai nl y ononeempi r i cal f act : i n
r ecent decadesther e hasi ndeed beenagr eat i ncr ease i nthe number of sover ei gn
states, thankstothepr ocessof decol oni zati on. Hobsbawmexhi bi tsdecol oni zati on
asthei ni ti al phase, andtheexempl ar , of thenewtendency towar d`Bal kani zati on' .
But hi sdescr i pti onof thedecol oni zati onpr ocessi s not enti r el y accur ate, andi t can
beshownthat the pr ocessbear snor el ati onat al l to the`f i ssi par ous' , `Bal kani zi ng'
tendenci esdi scussedby Hobsbawm.
Ther ear ei mpor tant er r or si nHobsbawm' saccount of decol oni zati on. Fi r st, the
pr ocess cannot be expl ai nedi nter msof some abstr act i nter nati onal i zati onof the
wor l d economy combi ned wi th, or per haps si gnal i zed by, a change i nthe
pr ef er ences or needsof capi tal i smsuch that col oni esar emor eor l essdel i ber atel y
tr ansf or medi ntoneocol oni es. (Thegr eater power sandtr ansnati onal cor por ati ons
`pr ef er -or f i nd i ndi spensabl e -aneocol oni al r el ati onshi pr ather thansomethi ng
l i ke f or mal i zed dependence' . ) I f thi swer eal l ther ewasto decol oni zati on, i t mi ght
bepl ausi bl etoar gue that ani nter nati onal i zati onof thewor l deconomyhasl edtoa
pr ol i f er ati onof i ndependent states andthat these states ar e themsel ves subj ect to
f ur ther f i ssi onbecause they ar e dependent andweak . Andther e mi ght i nf act be
what Hobsbawmcal l s an`opti mal str ategy f or a neocol oni al tr ansnati onal
economy . . . onei nwhi ch the number of of f i ci al l y sover ei gnstates i s maxi mi zed
andthei r aver age si ze andstr ength . . . i s mi ni mi zed' . Thi s i s another i nter esti ng
hypothesi s f or whi ch ther e i s nor eal suppor ti ng evi dence, however pl ausi bl e the
hypothesi s may sound.
But i f wel ook at decol oni zati onasasi ngl epr ocessi nhi stor y andgeogr aphy, i t i s
cl ear that the mai ndynami c i nthat pr ocesswas, andi s -l et us not f or get Puer to
Ri coandal l theother r emai ni ngcol oni es-ther esi stance of thecol oni zedpeopl es.
Theadvancedcapi tal i st countr i esgave upthei r col oni es, i ngener al , because they
hadnochoi ce. Thi s waspatentl y tr ue i nthe f i r st maj or i nstancesof 20th Centur y
11 6

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
- uecol oni zat i on: - f r el and, ~he~hi f i i ppi nes~or ea~gr eat-er ~r i ~i a; and- t l i e~uf h~ast
I ndi es (nowI ndonesi a) . Some col oni zi ng power s, not abl y Gr eat Br i t ai n, l ear ned
event ual l y t o accommodat e t o t he si t uat i on, and somet i mes t oyi el d, gr acef ul l y,
peacef ul l y, havi ng f ound f r omexper i ence i n such ar eas as Lat i n Amer i ca, Chi na,
and par t s of t he Mi ddl e East t hat i t shoul d be possi bl e t o mai nt ai n t he same
expl oi t at i ve economy wi t hout di r ect pol i t i cal cont r ol , t hat i s, t hr ough neo-
col oni al i smi nst ead of ol d- f ashi oned col oni al i sm. I naver y f ewcases(among t hem
some Fr ench Af r i cancol oni es) i ndependence wasgi ven as adi r ect deci si onby t he
col oni zi ngpower , but al ways, I amconvi nced, t hi s was at act i cal manoeuvr ei n t he
f ace of some degr ee of r esi st ance t o mpxi mi ze t he pr obabi l i t y of a smoot h
conver si on t oneocol oni al i sm, and, conver sel y, t o mi ni mi ze t he pr obabi l i t y of a
soci al i st or ant i - f or ei gn r evol ut i on. And t hen i n ot her cases (Al ger i a, Kenya,
Vi et nam, Angol a, et c . ) t he col oni zi ng power s exhaust ed t hemsel ves i n f ut i l e
at t empt s t o hol d on t o col oni es at al l cost . I n sum: decol oni zat i on was some
combi nat i on of popul ar r esi st ance and i mper i al i st st r at egy, but mai nl y t he f or mer .
The pat t er n of newst at es whi ch r esul t ed f r omdecol oni zat i on di d not r ef l ect
pr ocesses of `f i ssi oni ng' (unl esswe def i ne t he empi r e i t sel f as ast at e, as Lor d Act on
di dbut as Hobsbawmcannot dowi t hout under cut t i ng hi st heor y of t he medi um- t o-
l ar ge- si ze bui l di ng- bl ock st at es of t he 19t h Cent ur y) . ; What had been di scr et e
col oni es i n one epoch became i n most cases di scr et e i ndependent st at es i n t he
succeedi ng epoch. For manyval i dr easons t he nat i onal l i ber at i onst r uggl est ended
t o t ake pl ace at t he l evel of t he exi st i ng economi c- pol i t i cal - admi ni st r at i ve- mi l i t ar y
uni t , t he col ony, andt ypi cal l y t he col oni al boundar i eswer e r et ai ned as t hose of t he
i ndependent st at e. Ther ear e except i ons, but i n gener al i t canbe sai d t hat t he pat t er n
andnumber of di scr et e col oni al t er r i t or i es whi chwe f i nd ont he wor l dpol i t i cal map
f or , say, 1939, has become t he pat t er n and number of i ndependent st at es (and
sur vi vi ng col oni es) whi ch we f i nd ont he wor l d pol i t i cal mapof t oday. Fi gur at i vel y
speaki ng, Hobsbawm' s`speck i nt he Paci f i c' wasacol oni al speck bef or e i t became
an i ndependent speck. Ther e was nof i ssi on. Andwe shoul d r eal l y t al k about t he
`mi ni - col oni es' of f or mer t i mes i f we pr opose t o t al k about t he `mi ni - st at es' of
t oday.
I t may concei vabl y be t r ue t hat a wor l d of neocol oni es gener at es gr eat er
aggr egat e sur pl usval ue f or t he (cor por at i onsof t he) advancedcapi t al i st count r i es
t han does a wor l d of cl assi cal col oni es, because f or mer l y monopol i zed col oni al
economi c spaces ar e nowt hr own open t ocompet i t i on among t he mul t i nat i onal
cor por at i ons and t he st at es behi nd t hem. But t hi s r emai ns t o be demonst r at ed.
Ther e i s, f or i nst ance, t he st ubbor n f act t hat US cor por at i ons f i nd t he cl assi cal
col ony of Puer t oRi comuch mor e pr of i t abl e t han t hey dot he neocol oni es of Lat i n
Amer i ca. Onet hi r dof al l USi nvest ment i n Lat i nAmer i cagoes t oPuer t oRi co, and
pr of i t r at i os ar e much hi gher t her e t han el sewher e. ' S I nanycase, acompar i son of
pr of i t s and ot her economi c cat egor i es acr oss epochs woul d be ver y di f f i cul t t o
make. Thus Hobsbawm' s pr oposi t i on t hat t he gr eat power s andmul t i nat i onal s
`pr ef er - or f i nd i ndi spensabl e- aneacol oni al r el at i onshi p' i s cer t ai nl y i nval i d as an
expl anat i on of t he decol oni zat i on pr ocess. One ver y t el l i ng ar gument agai nst t hi s
t hesi s i s t he evi dent f act t hat t her e was al ways t he danger t hat i ndependence woul d
l ead not t oneocol oni al i smbut t o soci al i sm, as happened i n anumber of i nst ances,
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

117
_

_

h i r -
- sot r r ezl ui t e ea~t yi n~he decot oni ~i on epo~: F`ui t her mor e, neocoToni es~ave t e
ownambi t i ous bour geoi si es whi ch pr ovi de at l east t he t hr eat , i f not usual l y t he
r eal i t y, of economi cal l y cost l y compet i t i on. Cer t ai nl y capi t al i smhas l ear ned, si nce
decol oni zat i on, t o ext r act much gr eat er sur pl us val ue f r om(most ) f or mer col oni es
t han ever i t di d dur i ng t he col oni al epoch, but t hi s hasnobear i ngonHobsbawm' s
ar gument .
Lessons Fr omHi st or y and Geogr aphy
I t woul dbe si l l y t odi sput e Hobsbawm' st hesi s t hat we have ent er ed `anewphase i n
t he i nt er nat i onal economy' , aphase i nwhi ch `t he r el at i on bet weennat i onal st at es
and gl obal capi t al i st devel opment . . . i s no l onger what i t was' . But i t woul d be
equal l y si l l y t o exagger at e t he di f f er ences bet weenpast and pr esent . Fi r st of al l ,
capi t al i smhas al ways been i nt er nat i onal . Pr e- i ndust r i al capi t al i smdr ewmuch,
per haps most , of i t s sust enance f r omMexi canand Per uvi an mi nes, Br azi l i an and
West I ndi an pl ant at i ons, I ndi an pepper gar dens and cot t on f i el ds, and so on.
I ndust r i al capi t al i sm, as Hobsbawmhi msel f has br i l l i ant l y shown, had mani f ol d
r el at i onsof suppl y and mar ket i ngwi t h t he non- i ndust r i al par t sof t he wor l d, whi l e
i ndust r i al nat i ons t r aded i nt ensi vel y wi t h one anot her . Mor eover , cl assi cal
i ndust r i al capi t al i smgr ewwi t hi ngi ant empi r es uponwhi cht he sunnever set , and
onemaywonder whet her t he boundar i es of each i ndust r i al nat i on st at e wer e mor e
si gni f i cant , economi cal l y, t han t he bounds of t he l ar ger empi r e. For mal and
i nf or mal empi r es expanded unt i l , at t he end of t he 19t h Cent ur y, t he ar r ay of
i mper i al st at es, domi ni ons, col oni es, semi - col oni al spher es of i nf l uence, and af ew
ot her odds and ends l i ke mi ni - st at es, cover ed t he ent i r e wor l d. At t hat moment
capi t al i smbecame t hor oughl y, i ndi sput abl y, i nt er nat i onal : i t cover ed t he gl obe.
J ust af ewyear sl at er , bef or e anddur i ng t he Fi r st Wor l d War , Mar xi st t heor i st s
began t o debat e t he ef f ect s of t hi s i nt er nat i onal i zat i on on t he nat i onal st at e. The
hi gh poi nt of t he debat e (whi ch we wi l l di scuss l at er i nt hi s chapt er ) came i n 1916
whenanumber of Mar xi st s cont ended t hat t he economi c i nt er nat i onal i zat i on of
capi t al i sm, whi ch t hey vi ewedas af undament al at t r i but e of t he newer aof capi t al i st
devel opment , t he `er a of i mper i al i sm' , had r ender ed t he nat i onal st at e essent i al l y
obsol et e. Sai d Radek and a gr oup of Pol i sh Mar xi st s associ at ed wi t h Rosa
Luxembur g: `I mper i al i smr epr esent s t he t endency of f i nance capi t al t oout gr owt he
bounds of anat i onal st at e' . ' 6 Sai d Pyat akov: `Thi s f or m, t he nat i onal st at e, f et t er s
t he devel opment of t he pr oduct i ve f or ces' . ; ' Si mi l ar posi t i ons wer e enunci at ed by
Bukhar i n and Tr ot sky. ' $ Thus i t was wi del y bel i eved t hat newsover ei gn st at es
woul d not emer ge - even t hat col oni es woul d never , under capi t al i sm, at t ai n
i ndependence - i n t hi s newer aof f ul l y i nt er nat i onal , i mper i al i st capi t al i sm. Leni n
was t he out st andi ng opponent of t hese vi ews, whi ch he l abel l ed `i mper i al i st
economi sm' because (i n essence) t hey not i ced onl y t he economi c at t r i but es of t he
newer aof i mper i al i sm, l osi ng si ght of i t s pol i t i cal at t r i but es andexi genci es. (Sai d
Leni ni n r epl y t o Bukhar i n: `The same ol d f undament al mi st ake of t he same ol d
Economi sm: i nabi l i t y t o posepol i t i cal quest i ons' . ' 9) Leni nal sopoi nt edout t hat t he
t endencyt owar dsconcent r at i onor cent r al i zat i onwasaneconomi c t endency, not a
pol i t i cal one, and t hat i nt er nat i onal i zed capi t al i smi s f ul l y compat i bl e wi t h t he
nat i on- st at e
.
11 8

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
-~onot suggest t hat ~oBsbawmi s~raki ng-t hese-same-errors. ~ut -he-i st rot t h~
f i rst Marxi st t o draw i ncorrect pol i t i cal concl usi ons f romnovel economi c
t endenci es, and more part i cul arl y t o bel i eve t hat t he i nt ernat i onal i zat i on ( or
mul t i nat i onal i zat i on) of capi t al i smsomehowcorrodes t he nat i onal st at e. Cert ai nl y
t he mul t i nat i onal capi t al i smof our ownt i me i s af ar cry f romt he earl y-i mperi al i st
era wi t h i t s col oni al empi res and i nt er-i mperi al i st warf are. Cert ai nl y t he
mul t i nat i onal corporat i on of t oday i s not t he same as t he great col oni al and
i nt ernat i onal corporat i ons of ahal f -cent ury agoand bef ore. ( Let us not , on t he
ot her hand, f orget t hose ancest ral mul t i nat i onal s: t he East I ndi aCompani es, t he
col oni al product i on gi ant s l i ke Uni t ed Frui t , Lever Brot hers, andt he rest . ) The
t ransf ormat i on i s qual i t at i ve as wel t as quant i t at i ve. But i t has not redrawnt he
pol i t i cal map of t he worl dor el i mi nat ed nat i on-st at es.
Bef ore l eavi ng t hi s mat t er of t he rel at i on bet ween t he i nt ernat i onal i zat i on of
capi t al i smand t he f at e ( i f i t i s t hat ) of t he nat i on st at e, I want t o di sput e
Hobsbawm' s t hesi s about t he `opt i mal st rat egy f or aneocol oni al t ransnat i onal
economy . . . one i n whi ch t he number of of f i ci al l y soverei gn st at es i s maxi mi zed
and t hei r average si ze and st rengt h . . . i s mi ni mi zed' . Anot her i nt erest i ng but
unsupport ed proposi t i on. I amnot pri vy t o capi t al i st st rat egy deci si ons, but I can
even soshowt hat t he present pat t ern of soverei gnst at es i s not aref l ect i on of any
`opt i mal st rat egy' . Most of t he argument hasbeenmade al ready. Thesi ze andshape
of st at es canl argel y be expl ai nedas arel i c of col oni al t i mes. The st rengt h of t hose
st at es whi chare neocol oni al i s al soi npart af unct i onof t he col oni al l egacy andt he
di f f i cul t y of acqui ri ngpower or st rengt h ( not t o say weal t h) i n aworl di n whi ch
i ndependent capi t al accumul at i on t ends t o occur mai nl y i n t he core count ri es.
Moreover, we have seent hat avi t al -not merel y opt i mal -st rat egy of mul t i nat i onal
capi t al i smi s t o mai nt ai n t he st rengt h of neocol oni al government si n order t o hol d
down l abour cost s andprevent revol ut i ons. Theoret i cal l y, t hen, i t i s not at al l a
sensi bl e st rat egy t o maxi mi ze t he number of neocol oni as andmi ni mi ze t hei r si ze
andst rengt h.
But empi ri cal evi dence i s even more persuasi ve. Neocol oni al prof i t s have been
more abundant i n l arge count ri es l i ke Brazi l , Ni geri a, I ndi a, andI ndonesi at hani n
t i ny ones l i ke Si erra Leone andt he Seychel l es, andt he pol i t i co-mi l i t ary power of
st at es i n t he f ormer cat egory has f romt i me t o t i me proved di st i nct l y usef ul t o
mul t i nat i onal capi t al i sm. Andwhenwe exami net he pat t ern of soci al i st revol ut i ons
i n f ormer col oni es andsemi -col oni es, we f i nd t hat t hey cover t he spect rumf rom
very l arge st at es ( Chi na, Vi et nam, et c. ) downt o very smal l ones ( Gui nea-Bi ssau,
Ni caragua, et c. ) . Thus nei t her t heory nor f act seems t o support t he t hesi s t hat
neocol oni al i smf avours t he prol i f erat i on of mi ni -st at es.
Neocol oni al i smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on
I t must be borne i n mi nd t hat Hobsbawm' s NewLef t Revi ewart i cl e i s i nt ended
mai nl y t obeanat t ack onTomNai rn' s`break-up of Bri t ai n' t hesi s, andnot anessay
ont he nat i onal l i berat i onof col oni es or an ef f ort t oput f orwardacomprehensi ve
t heory of nat i onal i sm. But Hobsbawmsweeps wi t h abroad broom, prof f eri ng
general i zat i ons about `nat i onal i st s' and `nat i onal i sm' wi t hout qual i f i cat i on or
l i mi t at i on as t o cont ext , and wi t hout payi ng at t ent i on t o t he Marxi st ' s caut i on
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

119
si gnal t o t ake heed of t he di f f erencebet weent he nat i onal i smof t heoppcessedand
t hat of t he oppressor, aprocedure grounded i n t he val i d argument t hat general
t heorems supposed t o govern bot h of t hese cat egori es are al ways suspect and
usual l y wrong. But nearl y every t heoremput f orwardby Hobsbawmwi t h regardt o
t he real l y react i onary nat i onal i sms of t hi s worl dcan be read as appl yi ngal so t o
progressi ve nat i onal movement s, such as t hose movement swhi ch di d, andt hose
whi ch st i l l do, st ruggl e f or nat i onal l i berat i on f romcol oni al oppressi on. I ndeed,
t here i s ageneral t heory of nat i onal i smunderl yi ngHobsbawm' s posi t i on whi ch
est abl i shes af undament al di st i nct i on, not bet weenoppressor andoppressed, but
bet weent he supposedl y rat i onal nat i onal movement s of t he 19t h Cent ury andt he
cnnnnceAl y i rrat i onal mnvrment c of nor own cent nrv t he l at t er i ncl udi ne bot h
_ _ i , i . . . _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
react i onary nat i onal i smand, aswel l , t he progressi ve st ruggl es agai nst col oni al i sm.
Thi s bri ngs us t ot he l ast speci f i c cri t i ci smof Hobsbawm' s argument . He post s
j ust one warni ngt hat hi s di scussi on shoul d not be appl i ed t o t he worl dof f ormer
col oni es. That i s an assert i on -i t i s i ndeed amaj or t hesi s -t hat st ruggl es i n
neocol oni as are not nat i onal st ruggl es:
The vi rt ual di sappearance of f ormal empi res ( `col oni al i sm' ) has snappedt he
mai n l i nk bet ween ant i -i mperi al i sm and t he sl ogan of nat i onal sel f -
det ermi nat i on. However real t he dependence of neocol oni al i sm, t he st ruggl e
agai nst i t si mpl y cannot any l onger be cryst al l i zed around t he sl ogan of
est abl i shi ngi ndependent pol i t i cal st at ehood, because most t erri t ori es concerned
al ready have i t . '
Not onl y i s t hi s argument i nval i d, but Hobsbawmproves i t sohi msel f . Consi der t he
f ol l owi ng:
The mul t i pl i cat i on of i ndependent soverei gn st at es subst ant i al l y changed t he
sense of t he t erm`i ndependence' f or most of t hemi nt o a synonymf or
`dependence' . . . Wemay l eave asi de t he obvi ousf act t hat many of t hemexi st as
i ndependent st at es onl y on suf f erance or under prot ect i on . . . They are
economi cal l y dependent . . . on an i nt ernat i onal economy and. . . on t he
great er powers and t ransnat i onal corporat i ons whi ch t oday pref er -or f i nd
i ndi spensabl e-aneocol oni al rel at i onshi p rat her t hansomet hi ngl i ke f ormal i zed
dependence.
z
One or t wovery pecul i ar t heori es are embeddedi n t hi s passage, amongt hemt he
not i on t hat dependence i s somehowaresul t of `t he mul t i pl i cat i on of i ndependent
soverei gnst at es' andt he not i on, al ready remarkedupon, t hat decol oni zat i on was
somehowaresul t of i mperi al i st st rat egy, not of col oni al l i berat i onmovement s. We
may al so def er unt i l l at er acomment upont he resembl ance bet weenHobsbawm' s
argument t hat i ndependence i s general l ynot real , i s `asynonymf or "dependence", '
andRosaLuxemburg' s argument of l ongagot hat sel f -det ermi nat i oni s ani l l usi on
because soverei gn st at es under capi t al i smare real l y dependent , not i ndependent .
What I wi sh t ocal l at t ent i ont onowi s t he cont radi ct i on bet weent he t wopassages
of Hobsbawm' squot edabove. I nt hef i rst he assert st hat `t he vi rt ual di sappearance
of f ormal empi res( "col oni al i sm") ' hasmeant t hat st ruggl esagai nst neocol oni al i sm
are not real l y nat i onal st ruggl es, st ruggl es f or soverei gnt y, `because most
t erri t ori es . . . al ready have i t ' . I n ot her words, once ast at e has gai ned f ormal
120

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
sover ei gnt y i t s i nt er nat i onal st r uggl es ar e nol onger mat t er s of nat i onal l i ber at i on.
But i n t he secondpassage, Hobsbawmasser t s t hat t hese newl y i ndependent st at es
ar e `dependent ' , not `i ndependent ' ( t hey exi st `onsuf f er ance or under pr ot ect i on' ,
et c. ) . I f t hey donot enj oy r eal sover ei gnt y, i f t hey ar e `dependent ' - whi chof cour se
i s apol i t i cal as wel l as an economi c condi t i on - t hen i t must f ol l owt hat t hey ar e
st i l l engagedi n nat i onal st r uggl e f or r eal i ndependence andr eal sover ei gnt y.
Wedonot have t o r emi nd Hobsbawmt hat t her e ar e degr eesof sover ei gnt y, and
t hat t hese gr adat i ons ar e f oundi n t he ar r ay of newl y i ndependent st at es, f or mer
col oni es, j ust as t hey wer e f oundi n t he supposedl y sover ei gn `nat i on- st at es' of 19t h
Cent ur y Eur ope ( Por t ugal , Denmar J c, et c. ) , i n t he supposedl y non- sover ei gn
_~. ___ ~_ . t . .

. , 1 B. . 1L. .

. , r ; r : nc
dependCRC1eS OI t haL t l me aI l ( 1 p1aGC( J QXC- t - uuuy- wmn, ScJ cr au uaanu: e. . . . . . . . , . . ,
et c. ) , andi n t he vast number andf or ms of cl assi cal col oni es- f or ms r angi ng f r om
nomi nal sover ei gnt y ( as i n some `nat i ve st at es' ) t hr ough var i ous i nt er medi at e
condi t i ons ( f or exampl e, `i ndi r ect r ul e' ) t o absol ut e l ack of sel f - gover ni ng
i nst i t ut i ons. What l ogi c, t hen, woul dj ust i f y anasser t i on t hat neocol oni as ar e not
engagedi n nat i onal st r uggl e whent hey f i ght f or r eal pol i t i cal i ndependence?Thi si s
not j ust amat t er of j uggl i ng t er ms.
The pr ogr essi ve sect or s i n what I t hi nk must be ever y neocol ony on t he pl anet
i nsi st t hat t hey ar e, i ndeed, f i ght i ng anat i onal st r uggl e, ast r uggl e f or i ndependence
f r omdomi nant f or ei gn power s and mul t i nat i onal cor por at i ons, as wel l as, of
cour se, adomest i c st r uggl e agai nst expl oi t i ng cl asses. ( Thi s i s of t en ar t i cul at ed, I
t hi nk wr ongl y, as adual st r uggl e, anat i onal st r uggl e ext er nal l y andacl assst r uggl e
i nt er nal l y. But , as we sawi n Chapt er 2, nat i onal st r uggl e i s cl assst r uggl e. I n t hese
neocol oni al cases i t i s st r uggl e agai nst expl oi t i ng cl asses basedi n ot her count r i es
andusi ng l ocal subal t er ns f or t he l ocal st r uggl e. ) The mat t er i s even mor e st ar k i n
t he case of al l but t he l ar gest soci al i st st at es. Each of t hese per cei vesi t sel f t obe- and
i s- t hr eat enedwi t h i nvasi on andsubver si on by capi t al i st power s, andeach def i nes
i t s ownpost ur e asoneof engagement i n anat i onal st r uggl e f or sel f - det er mi nat i on, a
st r uggl e t odef endandpr eser ve i t s sover ei gnt y. We mi ght r ecal l , al so, t hat soci al i sm
waswoni n many of t hese st at es, among t hemVi et nam, Cuba, andNi car agua, i n
st r uggl es agai nst a domest i c enemy( r egar dl ess of whomt hat enemy f r ont ed f or ,
andhow) ; woul dHobsbawmdeny t hat t hese, t oo, wer e nat i onal st r uggl es?
Hobsbawmt hus del et es f r omt he nat i onal quest i on t he gener al l y pr ogr essi ve
st r uggl es agai nst neocol oni al i sm. Thi s l eaves hi mf r ee t o decl ar e t hat t he onl y
i mpor t ant f or mof nat i onal st r uggl e, t he essent i al cont ent of t he `f i ssi par ous
nat i onal i sms of our t i me' , i s t he i r r at i onal sor t of nat i onal movement whi chspr i ngs
up i n adevel oped capi t al i st count r y and t he supposedl y f r i vol ous i ndependence
movement of some `speck i n t he Paci f i c' . I t l eaves hi mf r ee, mor eover , t o di smi ss
nat i onal i smi n gener al as i r r at i onal .
Toal l of t hi s t he r esponse must be t hat Hobsbawm' sper f ect l yj ust i f i edcr i t i que of
r eact i onar y nat i onal movement s can st and by i t sel f . I t can be j ust i f i ed by t he
empi r i cal f act s of cl ass f or ces and cl ass st r uggl es. I nsof ar as i t needs t heor et i cal
backi ng f or i t s empi r i cal asser t i ons, t hi s can be t he unpr et ent i ous gener al i zat i on
t hat al l nat i onal st r uggl e i s ast r uggl e f or st at e power , t hat st r uggl e f or st at e power i s
af or mof t he cl assst r uggl e, andt hat we can i n pr i nci pl e det er mi newhet her agi ven
case i s pr ogr essi ve or not , r at i onal or not , i n much t he same wayt hat we make t hat
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

121
det er mi nat i on wi t h ot her f or msof cl assst r uggl e. But i f i nst eadwe use aconvol ut ed
t heor y whi ch decl ar es moder n nat i onal movement s i n gener al t obe at avi st i c and
i r r at i onal , t hen ver y danger ous consequences ensue. Legi t i mat e andpr ogr essi ve
st r uggl es, l i ke t he Puer t oRi canst r uggl e t o wi n i ndependence andt he Ni car aguan
st r uggl e t odef end i ndependence, wi l l be mi sunder st ood andt hus hamper ed.
Hobsbawmand t he Mar xi st Theor y of Nat i onal i sm
Hobsbawm' sTheor y
Hobsbawm' s essent i al t heor y, as I r ead i t , descr i bes t he i nt er pl ay bet ween t wo
di st i nct sor t sof hi st or i cal pr ocess. One i s nat i onal i sm, whi ch he concei vest obe a
ver y compl ex phenomenon made up of i deol ogy, pol i t i cal pr ogr amme, pol i t i cal
movement , and r at her deep- l yi ng cul t ur al pr ocesses. Two f or ms of t hi s
phenomenon seemt o be i mpor t ant . One i s t he f or mof t he convent i onal nat i onal
movement , a`nat i on- bui l di ng' pr ocess whi ch hasasi t s ai mt he est abl i shment of a
st at e congr uent wi t h t he communi t y i n whi ch t he movement ar i ses, t ypi cal l y a
l anguage communi t yor acul t ur e. Hobsbawmt r aces t he or i gi n of t hi s pr ocess and
movement back t o t he convul si ons and di sl ocat i ons associ at ed wi t h t he gr eat
t r ansf or mat i on f r omf eudal i smt o capi t al i sm. Theot her f or mof nat i onal i sm, al so
cal l ed `nat i on- bui l di ng' , i s gener at ed wi t hi n anexi st i ng st at e, andconst i t ut es what
he cal l s ( asdoot her s) a`ci vi c r el i gi on' by meansof whi cht he i nhabi t ant sof t he st at e
ar e cement ed i nt o asoci o- cul t ur al whol e, amass of pat r i ot i c and l aw- abi di ng
ci t i zens.
Bot h f or ms of nat i onal i smi nt er act wi t h aset of basi cal l y di f f er ent pr ocesses
whi ch ar e char act er i st i c of t he r i se of capi t al i sm, pr ocesses associ at ed wi t h t he
est abl i shment of t he capi t al i st st at e andt he def i ni t i on of i t s i nt er nal char act er i st i cs.
On t hi s mat t er , Hobsbawm' s vi ewi s t he convent i onal one among Mar xi st s and
many ot her s. Capi t al i sm, i n i t s r i se, has t he need f or an adequat e- si zed `nat i onal '
economy, andt he needt omai nt ai n st at e power over t hi s t er r i t or i al whol e. ( `Need' i s
of cour se not t o be r ead ant hr opomor phi cal l y. ) Hence t he emer gence of af i ni t e
number of capi t al i st st at es. Wher e no st at e yet exi st s, nat i onal i smor nat i on-
bui l di ng cr eat es nat i onal consci ousness, anat i onal movement , andsoon. Wher e
capi t al i smsei zes ( so t o speak) an al r eady exi st i ng st at e, nat i onal i smor nat i on-
bui l di ng t ends t ot r ansf or mt he st at e i nt o anat i on. Thus bot h cases t end t owar ds
t he f or mat i on of nat i on st at es.
Wesee, t hen, t hat nat i onal i smi n Hobsbawm' st heor y i s di st i nct f r omcapi t al i st
st at e- f or mat i on but gai ns i t s hi st or i cal si gni f i cance i n associ at i on wi t h t he l at t er .
Hobsbawmsuggest s r at her of f handedl y t hat nat i onal i smas apr ocess may have a
pr ehi st or y ant edat i ng t he r i se of t he capi t al i st st at e, but he asser t sf i r ml y, i n sever al
of hi s wr i t i ngs, t hat ef f ect uat ed nat i onal i smi s apr oduct of t he 19t h Cent ur y, of
Eur ope, andt hus of t he pol i t i cs of r i si ng capi t al i sm. ' ( For t he non- Eur opeanwor l d
t her e seems not t o have been any pr oper nat i onal i smdur i ng most of t hat cent ur y,
accor di ng t o Hobsbawm. ) On t he ot her hand, Hobsbawmpoi nt edl y di scusses
cases of nat i onal i smi n 19t h Cent ur y Eur ope whi ch wer e qui t e unr el at ed t o t he
nor mal r i se- of - capi t al i smst at e- f or mi ng pr ocess. These wer e t he `Rur i t ani an'
nat i onal i sms, t he nat i onal movement s of ( usual l y) smal l ar eas or smal l soci et i es
whi ch sought t of or mst at es but wer e, sot ospeak, dest i nedt obe absor bed wi t hi n
122 Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
l ar ger st at es and come t o not hi ng. They wer e t hus, accor di ng t o Hobsbawm,
i r r at i onal .
Thi s br i ngs us t ot he cr uci al obj ect i ons t o Hobsbawm' s t heor y. I t i s at heor y
about nat i on- bui l di ng pr ocesses, andi t speaksof t wof or ms, ar at i onal f or mwhi ch
i s associ at edwi t h t he r i seof capi t al i smandt he f or mat i onof capi t al i st nat i on st at es,
andani r r at i onal f or mwhi ch seems- t her e i s some ambi gui t y- t o cover al l ot her
sor t s of nat i on- bui l di ng ef f or t s. Thi s f or mul at i on l eads t o anumber of ser i ous
pr obl ems, among t hemt he f ol l owi ng:
1) Hobsbawm' st heor ypost ul at es asi ngl e sor t of phenomenont owhi cht he l abel
`nat i onal i sm' i s t obe at t ached. But t her e ar e ot her sor t sof phenomenawhi chdonot
f i t i nt o Hobsbawm' s t heor y yet ar e, so t o speak, beggi ng t o be descr i bed as
`nat i onal i sm' . One of t hese, t o my mi ndt he most i mpor t ant , i s t he expansi oni st
nat i onal i smof i mper i al st at es, i ncl udi ng most poi nt edl y Br i t ai n andher f el l ow
col oni zi ng power s, but al soi ncl udi ngNazi Ger many, i mper i al J apan, andt he r est .
I s t hi s not nat i onal i sm? Andwhenan i mper i al st at e r esi st s anat i onal movement i n
some par t of i t s t er r i t or y or i n i t s col oni al empi r e, i s t hi s r esi st ance t o nat i on-
bui l di ng ( et c. ) not al so nat i onal i sm? St at ed di f f er ent l y: i f t her e i s an i deol ogy,
pol i t i cal pr ogr amme, andpol i t i cal movement - anat i onal movement - f i ght i ng t o
cr eat e ast at e, must t her e not be an i deol ogy, pr ogr amme, pol i t i cal f or ce, et c. ,
f i ght i ng t opr event t he st at e f r omemer gi ng? Must t her e not be ( at l east ) t wosi desi n
ever ynat i onal st r uggl e? Anddowe not needacompr ehensi ve t heor ywhi ch wi l l
deal wi t h such st r uggl e i n al l i t s di mensi ons? Thi s i s not onl yt r ue i n t heor y; i t i st r ue
i n Mar xi st pr act i ce ont he nat i onal quest i on. Si nce t he t i me of Mar x andEngel s, and
mor e concr et el ysi nce Leni n, Mar xi st s have concer nedt hemsel ves at l east as much
wi t h `gr eat nat i on nat i onal i sm' , andwi t h `t he nat i onal i smof t he oppr essor nat i ons' ,
as t hey have wi t h t he nat i onal i smof nat i on- bui l di ng and st at e f or mat i on. `
s
2) Hobsbawm' s t heor ydescr i besas r at i onal onl yt he sor t of st at e f or mi ngpr ocess
whi ch i s associ at ed wi t h t he r i se of capi t al i sm. Bef or e t he Fi r st Wor l dWar t hi s
woul d have been consi der ed basi cal l y cor r ect . But Leni n ( and ot her s) ar gued
t heor et i cal l yt hat col oni es andsemi - col oni es mi ght , f or var i ousr easons, wi nout t o
soci al i sm wi t hout endur i ng a capi t al i st pur gat or y. And nat i onal l i ber at i on
movement shave not onl yest abl i shedt hi s i n pr act i ce, but t heyhave shownt hat f ul l y
capi t al i st col oni es andneocol oni es can wi n t hr ough t o soci al i sm. Hence we now
must have at heor y of soci al i st st at e f or mat i on. Hobsbawm' s does not suf f i ce. `6
St at i ng t he mat t er di f f er ent l y: aMar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i smmust be abl e t o
expl ai nnat i onal st r uggl es, l i ke t hose of Vi et nam, Angol a, Cuba, Ni car agua, whi ch
ar e not par t of t he `bour geoi s democr at i c r evol ut i on' , whi ch ar e not t hemsel ves
associ at ed wi t h `t he r i se of t he bour geoi si e' , but whi ch ar e i n f act l ed bysoci al i st s
andr esul t i n t he f or mat i on of asoci al i st , not acapi t al i st ( nat i on) st at e. Thi s al so
appl i es t o st r uggl es not yet won. For exampl e, Mar xi st s st r uggl e f or t he
i ndependence of Puer t o Ri conot t o cr eat e a`bour geoi s democr at i c st at e' but t o
l i ber at e t he count r y f r omcapi t al i sm.
3) Some of t he di f f i cul t i es wi t h Hobsbawm' s basi c concept of nat i onal i smas a
phenomenon or pr ocess der i ve f r omt he ver y f act t hat he vi ews nat i onal i sm,
ont ol ogi cal l y, i n t hat way: as a def i ni t e phenomenon, a di st i nct pr ocess. He
supposest hat al l f or ms of nat i onal i smhave acommon nat ur e, f r omwhi ch i t must
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

123
f ol l owt hat moder nnat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl esar e somehowof api ece wi t h 19t h
Cent ur y r i si ng- capi t al i st nat i onal movement s and even wi t h t he r eact i onar y
separ at i st nat i onal movement s wi t hi n some pr esent - day soci al i st st at es ( l i ke
Yugosl avi a) . Al l ar e seen as shar i ng acommon i deol ogi cal , pol i t i cal , andsoci al
char act er and( at l east i mpl i ci t l y) acommon r el at i on t o capi t al i sm. " I t hi nk I have
dwel t enough on t he bl i ndal l eys i nt o whi ch t hi s appr oach l eads us t o obvi at e t he
needf or f ur t her comment on t hat mat t er .
What needst o be sai di s t hat t her e i s adi st i nct l ydi f f er ent wayof concept ual i zi ng
nat i onal i smwhi chavoi ds t hese pr obl ems, and whi ch i s cl oser t o t he mai n l i ne of
Mar xi st t hi nki ng about t he nat i onal quest i on. I t st ar t s wi t h t he pr oposi t i on t hat
cr eat i on andcont r ol of ast at e i s t he cr ux of pol i t i cal st r uggl e i n al l r ecent and
cont empor ar y f or ms of soci et y. One f or mof t hi s pol i t i cal st r uggl e i s nat i onal
st r uggl e. I t br oadl y descr i besal l cases of f or mi ng st at es, enl ar gi ng st at es, secedi ng
f r omst at es and t hus f or mi ng ot her st at es, uni f yi ng st at es i nt o l ar ger st at es,
absor bi ng st at es i nt o ot her st at es, andso on. Ther e ar e t hus manyf or ms and
combi nat i ons of nat i onal st r uggl e. Each must di spl ay acer t ai n pat t er n of cl ass
par t i ci pat i on( on bot h si desof t he st r uggl e, needl ess t osay) , andhencei s subj ect t o
cl ass anal ysi s l i ke any ot her moment of t he cl ass st r uggl e - of whi ch nat i onal

I
st r uggl e i s onet ype. Thuswe woul df ul l yexpect t o f i nd ever ymaj or cl assgr oupi ng
andt ype of soci al f or mat i on t o be i nvol ved somehowi n nat i onal st r uggl e, andwe
woul d t hus speak of t he st r uggl es of t he r i si ng bour geoi s ( and r et r eat i ng
ar i st ocr acy) , t he monopol y bour geoi si e, t he f asci st s, t he pr ol et ar i at ( al one andi n
combi nat i ons) , andsoon.
Byt he same t oken, we woul dexpect t o f i nd al l t ypesof moder nst at es engagedi n

I I I
nat i onal st r uggl es. For i nst ance, most Mar xi st s wel l under st andt he pr obl emat i cof
soci al i st st at es havi ng t o engage i n f or ms of nat i onal st r uggl e t o def end t hei r

L
r evol ut i onswi t hi n awor l dgeogr aphi cal envi r onment whi ch i s st i l l pr edomi nant l y
capi t al i st . Ther e i s not hi ng `bour geoi s' about doi ng so. And, as we not edear l i er ,
most Mar xi st s ar e awar et hat t he wayt o bui l dsoci al i smi n t he wor l dof t odayi s t o
doi t pi ece by pi ece, t hat i s, st at e byst at e; hence t he wor ki ngcl assesmust engage i n
nat i onal st r uggl e t o sei ze or f or mt hei r par t i cul ar l ocal st at e, not wai t f or soci al i sm
t o, magi cal l y, descendupont he whol eear t h al l at once. Mypoi nt i n sayi ng al l t hi s i s
r el at i vel y si mpl e. We can anal yse al l f or ms of t he nat i onal quest i on wi t hout
assumi ng anypar t i cul ar cl ass char act er of t he par t i ci pat i ng act or s, or any`st age' of
hi st or y. Thei nt egr at i ng pr i nci pl e, on whi chour t heor yof nat i onal i smas awhol ei s
based, i s si mpl yt hat t he nat i onal quest i on i s onef or mor cat egor yof t he st r uggl e t o
sei ze st at e power .
Leni n' s `Pr agmat i sm'
Let us r ecal l agai n Hobsbawm' s comment t hat nat i onal i smi s `devoi d of any
di scer ni bl e r at i onal t heor y' . Ther e was r at i onal i t y, he ar gues, i n t he pr ocess of
nat i on st at e f or mat i on dur i ng t he 19t h Cent ur y, andt her e seems t o have been
r at i onal i t yi n at l east some i nst ances of st at e f or mat i on i n our own t i me, i nst ances
whi chr epr esent , he says, `somet hi ng l i ke t he " bour geoi s- democr at i cphase" i n t he
devel opment of backwar dcount r i es' . `$ ( Wewi l l t ake asecondl ook at t hi s r eveal i ng
r emar k i n amoment . ) The r at i onal i t y i n t hi s st at e f or mi ng pr ocess was t he l ogi c of
124

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
r i si t r g- capi t al i smand~t s=- or -, - t o

i sm~~i e~- ne~~-
t ohave st at e power over , pr ef er abl y, l ar gi sh and cul t ur al l y uncompl ex t er r i t or i es,
t hus nat i onal economi es, and t her ef or e nat i on st at es. Hobsbawm' sar gument her e
i s f ai t hf ul t oMar x andEngel s, andt he t heor y i s i n l ar ge par t der i vat i ve f r omt he
Mar xi st t heor y of capi t al i smi t sel f .
But t hi s i s not nat i onal i sm. Nat i onal i sm, says Hobsbawm, i s an i deol ogy and
soci al andpol i t i cal movement , of t enabl i ndl y i r r at i onal ` ci vi c r el i gi on' , ademand
andst r uggl e t oobt ai n i ndependent st at ehoodf or one' s owncul t ur al communi t y( or
` nat i on' ) r egar dl ess of t he si ze and pol i t i cal vi abi l i t y of t hi s communi t y and
r egar dl ess of al l ot her ci r cumst ances, i nt er nal and ext er nal . Accor di ng t o
Hobsbawmt hi s pol i t i cal i deol ogy and movement somet i mes coi nci des wi t h t he
nor mal capi t al i st st at e f or mi ng pr ocessandt hus acqui r es, as i t wer e by i nduct i on, a
ki nd of r at i onal i t y, sensi bl eness, l ogi c, f r omt he l at t er pr ocess. But ot her i nst ances
of nat i onal i smi n t he 19t h Cent ur y ( t he ` Rur i t ani as' , et c. ) and essent i al l y al l
nat i onal i smt oday donot coi nci de i n t hi s way wi t h ahi st or i cal l y nor mal pr ocessof
capi t al i st st at e f or mat i on. These nat i onal i sms ar e i r r at i onal . Thei r ai ms ar e
i r r at i onal , andt hey cannot be br ought under any sor t of expl anat or y t heor y . Hence
t hey ar e ` devoi dof . . . r at i onal t heor y' . '
Hobsbawmwant st o associ at e Mar xi sm, andpar t i cul ar l y Leni n, wi t h t hi s vi ew.
He ar guest hat Leni n' s appr oach t onat i onal i smwasamat t er not of t heor y but of
` pr agmat i sm' . Thi s wasso, Hobsbawmmai nt ai ns, because nat i onal i smt hen, as
t oday, was apower f ul massphenomenon, andwasi n many casespr ogr essi ve i nt he
sense t hat i t f ur t her ed t he ai ms of t he pr ol et ar i at , al t hough i n an i ndi r ect way
because t he di r ect i onal i t y of nat i onal movement s andt hat of Mar xi st s' pol i t i cal
st r uggl es had di f f er ent causal bases andt hus coul d coi nci de onl y under speci al
ci r cumst ances. Some of t he ways Hobsbawmexpr esses t hi s mat t er of Leni n' s
pr agmat i smon t he nat i onal quest i on, and of t he pr agmat i smt hat Hobsbawm
t hi nks has pr edomi nant l y char act er i zed Mar xi st posi t i ons on t hi s quest i on, ar e t o
be seen i n t he f ol l owi ng quot at i ons:
Mar xi st s . . . have t ocome t ot er mswi t h t he pol i t i cal f act of nat i onal i smand t o
def i ne t hei r at t i t udest owar ds i t s speci f i c mani f est at i ons. Ever si nce Mar x, t hi s
hasf or t he most par t , andnecessar i l y, beenamat t er not of t heor et i cal pr i nci pl e
( except f or t he Luxembur gi an mi nor i t y whi ch t ends t o suspect nat i ons en bl oc)
but of pr agmat i cj udgment i n changi ng ci r cumst ances. I n pr i nci pl e, Mar xi st s ar e
nei t her f or nor agai nst i ndependent st at ehood f or any nat i on . . . even assumi ng
t hat t her e can be ot her t han pr agmat i c j udgment onwhat const i t ut es` t he nat i on'
i n any par t i cul ar case . so
The Mar xi st at t i t ude t owar d nat i onal i smas apr ogr amme i s si mi l ar i n many
r espect s t oMar x' sat t i t ude t owar dsot her apr i or i abst r act i ons of what i n hi sday
was pet t y- bour geoi s r adi cal i sm, e. g . , t he ` democr at i c r epubl i c' . I t i s not
unsympat het i c, but cont i ngent andnot absol ut e . The f undament al cr i t er i on of
Mar xi st pr agmat i c j udgment has al ways been whet her nat i onal i smas such, or
any speci f i c case of i t , advances t he cause of soci al i smor conver sel y, howt o
pr event i t f r omi nhi bi t i ng i t s pr ogr ess; or al t er nat i vel y, howt omobi l i ze i t as a
f or ce t oassi st i t s pr ogr ess. sl
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

125
Leni n, i nf act , di dnot r ecommendsoct al i t si n~i ecount W` esconc~~~avour -
secessi on except i n speci f i c, andpr agmat i cal l y i dent i f i abl e, ci r cumst ances. sZ
The r eal danger f or Mar xi st s i s t he t empt at i on t o wel come nat i onal i smas
i deol ogy and pr ogr amme r at her t han r eal i st i cal l y t o accept i t as a f act , a
condi t i on of t hei r st r uggl e as soci al i st s . . . Qui t e apar t f r omi mpl yi ng t he
abandonment of t he val ues of t he Enl i ght enment , of r eason and sci ence, such a
conver si on al so i mpl i es a wi t hdr awal f r omr eal i st i c anal ysi s of t he wor l d
si t uat i on, Mar xi st or ot her wi se. s'
[ The] pr act i cal at t i t ude of Mar xi st s t o t he concr et e pol i t i cal pr obl ems r ai sed by
` t he nat i onal quest i on' har dl y r equi r es ser i ous modi f i cat i on. They wi l l , no
d___La

. . L, . . .

, . C. a. . W. a. anl : ws one nat i nnal 7cmac }I t PV }l AVO
uvuvy Cvut i ui i c i v vc a5 wuSCi vuS va . . ~. . +. " a. . . ~ . . . . . . . . ~- . . ~- . . ~. . _ - _ ____~ ___ . _
been f or most of t he t went i et h cent ur y: t hey can har dl y not be. s
a
Fi nal l y, aquot at i on whi ch r eveal s Hobsbawm' s bel i ef t hat nat i onal st r uggl e and
cl assst r uggl e, t he pr ogr amme f or achi evi ng st at e i ndependence andt he pr ogr amme
f or achi evi ng soci al i sm, ar e r adi cal l y di sj unct i ve - f r omwhi ch i t woul d have t o
f ol l owt hat Mar xi st s can r el at e onl y ` pr agmat i cal l y' t o nat i onal i st s:
Ther e i s no way of t ur ni ng t he f or mat i on of ` nat i onal ' communi t i es ( i . e . , t he
mul t i pl i cat i on of nat i on- st at es as such) i nt o a hi st or i c engi ne f or gener at i ng
soci al i smei t her t o r epl ace or t osuppl ement t he Mar xi an hi st or i c mechani sm. ss
The ` Mar xi an hi st or i c mechani sm' I suppose i s cl ass st r uggl e . Hobsbawmi s
asser t i ng t hat nat i onal st r uggl es can nei t her r epl ace nor even ` suppl ement ' cl ass
st r uggl e. sb Nat i onal i smi s awi l d car d. Whence comes t he ` pr agmat i sm' of most
Mar xi st s and i n par t i cul ar of Leni n. ( But di d not t he Vi et namese, t o t ake an
exampl e not qui t e at r andom, consi der nat i onal l i ber at i on t o be an essent i al
component of t he ` hi st or i c engi ne f or gener at i ng soci al i sm' i n t hei r count r y, as
i ndeed not asuppl ement t o but apar t of t he ` Mar xi an hi st or i c mechani sm' f or
t hem?)
Hobsbawmdoes not cr edi t Leni n wi t h apr oper t heor y of nat i onal i sm. ` Ever
si nce Mar x' , says Hobsbawm, t he at t i t ude of Mar xi st s t owar ds nat i onal i smhas
been a mat t er of ` pr agmat i c j udgment i n changi ng ci r cumst ances' , t hus not a
t heor y, except i n t he speci f i c case of t he t heor y of ` r at i onal ' nat i on st at e f or mat i on
i n t he per i od of r i si ng capi t al i sm. Leni n, accor di ng t o Hobsbawm, r evol ut i oni zed
Mar xi st pr act i ce on t he nat i onal quest i on, but t her e was, i n ef f ect , not hi ng t o
t heor i ze about : t he i ssue was nowi n t he ar enaof ` pr agmat i c j udgment ' .
I bel i eve t hat Hobsbawmi s compl et el y wr ong on t hi s i ssue. Leni n devel oped a
compr ehensi ve t heor y of nat i onal i sm, andi t i s t hi s t heor y, not pr agmat i sm( and
i mpl i ci t l y oppor t uni sm) , whi ch has gui ded Mar xi st pr act i ce on t he nat i onal
quest i on si nce Leni n' s t i me . Fur t her mor e, Leni n' s mat ur e t heor y of nat i onal i smi s
not r econci l abl e wi t h t he t heor y whi ch Hobsbawmhi msel f put s f or war d on t hese
mat t er s. I n par t i cul ar , Leni n' s t heor y pr ovi des a r easoned, l ogi cal basi s f or
Mar xi st s' j udgement as t owhi ch sor t s of nat i onal movement s Mar xi st s shoul d
suppor t - andsomet i mesf i ght anddi e i n- asamat t er of pr i nci pl e, andi t l i kewi se
pr ovi des such abasi s f or Mar xi st s' i mpl acabl e opposi t i on t o nat i onal movement s
whi ch ar e di scover ed t o be r eact i onar y. Hobsbawm' st heor y ent ai l s, r at her , avi si on
126 Hobsbawmon t he Nat i onSt at e
of nat i onal movement si nwhi chal l of t hemar e oneor anot her shade of gr ey: some
shoul d be suppor t ed, t hough wi t h suspi ci on; ot her s shoul d be opposed, t hough
wi t h `pr agmat i c' wi l l i ngness t o `mobi l i ze' t hem`as af or ce' .
Fr omt he poi nt of vi ewof t he pr esent chapt er , t he most cr uci al di f f er ence i s t hat
Hobsbawm' sposi t i onwoul df or ceust ovi ewwi t h at l east some degr eeof suspi ci on
al l l i ber at i on st r uggl es of col oni es. Leni n' s, ont he ot her hand, pl ai nl y andsi mpl y
r equi r es such ast r uggl e f or l i ber at i on i n col oni al - t ype oppr essed count r i es, and
r equi r es, mor eover , t hat Mar xi st s i nt hese count r i esf i ght f or r eal i ndependence as a
mat t er of pr i nci pl e ( andt heor y) whi l e i t censur est hose Mar xi st s i not her count r i es,
par t i cul ar l y t hose i n t he oppr essor count r y, whof ai l t o suppor t t hese col oni al
st r uggl es f or i ndependence. I t i s f l at l y unt r ue t hat Leni n `di d not r ecommend
soci al i st s i n t he count r i es concer ned t of avour secessi on except i n speci f i c, and
pr agmat i cal l y i dent i f i abl e, ci r cumst ances' - i nt he case of col oni es. s' I t i s per t i nent
t or ecal l her e t hat Leni nar guedagai nst t he admi ssi onof agr oupof Br i t i sh soci al i st s
i nt o t he Thi r d I nt er nat i onal because t hey wer e not f i ght i ng har d enough f or t he
i ndependence of Br i t i sh col oni es. sg
I wi l l t r y nowt o summar i ze Leni n' s t heor y of nat i onal i smor nat i onal st r uggl e,
mai nl y t oshowt hat Hobsbawm' s assessment of i t i s wr ong. Let i t be sai d t hat a
gr eat many moder nMar xi st s, or t hodox andhet er odox al i ke, ar e as wr ong about
t hi s t heor y as Hobsbawmi s. He i s i n good company.
Leni n' sTheor y
I n asense t her e ar e t woLeni ni st t heor i esof nat i onal i smor t he nat i onal quest i on.
Hobsbawm' s essent i al er r or l i es i n hi s negl ect of t he second andl at er t heor y. Thi s
second t heor y i s not associ at ed wi t h some i nt el l ect ual `br eak' , some bi ogr aphi cal
phenomenonof i nt el l ect ual mat ur at i on of t he sor t whi ch cer t ai n Mar xi st s cl ai mt o
f i nd i n t he l i f e andi deas of Kar l Mar x. I nLeni n' scase i t wast he Wor l dWar whi ch
f or cedt hi s gr eat t hi nker t ot r y t o come upwi t h anexpl anat i onf or ahi st or i cal cr i si s
whi ch was cat ast r ophi c, unexpect ed ( at l east i n i t s ef f ect s on t he wor ker s'
movement ) , and not compr ehensi bl e wi t hi n t he cor pus of Mar xi st t heor y as i t
exi st edat t hat t i me. ( I wi l l cal l t hi s cor pusof pr e- war i deas`post - cl assi cal Mar xi sm'
t odi st i ngui sh i t f r omt he `cl assi cal ' Mar xi smof t he Mar x- Engel s per i od. ) Post -
cl assi cal Mar xi smcont ai ned abody of accept ed i deas about t he nat i onal quest i on,
nat i onal movement s, andt he emer gence of nat i onst at es dur i ng t he per i odof `r i si ng
capi t al i sm' . Ther e wer e i ndeed di f f er ences of t heor y andpr act i ce, but most of t he
cent r al i deaswer e hel d i n common. Leni nbr oke wi t h t hi s post - cl assi cal cor pusof
i deas onnat i onal st r uggl e ( and on ot her mat t er s of t heor y, not abl y i mper i al i sm) i n
hi s wr i t i ngs of t he per i od 1915- 1920. By 1920 he hel dar adi cal l y di f f er ent vi ewof
nat i onal st r uggl e.
The emer gence of t hi s di st i nct i vel y Leni ni st t heor y of nat i onal i smor nat i onal
st r uggl e has t ended t o be negl ect ed f or anumber of r easons, one bei ng t he hi gh
vi si bi l i t y of Leni n' sear l i er debat es wi t h Luxembur g, anot her bei ngt he pr omi nence
of St al i n' s 1913 essay onnat i onal st r uggl e, `Mar xi smandt heNat i onal Quest i on' , i n
most r espect s at ypi cal exampl eof post - cl assi cal Mar xi st t hought whi chnonet hel ess
cont i nued t o be accept ed as bi bl i cal dogmaal l t hr ough t he St al i n per i od and
beyond. ( See Chapt er 5 bel ow. ) I n 1913 and t her eabout s i t was agr eed by al l t he
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

127
ma' or t heor i st s on t he nat i onal uest i on i ncl udi n

Leni n St al i n Luxembur ,
J

q

g

g
Bauer , andKaut sky, t hat t heset of phenomenaembr aci ngnat i onal movement sand
t he emer genceof nat i onst at es waschar act er i st i c onl y of t heper i odof ear l yor r i si ng
capi t al i sm. As Mar x andEngel s hadsai d bef or e t hem, nat i onal i smwoul dt endt o
qui et endownor di sappear ascapi t al i smmat ur ed, because mat ur e capi t al i smwas
f ul l y i nt er nat i onal : because t he moder nbour geoi si e hadbecome or wer e becomi ng
awor l d- wi de cl ass wi t h common, wor l d- wi de i nt er est s, and wi t h no i nt er est i n
mai nt ai ni ng t he `f et t er s' ( as t hey wer e cal l ed) of nat i onal bar r i er s. I n anut shel l :
nat i onal st r uggl e waspar t of t hest r uggl e of t he r i si ng bour geoi si e, wast hus i nnat el y
`bour geoi s' , and woul d have no f unct i on af t er capi t al i smhad mat ur edand t he
t _

_L_J a

59 0_

_~. ( . .

oL, .

. . . A, . A r h:

. . t t . . t {w

nt
uvi i r gcvi 5i c mau r i Scu' .

omuc avt ar xi Si S mcTi cxt cuucu u. aS ar gu: : . . . . . . . . . . . . , p. ^. t . . .
wher ei t became t r ansf or med i nt o anar gument agai nst al l nat i onal st r uggl es, and
agai nst anypar t i ci pat i on by soci al i st s or wor ker s i n such st r uggl es. Thi s vi ewwe
associ at e mai nl y wi t h Luxembur g, al t hough ot her s agr eedwi t h her . Shemai nt ai ned
t hat t he er aof nat i onal i smwasdef i ni t i vel y ended; t hat newnat i onst at es wer e ver y
unl i kel y t oemer ge anywher e; t hat nat i onal movement s wer e t hus r at her i dl e and
ut opi an, andt hey shoul dnot be suppor t ed f or t hat r eason andal so because t hey
wer e now, i n t he per i od of mat ur e capi t al i sm, r eact i onar y. bo
Leni nr epl i edt oLuxembur gby at t acki ng t hi s ext endedor el abor at ed ar gument ,
but hol di ng t o t he basi c posi t i on t hey bot h shar edwi t h post - cl assi cal Mar xi smi n
gener al . He sai d i nef f ect : of cour se nat i onal movement sandnat i onal st r uggl es ar e
char act er i st i c of t he per i od of r i si ng capi t al i sm, andof cour se t hey wi l l t endt o di e
out , al ongwi t h t he nat i onal quest i oni ngener al , as capi t al i smmat ur es. But , he sai d,
t he mat ur at i on of capi t al i smi s ver y uneven over t he f ace of t he ear t h. I n east er n
Eur ope capi t al i smi s st i l l r i si ng, and nat i onal movement s may st i l l , i n cer t ai n
ci r cumst ances, have a chance of success, of f or mi ng new nat i on st at es.
Fur t her mor e, t he pecul i ar l y bar bar ouschar act er of t he Russi anEmpi r e l eads t o
i nt ense nat i onal oppr essi on, hence t o i nt ense and popul ar r esi st ance whi ch may
t ake t hef or mof nat i onal movement s. Andf i nal l y, t he pecul i ar char act er i st i csof t he
Tsar i st empi r e t end t o uni t e t he nat i onal movement s i n oppr essednat i onswi t h t he
st r uggl e f or bour geoi s pol i t i cal democr acy - anot her f eat ur e of t he per i odof r i si ng
capi t al i sm- andhence t o br i ng t he nat i onal quest i on cl ose t o t he cent r e of t he
soci al i st s' st r uggl esf or democr at i c r i ght s. b' Ther ei s of cour se much mor e t hant hi s
t oLeni n' s pr e- war posi t i on ( andt oLuxembur g' s) , but what I have sai dwi l l suf f i ce
f or our pur poses. And what I have sai d woul d pr obabl y not be chal l enged by
Hobsbawm.
We have t o not e t woaddi t i onal el ement s f or at heor y of nat i onal i smwhi ch wer e
enunci at ed by Leni nbef or e t he st ar t of t he Wor l dWar . The f i r st of t hese wast he
pr oposi t i on t hat di scussi ons about nat i onal i smcoul d not be l i mi t ed t o t he
nat i onal i smof smal l and oppr essed nat i ons and aspi r i ng nat i onal movement s.
What he cal l ed `gr eat nat i on nat i onal i sm' t ended t o be i gnor ed by Mar xi st s -
not abl y, he poi nt ed out , by Luxembur g- but i t wassomet hi ngt hat hadt obet aken
account of asser i ousl y as, andi ndeed mor e ser i ousl y t han, t he nat i onal i smof t hose
whoaspi r ed t o st at e i ndependence. bz I n essence, gr eat nat i onnat i onal i smwas t he
di al ect i cal opposi ng f or ce t onat i onal movement s. I i was al so, i n i t s i deol ogi cal
f or m, easi l y di sgui sed behi nd ar gument s t hat gr eat st at es ar e mor e pr ogr essi ve,
128

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
more sui t abl e f or modern capi t al i sm, et c . , t han smal l ones. I n l at er years Leni n
el aborat ed t hi s i dea of great nat i on nat i onal i sm i nt o a maj or t heoret i cal
proposi t i on about t he i nt ensi f i cat i on of great nat i on nat i onal i smi n t he era of
i mperi al i sm. I n t he pre- war peri od he was f ar ahead of hi s cont emporari es i n
underst andi ng t he nat ure andsi gni f i cance of great nat i on nat i onal i sm.
The secondt heoret i cal el ement wasan ext ensi on of t he argument t hat nat i onal
movement s i n east ern Europe were st i l l vi abl e, i mport ant , and i n some cases
progressi ve. Leni n began t o argue t hi s cl ear and si mpl e proposi t i on: nat i onal
movement si n t he advanced capi t al i st count ri esof west ernEurope are at hi ng of t he
past ; t hose of east ernEuropean i mperi al st at es, at hi ng of t he present ; t hose of t he
col oni al worl d, at hi ng of t he f ut ure. " I n ot her words, ant i - col oni al nat i onal
movement sandt hose of semi - col oni es ( l i ke Chi na) were progressi ve and vi abl e,
anddeserved support . Hobsbawmagrees on t hi s mat t er: t he Leni ni st posi t i on, he
not es correct l y, `wi dened t he cat egory of "nat i onal movement s" regarded as
essent i al l y "progressi ve" i n t hei r i mpact much beyondMarx' s andEngel s' own' . ba
On t he ot her hand, Hobsbawmbadl ynegl ect s t he ot her Leni ni st proposi t i on, t hat
great nat i on nat i onal i smneedst obe l ookedat t hrough t he same t heoret i cal l ens as
t he nat i onal i smof smal l andoppressednat i onsandnat i onal movement saspi ri ngt o
i ndependence. I suppose he accept s t he proposi t i on i n pri nci pl e, but t here i s
scarcel y anyment i on of great nat i on nat i onal i smi n hi s di scussi ons of nat i onal i sm
andwhen he uses t he word `nat i onal i sm' i t seems t o ref er al most al ways t o
movement sf or aut onomy or i ndependence.
Leni n devel oped hi s t heory of i mperi al i smmai nl y i n 1915 and 1916. I t was
i nherent l y apol i t i cal t heory, desi gned t o expl ai n t he pol i t i cal real i t i es of awar
whi ch wasdest royi ng t he European workers movement s, andnecessary t o reveal
t he basi c f eat ures of t he era i n whi ch t he war was t aki ng pl ace. The overt
probl emwas f l ag- wavi ng nat i onal i sm, but Leni n di d not make t he mi st ake of
i magi ni ngt hi s t obe some merel y i deol ogi cal epi demi c . I t wascl ear t hat aprof ound
change i n bot h t he economi cs and pol i t i cs of capi t al i smwas t aki ng pl ace.
Capi t al i smhad al ways sought t o export i t s cri ses by spat i al expansi on, mai nl y
col oni al and semi - col oni al . Wi t h t he ri se of f i nance capi t al and monopol y
capi t al i smt he need f or expansi on ( i ncl udi ng t he export of capi t al ) i ncreased very
great l y, but , t he eart h bei ng f i ni t e i n ext ent , f i el ds f or newt erri t ori al expansi on had
di sappeared. Theref ore, accordi ng t oLeni n, t wobasi cal l y novel andvery powerf ul
pol i t i cal f orces had come i nt o pl ay: f i rst , st ruggl es among great powers t o
`repart i t i on' ( Leni n' s word) t he al ready `part i t i oned' worl d, whi ch necessari l y
i mpl i edpol i t i cal st ruggl es among t he powers andt hus event ual l y worl dwar, and
second, t he growt h of nat i onal l i berat i on movement si n col oni es andsemi - col oni es,
roughl y i n proport i on t ot he i nt ensi f yi ng economi c expl oi t at i on and deepeni ng
nat i onal oppressi on whi cht he newerabrought f ort h. bs Thi sanal ysi s l edLeni nt oa
seri es of f undament al t heorems about nat i onal i sm.
( 1) Nat i onal i smi s not merel y charact eri st i c of t he era of earl y or `ri si ng'
capi t al i sm, dyi ng down as capi t al i smmat ures, andassoci at ed onl y wi t h t he earl y
capi t al i st process of st at e f ormat i on. I n t he eraof i mperi al i sm, t he 20t h Cent ury,
nat i onal i smbecomes more i nt ense t han ever, andacqui res newf unct i ons. Great
nat i on nat i onal i smbecomesmore i mport ant andpowerf ul t han ever because of t he
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

129
need t o repart i t i on economi c space, and t hi s l eads t o worl d war. Thi s newl y
i nt ensi f i edgreat power nat i onal i smi s not preci sel y anewphenomenon, si nce great
power nat i onal i smal ready hadi t s owni ngl ori ous hi st ory pri or t ot he 20t h Cent ury;
i t i s newi n t hat i t i s i mmensel yi ncreasedi n i nt ensi t y andi n si gni f i cance, l eadi ngt o
t he Great War andal l i t s consequences. be
( 2) The nat i onal i smof col oni es andsemi - col oni es i s cal l ed i nt o bei ng by t he
i nt ensi f i cat i on of expl oi t at i on andoppressi on. I n an i mport ant way, t hi s i s a new
i

phenomenon, or, t o be more preci se ( si nce ant i - col oni al resi st ance al so had i t s
hi st ory) , i t cannot beassi mi l at edt ot het heoryof nat i onal movement swhi chemerge
duri ng t he ri se of capi t al i smandhave ast hei r ( asi t were) purpose or goal t he si mpl e
creat i on of abourgeoi s st at e. The nat ure of col oni al i smi s such t hat produci ng
cl asses suf f er al ong wi t h what ever young or i nci pi ent bourgeoi si e may exi st .
Theref ore t he nat i onal l i berat i on movement s i n col oni es and semi - col oni es are
prof oundl y di f f erent f romt he nat i onal movement s of earl i er oppressed nat i ons
such as t hose i n non- col oni al port i ons of t he Tsari st empi re. I t i s not i nnat el y a
bourgeoi s st ruggl e agai nst f eudal f orces f or t he creat i on of acl assi cal bourgeoi s
st at e. I t i s amul t i - cl ass st ruggl e di rect ed pri mari l y agai nst i mperi al i sm. b'
( 3) The ol d- f ashi oned nat i onal i smof ri si ng capi t al i smcont i nues t obe f oundi n
vari ouspart s of t he worl d, but i t i s di st i nct f rom, andnowl ess i mport ant t han, t he
t wonewf orms: t he i nt ensi f i ed bourgeoi s nat i onal i smof t he great capi t al i st st at es
andt he nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl es i n col oni es andsemi - col oni es. What al l t hree
f orms have i n common i s st ruggl e over t he soverei gnt y of st at es. Andi ndeed f or
Leni n t hi s i s t he essence of t he nat i onal quest i on, andt he subj ect mat t er f or t he
t heory of nat i onal i sm.
Leni n' s i deas on col oni al l i berat i on st ruggl es hadevol ved i n hi s l at er years. By
1920 Leni n was convi nced t hat workers and ot her expl oi t ed cl asses, wi t h t he
prol et ari at i n t he van, coul dt ake t he l eadi ngrol e i n such st ruggl essooner or l at er .
Even whent hese movement s hadbourgeoi sl eadershi p t hey were st ruggl es agai nst
monopol y capi t al i smandcoul d be t urned ont o asoci al i st t raj ect ory or a non-
capi t al i st t raj ect ory whi ch woul dresul t i n soci al i sm. b8 On t he basi s( mai nl y) of t hi s
reasoni ng Leni nqui t ecat egori cal l y arguedt hat nat i onal i ndependence movement s
must be support ed. 69 ( Hobsbawmnot es onl y Leni n' s pre- war posi t i on, whi ch di d
not cal l f or cat egori cal or uncondi t i onal support of nat i onal movement s i n
oppressednat i ons. ) ' Andi t wascl eart oLeni nt hat col oni al l i berat i on movement s
were a newf ormof nat i onal movement i n t he sense t hat t hey coul d not be
assi mi l at ed t o t he ol dmodel of t he ri se of capi t al i sm. Newst at es andnewnat i ons
were emergi ng under condi t i ons of monopol y capi t al i sm, not earl y capi t al i sm.
Some of t hemwere part of t he ri se of soci al i sm. "
Al l of t hi s adds up t oanewMarxi st t heory of nat i onal i sm, newi n t he preci se
sense t hat i t i mpl i est he negat i on of some i mport ant t heoremsof t he earl i er t heory,
t he vi ewcharact eri st i c of post - cl assi cal Marxi sm. Nat i onal i smi s not si mpl y apart
of t he st at e- f ormi ng processof t he young, ri si ng bourgeoi si e; of earl y capi t al i sm. I t
i s al so charact eri st i c of monopol y capi t al i sm. Andi t i s al so charact eri st i c of t he
st ruggl e f or soci al i smduri ng t he peri odwhenmonopol y capi t al i smst i l l domi nat es
most of t he eart h, aperi od duri ng whi ch t he ri se of soci al i smmust t ake t he f orm
( f romageographi cal perspect i ve) of amul t i pl i ci t y of st ruggl es t o creat e soci al i st
130

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
st at es. Nat i onal i smi s not an i nnat el y bour geoi s phenomenon: i n t he col oni al and
semi - col oni al count r i es t he nat i onal st r uggl e i s engagedi n by wor ker s andpeasant s
as wel l as t he convent i onal ` r i si ng bour geoi si e' , and wor ker s andpeasant s can,
under t he r i ght ci r cumst ances andwi t h t he r i ght pol i t i cs andt act i cs, t ake t he l ead.
I n t he case of t hese st r uggl es, t hough not necessar i l y i n ot her sor t s of nat i onal
st r uggl es, t he pr oper post ur e f or soci al i st s i s t o pr ovi de f ul l and unqual i f i ed
suppor t .
The di f f er ence bet ween Hobsbawm' sappr oach t o t he t heor y of nat i onal i smand
Leni n' s shoul d nowbe f ai r l y cl ear . Hobsbawmbui l ds hi s t heor y on t he basi s of
post - cl assi cal Mar xi st t hought , whi ch i ncl udes Leni n' s pr e- Wor l d War wr i t i ngs.
TT_L_L___. . __
nuusuaw~u apl i ear s i u mai nt ai n That ai l nat i onal i sm, i f i t i s i ndeed r at i onal , i s par t
of t he st at e f or mi ng pr ocess associ at ed wi t h t he r i se of capi t al i sm. He cer t ai nl y
bel i eves t hat nat i onal l i ber at i on movement si n col oni esar e l i kel y t obe pr ogr essi ve
but he seems t o assi mi l at e t hese, i n t hei r t ur n, t o t he r i se of capi t al i smi n a
st r ai ght f or war ddi f f usi on model : capi t al i smar ose i n Eur ope i n t he 19t h Cent ur y
andt hen spr ead out war ds acr oss t he wor l d, br i ngi ng nat i onal i smwi t h i t . ' Z Leni n,
on t he ot her hand, post ul at es t hat nat i onal movement s i n col oni al count r i es ar e
essent i al l y di f f er ent , andmay ei t her be st r uggl es f or soci al i sm, not capi t al i sm, or
wi l l at l east be st r uggl esagai nst monopol y capi t al i sm. Andt hey ar e st r uggl eswhi ch
deser ve pr et t y much uncondi t i onal suppor t , unl i ke ear l i er nat i onal movement s
i nvol ved i n t he r i se of capi t al i sm, movement s t o whi ch soci al i st s wer e expect ed t o
concede t he uncondi t i onal r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on, of i ndependent st at ehood,
but movement s whi ch soci al i st s wer e not enj oi ned t osuppor t .
Hobsbawm' s second def i ni t e cat egor y of nat i onal pr ocesses consi st s of t he
` i r r at i onal ' nat i onal i smof our t i me ( and t hat of t he ` Rur i t ani as' of yest er day) , a
cat egor y whi ch appear s t o i ncl ude al l sor t s of cases of 20t h Cent ur y nat i onal
movement s i ncl udi ng t hose of col oni es and t hose of et hni cal l y di st i nct r egi ons
wi t hi n advanced capi t al i st count r i es. Nat i onal i sms of t hi s t ype ar e ` devoi d of any
di scer ni bl e r at i onal t heor y' : t hey have not heor y andt hey succumbt onot heor y.
Leni n, ont he ot her hand, pr ovi des at heor y t hat br oadl yexpl ai nst hese movement s.
Per haps t he mat t er shoul d be put negat i vel y: t he ol d Mar xi st t heor y coul d not
expl ai n maj or t endenci es t owar ds st at e f or mat i on, wi t h t hei r nat i onal movement s,
i n t he er aof mat ur e or moder n capi t al i sm. I t was Leni n, t hen, whoaddedcer t ai n
cr uci al pr oposi t i ons t o t he Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i smanddel et edot her s whi ch
wer e i nappl i cabl e t ot he moder n per i od. Leni n may not have pr evi sed t he speci al
sor t sof nat i onal i smwhi ch onenowf i ndsi n some devel opedcapi t al i st count r i es( f or
exampl e, Scot t i sh or Basque nat i onal i sm) . But t he f act t hat nat i onal i smwoul dbe
i nt ense andi mpor t ant i n t he er aof i mper i al i smi s ver y expl i ci t i n Leni n' s t heor y.
Leni n' s t heor y al so pr ovi des an expl anat i on f or aphenomenon whi ch cl ear l y
puzzl esHobsbawmt o t he poi nt wher ehe must make f unof i t : t he pr ocessl eadi ngt o
t he cr eat i on of smal l per i pher al st at es, some of t hem` mi ni - st at es' . ( ` Any specki n
t he Paci f i c' wi t h ` enough beachesandpr et t y gi r l s t obecome at our i st par adi se . . . ' ;
` Kuwai t i s . . . t r eat ed l i ke t he Engl i sh mi l or d of ol d"s; a` vast Sahar an r epubl i c
r est i ng on 60, 000 nomads") . I t i s af ai r l y di r ect deduct i on f r omLeni n' s t heor y of
nat i onal i smt oar gue as f ol l ows: t he over al l f or ce of super expl oi t at i on i n col oni es
and semi - col oni es, and i t s at t endant pol i t i cal f or ce, nat i onal oppr essi on, i s t he
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

131
basi c, under l yi ng cause of t he r i se of nat i onal movement s i n t hese sor t s of ar eas.
Hence t he cause has not hi ng i nt r i nsi cal l y t o do wi t h t he si ze of t he event ual
i ndependent st at e. Pr esumabl y t her e ar e f or ces of nat i onal i smi n ever y t own and
vi l l age over gr eat por t i ons of t he col oni al wor l d. What t ur ns some of t he r esul t i ng
movement s i nt o st r uggl es whi ch event ual l y cr eat e mi ni - st at es i s a compl et el y
di f f er ent set of ci r cumst ances. Usual l y i t i s not hi ngmor e t han t he conver si on of a
` mi ni - col ony' i nt o a` mi ni - i ndependent - st at e' .
The nat i onal l i ber at i on pr ocess woul dbe at wor k al most r egar dl ess of t he si ze
andshape of t he t er r i t or y t obe l i ber at ed. I t i s i n essence t hesame f or ce i n I ndi aas i n
t he Seychel l es, i n Ni ger i aasi n Gr enada. I t hi nk i t most unl i kel y t hat any l eader of
any genui ne nat i onal l i ber at i on movement anywher e f ai l s t osee t he desi r abi l i t y of a
l ar ge and power f ul st at e. But f or an oppr essed, expl oi t ed, col oni zed peopl e, a
mi ni - st at e i s l i kel y t oappear bet t er t han nost at e at al l . Andt he condi t i ons whi ch
l eadnat i onal movement st ocr eat e smal l st at es, occasi onal l y mi ni - st at es, condi t i ons
whi ch i ncl ude t he col oni zer ' scar t ogr aphy andal so mat t er s of et hni c compl exi t y,
pol i t i cal ambi t i ons of l ocal despot s, i nt r i gues of t he CI Aand mul t i nat i onal
cor por at i ons, et c. , al l such f or ces ar e f undament al l y di st i nct f r omt he basi c and
pr i or f or ce, t he nat i onal st r uggl e agai nst col oni al expl oi t at i on and oppr essi on.
Her e, I bel i eve, i s Hobsbawm' s most ser i ous er r or. Al ar ge shar e of t he pol i t i cal
pr obl ems of t he wor l d of moder n st at es he at t r i but es t o one or anot her sor t of
i r r at i onal nat i onal i sm. But t he nat i onal st r uggl e of col oni al ar eas i s per f ect l y
r at i onal : i t i s ast r uggl e f or f r eedom.
` I mper i al i st Economi sm' - ARenascent Tr end?
Readi ngHobsbawmandcer t ai n ot her moder n Mar xi st s on t he nat i onal quest i on I
have t he eer i e f eel i ng of bei ng t r anspor t edbacki nt o t he mi dst of t he debat e whi ch
wasr agi ng on t hi s quest i on i n 1915 and1916, t he debat e i n whi ch ( as I ment i oned
pr evi ousl y) Leni n char act er i zed t he posi t i on of hi s opponent s as ` i mper i al i st
economi sm' . Thi swaspar t of t he l ar ger debat e i n andar oundt he Z i mmer wal dLef t
concer ni ngt he war t i mecr i si s andt he i ssues of t heor y andpr act i ce whi chi t r ai sed.
The i ssue of war t i me annexat i ons by bel l i ger ent s ( e. g. , Ger many' s occupat i on of
Bel gi um) became f used wi t h t he i ssue of t he l i ber at i on of col oni es ( i ncl udi ng
I r el and) , and wi t h t he i ssue of whet her or not t o r et ai n t he demand f or sel f -
det er mi nat i on i n t he Bol shevi k pr ogr amme and whet her or not t o asser t t hi s
pr i nci pl e on awi der scal e t han t he Russi an. Al l such quest i ons mer ged i nt oagr eat
debat e ont he nat i onal quest i on, pr obabl y t he most i mpor t ant one i n t he hi st or y of
Mar xi sm. On one si de of t he debat e wer e Leni nal ongwi t h what must have been a
maj or i t y of t he Bol shevi kpar t i ci pant s, anddoubt l ess ot her soci al i st s. Ont he ot her
si de wer e Bukhar i n, Pyat akov, Radek, Luxembur g( whowasi nj ai l i n Ger many and
par t i ci pat ed i ndi r ect l y, t hr ough her ` J uni us' pamphl et ) , Pol i sh soci al i st s cl ose t o
Luxembur g, andot her s.
One cent r al i ssue was t he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on of nat i ons as agener al
pr i nci pl e, and t he quest i on whet her and howsoci al i st s shoul d f i ght f or t he
l i ber at i on of oppr essednat i ons. Among many ar gument s put f or war dby Leni n' s
opponent s ( as I wi l l descr i be t hemf or br evi t y' s sake) wer e t he f ol l owi ng:
( 1) Bi g st at es ar e mor e pr ogr essi ve t han smal l st at es, and i t i s t her ef or e
13 2

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
r eact i onar y t o advocat e t he secessi on, or even t he r i ght of secessi on, of por t i ons of
t hese bi g st at es. The Luxembur gi ans and ot her s ext ended t hi s ar gument t o t he
mat t er of t he secessi on of col oni es, whi ch wasj udged by t hemt obe somet hi ng t o
advocat e publ i cl y but wi t h no conf i dence i n t he possi bi l i t y, per haps even t he
desi r abi l i t y, of r eal i zat i onunder capi t al i sm, si nce col oni es wer e par t sof bi g st at es. ' S
( 2) `I mper i al i sm' , sai d Radekandt woPol i sh associ at es, `r epr esent s t he t endency
of f i nance capi t al t oout gr owt he bounds of anat i onal st at e' . ' 6 Thi s i s t he ar gument
t hat capi t al i smi s nowasi ngl e i nt er nat i onal syst em, andt hus t he nat i onal st at e ( or
any st at e) i s r ender ed obsol et e, whi l e under soci al i smul t i mat el y t her e wi l l be, of
cour se, nost at es at al l .
/ 71 T__
i u 4dvU( ; Al e t he r i ght Of SeI I - dCt er ml nat l On ano, beyond t hat , t o advocat e
secessi on( or l i ber at i on) f or anycount r y i s t o t hr owt he wor ker sof t hat count r y i nt o
t he ar ms of t he bour geoi si e, and at t he same t i me t o cut of f t hi s communi t y of
wor ker s f r omt hei r br ot her wor ker s of t he l ar ger ( or oppr essi ng) st at e. I n sum:
soci al i st s ar e i nt er est ed onl y i n sel f - det er mi nat i onf or t he wor ki ng cl ass, not f or t he
nat i on ( whi ch i n any case no l onger exi st s except as an abst r act i on, t hanks t o t he
di f f er ent i at i on of i t s popul at i on i nt o war r i ng cl asses) . Bukhar i n advanced t hi s
ar gument even af t er t he Oct ober r evol ut i on; i t seemed t o hi mt o be an i mpor t ant
r eason f or r ef usi ng t he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on, of secessi on, t o t he nat i ons
wi t hi n post - Tsar i st Russi a. "
( 4) Nat i onal l i ber at i on movement s, whet her or not t hey ar e pr ogr essi ve, ar e
i nher ent l y bour geoi s, because nat i on st at e f or mat i oni s adi mensi onof t he r i se of
t he bour geoi si e, of capi t al i sm, and not par t of t he r i se of soci al i sm.
Leni nf or cef ul l y and successf ul l y answer edt he opponent s of sel f - det er mi nat i on
and nat i onal l i ber at i on, r espondi ng t o t he f i r st t woof t he f our ar gument s i n t he
1915- 1916 debat es and deal i ng wi t h t he l at t er t woar gument s somewhat l at er .
Leni n al so f ound a phr ase whi ch seemed t o pr ovi de an accur at e l abel f or hi s
opponent s. He descr i bed t hemas `i mper i al i st economi st s' i n a ser i es of ar t i cl es
wr i t t eni n 1916, t he f i r st of whi ch( di r ect edmai nl y agai nst Bukhar i n) wascal l ed `The
Nascent Tr end of I mper i al i st Economi sm' . ' aAswe not edear l i er , Leni nconsi der ed
an `i mper i al i st economi st ' t o be someone whoadvocat ed a newf or mof t he ol d
di sease cal l ed `economi sm' ( i . e . , st r essi ng economi c f or ces and negl ect i ng t he
pol i t i cal ones) , a f or msui t ed t o t he newer a of i mper i al i sm. Why wer e t he
ar gument s of Leni n' s opponent s `economi st i c' ? Because, he sai d, t hey wer e
asser t i ng t hat t he newer aof i mper i al i smi s one whi chr ender s obsol et e al l par t i al
andl ocal st r uggl es f or pol i t i cal democr acy, i ncl udi ng most poi nt edl y st r uggl es f or
nat i onal i ndependence. Why obsol et e? Because, t hey cl ai m, capi t al i smi n i t s
i mper i al i st st age i s nowf ul l y i nt er nat i onal , andt hi smeanst hat t he pr i nci pl e of scal e
or concent r at i on r ender ssmal l st at es i r r el evant andst r uggl es t o cr eat e smal l st at es
r eact i onar y, whi l e t he i nt er nat i onal i zat i on of t hi s economi c syst em, capi t al i sm,
makesal l i ndi vi dual st at es, l ar ge or smal l , obsol et e. Thust hear gument s( 1) and( 2) .
Leni n' sanswer deser ves t obe r ead, not summar i zed. Hi s most t el l i ngpoi nt s wer e
per haps t he f ol l owi ng.
( 1) The Mar xi st pr i nci pl e of concent r at i on i s an economi c pr i nci pl e, not a
pol i t i cal one:
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

133
Thel awof economi c concent r at i on, of t he vi ct or y of l ar ge- scal e pr oduct i onover
smal l , i s r ecogni zed i n our ownand t he Er f ur t pr ogr ammes . . . Nowher ei s t he
l awof pol i t i cal or st at e concent r at i on r ecogni zed . . . Ever yone woul d l augh at
t hi s amusi ng i mper i al i st Economi smi f i t wer e expr essedopenl y and i f , par al l el
wi t h t he l awt hat smal l - scal e pr oduct i on i s oust ed by l ar ge- scal e pr oduct i on,
t her ewer e pr esent edanot her `l aw' . . , of smal l st at es bei ng oust ed by bi g ones! ' 9
( 2) I n t he er aof i mper i al i sm, pol i t i cal st r uggl es ar e nol ess i mpor t ant t han t hey
wer e i n capi t al i sm' s pr ecedi ng er a, because capi t al i smi s i nher ent l y a pol i t i cal
syst emas wel l as an economi c syst em; or , st at ed di f f er ent l y, t he capi t al i st economi c
syst emcannot f unct i on wi t hout apol i t i cal envi r onment whi ch i t cont r ol s, andt hat
nnl r t nr ~l o

r . f :

. . 1 . . n

. . l : e, l L. .

- a . .

. L_.
i , - - " " . " - . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . c. . . . . ~ ~upY. a, , u vy St at e aai u at at c j wwci , l i t i i i c Yr cSci ~t
er aas i n ot her s. I n Leni n' s wor ds:
A vast di st ance separ at es t he er a of t he est abl i shment of capi t al i smand t he
nat i onal st at e f r omt he er aof t he col l apse of t he nat i onal st at e andt he eve of t he
col l apse of capi t al i smi t sel f . $
The quest i on i s t he r el at i on of economi cs t o pol i t i cs: t he r el at i on of economi c
condi t i ons andt heeconomi c cont ent of i mper i al i smt oacer t ai n pol i t i cal f or ma'
( 3) I n t he same t ext t her e i s t he ker nel of an ar gument t hat nat i onal movement s
need not be i nher ent l y bour geoi s- as t her e i s t he ker nel of such an ar gument i n
Mar x' sandEngel s' wr i t i ngs about I r el andmany year sear l i er - but t hi s ar gument i n
i t s f ul l f or m, as anasser t i ont hat wor ki ngmassesandsoci al i st s canandshoul d l ead
nat i onal movement si n col oni al count r i es, was devel oped i nLeni n' sl at er wor ks. az
( 4) The ar gument t hat nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl es `di vi de t he cl ass' or `uni t e
wor ker swi t h bour geoi si e' was answer ed by Leni ni nanumber of subt l e ar gument s.
I n 1918 he r esponded t o Bukhar i n by poi nt i ng out t hat i n no moder n count r y,
i ncl udi ng evencapi t al i st Ger manyandr evol ut i onar y Russi a, hadt he`di f f er ent i at i on
of t he cl asses' appr oached anyt hi ng l i ke compl et i on; hence, t he nat i on was st i l l a
r eal i t y, not an abst r act i on. $' ( El sewher e i n l at er wr i t i ngs he went f ur t her ,
di scussi ng, f or i nst ance, t he di st i nct i veness and cohesi veness of nat i onal cul t ur es,
whi ch woul d per si st af t er t he wi t her i ng away of st at es. ) $
I t woul dt ake us t oof ar af i el dt odi scussi nf ul l Leni n' sr esponse t ot hose whomhe
cal l ed `i mper i al i st economi st s' . I nt he cour se of t hi s debat e Leni nasser t ed, I t hi nk
f or t he f i r st t i me, t he gener al pr i nci pl e t hat l i ber at i onst r uggl esi n col oni es shoul d be
suppor t edcat egor i cal l y, pr ovi di ng onl y t hat t hey wer e genui ne and ser i ous, of t he
t ype of a`nat i onal upr i si ng or aser i ouspopul ar st r uggl e agai nst oppr essi on' . as I n
l at er wr i t i ngs he st at ed t he pr i nci pl e mor e f ul l y. ab I t cl ear l y f ol l owed f r omhi s
anal ysi s of t he pol i t i cs of i mper i al i sm.
The di r ect i on of my own ar gument shoul d by nowbe appar ent . The f our
gener al i zat i onsadvancedby Leni n' sopponent sar e ver y si mi l ar t ot he ar gument sof
t hose Mar xi st s t oday whoasser t t hat ( 1) t he cr eat i on of mi ni - st at es and even
nat i on- st at es i n gener al i s i r r at i onal or r eact i onar y, ( 2) capi t al i smi s nowf ul l y
i nt er nat i onal and i t s char act er i st i c i nst i t ut i ons, mul t i nat i onal s and ot her gi ant
cor por at i ons, ar e abl e t o t r anscend t he bounds of nat i onal st at es at wi l l , t hus
r ender i ng al l st at es mor e or l ess obsol et e, ( 3) t o advocat e t he secessi on or
13 4 Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
i ndependence of any st at e, col oni al or ot her wi se, i s t o`t hr owt he wor ker si nt o t he
ar ms of t he bour geoi si e' , `conci l i at e t he nat i onal i st s' , `di vi de t he wor ki ng cl ass' , or
`under mi ne pr ol et ar i an i nt er nat i onal i sm' , and( 4) nat i onal st r uggl es ar e essent i al l y
bour geoi s st r uggl es, because t hey ar e i nher ent l y par t of t he r i se of capi t al i sm, and
t hus al l nat i onal i smi s `bour geoi s nat i onal i sm' .
Hobsbawm, as I t hi nk I have shown i n t he pr esent essay, subscr i bes t o
gener al i zat i ons ( 1) and
( 2) . a'
Ast o( 3) , Hobsbawmi s f r ust r at i ngl y ambi guous. He
asser t s t hat nat i onal i sm- meani ng i ncont ext any nat i onal movement what ever -
`by def i ni t i on subor di nat es al l ot her i nt er est s t o t hose of i t s speci f i c "nat i on"' , as
whi l e nat i onal i st s - meani ng i n cont ext any f i ght er s f or st at e i ndependence,
anywher e . `ar P }, v APf i ni t h, n

AA , ; t l .

. r t h ; . . . *

. . r r l . o: . . .

ot e ___ . _____

~_- . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ^. ~. . . . . . g r . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . i . r . . . . . . . .
col l ect i ve' . 89 I t i s unt hi nkabl e t hat Hobsbawmwoul d meanvsuch st at ement s t o
appl yt ot he past st r uggl esi nVi et nam, Angol a, Cuba, andot her soci al i st count r i es
whi ch gai nedvi ct or yi nanat i onal l i ber at i onst r uggl e, or t ost r uggl es such as t hose
i n Puer t oRi coandNami bi awher e t he same goal i s bei ng sought t oday. 9 These
st at ement s ar e of cour se devast at i ngl y cor r ect whenappl i ed t o r eact i onar y and
unr eal i st i c nat i onal movement s. Yet Hobsbawmpr of f er s noqual i f i cat i ons. Hence
t he ambi gui t y.
Hobsbawmi s agai n ambi guous about gener al i zat i on ( 4) . He speaks of `t he
cat egor y of movement s di r ect ed agai nst i mper i al i st expl oi t at i on andr epr esent i ng
somet hi ngl i ke t he "bour geoi s-democr at i c phase" i n t he devel opment of backwar d
count r i es' , a`cat egor y' whi ch seems i ncont ext t o i ncl ude al l ant i -col oni al nat i onal
movement s. Thus he seems al most t oar gue t he di f f usi oni st t hesi s t hat nat i onal i sm
equal s r i si ng capi t al i sm, andt odenyt hat Leni nwasr i ght t ocat egor i ze ant i -col oni al
nat i onal movement sas `nat i onal r evol ut i onar y' andnot `bour geoi s democr at i c' ( a
quest i onof t heor y, not si mpl yt er mi nol ogy) . " Hobsbawmhasexpl i ci t l y cal l ed i t an
er r or t oequat e nat i onal i smonl ywi t h capi t al i smandt hus t odi smi sscont empor ar y
nat i onal i sms as `t r oubl esome "bour geoi s" . . . sur vi val s' . 9 z But t he st at ement , i n
cont ext , seems di r ect ed at t he r eact i onar y nat i onal i sms wi t hi n soci al i st count r i es,
andper haps al so t he nat i onal i sms wi t hi n advanced capi t al i st count r i es. Thus we
cannot t el l whet her Hobsbawmt r ul y enl ar ges t he nat i onal pr ocess t o i ncl ude
st r uggl es, not f or capi t al i sm, but agai nst i t . Yet Hobsbawmi s not onet odenounce
anysoci al i st r evol ut i on, i ncl udi ng t hose i n col oni es. Hence, agai n, t he ambi gui t y.
Hobsbawmi s not an `i mper i al i st economi st ' , al t hough some ot her moder n
Mar xi st s r i chl y deser ve t hat t i t l e. Yet Hobsbawm' s posi t i on on t he nat i onal
quest i on i s an ext r emi st one. He i s j ust about as st r ongl y opposed t o nat i onal
movement sandnat i onal st r uggl esas onecanbe wi t hout depar t i ng ent i r el y f r omt he
mai nst r eamt r adi t i on on t he nat i onal quest i on, t he t r adi t i on whi ch bot h he andI
consi der t o be Leni ni st .
Ther e i s, i n al l of t hi s, a ver y i mpor t ant quest i on about t he l ong-t er m
devel opment of Mar xi st t hought , a quest i on whi ch has i mmense pol i t i cal
i mpl i cat i ons f or t he st r uggl esof t he 1980sandbeyond. I woul dexpr esst he mat t er as
f ol l ows. I t appear s t hat t her e has al ways been adi f f er ent i at i on among Mar xi st s,
somet i mesevenanosci l l at i oni nt he t hi nki ng of agi venMar xi st at di f f er ent per i ods,
on t he subj ect of nat i onal movement s andt he nat i onal quest i on. I n each per i od
t her e i s a`Luxembur gi st ' posi t i onwhi cht endst ol i mi t i t s vi si ont ocosmopol i t anor
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

135
i nt er nat i onal hor i zons and be suspi ci ous of , or host i l e t o, t he mer el y nat i onal
f or ces. Andt her e have beent he `Leni ni st s' , t aki ng mor e or l ess opposi ngposi t i ons,
and not f or mer el y pr agmat i c r easons. The f i r st gr eat cycl e of `Leni ni st ver sus
Luxembur gi an' quar r el s occur r ed bef or e and dur i ng t he Fi r st Wor l d War .
Leni ni smof f i ci al l y won, andt he Thi r dI nt er nat i onal became apower f ul f or ce f or
nat i onal l i ber at i on i n t he col oni al wor l d. Wi t hi n nat i onal communi st par t i es of
advancedcount r i es, I suspect t hat t heLuxembur gi anvi ewwasr at her power f ul , and
must have hadsomet hi ng t o dowi t h t he f ar f r ompr oudr ecor d of some of t hese
par t i es i n t he mat t er of t he l i ber at i on of `t hei r own' col oni es. Never t hel ess, t he
Leni ni st posi t i on ont he nat i onal quest i onwas t he domi nant one, andt hi s expl ai ns
agr eat deal about t he r el at i ve ease wi t h whi chMar xi smbecame t he phi l osophi cal
under pi nni ng of ver y many nat i onal l i ber at i on movement s. 93 Andi n t he per i od
f r om1945 t ot he pr esent t he Leni ni st posi t i onhasbeenf ar mor e pr omi nent t hant he
Luxembur gi an. Thi shas been t he er aof nat i onal l i ber at i on movement s, andt he
t heor yandpr act i ce of `i mper i al i st economi sm' has hadpr eci ous l i t t l e t o of f er t hi s
ki nd of movement .
Today, however , achange seems t o be t aki ng pl ace, at l east i n t he uni ver se of
di scour se embr aci ng Mar xi st j our nal s andbooks i n advanced capi t al i st count r i es.
I t maywel l be t he t r end of `i mper i al i st economi sm' r enascent . Cer t ai nl y i t pr oj ect s
t he vi ewt hat nat i onal st r uggl es t oday ar e of secondar y i mpor t ance, emphasi zes
t hei r l i mi t at i ons andf ai l i ngs r at her t han t hei r successes, andsoon. Andcer t ai nl y
t hi s i s done wi t h t he use of t heor et i cal ar gument s whi ch woul d have sounded
f ami l i ar t oLeni ni nhi sday. ( Capi t al i smi s nol onger nat i onal . Nat i ons, st at es, and
nat i on st at es ar e no l onger i mpor t ant , ar e i ndeed di ssol vi ng. Mul t i nat i onal
cor por at i ons ar e not f et t er ed by nat i onal boundar i es. ) Thewor l dof t he 1980si s of
cour se di f f er ent f r omt hat of Luxembur g' s and Leni n' s t i me. But not ent i r el y
di f f er ent . Ol dar gument s mayseemst i l l t o make sense, andl i kewi se t he answer s t o
t hese ar gument s. `I mper i al i st economi sm' may be as r el evant t oday as i t was i n
1915-1916. Or as i r r el evant .
The bot t oml i ne i s pol i t i cal st r uggl e. Per haps t hi r t y mi l l i on peopl e st i l l l i ve i n
ol d-f ashi onedcol oni es andar e st i l l f i ght i ng f or t hei r f r eedom. Abi l l i onpeopl e l i ve
and st r uggl e i n neocol oni es. Ar gument s l i ke Hobsbawm' s and t hose of t he
`i mper i al i st economi st s' can have a pr ogr essi ve ef f ect wi t h r egar d t o si l l y and
r eact i onar y nat i onal movement s, of whi ch t her e ar e many. But t hey canhave a
damagi ng ef f ect on ant i col oni al l i ber at i on movement s, l i ke t hat of Puer t oRi co.
Andt hey canbe j ust as damagi ng f or count r i esl i ke El Sal vador i nwhi cht her e i s a
nat i onal st r uggl e f or genui ne st at e sover ei gnt y and agai nst neocol oni al i sm, and
l i kewi se f or count r i es l i ke Ni car agua whi ch have won a pr ecar i ous nat i onal
l i ber at i on andar e st r uggl i ng t o hol d ont o what t hey have won. Ar gument s l i ke
Hobsbawm' s donot hel p t hese st r uggl es at al l .
136

Hobsbawmont he Nat i onSt at e
1. E. Hobsbawm, `Some Ref l ect i ons on t he "The Break-Upof Bri t ai n"' , New
Lef t Revi ew105(1977).
2. I bi d. , p. 3.
3. I bi d. , p. 4.
4. I bi d. , p. 7.
5. I bi d. , p. 9.
6. See f or i nst ance Ni gel Harri s, Bel i ef si nSoci et y(1968) esp. pp. 28,167-203, 214.
7. See not e 1 .
R_ See al cnt he f nl l nw; . ,. * . . , ; r: . . . ,~ t , u. . t ,~t . . , . . . ,. . . ~rt ,. ~,. ,. ,. r n,. , . ,. v. . ; ,. . . . won _ .

_ _ _ _ -

. . . b,: b ~ . . vvuv. s~u,. anc ~a~c
J
<wrvsussvn. ~ i uv-
1848 (1962), Chap. ~7 (`Nat i onal i sm' ) ; `The At t i t udes of Popul ar Cl asses t owards
Nat i onal Movement sf or I ndependence' , i nMovemment sNat i onauxd' I ndependance
et Cl assesPopul ai res 1(1971) ; `SomeRef l ect i onsonNat i onal i sm' , i nI magi nat i oni n
t heSoci al Sci ences(1972) ; TheAgeof Capi t al . 1848-1875(1975), Chap. 5(`Bui l di ng
Nat i ons' ), Chap. 7 (`Losers' ), and Chap. 8 (`Wi nners' ) ; i n Hobsbawm, (ed. ), The
Hi st oryof Marxi sm1(1982), hi s`Pref ace' , pp. vi i -xxi v, andChap. 8(`Marx, Engel s
andPol i t i cs' ); i nHobsbawmandT. Ranger (eds. ), TheI nvent i onof Tradi t i on(1983),
Hobsbawm' sChap. 1, `I nt roduct i on: I nvent i ngTradi t i ons' , pp. 1-14, andChap. 7
(`Mass-Produci ng Tradi t i ons: Europe, 1870-1914' ; Workers (1984), Chap. 2
(`Not es onCl ass Consci ousness' ), pp. 15-32, and Chap. 4(`What I st he Workers'
Count ry?' ), pp. 49-65.
9. Some ref l ect i ons on"The Break-up. . . "' , p. 11.
10. Al sosee Chap. 1 of t hi svol ume.
11. O. Bauer, Di e Nat i onal i t at enf rage anddi e Sozi al demokrat i e (1907) ; J. St al i n,
`Marxi smand t he Nat i onal Quest i on' , i n hi s Works3.
12. R. Luxemburg, The Nat i onal Quest i on: Sel ect edWri t i ngsof RosaLuxemburg,
esp. pp. 135-75.
13. `Some Ref l ect i ons on"The Break-up. . . ", pp. 4-5.
14. I bi d. , pp. 6-7.
15. I bi d. , p. 5.
16. See f or exampl eEngel s' `PoandRhi ne' , i nMEW16, pp. 211-255, esp. p. 254.
17. Bauer gi vest he t ext of t he (Bri i nn) programmeof t he Aust ri anpart yonpp.
527-8.
18. See f or exampl e Leni n' s 19131et t er t oShahumyan, i nWorks19, pp. 499-502.
19. Luxemburgmadet hi sgeneral argument aspart of her cri t i que of t he i deaof
t he nat i onst at e. The nat i onst at e i s t he `hi st ori cal f ormi n whi ch t he bourgeoi si e
passes over f romt he nat i onal def ensi ve t oanof f ensi ve posi t i on, f romprot ect i on
andconcent rat i onof i t sownnat i onal i t y t opol i t i cal conquest anddomi nat i onover
ot her nat i onal i t i es. Wi t hout except i on, al l of t oday' s "nat i on-st at es" f i t t hi s
descri pt i on, annexi ng nei ghbours or col oni es and compl et el y oppressi ng t he
conquered nat i onal i t i es' . Luxemburg, TheNat i onal Quest i on, pp. 162-3.
20. `Some Ref l ect i ons on "The Break-up. . . "' , pp. 5-6.
21. I bi d. , p. 7.
22. I bi d. , p. 7.
23. I bi d. , p. 6.
24. I bi d.
25. I bi d, p. 8.
26. I bi d, p. 11. See al soHobsbawm' s Workers, pp. 62-3.
Hobsbawmont he Nat i onSt at e

137
2T. ` omS - eRef l echons-on"TheBreak-up; p.
28. I bi d. , p. 7:
29. I bi d. , p. 11.
30. I bi d. , pp. 6-7.
31. I bi d. , pp. 7-8.
32. See i nt hi sconnect i onJ. Vi l l ami l (ed. ), Transnat i onal Capi t al i smandNat i onal
Devel opment (1979).
33. I must emphasi ze t hat t hi sdi scussi ondeal swi t hgeneral t rendsat t he worl d
scal e. I donot seek t omi ni mi ze t he veryseri ousnat i onal quest i onswhi chexi st i n
manyThi rdWorl dst at es, i ncl udi ngsoci al i st st at es. I t woul dbebeyondt he scope of
t he present book, whi ch deal s wi t h t he t heory of nat i onal st ruggl e and di rect l y
aDDhest oonl yone real case_ t he st ru_ Ql e f or Ai ert oRi cn' ci ndenendence_ t oanal yse
casesof t he nat i onal quest i onwi t hi nexi st i ngThi rdWorl dst at es. Usedsci ent i f i cal l y
i ncombi nat i onwi t hempi ri cal f act sandsoci al i st moral i t y, t he t heoryhasprof ound
i mport ance f or t hese st ruggl es.
34. J. E. E. Dal berg-Act on, TheHi st oryof FreedomandOt herEssays(1922) . Al so
see not e 19.
35. R. CamposandF. Boni l l a, `Boot st rapsandEnt erpri se Zones: TheUndersi de
of Lat e Capi t al i smi n Puert oRi coand t he Uni t ed St at es' , Revi ew5, 4{1982) ; L.
Bergman and ot hers, Puert oRi co: The Fl ame oj Resi st anee (1977) ; Economi c
Research Group, Puert oRi can Soci al i st Part y, `The Economi c I mport ance of
Puert oRi cof or t he Uni t ed St at es' , Lat i nAmeri canPerspect i ves 3, 3 (1976) . As
Camposand Boni l l anot e, about 40 per cent of al l prof i t s generat ed f or US
compani esi n Lat i nAmeri cacome f romPuert oRi co(p. 560).
36. Quot ed i nLuxemburg, The Nat i onal Quest i on, p. 303. Acomment byRadek
al one: `I t cannot be t ot he i nt erest s of t he prol et ari at t ot urn backt he wheel of
hi st ory, andt hust ol i mi t t he economywhi chhasout grownt hese nat i onal borders' .
Quot edi n: W. Lerner, Karl Radek: The Last I nt ernat i onal i st (1970), p. 45.
37: Quot ed i n Leni n' s art i cl e, `A Cari cat ure of Marxi smand I mperi al i st
Economi sm' , Works, 23, p. 37.
38. Bukhari n: `Wedonot def end. nat i onal boundari es' , quot edi nLeni n' sart i cl e,
`The Nascent Trend of I mperi al i st Economi sm' , Works, 23, p. 18n. Trot sky (Oct :
1914): `The war of 1914 represent s f i rst of al l t he col l apse of t he nat i on-st at e as a
sel f -suf f i ci ent economi c area. Nat i onal i smcancont i nue as acul t ural , i deol ogi cal ,
psychol ogi cal f act or- t he economi c basi shasbeencut f romunder i t s f eet . . . The
war heral ds t he breakup of t he nat i on-st at e. ' Quot ed i n H. B. Davi s, Towarda
Marxi st Theory of Nat i onal i sm(1978), p. 84. Trot sky agai n(1916) : `The nat i onal
st at e hasout grown i t sel f - as t he f rame f or t he devel opment of t he product i ve
f orces, as t he basi s f or t he cl ass st ruggl e, and especi al l y as t he st at e f ormof t he
di ct at orshi p of t he prol et ari at . ' Quot ed i n R. Dani el s, The Consci ence of t he
Revol ut i on(1960), p. 33.
39. `The Nascent Trend of I mperi al i st Economi sm' , p. 18.
40. Leni n' sposi t i onont hi si ssue i s not verywi del yknown. See hi s`ACari cat ure
of Marxi smand I mperi al i st Economi sm' , pp. 28-76, esp. pp. 37-51 . See al so i n
Leni n' sWorks21, pp. 407-14; 22, pp. 143-56, esp. pp. 146,150; 24, pp. 299-300; 26,
pp. 175-6; 29, pp. 170-5 and 193-6; 39 pp. 736, 739; and 41, p. 389.
41 . `SomeRef l ect i ons on"The Break-up"' , p. 11 .
42. I bi d, p. 7.
43. See `Some Ref l ect i ons onNat i onal i sm' andt he chapt er `Nat i onal i sm' i n The
Ageof Capi t al . Myownvi ewi squi t e di f f erent : see Chapt er 7 bel ow.
138

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
44. I n hi sTheAgeof Revol ut i on: 1789 1848: `Out si de of Europe i t i s di f f i cul t t o
speak of nat i onal i smat al l ' ( f or t he peri od) ( p. 174) ; `Nat i onal i smi n t he East
was. . . t he event ual product of West ern i nf l uence and West ernconquest ' ( p. 177) .
Al sosee hi s`Pref ace' t oTheHi st oryof Marxi sm1, pp. xi v- xv, andot her wri t i ngs. Of
course, `nat i onal i sm' can be sonarrowl y def i ned t hat anyappearance of i t i n t he
col oni al andsemi col oni al worl dof t he 19t h Cent urywoul dhave t obeaproduct of
di f f usi on f romEurope. But Hobsbawmusest he wordi n narrowandbroad senses,
and seemst oi gnore Lat i n Ameri ca, Chi na, et c .
45. See Chapt er 5.
46. Hobsbawmunaccount abl y assert s ( i n `Some Ref l ect i ons on "The Break-
up"' ) ( pp. 10- 11) t hat `t here i s nodenyi ngt he f act t hat onl yi n af ewcases have
Marxi st ssucceeded i nest abl i shi ngt hemsel vesast he l eadi ngf orce i nt hei r nat i onal
movement s' , t hi sundeni abl ef act suggest i ng, t hen, t hat t he `Leni ni st nat i onal pol i cy
shoul dnot gouncri t i ci zed' . Hobsbawmi s wrongf or ( at l east ) t woreasons. Fi rst , hi s
ari t hmet i c i s f aul t y. Twent y or more f ormer col oni es andsemi - col oni es are now
soci al i st st at es, andadozenor morepresent - daycol oni al l i berat i onmovement sand
i nsurgenci es are Marxi st i n ori ent at i on. Secondl y, i n movement swhi chwere not
Marxi st andevent uat edi nsomesort of neocol ony, t here wasusual l y apri or pat t ern
of i nt ense repressi on, somet i mes di sgui sed ( e. g. , as t he i nf amous `emergency
regul at i ons' promul gat edi nBri t i sh col oni eswhent he aut hori t i esf el t i t necessaryt o
j ai l peopl e wi t hout charge or j ust i f i cat i on- somet i mesf or havi ngavol ume of Marx
i nt he bookshel f - andt osuspendal l ci vi l ri ght si ndef i ni t el y) . Addi ngrepressi ont o
ot her f act orsat worki ncol oni es, wecanrej ect Hobsbawm' st hesi st hat t he `Leni ni st
pol i cy' wast obl ame. Noot her pol i cy woul d have done bet t er .
47. Hobsbawm' sconf l at i onof verydi f f erent concept sof nat i onal st ruggl e canbe
seen, f or i nst ance, i n`Marx, Engel sandPol i t i cs' : MarxandEngel sdi dnot bel i evei n
`what wast hencal l ed"t he pri nci pl e of nat i onal i t y" andt oday"nat i onal i sm"' . The
pri nci pl e of nat i onal i t y assert ed t hat each et hni c or l i ngui st i c groupdeserved i t s
owni ndependent st at e; t hi si snot t he most t ypi cal f ormof nat i onal i sm( asi deol ogy)
t oday and i t has been a secondary el ement , somet i mes l acki ng ent i rel y, i n
ant i col oni al l i berat i on movement s.
48. `Some Ref l ect i ons on "TheBreak- up. . . "' , p. 10.
49. I bi d. , p. 3.
50. I bi d. , p. 9.
51 . I bi d. , p. 10.
52. I bi d.
53. I bi d, p. 14.
54. I bi d, p. 21 .
55. I bi d. , p. 12.
56. The t rai l i ng`as such' hasme baf f l ed. Perhapsi t means`al one' or `purel y' .
57. Leni n' s posi t i on on t he need t osupport ant i - col oni al st ruggl es wi t hout
except i on or qual i f i cat i on devel oped ( or hardened) over t i me. For an earl y vi ew,
( 1907) see hi s `The I nt ernat i onal Soci al i st Congressi n St ut t gart ' , Works 13, pp.
86- 87. Thereaf t er ( asel ect i on) : 22, pp. 145, 151- 2, 337; 29, pp. 505- 506; 31, p. 209
( `Terms of Admi ssi on i nt o t he Communi st I nt ernat i onal ' , No. 8: `Part i es i n
count ri es whose bourgeoi si e possess col oni es . . . must support - i n deed, not
merel yi n word- everycol oni al l i berat i onmovement , demandt he expul si on of i t s
compat ri ot i mperi al i st s f romt he col oni es . . . and conduct syst emat i c agi t at i on
amongt he armed f orces agai nst al l oppressi on of t he col oni al peopl es' ) . An
evol ut i on of Leni n' svi ewsregardi ngt he i ndependence of I rel and ( f romt ent at i ve
di sapproval i n 1913 t overy st rongsupport i n 1916and t hereaf t er) i s wort hy of
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i onSt at e

139
speci al not e: see hi s Works19, pp. 332- 6and 22, pp. 353- 8.
58. Works31, p. 261 .
59. Leni n' sbest - knownst at ement of t hi sposi t i on i s i n hi s ( 1913) essay, `Cri t i cal
Remarkson t he Nat i onal Quest i on' , Works20. Thef ol l owi ngpassage f romt hat
essayi s st i l l veryf requent l y quot edbyMarxi st sof al l t endenci es, i nspi t e of t hef act
t hat Leni nspeci f i cal l y rej ect edt hi st heoret i cal posi t i on i nl at er years: `Devel opi ng
capi t al i smknowst wohi st ori cal t endenci esi nt he nat i onal quest i on. Thef i rst i s t he
awakeni ngof nat i onal l i f e and nat i onal movement s, t he st ruggl e agai nst al l
nat i onal oppressi on, and t he creat i on of nat i onal st at es. The second i s t he
devel opment andgrowi ngf requencyof i nt ernat i onal i nt ercourse i neveryf orm, t he
break- down of nat i onal bamers, t he creat i onof t he i nt ernat i onal uni t yof capi t al ,
_n_. t . . . . 7e. . . . : vo. ~

ni vareal
OI ecOnOm1Chf e i ri general , OI pOl i t l C~1, sG' i ci i Cc, ci V. aavuawuu~uww, " re a. . " " " " . . - . . - -
l awof capi t al i sm. Thef ormer predomi nat esi nt hebegi nni ngof i t sdevel opment , t he
l at t er charact eri zes amat ure capi t al i smt hat i s movi ngt owardi t s t ransf ormat i on
i nt osoci al i st soci et y' ( p. 27).
There i s noprobl emwi t h regard t ot he f i rst of t he t wot endenci es, nor wi t ht he
concept of growi ngi nt ernat i onal i zat i on of capi t al , sci ence, et c. But t he i deaof
`break- down of nat i onal barri ers' as `mat ure capi t al i sm' t ransf orms i t sel f i nt o
soci al i st soci et y wascompl et el y superseded. Leni n' sLat er posi t i on, as I showi nt he
present chapt er, subst i t ut edat heoryof i nt ensi f i edandprof oundl yal t erednat i onal
processes under i mperi al i smf or t he concept of `mat ure capi t al i sm. . . movi ng
t oward i t s t ransf ormat i on . . . ' More preci sel y, t he peri od of t he `break- down of
nat i onal barri ers' , et c . , wasl at er seen by Leni nashavi ngended i n 1914.
60. See Luxemburg, The Nat i onal Quest i on, part i cul arl y t he essay ent i t l ed `The
Nat i on- St at e and t he Prol et ari at ' and ot her essays i n t he 1908- 1909 seri es `The
Nat i onal Quest i on andAut onomy' .
61 . The basi c st at ement i s Leni n' s essay of 1914 `The Ri ght of Nat i ons t o
Sel f - Det ermi nat i on' , Works20.
62. See f or exampl e Leni n' s`TheNat i onal Programme of t he RSDLP' , Works19,
and `The Ri ght of Nat i onst oSel f - Det ermi nat i on' .
63. Thedi vi si oni sal most expl i ci t i n`TheRi ght of Nat i onst oSel f - Det ermi nat i on'
andcompl et el y soi n `The Soci al i st Revol ut i on and t he Ri ght of Nat i onst oSel f -
Det ermi nat i on: Theses' ( earl y 1916), Works22.
64. `SomeRef l ect i ons on"The Break- up. . . "' , p. 10.
65. Leni n' sI mperi al i sm: The Hi ghest St age of Capi t al i smi s of course t he basi c
source ont he economi csof i mperi al i sm( Works22, pp. 185- 304) . But , as Leni n
warned i n t he pref ace t ot he book( whi ch wasnot publ i shed unt i l Apri l 1917), he
had been f orced t oavoi d pol i t i cal anal ysi si nt hi s work, andconcent rat e onl yon
economi cs, i n t he hope of passi ngt he censor . Thi scaut i on i s caval i erl y i gnoredby
very many modern Marxi st and non- Marxi st schol ars, whof or t hat reason
hopel essl y mi sunderst andLeni n' st heoryof i mperi al i sm. Because of t he wi despread
mi sunderst andi ng, I gi ve t he f ol l owi ngpart i al l i st of t he works by Leni n whi ch
present t he pol i t i cal di mensi on of t hi s t heory and whi ch i n part i cul ar di scuss
mat t ersrel evant t ot he present essay: `The Quest i on of Peace' , 21, pp. 290- 4; not es
f or al ect ure i nGeneva, Oct . 1915, 39, pp. 735- 42; `The Revol ut i onary Prol et ari at
andt he Ri ght of Nat i onst oSel f - Det ermi nat i on' , 21, pp. 407- 14; `TheDi scussi onof
Sel f - Det ermi nat i on SummedUp' , 22, pp. 320- 60; `ACari cat ure of Marxi smand
I mperi al i st Economi sm' , `I mperi al i smandt he Spl i t i n Soci al i sm' , 23, pp. 105- 20; ,
`War andRevol ut i on' , 24, pp. 400- 21; `Revi si on of t he Part y Program' , 26, pp.
149- 78; `Report on t he I nt ernat i onal Si t uat i on' ( 2ndCongressof t he Communi st
I nt ernat i onal ), 31, pp. 215- 34; and`Report of t he Commi ssi onont he Nat i onal aad
140

Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e
~l re~oYonaf i Quesf i ons' j Zn3- CongressC. ~,31 pp. 240- 45
66. `I mperi al i smi s t he eraof t he oppressi on of nat i onsonanewhi st ori cal basi s' ,
Works39, p. 739. See al so 21, p. 293; 31, pp. 215- 18.
67. See, e. g. , `A Cari cat ure of Marxi smandI mperi al i st Economi sm' . See al so
l at er di scussi ons, e. g. , 31, pp. 240- 45; 332, pp. 481- 2.
68. See Works, 31, pp. 240- 45; 33, pp. 350, 500. See al so, on non- capi t al i st
devel opment : V. Sol odovni kov andV. Bogosl ovsky, Non- Capi t al i st Devel opment:
An Hi st ori cal Out l i ne ( 1975) . On t he speci f i ci t y of t he nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl e
and i t s di f f erences f romt he cl assi cal bourgeoi s nat i onal i st st ruggl e see: K. N.
Brut ent s, Nat i onal Li berat i on Revol ut i ons Today ( 1977) .
69. See not e 57.
70. `Leni n; i n f act , di d* , . ,r recom; ; ; e; ; d
s. ,. al i st s i . ^. t l : e . . nt . ~.

. . . . . , . . . . . ed'
f avour secessi on except i n speci f i c, andpragmat i cal l y i dent i f i abl e, ci rcumst ances'
`Some Ref l ect i ons on "The Break- up of Bri t ai n"' , p. 10.
71 . Works29, pp. 172- 3.
72. ` "progressi ve" nat i onal i smwast heref ore not conf i nedonl yt ot he cat egoryof
movement s di rect ed agai nst i mperi al i st expl oi t at i on andrepresent i ng somet hi ng
l i ke t he "bourgeoi s- democrat i c phase" i n t he devel opment of backwardcount ri es' ,
`Some Ref l ect i ons on "The Break- up . . . "' p. 10.
73. I bi d. , p. 7.
74. I bi d.
75. Pyat akov: `we l i mi t oursel ves, i n respect t o t he col oni es, t o a negat i ve
sl ogan . . . "get out of t he col oni es! " Unachi evabl e wi t hi n t he f ramework of
capi t al i sm, t hi s demandserves t o i nt ensi f y t he st ruggl e agai nst i mperi al i sm, but
does not cont radi ct t he t rendof devel opment ' . Quot edi n Leni n' s `ACari cat ure of
Marxi smandI mperi al i st Economi sm' , pp. 64- 5. For Luxemburg, see TheNat i onal
Quest i on, esp. pp. 131, 290.
76. From`Theses' of t he edi t orsof Gazet aRobot ni cza( Radek, St ei n- Kraj ewski ,
andBronski ) , Engl i sh t ext gi ven i n Luxemburg, The Nat i onal Quest i on, p. 303.
Leni n' s `The Di scussi on of Sel f - Det ermi nat i on SummedUp' , i s i n part arepl y t o
t hese `Theses' .
77. See Leni n' s Works 29, pp. 170- 75 ( a response t o Bukhari n) .
78. `The Nascent Trend of I mperi al i st Economi sm' , `Repl y t o P. Ki evsky ( Y.
Pyat akov) ' `ACari cat ure of Marxi smandI mperi al i st Economi sm' Leni n' s Works
23.
79. `ACari cat ure' , pp. 49- 50.
80. I bi d, p. 37.
81 . I bi d, p. 45.
82. See Chapt er 5.
83. See not e 77.
84. See, e. g. , "`Lef t - Wi ng" Communi sm- An I nf ant i l e Di sorder' , Works31, p.
92.
85. `ACari cat ure . . . ' , p. 61 .
86. See not e 25.
87. There i s ambi gui t y i n Hobsbawm' sposi t i on on t he growi ngobsol escence of
st at es, or perhaps he has changed hi s mi nd: see hi s Workers( 1984) p. 22.
88. `Same Ref l ect i ons on "The Break- up . . . "' , p. 9.
89. I bi d, p. 7.
90. I n one of hi s charact eri st i cal l y sweepi ng and unqual i f i ed general i zat i ons
about t he nat i onal quest i on, Hobsbawmassert s: `I t i s or ought t obe obvi ous t hat
Hobsbawmon t he Nat i on St at e

141
t he speci f i c charact er of regi ons or groups does not poi nt i nvari abl y i n one
di rect i on . . . Pol i t i cal i ndependence i s one opt i on out of several . ( `Some Ref l ect i ons
on "The Break- up"' , p. 20, i t al i cs added. ) Does Hobsbawmmean t o appl y t hi s
st at ement t o col oni es l i ke Puert o Ri co and Nami bi a whi ch are st ruggl i ng f or
i ndependence t oday? I s pol i t i cal i ndependence j ust `one opt i on out of several ' f or
cl assi cal col oni es? ( Not e al so Hobsbawm' s cri t i ci smof `t he assumpt i on t hat st at e
i ndependence, or what amount st o i t , i s t he normal mode of sat i sf yi ngt he demands
of any groupwi t h some cl ai ms t o at erri t ori al base . . . a"count ry",' i bi d. , p. 8. )
91 . See `Report of t he Commi ssi on ont he Nat i onal andCol oni al Quest i ons' , p.
241.
92. `Some Ref l ect i ons onNat i onal i sm' , p. 405.
93. See, i n t hi s regard, HoChi Mi nh' s essay, `The Pat h Whi ch LedMe t o
Leni ni sm' , HoChi Mi nh. ~ Sel ect edArt i cl es andSpeeches: 1920- 1967( 1970) .
S. TheTheory of Nat i onal
Mi nori t i es
Thi s chapt er andt he f ol l owi ng one deal wi t h one i mport ant f ormof t he nat i onal
quest i on: t he st ruggl es of oppressedmi nori t i es f or sel f - det ermi nat i on. There are
manyki nds of mi nori t i es andmanyki nds of st ruggl e, andi t woul dbei mpossi bl et o
exami ne al l of t he i ssues i n a f ewpages, muchl ess t ry t o work out sol ut i ons t o t he
many compl ex nat i onal probl ems of mi nori t i es around t he worl d. I wi l l be
concerned mai nl y wi t h t wo qui t e i mport ant aspect s of t he probl em. Onei s t he
mat t er of correct i ng mi st akes i n t heMarxi st t heory of mi nori t i es, whi chI vi ewas a
part of t he l arger Marxi st t heory of nat i onal st ruggl e, andpart i cul arl yt oshowt hat
t hehi st ory of our t heory of mi nori t i es has been seri ousl y mi si nt erpret ed, t hanks i n
part t o t he i nt el l ect ual l egacy of St al i n (andf or many ot her reasons) . My ot her
concern i s t o cri t i ci ze t he i dea t hat t here i s somenat ural andi nevi t abl e dri f t , i n
capi t al i st count ri es, t owards t he assi mi l at i on of mi nori t i es and t owards t hei r
pol i t i cal
decomposi t i on. Mi nori t i es creat edbycol oni al i smt endnot t o decompose:
t hei r speci al oppressi on cont i nues i n oneor anot her f orm, andsodoes t hei r st ruggl e
f or sel f - det ermi nat i on. Thepresent chapt er, t heref ore, deal s wi t h general t heory
andt he hi st ory of t heory; t he f ol l owi ng chapt er, wi t h t he empi ri cal probl emof
assi mi l at i on (andnon- assi mi l at i on) , under condi t i ons of advancedcapi t al i sm.
Chapt ers 5and6have a pol i t i cal as wel l as sci ent i f i c purpose: t hey argue agai nst
t hose who bel i eve t hat t he t wo mi l l i on Puert o Ri cans i n t he US are l osi ng t hei r
Puert o Ri can nat i onal i t y andt hei r i dent i f i cat i on wi t h andcommi t ment t o t he
st ruggl e f or t he nat i onal l i berat i on of Puert o Ri co. ' Thi s bel i ef has harmedt he
l i berat i on st ruggl e, hi nderedt he mi nori t y communi t y' s ef f ort s at sel f def ence, and
i n no way f urt heredt he cause of i nt ernat i onal i sm. Andt he bel i ef i s i l l f ounded i n
t heory andf act . Thet wochapt ers aremeant t oappl yt ogeneral quest i ons of t heory
andt o manymi nori t y st ruggl es, as wel l as payi ngspeci al at t ent i on t o Puert oRi co.
Thepresent chapt er has mucht o say about t heMarxi st t heory of nat i ons, as wel l
as t he t heory of mi nori t i es, because t he t wo cat egori es are deal t wi t h t oget her i n
Marxi st t heory, as wewi l l see. I amnot goi ng t o at t empt t o di scuss every aspect of
t he t heory of nat i ons, a very compl exmat t er i n i t s own ri ght , andnot reduci bl et o
def i ni t i ons . I hope, nonet hel ess, t o cont ri but e somet hi ngt ot hi s t heory, by way of
cl eari ng away many t angl es of conf usi on.
Somesect ors of t he Nort h Ameri can Lef t are convi ncedt hat Puert o Ri cans i n t he
US do not bel ong t o t he Puert o Ri can nat i on; t hat t hi s communi t y i s merel y a
The Theory of Nat i onal Mi nori t i es

143
`nat i onal mi nori t y' - an et hni c subdi vi si on of a di f f erent nat i on, t heUni t edSt at es .
Thi s nat i onal mi nori t y t heory bears some resembl ance t o t he ol d i dea of t he
`mel t i ng pot ' , or at l east t o i t s l i beral vari ant (`Puert o Ri can- Ameri cans' , `et hni c
heri t age' , `mi nori t y ri ght s' , et c. ) ; but t here i s one cruci al di f f erence. The nat i onal -
mi nori t y t heory i s sai dt o be groundedi n Marxi sm, andspeci f i cal l y i n a doct ri ne
deri vedf roma 1913 essay by St al i n, `Marxi smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on' . Z
I n essence, t he argument i s si mpl e. St al i n l i st ed t he at t ri but es whi ch, i n hi s
opi ni on, a groupmust possess t o qual i f y as a nat i on. Thi s was St al i n' s f amous
`def i ni t i on of t he nat i on' , whi ch became t he ort hodox Marxi st concept of t he
nat i on, accept ed by most Marxi st s, St al i ni st s andnon- St al i ni st s al i ke, down t o
. w~aa<<uu~S. waTa~ri ci ucut i i i g ui c Cvi i Ccpt vi i i at i vi i ' wf i 5 ui c wi ~Ccpt vi Ti at i vua~
mi nori t y' , a t ermwhi ch desi gnat edet hni c communi t i es t hat f ai l ed t o qual i f y as
nat i ons . The di st i nct i on was t erri bl y i mport ant . Real nat i ons hadt he pot ent i al t o
becomei ndependent st at es, anddeservedt he ri ght of sel f - det ermi nat i on. Nat i onal
mi nori t i es had no such pot ent i al , andwere f at edt o di ssol ve, i n pol i t i cal t erms,
t hrough assi mi l at i on. Moreover, nat i onal f orms of pol i t i cal st ruggl e were
j ust i f i abl e f or nat i ons, but not f or nat i onal mi nori t i es. One of St al i n' s cruci al
cri t eri a f or nat i onhoodwas t he possessi on of undi vi dednat i onal t erri t ory. Et hni c
communi t i es whi ch weredi vi ded, f ragment ed, or di spersed, were not real nat i ons :
t hey were nat i onal mi nori t i es .
Puert oRi cans l i vi ngi n t he Uni t edSt at es woul dbe, by t hi s cri t eri on, a nat i onal
mi nori t y. They coul dnot be vi ewedas part of a si ngl e Puert o Ri can nat i on. The
same j udgment woul dappl y t o many ot her mi nori t y communi t i es aroundt he
worl d, i ncl udi ng, f or i nst ance, West I ndi ans, Af ri cans, andAsi ans i n Europe and
Koreans i n J apan. Al l suchgroups woul dbeseen as nat i onal mi nori t i es, doomedt o
di ssol ut i on andenj oi nedf romengagi ng i n nat i onal f orms of st ruggl e, i ncl udi ng,
most cruci al l y, t he st ruggl e t o l i berat e t hei r homel ands .
But t herearet woMarxi st t heori es deal i ngwi t hmi nori t i es . Andt herearet wovery
di f f erent ki nds of mi nori t i es, each needi ng i t s own di st i nct i ve anal ysi s . Puert o
Ri cans donot f al l wi t hi n t he purvi ewof St al i n' s t heory, but wi t hi n anot her t heory
whi ch was pref i guredi n Marx' s andEngel s' anal ysi s of t he I ri sh communi t y i n
Engl andandwas t hen devel oped i nt o a general t heory by Leni n i n t he peri od
1915- 1923. The f undament al di f f erencebet ween t het wo t heori es i s def i nedbyt he
f act s of col oni al i smand i mperi al i sm. Leni n provi ded t he f i rst comprehensi ve
anal ysi s of i mperi al i sm, andof modern col oni al i sm. ' I n t heprocess, hedevel opeda
t heory of nat i ons whi chappl i es t ocol oni al nat i ons l i kePuert oRi coandt hePuert o
Ri cans . St al i n, i n `Marxi smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on' , barel y ment i ons col oni al
nat i ons, andhi s t heory of nat i ons andmi nori t i es does not i n any case work f or
col oni es . Even f or t he non- col oni al nat i ons of Europe, i n f act , t he t heory i s onl y
appl i cabl e t o an earl y peri odi n t hei r hi st ory, t he `epoch of ri si ng capi t al i sm' , an
epochwhi chendedal most everywherewi t h t he out break of t he Fi rst Worl dWar.
Al l of t hi s not wi t hst andi ng, St al i n' s 1913 art i cl ewas si gni f i cant as a cont ri but i on t o
Marxi st t heory andt ot heRussi an revol ut i onary st ruggl e - a j udgment concurred
wi t h by manynon- Marxi st schol ars as wel l as Marxi st s (even byTrot sky!) . " But t he
t heory does not appl y t o Puert o Ri cans . Leni n' s t heory, by cont rast , does appl y.
AndLeni n' s t heory compel s t he concl usi on t hat most Puert o Ri cans i n t heUS are
144

TheTheory of Nati onal Mi nori ti es
sti l l part of thecol oni al nati on of PuertoRi co.
I n thedi scussi on whi chf ol l ows, I wi l l not beargui ng i n def enceof anysort of
narrownati onal i sm. Tosaythat acommuni tycreatedbyf orcedemi grati onf roma
col ony may retai n i ts ori gi nal nati onal i ty, as i n thecaseof Puerto Ri cans i n the
Uni ted States, i s not to arguethat thi s communi ty wi l l , or shoul d, separatei tsel f
f romworkers' struggl es i n thecountryi n whi chi t resi des . Puerto Ri canworkers i n
theUni ted States arecompl etel ywi thi ntheUSworki ng cl ass, as wel l as thePuerto
Ri canworki ng cl ass, and thei r commi tment to thestruggl ef or soci al j usti ce i nthe
USi s as great as that of anyother groupof workers. But theyremai nPuertoRi can.
Thi s i s not paradoxi cal : i t i s expl ai nedby thel ogi c of Marxi st theory, as I wi l l now
tryto demonstrate.
TheTheoryof Mi nori ti es i n Cl assi cal Marxi sm
Wecan begi n, I thi nk, wi th a smal l i nci dent i nvol vi ng Fri edri chEngel s a century
ago. Thesetti ng i s a General Counci l meeti ngof theI nternati onal Worki ngMen' s
Associ ati on ( the Fi rst I nternati onal ) i n 1872. As recorded i n the mi nutes, Mr.
Hal es, theCounci l ' s Secretary, proposedthef ol l owi ngmoti on: `That i ntheopi ni on
of theCounci l thef ormati onof l ri shnati onal branches i n Engl andi s opposedtothe
General Rul es and Pri nci pl es of theAssoci ati on. ' Mr . Hal es then expl ai ned hi s
moti on:
Hesai d . . . thef undamental pri nci pl e of theAssoci ati on was to destroy al l
sembl anceof thenati onal i st doctri ne, andremoveal l barri ers that separatedman
f romman. . . Thef ormati onof l ri shbranches i nEngl andcoul donl ykeepal i ve
that nati onal antagoni smwhi chhadunf ortunatel y so l ongexi sted between the
peopl e of the two countri es . . . No one knewwhat theI ri sh branches were
doi ng, and i n thei r rul es they stated that they wererepubl i can, and thei r f i rst
obj ecti ve was to l i berate I rel and f roma f orei gn domi nati on, [ but] the
I nternati onal had nothi ng to dowi thl i berati ng I rel ands
Themoti onwas debated, and Engel s roseto speak.
Ci ti zenEngel s sai d thereal purposeof themoti on, stri pped of al l hypocri sy, was
to bri ng theI ri shsecti ons i nto subj ecti ontotheBri ti shFederal Counci l [ of the
I nternati onal ] , a thi ng to whi chtheI ri shsecti ons woul d never consent, and
whi ch the Counci l had nei ther the ri ght nor the power to i mpose upon
them. . . TheI ri shf ormed adi sti nct nati onal i tyof thei r own, and thef act that
[ they) usedtheEngl i shl anguagecoul dnot depri vethemof thei r ri ghts . . . Ci ti zen
Hal es had spoken of the rel ati ons of Engl and and I rel and bei ng of themost
i dyl l i c nature . . . but thecasewas qui tedi f f erent . Therewas thef act of seven
centuri es of Engl i sh conquest and oppressi on of I rel and, and so l ong as that
oppressi on exi sted, i t woul d beani nsul t to I ri shworki ngmento ask themto
submi t to a Bri ti shFederal Counci l . [ Themoti on) was aski ng the conquered
peopl e to f orget thei r nati onal i ty and submi t to thei r conquerors. I t was not
I nternati onal i sm, but si mpl yprati ngsubmi ssi on. I f thepromoters of themoti on
weresobri mf ul of thetrul y i nternati onal spi ri t, l et themprovei t byremovi ngthe
seat of the Bri ti sh Federal Counci l to Dubl i n and submi t to a Counci l of
I ri shmen. I na casel i ke that of theI ri sh, trueI nternati onal i smmust necessari l y
be based upon a di sti nct nati onal organi zati on, and they were under the
TheTheory of Nati onal Mi nori ti es

145
necessi ty to state i n . . . thei r rul es that thei r f i rst and most pressi ng duty as
I ri shmen was to establ i sh thei r ownnati onal i ndependence. b
Thus wehaveEngel s' opi ni onconcerni ngthenati onal i smof twomi l l i onI ri shmen
and womenwhohad been f orced to emi grateto Engl and ( as two mi l l i on Puerto
Ri cans have, to theUS) .
But consi der nowanother opi ni on whi chEngel s expressed at about thesame
ti me, concerni ng the`ri ght to i ndependent nati onal exi stenceof those numerous
smal l rel i cs of peopl es whi ch, af ter havi ngf i guredf or al onger or shorter peri odon
the stage of hi story, were f i nal l y absorbed as i ntegral porti ons' of powerf ul
rr___>__ :

_n_: ~__L, . . . . . . A: CC, . -e. . a r

~1. . .

~i tcr a ems~l
EUrUpCQI l I l atl Url s . I 1G1G11c 15 tA. l l l taaF, ' avvmauatacaa. au . ypev. . . . . . . . . . . . ~, . - ~" " " ---
Europeannati on somehowl yi ng wi thi n theborders of a l arger Europeannati on
and, i n Engel s' vi ew, undeservi ng of i ndependence. Equal l y undeservi ng i s the
`detached f racti on of any nati onal i ty' whi chmi ght wi sh`to beal l owed to annex
i tsel f to i ts great mother-country' , a si tuati on very commonthen, parti cul arl y i n
eastern Europewheretherecurri ngti des of i nvasi ons duri ngathousand turbul ent
years had `l ef t onthe shore. . . heaps of i ntermi ngl ed rui ns of nati ons . . . and
where the Turk, theFi nni c Magyar, the Rouman, the J ew, and about a dozen
Sl avoni c tri bes, l i ve i ntermi xedi n i ntermi nabl econf usi on' . ' I n suchcases Engel s
woul d wi thhol d support f romany separati st movement . But howcan al l thi s be
reconci l ed wi th Engel s' f i erce def ence of nati onal i sm, and of separate pol i ti cal
organi zati on, amongthemi nori ty I ri shmen i nEngl and?
Engel s' ref erenceto`smal l rel i cs of peopl es' , `rui ns of nati ons' , and thel i ke, was
i n the context of an arti cl e i n whi chhe was passi onatel y def endi ng the ri ght of
Pol andtoi ndependence, anddef endi ng aprocl amati on i n support of that ri ght by
theFi rst I nternati onal . Hi s di sparagi ngremarks about mi nori ty nati ons werepart
of an anal ysi s ai med at di sti ngui shi ng between the case of vi abl e nati ons, l i ke
Pol and, andnon-vi abl e, f ragmentary, mi nori tynati ons, therebyref uti ngthecharge
that support f or Pol i sh i ndependence i mpl i ed support f or al l mani f estati ons of
nati onal i sm. Engel s madethedi sti ncti on, i n characteri sti c Marxi st f ashi on, by
ref erri ngto hi story. The`rui ns of nati ons' becamethat way througha thousand
years of tangl ed mi xi ngof nati ons ; the`detachedf racti on' was onceattached; and
so on. But comparethehi story of thesemi nori ti es wi ththat of I rel and. Thel atter
exi sts as adef i ni te, vi abl e, but ( f or 700years) oppressednati on. Theorgani zati onof
i ts soci al i st movement must takepl acei n themi dst not onl yof col oni al oppressi on
but al so of massi ve, f orced emi grati on to Engl and - a matter to whi chMarxand
Engel s ref erred repeatedl y i n thei r wri ti ngs . $
Nowthel ot of I rel and i n themi d-19thCentury was extraordi nari l y l i ke that of
Puerto Ri co i n the mi d-20th Century; both enduri ng destructi on of thei r rural
economi es andf orcedemi grati ontoanearby i ndustri al nati on, theef f ect bei ngthe
establ i shment of ghettos i ntheoppressor nati on' s ci ti es ; and i nbothcases persi stent
back-and-f orthmovement of thepopul ati onbetweencol onyandoppressor nati on
because of the proxi mi ty of one to theother. 9 ( Today wehavethe `ai r bri dge'
betweenNewYorkandSanJ uan. ) Everyonenowagrees that MarxandEngel s di d
not haveacomprehensi ve, general theoryof i mperi al i smandcol oni al i sm; that was
Leni n' s l ater contri buti on. But theydi d haveanexcel l ent speci al theoryf or I rel and,
146

TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es
TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es

147
p

i mper i al i sm- ande~. o~m~mi vhi ch~ay- on~ur opes d- oor sTp.

i
t hi s oneexam l e of '

' - ' "-
Andt hey r el at ed t o t heI r i sh movement i n t hei r r evol ut i onar y pr act i ce. So t hey
coul d not f ai l t o suppor t I r i shi ndependence, concept ual i ze t heI r i sh mi nor i t y i n
Engl and as an i nt egr al par t of t he I r i sh nat i on, and def end t her i ght of t heI r i sh
f or ced emi gr ant s t o or gani ze pol i t i cal l y i n Engl and. At t hesamet i me, Mar xand
Engel s r ef used t o t ake t hi s samest and i n t hecaseof t henon- col oni al mi nor i t i es of
east er n Eur ope, whi ch had not suf f er ed nat i onal oppr essi on of t heI r i sh var i et y,
i ncl udi ng, most not abl y, f or ced emi gr at i on. Themor al i s t hi s : St al i n, i n `Mar xi sm
and t heNat i onal Quest i on' , was t al ki ng mai nl y about t heeast er n Eur opean case,
andhi s anal ysi s was ( f or 1913) l ar gel ycor r ect . But hi s concl usi ons di dnot appl yt o
col oni al peopl es, l i ket heI r i sht hen and t hePuer t o Ri cans now. Thet woki nds of
mi nor i t y, and t het wo cor r espondi ngt heor i es, and f or ms of pr act i ce, hadal r eady
been di st i ngui shed by Mar xi sm, l ong bef or e 1913.
St al i n' s Theor y
`Mar xi smand t heNat i onal Quest i on' was wr i t t en onl y t o deal wi t h apar t i cul ar
si t uat i on at a par t i cul ar hi st or i cal conj unct ur e. Thi s wi l l be cl ear i f wel ook cl osel y
at t hecont ext i n whi chi t was wr i t t en, l ong ago and f ar away.
I n 1912 t heBol shevi ks wer ei n t hemi dst of what pr oved t o bet hemost ser i ous
cr i si s i n t he hi st or y of t hei r par t y. ' Nat i onal i smof a cer t ai n sor t was t he maj or
sympt omof t hecr i si s, t houghnot t hemaj or cause. Thecause, as descr i bedby bot h
Leni n and St al i n, was count er - r evol ut i onar y r epr essi on by t heTsar i st aut hor i t i es
f ol l owi ngt heabor t i ver evol ut i on of 1905. Theef f ect was adanger ous weakeni ngof
t her evol ut i onar y movement . TheBol shevi ks wer e convi nced t hat t hei r pr e- 1905
pr ogr ammeand t hei r l ong- t er mst r at egy cont i nued t o be cor r ect , and t hat vi ct or y
woul d come ver y soon ( as i t di d) . But many soci al i st gr oups and f act i ons had
becomedemor al i zed; succumbi ng t o r epr essi on, t hey choset o abandon t hehar d-
l i ne Bol shevi k posi t i on whi chsought t heover t hr owof t heTsar i st gover nment and
t o adopt i nst ead a gr adual i st , r ef or mi st pr ogr ammeandt o r et r eat t o abovegr ound
( l egal ) pol i t i cal act i on . Thi s set t hest agef or an i mmensei deol ogi cal st r uggl e, one
whi ch t ook pl ace on t wo l evel s : basi c pr ogr amme, or t heor y, and par t y
or gani zat i on.
Themaj or i ssue on bot hl evel s was nat i onal i sm. Wher eas t heBol shevi ks wer e
det er mi ned t o over t hr owt he Tsar , t he r ef or mi st s wer e wi l l i ng t o set t l e f or a
di f f er ent , mor edemocr at i c f or mof t heRussi anEmpi r e; ani mpr ovedver si onof t he
Aust r i an Empi r e, whi ch seemed at t he t i me t o be mor e democr at i c t han t he
Russi an, mai nl y because i t gr ant ed basi c ci vi l r i ght s t o mi nor i t y nat i ons. One
pr ecedent f or a soci al i st - r ef or mi st posi t i on of t hi s sor t was t o be f ound i n t he
Aust r i an Soci al Democr at i c Par t y' s pl at f or m, but t hecl ear est pr ecedent l ay i n a
pr oposal by t he Aust r i an Mar xi st Ot t o Bauer f or a scheme whi ch he t er med
`cul t ur al - nat i onal aut onomy' . " Appl i ed t o Russi a, t hi s schemewoul dcal l f or ci vi l
equal i t y and a f or mof f eder al i smamongt he nat i ons wi t hi n t heempi r e- but st i l l
wi t hi n t hesi ngl eempi r e, andt her ef or ef ar shor t of t heBol shevi kgoal of dest r oyi ng
t he empi r e. Thus, at t he l evel of pr ogr amme, or t heor y, t he r ef or mi st s want ed
nat i onal aut onomywi t hi n t heRussi an st at e, whi l et heBol shevi ks r ej ect ed t hi s f or m
of l i mi t ed nat i onal i smi n f avour of t heover t hr owof t hest at e. I n t hel ongr unt he
Bol shevi k posi t i on i mpl i ed muchmor ei nt ense nat i onal st r uggl e, si ncei t cal l ed f or
t hedest r uct i onof t hei nt egr al empi r eandt her i ght of al l nat i ons wi t hi n i t t o secede.
But i n t he shor t r un t he r ef or mi st s seemed t o benat i onal i st s, and nat i onal i sm
seemed t o be r ef or mi sm.
Nat i onal i smwasal so t hemai ni ssueat t heor gani zat i onal l evel . Anunder gr ound,
Bol shevi k- st yl e r evol ut i onar y par t y had t o be a cent r al i zed par t y. Anon-
r evol ut i onar y, l egal par t y coul d per haps af f or d t o be a l oosef eder at i on of sub-
par t i es, eachwi t h agr eat deal of aut onomy. Si ncet her ef or mi st s' pr ogr ammewas
nat i onal i st i c, t he pr oposed f eder al st r uct ur e woul d nat ur al l y i nvol vea cl eavage
al ongnat i onal l i nes . To t heBol shevi ks, however , a f eder at i on of nat i onal par t i es
was si mpl y not a r evol ut i onar y par t y.
Leni n cal l ed a par t y conf er ence i n J anuar y, 1912, t o f or cet hese i ssues . The
r ef or mi st s count er edwi t h aconf er enceof t hei r owni n August . ThenLeni nopened
hi s f ul l - scal eof f ensi ve. Onebat t l ef r ont was of cour senat i onal i sm, and`al l ser i ous-
mi nded Soci al - Democr at s' wer e ur ged by hi mt o `r ai se and di scuss t he"nat i onal
quest i on"
. "z
St al i n pr epar ed t hef i r st maj or pol emi c, `Mar xi smand t heNat i onal
Quest i on' , whi chwas f ol l owed i n t r ai n by t wo maj or ar t i cl es by Leni n hi msel f. "
The Bol shevi ks r egai ned t hei r st r engt h and par t y uni t y wi t hout sacr i f i ce of
pr ogr ammeor st r uct ur e, and St al i n' s ar t i cl e pl ayed an i mpor t ant r ol e. I t was an
at t ack agai nst mani f est at i ons of nat i onal i smwhi ch wer e obj ect i vel y count er -
r evol ut i onar y i n t heRussi a of 1912- 1913. I t was ast r ongandconsci ousl yone- si ded
cr i t i que on t hosef or ms of nat i onal i smwhi ch posed an i mmedi at e t hr eat t o t he
Bol shevi ks . I t was, i n shor t , apol emi c. Thus i t was not an academi c essay, st i l l l ess a
Mar xi st t ext book onnat i onal i smi n gener al . I t s ar gument shoul d not bet akenout
of cont ext .
St al i n hi msel f made t hi s poi nt ver y cl ear l y. I n `Mar xi smand t he Nat i onal
Quest i on' hecast i gat ed t hose`pedant s who"sol ve" t henat i onal pr obl emwi t hout
r ef er encet o spaceandt i me' . Sol vi ngt hepr obl em, he sai d, wi l l al ways depend on
`t he concr et e hi st or i cal condi t i ons i n whi ch t he gi ven nat i on f i nds i t sel f , and
`condi t i ons, l i keever yt hi ngel se, change' . ' Wr i t i ngf i veyear s l at er , hecomment ed
i n r et r ospect t hat t he Oct ober Revol ut i on, and r el at ed event s of t heper i od, had
`wi dened t hescopeof t henat i onal quest i on and conver t ed i t f r omt hepar t i cul ar
quest i on of combat i ngnat i onal oppr essi on i n Eur opei nt o t hegener al quest i on of
emanci pat i ng t he oppr essed peopl es, col oni es and semi - col oni es, f r om
i mper i al i sm' . ' S And he r et ur ned t o t hi s t heme agai n i n 1924: Leni n `l i nked t he
nat i onal pr obl emwi t h t he pr obl emof t he col oni es' , t r ansf or mi ng i t `f r oma
par t i cul ar andi nt er nal st at epr obl em. . . i nt o awor l dpr obl emof emanci pat i ng t he
oppr essed peopl es i n t he dependent count r i es and col oni es' . ' 6 I quot e al l t hese
r emar ks t o emphasi zet wo poi nt s whi ch, t o us, ar ef undament al . St al i n became
awar et hat hi s 1913 ar gument hadconcer nedonl y onepar t of t hewor l d, onet ypeof
nat i on, and one hi st or i cal epoch. He al so came t o r eal i ze t hat Leni n had
t r ansf or medt henat i onal quest i on, i n f act hadevol vedanewt heor yy- whi chwewi l l
di scuss i n a moment - t o deal wi t h t henon- Eur opean wor l d, t hecol oni al nat i ons,
andt heepochof i mper i al i sm; i n ef f ect , t hecondi t i ons sur r oundi ngPuer t o Ri coand
t hePuer t o Ri cans . Real i zi ng t hi s, we can pr oceed t o devel opa f ai r and cor r ect
anal ysi s of St al i n' s ar gument i t sel f .
148

TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es
`What i s a nat i on?' St al i n asks, and t hen pr oceeds t o gi ve a r at her f or mal
def i ni t i on. Anat i on i s a human gr oup whi ch possesses cer t ai n def i ni t e
char act er i st i cs . I t i s a hi st or i cal l y st abl e communi t y of peopl e. I t has a common
ver nacul ar l anguage. I t occupi es a si ngl e pi eceof t er r i t or y. I t has an i nt egr at ed,
coher ent economy. I t possesses a `communi t y of psychol ogi cal make- up' ( a f ol k-
psychol ogy, or nat i onal char act er ) . Andi t i s `a hi st or i cal cat egor y bel ongi ng t o a
def i ni t e epoch, t heepochof r i si ng capi t al i sm' . "
St al i n' s def i ni t i on of `nat i on' had, l i ket hear t i cl eas awhol e, apol emi cal pur pose.
I t ser ved t o under pi n hi s at t ack on r ef or mi st nat i onal i sm. Ther e wer e, br oadl y
speaki ng, t wor ef or mi st t endenci es, andeach was vul ner abl et o anat t ack f r omt he
vant age poi nt of St al i n' s def i ni t i on. Fi r st , t her e wer e t hose who advocat ed a
combi nat i onof `cul t ur al - nat i onal aut onomy' andor gani zat i onal aut onomy wi t hi n
t he soci al i st movement . The essence of Bauer ' s `cul t ur al - nat i onal aut onomy'
scheme was t he t hesi s t hat member s of a nat i on, r egar dl ess of wher et hey l i ved
wi t hi n t he st at e, woul d shar e t he aut onomy of t hat nat i on. Thus, f or i nst ance,
Geor gi ans ever ywher e i n Russi a woul dcomeunder Geor gi angover nance. But i f a
nat i on must occupy a si ngl e, common pi eceof t er r i t or y, t henGeor gi ans out si deof
Geor gi awoul dsi mpl y beanat i onal mi nor i t y i n someot her nat i on' s t er r i t or y, andi t
woul d be absur d, St al i n ar gued, t o pl acet hemunder Geor gi an gover nance. I t
woul dbeeven mor eabsur di n t hecase of t heJ ews, whohad no t er r i t or y of t hei r
own, andwer et her ef or enot anat i on anywher e. I n t hecaseof t heJ ews, t hedemand
f or cul t ur al - nat i onal aut onomy was par al l el ed by an even st r onger demand f or
or gani zat i onal aut onomy. For mor e t han a decade, t he J ewi sh soci al i st
or gani zat i on, t heBund, hadbeen demandi ngr ecogni t i on as t hesol espokesman f or
J ewi shpr ol et ar i ans, andi nsi st i ng onaf eder at i ver el at i onshi p t o t heRussi anSoci al
Democr at i c Par t y. I n 1913 t hi s demand had become par t of t he r ef or mi st -
nat i onal i st r eact i on. St al i n' s emphasi s on t er r i t or y as an at t r i but e of nat i onhood
was a par t i cul ar l y ef f ect i ve answer t o t heBund: J ews have not er r i t or y, henceJ ews
ar enot anat i on, hencet heBundcan havenost andi ng as a nat i onal or gani zat i on
wi t hi n t heal l - Russi an movement .
Thesecondf or mof nat i onal i smwas a mor edi f f use t endency wi t hi n what St al i n
consi der edt o begenui nenat i ons t o subst i t ut enat i onal ai ms f or r evol ut i onar y ai ms .
Thewayt o deal wi t h t hi s was t o showt hat nat i onal i smi s st r i ct l y, andnecessar i l y, a
bour geoi s( capi t al i st ) sent i ment by i ncor por at i ng capi t al i smi nt o t hever y def i ni t i on
of t henat i on. Thus wehave t hehi st or i cal cr i t er i on: anat i on i s char act er i st i c of t he
epochof r i si ng capi t al i sm. ' 8Thi s woul dbea ver y t el l i ng ar gument amongMar xi st s
because an essent i al t enet of Mar xi smwas ( andi s) t he t hesi s t hat capi t al i smi s
i ndeedpr ogr essi ve dur i ng i t s r i si ng st age of devel opment , bef or e i t succumbs t o
i nt er nal cont r adi ct i ons andgener at es mor e andmor emi ser y. I f nat i onal i smi s a
f eat ur eof capi t al i smdur i ng i t s pr ogr essi vest age, t hen nat i onal i smwi l l nol onger be
pr ogr essi vewhen capi t al i smno l onger i s so. Thus a Russi anMar xi st i n 1913 mi ght
become convi nced t hat nat i onal i smi s si mpl y out of dat e, andmi ght r ef use t o
def enda nat i onal i st pr ogr amme.
St al i n' s def i ni t i on hada t hi r df unct i on as wel l . At t acki ngnat i onal i smwi t hi n t he
f r amewor k of t heBol shevi k pr ogr ammewas a r at her del i cat e t ask because t he
Bol shevi ks, unl i ke someext r emel y ant i - nat i onal i st gr oups, l i keRosa Luxembur g
TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es

149

1
andher associ at es, i nsi st ed on t he i nal i enabl e r i ght of nat i ons wi t hi n Russi a t o
sel f - det er mi nat i on, t hat i s, t o f ul l i ndependence. Howdoes oneat t ack nat i onal i sm
andat t hesamet i me def endt he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on? St al i n' s way was t o,
f i r st of al l , gi ve apr eci se def i ni t i on of `nat i on' t o makei t cl ear t hat cer t ai net hni c
gr oups, bei ng genui nenat i ons, di dhave t hi s r i ght , whi l eot her s di dnot . TheJ ews
di dnot . Nor di dt hose`det achedf r act i ons' of nat i ons l i ket heGer manset t l ement s
scat t er edacr oss Russi a. Then, by t yi ng t hei dea of t henat i on t o t heepochof r i si ng
capi t al i sm, St al i n was abl e t o def end t he r i ght of genui ne nat i ons t o sel f -
det er mi nat i onandat t hesamet i mehi nt t hat nat i ons r eal l y shoul dnot exer ci set hat
r i ght nn ar nwnr i ~t r ot
a
"

i d b ' " t" ua'

v; w __a. _

. a_ . ,

. . .

. . . , . .

. . . . . ~. . , . . .

. y
t . .
Col oni es di dnot qual i f y as nat i ons under St al i n' s def i ni t i on. Thi s canbeshown
bot hby exampl eandby r ef er encet o St al i n' s t heor y of nat i ons . I n f ewcol oni es ( or
semi - col oni es) was a si ngl e ver nacul ar l anguage spoken i n 1913. ( I n I ndi a, f or
exampl e, t her ewer e dozens . ) Common t er r i t or y was of t en mi ssi ng. Col oni es di d
not r eal l y possess an i nt egr at ed economy, gi ven t hei r dependent economi c st at us .
Andequal l y i nappl i cabl e was t heconcept of `r i si ng capi t al i sm' ( `semi - f eudal i sm'
and`under devel opedcapi t al i sm' ar emor eappr opr i at e t er ms) .
I n St al i n' s t heor y, nat i ons camei nt o exi st ence i n t wo ways . West er n Eur opean
nat i ons f or medt hemsel ves as nat i on st at es f r omt hemoment of t hei r bi r t h at t he
begi nni ng of t hecapi t al i st er a. Hencet hey hadno nat i onal pr obl em, t o speak of ,
wi t hi n t hei r bor der s . I n east er n Eur ope, however , t he gr eat t er r i t or i al empi r es
( Russi a, Aust r i a- Hungar y, Tur key) emer gedbef or e t heet hni c gr oups wi t hi n t hei r
boundar i es hadf or medi nt o nat i ons; hencet hesest at es wer emul t i - nat i onal al most
f r omt hest ar t; andhencet hegr avi t y of t hei r nat i onal pr obl em. I r el and, accor di ng
t o St al i n, was ananomal y: i t f ol l owedt heeast er nEur opeanr out e, f or mi ng i t sel f as
a nat i on af t er i t s absor pt i on i nt o t heBr i t i sh Empi r e. But St al i n was wr ong about
I r el and; i t was a cl assi c col oni zednat i on; andt hi s si gni f i cant er r or shows t hat he
r eal l y hadnot heor et i cal model ( i n 1913) f or col oni al nat i ons i ngener al . Hedi dnot ,
as a mat t er of f act , di scuss t hemi n `Mar xi smandt heNat i onal Quest i on' . Hadhe
doneso, or hadheat l east t aken account of Mar x' s andEngel s' anal ysi s of I r el and
i n r el at i on t oEngl and, St al i n woul dhaveseen t hat hi s model f or West er nEur opean
nat i on st at es was al so i mper f ect . Count r i es l i ke Br i t ai n, Fr ance andHol l and
emer gedas i nt egr al nat i on st at es not by chance, but becauset hey wer e col oni zi ng
nat i ons . They expor t edt hei r nat i onal pr obl em, as i t wer e, t o t hei r col oni al empi r es .
Thus t o under st andEngl andonemust under st andI r el and, J amai ca, I ndi a, andso
on. Onemust under st andi mper i al i sm. But i n 1913 Mar xi smhadnot yet anal ysed
i mper i al i sm.
St al i n' s t heor y of nat i ons was not t her ef or ewr ong, but i t was not wor l d- wi de i n
scope. I t was adequat ef or t hemul t i - nat i onal st at es of east er nEur ope, par t l y so f or
t he nat i on st at es of west er n Eur ope, andwhol l y i nadequat e f or t he wor l d of
col oni es andsemi - col oni es of Asi a, Af r i ca, andLat i nAmer i ca.
Thi s br i ngs us at l ast t o St al i n' s t heor y of nat i onal mi nor i t i es . I t i s mer el y t he
obver seof hi s t heor yof nat i ons : anet hni c gr oupi s anat i onal mi nor i t y i f i t does not
possess t he def i ni ng at t r i but es of a nat i on. Four sor t s of nat i onal mi nor i t y
communi t i es ar edi scussedi n St al i n' s paper , andi t wi l l bea st r ai ght f or war dmat t er
t o showt hat noneof t hemr esembl es t hePuer t o Ri can communi t y i n t heUni t ed
150

TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es
mot est oday.
Twoof t he cases bar el y deser ve ment i on. Thef i r st i s what Engel s woul dhave
cal l ed t he `det achedf r act i on' of anat i on. Thear gument her ei s wean, si ncemany
such`f r act i ons' ar e qui t esi zeabl e, andmanypossess al l t heat t r i but es whi chSt al i n
r equi r ed of a nat i on. ( St al i n i n f act ci t ed t he exampl eof t heUni t edSt at es t o show
t hat newnat i ons can f or mas a r esul t onl y of t er r i t or i al separ at i on. ) But t he
ar gument woul d onl y be r el evant i f one wer e cl ai mi ng t hat t he Nor t hAmer i can
bar r i os ar e par t of t he nat i onal t er r i t or y of Puer t o Ri co, and no one, t o my
knowl edge, i s doi ng so.
St al i n' s secondcase concer ns what he descr i bed as undevel opednat i onal i t i es,
wi t h nr i r r , 2i t i ye ~: ; l t : : r v, I : i S ar ~i i i Ti ci i t I i Ci C i 5 bCSLI Or gOI Len, al t hough at t i mes i t 1S r ---
r esur r ect ed by chauvi ni st s who deny t he r i ght of sel f -det er mi nat i on t o cer t ai n
nat i ons by demot i ngt hemt o t he st at us of `t r i bes' : t he ar gument i s, i n anyevent ,
i r r el evant .
Thet hi r dt ypeof nat i onal mi nor i t y i s anet hni c gr oupwhi chhas not er r i t or y of i t s
own, anywher e. TheJ ews of Russi a pr ovi dedSt al i n' s oneexampl eof t hi s t ype, but
hedevot edmor eat t ent i ont o i t t hant o al l t heot her s combi ned, becausehi s pr i mar y
pur posei n di scussi ng nat i onal mi nor i t i es was t o pr ovet hat J ews wer enot anat i on,
i n or der t o pol emi ci ze agai nst Bundi st or gani zat i onal separ at i sm. Not onl y di dt he
J ews l ack t er r i t or y, t hey l acked a common l anguage as wel l , accor di ng t o St al i n
who t hought t hat t hey spoke t he var i ous ver nacul ar s of t hei r many ar eas of
set t l ement andcoul dnot communi cat ewi t h oneanot her r eadi l y. Andf i nal l y, t hey
l acked ani nt egr at edeconomy: most cr uci al l y, t hey wer e ent i r el y non-agr i cul t ur al
( t houghnot by choi ce) , andt hus wer edepr i ved of t hat associ at i on `wi t ht hel and,
whi chwoul dnat ur al l y r i vet a nat i on' . ` 9 St al i n' s ar gument t hat t he Russi an J ews
wer e not a nat i on i s unassai l abl e. But , cur i ousl y, i t i s hi s anal ysi s of t hi s
t hor oughl y uni queJ ewi sh mi nor i t y whi chi s most of t en used by t hosewhowi sh t o
pr ovet hat Puer t o Ri cans i n t he Uni t edSt at es ar e, t oo, a nat i onal mi nor i t y. The
anal ogy i s f al se. Unl i ke t he Puer t o Ri cans, t he J ews had no t er r i t or y - anywher e.
TheJ ews of Russi a di dspeakacommon l anguage, andso dot hePuer t o Ri cans. ( As
f ar as St al i n' s t heor y i s concer ned, i t woul dmake no di f f er ence whet her t he
common l anguagewer eSpani shor Engl i sh, or whet her bi l i ngual i smpr evai l ed, as i t
does i n about 30moder n nat i on st at es, so l ong as Puer t o Ri cans wer e abl e t o
communi cat e wi t h one anot her . ) I t i s of cour se t r ue t hat t he Puer t o Ri can
communi t y i n t he US i s det achedf r omt he l and. But not f r omt he l and of Puer t o
Ri co.
Thef our t h t ype of nat i onal mi nor i t y i s t heonl y onewhi chbear s evena super f i ci al
r esembl ancet o Puer t o Ri cans i n t heUni t edSt at es. I n t hi s case, St al i n' s ar gument
f ocuses ona causal pr ocess, not t he r esul t i ngcommuni t y. Thepr ocess hedescr i bed
was one of mi gr at i on under capi t al i sm. `I n t he ear l y st ages of capi t al i smnat i ons
became wel dedt oget her ' , but l at er `a pr ocess of di sper si on of nat i ons set s i n' and
`gr oups separ at e of f f r omt he nat i ons, goi ng of f i n sear ch of a l i vel i hood and
subsequent l y set t l i ng per manent l yi n ot her r egi ons of t hest at e' . z I n t heRussi a of
19 13, t he mi gr at i on was t o new( bor der ) ar eas of agr i cul t ur al set t l ement and t o
newl y expandi ngci t i es . Ther esul t i ng si t uat i onwas oneof mi xedpopul at i ons, t he
i nhabi t ant s of t hese newar eas of set t l ement bear i ng var i ous et hni c her i t ages and
TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es

151
_ .
f or mi ngvar i ous nat i onal mi nor i t i es . Theappar ent r esembl ancet o t hePuer t o Ri can
condi t i on i s obvi ous .
What St al i n i s descr i bi ng her ei s t hef ami l i ar `mel t i ng pot ' , whi chwor kedi n 19 13
Russi a as i t wor kedi n 19 13Nor t hAmer i ca. I say `wor ked' becausemel t i ngdi dt ake
pl ace: t he mi gr ant s l ost t hei r or i gi nal nat i onal i t i es andbecame et hni c mi nor i t i es.
Whydi di t wor k?Ther ewer e at l east t wor easons . Fi r st , t hi s was st i l l t heepochof
r i si ng capi t al i sm, af t er al l : l i vi ng condi t i ons wer e i mpr ovi ng, empl oyment was
expandi ng, and t he dest i nat i on ar eas, r ur al and ur ban, wer e abl e t o absor b t he
i mmi gr at i ng popul at i ons bot h economi cal l y and cul t ur al l y. Second, t he whol e
pr ocess was t aki ng pl acewi t hi n what we
nnwcal l mr t r nnnl i t an r ani t ahemr t r i i . H
t, . . . . . _ . . . . t , . . . . . . . . . .
not , i n gener al , i nvol ve t he col oni al andsemi -col oni al per i pher y i n t hi s pr e-Fi r st
Wor l dWar er a, andnon-Eur opeans wer e not i nvi t edt o par t i ci pat e i n t hepr ocess .
I n t he US> Bl acks di dnot par t i ci pat e. Nor di dPuer t o Ri cans . ( Howel se can we
expl ai n t hef act t hat mi l l i ons of Eur opeans camet housands of mi l es, i n t hat per i od,
t o set t l e i n t heUS, whi l ePuer t o Ri cans r emai nedi n near by Puer t o Ri co?) I nRussi a,
Cent r al Asi ans di dnot par t i ci pat e. Andso on. Thus t her e can be no compar i son
bet weent hi s f or mof mi gr at i on andt he pr ocess whi chf i l l ed up Spani shHar l emi n
l at er year s . St al i n was di scussi ng apr ocess t hat bear s no r el at i on t o t heghet t os of
t oday. The pr ocess t hat t akes pl ace t oday i s f or ced mi gr at i on f r omcol ony t o
met r opol i s . The r esul t i ng communi t y i s not a nat i onal mi nor i t y but an exi l ed
por t i on of acol oni al nat i on. St al i n hadnot hi ngt o sayabout t hi s newanddi f f er ent
t ype of mi nor i t y. Hi s t heor y j ust does not appl y.
Mi nor i t i es i n t he Er a of I mper i al i sm
The devel opment of a t heor y of mi nor i t i es whi chdoes appl y t o t oday' s Puer t o
Ri cans was begunonl y t woyear s af t er t hepubl i cat i on of St al i n' s ar t i cl e, by Leni n.
But t hosewer ecr uci al year s f or soci al i sm, andf or soci al i st t heor y. Theout br eak of
t heWor l dWar , i n 19 14, demonst r at edt hat t heol der Mar xi st t heor yof nat i ons, and
nat i onal i sm, was ver y i nadequat e: nat i ons wer enot mer el y avest i geof t he epochof
r i si ng capi t al i sm, andnat i onal i smwas not at hi ngof t he past . I n 19 13Leni n coul d
wr i t e t hat `t he awakeni ng of nat i onal l i f e andnat i onal movement s, t he st r uggl e
agai nst al l nat i onal oppr essi on, andt he cr eat i on of nat i onal st at es' i s a t endency
whi ch`pr edomi nat es i n t he begi nni ng of [ capi t al i sm' s] devel opment ' , whi l e `t he
br eak-down of nat i onal bar r i er s, t he cr eat i on of t he i nt er nat i onal uni t y of
capi t al . . . char act er i zes a mat ur e capi t al i smt hat i s movi ng t owar d i t s t r ans-
f or mat i oni nt o soci al i st soci et y' . Z ' But i n August , 19 14, t he`nat i onal bar r i er s' wer e
r e-er ect ed andt ur ned i nt o bat t l ef i el ds . AndEur opean wor ker s, i nst ead of j oi ni ng
t hei r f el l owpr ol et ar i ans of al l nat i ons i n ar evol ut i on agai nst t hebour geoi si e, wer e
f ol l owi ng t he bour geoi si e i nt o awar agai nst t he pr ol et ar i ans of ot her nat i ons . To
deal wi t h t hi s shocki ng si t uat i on, Leni n had f i r st t o anal yse i t . The r esul t was
Leni n' s newt heor y of i mper i al i sm, andoneof i t s pr i nci pal component s was a new
t heor y of nat i onal st r uggl e andnat i ons .
`I mper i al i sm' , Leni n wr ot e i n 19 15, `i s t heer aof t he oppr essi on of nat i ons on a
newhi st or i cal basi s' . Z Z I n f act , `t he di vi si on of nat i ons i nt o oppr essor and
oppr essed. . . f or ms t heessenceof i mper i al i sm' . Z ' Why so? Because, t o begi nwi t h,
capi t al i smdoes not r eal l y `mat ur e' , f i r st becomi ng `i nt er nat i onal ' and t hen
152

TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es
commenci ng i t s `t r ansf or mat i on i nt o soci al i st soci et y' . I nst ead, i t becomes
par asi t i c: i mper i al i st i c. Each advanced- capi t al i st count r y st r i ves t o r esol ve i t s
deepeni ngi nt er nal cont r adi ct i ons- decl i ni ngpr of i t s andr i si ngwor ker s' r esi st ance
- by expandi ngi t s empi r eof col oni es andsemi - col oni es, t hus amassi ngwhat Leni n
apt l y cal l ed t he `super pr of i t s' f r omi mper i al i sm. But t her emust come a t i me when
nomor epl aces r emai nt o becol oni zed. At t hi s poi nt , t wonewpr ocesses super vene.
Onei s t hei nt ensi f i cat i on of economi cexpl oi t at i on, andpol i t i cal oppr essi on, i n t he
exi st i ng col oni es and semi - col oni es. The ot her i s descr i bed by Leni n as t he
`r epar t i t i on of t hewhol ewor l d' Z : t headvanced- capi t al i st count r i es nowt r y t o st eal
oneanot her ' s col oni es and spher es of i nf l uence. Thi s l at t er pr ocess must i nevi t abl y
l ead t o gener al _ wa_r ?* _ * : ~, . r t . ~, e ~~~~- : - ~
. . b. . . . . . . ~wwav power s . Thus wear r i veat Leni n' s essent i al
model . At t he r oot of t he whol epr ocess i s t he di al ect i c of oppr essi on : advanced
capi t al i st nat i ons t r ansf or mt hemsel ves i nt o oppr essor nat i ons i n or der t o acqui r e
t he sust ai ni ngsuper pr of i t s ; ot her nat i ons suf f er deepeni ngoppr essi on i n or der t o
yi el d t hesesuper pr of i t s . Andder i ved f r omt hi s ar et wodi st i nct pol i t i cal pr ocesses i n
each of t he t wo t ypes of nat i on: amongt he oppr essor s, a canni bal i st i c f or mof
war f ar e; amongt he oppr essed, a st r uggl e f or nat i onal l i ber at i on.
The er a of i mper i al i smi s t her ef or e an er a of i ncr easi ng nat i onal i sm. I n t he
oppr essor nat i ons i t i s bour geoi s nat i onal i sm, t hough of a new and mor e
r eact i onar y sor t . The bour geoi si e di st r i but es a l ar ge enough shar e of t he
super pr of i t s t o br i be t he `l abour ar i st ocr acy' and make l i f e sl i ght l y easi er f or t he
maj or i t y of t hewor ker s, ashar ej ust l ar geenought o gai n t hewor ker s' ( t empor ar y)
l oyal t y t o t he capi t al i st st at e and t hei r wi l l i ngness t o f i ght i t s war s . ZS But i n t he
oppr essed nat i ons, i mper i al i smgener at es a ver y di f f er ent f or mof nat i onal i sm, a
f or mt hat r esembl es nei t her t he ol d bour geoi s nat i onal i smof r i si ngcapi t al i smi n
Eur ope nor t he new bour geoi s nat i onal i smof t he i mper i al i st count r i es . Thi s
di f f er ent f or mof nat i onal i smi s t he st r uggl e f or nat i onal l i ber at i on. And
cor r espondi ngt o i t i s a di f f er ent ki nd of nat i on.
`Col oni al peopl es t oo ar e nat i ons' - a f act , sai d Leni n, t hat Mar xi st s of t en
f or get . zbLeni nwas awar et hat col oni es di d not or i gi nat ei n t he samewayas t hose
Eur opean nat i ons whi ch emer ged, wi t h t he r i se of i ndi genous capi t al i sm, out of
medi eval t er r i t or i al - l i ngui st i c uni t s . Of t en enoughhewr ot et hat col oni al i sml eads
t o a f or ci bl e car vi ng- up, apar t i t i oni ng, of pr e- exi st i ngcul t ur al r egi ons, and t hat a
col ony' s economy i s not i nt er nal l y i nt egr at ed but ext er nal l y dependent . But t he
mai n di st i ngui shi ngf eat ur e of col oni al nat i ons, f or Leni n, was t hespeci al way i n
whi cht hei r cl asses, and cl ass st r uggl es, evol ved.
I n col oni al nat i ons, t her e was no epoch of r i si ngcapi t al i sm, t hat i s, no epoch
domi nat ed by ar i si ngdomest i c bour geoi si e. Domi nat i on was exer ci sed by f or ei gn
monopol i es ; par t of t hel ocal bour geoi si e r ose t o t heext ent of becomi ngacl ass of
manager s and agent s, or occasi onal l y ver y j uni or par t ner s, but t he r emai nder wer e
r api dl y di senf r anchi sed by col oni al i sm. At t he same t i me, t he wor ker s, peasant s,
and i mpover i shed pet i t bour geoi si e wer e al so f or ced i nt o r api d cl ass evol ut i on and
st r uggl ebycol oni al oppr essi on. Under t heseci r cumst ances, t henat i on was not t he
out comeof ast r uggl ewagedpr i mar i l y by a r i si ngcapi t al i st cl ass agai nst t he f et t er s
of f eudal i sm- t he cl assi c model f or Eur ope. I t was t he out come mai nl y of an
ant i - i mper i al i st st r uggl e waged by al l t he oppr essed cl asses, and pr i mar i l y t he
TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es

153
wor ki ngmasses . Thi s, f or Leni n, made i t l i kel y t hat col oni al nat i onal i sm, t he
nat i onal l i ber at i on st r uggl e, woul d l ead not t o a f or mof `mat ur e' capi t al i sm( and
t hus t o t hecl assi cal capi t al i st nat i on, t het ypedescr i bed by S t al i n) , but t o soci al i sm.
S o t he nat ur e and dynami cs of col oni al nat i ons i n t he er a of i mper i al i smwer e
i nher ent l y di f f er ent f r omt hat of t he ol d Eur opean nat i ons, and t he ol d t heor y of
nat i ons had t o be suppl ant ed.
Fr om1915 unt i l t he end of hi s act i ve l i f e i n 1923, Leni n di scussed t he nat i onal
l i ber at i on of col oni es andot her oppr essed nat i ons i n one hundr ed or mor e ar t i cl es
and speeches . I n none of t hesedi d he r ef er t o or make useof S t al i n' s def i ni t i on of
`t he nat i on' . Nor di d he use S t al i n' s nomencl at ur e: `nat i on' , `nat i onal i t y' , ?nd
' peopl e' wer e appl i ed al most i nt er changeabl y, and `nat i onal mi nor i t y' was used t o
descr i be di f f er i ngki nds of communi t i es, i ncl udi nga smal l nat i on wi t hi n a l ar ger
st at e. Z' I n 1915 he comment ed t hat t he i ssue of sel f - det er mi nat i on i n t he er a of
i mper i al i smi s `not t he"nat i onal quest i on"' and t her eaf t er heused t hi s phr asever y
spar i ngl yi n r el at i on t o oppr essednat i ons ( out si deof Russi a) , event ual l y comi ngt o
di st i ngui sh f ai r l y shar pl y bet ween t he `nat i onal quest i on' and t he `col oni al
quest i on' . z 8 Even t o dwel l , as I amdoi ngher e, on mat t er s of def i ni t i on and
nomencl at ur e i s f or ei gn t o Leni n' s met hod, whi ch was t o r ej ect what he cal l ed
`abst r act ' and`f or mal ' appr oaches t o quest i ons of nat i onal l i ber at i on. `I n t hi s ageof
i mper i al i sm' , he sai d, `i t i s par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant . . . t o pr oceed f r omconcr et e
r eal i t i es, not f r omabst r act post ul at es, i n al l col oni al and nat i onal pr obl ems' . Zv
Leni n, af t er al l , was a di al ect i ci an, not a cat echi st .
I mper i al i smhas evol ved and changed si nce Leni n' s t i me, and oneof i t s newer
modes of appr opr i at i on, expl oi t at i on, and oppr essi on i s t he f or ced mi gr at i on of
t ens of mi l l i ons of wor ker s t o t he i mper i al i st hear t l ands . Thi s pr ocess may have
been l i mi t ed mai nl y t o I r el and i n t he 19t h Cent ur y( as wedi scussed bef or e) , and t o
per i pher al par t s of Eur opei n t he f i r st year s of t he pr esent cent ur y, because of t he
cost of l ongdi st ance t r anspor t at i on andt hei mmat ur i t y of t hi s newphenomenonof
i mper i al i sm. Leni n was cer t ai nl y awar e of t he phenomenon and i t s gr owi ng
i mpor t ance, and he di d not conf use i t wi t h t he ol der f or ms of l abour mi gr at i on
whi chhadchar act er i zed t heper i od of devel opi ngcapi t al i sm. I n hi s ear l i er wr i t i ngs
Leni n had i ndeed pr ovi ded a t hor ough anal ysi s of l abour mi gr at i on under pr e-
i mper i al i st condi t i ons, and had concl uded, cor r ect l y, t hat i t s ef f ect s wer egener al l y
pr ogr essi ve. Thi s was capi t al i sm' s er a of r api d gr owt h; mi gr at i on t o ar eas of
expandi ngempl oyment andhi gher wages was char act er i st i c of t he per i od; andt he
advanced ar eas, amongt hemt heUni t ed S t at es, wer eabl et o absor bt he i mmi gr ant s
f ul l y i nt o a bur geoni ng l abour f or ce. The r esul t i n gener al was nat i onal
assi mi l at i on. I t was par t of a `br eak- down of al l nat i onal bar r i er s by capi t al i sm' ,
and was t her ef or e `i nevi t abl e and pr ogr essi ve' . ' But al l t hi s changed when
capi t al i sment er ed t he er a of i mper i al i sm, t heer aof `t he oppr essi on of nat i ons ona
newhi st or i cal basi s' .
I t i s cl ear t hat Leni r. came t o vi ewt he newer a as onei n whi cht hecondi t i ons f or
nat i onal assi mi l at i on wer e di sappear i ng, t o be r epl aced by i ncr eased nat i onal
oppr essi on `bot hi n t hecol oni es andat home' . " Onecomment whi chhemadej ust a
f ewdays bef or e t he Oct ober Revol ut i on, dur i ngadi scussi on of t henewBol shevi k
par t ypr ogr amme, i s par t i cul ar l y, r eveal i ng:
154

TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es
~C9mr adeSok~pr eposes~vadd-i l i e~l r r as~: - _~)-abourof uns~i I l ed
f or ei gn wor ker s i mpor t edf r ombackwar dcount r i es' . Thi s addi t i on i s val uabl e
andnecessar y. Theexpl oi t at i on of wor sepai dl abour f r ombackwar dcount r i es i s
par t i cul ar l y char act er i st i c of i mper i al i sm. Ont hi s expl oi t at i on r est s, t o acer t ai n
degr ee, t hepar asi t i smof r i ch i mper i al i st count r i es whi chbr i be a par t of t hei r
wor ker s wi t h hi gher wages whi l eshamel essl y andunr est r ai nedl y expl oi t i ng t he
l abour of `cheap' f or ei gn wor ker s . Thewor ds `wor sepai d' shoul dbeaddedand
al so t hewor ds `andf r equent l ydepr i vedof r i ght s' ; f or t heexpl oi t er s i n `ci vi l i z ed'
count r i es al ways t ake advant age of t he f act t hat t he i mpor t edf or ei gn wor ker s
have no r i ght s . ' z
I t i s si gni f i cant t hat Leni n speaks her e of `f or ei gn wor ker s' , not `i mmi gr ant s' or
member s of ' nat i onal mi nor i t i es' , t hat he r el at es t hewhol epr ocess t o t hei mper i al i st
st age of capi t al i sm, andt hat he i dent i f i es asect or of f or ei gnwor ker s- l egal l y al i en,
andt her ef or e unassi mi l at ee - as bei ng `par t i cul ar l y char act er i st i c' of t hi s st age.
Equal l ysi gni f i cant i s hi s descr i pt i on of t hei mper i al i st count r y i t sel f . I t s capi t al i sm
nowdepends, par asi t i cal l y, on super expl oi t at i on ( and nat i onal oppr essi on:
depr i vat i on of r i ght s)wi t hi n i t s bor der s, hence i mper i al i smhas beeni nt er nal i z ed
i nt o i t s owncl ass st r uct ur e. Leni n al so al l udedt o t he r i se of an oppr essedAf r o-
Amer i can nat i on i n connect i on wi t h t he t r ansi t i on t o i mper i al i sm, r ef er r edt o t he
nat i onal oppr essi on of t he I r i sh i n Engl and, andgave var i ous ot her exampl es of
unassi mi l at edcommuni t i es i n t hei mper i al i st hear t l ands. Most cr uci al l y, heshowed
t hat t he condi t i ons whi ch l eadt o assi mi l at i on ar e di sappear i ng: i mper i al i smi s an
er a of deepeni ng nat i onal oppr essi on, of capi t al i smwhi chi s nowr eact i onar y and
mor i bund, not pr ogr essi ve andgr owi ng. I t i s not sur pr i si ng, t her ef or e, t hat Leni n
sai dnot hi ngaf t er 1914 about t hedi ssol ut i on of nat i ons or t hef or mat i onof nat i onal
mi nor i t i es .
St al i n' s t heor y of nat i onal mi nor i t i es i s i ncompat i bl e wi t h Leni n' s t heor y of
i mper i al i sm. Tobemor epr eci se, t hef or mer i s i nsepar abl e f r omat heor y of nat i ons
whi chwas descr i pt i vel y accur at ef or an ear l i er st age of Eur opean soci al evol ut i on
( t hest age of `r i si ngcapi t al i sm' )but whi chhas nowbeendi spl acedby at heor y of al l
nat i ons under moder n capi t al i sm- t hat i s, monopol y capi t al i smor i mper i al i sm.
Nat i onal mi nor i t i es wer eonl y cr eat edwher e, andwhen, capi t al i smwas expandi ng.
I n t hose t i mes andpl aces, j ob oppor t uni t i es wer e gr owi ng, pr ol et ar i an l i vi ng
condi t i ons wer eobj ect i vel y i mpr ovi ngi n t hecent r es of expansi on, andi mmi gr ant s
wer e assi mi l at ed, qui ckl y or sl owl y, i nt o t he host pr ol et ar i at and t he host
nat i onal i t y. Dur i ng t he per i od of t r ansi t i on, t he i mmi gr ant s f or med nat i onal
mi nor i t i es, communi t i es whi ch, f or a t i me, r emai nedet hni cal l y di st i nct but wer e
never t hel ess becomi ng assi mi l at ed. I do not deny t hat t he t r ansi t i on was pai nf ul :
capi t al i smmadef ul l useof t het r ansi ent s f or sl ave- wagel abour anduni on- bust i ng;
andt he i mmi gr ant s di d, i ndeed, l i ve i n ghet t os . But t hey escapedf r omt he ghet t os .
Even i n t hose days, however , t her e exi st edanot her ki ndof l abour mi gr at i on,
si gnal i z edby t he Af r i can sl ave t r ade andt he f or cedmi gr at i on of I r i shmen t o
Engl and, East I ndi ans t o t he Car i bbean, Chi nese t o Saut heast Asi a, nat i ve
Amer i cans t o r eser vat i ons- al l col oni es andsemi - col oni es . Thesef or cedmi gr at i ons
wer e anot her , nast i er f ace of evol vi ng capi t al i sm; andnone of t he communi t i es
whi ch t hey cr eat edhave anywher e ( under capi t al i sm)become f ul l y assi mi l at ed:
TheTheor y of Nat i onal Mi nor i t i es

155
t Ti ey ar e demogr aphi c mi nont i es of anot her t ype, a t ype t hat does not sat i sf y

1
i

St al i n' s def i ni t i on of a `nat i onal mi nor i t y' .
Under moder n i mper i al i sm, al most al l mi gr at i on i s f or cedmi gr at i on. Theer a of
i mper i al i smi s not one of devel opi ng, expandi ng capi t al i sm, but of decayi ng
capi t al i smwhi chi s usi ng ever y devi ce i t knows mer el y t o sur vi ve. Amost ef f ect i ve
devi cei s col oni al i sm: t hesuper expl oi t at i on of col oni al , semi - col oni al , and( wenow
must add)neocol oni al wor ker s, wi t h t henecessar yai dof pol i t i cal domi nat i on and
nat i onal oppr essi on . Today t he devi ce of col oni al i smhas become, as i t wer e,
t echnol ogi cal l y per f ect ed, andt her eby i mmensel y ver sat i l e. I t can ext r act i t s
col oni al super pr of i t s wi t hi n t hemet r opol i s- i n ghet t os, mi gr ant l abour camps, and
f or ei gn wgr _k_Pr ha_r r ar l ~g _
2g
; ; el l
a. . abr oad. The f Or C
a

' - - ' - ' Vu l i l l Sr at l Vl l Vl l. V1V1l LG1
peopl es i s si mpl y oneof t he opt i ons of col oni al i sm, an opt i on whi ch i s ut i l i z ed
under t hose condi t i ons wher e gr eat er sur pl us val ue can be obt ai ned by
t r ansl ocat i ng t hecol oni al wor ker s f r omcol ony t o met r opol i s t hancan beobt ai ned
by super expl oi t i ng t hemat home. For ced mi gr at i on of t hi s t ype i s mer el y
col oni al i smi nt er nal i z ed- or i nt er nal col oni al i sm( al t hough we cannot speakof
each ghet t o as an `i nt er nal col ony' i n t he st r i ct geogr aphi c sense). But i nt er nal
col oni al i smi s i nsepar abl ef r omext er nal col oni al i sm. Thegr eat est sur pl us val uei s
r eal i z edi f t he r epr oduct i on cost s of l abour andt he mai nt enancecost s of si ck, ol d,
andunempl oyedwor ker s can be expor t ed. ( Thi s expl ai ns, i n par t , t he `ai r br i dge'
bet weenNewYor kandSanJ uan, t heconst ant , massi ve, back- and- f or t h movement
bet ween col ony andmet r opol i s . ) When t hese soci al cost s ar e bor ne wi t hi n t he
met r opol i s, t hey ar e cost s of mai nt ai ni ng a col oni al wor kf or ce - not cost s of
assi mi l at i ng i mmi gr ant s .
I t f ol l ows t hat col oni al f or cedmi gr ant s do not l eave behi ndt he speci al f or ms of
pol i t i cal andnat i onal oppr essi on whi ch pr evai l i n t he col ony. Nor do t hey f i nd,
when t hey ar r i ve, a set of ci r cumst ances mar kedl y mor e f avour abl e t han t hose
pr evai l i ngi n t hehomel and. Al l t hey f i nd, i n essence, i s ar epl i ca of t hesamecol oni al
condi t i ons . I n t he col ony, t he i mper i al i st s i mpose t he f i er cest f or ms of cul t ur al
aggr essi on, t he pur pose of whi ch i s not t o assi mi l at e t he col oni al peopl e t o t he
col oni z er ' s nat i onal i t y, but t o paci f y t hemby wr est i ng f r omt hei r cul t ur e al l
possi bl e sour ces of r esi st ance - i ncl udi ng, i f possi bl e, t hei r l anguage. Thesame
aggr essi on descends on t hemi n t he met r opol i s . Andso t hey do not l ose t hei r
nat i onal i t y.
I amt empt edt o suggest t he t er m`col oni al mi nor i t i es' t o desi gnat e t hose
communi t i es of f or cedmi gr ant s whi ch have been cr eat edby i mper i al i sm, andt o
di st i ngui sh t hemf r omt he `nat i onal mi nor i t i es' descr i bedby St al i n. Cer t ai nl y t he
t er m`col oni al mi nor i t y' woul dper f ect l y f i t t hat por t i on of t he Puer t o Ri cannat i on
whi chl i ves i n t he US. But Mar xi st t heor y i s not muchf ar t her al ongi n i t s anal ysi s of
f or cedmi gr at i on, i nt er nal col oni al i sm, andr el at edphenomena t han i t was i n t he
days of Leni n, andwear eper haps not r eadyf or newt er mi nol ogy. Our l egacy f r om
Leni n i s si mpl y t he r ecogni t i on t hat Ther e exi st s a gener al t ype of mi nor i t y whi ch
or i gi nat ed i n i mper i al i sm, andwhi ch di f f er s f undament al l y f r omt he nat i onal
mi nor i t y of t hepr e- i mper i al i st epoch, t heepochof t hemel t i ng pot . But t henewer
t ypei s al most i nf i ni t el yvar i abl ei n f or m. I t i ncl udes wor ker s whoar el egal l y def i ned
( byt hei mper i al i st s)as `f or ei gn' , some of whomar eeven consi der edal i ens i n t hei r
Not es
156

The Theory ofNat i onal Mi nori t i es
ownage- ol d homel ands . I t i ncl udes workers t ransl ocat ed fromcl assi cal col oni es,
l i ke Puert o Ri co (and i n earl i er t i mes I rel and) , as wel l as workers t ransl ocat edfrom
i nt ernal and ext ernal neocol oni es. Leni n hi msel f woul d not have cal l ed for any
furt her exerci se i n defi ni t i on. He woul d probabl y have asked j ust one more
quest i on: are t hese workers engagedi n a st ruggl e t o l i berat e t hei r nat i on? Do t hey
share wi t h t hei r compat ri ot s a `wi l l t owards nat i onal exi st ence' ?33 For Puert o
Ri cans, t he answer i s yes .
1 . Chapt er 5 i s based on my essay: `Are Puert o Ri cans a Nat i onal Mi nori t y?' ,
Mont hl yRevi ew(1977) ; i nSpani sh(ret i t l ed as `Marxi smo y l a cuest i onnat i onal : el
caso de Puert o Ri co' ) i n Pensami ent o Cri t i co (1978) and el sewhere. Chapt er 6 i s
based on my `El mi t o de l a asi mi l aci on' , Cl ari dad (En Roj o) (1982) ; i n Engl i sh
(ret i t l ed and expandedas `Assi mi l at i on versus Ghet t oi zat i on' ) i nAnt i pode (1983) .
2. J . St al i n, `Marxi smand t he Nat i onal Quest i on' , i n St al i n' s Works 3, pp.
300- 381 . Ori gi nal l ypubl i shedas `TheNat i onal Quest i on and Soci al - Democracy' ,
i n 1913 .
3 . Leni n' s maj or cont ri but i ons ont hi s subj ect , i nmyopi ni on, are: `The Soci al i st
Revol ut i onand t he Ri ght of Nat i ons t o Sel f- Det ermi nat i on' , Leni n' s Works22, pp.
143- 56; `I mperi al i sm: The Hi ghest St age of Capi t al i sm' , i bi d. , pp. 185- 304; `A
Cari cat ure of Marxi smand I mperi al i st Economi sm' , 23 pp. 28- ?6; `Prel i mi nary
Draft Theses ont he Nat i onal andt he Col oni al Quest i ons' , 31, pp. 144- 51 ; `Report
of t he Commi ssi onont he Nat i onal and t he Col oni al Quest i ons' , i bi d. , pp. 240- 45;
`The Quest i on of Nat i onal i t i es or "Aut onomi zat i on" ' , 36, pp. 605- 1 l . The
st ruct ure of Leni n' s t heoryof i mperi al i smand t he at t endant t heori es of col oni al i sm
and nat i onal st ruggl e i s verycl earl y shown, probabl yfor t he fi rst t i me, i n Leni n' s
not es for a l ect ure del i vered onOct ober 28, 1915: Works 39, pp. 735- 42.
4. Amongnon- Marxi st schol ars whoconcur i n t hi s vi eware E. H. Carr andB. C.
Shafer. (See not e 32t o Chapt er 1 . ) Trot sky, nofri endof St al i n, cal l s `Marxi smand
t he Nat i onal Quest i on' St al i n' s `one and onl y. . . t heoret i cal work' ont he basi s of
whi ch, Trot sky grudgi ngl y concedes, `i t s aut hor i s ent i t l ed t o recogni t i on as an
out st andi ng t heoret i ci an' . But Trot sky hast ens t o add hi s opi ni on (not wi del y
accept ed) t hat t he essay was `whol l y i nspi red by Leni n, wri t t en under hi s
unremi t t i ng supervi si on and edi t ed by hi ml i ne for l i ne' - i n effect , ghost - wri t t en.
Leni n i ndeed `i nspi red' t he work and gave St al i n some gui dance. See L. Trot sky,
St al i n (1967) , pp. 156- 7.
5 . I nt ernat i onal Worki ngmen' s Associ at i on, The General Counci l of t he Fi rst
I nt ernat i onal , 1871- 1872: Mi nut es (1968) , pp. 194- 5 .
6. I bi d, pp. 197- 8. Engel s expressed si mi l ar vi ews wi t hregard mai nl yt o Pol and
i n an1882 l et t er . So l ong as Pol and remai ned unfree, he mai nt ai ned, her soci al i st
movement woul d be cent red among Pol es `l i vi ng abroad as emi grant s' .
I ndependence was essent i al t o t he st ruggl e for soci al i sm: `To be abl e t o fi ght one
must have fi rmground t o st and on, ai r, l i ght and room. Ot herwi se i t i s al l i dl e
t al k . . . I adheret o t he vi ewt hat t wonat i ons i n Europe are not onl yent i t l ed, but
obl i ged t o benat i onal before t hey become i nt ernat i onal : t heyare t he I ri sh andt he
Pol es. They are most of al l i nt ernat i onal whent hey are t rul ynat i onal ' . Marxand
The Theory ofNat i onal Mi nori t i es

157
Engel s on Prol et ari an I nt ernat i onal i sm, ant hol ogy (1972) , p. 62.
7. Quot at i ons are fromEngel s' art i cl e, `What have t he Worki ng Cl asses t o Do
wi t hPol and?' , i n: D. Fernbach, (ed. ) , KarI Marx: Pol i t i cal Wri t i ngs, vol . 3, TheFi rst
I nt ernat i onal andAft er (1974) , pp. 388- 92.
8. See Marx and Engel s, I rel and and t he I ri sh Quest i on, ant hol ogy (1971) , pp.
54- 8, 162, and el sewhere.
9. The rural port i onof Puert o Ri co i s rapi dl ybecomi ng depopul at ed; somevery
fert i l e regi ons are nowal most empt y of peopl e and unused for agri cul t ure. The
overal l popul at i onof t he col onyhas remai nedabout t he samefor t wodecades, wi t h
i n- mi grat i on by Domi ni cans, Cuban exi l es, and Nort h Ameri cans roughl y
compensat i ngfor t he net out - mi grat i on of Puert o Ri cans.
10. S~~i : , part i c~i ar: Leni n' s works i i , and i 8, esp. `The"VexedQuest i ons" of
our Part y: The"Li qui dat i oni st " and "Nat i onal " Quest i ons' ; St al i n, `Marxi smand
t he Nat i onal Quest i on' , pp. 300- 3 .
11. See H. B. Davi s, Nat i onal i smandSoci al i sm: Marxi st andLabor Theori es of
Nat i onal i smt o 1917(1967) .
12. Leni n, Works 18, p. 412.
13 . Leni n, `Cri t i cal Remarks ont he Nat i onal Quest i on' , Works 20, pp. 17- 51 ;
`The Ri ght of Nat i ons t o Sel f- Det ermi nat i on, ' I bi d. pp. 393- 454.
14. St al i n, `Marxi smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on' , pp. 324 and 331.
15 . St al i n, `The Oct ober Revol ut i onand t he Nat i onal Quest i on' , Works 4, p. 170.
16. St al i n, Foundat i ons of Leni ni sm(1939) , pp. 76- 7.
17. St al i n, `Marxi smand t he Nat i onal Quest i on' , pp. 303- 14.
18. Thedefi ni t i onreads: `Anat i on i s ahi st ori cal l y const i t ut ed, st abl e communi t y
of peopl e, formedont he basi s of acommonl anguage, t erri t ory, economi c l i fe, and
psychol ogi cal make- up mani fest ed i n a common cul t ure' (i bi d. , p. 307) .
`Hi st ori cal l y const i t ut ed' i s el aborat ed (on p. 313 ff) : `A nat i on i s not merel y a
hi st ori cal cat egorybut ahi st ori cal cat egorybel ongi ng t o adefi ni t e epoch, t he epoch
of ri si ngcapi t al i sm' .
19. I bi d. , p. 345.
20. I bi d, p. 339.
21 . Leni n, `Cri t i cal Remarks ont he Nat i onal Quest i on' , p. 27. I comment ont hi s
famous passage i n Chapt er 4, not e 59.
22. Leni n, not es for a l ect ure on `I mperi al i smand t he Ri ght of Nat i ons t o
Sel f- Det ermi nat i on' , [Oct ober, 1915] , Works 39, p. 739. Al so see 21, p. 293 .
23 . Leni n, `The Revol ut i onary Prol et ari at and t he Ri ght of Nat i ons t o Sel f-
Det ermi nat i on' , Works 21, p. 409.
24. Leni n, `I mperi al i smandt heSpl i t i nSoci al i sm' , Works 23, p. 106. Al sosee 21,
p. 226; 22, pp. 189- 91, 254, 341- 2; 26, pp. 163- 7; 31, pp. 215- 18.
25. Leni n' s vi ewont hi s mat t er i s wi t hgreat frequency mi sunderst ood. See hi s
Works, 22, pp. 193- 4and283- 4; 23, pp. 55- 6, 114; 31, pp. 193, 230, 248; 32, p. 454;
33, pp. 498- 9; 39, pp. 588, 615.
26. Leni n, `A Cari cat ure of Marxi smand I mperi al i st Economi sm' , p. 63 . For
Leni n' s vi ewof col oni al nat i ons, t hei r charact er, t hei r st ruggl es, and t hei r
si gni fi cance, see Leni n, Works, 21, p. 291 ; 22, pp. 151- 2, 312- 13, 355- 6; 23, pp.
33- 4, 59- 68, 196- 7; 2b, pp. 168- 9; 29, pp. 505- 6; 30, p. 208; 31, pp. 144- 51, 209,
240- 46, 328, 490; 32, pp. 484- 82; 33, pp. 143- 8, 349- 52, 372, 476- 9, 500- 501 ; 39, pp.
736- 42. Ont hi s mat t er, t oo, t here i s frequent mi sunderst andi ngof Leni n' s vi ew-
hi s t heory of col oni al i sm- and i t i s hel pful t o consul t t he appropri at e wri t i ngs.
27. I bi d, 36, pp. 608- 9.
28. I bi d, 39, p. 736. Not e, for i nst ance, t he report of t he `Commi ssi on on
15 8

TheTheory of Nat i onal Mi nori t i es
t heNat i onal andt heCol oni al Quest i ons' , at t he2ndCongress of t heI nt ernat i onal ,
i bi d. - 31, pp. 240- 46; see al so 31, pp. 144- 51 .
29 . I bi d. 31, p. 240; al so see31, p. 145; 33, p. 149, and36, pp. 607- 609.
30. I bi d, 19, p. 457.
31 . I bi d, 22, p. 151 .
32. Leni n, `Revi si on of t he Part y Programme' , Works 26, p. 168.
33. I bi d, 24, p. 434.
6. TheMyt hof
Assi mi l at i on
Onef al se assumpt i on has seri ousl y i nt erf ered wi t h an underst andi ng of Thi rd
Worl d i mmi grant communi t i es i n t he Uni t ed St at es, Bri t ai n, and most ot her
advancedcapi t al i st count ri es . I t l eads t o f al sej udgement s about t heseghet t oi zed,
essent i al l y worki ng- cl ass communi t i es, about t heghet t os i n whi cht hey l i ve, about
t hei r nat i onal andcul t ural charact eri st i cs, andabout appropri at e st rat egi es f or
soci al act i on. Thi s f al se assumpt i on concerns t hephenomenon of assi mi l at i on. I t
can be expressedi n t hef ormof t wof al sest at ement s . Onei s t hat peopl e whol i vei n
t heseThi rdWorl dghet t os areundergoi ng a process of di rect i onal soci al change,
t he t ermi nus of whi ch i s assi mi l at i on i nt o t hehost cul t ure andnat i onal i t y. The
ot her i s t hat t he ghet t os t hemsel ves, as cul t ural l y di st i nct and economi cal l y
depressed regi ons wi t hi n t he ci t i es of advanced capi t al i st count ri es, ei t her wi l l
di ssol ve i n t i me or wi l l persi st as t hehomespace f or successi ve communi t i es of
i mmi grant s, each group arri vi ng, dwel l i ng f or a t i me i n t hi s space, becomi ng
assi mi l at ed, movi ng out , andhavi ng i t s pl acet aken i n t urn by anot her i mmi grant
communi t y, t heprocess t hen bei ng repeat ed over andover i n an et ernal cycl e of
repl acement . Theassumpt i on, t hen, i s t hat t hesi ngl e f orce at work i n ghet t os i s
assi mi l at i on, andt hat assi mi l at i on wi l l di ssol ve t hecul t ural al i enat i on of ghet t o-
dwel l ers andevent ual l y l i f t t hemout of t heghet t os, di ssol vi ng t hephysi cal ghet t os
t hemsel ves or l eavi ng t hese i n pl ace t o serve as recept acl es f or t henext arri vi ng
group.
Thi s assumpt i on i s f al se, as I wi l l t ry t o showi n t he present essay. But t he
assumpt i on i s pecul i arl yt enaci ous. Thi s canbeexpl ai nedi n part byt hef act t hat t he
process of assi mi l at i on di d i ndeed prevai l i n 19t h Cent ury ci t i es i n advanced
capi t al i st count ri es, al t hough t herewere i mport ant except i ons, such as t he I ri sh
ghet t os i n Engl and. Andi n part i t canbeexpl ai nedbyt hef act t hat t heassi mi l at i on
assumpt i on i s bel i eved i n, axi omat i cal l y, by mai nst reamsoci al sci ent i st s andby
very manyMarxi st s as wel l . Theassumpt i on i s conf ormi st f or t hef ormer group: t o
bel i eve t hat t he soci al probl ems of ghet t o communi t i es can and wi l l be sol ved
under capi t al i smi s a cruci al t enet of est abl i shment i deol ogy. Among Marxi st s,
however, t hebel i ef i n assi mi l at i on i s mai nl y a vest i ge of earl i er Marxi st t hought ,
andspeci f i cal l y t hepre- Fi rst Worl dWar t heory, whi chwedi scussedi n t heprevi ous
chapt er, t hat capi t al i smdi ssol ves nat i onal di f f erences anddoes so wi t h great
rapi di t y i n t he case of l ong- di st ance l abour mi grat i on t o t he urban cent res of
devel opment . I t di ddo so i n pri or t i mes, but i t does so no l onger .
160

TheMythof Assi mi l ati on
I n thi s chapter I wi l l show whythe assi mi l ati on assumpti on i s f al se, not by
r evi ewi ng the Mar xi st and non- Mar xi st er r or s whi ch have been bui l t on thi s
assumpti on, but by di scussi ng the r eal i ty of the pr esent per i od, the er a of
i mper i al i sm, theer a i n whi chmi l l i ons of Thi r dWor l dwor ker s ar e tr anspor ted to
the metr opol i s and ther e r emai n, i n ghettos . Onl y one wor d wi l l be sai d about
Mar xi sts themsel ves ( our sel ves) bywayof i ntr oduci ngthetopi c of thi s chapter. The
str uggl e f or soci al j usti ce woul dbe i n better shapethan i t i s todayi f pr ogr essi ve
wor ker s ( andpar ti es) hadnot been conf usedf or sol ong bythe mythof assi mi l ati on.
We accepted that myth because i t seemed to conf or mto the ol d theor y that
i mmi gr ant wor ker s f or m`nati onal mi nor i ti es' and `nati onal mi nor i ti es' di ssol ve.
WeaCr enteA i t mnr e i mpnr ta_ntl y heC_. ~1~$e I t pr edi cted what we al l wanted: the
r ___ __, _
`br eak- down of nati onal bar r i er s' , theuni f i cati on of the wor ki ngcl ass i n ter ms of
uni f i ed consci ousness and uni f i ed f or ms of str uggl e, and the somehow natur al
di sappear ance of that pecul i ar l y i ntense oppr essi on andexpl oi tati on of i mmi gr ant
wor ker s whi chwas, tempor ar i l ywethought, di vi di ng thecl ass . Wethus r eachedthe
f i nal par adox: byi gnor i ng or denyi ng the r eal i ty of nati onal bar r i er s, we f ai l edto
wor k out str ategi es to r emove these bar r i er s, andso, i n the name of `pr ol etar i an
i nter nati onal i sm' , we str engthened them. I nter nati onal i st uni tyi s vi tal , but the
myth of assi mi l ati on stands i n the wayof achi evi ng i t .
Assi mi l ati on
Assi mi l ati on i s a pr ocess of absor bi ng an i mmi gr ant gr oup i nto the host cul tur e
( hence the wor d`accul tur ati on' means about the same thi ng when appl i ed to thi s
ki nd of si tuati on) . Assi mi l ati on occur s onl y under cer tai n condi ti ons, and these
condi ti ons ar ever yr ar ei nadvancedcapi tal i st countr i es dur i ng thepr esent centur y.
For assi mi l ati on to take pl ace, even i n par t, ther e must not onl y be a l oss of the
cul tur eof or i gi n but al soagai n of thehost cul tur e. Cul tur ecannot bedi vor cedf r om
cl ass, whi chi s oneof i ts components andoneof i ts deter mi nants ; ther ef or e, to gai n
the host cul tur emeans, amongother thi ngs, to f i t i ntothe host cl ass str uctur e. Thi s,
however , can onl y occur when ther e i s `r oom' f or f i tti ng the i mmi gr ants i n. And
thi s, i n tur n, i mpl i es that ther e i s demandf or a gr eat deal mor e l abour ; that the
l abour f or ce i s expandi ng r api dl y.
Thesecondi ti ons onl y occur , i n gener al , when capi tal i sm i tsel f i s expandi ng, as
was i ndeed the case i n the Uni ted States thr oughout the 19th Centur y, wi th i ts
i nsati abl e needf or newwor ker s bothas pr ol etar i at andto settl e newl ands andthus
gener atesur pl us val ue, di r ectl yandi ndi r ectl y, f r omthosewhowor kedthesel ands .
For Eur opean i mmi gr ants to the US dur i ng thi s per i od of expandi ngcapi tal i sm,
assi mi l ati on was i ndeed occur r i ng. I emphasi ze `Eur opean' because, as we wel l
know, nati ve Amer i cans, Af r o- Amer i cans, Asi ans, Mexi cans, and ( af ter 1898)
Puer toRi cans di dnot par ti ci patei n thepr ocess . Theywer e har dl y encour aged to
settl e l and on the( so- cal l ed) f r onti er , andtheydi dnot movei n substanti al number s
to theexpandi ng ur ban centr es . Thus even i n theper i od when assi mi l ati on was an
i mpor tant andpower f ul f or ce, i t was sel ecti ve i n i ts choi ce of subj ects .
Af ter the Fi r st Wor l dWar twochanges occur r ed. Thegr owth r ate of capi tal i sm
i n the US sl owed down, and the wor ki ng cl ass r eal l y began to or gani ze i tsel f ,
pr otecti ng the modest benef i ts i t had al r eadywon and f i ghti ng f or mor e. Si nce
TheMyth of Assi mi l ati on

161
capi tal nol onger neededar api dl yexpandi ngwor k- f or ce, andsi nce themaj or i tyof
the wor ker s di dnot have a hi gh enough l evel of cl ass consci ousness to appr eci ate
the str ategi c i mpl i cati ons of the si tuati on, the owni ng cl ass, assi sted by pl i ant
l abour l eader s, succeeded i n getti ng l egi sl ati on passed to sever el y r estr i ct
i mmi gr ati on . Af ter the mi d- 1920s, ver y f ewi mmi gr ants wer eadmi tted to the US.
Andnati ve Amer i cans, Af r o- Amer i cans, Asi ans, Mexi cans, and Puer to Ri cans
wer e not i nvi ted i nto the i ndustr i al ci ti es i n thei r stead, al though a f ew mi gr ants
f r omthese gr oups tr i ckl ed i nto theci ti es even so. Condi ti ons hadchanged.
Dur i ngthe pr i or per i od, newEur opean i mmi gr ants hadbeen absor bed i nto the
cl ass str uctur ei n ( r oughl y) thr ee stages .
l tl TTnnn ar r i val mnct of them- excl udi ng the mar i VWi l OCame to the Uni ted
, . ,

r . . . _ ____ . __, ______
States wi th some capi tal - j oi ned a f l oati ng wor k- f or ce whi ch ser ved both as a
sour ce of r ecr ui tment i ntothe empl oyed sector of the wor ki ng cl ass andas a maj or
par t of the r eser ve ar myof the unempl oyed.
( 2) Sooner or l ater , however , thegr eat maj or i ty of these i mmi gr ant wor ker s, or
thei r of f spr i ng, r ose i nto the steadi l y empl oyed sector i tsel f and became total l y
absor bed i nto the pr ol etar i at, enj oyi ng the modest benef i ts whi chthepr ol etar i at
had won f or i tsel f , i ncl udi ng the r i ght to occupy dwel l i ngs i n `decent'
nei ghbour hoods, to move to di f f er ent par ts of the US wher e oppor tuni ti es f or
hi gher wages exi sted, togai n someeducati on, andsoon. Thesubj ecti vef actor her e
was ver y i mpor tant. Theact of `r i si ng' i nto the no- better - than- aver age pr ol etar i at
convi ncedthe maj or i tyof i mmi gr ant wor ker s to r emai n i n thecountr y, andacti vel y
to become `Amer i cani zed' - that i s, assi mi l ated. Obj ecti vel y, they hadbecome
absor bed i ntothepr ol etar i at; subj ecti vel y, theywer ewel comi ng assi mi l ati on i nto
thecul tur e.
( 3) I n the thi r d phase of absor pti on, a phase i n whi ch onl y a mi nor i ty of the
f or mer i mmi gr ants par ti ci pated, ther e occur r ed a pr ocess of sel ecti ve r ecr ui tment
i nto the pettybour geoi si e, even occasi onal l y i nto the bi g bour geoi si e. Even i f we
excl ude those i mmi gr ants whoar r i ved i n the US wi th some capi tal and, l i ke many
Cubani mmi gr ants of mor er ecent ti mes, l ef t thepettybour geoi si e of onecountr yto
j oi n thepettybour geoi si eof another , i t i s never thel ess qui tetr uethat, as capi tal i sm
expanded, i t di dneed to r ecr ui t newmember s of the pettybour geoi si e f r omthe
pr ol etar i at : i t needed gr ocer s, shoemaker s, and the l i ke, and i t ver y par ti cul ar l y
needed petty entr epr eneur s i n ar eas too r i sky, or si mpl y too petty, f or or di nar y
capi tal to enter .
Andso, i n these thr eepr i nci pal ways, theear l i er Eur opean i mmi gr ants wer ef ul l y
absor bed i nto the host countr y' s cl ass str uctur e and f ul l y assi mi l ated i nto i ts
cul tur e. That manyof themr etai ned cer tai n Eur opean ethni c tr ai ts i s qui te besi de
the poi nt.
Between 1924 and the begi nni ng of the Second Wor l d War ther e was no
numer i cal l y si gni f i cant i mmi gr ati on f r omEur ope and no compensati ng i nter nal
mi gr ati on, nor mi gr ati on f r omUS col oni es l i ke Puer to Ri co. Themi gr ati on of
Af r o- Amer i cans f r omther ur al southwas qui temodest, Mexi cans wer eper i odi cal l y
depor ted, and ther e i s even some evi dence that segr egati on i n ci ti es i ncr eased,
i ndi cati ng that a new type of ghetto was bei ng cr eated. ' But thi s was a compl ex
per i od, punctuatedbythe Gr eat Depr essi on, andthef ul l devel opment of cul tur al
16 2

TheMythof Assi mi l ati on
andcl ass patter ns appr opr i ateto thematur estage of monopol ycapi tal i smhadnot
yet occur r ed. Thi s r eal l y happeneddur i ng the SecondWor l dWar i n theUni ted
States andaf ter thewar i n Eur ope.
Bytheear l y 1950s, thenewpatter ns wer e entr enched i n al l advancedcapi tal i st
countr i es . The post- 1945 expansi on of capi tal i sm i n these countr i es was not
spectacul ar , but i t was i ndeedtaki ng pl ace. Thedemandf or l abour was gr owi ngat a
moder ater ate. Thepr obl emwas that capi tal i smnowwas oper ati ng on a thi n ( and
f al l i ng) pr of i t mar gi n, so i t was vi tal to havethegr eatest possi bl econtr ol over the
quanti ty, l ocati on, andaboveal l wages, of l abour . The exi sti ng pr ol etar i at was
pr etty str ong; i ncr easi ng r el ati ve sur pl us val ue was ther ef or e ver y di f f i cul t . A
nnm}anr of mnr hani cmc wr Pr n of r mcwncPA by r ani tal i cm to r nr w wi th thi n
. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . . . , . . . . , . . . . , . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . , ~ _i . . . . . __ . . . __ __ r _ . . ____ _____
si tuati on, among thema f or mof contr ol l ed i nf l ati on ( r espondi ng to hi gher wages
byj acki ng uppr i ces) , andapar ti al substi tuti on of f i xedcapi tal andi mpor tedener gy
f or l abour .
Onepr i nci pal mechani smwas what wemaycal l thecontr ol l ed i ntr oducti on of
newl abour . Thi s was donei n twoways . Labour - i ntensi vemanuf actur i ng pr ocesses
wer eexpor ted, f i r st to Puer to Ri co ( i n thecaseof UScapi tal i sm) andl ater to many
other l ow- wagecountr i es. ( Typi cal l yasemi - f i ni shedpr oduct l ef t acountr yl i kethe
USandthef i nal commodi tyr etur ned to i t, so thi s expansi onof thel abour f i el df or
j ust onesegment i n al ong chai n of pr oducti on pr ocesses was i n no senseadi f f usi on
of i ndustr i al i zati on, muchl ess of advanced capi tal i sm, to per i pher al countr i es, as
some schol ar s, even some Mar xi st schol ar s, have asser ted. )
Theother mechani smf or the contr ol l ed i ntr oducti on of newl abour began
somewhat ear l i er andhas pr ovedto beat l east equal l yi mpor tant; per haps i n the
l ong r un i t wi l l bemor ei mpor tant . Thi s i s thecontr ol l ed i mpor t of l abour f r om
poor countr i es and r egi ons to the i ndustr i al centr es of theadvanced capi tal i st
countr i es. Thi s mechani smwas not i n i tsel f new: i t hadbeen used i n a pr i mi ti veway
byBr i ti sh capi tal wi th I r i shf or ced mi gr ant l abour , i n the19thCentur y, andbyUS
capi tal i n bothwor l dwar s wi th( mai nl y) souther n Af r o- Amer i can wor ker s . Butthi s
contr ol l edi mpor t of l abour r eal l ybecameastr uctur al f eatur eof capi tal i smi n mor e
r ecent ti mes . I ts essenti al f eatur ei s contr ol . Thi s means contr ol of the r ate and
sour ce of mi gr ati on, contr ol of the condi ti ons of l i f e andoppor tuni ty of the
i mmi gr ant wor k f or ce, and even, wher e possi bl e ( as i n col oni al Puer to Ri co) ,
contr ol of thecondi ti ons deter mi ni ng emi gr ati on f r omthehomel and. Al l thi s can
be descr i bed as a del i ber ate pol i cy, because by nowcapi tal i sm had become
moder ni zedto thepoi nt wher ethestatecoul dbedi r ectedto enf or cethesef or ms of
contr ol , to thebenef i t of most andper haps al l sector s of thebour geoi si e, bymeans
of over t l egi sl ati on andcover t r egul ati on. Oneaspect of thi s pol i cywas topr event
theassi mi l ati on of the i mmi gr ants .
Let us l ook ar oundthewor l dat thef or ms of contr ol usedon mi gr ant- no l onger
canwecal l them`i mmi gr ant' - wor ker s. Wher ever f easi bl e, theyar el egal l ydef i ned
as `f or ei gner s' . Thi s means that they ar edeni edcer tai n expl i ci t r i ghts, but, mor e
i mpor tant sti l l , they can bedepor tedi f they shoul d pr esumeto demandhi gher
wages, j oi n a uni on, go out on str i ke, or even l eaveoneempl oyer f or another . The
most i mpor tant exampl e of thi s sor t of contr ol l ed l abour i mpor t i s the `guest
wor ker s' ( Gastar bei ter ) phenomenon whi chhas br ought at l east 20, 000, 000 f or ei gn
TheMythof Assi mi l ati on

163
wor ker s i nto Ger many, Fr ance, andother i ndustr i al i zed Eur opean countr i es . The
cl osest par al l el i n theUSi s thebodyof documented( `l egal ' ) wor ker s f r omMexi co
andother NewWor l dcountr i es. Af ur ther par al l el i s f oundi n theSouthAf r i can
r aci sts' newpol i cy- i t di dnot exi st i n r eal f or ce acoupl e of gener ati ons ago- to,
f i r st, f or ceAf r i cans byl awto l i vei n `townshi ps' , andsecond, r e- def i nethem, agai n
byl aw, as f or ei gner s, bydecl ar i ng themto havenati onal `homel ands' , Bantustans,
f ar f r omthepoi nt of pr oducti on, to whi chthey can be`depor ted' .
Not al together di f f er ent i s thenewi mmi gr ati on pol i cyof Br i tai n( wi thpar al l el s i n
Canada) by whi ch mi gr ants f r om poor , non- whi te Commonweal th countr i es,
f or mer l y consi der ed `Br i ti sh subj ects' and `bear er s of Br i ti sh passpor ts' and
automati cal l y admi ssi bl e, ar enowdef i nedas f or ei gner s andal l owedto enter the
countr yonl yas neededbyBr i ti shcapi tal . Apar ti al par al l el i s to bef oundi n J apan,
wher e l ong- ti me mi gr ants f r omKor ea wer edeni ed the r i ght of ci ti zenshi p unti l
r ecentl yandar esti l l f or themost par t non- ci ti zens . Agai n i n theUS, ther ei s sti l l
another par al l el ( or car i catur e) . i n themassi vei n andout f l owof undocumented,
so- cal l ed `i l l egal ' , mi gr ants, f r omMexi co, the Domi ni can Republ i c, and other
countr i es . I t i s cl ear that thi s `i l l egal ' mi gr ati on i s del i ber atel y encour agedbyUS
capi tal , or cer tai n of i ts secti ons, behi nd a smokescr een of condemnati on ( r ather
l i ke Shel l exhor ti ng peopl e to save gasol i ne) , becauseundocumentedwor ker s ar e
under even ti ghter contr ol than other `f or ei gn' wor ker s . I n al l of thesecases i t woul d
besi l l yto empl oythe wor d`assi mi l ati on' .
Capi tal i n theUSi s f r ustr atedbyi ts i nabi l i tyto appl ythesamesor ts of contr ol s
to Puer to Ri canwor ker s, Af r o- Amer i can wor ker s f r omthesouther n Uni tedStates,
andMexi can wor ker s f r omtheSouthwest . Unf or tunatel yf or capi tal , i t must cope
wi th thel egal r el i c of pr e- monopol ycapi tal whi chconf er r edci ti zenshi p on these
wor ker s. z So other contr ol mechani sms have to be used, though f or the same
ul ti mate pur pose.
Ghettoi zati on
Themai n contr ol mechani smi s ghettoi zati on . Thi s has at l east thr ee di mensi ons .
Onei s spati al segr egati on i n thecommuni ty- at the poi nt of r epr oducti on - a
segr egati on enf or ced, not pr i mar i l ybyl aw, but bythewaythel awi s appl i edand
enf or ced. School segr egati on i s unl awf ul , but per si sts nonethel ess . Housi ng
di scr i mi nati on, i n r esi denti al pur chase, r ental , andi nsur ance, i s unpr osecutabl e.
Pol i ce deal savagel y wi th any si gn of r esi stance, l awf ul or unl awf ul . Andso on.
Ghetto space i s di f f er ent f r omSouth Af r i can `townshi ps' mai nl y because the
measur es usedto segr egatetheghetto ar epr eci sel ythesematter s of sel ecti ve l aw
enf or cement and taci t encour agement of housi ng di scr i mi nati on, not over t l egal
statutes, but theghetto i s not muchl ess cl ear l ydef i nedthan the`townshi p' . I thi nk i t
i s vi tal to add that f ewghetto- dwel l er s have the oppor tuni ty to move out of the
ghetto ( except to other ghettos, or back to Mi ssi ssi ppi or Texas or Puer to Ri co)
r egar dl ess of thenumber of gener ati ons theyhavel i vedther e. Evi dencef or thi s i s to
be seen i n theol dest Af r o- Amer i can ghettos, such as NewYor k' s Har l emand
Chi cago' s SouthSi de. ( Puer to Ri canandMexi canur banghettos ar egener al l ytoo
young to suppl y thi s categor y of evi dence. ) Except f or the smal l per centage of
peopl e who r ose i nto the petty bour geoi si e or other `mi ddl e- cl ass' l evel s ( i n
164

TheMythof Assi mi l ati on
consumpti on ter ms) , andexcept f or thosewhohavemovedto other ghettos or back
totheSouth, al most ever yf ami l ythat l i vedi n theseol dghettos i n the 1920s i s l i vi ng
ther e sti l l . Ever yone wi l l agr ee that r eal assi mi l ati on does not occur wi thout the
soci al i nter acti on pr ovi ded byr esi denti al mobi l i ty. Cul tur e change takes pl ace i n
the ghetto, but i t i s not assi mi l ati on.
Theseconddi mensi onof ghettoi zati on i s segr egati on at thepoi nt of pr oducti on
and, mor e gener al l y, segr egati on wi thi n the wor k- f or ce, i ncl udi ng the r eser vear my
of the unempl oyed. I do not want to get i nto the sti cky ar gument about a `sub-
pr ol etar i at' or an `under - cl ass' , but al l of us wi l l sur el yagr eeon cer tai n obvi ous and
wel l - known f acts . For onethi ng, Puer to Ri cans, Mexi cans, Af r o- Amer i cans, etc. ,
makeupthe maj ontyof the r eser ve ar my, al though They makeupl ess i ' r l an one
quar ter of thewor k- f or ce. Theof f i ci al unempl oyment r ate f or mi nor i ti es i n the US
i s at pr esent near l ythr ee ti mes the r ate f or whi tes . Secondl y, mi nor i tywor ker s ar e
systemati cal l y excl uded f r ommanycr af ts andcr af t uni ons and, beyond that, ar e
unabl e toget al most anysor t of wel l - pai dandsecur ej obi n most ar eas . ( Ther e ar e
excepti ons, expl ai nabl e i n hi stor i cal ter ms, such as the Af r o- Amer i can, Mexi can,
and Puer to Ri can wor ker s i n the steel mi l l s of Gar y, I ndi ana, and the Af r o-
Amer i can andMexi canwor ker s i n Mi chi gan autopl ants . ) Thi r dl y, thesegr oups ar e
concentr ated, muchmor e so than i s typi cal l y the case wi th maj or i ty wor ker s, i n
unor gani zed i ndustr i es andr el ati vel y weak uni ons. When manyother such i ndi ces
ar eaddedto the l i st, i t becomes cl ear that capi tal i smi s seeki ng, as apol i cy, todi vi de
the wor ki ngcl ass i nto anomor ethan or di nar i l yexpl oi tedandoppr essedsector and
asector whi chi s super expl oi tedandsuper - oppr essed. ( Thecl ass i s di vi dedon other
cl eavage l i nes as wel l . )
Thi s pol i cy i s mer el y a mechani sm, an attempt, whi ch the mor e consci ous
wor ker s r esi st. But i t i s i ndeedpol i cy, because i t i s neededf or capi tal accumul ati on.
I t has been successf ul enoughthus f ar to al l owus to speakher e of asuper expl oi ted
sector , sol ong as `sector ' i s under stoodto bea f uzzycategor y, si nce some mi nor i ty
wor ker s ar eoutsi de i t andmanymaj or i tywor ker s ar ei nsi dei t . ' Andi t goes wi thout
sayi ng that a sector of thel abour - f or ce whi chwor ks under theconstr ai nts i mposed
upon Lati no andAf r o- Amer i can wor ker s i n the US i s not bei ng assi mi l ated, or
absor bed, i n cl ass ter ms . Rather theopposi te i s the tendency. Asmal l per centage i s,
i ndeed, bei ngadmi ttedi nto the pettybour geoi si e. ( `Admi tted' i s not pr eci sel ythe
r i ght wor d. The r eal i ty i s a dynami c tensi on between the str uggl es of mi nor i ty
wor ker s to `r i se' i nto secur i ty and someti mes i nto the pettybour geoi si e, andthe
sel ecti ve r esi stance to that `r i se' , gr eatest i n spher es i mpl yi ng competi ti on i n the
accumul ati on pr ocess, l east i n spher es whi chestabl i shed capi tal cannot penetr ate
and i n spher es whi ch par ti ci pate i n contr ol of the mi nor i ty communi ty. ) An
addi ti onal smal l number enj oymi ddl e- cl ass consumpti on patter ns because they
wor k f or the state or hol d l ow- l evel manager i al j obs . And a l ar ge number i n
absol ute ter ms but a smal l number i n per centage ter ms do manage to get wel l -
payi ng and secur ej obs . I t maybe cor r ect to speak of cl ass assi mi l ati on f or these
gr oups . But theyadduponl yto asmal l f r acti on of themi nor i tywor k- f or ce. Andi t
i s not an i ncr easi ng f r acti on.
The thi r d di mensi on of ghettoi zati on i s somethi ng that can be cal l ed `cul tur al
col oni al i sm' . WhenI i ntr oducethe wor d`col oni al i sm' I must at the outset i ndi cate
TheMyth of Assi mi l ati on

165
pr eci sel ywhat i t means i n thecontext of di scour se. Theghettoi s not atr ue col onyi n
the geogr aphi cal sense: a bounded pol i ti cal r egi on under the expl i ci t r ul e of a
f or ei gn state. ( Puer to Ri co, f or compar i son, i s a tr ue col ony. `Commonweal th'
status car r i es wi th i t no mor e pol i ti cal autonomythan was possessedbythe most
typi cal of the ol d Br i ti sh, Fr ench, and Dutch col oni es . ) The ghetto i s not, i n
addi ti on, a tr ue neocol ony, gi ven the techni cal meani ng whi ch that ter mhas
acqui r ed dur i ng thepast decade: an of f i ci al l ysover ei gn state whi chi s nonethel ess
under theeconomi c domi nati on of f or ei gn cor por ati ons, usual l ythoseof af or mer
col oni al power , and typi cal l y under the pol i ti cal domi nati on of that power . The
ghetto i s best cal l ed a `semi - col ony' , because i t possesses most of the def i ni ng
att_ r i bl atec of ~nl nni PC to cnmr extent at l east h_ yt l ance nthr- r c, Rpt thi c i s di l l a
matter of homol ogy, not anal ogy( or `model ' )
Theessenti al attr i bute of col oni es i s theuseof pol i ti cal oppr essi on to enf or ceand
sustai n a patter n i n whi ch l abour suf f er s super expl oi tati on - expl oi tati on to the
poi nt wher e r epr oducti on of l abour i s bar el y possi bl e, and even i n some cases
beyond that poi nt - and not mer el y expl oi tati on. Ghetto wor ker s ar e
super expl oi tedi n thi s sense( of ten outsi de theghetto' s boundar i es) , andi n pol i ti cal
ter ms theyandthei r f ami l i es do not possess ver ymuchr eal , as opposedtomer el y
f or mal , enf r anchi sement and power i n any r espect f r ompar ti ci pati on i n l aw-
maki ng to contr ol over thepol i ce. Condi ti ons ar eper haps not as star kas theyar ei n
most cl assi cal col oni es ( and i n SouthAf r i can `townshi ps' ) , but the basi c col oni al
tr ai ts of super expl oi tati on enf or ced byoppr essi on nonethel ess ar epossessedbyUS
ghettos . The homol ogyi s most appar ent when we l ook at i ndustr i al i zed col oni es,
l i ke Puer to Ri co. Thecl ass str uctur es and modes of super expl oi tati on i n Puer to
Ri co ar e str i ki ngl yl i ke those i n the Puer to Ri can ghettos of the Uni ted States .
I n ter ms of the tr ai ts of or di nar y pol i ti cal geogr aphy, such as the pr esence of
pol i ti cal boundar i es andtheconstr ai ni ng of i nhabi tants wi thi n thi s space, ghettos
of the ur ban Amer i can sor t ar e not tr ue col oni es, or r ather they ar e soonl yto the
extent that segr egati on i s enf or ced: andl et us not under esti mate thi s extent . But
ghettos do not possess the si ngl e most essenti al pol i ti cal - geogr aphi c tr ai t : the
r eal i sti c abi l i tyto str i ve f or statei ndependence. Thedemandf or sel f - deter mi nati on
whi chi s constantl yvoi cedi n ghettos i s a demandf or enf r anchi sement andpeopl e' s
power , not f or i ndependence.
What, then, i s thi s cul tur al col oni al i sm? I n cl assi cal col oni es thi s i s a mechani sm
desi gned to paci f y: to suppr ess r esi stance. I t i ncl udes such devi ces as f or ci ng the
col oni zedto speak the col oni zer ' s l anguage, andteachi ng the col oni zedi n school s
that theonl ytr ue hi stor y i s the hi stor y of thecol oni zer ' s countr y. ( Ther ef or e, sai d
Ami l car Cabr al i r oni cal l y, when we wi n our i ndependence we r e- enter hi stor y. s)
Cl ear l y, cul tur al col oni al i smas i t occur s i n cl assi cal col oni es i s i n nosenseapr ocess
of assi mi l ati on. Nor i s i t suchi n theghettos .
The meani ng whi ch establ i shment soci al sci enti sts gi ve to the wor ds
`assi mi l ati on' and `accul tur ati on' i s usual l y nei ther spati al nor pol i ti cal nor
economi c: i t i s soci al andpsychol ogi cal . ( I t i s `cul tur al ' onl yi n thesenseof that ter m
whi chexcl udes manyaspects of cul tur e, most par ti cul ar l y matter s of pol i ti cal and
economi c power . ) Cul tur al col oni al i smas a di mensi on of ghettoi zati on i s nei ther
soci al l y nor psychol ogi cal l yan ef f or t to assi mi l ate. I t i s the pr ocess, enf or ced i n
166

TheMythof Assi mi l ati on
manyways, of f ormi ngmi grants i ntoamoul dwhi chi s quati tati vel ydi f f erent f rom
that of thehost cul ture. Herewehave to di sti ngui shmeans andends . Theends are
to paci f y the mi grants, prevent them f rom protesti ng thei r l i vi ng condi ti ons,
f i ghti ng f or equal ri ghts i n the communi ty andon the j ob; prevent themf rom
demandi ng, or even expecti ng, thepri vi l eges enj oyedbythehost prol etari at - the
pri vi l ege of movi ng to `decent' nei ghbourhoods outsi detheghetto, thepri vi l egeof
gai ni ng reasonabl y secure andwel l - pai dempl oyment, andthe l i ke. Theend, i n
short, i s not assi mi l ati on but ghettoi zati on. But the means towards thi s endare
someti mes mi staken f or the mechani sms used i n the ol d days to assi mi l ate
i mmi grants .
' Thi s
:

. . : k : ~, . i . , s.

s,

c o. . - . . : _~' r

~

a , . . h
er waua~oa a~a~ aai say t~i ~ ~aS~ i i i ta~L ' i Ti atter va avi a, ~us a. ati i av $i i u va
non- Engl i sh- speaki ngmi grants totheUStol earn Engl i sh. Most mai nstreamsoci al
sci enti sts si mpl y equate the transi ti on to Engl i sh wi th assi mi l ati on to the host
cul ture. I t i s not that . L anguagei s onl yonepart of cul ture. Manycol oni zedpeopl es
haveenduredtheparti al or total destructi on of thei r l anguage, yet haveretai ned
thei r cul ture, someti mes usi ngthecol oni zer' s l anguageaf ter i ndependencehas been
attai ned( as i n J amai ca) , someti mes rel earni ng the ol dl anguage ( as i n I rel and) .
Mi grants to US ghettocommuni ti es aref orcedtol earn Engl i sh( el sewhere i t maybe
Af ri kaans, German, French, etc. ) i n order to f uncti on as workers andconsumers; i t
i s amatter of survi val i n apl aceto whi chtheywerei nvol untari l ytransl ocated, and
whi chtheycannot l eave. b Beyondthat, thepressurepl aced on mi grants ( andmost
of al l on thei r school - goi ng chi l dren) to l earn andspeak Engl i sh, andf orget the
l anguage of ori gi n, i s an i mportant aspect of theef f ort to paci f y, i n part because
i deol ogy i s transmi tted through l anguage andi n part because theestabl i shment
i tsel f bel i eves that l anguage equal s cul ture, hence that l oss of the ol d l anguage
means abandonment of theol d cul ture. Thi s i s whysomethi ng cal l ed `bi l i ngual
educati on' i s accepted andeven f avoured by at l east part of the US educati onal
establ i shment, becausei t i s thought to serve as amechani smf or `transi ti oni ng' the
mi grant chi l dren to Engl i sh- l anguage i nstructi on, whi l e somethi ng el se cal l ed
`bi l i ngual - bi cul tural educati on' - educati on i n the l anguage andthe cul ture of
ori gi n as wel l as thehost cul ture- i s f uri ousl yresi stedbytheestabl i shment andj ust
as f i ercel ydemandedby thecommuni ty.
Thi s aspect of cul tural col oni al i smi s parti cul arl ytransparent i n thePuertoRi can
ghettos . Si nce1898 theUni tedStates has been attempti ngto i mposeEngl i shi n the
school s of Puerto Ri co. ( For a ti methecol oni al government attemptedtodi spl ace
Spani sh enti rel y as a l anguage of i nstructi on, but thi s was successf ul l y resi sted. )
Exactl ythesamesort of pressurei s nowexperi encedi n thePuertoRi canbarri os i n
theUS. I t i s resi sted i n bothsectors . I ndeed, resi stance to cul tural col oni al i smi n
everyarena f romeducati on to art i s, at the present ti me, i n the i sl and as i n the
barri o, one of the strongest mani f estati ons of popul ar resi stance i n general . I n
Puerto Ri co i t i s wi del y real i zed that cul tural col oni al i smi s ghettoi zati on.
Ghettoi zati on i nvol ves certai n prof ound cul tural changes at the l evel of the
i ndi vi dual , andi t i s easyto mi si nterpret thenature of thesechanges andtake them
as si gns of assi mi l ati on . Some of the changes are components of a process of
adaptati on tobi g- ci tyl i f e f or peopl ewhocome, f or themost part, f romrural areas
andsmal l towns, andf orced changes of thi s sort havebeen thel ot of rural - urban
TheMythof Assi mi l ati on

167
mi grants si nce" the Engl i shpeasants weref orcedi ntothe18th Centurymi l l towns. ( I
ref er heretochanges i n thetype andsi zeof f ami l y, i n therhythmof dai l yacti vi ti es,
i n thescal eof homespace, i n thestrategi es of keepi ng warmandwel l - f ed, andthe
l i ke. ) Acqui ri ng the host l anguage i s traumati c i n i tsel f , parti cul arl y when the
acqui si ti on has to be accompl i shedwi thout muchhel p, andwhen anyaccent- even
that of a di f f erent di al ect of Engl i sh- i s an economi c handi cap. Apart f romthese
sorts of adapti ve changes, there are val ues and behavi our patterns whi ch the
domi nant cul ture ( or rather i ts el i tesector) tri es to i mpose on themi grants andthei r
chi l dren, patterns desi gned to paci f y, to encourage appropri ate consumpti on
habi ts, andso on.
Oneveryi mportant di mensi on of change i s theparti al growi ng- together of the
cul tures of ghettoi zedcommuni ti es. Thi s, too, i s of ten mi staken f or assi mi l ati on ( as
when L ati no youth i n some areas speak Engl i sh i n the streets i n pref erence to
Spani sh, but i t i s theEngl i shof theAf ro- Ameri can ghetto communi ty) . I t seems
probabl e tomethat thi s growi ng- together i s ul ti matel y a ref l ecti on of capi tal i sm' s
needf or onehomogeneous type of ghetto soci ety but theprocess- a verysl owone
i n anycase- has aposi ti veconsequence: theheal thyi nterf erti l i zati on of cul tures .
theef f l orescenceof newcreati ve f orms of pai nti ng, poetry, musi c, andthel i ke, and
the l i nki ng- up of struggl es.
Concerni ngtheenti reprocess of cul tural changeof thetypeI havecal l ed`cul tural
col oni al i sm' ( because i t i s homol ogous to the f orced cul tural change that takes
pl acei n true col oni es, andhas thesameessenti al pol i ti cal andeconomi c f uncti on) ,
threeaddi ti onal observati ons must bemade. Fi rst, there i s f i erce andconti nuous
resi stanceto thosechanges whi chareunwanted. Second, i t i s characteri sti c of most
ghetto communi ti es i n thei ndustri al countri es, i ncl udi ngtheUS, that members of
thesecommuni ti es f requentl ytravel back to thehomearea, remai n theref ora whi l e
( worki ng or l ooki ng f or work, taki ng care of el derl y or si ck rel ati ves, andso on) ,
andthen return, repeati ngtheprocess a number of ti mes i n thespaceof al i f eti me.
I n thecase of Puerto Ri cans, therel ati ve( not absol ute) ri seandf al l of empl oyment
opportuni ti es i n thei sl andas comparedto themai nl andl eads to strongsurges, f i at
i n onedi recti on, then i n the other . Thus wespeak of an `ai r bri dge' between San
J uan andNewYork, a constant streamof peopl e movi ng i n bothdi recti ons . And
comparabl eprocesses are to beseen i n other ghetto communi ti es i n the US and
Europe, al ongwi ththe`guest workers' i n Europeandother i nstances of theprocess
weare di scussi ng. The resul t of al l thi s movement back andf orth i s a constant
rei nf orcement of thenati ve cul ture i n theghetto, hencea strong braki ngacti on on
ghettoi zi ng cul tural changes. Andthe thi rd cri ti cal observati on, i n part an
i mpl i cati on of thepri or two, canbest beexpressedas f ol l ows : ghettoi zati on i ssl ow.
Bef ore theprocess has gonevery muchf arther, I suspect, i t wi l l have been stopped
bysoci al i sm.
Acertai n number of peopl e i n theghetto do, i ndeed, becomeassi mi l ated. The
number i s qui te l arge, al though the percentage i s qui te smal l . The essenti al
prerequi si tef or assi mi l ati on i s absorpti on i ntotheordi narycl ass structure, wi th i ts
modest benef i ts to workers ( j ob securi ty, above- subsi stencewages, andthel i ke) and
i ts muchmore modest opportuni ti es f or `ri si ng' i nto thepettybourgeoi si e. Some
mi nori tyworkers succeedi n f i ghti ng thei r wayi ntothi s structure, al thoughsuccess
168

TheMythof Assi mi l ati on
i s al ways some combi nati on of ski l l andl uck . ( The ski l l s ar e hel dbymany. Onl ya
f ewget the chance to capi tal i ze on them. ) When a wor ker has gai ned the cl ass
posi ti on gi vi ng hi maccess to the modest pr i vi l eges of the aver agepr ol etar i an, and
i n par ti cul ar the chance to l eave the ghetto or buya houseat i ts mor e af f l uent
mar gi n, he ( or mor e r ar el y she) then, f or the f i r st ti me, has agenui nechoi cei n the
matter of assi mi l ati on, or at l east a choi ce wi thi n the wi der constr ai nts of r aci sm.
Empi r i cal l y i t i s tr ue that manysuch wor ker s andthei r f ami l i es i n the USopt f or
assi mi l ati on, f or `Amer i cani zati on' . Many, on the other hand, make the opposi te
choi ce: f or i nstance, they mayr etur n to the homel and to stay, nowhavi ng the
wher ewi thal to do so. The poi nt i s that ei ther choi ce entai l s a r ej ecti on of
s. . . . . . . ~ati o: . .
Asecondr oute towar ds the same goal i s educati on. Agai n i t i s a combi nati on of
ski l l andl uck that al l ows a Puer to Ri can or Mexi can or Af r o- Amer i can youngster
i n theUSto get i nto col l egeandstayther e. Ther ei s l i ttl e i f anycor r el ati on between
these ski l l s and the deter mi nants of admi ssi on- test or apti tude- test scor es, as
evi dence the f act that nati onal l y- used tests pr edi ct l i ter al l y nothi ng about the
academi c potenti al of mi nor i typeopl e. ' I n theghettos the gr eat maj or i ty of young
peopl ehave the abi l i tytoget i n, stayi n, andgr aduate f r omcol l ege, but theabi l i ty
can onl y be put to use under those ver y unusual combi nati ons of ci r cumstances
whi chI have desi gnated r ather cr udel yas `l uck' . Luck her ei ncl udes suchthi ngs as:
af ami l yi ncomehi gh enoughso that a teenager does not have to l eave hi gh school
andgoto wor k ; teacher s whowi l l i nsti l l the knowl edge andtest- taki ngski l l s needed
to pass the admi ssi ons and( so- cal l ed) apti tudetests andthus to gai n admi ttanceto
col l ege; an envi r onment per mi tti ng successf ul r esi stance to dr ugs andgangcul tur e;
andso on. Acol l ege or uni ver si tyi s an assi mi l ati on f actor y. Wi thout i nvoki ng the
mysti ci smof a Hegel i an `wi l l ' , we can nonethel ess postul ate that the number of
ghetto youthwhomthe systemwi l l i ngl yadmi ts i nto andgr aduates f r omcol l ege i s
r oughl y the number that capi tal i sm needs f or r ecr ui tment i nto var i ous r ol es
r equi r i ng some degr ee of assi mi l ati on, al ong wi th speci al i zed techni cal and
academi c ski l l s. ( Of cour se, an addi ti onal number of ghettoyouths managetogoto
col l ege thanks to the communi ty' s str uggl es . ) Acer tai n number ar e r ecr ui ted i nto
i nter f ace j obs, l i ke f or ei gn- l anguage r adi o and TVannounci ng, i nter pr eti ng,
adver ti si ng, andthe l i ke. Other s ar e r equi r ed f or j obs that hel p to contr ol and
manage the ghetto communi ty i tsel f . Sti l l other s ar e r equi r ed f or the economi c
i nter f ace: mi nor i ty- f r onted busi nesses, ghetto stor es of cer tai n speci al i zed types,
l ow- l evel super vi sor y and manager i al wor k i nvol vi ng super vi si on of mi nor i ty
l abour , andthe l i ke. Hencether e must bea measur ed- anda contr ol l ed- f l owof
ghetto youththr oughcol l egeandtowar ds the r ol es whi chei ther r equi r e or per mi t
assi mi l ati on.
Agai n, however , ther e i s a degr ee of choi ce. Ghetto teenager s donot or di nar i l y
di scar dthecul tur al andcl ass atti tudes of thei r f ami l i es andcommuni ty. Al most al l
whogr aduate f r omcol l ege have been shapedto some degr ee bythi s assi mi l ati on
f actor y. But the f or ce i s not i r r esi sti bl e. Andmanyof themwi l l haveencounter ed
the i deas whi chhel p to r ei nf or cethei r sense of cul tur al andcl ass i denti ty. Over al l ,
the changes whi ch the col l ege exper i ence engender s ar e assi mi l ati ve i n thei r
di r ecti onal i ty, but thei ndi vi dual canchooseto takeadi f f er ent path. I must addthat
TheMythof Assi mi l ati on

169
oneof the most i mpor tant r easons whythoughtf ul peopl e i n the maj or i ty cul tur e
bel i eve that assi mi l ati on i s tr ul y taki ng pl ace i s thei r tendency to i nter act onl y, or
pr i mar i l y, wi th i ndi vi dual s f r omthe ghettos who ar e col l ege- educated. Most ar e
not.
Resi stance
Ghettoi zati on i s a necessar ycomponent of moder n capi tal i sm. I t i s the pr i nci pal
mechani smf or mai ntai ni ng a super expl oi ted sector of the l abour - f or cewi thi n the
advancedcapi tal i st countr i es. I t f ol l ows that the onl y wayto put a per manent stop
to the ghettoi zi ng pr ocess i s to el i mi nate capi tal i sm i tsel f . However , ther e ar e
mani f ol dways to r esi st thepr ocess : at theaggr egate scal eof enti r e communi ti es, to
sl owthe pr ocess down; at the scal eof the i ndi vi dual ghetto- dwel l er andhi s or her
f ami l y, to f i ght i t of f successf ul l y. Si nce super expl oi tati on i s the economi c engi ne
whi chdr i ves the pr ocess, acr uci al f or mof r esi stance i s at the wor kpl ace. Asecond
f or mi s thepol i ti cal f i ght f or l egi sl ati on topr otect ther i ghts of l abour i n gener al and
super expl oi ted l abour i n par ti cul ar , al ong wi th the f i ght f or l egi sl ati on to pr otect
mi gr ant wor ker s, especi al l y undocumented ( `i l l egal ' ) wor ker s, andl egi sl ati on to
def end the ghetto communi ty. Sti l l another f or m of r esi stance i nvol ves the
communi ty' s ownstr uggl eon manyf r onts - agai nst ar son, pol i cebr utal i ty, Nazi s,
f or ced ster i l i zati on, dr ugs, substandar d educati on, communi ty destr ucti on
euphemi zed as `ur ban r enewal , and so on. These and many other f or ms of
col l ecti ver esi stancear etoowel l - known to r equi r edi scussi on i n the pr esent context.
I needonl yaddthat r esi stanceat thi s l evel , i n theUSat l east, has appar entl ysl owed
the ghettoi zati on pr ocess to the poi nt wher e most ghetto communi ti es i n r ecent
year s haveal most been abl e to hol dthei r own, even under Reagan. Thi ngs havenot
i mpr ovedbut they have not gr own r api dl ywor se. Theymaywel l doso dur i ng the
depr essi on year s whi chl i e ahead.
Resi stance to ghettoi zati on at the l evel of i ndi vi dual s andf ami l i es i s i n par t a
matter of par ti ci pati on i n the col l ecti ve f or ms of str uggl e whi chwer e menti oned
above. But ther e ar e, i n addi ti on, str ategi es whi chcan wor k f or some peopl e i n a
communi tywhi l e they cannot wor k f or the communi tyas a whol e. I wi l l cal l
attenti on to two such str ategi es . Onei s the pr ocess, menti oned i n the pr ecedi ng
secti on, of f i ghti ng f r ee of ghettoi zi ng f or ces to the poi nt wher e a par ti al l y f r ee
choi ce of l i f e- tr aj ector y i s possi bl e. Onesuch tr aj ector y, par adoxi cal though thi s
mayseem, i s assi mi l ati on . Ami gr ant wor ker andhi s or her f ami l y can take thi s
tr aj ector y wi thout gi vi ng up al l of the val uedcomponents of thei r nati ve cul tur e.
Theycan take advantage of the much vaunted `cul tur al pl ur al i sm' , and become
`hyphenated Amer i cans' , pr ovi di ng onl y - but her e i s the r ub - that they have
pr evi ousl ywon thebasi cal l yeconomi c str uggl eto f i ght f r ee of ghettoi zati on andi ts
constant compani on, super expl oi tati on. I n other wor ds, assi mi l ati on i s a f r ui t of
r esi stance. I t i s not a gi f t f r om the system, much l ess an i nevi tabl e f ate f or al l
mi gr ants . What the systemf or ces, or tr i es to f or ce, upon the i ndi vi dual i s not
assi mi l ati on, but ghettoi zati on. On the other hand, some i ndi vi dual s andf ami l i es
choose another tr aj ector y: r etenti on of the cul tur e of or i gi n. For Puer to Ri cans i n
theUS, andf or some other mi gr ant communi ti es, thi s choi cewoul dnor mal l y( but
not necessar i l y) i nvol vear etur n tothenati vel and. Ther ear e, of cour se, twosor ts of
170

TheMythof Assi mi l ati on
Notes
r etur n. Onei s the desper atestr ategy of r etur ni ng to seek a l i vel i hood when such
cannot beobtai ned i n theUS. Theother sor t pr esupposes successful r esi stanceto
ghettoi zi ng for ces and i n par ti cul ar theacqui si ti on of savi ngs or attai nment of a
ski l l ed tr adeor pr ofessi on, suchthat ther etur n wi l l per haps br i nga l i fefr eefr om
fur ther super expl oi tati on. Let meonceagai n emphasi zethat theser el ati vel y fr ee
choi ces ar eonl yaccessi bl eto a smal l mi nor i tywi thi n anyghetto communi ty.
Oneother str ategyof r esi stancer emai ns tobedi scussed. Whether i t i s avai l abl e
toal l ghettocommuni ti es or not I donot know. I wi l l outl i nei t fi r st for thePuer to
Ri can communi ty, and l ater ventur esometentati vegener al i zati ons. Puer toRi cans
i n theUS, or al most al l of them, haver etai ned thei r Puer toRi cannati onal i ty. J ust
whythi s i s so, and whywe can speak of Puer to Ri coas a `nati on di vi ded' . wi th
two- fi fths of i ts fi ve mi l l i on nati onal s l i vi ng as for ced mi gr ants i n theUS, I have
tr i ed to expl ai n i n Chapter 5. I n thi s chapter I havenoted twocr uci al r easons: the
`ai r br i dge' , and the fact that the vector of i mposed cul tur al change i n the US
ghettos i s not assi mi l ati vebut ghettoi zi ng, apr ocess that does not destr oythenati ve
nati onal i tyandr epl acei t bythehost nati onal i ty. I nanyevent, Puer toRi cans i n the
USconsi der themsel ves to bePuer toRi cans . And thi s l eads themto par ti ci pate,
someti mes ver yacti vel y, i n thestr uggl etofr eethei r countr y. Tr uei ndependencefor
Puer toRi comust entai l not mer el y`fl ag sover ei gnty' but al so soci al i sm, as most
i ndependenti stas agr ee, because, among other thi ngs, thePuer toRi can economyi s
al most enti r el y(90 per cent) US- owned, and col oni al i smi n Puer to Ri coi s i tsel f
mai nl ya r efl ecti on of thepr ofi tabi l i tyof thi s i sl and for UScor por ati ons .
Oneof ther eal , andoften qui ckl yattai ned, fr ui ts of soci al i smfor poor countr i es
has pr oved tobeatr ansfor mati on fr omal abour - sur pl us condi ti on tooneof l abour
shor tage. Thus wemayar guethat not ver yl ong after thel i ber ati on of Puer toRi co
ther ewi l l begi n tobeoppor tuni ti es for Puer toRi cans whonowl i ve i n theUSto
r etur n under ci r cumstances i n whi chtheywi l l beabl e to fi nd wor k and enj oya
per haps modest but cer tai nl y suppor tabl e standar d of l i vi ng. (Today the
ci r cumstances of r etur n ar eunempl oyment andfood stamps. ) Not al l , andper haps
not even themaj or i ty, wi l l chooseto r etur n. But i t i s cl ear that onesi de- benefi t of
thel i ber ati on of Puer toRi cowi l l bean oppor tuni tyfor Puer toRi cans i n theUSto
fi ght fr eeof theghettobyr etur ni ng toasoci al i st Puer toRi co. Thi s str ategyi s not at
al l awi thdr awal fr omstr uggl ei n theUS. I n gener al , i mmi gr ant andfor ei gnwor ker s
tend tobeamong themost mi l i tant par ti ci pants i n l abour ' s str uggl es i n thehost
countr ywhi l etheyal sofi ght for thel i ber ati on of thei r nati ve l and. Mi l i tancyi s not,
after al l , a substance to be decanted out of onestr uggl e i nto another . I t i s a
wel l - spr i ng.
1 . See G. Davi s and F. Donal dson, Bl acks i n the Uni ted States: A Geogr aphi c
Per specti ve(1975) , Chap 6.
TheMythof Assi mi l ati on

171
2. Ci ti zenshi p was confer r ed on Puer toRi cans i n 1917, but i t entai l ed noci vi l or
pol i ti cal r i ghts other than thepr i vi l egeof fr ee entr yi nto theUS. That pr i vi l egedi d
not become si gni fi cant unti l 30 year s l ater : the Puer to Ri can popul ati on i n
mai nl and UStodayi s about ten ti mes what i t was at thebegi nni ng of theSecond
Wor l d War . Notethat thefr ee entr ypr i vi l egewas al so accor ded Br i ti shcol oni al
subj ects for i mmi gr ati on toGr eat Br i tai ni n for mer ti mes. Theywer etechni cal l y
`Br i ti sh subj ects' , but theygai ned nopol i ti cal or ci vi l r i ghts fr omthi s status .
3. Thesector s i denti fi ed her ear econgr uent wi ththesector s di sti ngui shed, andby
nowestabl i shed empi r i cal l y, bydual (or spl i t) l abour mar ket theor i sts. SeeM. M.
Pi or e, Bi r ds of Passage: Mi gr ant Labor and I ndustr i al Soci eti es (1979) , and R. S.
Br yce- Lapor te(ed. ) , Sour cebook on theNewI mmi gr ati on (1980) . Dual i ty, and i ts
r el ati onshi p to mi gr ant l abour , i s gi vena Mar xi st theor eti cal i nter pr etati on byM.
Castel l s i n hi s essay, `I mmi gr ant Wor ker s and Cl ass Str uggl es i n Advanced
Capi tal i sm: The West Eur opean Exper i ence' , i n R. Cohen and other s (eds . ) ,
Peasants andPr ol etar i ans: TheStr uggl es of Thi r d Wor l d Wor ker s (1979) . Al though
Castel l s does not di scuss ghettos or assi mi l ati on, hedemonstr ates, for Wester n
Eur ope, that themai ntenanceof a `per manent fr acti on of i mmi gr ant wor ker s' i s a
`uni fi edi nter est of thedomi nant cl asses' (p. 370) , and that `thestatus offor ei gner ' i s
cr uci al to thefuncti onal i tyof thesewor ker s.
4. J . M. Bl aut, `TheGhetto as an I nter nal Neocol ony' , Anti pode6, 1 (1974) . (I
woul d nowuse `semi - col ony' i nstead of `neocol ony' but woul d not other wi se
changethear gument of thi s paper. )
5. A. Cabr al , `Nati onal Li ber ati on and Cul tur e' , i n Afr i ca I nfor mati on Ser vi ce
(ed. ) , Retur n to theSour ce: Sel ected Speeches byAmi l car Cabr al (1973) .
6. `Tr ansl ocati on' seems abetter ter mthan `mi gr ati on' i n cases suchas thosewe
ar edi scussi ng i n whi chmovement i s essenti al l yi nvol untar y, or for ced; i nwhi ch`the
deci si on tomi gr ate' i s a for ced deci si on.
7. I t pr oved tobetr ue for Lati noappl i cants tomyuni ver si ty(theUni ver si tyof
I l l i noi s at Chi cago) that test scor es on the `Amer i can Col l ege Test' , or `ACT' , a
col l egeadmi ssi ontest used i n manyuni ver si ti es thr oughout theUni tedStates, wer e
absol utel y uncor r el ated wi th academi c success. Manyother studi es haveyi el ded
compar abl efi ndi ngs wi th mi nor i tystudents for thi s and si mi l ar tests. Thesetests
havebecomea keydevi cefor denyi ng auni ver si tyeducati ontoThi r dWor l dpeopl e
i n theUS.
7. Cl ass Struggl es across a
Boundary
TheProbl emof Eurocentri smi nthe Marxi st Theoryof
Col oni al i smandNati onal i sm
Thepurposeof thi s chapter i s togeneral i zetheMarxi st theoryof nati onal struggl e;
to i nf i x i t f i rml yi nthe broader f ramework of hi stori cal materi al i sm. Thi s i s more
thanamatter of f i tti ng thepart i ntothewhol e. Somerather seri ous probl ems are
i nvol ved, andsomethi ngwi l l havetobesai dabout theseprobl ems bef oreweturnto
themai ntask at hand.
Therei s oneunderl yi ng probl em: Eurocentri sm, wi th i ts constant compani on,
di f f usi oni sm. There i s Eurocentri c di f f usi oni smwi thi neach of the twoaberrant
vi ews of the Marxi st theoryof nati onal i smor nati onal struggl eagai nst whi chI have
arguedi nthi s book. Oneof thesei s the vi ewthat nati onal i smi s at root ani dea, a
Europeani dea, whi chdi f f usedoutwards f romnorthwesternEuropetothecol oni al
worl d, andthat nati onal l i berati on movements do not, theref ore, ref l ect the
col oni al peopl es' response to oppressi onandsuperexpl oi tati on, but si mpl yref l ect
thespreadtoandthroughthecol oni es of asupposedl yenl i ghteni ngEuropeani dea,
the`i dea of thenati on- state' ; or the`i dea of f reedom' . ( Seechapters 2and3above. )
Thesecondaberrant vi ew- i t was, as we have seen, the domi nant Marxi st vi ewi n
theyears bef ore the Fi rst Worl dWar but was thenchal l engedbyLeni nandl ater
di scredi tedbythereal i tyof nati onal l i berati on- i s the thesi s that nati onal struggl es
are i nherentl ybourgeoi s; that theyarosewi th the ri se of the Europeanbourgeoi si e
andl ater appearedel sewhere as some f ormof bel atedbourgeoi s revol uti on( or
emergence of capi tal i sm) ; that they must somehowdecl i ne i n i mportance, or
becomei rrati onal , as capi tal i smi tsel f becomesf ul l yi nternati onal , no l onger havi ng
needf or the nati onal state; andthat nati onal struggl es have no i ntegral pl ace i n
worki ng- cl ass struggl es agai nst the bourgeoi si e. ( See Chapter l , Chapter 4, and
Chapter 5. ) I have tri edto showthat the central Marxi st posi ti on, sketched i nby
Marx andEngel s andthendevel oped by Leni n, hol ds that nati onal struggl e i s
speci f i cal l y af ormof the cl ass struggl e f or statepower, that i t canbe empl oyedby
anyof several cl asses, i ncl udi ng the worki ngcl ass, andthat i t became a central
arena of struggl e i n the Thi rd Worl dpreci sel y because external l y i mposed
oppressi onandcol oni al superexpl oi tati onrequi redthi sresponse: a struggl etosei ze
state power . Thi s concepti onof the nati onal questi oni s not Eurocentri c.
But hi stori cal materi al i smas awhol ei s sti l l not f reeof Eurocentri sm. I f weareto
understandnati onal struggl eas af ormof cl ass struggl e, wehave tounderstandthe
Cl ass Struggl es across aBoundary

173
mani f ol df orms whi charetakenbycl ass struggl e i tsel f wherever andwhenever i t
takes pl ace: that i s, throughout thespace- ti meregi onthat embraces thecl ass phase
of soci al evol uti on. Muchpresent- daythi nki ngabout cl ass processes i ntheThi rd
Worl di s too narrowf or thi s purpose. Some wri ters, f or i nstance, mi sconstrue
producti onrel ati ons as `rel ati ons of exchange' , l eavi ng us wi th thef al se i dea that
producti oni s somehowgovernedbypre- cl ass or non- cl ass soci al rel ati ons, or i s, at
most, pre- capi tal i st . Other wri ters mi sconstrue Thi rdWorl dcl ass struggl e as some
sort of boundary transacti on ( `arti cul ati on' ) between di f f erent modes of
producti on, not as a rel ati on, andstruggl e, betweendef i nabl e cl asses andcl ass-
combi nati ons. Theseposi ti ons ( whi ch I haveoversi mpl i f i ed) , andothers l i kethem,
seemto meto be groundedi naconcepti onof cl ass, of expl oi tati on, andof cl ass
struggl e whi ch uses as i ts templ ates the i ndustri al worki ng cl ass of 19th and
earl y- 20th CenturyEurope, the ri si ng bourgeoi si e of that pl ace andti me, anda
supra- nati onal bourgeoi si eof the present day. Wi thi nthi s conceptual f ramework,
an adequate understandi ng of nati onal l i berati on movements, andof nati onal
struggl e i ngeneral , i s verydi f f i cul t .
But theprobl emof Eurocentri smi s muchl arger thanthi s. I t extends toour vi ew
of hi storyas wel l as geography. I n f act, the weakest part of Marxi st theoryas a
whol ei s that porti onof i t whi chseeks toexpl ai nsoci al evol uti onat theveryl argest
scal e, that of humanhi story si nce thedawnof cl ass soci ety. Weunderstandthe
dynami cs of thecapi tal i st modeof producti onqui te wel l . Li kewi se the soci al i st
mode, or soci al i st transi ti on. Weknowrel ati vel yl i ttl e about pre- capi tal i st modesof
producti on( anywhere) andabout pre- capi tal i st f ormsof the cl ass struggl e. Thi s i s
not si mpl yal ack of empi ri cal , f actual knowl edge. Wesuf f erf romhi stori cal tunnel
vi si onabout pre- capi tal i st modes of producti on. Wesee the sequence of modesi n
thehi stori cal space- ti me col umnwhi chembraces Europe andthe Near East, but,
f ai l i ngto haveadequateunderstandi ngof themodes of producti oni nother parts of
the worl d at gi ven hi stori cal ti mes, and f ai l i ng even to have an adequate
methodol ogyf or compari sonacross areas andcul tures, we cannot successf ul l y
establ i sh some of themost cruci al causal general i zati ons.
For exampl e: wenote that f act Bappears i nEurope af ter f act A. But wedonot
knowwhether Bf ol l ows Ai n other areas at comparabl e epochs, hence gi ves
evi dence of ageneral causal process. Wedonot evenknowwhether BandAare
rel ated: Bmayhave di f f usedi nto Europef romsomewhereel se. Wedo not know
enough about hi stori cal non- Europe, or consi der oursel ves obl i ged to seek to
obtai nsuchknowl edgeas part of our methodol ogyf or studyi ngthesef acts I l abel A
andB. Thi s i s hi stori cal tunnel vi si on, or tunnel hi story.
MarxandEngel s madeerrors becauseof thi s sametunnel hi story, but theycoul d
not have avoi dedthese errors, si nce cruci al knowl edgeabout the non- European
worl dei ther di dnot exi st i nthei r l i f eti mes, or hadnot yet di f f usedi nto Europe, or
was actual l y suppressed f or pol i ti cal reasons . Anexampl e of the l ast i s qui te
rel evant . Thei mportance of pri vate propertyi n l andi nI ndi a was abodyof f act
whi chtheBri ti sh government andtheEast I ndi a Companydel i beratel ysuppressed,
because, i n essence, non- pri vate l and coul dbe aggregatedto the Crownand
thereaf ter sol d or otherwi se usedto produce revenue. ' ( Much the same l egal
tri ckerywas perf ormedi n other col oni es, Bri ti sh, Dutch, French, etc. ) Marx and
174

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
Engel s hadno access t o t he t r ut habout pr i vat e l andedpr oper t yi nI ndi a. I f t hey had
hadsuchaccess, a maj or par t of t he t heor y concer ni ng t he causal f or ces l eadi ng t o
capi t al i smwoul dhave been modi f i ed. I npar t i cul ar , t he i dea of Asi at i c `st agnat i on'
woul dhave beenr ej ect ed, andt he causal model f or t he t r ansi t i onf r omf eudal i smt o
capi t al i smwoul dhave hadt o be modi f i ed ver ydr ast i cal l y, because t he hi st or i cal
f act s t hought t o be causal l y ef f i caci ous occur r edout si de Eur ope as wel l as i nsi de,
yet t he t r ansf or mat i ont o capi t al i smcompl et edi t sel f onl yi n Eur ope. (Mor e ont hi s
pr obl embel ow. ) But er r or s of t hi s sor t , whi chcoul dnot have beenavoi dedbyMar x
andEngel s, ar e st i l l bei ng made t oday. Andt hey cannot nowbe excusedi n t he same
way. Some of t hemgi ve evi dence of a dogmat i c par r ot i ng of , so t o speak, t he
mast er ' s wor ds. Some r ei t ect t he ki nd of Eur ocent r i sm whi ch per meat es
conser vat i ve soci al t hought but i s i ncompat i bl e wi t hMar xi sm.
Not al l of t he f ai l i ngs of t he Mar xi st t heor y of soci al evol ut i on r esul t f r om
Eur ocent r i c t unnel hi st or y. Anot her met hodol ogi cal hobbl e i s geogr aphi cal
di f f usi oni sm, a ver y cl ose r el at i ve of t unnel hi st or y. The f or mer l eads us t o make
f al se causal gener al i zat i ons because we onl y l ook down, so t o speak, t he Eur opean
t unnel of t i me, andf ai l t o consi der ext r a- Eur opeanhi st or i cal event s bot has dat a f or
hi st or i cal or evol ut i onar ygener al i zat i on andas possi bl ecauses of event s knownt o
have occur r ed i n Eur ope. The l at t er , di f f usi oni sm- as we have seen i n pr i or
di scussi ons, par t i cul ar l y t hose i n Chapt er 3- assumes t hat t he onl y hi st or i cal l y
ef f i caci ous event s, t hose whi char e i nnovat i veandhave evol ut i onar yconsequences,
occur wi t hi nEur ope (and, f or pr e- Chr i st i an t i mes, t he Near East , t he Bi bl e Lands)
and t hen di f f use out war ds t o t he r est of t he wor l d. Bot h habi t s of mi nd f i nd
evol ut i onar y causes onl y i n t he Eur opean sect or . Theyf ai l t o not i ce t he pr ocesses
occur r i ng out si de t hi s sect or . Ther ef or e t hey f ai l t o see t he l ar ger pr ocesses
compr ehendi ng soci al evol ut i on on a wor l d scal e.
But t her e i s st i l l a t hi r d habi t of mi nd t o be addedt o t he l i st of r easons f or our
f ai l ur e t o devel op at r ul yadequat e bodyof evol ut i onar y t heor y, compr ehendi ngal l
cl ass soci et y andal l of t he wor l d. Thi s t hi r d el ement i s a ki ndof t i me- boundedness
whi chl eads i nt o oneof t he cr uci al cont r adi ct i ons i ncont empor ar yMar xi st t heor y:
ont he onehand, our t heor y of soci al evol ut i onbasedoncl ass st r uggl e andmodes of
pr oduct i on has as i t s uni ver se of di scour se t he ent i r e hi st or y andgeogr aphy of
humansoci et y si nce t he emer genceof t he f i r st cl ass- basedmode of pr oduct i on(and
evenear l i er ) . Ont he ot her hand, we scr ut i ni ze t he capi t al i st mode i nsuchamyopi c
wayt hat we assume i t s maj or at t r i but es t o be pecul i ar t o t hi s mode al one, or onl y t o
t he phase of i ndust r i al capi t al i sm. I t shoul d be evi dent t hat many of t he
f undament al f eat ur es of t he capi t al i st mode must be f eat ur es al so of ear l i er cl ass-
basedmodes, andsomet i mes f eat ur es of cl ass soci et y i ngener al . Yet Mar xi st s ai r i l y
di scuss, f or i nst ance, expl oi t at i on as t hought her e wer e no pr e- capi t al i st f or ms of
expl oi t at i on; cl ass st r uggl e i nt he same way; l i kewi se t he st at e. Yet t her e canbe no
gener al hi st or i cal - mat er i al i st t heor y whi chdoes not consi der t hese t hr ee cat egor i es
(and ot her s) as f act s of cl ass soci et y i ngener al .
These l i mi t at i ons of Mar xi st t heor y as awhol ear e, unsur pr i si ngl y, f oundal so i n
t he t heor y of nat i onal i smor nat i onal st r uggl e. For var i ous r easons t hat we have
expl or ed i n t hi s vol ume, al l t he pr ocesses associ at ed wi t h nat i onal st r uggl e ar e
usual l y pl aced wi t hi n t he per i od of i ndust r i al capi t al i sm. And t he or i gi ns of t hese
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

175
pr ocesses ar e gener al l y assumedei t her t o be Eur opean or t o r ef l ect a r eact i on t o
some i mpact , some di f f usi on, f r omEur ope. Thi s i s not a mat t er of descr i bi ng t he
spr ead, di f f usi on i f you wi l l , of expl oi t at i on, oppr essi on, andmi ser y as capi t al i sm
enl ar ges i t s domai n. I t i s, r at her , a mat t er of seei ng al l of t he essent i al t r ai t s
associ at ed wi t h nat i onal st r uggl e as bei ng, t hemsel ves, Eur opean, andpr oduct s of
Eur ope' s `moder ni t y' . Nat i ons ar e pl aced wi t hi n t hi s f r amewor k. So, t oo, ar e
nat i onal movement s. So, t oo, ar e st at es . Thi s l ast i s cr uci al .
I have ar guedi nt hi s book f or aconcept i onof nat i onal st r uggl e whi chsees al l of i t
as a f or mor t ype of t he cl ass st r uggl e t o sei ze st at e power. Nat i onal st r uggl e i s t he
f or mof pol i t i cal cl ass st r uggl e whi chi s associ at ed, i ngener al , wi t h st at es whi char e
ext er nal l y gover ned (t hat i s, by `f or ei gner s' ) . But consi der agai n our concept of t he
st at e. Ther e wer e st at es wi t hi n pr e- capi t al i st cl ass- based soci et i es i n Eur ope and
i ndeed ever ywher e el se. Leni nar gued t hat ever y cl ass soci et y has i t s f or mof t he
st at e, andI f i ndno cogent ar gument s agai nst t hi s vi ew. 2 Ar e t her e not st r uggl es f or
st at e power i n al l of t hese sor t s of soci et i es? And do t hey have no under l yi ng
commonf eat ur es wi t ht he nat i onal st r uggl es associ at ed wi t hcapi t al i st st at es? Thi s
i s not amat t er of di scover i ng, as conser vat i ve soci al sci ent i st s ar e wont t o do, some
i nt er est i ng f or er unner of nat i onal i sm, or some pr ecoci ous ear l y nat i onal
movement . I t i s a mat t er of det er mi ni ng whet her we ar e deal i ng wi t h phenomena
appr opr i at e t o onecl ass mode of pr oduct i on, capi t al i sm, or t o many modes, or t o
al l . On t he ot her hand, i t i s not amat t er of succumbi ng t o t hat ot her t endency of
mai nst r eamsoci al sci ence: t o i magi ne t hat cont empor ar y soci al pr ocesses i n
capi t al i st soci et y ar e somehowr oot ed i n man' s essent i al humanor ani mal nat ur e,
andt hus have been wi t h us si nce t he dawnof t i me. Nat i onal st r uggl e per se i s a
r el at i vel y moder n emer gent . The quest i on i s : does i t emer ge f r oma gener al
phenomenon of cl ass soci et y whi chhas been ar ound f or a ver y l ong t i me?
The cent r al ar gument of t hi s chapt er i s t he t hesi s t hat t her e i s i ndeed a gener al
f eat ur e of al l cl ass modes of pr oduct i on, i nal l par t s of t he wor l dt houghnot i n ever y
i ndi vi dual cl ass soci et y, whi chi s t he essent i al under l yi ng pr ocess t hat i n our own
t i mes becomes nat i onal i smor nat i onal st r uggl e. Thi s f eat ur e i s af or mof t he cl ass
st r uggl e f or st at e power , somet hi ng, I need har dl y add, whi chi s ver yol dandver y
wi despr ead over t he ear t h. I amnot - t hi s needs r e- emphasi s - denyi ng t he
speci f i ci t y of t he nat i onal i smwhi chi s char act er i st i c of t he capi t al i st er a. AndI am
cer t ai nl y not ar gui ng t hat nat i onal i sm t r anscends cl ass soci et y i t sel f , i s
`t r anshi st or i cal ' (Poul ant zas) , or i s an at t r i but e of man' s bi ol ogi cal nat ur e as i s
ar guedbyt he r i ght - wi ng t heor i st s of `t er r i t or i al i t y' , `aggr essi on' , andt he l i ke. ' My
ar gument i s si mpl y an at t empt t o gener al i ze t he t heor y of nat i onal i smwi t hi n t he
Mar xi st t heor y of soci al evol ut i on andnot hi ng mor e.
I wi l l devel op t he ar gument of t hi s chapt er i n a ser i es of st eps. Fi r st , I wi l l di scuss
t he phenomenawhi chI cal l `ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e' and`ext er nal expl oi t at i on' , and
showhowt hese have been f eat ur es of cl ass soci et y i n gener al ; event ual l y, i n our
epoch, becomi ng nat i onal st r uggl e andr el at ed phenomena. Secondl y, I wi l l show
whyext er nal cl ass st r uggl e andext er nal expl oi t at i on ar e, i ndeed, i mpor t ant f or ms
of cl ass st r uggl e and cl ass expl oi t at i on i n al l modes of pr oduct i on t houghnot al l
i ndi vi dual soci et i es . Emer gi ng f r omal l t hi s wi l l be agener al i zed t heor y of nat i onal
st r uggl e.
176

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
Awor d must be sai d nowabout t hi s wr i t er ' s t heor et i cal pr esupposi t i ons
concer ni ng soci al evol ut i on. I mai nt ai n, and have ar gued el sewher e, t hat soci al
evol ut i on was pr oceedi ng i n about t he same way, andat t he same r at e of pr ogr ess,
i n Af r i ca, Asi a, andEur ope downt o t he endof t he 15t h Cent ur y. Eur ope' s r api d
r i se t her eaf t er I at t r i but e onl y t o i t s l ocat i on - or r at her t he l ocat i on of i t s
mer cant i l e- mar i t i mecent r es, cent r es of i nci pi ent capi t al i smor pr ot o- capi t al i sm-
manyt housands of mi l es cl oser t o t he NewWor l dt hanwas t hecase wi t h t henear est
compet i ng mer cant i l e- mar i t i me cent r es ( East Af r i can andAsi anpor t ci t i es) . The
suddenr i se of Eur ope, t hen, I concei ve t o have beena pr ocessf uel l edbyEur opean-
domi nat edpr oduct i oni nt he NewWor l d. ( I t was pr oduct i on, not mer el y exchange,
and i t r el at ed Eur opean pr e- i ndust r i al capi t al i st s, and t hei r al l i es, t o sever al
expl oi t ed cl ass sect or s, sl ave and non- sl ave, i n modes of expl oi t at i on as cl ose t o
capi t al i smas one can f i nd anywher e i n t he wor l d at t hat pr eci se per i od. ) Thi s
al l owed t he pr ocess wher eby Eur opean pr ot o- capi t al i st s wer e abl e t o over come
f eudal cl ass power and t o def eat compet i t i on f r omot her pr ot o- capi t al i st cent r es .
event ual l y dest r oyi ng t hemas apr el ude t o di r ect col oni al i sm. As t o soci al evol ut i on
af t er t he t i me of t he bour geoi s r evol ut i on i n Engl and, I at t r i but e much gr eat er
causal ef f i cacy t o col oni al i sm, andspeci f i cal l y t o t he super - pr of i t abl e pr oduct i oni n
col oni al and semi - col oni al ar eas, t han do many Mar xi st and most non- Mar xi st
wr i t er s . Thus, wi t hout denyi ng t he i mpor t ance of aut onomous devel opment s
wi t hi n Eur ope pr i or t o t he 19t h Cent ur y, I ar gue t hat t he non- Eur opean wor l d,
t hr oughout hi st or y, has been much mor e si gni f i cant t han i s usual l y conceded t o be
t he case. ( `Eur ope' i s of cour se an abst r act i on st andi ng, f or exampl e, f or
Nor t hwest er n Eur ope i n oneper i od, al l of Eur ope pl us Angl o- Amer i caandmi nus
col oni al ar eas l i ke I r el and, i n anot her . Thi s i s not an ar gument about cul t ur e but
about t hedi f f er ent i at i on of what became, ont he one hand, t headvancedcapi t al i st
wor l d, i ncl udi ng J apan, and, on t he ot her hand, t he under devel oped capi t al i st
wor l d, i ncl udi ng a bi t of Eur ope and most of t he t r i cont i nent : Asi a, Af r i ca, and
Lat i n Amer i ca. )
I emphasi ze t he f or egoi ng f or t he f ol l owi ng r eason. As I di scuss i nt er nal and
ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e i n hi st or y andgeogr aphy, I wi l l be br i ngi ng t o bear myown
t heor et i cal posi t i on. Thear gument s concer ni ng ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e andext er nal
expl oi t at i on ar e not cont i ngent upon t hi s hi st or i cal posi t i on, al t hough t hey ar e
st r engt hened by i t . The ar gument woul d r emai n val i d even i f a moder at el y
Eur ocent r i c hi st or i cal model wer e accept edas r eal i t y. But t he ki ndof Eur ocent r i sm
whi ch i s encapsul at ed wi t hi naspace t hat i ncl udes onl y aEur opean causal ef f i cacy,
andwi t hi nat i me t hat i ncl udes onl y t heper i odsi nce t he r i se of i ndust r i al capi t al i sm,
i s amor e di f f i cul t mat t er . Schol ar s i nt hi s t r adi t i on, some of t hemMar xi st s, ar e l i ke
t he peopl e chai ned i n Pl at o' s cave: t hey see not hi ngbeyond t he conf i nes of t hei r
( Eur ocent r i c) cave except f l i cker i ng andmeani ngl ess shadows.
I nt er nal and Ext er nal Cl ass St r uggl e
The pl ace t o begi n our anal ysi s i s wi t h t he most basi c post ul at e of hi st or i cal
mat er i al i sm. The hi st or y of al l cl ass- st r at i f i ed soci et i es i s t he hi st or y of cl ass
st r uggl e. Mor e concr et el y, t he most i mpor t ant mot or f or ce of soci al change si nce
anci ent t i mes has been t he dynami c t ensi on bet weenr ul i ng cl asses, whi ch cont r ol
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

177
t he means of pr oduct i onanddemand an ever - i ncr easi ngshar e of pr oduct i on, and
t he pr oduci ngcl asses, whi ch i nr esi st i ng t hi s demandi nsome ways, accedi ng t o i t i n
ot her s, engage i n unceasi ng economi c, cul t ur al , and pol i t i cal st r uggl e not onl y t o
r et ai n t he f r ui t s of t hei r l abour but al so t o gai ncont r ol of t hemeans of pr oduct i on.
But nowwe ask : who, i n r eal i t y, ar e t he cont ender s i n t hi s st r uggl e? I t i s not
suf f i ci ent t o answer `r ul i ng cl ass' and`pr oduci ng cl ass' i f t hese cat egor i es ar e l ef t
hangi ngi nt he ai r of abst r act i on. Ageogr apher wi l l want t o know: wher e i s each of
t hese cl asses t o be f oundon t he f ace of t he ear t h? Anant hr opol ogi st wi l l want t o
knowwhet her t he t woor mor e cl ass gr oups bel ong t o t he same soci et yandshar e t he
same cul t ur e, ar e connect ed per haps by a common l anguage, par t i ci pat e i n a
common web of soci al r el at i onshi ps, and engage i n const ant f ace- t o- f ace
i nt er act i on, or whet her t he r ul er s bel ong t o one soci et y, over her e, and t he
pr oducer s t o anot her , over t her e.
Whent he quest i on i s posedi n t hi s concr et e way, our at t ent i oni s dr awnt o a f act
so obvi ous t hat i t s i mpor t ance t ends t o go unnot i ced. The r ul i ng cl ass of a gi ven
soci et y mayexpl oi t t wogr oups of pr oducer s, one`nat i ve' , t he ot her `f or ei gn' . I wi l l
r ef er t o t hemas, r espect i vel y, an i nt er nal pr oduci ng cl ass and an ext er nal one.
Li kewi se, f r omt he poi nt of vi ewof t he pr oducer s, t her e wi l l be an i nt er nal r ul i ng
cl ass andt her e mayal so be anext er nal one. Manycombi nat i ons ar e possi bl e: cl ass
conf l i ct may be ent i r el y a r el at i onshi p bet ween a r ul i ng cl ass and i t s i nt er nal
pr oduci ng cl ass. I t may i nvol ve bot h i nt er nal and ext er nal pr oducer s i n var yi ng
wei ght s andki nds of expl oi t at i on. I t mayi nvol ve, f r omt he st andpoi nt of acl ass of
pr oducer s, a combi nat i on, of t en qui t e compl ex, of i nt er nal and ext er nal r ul i ng
cl asses ; somet i mes, mor e t hanoneof each . I t cannever be pur el y anexpl oi t at i onof
ext er nal pr oducer s, si nce t hi s woul di mpl y no expl oi t at i on at homes
I t goes wi t hout sayi ng t hat not al l r ul i ng cl asses have hadt hepol i t i cal power t o
expl oi t ext er nal wor ker s. But i n some soci et i es, i nal l cl ass modes of pr oduct i on, i n
al l por t i ons of t he wor l d, we f i nd t he si t uat i on i n whi ch a r ul i ng cl ass i s power f ul
enough t o gai nf r omanext er nal pr oduci ngcl ass asi gni f i cant por t i onof t he sur pl us
( or sur pl us pr oduct ) upon whi ch i t subsi st s . Let us br i ef l y r evi ewt hi s mat t er
hi st or i cal l y and geogr aphi cal l y, t hen dr awi mpl i cat i ons f r omi t f or t he t heor y of
nat i onal st r uggl e.
Ext er nal Expl oi t at i on: I t s Hi st or y andGeogr aphy
Cl ass soci et y emer gedsomet i me dur i ng t he f our t h mi l l enni umB. C. or per haps
ear l i er . Whyi t ar ose i s of cour se a mat t er of specul at i on, but Mar xi st s woul dar gue
t hat t het r ansf or mat i onmust have beenanevol ut i onar y advance: t her ul i ng cl asses
i n t he f i r st epoch of t hei r exi st ence woul d have per f or med a f unct i on f or t he
soci et i es out of whi ch t hey emer ged, af unct i on such as f ooddi st r i but i oni nt i mes of
shor t age, def ence, r i t ual , or t he l i ke. I t i s ver y pr obabl e, t her ef or e, t hat t he ear l i est
r ul i ng cl asses di d not , st r i ct l y speaki ng, expl oi t t he pr oducer s. b They obt ai ned
sur pl us pr oduct i on f r omt he pr oducer s but t hey per f or meda soci al f unct i on i n
r et ur n. Qui t e possi bl y t he f i r st peopl e t o be t r ul yexpl oi t ed- usi ng `expl oi t at i on' i n
t heMar xi st sense as i mpl yi ngasubst ant i al one- wayt r ansf er of t heval ue cr eat edi n
pr oduct i on, andmeasur i ng val ue i n t er ms appr opr i at e t o t he par t i cul ar mode of
pr oduct i on - wer e sl aves: t hus ext er nal pr oducer s. By t he begi nni ng of t he f i r st
17 8

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
mi l l enni umB. C. , sl aves wer e usedby r ul i ng cl asses i n var i ous par t s of al l t hr ee Ol d
Wor l dcont i nent s, sl aves whohadbeenobt ai nedi n conquest , or t hr ough t r ade, or
per haps as t r i but e, andt hen put t o wor k wi t hi n t hese anci ent cl ass soci et i es i n t he
di r ect ser vi ce of t he r ul i ng cl asses. '
I n anci ent soci et y t her e al so appear edot her f or ms of ext er nal expl oi t at i on. One
of t hese was t r i but e, ar el at i onshi p i n whi ch, t ypi cal l y, al ocal r ul i ng cl ass was f or ced
t o del i ver par t of t he sur pl us obt ai ned f r oml ocal pr oducer s t o an ext er nal r ul i ng
cl ass. e Thi s shoul d not be concept ual i zedas a r el at i onshi p of exchange r at her t han
pr oduct i on, si nce t heext er nal r ul i ng cl ass mai nt ai ned t he same r el at i onshi p wi t h
t he pr oducer s as di dt he i nt er nal r ul i ng cl ass, who mer el yf or war dedsur pl us f r om
pr oducer st o ext er nal r ul er s . Per haps at t hi s poi nt I shoul dcal l at t ent i ont o t he f act ,
not necessar i l y an obvi ous one, t hat expl oi t at i on can t ake pl ace even when
pr oducer s andr ul er s r esi de i ndi f f er ent l ocal i t i es . The spat i al movement of sur pl us
does not become apr ocess of exchange unl ess t he pr oduct i s t r ansf er r edf r omhand
t o hand, and at a pr i ce. '
St i l l anot her i mpor t ant f or mof ext er nal expl oi t at i on was t he set t l ement of
i nt er nal pr oducer s on l ands obt ai ned i nconquest , somet i mes wi t h t he genoci de or
f or ceddi spl acement of t heor i gi nal popul at i on. Thi s f or mr emai ns i mpor t ant i n al l
subsequent cl ass- based modes of pr oduct i on i ncl udi ng capi t al i sm( f or exampl e,
set t l er col oni al i sm) . Admi t t edl y, t he domai n of t he t er m`ext er nal ' can become
somewhat bl ur r edher e, si nce i nt er nal pr oducer s nowdel i ver sur pl us on ext er nal
l ands. However , i n some of t hese cases t he or i gi nal pr oducer s r emai n as an
expl oi t ed or super expl oi t ed cl ass. And i n al l cases of t hi s t ype t he l abour
pr oduct i vi t yof i nt er nal pr oducer s nowset t l edonext er nal l ands must become much
hi gher , and t her ef or e al so t he pot ent i al r at e of sur pl us obt ai nabl e f r omeach
pr oducer , because agi ven popul at i on of pr oducer s i s nowexpl oi t i ng mor e l and. '
Many ot her cases canbe f oundi n whi ch i t i s di f f i cul t t o t el l whet her a f or mof
expl oi t at i on shoul d or shoul d not be cal l ed `ext er nal ' , but such bl ur r i ng of
di st i nct i ons i n some si t uat i ons does not al t er t he f act t hat ext er nal expl oi t at i oncan
by andl ar ge be di st i ngui shed f r omi nt er nal wi t hout much di f f i cul t y.
Whenwe come downt o t heper i od of t he RomanEmpi r e andi t s cont empor ar y
ci vi l i zat i ons i nAf r i ca, I ndi a, Chi na, andel sewher e, i t i s evi dent t hat bot h f or ms of
cl ass expl oi t at i onhadbynowbecome i nt ense. Ther ul i ng cl ass was nowf ul l yacl ass
f or i t sel f , t hus what ever f unct i ons i t ser vedf or t he gener at i ng soci et ywer e r el at i vel y
i nconsequent i al i n compar i son t o t he amount of sur pl us i t demandedf r omt he
pr oducer s i n t hat soci et y. Dur i ng t hi s per i od, i nsome cl ass soci et i es acr oss t heOl d
Wor l d, t her e was expl oi t at i on andcl ass st r uggl e i n bot h t he i nt er nal andext er nal
di mensi ons . The i nt er nal di mensi on was per haps t ypi f i ed by t he f or m of
l andl or di sm, i nci pi ent f eudal i sm, f oundon Romanest at es i nI t al yandFr ance and
onsi mi l ar est at es i ncont empor aneous I ndi aandChi na. " Theext er nal di mensi on
nowmade qui t e heavy use of pi l l age and a l evel of expl oi t at i on of conquer ed
soci et i es t hat was no doubt so i nt ense t hat i t coul d onl y l ast f or br i ef hi st or i cal
per i ods, si nce i t coul dnot have al l owed t hese soci et i es t o r et ai n enough of t hei r
pr oduct i on and l abour t o per mi t soci al r epr oduct i on.
But nowt he useof sl aves was even mor e i nt ense, andi n t he ur bancent r es of t he
Medi t er r anean ar ea, I ndi a, Chi na, andel sewher e, as wel l as i n t he r ur al est at es
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

179
whi chsuppl i edt hese cent r es wi t h f oodandr awmat er i al s, sl ave l abour was t hemost
i mpor t ant sour ce of sur pl us and al so t he most i nt ense f ocus of cl ass st r uggl e.
( Wi t ness Spar t acus. ) I n t hi s pr eci se sense, some t hough by no means al l of t hese
soci et i es wer e gr oundedi nt he sl ave mode of pr oduct i on: t hat i s sl ave l abour was t he
maj or sour ce of sur pl us f or t he r ul i ng cl asses, al t hough not usual l y t he soci et y' s
mai n f or mof pr oduct i ve l abour , whi ch woul dst i l l be t hat of f r ee peasant s and
ar t i sans. St i l l , i n some ar eas, i ncl udi ng much of Chi na, whi l e t heuse of sl aves was
ubi qui t ous, t hebasal mode of pr oduct i oni n t hi s per i od was not sl ave- based. Si nce
expl oi t at i on was pr i mar i l y vi si t ed on t he ( i nt er nal ) peasant s, t he mode of
pr oduct i onwas f eudal . ' 2
Ther el at i ve i mpor t anceof i nt er nal andext er nal expl oi t at i onandcl ass st r uggl e i s
mor e di f f i cul t t o f er r et out i n t he f eudal per i od, par t l yf or l ack of cl ar i t yof concept s,
begi nni ngwi t h t heconcept of f eudal i smi t sel f . I wi l l t ake i t as agr eedt hat t he f eudal
mode of pr oduct i onhas as i t s essent i al f eat ur es al andl or dcl ass ( t i t l edor not ) anda
dependent peasant r yf or ced, evenwhennot l egal l yi n ser f dom, t o del i ver sur pl us t o
t he l andl or d i n ki nd, i n money, or i n l abour , wi t h t he means of pr oduct i on,
pr i nci pal l y l and, ownedbyt he r ul i ng cl ass andnot by t he peasant pr oducer s. The
soci al and pol i t i cal at t r i but es of nor t hwest er n Eur opean f eudal i sm wer e
epi phenomena, most of t hemnot f oundeveni nsout her n Eur opeanf eudal i smmuch
l ess i n non- Eur opean ar eas, andi n no sense ser vi ng as def i ni ng at t r i but es of t he
f eudal mode of pr oduct i on. Thi s agr eed, i t i s cl ear t hat t he f eudal mode domi nat ed
br oadar eas of Asi a andAf r i ca as wel l as Eur ope f or a ver y l ong t i me, somet i mes
under cent r al i zed ki ngdoms, somet i mes under f r agment ed pol i t i es . ' ;
I n Eur ope, I ndi a, andper haps ot her ar eas, cl assi cal ci vi l i zat i on col l apsed i nt o a
`dar k age' . ' Associ at ed wi t h t hi s col l apse was adecl i ne i n t he sur pl us pr oduced by
sl ave l abour andpr obabl yal so t r i but e f r omconquer edpeopl es- t heunst abl e basi s
of t he anci ent , ur bani zed, r ul i ng cl asses . I n t he cent ur i es t her eaf t er t he domi nant
mode of pr oduct i on was f eudal , andt hepr i nci pal pr oduci ngcl ass i n most of t hese
soci et i es was t he i nt er nal peasant r y. But mat t er s wer e not qui t e t hat si mpl e. As a
f eudal r ul i ng cl ass i nevi t abl y at t empt edt o enl ar ge i t s power andsur pl us, i t di dso
bot h by i nt ensi f yi ng expl oi t at i onof t hel ocal pr oducer s andbyexpandi ngi t s r ul e i n
space. Asi gni f i cant par t of t he i ncr eased sur pl us came f r omt he l ocal pr oducer s,
andher e, doubt l ess, was t he mai nseat of cl ass expl oi t at i on andst r uggl e f or most
f eudal soci et i esat most t i mes. Thepr oducer s r espondedt o t he i nt ensi f i eddemands,
as t hey hadt o i f t he needs of soci al r epr oduct i on wer e t o be met , by i ncr easi ng
l abour pr oduct i vi t y, doi ng so i n par t by i nvent i ng or bor r owi ng t echnol ogy
i nt ended t o i nt ensi f y pr oduct i on on exi st i ng acr eage, and i n par t by expandi ng
cul t i vat ed acr eage i n a gi ven r egi on. But t hi s di dnot suf f i ce.
Ext er nal i zat i ononaver y l ar ge scal e t ookpl ace t hr ough maj or expansi ons of t he
r egi ons domi nat edby t he f eudal mode. I n Eur ope t hi s i nvol ved, f or i nst ance, t he
spr eadof deep pl oughi ng i nt o nor t her n Eur ope ( a devel opment t hat r esul t ed f r om
t he exi genci es of f eudal i sm, not , as some conser vat i ve hi st or i ans mai nt ai n, f r oma
supposed mi r acul ous t echnol ogi cal r evol ut i on i n Eur opean agr i cul t ur e, none
havi ng occur r ed) , col oni zat i on by f eudal soci et i es of t he Mar chl ands of east er n
Eur ope, andot her spat i al expansi ons . ' S Par al l el pr ocesses occur r ed i nnor t heast er n
( Ganget i c) I ndi a, sout her n and sout hwest er n Chi na, and el sewher e. ' 6 But t he
180

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
f eudal r ul i ng cl asses wer e i nsat i abl e ( agai n f ol l owi ng t he l ogi c of t he mode of
pr oduct i on, whi ch i s al ways i ndi sequi l i br i um) , sndever ywher ewe see maj or moves
of conquest . Some of t he col oni zat i onj ust ment i onedwas f aci l i t at edbyconquest of
ext er nal soci et i es and t hei r l ands. I n addi t i on, ki ngdoms and pr i nci pal i t i es
expanded, br i ngi ng ext er nal peasant s wi t hi n t he gi ven f eudal r ul er ' s spher e of
power andsomet i mes, over t i me, i nt er nal i zi ng t hem. To t hi s must be added t he
al most pur el y ext er nal expl oi t at i onassoci at edwi t h t he l ar ge- scal e conquest s of t he
Mongol s and ot her compar abl e expansi ons . Thi s pr ocess di spl ays a f ur t her
compl exi t y i n t he syst em, as t he conquer or s usual l y super i mposed t hei r own
demands f or sur pl us upon t he exi st i ng demands made by t he l ocal f eudal r ul i ng
r l accPc
v Fi nal l y, dur i ng t hi s per i od, a r el at i vel y newf or mof ur bani zat i on was emer gi ng,
wi t h i t s economi c base i n l ong- di st ance t r ade and medi eval i ndust r y. Al t hough
t her e was di r ect expl oi t at i on of ani nt er nal pr oduci ngcl ass i n t hese newmer cant i l e-
mar i t i me- i ndust r i al cent r es of Eur ope, Af r i ca, andAsi a, ext er nal expl oi t at i on was
al so cent r al l y i nvol ved: f or i nst ance, use was of t en made of sl aves ( as i n Venet i an
gal l eys, pl ant at i ons, andmanuf act or i es) , andal so of an ext er nal cl ass of peasant
pr oducer s t i ed t o ur banmer chant s, as i n t he case of pepper cul t i vat or s i n Sout h
I ndi a, cot t onf ar mer s i n Fuki en, sugar - cane f ar mer s i nt he Venet i ancol oni es andi n
Egypt , andt he l i ke. " Over al l , when we exami ne t he ent i r e ar r ayof cl ass- st r at i f i ed
soci et i es i n medi eval t i mes, i t i s cl ear t hat ext er nal cl ass expl oi t at i on andst r uggl e
st i l l r emai n i mpor t ant , al t hough t he subst ant i al i ncr ease i n agr i cul t ur al
pr oduct i vi t y ( mai nl y r ef l ect i ng ar eal expansi on of cul t i vat i on and adopt i on of
mor e i nt ensi ve cr oppi ng syst ems) whi ch char act er i zed t hi s per i od ever ywher e
suggest s t hat i nt er nal expl oi t at i on andcl ass st r uggl e hadgr eat er si gni f i cance t han
bef or e t he f eudal per i od, gr eat er al so t hanext er nal expl oi t at i on andst r uggl e dur i ng
t hat per i od.
Thi s br i ngs us t o t heper i odof t heemer genceof capi t al i smandt he r i se of Eur ope.
Al l woul d agr ee t hat ext er nal expl oi t at i on was i mmensel y i mpor t ant dur i ng t hi s
per i od ( t he 16t h, 17t h and 18t h Cent ur i es) . ' $ I ar gue t hat , f or Eur ope, i t was mor e
i mpor t ant t han t he i nt er nal expl oi t at i onof Eur ope' s pr oduci ngcl asses ; andI ar gue
f ur t her t hat ext er nal expl oi t at i on by Eur opeans account s f or t he f act t hat
capi t al i smt r i umphedf i r st i n Eur ope, andaccount s f or r el at ed f act s, such as t he
l at er suppr essi on of emer gi ng capi t al i smi n Asi a and Af r i ca and, t her eaf t er , t he
expansi on of Eur opean col oni al i sm. Cal l t hi s t he `st r ong' ar gument f or t he
i mpor t ance of ext er nal expl oi t at i on ( and col oni al i sm) . But i f onl y t he `weak'
ar gument i s accept ed, t he i mpor t ance of ext er nal expl oi t at i onandst r uggl e dur i ng
t hi s per i od wi l l st i l l be admi t t ed.
I ber i an Eur ope' s l at e- medi eval expansi oni n t he At l ant i c was i n no i mpor t ant
waydi f f er ent f r omt he mar i t i me expansi ons r adi at i ng out war ds f r ommer cant i l e-
mar i t i me cent r es i n ot her r egi ons, st r et chi ng f r omEast Af r i ca t o East Asi a, at t he
same t i me. Eur ope' s si ngl e advant age was a posi t i on cl oser by some 5, 000 mi l es t o
t he NewWor l d. ' 9 Conquest of t heNewWor l dgave Eur opean mer chant s, among
ot her t hi ngs, an amount of gol d andsi l ver possi bl y equal t o one- f our t h of t he t ot al
st ock of t hese met al s i n t he Ol dWor l das a whol e. The si gni f i cance of t hi s f act has
not hi ngt o do wi t h monet ar i sm. I n an al r eadymonet i zed ur banandr ur al economy
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

181
st r et chi ng unbr oken f r omEur ope t o Chi na, one gr oup of mer chant capi t al i st s
suddenl y acqui r es t he cash r esour ces suf f i ci ent bot h t o out - compet e ever y ot her
such gr oup i n ever y maj or mar ket acr oss t he hemi spher e, hence i n t hi s way t o
accumul at e, and t he r esour ces suf f i ci ent t o al l owt hemt o of f er bet t er pr i ces f or
l and, l abour , andcommodi t i es wi t hi n Eur ope i t sel f , hence t o accumul at e i n t hi s
wayas wel l andat t he same t i me t o buyout t he Eur opeanf eudal cl ass opposi t i on( or
some of i t ). Andt hi s goes onunabat edf or acent ur yandmor e, at ar at e of pr eci ous
met al suppl y and capi t al accumul at i on t hat al ways r emai ns ahead of t he
( i nevi t abl e) i nf l at i on. 2
But t hi s pr ocess i s seenmor e r eveal i ngl y when we l ook at t hef or msandext ent of
ext er nal expl oi t at i onwhi ch i t ent ai l ed. One f or m. i nt he 16t h Cent ur y. was ni l l ase
and t he f or ced l abour of mi l l i ons of Amer i cans i n mi nes and ot her Eur opean-
ownedent er pr i ses . Anot her was sl ave l abour andmuch f r ee l abour onpl ant at i ons
t o an ext ent not of t en appr eci at ed f or t hi s ear l y per i od. ( For i nst ance, i t appear s
t hat , i nt he year 1600, t he val ue i nst er l i ng of sugar expor t edf r omBr azi l al one was
doubl e t heval ue of al l expor t s of al t t ypes t o al l of t he wor l d f r omEngl andi n t hat
year . ) 2 ' Ther e i s al so t he begi nni ng of t he pr ocess of ext er nal i zi ng Eur opean
pr oducer s t hr ough emi gr at i on t o t he NewWor l d, t o t he t r adi ng f act or i es of Asi a
andAf r i ca, t o east er n Eur ope andSi ber i a, and so on.
I n t he 17t h Cent ur y ext er nal expl oi t at i on became much mor e i nt ense, bot h i n
t er ms of t he number of pr oducer s i nvol ved i n t he pr ocess andt he amount of sur pl us
t r ansf er r ed i nt o t he hands of Eur opean capi t al i st s. 2 z The f ocal pr ocess nowwas
sl ave- pl ant at i on pr oduct i on i n t he NewWor l d and associ at ed wi t h i t a l ar ge
amount of non- sl ave l abour i n t he pl ant at i on col oni es, shi ps, sl ave- t r adi ng
ent er pr i ses, and t he l i ke. I n 1689 , capi t al i sm' s f or mal moment of t r i umph i n
Engl and' s Gl or i ous Revol ut i on, t hesl ave l abour f or ce i nBr i t i sh col oni es mayhave
beenone t hi r d as numer ous as t he pr ol et ar i at i n Br i t ai n i t sel f , andmor e t han one
t hi r das si gni f i cant i f we consi der t her espect i ve r at es of sur pl us ext r act i onf or sl ave
andf r ee l abour , whi l e t he t housands of non- sl ave l abour er s associ at ed i n one way
or anot her wi t h Br i t i sh pl ant at i ons and col oni es added f ur t her ext er nal
expl oi t at i on. 2 3 By t hi s t i me, al so, t her e was subst ant i al expl oi t at i on of Asi an
peasant s andar t i sans byEur opeans andt hei r al l i ed mer chant s andl andl or ds, anda
somewhat par al l el pr ocess associ at ed wi t h t he sl ave t r ade i n Af r i ca. Andt her e was
f ur t her ext er nal i zat i on of Eur opean pr oducer s by emi gr at i on t o l ess densel y
popul at ed and f er t i l e l ands i n t he NewWor l d, a pr ocess whi ch ( as we di scussed
above) i ncr eased t he sur pl us obt ai nabl e f r omeach pr oducer .
I n sum, f 1Te 16t h and17t h Cent ur ywasaper i od of r api dl yexpandi ngexpl oi t at i on
of an ext er nal wor ki ng cl ass, par al l el ed by an expansi on, but f ar l ess r api d, of
i nt er nal expl oi t at i on wi t hi n Eur ope. By 1689 t he ext er nal pr oduci ngcl ass ( cl asses)
consi st ed of mi l l i ons of nat i ve Amer i can f ar mer s andmi ner s, mi l l i ons of Af r i can
sl aves, ar el at i vel y smal l er number of Af r i cans expl oi t ed i n t hei r owncont i nent , a
l ar ge t hough uncount ed number of Asi ans wor ki ng di r ect l y or i ndi r ect l y f or
Eur opeans, andanot her l ar ge t hough uncount ednumber of ext er nal i zedEur opean
pr oducer s wor ki ngas f ar mer s, over seer s, ar t i sans, f i sher men, sai l or s, sol di er s, et c . ,
i n most of t he ext r a- Eur opean wor l d. And al r eady t her e wer e not abl e sl ave
upr i si ngs, war s of r esi st ance, andmor e subt l e f or ms of ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e.
182

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
Not al l r eader s wi l l agr ee wi t h t heassessment t hat ext er nal cl ass expl oi t at i onand
st r uggl e was mor e i mpor t ant t han i nt er nal , dur i ng t hi s per i od of ear l ycapi t al i sm,
andt hat i t was cr uci al andcent r al t o t he r i se andt r i umph of capi t al i smi n Eur ope.
But ever yone wi l l agr ee t hat ext er nal expl oi t at i on was, i nabsol ut e t er ms, of gr eat
si gni f i cance.
We need not t r y t o assess t he r el at i ve cont r i but i ons of ext er nal expl oi t at i on,
mai nl y col oni al , and i nt er nal expl oi t at i on i n t he devel opment of capi t al i sm i n
west er nEur ope i n t he 18t h and19t h Cent ur i es. Suf f i ce i t t o sayt hat i t i s di f f i cul t f or
any Mar xi st schol ar who i s a st udent of col oni al i smt o accept t he convent i onal ,
vul gar , t el eol ogi cal , t unnel - hi st or i cal bel i ef , not pr oper l y at t r i but abl e t o Mar x
hi msel f ; t hat t he eVnl t ~t i nn of i nr i t ~gt r i al ~a*, ; t al i 5
: ^. d^S~' . ^. t 3t l : e l at e I Ot I : ~ei aa y"

~ui j
was an unf ol di ng, sui gener i s, of pr ocesses i nt er nal t o Eur ope ( and Eur opean
set t l ement el sewher e) . Dur i ng t he 18t h and19t h Cent ur i es t he nowenl ar gedpower
of capi t al i smper mi t t edt he r api dpr ol et ar i ani zat i on of Eur opeanwor ker s, andaf t er
t he i ndust r i al r evol ut i on gai ned moment umat r emendous i ncr ease occur r ed i nt he
pr oduct i vi t yof each i ndust r i al wor ker . Theseandot her f act or s make i t cer t ai nt hat
i nt er nal expl oi t at i on was i ncr easi ng at a much gr eat er r at e t han ext er nal
expl oi t at i on dur i ng t heper i od, say, f r om1789 down t o t he l at e 19t h Cent ur y, and
was, on bal ance, of much gr eat er economi c si gni f i cance ( f or capi t al i sm) t han
ext er nal expl oi t at i on. Thesame hel d t r ue f or i nt er nal cl ass st r uggl e, whi chdur i ng
t hi s t i me was f or cef ul l y pushi ngcapi t al i smal ong i t s r oad t o r ui n.
But ext er nal expl oi t at i on was nonet hel ess of gr eat i mpor t ance, f r omt he ear l y
r ol e pl ayedby I ndi ancr af t smenandpeasant s andUS andWest I ndi ansl aves i nt he
r i se of t he Br i t i sh cot t on t ext i l e i ndust r y, t he l eadi ng sect or i n t he i ndust r i al
r evol ut i on, t o t he event ual pr ol et ar i ani zat i on and semi - pr ol et ar i ani zat i on of
uncount ed mi l l i ons of wor ker s i n t he col oni es and semi - col oni es, and t o t he
ext er nal i zat i on of mi l l i ons of Eur opean wor ker s on l ands newl y empt i ed; by
genoci de. Andt her e was cl ass r esi st ance i n al l of t hi s, st ar t i ng wi t h r esi st ance t o
ensl avement and col oni al conquest ; cont i nui ng t hr ough t he many war s of
r esi st ance and l i ber at i on i n t he 18t h and 19t h Cent ur i es, i ncl udi ng t he `Sepoy
Rebel l i on' or Fi r st I ndi anWar of I ndependence, t he Tai pi ngRevol t , t he i mmensel y
i mpor t ant Hai t i anwar of l i ber at i on- as cl ose t o a pr ol et ar i anr evol ut i onas youwi l l
f i nd i n i t s t i me - and many ot her such st r uggl es; t hen cont i nui ng wi t h bot h
economi c andpol i t i cal cl ass r esi st ance t hr oughout t he hi st or yof al l col oni es and
set t l er col oni es. z Al l of t hese st r uggl es wer e, i nonef or mor anot her , cl assst r uggl es,
andt hei r opposi ng cl ass was t he bour geoi si e, wi t h or wi t hout f eudal al l i es .
Col oni al i smassumedgr eat er pr opor t i onal andabsol ut e si gni f i cance i n t he l at e
19t h Cent ur y, t he begi nni ng of what most Mar xi st s cal l t he per i od of monopol y
capi t al i smor t he er a of i mper i al i sm. 25 The ext ent t o whi ch cl ass expl oi t at i on i n
col oni es, semi - col oni es, andneocol oni es has pr oppedup capi t al i smi n t hepr esent
cent ur yi s a subj ect f or ser i ous debat e. I woul dar gue, wi t h Leni n, t hat i t has been
t he si ngl e most i mpor t ant pr op, par t l y because i t has per mi t t ed capi t al t o sust ai n
t hei ncr ement al gr owt hof accumul at i on when t hi s i s obst r uct edor st opped, mai nl y
bywor ki ngcl ass st r uggl e, i nt he met r opol i t ancount r i es, andpar t l ybecause hi gher
pr oduct i vi t y of wor ker s i nmet r opol i t an count r i es seems t o be of f set by t he much
gr eat er number of wor ker s, over al l , i n t he col oni al and neocol oni al sect or , t he
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

183
sect or whi chi s nowconvent i onal l y cal l ed`t he Thi r dWor l d' . Di f f er i ng opi ni ons on
t hi s i ssue ar e mat t er s of emphasi s . Ever yone woul dagr ee, I t hi nk, t hat t her e i s
i ndeedadi st i nct i on t o be made bet weensect or s of t he capi t al i st wor l dwhi cht oday
deser ve t o be cal l ed `i nt er nal ' and `ext er nal ' , cr udel y, t he advanced capi t al i st
count r i es and t he Thi r d Wor l d r espect i vel y
z6
Al l owi ng f or except i ons and
i nt er medi at e cases, we can gener al i ze t hat pr oducer s i n t he ext er nal sect or
encount er qual i t at i vel y di f f er ent condi t i ons, economi c and pol i t i cal , and ar e
subj ect t o gr eat er expl oi t at i oni nt hesense of t hat t er mwhi ch i ndi cat es t he amount
andshar e of pr oducedval ue whi ch i s r et ai ned byt he wor ker , andt hus i ndi cat es t he
wor ker ' s st andar d of l i f e. Theext er nal wor ker , i nt hi s pr eci se sense i f not i n ot her s,
. . 1. , : r eA TAe , . . i sa: , . . . , . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . , 7: _ . , . t , : , . . . : . . . , . . : . , . . . _ . . a . . . , . _ t . . . - : , . t : . . . . - . . _ , 7
. ~~uper exYavu, . . . . ~amv. vuuauvaaa auaavuuuws uu~mauauvuacaaca. a cvauwauaamauu
i t s var i ous of f spr i ng. For i nst ance, i t i s no acci dent t hat r at es of pr of i t i n t he col ony
of Puer t o Ri co ar e mor e t hant wi ce as hi gh as t hey ar ei n t he US, andt hat r eal wages
ar e 25 per cent of t he US r at e. Z '
To be pr eci se, t hese condi t i ons r ef l ect t he pol i t i cal envi r onment of col oni al i smi n
i t s manygui ses, andt he pol i t i cal st r uggl es appr opr i at e t o t hi s envi r onment , i n t he
ext er nal sect or or Thi r d Wor l d. As we not ed i n Chapt er 1, t he t wowor l dsect or sdo
not di f f er mer el y as a mat t er of geogr aphi cal di st ance f r omt he f oci of advanced
capi t al i sm( andaccumul at i on) , i nasor t of cont i nuous cl i ne out war ds t o t he ends of
t he ear t h, a cl i ne whi ch i s supposed t o be a moment ar y snapshot pi ct ur e of
cont i nuous out war d di f f usi on of economi c devel opment , i ndust r i al i zat i on, and
weal t h f r omcent r e t o per i pher y, such t hat each per i pher al ( or Thi r d Wor l d)
count r ywi l l event ual l ybecome anadvancedcapi t al i st count r yi n i t s t ur n. Bui l t i nt o
t he st r uct ur e of wor l d capi t al i sm, f or r easons emer gi ng f r om t he col oni al
exper i ence, i s t he qui t e necessar y st r at egy of mai nt ai ni ng a r epr essi ve pol i t i cal
envi r onment i n t he col oni al and neocol oni al par t of t he wor l di n or der t o per mi t
super expl oi t at i onof wor ker s i nt hi s sect or . Thi s . I woul dar gue, i s t he pr esent - day
f or mof t he di chot omy of i nt er nal andext er nal expl oi t at i on. I shoul d emphasi ze
t hat we must not under est i mat eei t her t he i nt ensi t y of expl oi t at i onandoppr essi on
nor t he power of r esi st ance by t he wor ki ng cl asses i n met r opol i t an capi t al i st
count r i es. I ami n essence summar i zi ng t he ar gument , al most a convent i onal one
among Mar xi st schol ar s, whi ch del i neat es t he syst emat i c i ncr ease i n expl oi t at i on
andoppr essi on of ext er nal wor ker s si nce t he onset of t hei mper i al i st or monopol y-
capi t al i st er a. Cl ass cont r adi ct i ons i nadvancedcapi t al i st count r i es i nt ensi f i ed, af t er
t heendof t he 19t h Cent ur y, t o t he poi nt wher e i ncr ement s of accumul at i on hadt o
be dr awn t o an ever - i ncr easi ng ext ent f r omt he expl oi t at i on of ext er nal wor ker s:
f ur t her bur dens pl aced upon t he i nt er nal wor ki ng cl asses woul d have pr oduced
r evol ut i on, and ot her ways of i ncr easi ng accumul at i on, such as t echnol ogi cal
change and popul at i on gr owt h, wer e i ncapabl e of pr ovi di ng t he i ncr ement s of
accumul at i on wi t hout whi ch capi t al i smwoul dcol l apse.
Hence, i nt he moder n wor l d, anddownt o t he pr esent , ext er nal cl ass expl oi t at i on
has cont i nued t o gai n i n i mpor t ance. So has ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e.
Thenewi ncr ease i n t he i mpor t ance of ext er nal expl oi t at i onhas t aken t wor at her
di f f er ent f or ms: on t he one hand, much mor e i nt ensi ve expl oi t at i on of wor ker s i n
col oni al andneocol oni al ar eas, accompani edbya gr eat i ncr ease of pr ol et ar i ani za-
t i on i nsuch ar eas; andon t he ot her hand, a t r ul y massi ve i mpor t at i onof wor ker s
184

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss a Boundar y
f r omt hese ar eas i nt o t he advanced capi t al i st count r i es t hemsel ves . Unl i ke ear l i er
mi gr at i ons under capi t al i sm, when i mmi gr at i ng wor ki ng- cl ass popul at i ons wer e
i nt er nal i zed - t hat i s assi mi l at ed - r el at i vel y r api dl y, because of t he r api d and
cont i nuous expansi on of t he l abour f or ce dur i ng t hat per i od of r i si ng capi t al i sm,
t oday t he ext er nal wor ker s whoar e f or cedt o mi gr at e t o t he met r opol i t ancount r i es
ar e, by and l ar ge, nei t her i nt er nal i zed economi cal l y nor assi mi l at ed cul t ur al l y.
Usual l y, as I expl ai ned i n ear l i er chapt er s, t hey r emai n ext er nal wor ker s. They
ser ve, wi t hi n t he met r opol i t an count r i es, essent i al l y t he same f unct i on ( super -
expl oi t ed wor ker s and component s of t he i ndust r i al r eser ve ar my) t hat ot her
ext er nal wor ker s do i n t he col oni es andneocol oni es t hemsel ves . I t i s not cr uci al f or
t he pr esent di scussi on t o wei gh t he quest i on whet her most of t he i ncr ement of
accumul at i on nowcomes f r omt he expl oi t at i on of t hese t wo t ypes of ext er nal
wor ker s or f r omi nt er nal wor ker s. The pr ocess has not l i f t ed t he bur den of
expl oi t at i onf r omt he backs of t he i nt er nal wor ker s, andbot h gr oups ar e engagedi n
t he same st r uggl e wi t h t he same r ul i ng cl ass.
Thus, i nar api dsur vey of f our or f i ve mi l l enni a of cl ass expl oi t at i onandst r uggl e,
we f i nd t hat dur i ng al l st ages of cl ass soci et y, t he r ol e of ext er nal , mor e or l ess
f or ei gn, wor ker s or pr oducer s has been unmi st akabl y i mpor t ant .
We cangener al i ze as f ol l ows: t he hi st or y of cl ass soci et y has been gr ounded i n
cl ass st r uggl e, but a si gni f i cant por t i on of t hi s st r uggl e has cr ossed cul t ur al and
pol i t i cal boundar i es, i nvol vi ng t he st r uggl e of wor ker s i n, or f r om, one soci et y
agai nst t wocl ass gr oups of expl oi t er s, some f r omt hei r ownsoci et y, some f r oman
ext er nal soci et y. Al so, at t i mes t her e has been cl ass st r uggl e bet ween t he t wo
r ul i ng- cl ass sect or s, i nt er nal andext er nal . Unt i l we i nser t t hi s soci o- spat i al el ement
i nt o our t heor i es of hi st or i cal mat er i al i sm, we shal l not f ul l y under st and t he past
evol ut i onof cl ass soci et y andi t s pr esent condi t i on. And, f or moder nt i mes, we shal l
not under st and t he mechani sms andf unct i ons of nat i onal st r uggl e, whi ch, as I wi l l
t r y t o showi n t he f ol l owi ng di scussi on, i s a di r ect mani f est at i on of ext er nal cl ass
st r uggl e.
Ext er nal Expl oi t at i on: I t s Speci f i ci t y
Ther e i s not hi ng par t i cul ar l y sur pr i si ng i nt he f act t hat cl ass soci et i es wi t h power f ul
r ul i ng cl asses ar e abl e t o expand i n space andt hus enl ar ge t he number of pr oducer s
f r omwhi cht he r ul i ngcl ass gai ns sur pl us. Nor i s i t r emar kabl e t hat t hi s has occur r ed
i nal l cl ass modes of pr oduct i on down t hr ough t he capi t al i st mode, so t hat i nt er nal
andext er nal expl oi t at i on have coexi st ed, t hough not ever ywher e, si nce t he ear l i est
cl ass soci et i es . Much l ess obvi ous i s t he f act t hat ext er nal expl oi t at i on t ends t o be
si gni f i cant l y mor e i nt ense t han t he i nt er nal ki nd, t hat t he f or ms of cl ass st r uggl e
whi ch i t engender s ar e i n some ways, andt o somedegr ee, di f f er ent f r omt he i nt er nal
f or ms, and t hat al l of t hi s l eads t o cer t ai n pol i t i cal di f f er ences i n t he st r uggl e f or
st at e power andi n t he nat ur e of t he st at e, di f f er ences whi chi n moder nt i mes expl ai n
t he speci f i ci t y of nat i onal st r uggl e.
I n t he di scussi on whi ch f ol l ows, I wi l l t ake car e not t o over emphasi ze t he
di f f er ences bet ween i nt er nal andext er nal expl oi t at i on, oppr essi on, cl ass st r uggl e,
and pol i t i cs, f or t o do so i s t o r et r eat i nt o a non- Mar xi st ki nd of ar gument whi ch
mai nt ai ns, f al sel y, t hat t he wor ki ng cl ass i n advanced capi t al i st count r i es i s not
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

185
expl oi t ed, not oppr essed, and not engagedi n ser i ous cl ass st r uggl e, i ncl udi ng t he
st r uggl e f or st at e power . But t her e i s a danger al so i n t he opposi t e di r ect i on: t hat of
f ai l i ng t o not i ce t hat t her e ar e, i ndeed, di f f er ences : t hat ext er nal expl oi t at i on t ends
t r ul y t o be mor e sever e, t o be super expl oi t at i on; and t hat pol i t i cal st r uggl e i n
ext er nal l y r ul ed soci et i es i s somet hi ng mor e consequent i al t han `bour geoi s
nat i onal i sm' .
WhenMar xi st s ar gue t hat cl ass conf l i ct i s t he mot or of hi st or y, t hey ar e r ef er r i ng
t o al l st ages i n t he evol ut i onof cl ass- st r at i f i edsoci et y, not mer el y t he capi t al i st st age
or f or m. Each r ul i ng cl ass must engage i n a pr ocess of ever - expandi ng
accumul at i on; i f i t wer e ever sat i sf i ed wi t h apar t i cul ar vol ume of sur pl us pr oduct ,
anda par t i cul ar r at e of expl oi t at i on, we mi ght have acondi t i on of equi l i br i um, i n
whi ch t he equat i on of f or ces bet weenar ul i ngcl ass whi ch demands no mor e t hana
speci f i c amount of sur pl us andapr oduci ngcl ass whi chaccedes t o t hese demands so
l ong as t hey do not r each a poi nt t hr eat eni ng i t s bi ol ogi cal and cul t ur al
r epr oduct i on, woul dl ead t o a ki nd of cl ass ar mi st i ce. But we knowt hat hi st or y
wor ks ( so t o speak) i n adi f f er ent way. The r ul i ng cl ass i s never sat i sf i ed, andeach
soci al f or mat i on t hus event ual l y r eaches i t s f i nal cr i si s . Ther ef or e, al t hough t he
conf l i ct of cl asses i s ; over al l , t he mot or of hi st or y, i t i s t he i nt ensi f i cat i on of t hat
conf l i ct whi ch r eal l y pushes hi st or y f or war d.
Thi s r easoni ng pr ovi des us wi t h t he f i r st andmost i mpor t ant pr oposi t i onneeded
t o expl ai n t he coexi st ence of , and di f f er ences bet ween, i nt er nal and ext er nal
expl oi t at i on. Theamount of sur pl uswhi chanyr ul i ng cl ass, i nanysoci al f or mat i on
( or soci et y), canobt ai n f r omi t s own, i nt er nal , wor ki ngor pr oduci ngcl ass i s f i ni t e
andl i mi t ed. Pr ocesses such as t echnol ogi cal advanceandpopul at i on gr owt h can
i ndeedi ncr ease t he sur pl us, but onl yat cer t ai nt i mes andnecessar i l yat ar at her sl ow
r at e. ( I f t he r at e of i ncr ease i s f ast er under capi t al i sm, t he r at e of i ncr ease i nr ul i ng
cl ass demands i s pr opor t i onal l y f ast er st i l l . ) I t f ol l ows t hat a r ul i ng cl ass wi l l
at t empt , wher ever possi bl e, t o gai nani ncr ement of sur pl us out si de i t s ownsoci et y.
That i s, i t wi l l at t empt t o expl oi t ext er nal wor ker s as wel l as i nt er nal ones . For
r easons t hat I wi l l addr ess i n a moment , t he mechani sms used i n expl oi t i ng an
ext er nal wor kf or ce ar e necessar i l y t o some degr ee di f f er ent . They must i nvol ve
f or ms of oppr essi on t hat ar e not , and cannot be, vi si t ed upon t he i nt er nal
wor kf or ce, andt hey wi l l t ypi cal l y gener at e a per capi t a l evel of expl oi t at i onmuch
hi gher t han t he i nt er nal one i f sui t abl e power i s at hand. I n f act , ext er nal
expl oi t at i on woul dseemt o be a cl ose cor r el at e of power. I nt er nal l y t hi s i s not t he
case. Ther e ar e compel l i ng r easons whya r ul i ng cl ass shoul d, i ni t s ownl ong- t er m
i nt er est s, r est r i ct t he i nt er nal l evel of expl oi t at i on.
Bur i edwi t hi n t he convent i onal wi sdomof Mar xi st t hought i s t he i dea t hat ever y
r ul i ng cl ass at t empt s t o ext r act t he absol ut el y maxi mumamount of sur pl us f r om
t he wor ker s. Thi s t heor et i cal maxi muml evel ( and r at e) of expl oi t at i oni s t he l i mi t
beyond whi ch t he wor ker s wi l l not be abl e t o r et ai n enough of t he means of
subsi st ence t o sur vi ve andr epr oduce t hemsel ves as a cl ass. I f , however , sur pl us
ext r act i on wer e adj ust ed t o t hi s bi ol ogi cal maxi mum, a gi venmode of pr oduct i on
woul dhave a ver y shor t l i f et i me . I t woul di nshor t or der ki l l t he goose t hat l ays i t s
gol deneggs . Let us br i ef l y exami nesome of t he r easons whyt he aver age l ong- t er m
l evel of expl oi t at i on has t ended t o be wel l bel owt he bi ol ogi cal maxi mumdur i ng
186

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
t hose l ong per i ods when a mode of pr oduct i on i s f unct i oni ng wi t h r el at i ve
smoot hness andcl ass cont r adi ct i ons have not yet begunt o pul l apar t t he f abr i c of a
soci al f or mat i on. We wi l l t hen see t hat t hese l i mi t at i ons do not appl yi n t he same
degr ee t o t he expl oi t at i on of ext er nal wor ker s.
I npr e- capi t al i st agr i cul t ur al modes of pr oduct i on- t her e i s a par t i al par al l el f or
t he capi t al i st mode- one ver y i mpor t ant f act or whi ch oper at ed t o l i mi t t he l evel of
expl oi t at i on was t he ext r eme f l uct uat i on i n annual per capi t a pr oduct i on, a
f l uct uat i on t hat movedi n deep andl ong cycl es ( of t en cl i mat i c cycl es) . Thus t her e
wer e gr eat var i at i ons f r omyear t o year i n t he amount of pr oduct i on and l abour
whi chwas sur pl us t o t he bi ol ogi cal needs of t hepr oduci ngpopul at i on. I npr i nci pl e,
m___t ____

~ ~__ ~

~

t __a_
a r i i t i t t y ~t a~~gai t var y l i s ucYCi anus f ur sur pl us f r ont year t o year . i 3 i i i i t Cai t v'i uy uu
so wi t hi n a f ai r l y nar r owr ange, because t he soci al pr ocesses wi t hi n t he r ul i ng cl ass
i t sel f ar ef uel l edbyt hi s sur pl us. Dur i ng per i ods of l owpr oduct i on, andhar dshi pi n
t hepr oduci ngcl ass, t her e i s no sur pl us af t er t hesubsi st ence needs of t he pr oducer s
have been met ; i f , even so, t he r ul i ng cl ass enf or ces i t s demands, t he wor ki ngcl ass
wi l l at t he ver y l east l ose some of i t s popul at i on and t her ef or e i t s l ong- t er m
pr oduct i ve capaci t y, t hr ough di sease, f ami ne, emi gr at i on, andso on, and i f t he
per i odof l owpr oduct i oni s l ong enought hesyst emas awhol ewi l l be t hr eat ened. I t
f ol l ows t hat t he l ong- t er mt ypi cal l evel of expl oi t at i on woul d adj ust i t sel f t o t he
pr oduct i on l evel of hi gh pr oduct i on year s, so t hat some sur pl us l abour or
pr oduct i on woul dal ways be avai l abl e wi t hout t hr eat eni ng t he r epr oduct i onof t he
pr oduci ng cl ass. Real l y di sast r ous cr op f ai l ur es pr obabl y occur r ed onl y once i n
sever al gener at i ons, so t he act ual expl oi t at i on l evel woul dhave mai nt ai ned i t sel f
wel l bel owt he bi ol ogi cal capaci t y of t he wor ki ngpopul at i on t o pr oduce i nnear l y
al l year s.
On t he ot her hand, t he pr oduci ng cl ass coul d not be al l owed t o accumul at e
sur pl us: t hi s al so woul ddest r oy t he soci al f abr i c, si nce t he r ul ed woul dbegi nt o
become t her ul er s . Thus we candef i ne i npr i nci pl e aver y r ough l evel of expl oi t at i on
i npr e- capi t al i st agr i cul t ur al soci et i es, f al l i ng somewher ebet weent hese t wol i mi t s, a
l evel whi ch must have been t he t ypi cal one dur i ng t he ver y l ong per i ods whena
soci al f or mat i on was enj oyi ng r easonabl e st abi l i t y. The l evel of expl oi t at i on i s
al ways ar esul t ant of t he t woopposi ng f or ces of r ul i ng- cl ass exact i onandwor ki ng-
cl ass r esi st ance, so t hegener al i zat i onj ust st at edmust be sl i ght l y r ef or mul at ed: even
whenar ul i ng cl ass has t he power t o demandsur pl us upt o t he bi ol ogi cal maxi mum,
i t wi l l t end not t o do so, i n t he l i ght of i t s ownl ong- t er mi nt er est s .
Thi s, t hen, i s t he f i r st l i mi t at i onon expl oi t at i onof ani nt er nal pr oduci ngcl ass. I t
r emai ns onl yt o not e t hat t hi s dynami c appl i es t o peasant f ar mi ng communi t i es i n
t heessent i al l ycapi t al i st envi r onment of most r ur al Thi r dWor l dar eas t oday, andt o
not e as wel l t hat t he boom- and- bust cycl e of i ndust r i al i zed capi t al i st soci et i es seems
t o obeyaver y si mi l ar dynami c, wi t h some of t he sur pl us val ue bei ngshunt edof f t o
publ i c sect or f unct i ons whi chensur e t he sur vi val of t he wor ki ngcl ass dur i ng t i mes
of r ecessi on or depr essi on.
Pr oduct i ve behavi our t akes pl ace wi t hi nat ot al cul t ur al f r amewor k, andi nst abl e
soci al f or mat i ons t hemai nt enance of pr oduct i on, andhencet he suppl y of sur pl us,
r equi r es t hat cul t ur al mechani sms f unct i on r el at i vel y smoot hl y, mechani sms whi ch
embr ace al l aspect s of t he l i f e of a communi t y of pr oducer s, and i ncl ude such
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss a Boundar y

187
el ement s as r el i gi on, ar t , andal l t ypes of f or mal andi nf or mal soci al i nt er act i on. I f
sur pl us demands wer e so hi gh t hat t he pr oducer s l acked t he t i me and physi cal
r esour ces neededt o mai nt ai nt hese cul t ur al pr ocesses, t he mode of pr oduct i oni t sel f
woul dt endr at her qui ckl yt o col l apse. Thi s hol ds t r ue f or t he capi t al i st mode as f or
ot her s . Those si t uat i ons i n whi ch t he wor ki ng cl ass i n t hi s mode has become
i mmi ser at edt o t he poi nt wher esoci al l i f e andcul t ur e i n gener al ar esacr i f i ced t ot he
el ement al needt o ear nal i vi ng, ar e si t uat i ons of sever e di sequi l i br i um. Onepossi bl e
out come i s i nadequat e soci al r epr oduct i on of t he wor ki ng cl ass, whi ch must be
compensat ed f or by t he pr ol et ar i ani zat i on of newwor ker s ( such as occur r ed i n
ear l y 19t h Cent ur yBr i t ai n) . Anot her out come i s r evol ut i on.
WP CPP t hen t hat t he av*, I n; t at ; nn of a : *, t >r nal c nr 4; no n

r nr l t t r i no dace i s . . . . . - -

. . - , . . . . . . . . . . . . t , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b . . r p. . , . . . , . . . b . . . . . . . . . .
gover nednot onl y byt hepr oduct i ve capaci t yof t he wor ker s, i n si t uat i ons wher et he
r ul i ng cl ass possesses t he r el at i ve power , i n t he f ace of r esi st ance, needed t o f or ce
pr oduct i on upt o t hi s l i mi t . I t i s gover nedal so byt heneedt o const r ai nexpl oi t at i on
i nways whi chwi l l ensur e t he bi ol ogi cal andcul t ur al r epr oduct i on of t he pr oduci ng
cl ass, andt hus ensur e t he l ong- t er mst abi l i t yof t he syst em. Wewi l l see i na moment
t hat t hese const r ai nt s do not appl y, br oadl y speaki ng, t o t he expl oi t at i on of an
ext er nal pr oduci ngcl ass. To under st andt he speci f i ci t y of t he l at t er we must consi der
br i ef l yt he mechani sms whi ch gover n t he i nt er nal const r ai nt s .
The const r ai nt s on expl oi t at i on of an i nt er nal pr oduci ng cl ass i n anymode of
pr oduct i on ar e expr essedi nr ul es whi ch r egul at e, andi n a sense gover n, i nt er nal
cl ass r el at i ons, usi ng t he wor d` r ul e' t o i ndi cat e bot h t he cust omar y pat t er ns of
behavi our and t he i deol ogi cal i mper at i ves whi ch per suade peopl e, r ul er s and
pr oducer s al i ke, t o cont i nue t o conf or m. 2 8 Theser ul es shoul dbe seenas r ul es of t he
game, or , somewhat i mpr eci sel y, as r ul es of cl ass st r uggl e. They ar e pat t er ns of
soci al behavi our andpat t er ns of bel i ef andval ue t o whi ch bot h cl asses, r ul er s and
r ul ed, conf or mout of necessi t y. For t her ul er s, t hey ensur e st abi l i t yandcont i nuous
del i ver y of sur pl us. For t he pr oducer s, t hey per mi t t he r et ent i on of enough
pr oduct i on and pr oduct i ve l abour t i me so t hat bi ol ogi cal and cul t ur al
r epr oduct i on, andsoci al l i f e, cancont i nue uni mpai r ed. Obvi ousl y, t her ul es change
dur i ng t he l i f et i me of asoci al f or mat i on, andconf or mi t yt o t hem- never compl et e-
i s out of t he quest i on i n t he di sr upt i ve or r evol ut i onar y si t uat i on pr ecedi ng t he
col l apse of t hef or mat i on. Less obvi ousl y, t hese r ul es do not gover next er nal cl ass
r el at i ons: t hey do not appl y t o ` f or ei gner s'.
To sayt hat r ul er s andpr oducer s ar e const r ai nedbyaset of soci al andi deol ogi cal
r ul es i s t o sayt hat t he t wocl asses par t i ci pat e i n acommoncul t ur e. ( Par t i ci pat i oni n
acommoncul t ur e does not i mpl y commonal i t y of i nt er est s. ) Dur i ng t hose per i ods
when a soci al f or mat i on i s pr ovi di ng t he pr oduci ng cl ass ( or cl asses : I use t he
si ngul ar f or mas agener al i zat i on) wi t h at l east mi ni mal subsi st ence, soci al l i f e, and
cul t ur e, andwhent he achi evement of anal t er nat i ve soci al f or mat i ongr oundedi na
hi gher mode of pr oduct i oni s not r eal i zabl e, i t woul dnot usual l ybe i n t he i nt er est of
t he pr oducer s t o dest r oyt hesoci al f or mat i on{t hough i t i s al ways i n t hei r i nt er est s
t o st r uggl e f or bet t er condi t i ons) . Even when, i n t he decl i ni ng year s of a soci al
f or mat i on, oppr essi oni s i nt ensi f yi ngandcont r adi ct i ons ar e shar peni ng, andi t i s i n
t hepr oducer s'i nt er est t o dest r oy t he cl ass st r uct ur e, i t i s st i l l not i n t hei r i nt er est t o
dest r oy most f acet s of t he common cul t ur e, i ncl udi ng ar t , sci ence, t echnol ogy,
18 8

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
r el i gi on, l anguage ( obvi ousl y) , andso on. For al l such mat t er s, we canar gue t hat
t he i nt er est s of t he pr oduci ngcl assi n def endi ng t hei r cul t ur e t endt o r unpar al l el t o
t hose of t he r ul i ng cl ass. I st r ess al l of t hi s t o avoi d t he ser i ous er r or , t o whi ch
Mar xi st s ar e r at her pr one, of bel i evi ng t hat awor ki ngcl ass does not have i t s own
sel f - i nt er est i nt he cul t ur e whi ch i t shar es wi t h t he r ul i ng cl ass, acul t ur e whi ch, t o a
l ar ge degr ee, t he wor ki ng cl ass i t sel f cr eat ed.
Commonal i t yof cul t ur e bet ween r ul er s andr ul edwi t hi n- i nt er nal t o- asoci et y
seems t o mani f est i t sel f i n t wo pr i nci pal ways . The f i r st i s a mat t er of soci al
i nt er act i on. I nal l cl ass soci et i es t her e i s some degr ee of i nt er act i onbet weent he t wo
pol ar cl asses . I n t he most anci ent f or ms of cl ass soci et y, andpar t i cul ar l y i n t he
soci et i es emer gi ng f r ompr e- cl ass char act er , r ul er s and pr oducer s wer e i oi ned i n
common ki nshi p, and at l east a f i ct i ve r el i c of t hi s sur vi ved f or a l ong t i me
t her eaf t er . I n al l cl ass modes of pr oduct i on, i nt er - cl ass i nt er act i on r emai ns
i mpor t ant . I t consi st s pr i mar i l y of par t i ci pat i on byal l member s of t he soci et y i n
smal l er soci al net wor ks, eachof whi chembr aces cl ass f r act i ons not t oodi st ant f r om
one anot her ( f or i nst ance as ser f andf r ee- t enant , sol di er andkni ght , wor ker and
f or eman, pet t y bour geoi s and mi ddl e bour geoi s) , al l such net wor ks bei ng
i nt er l i nked i nan over al l net wor k ext endi ng t hr oughout t he soci et y, t he poi nt her e
bei ngt he cont i nui t y of achai n of i nt er act i ons ext endi ng f r omt he l owest pr oducer
t o t he hi ghest r ul er . I n addi t i on, i n al l cl ass modes of pr oduct i on, f r omanci ent
soci et y t o monopol ycapi t al i sm, t her e i s, i nr easonabl yst abl eper i ods, at l east some
i nt er - cl ass mobi l i t y, i nvol vi ng on t he one hand a t r i ckl e of r ecr ui t ment f r omt he
pr oduci ng cl ass i nt o t he r ul i ng cl ass ( vi a smal l i ncr ement al movement s f r omone
cl ass f r act i on t o t he adj oi ni ng hi gher f r act i on) , andon t he ot her hand demot i on
downwar ds i nt he cl ass st r uct ur e ( t he gent r y f ami l y `f al l enon har d t i mes' et c . ) .
The second set of commonal i t i es r esi des at t he l evel of i deol ogy. Onl y when a
soci al f or mat i onhas r eachedt he st age of i nt ense, pr e- r evol ut i onar ycont r adi ct i ons,
can we sayt hat t he publ i c i deol ogi cal r eal mi s l ar gel y domi nat edbyt hose bel i ef s
and val ues whi ch ar e gener at ed by t he r ul i ng cl ass f or t he pur pose pur el y of
myst i f i cat i on andpaci f i cat i on, of gener at i ng f al se consci ousness i nt he pr oducer s'
mi nds so t hat t hey wi l l mi sper cei ve t hei r cl ass i nt er est s andr emai nqui escent . At al l
ot her t i mes, al t hough myst i f i cat i on i s al ways pr esent , t he i deol ogi cal r eal mas a
whol ei s vast l y l ar ger andmor e compl ext hant hat ar ea embr aci ng onl y r ul i ng- cl ass
i deol ogy andi t s pr oj ect i onas f al se consci ousness, andi t woul dbebot hunt r ue and
t er r i bl y el i t i st t o ar gue t hat t he i deol ogy of t he wor ki ngcl ass i s mer el y onet hat has
been handed downf r omt he r ul er s . Such woul di mpl y bot h a deni al of wor ki ng-
cl ass cul t ur e andval ues- f or somesoci et i es, peasant cl ass cul t ur e andval ues- anda
deni al t hat t he i deol ogy of t he pr oducer s at al l t i mes i ncor por at es at t i t udes of
ant i - r ul i ng- cl ass st r uggl e . I ngener al , t hen, i t canbe seent hat t he r ul es of behavi our
andbel i ef , whi ch ar e i ncor por at ed i ncul t ur e, andwhi chconst r ai n bot h r ul er s and
pr oducer s, pl ay an i mpor t ant r ol e i ncondi t i oni ng, i ndeed t emper i ng, t he i nt er nal
cl ass st r uggl e.
Wecome nowt o t he cr ux of t he ar gument . Ext er nal expl oi t at i on i s t he pr i nci pal
means by whi ch a r ul i ng cl ass cancont i nue - i f i t has t he power t o do so - t he
i ncr ement al i ncr ease i naccumul at i onaf t er i nt er nal expl oi t at i on has r eachedsucha
l evel t hat a subst ant i al i ncr ease i n t he del i ver y of sur pl us f r om t he i nt er nal
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

189
pr oduci ng cl ass i s no l onger possi bl e or no l onger pr udent . I mmedi at el y our
at t ent i on i s dr awnt o t he mat t er of soci al andi deol ogi cal r ul es, r ul es of cul t ur e, and
we not i ce t wo t hi ngs : f i r st , t he l i mi t at i ons on expl oi t at i ve behavi our whi ch one
obser ves i n t he case of i nt er nal cl ass r el at i ons do not ext end t o ext er nal cl ass
r el at i ons, t o t he expl oi t at i onof `f or ei gner s' , ei t her i n t hei r ownhomel ands or af t er
t hei r i mpor t at i on i nst at uses suchas t hat of sl ave, `guest wor ker ' , or t he l i ke. And
second, t he i deol ogi cal r ul es gover ni ng andl egi t i mi zi ng i nt er nal cl ass r el at i ons do
not appl yt o ext er nal cl ass r el at i ons. Thi s l ast r equi r es a bi t of di scussi on.
I nt er nal wor ker s ar e concept ual i zed, bot h byt hemsel ves andbyt he r ul i ng cl ass,
i n a cat egor y whi ch can r at her l oosel y be descr i bed as `ci t i zen' , or at l east as
`l i l cl i l bcr vf t l i c soci et y' . i nai l cl ass- st r at i f i ed soci et i es, fr omt he most anci ent t o t he
most moder n, t hi s st at us has pr ovi ded ani nt er nal wor ker wi t ha bundl e of r i ght s,
def i nedbyi deol ogy andsanct i onedbyl awor byabi ndi ng mor al code. Suchr i ght s
mayi ncl ude, i n one soci et y, t he r i ght t o i nher i t pr oper t y ( a r i ght not accor ded a
sl ave) ; i n anot her , t he r i ght t o vot e ( a r i ght not accor dedcol oni al wor ker s or `guest
wor ker s' i n moder n t i mes) . Al l such r i ght s ar e won i n st r uggl e, and t hey
i nst i t ut i onal i ze t he means by whi ch a pr oduci ng cl ass def ends i t sel f f r om
i ncr ement al i ncr eases i n expl oi t at i on. Some of t hese r i ght s ar e ver y gener al , but no
l ess i mpor t ant f or bei ngso. For exampl e, t her e i s adef i ni t i on of `mur der ' i n ever y
cl ass soci et y, shar pl y const r ai ni ng t he condi t i ons under whi ch a pr oducer canbe
put t o deat h. But t he ki l l i ng of `f or ei gner s' i s much l ess const r ai ned, i f at al l .
For ei gner s canbeki l l ed, i f i t sui t s t he i nt er est s of anexpansi ve r ul i ng cl ass t o doso,
i nbat t l e, i nt he or di nar yr epr essi onvi si t edona conquer edpeopl e, and, beyondt hi s,
i npl ai ngenoci de, as when t he r ul i ng cl ass wi shes t o empt y t he conquer edl ands of
t hei r i nhabi t ant s andr eset t l e i nt er nal wor ker s ont hese l ands.
I n sum, t he r ul es whi ch r est r ai n i nt er nal expl oi t at i on do not r est r ai n ext er nal
expl oi t at i on. For ei gner s al ways have di mi ni shed r i ght s ; somet i mes t hey have no
r i ght s at al l ; somet i mes t hey ar e not evendef i ned, andt r eat ed, as humanbei ngs . Al l
of t hi s i s t o be expl ai ned i n si mpl e hi st or i cal - mat er i al i st t er ms by t he f act t hat
wi t hi n a cl ass- st r at i f i ed soci et y soci al and i deol ogi cal r ul es ar e necessar y t o
mai nt ai n st abi l i t y andcont i nui t y i n t he mode of pr oduct i on. Expl oi t at i on out si de
t hat soci et y, andexpl oi t at i on of ext er nal wor ker s f or ced t o move i nt o t he space of
t hat soci et y, neednot be so const r ai nedbyr ul es. Or , t o be mor e pr eci se, t he r ul esar e
st r i ki ngl y di f f er ent : t hey al l owf or amuch hi gher l evel of expl oi t at i on, a l evel t hat
of t en t hr oughout hi st or y has been so hi gh as t o pr event t he bi ol ogi cal andsoci al
r epr oduct i on of t he ext er nal pr oduci ng cl ass.
I t i s t r ue, of cour se, t hat , sooner or l at er , t he abi l i t y of anexpansi ve cl ass soci et y
t o shi f t t he i ncr ement al bur den of expl oi t at i on ont o t he backs of f or ei gner s
di mi ni shes . At a cer t ai nmoment i n t he l i f e of a gi ven soci al f or mat i on, oneof t wo
t hi ngs i s l i kel y t o happen: ei t her t he r ul i ng cl ass becomes dependent on ext er nal
pr oducer s t o j ust t he same ext ent t hat i t hadbeendependent uponi nt er nal ones, at
whi chpoi nt t he soci al andi deol ogi cal r ul es const r ai ni ng expl oi t at i on of t he i nt er nal
pr oducer s ar e ext endedt o ext er nal pr oducer s, whomayevenbecome i nt er nal i zed,
cul t ur al l y r edef i ned as `ci t i zen' ; or t he r ul es ar e not ext ended i n t hi s way, t he
out come bei ng cont i nued super expl oi t at i on and oppr essi on up t o t he poi nt at
whi ch t he ext er nal sur pl us ceases t o f l ow, because of successf ul r ebel l i on or
190

Cl ass St ruggl es across aBoundary
dest ruct i onof t heext ernal producers as acl ass. I nbot h cases, t heopt i onof gai ni ng
an i ncrement of surpl us f romext ernal producers i s wi t hdrawn, and cl ass
cont radi ct i ons wi t hi nt he rul ers' ownsoci et ybecomemuchi nt ensi f i ed, concei vabl y
t o t he poi nt of successf ul revol ut i on. I t i s al so possi bl e t hat t heresi st ance of t hecl ass
of ext ernal producers wi l l si gni f i cant l y hel p such ani nt ernal revol ut i on. Thi s has
happenedof t enenough i n t he past andmayhappenagai nt odayor t omorrow.
Ext ernal expl oi t at i oni nvol ves moret hanani nt ernal rul i ngcl assandanext ernal
produci ng cl ass. Wehave t o consi der as wel l t he rol e of t he i nt ernal producers i n
t hi s process, and al so t he rol e of t he ext ernal rul i ng cl ass, f or most conquered
soci et i es aret hemsel ves cl ass- st rat i f i ed. I t i s t rue, t o begi nwi t h, t hat members of t he
: nt ernal produci ng cl ass p$rt i i i pat 2 di r~a. t i y i Ti t ui Z CvuqueSt , ~Subj i i gat i vu, ai ad
expl oi t at i onof f orei gnworkers, doi ngso, at t heveryl east , as members of ami l i t ary
f orce. Such part i ci pat i on i s, basi cal l y, one of t he j ob- assi gnment s f orced ona
produci ng cl ass, one of t he al t ernat i ve ways i n whi ch members of t hat cl ass are
expl oi t ed. Never, I suspect , does t he i nt ernal worki ng cl ass as a whol e- as acl ass-
gai nabsol ut ebenef i t f romf orei gnexpl oi t at i on: nopart of t he burdeni s l i f t edf rom
i t s shoul ders. At most , i t s members gai nsomerespi t e f romaddi t i onal , i ncrement al ,
expl oi t at i on: t he burden does not i ncrease, or i ncrease qui t e as rapi dl y, when
addi t i onal surpl us can be ext ract edf romf orei gn workers i nst eadof t hemsel ves.
Thi s mat t er i s verycompl ex, of course, anddeserves muchmoreat t ent i ont hanI can
gi ve i t here. For t he purposes of t he present argument , i t i s onl y necessary t o
emphasi ze t he f act t hat i nt ernal andext ernal expl oi t at i on co- exi st : t he l at t er does
not repl ace t he f ormer. 29
Wecomef i nal l yt o t heext ernal or domi nat edrul i ngcl ass, t he f ourt hcl ass- group
i n our hi ghl y si mpl i f i ed model of t wo cl ass- st rat i f i ed soci et i es i nt eract i ng as
domi nant andsubordi nat e, each wi t h one rul i ngcl ass andone cl ass of producers.
Obvi ousl y, we woul dnot usual l yf i ndi nreal i t yj ust t wocl earl ydef i nedandneat l y
segregat edcl asses i neach of t he t wo soci et i es, but at t he l evel of abst ract i onof t he
present di scussi on, whi chseeks i nt he spaceof af ewpages t ogeneral i zef oral l cl ass
modes of product i on, no f urt her el aborat i oni s possi bl e. I shoul dj ust addt hat one
addi t i onal case canbenegl ect edi nt hi s di scussi on: t hat of acl ass soci et ydomi nat i ng
a cl assl ess soci et y. As I not ed i n Chapt er 2, t hi s case i s f ar l ess commont han
t heori st s t endt o real i ze. Most of t he so- cal l ed `t ri bal ' soci et i es are cl ass- st rat i f i ed.
Manyof t hemhave(or had) a st at e. Al l , t odayat l east , l i ve wi t hi none or anot her
sort of st at e andmost experi ence ext ernal expl oi t at i on; andt hi s hel dt rue i nt i mes
pri or t o t he ri se of capi t al i smt o a great er ext ent t han i s general l y real i zed.
`Ci vi l i zat i on' , i f you wi l l , i s andhas beenf ar more wi despreadt hanconservat i ve
andsome Marxi st t heori es woul dl eadus t o expect .
J ust as t herearecases i nwhi chanext ernal produci ngcl ass i s wi pedout or f orced
t o emi grat e, andi nt ernal producers t hent aket hei r pl ace, so t here arecases i nwhi ch
anext ernal rul i ngcl ass i s wi pedout andt heext ernal producers t hereaf t er mai nt ai n
cl ass rel at i ons of product i ononl y wi t h t he (f romt hei r perspect i ve) f orei gnrul i ng
cl ass, wi t hor wi t hout t hepart i ci pat i on of subal t erngroups drawnf romei t her of t he
t wo produci ng cl asses. Thi s havi ng been not ed, we can t urn t o t he f ar more
wi despreadandsi gni f i cant case i n whi ch t he ext ernal (subordi nat e- soci et y) rul i ng
cl ass remai ns i n pl ace and cont i nues t o rul e. Thi s i s si gni f i cant mai nl yf or t wo
Cl ass St ruggl es across aBoundary

191
reasons. Fi rst , f romt he out set t here i s compet i t i onanda consequent i al f ormof
cl ass st ruggl e bet weent he t worul i ngcl asses. (I assumeasi t uat i on i nwhi ch t he t wo
soci et i es are suf f i ci ent l y di st ant i n t erms of cul t ure andsoci al i nt eract i on t hat t he
t wo rul i ng cl asses donot part i ci pat e i na si ngl e webof cust omaryi nt eract i on and
ki nshi p. ) Thi s compet i t i onbet weenspat i al l yandsoci al l yseparat edrul i nggroups,
as i t occurredduri ngt he peri odof ri si ng capi t al i smi ncent ral andeast ernEurope,
was t he paradi gmf or not a f ewgeneral t heori es of nat i onal i sm, i ncl udi ng t he
post - cl assi cal Marxi st t heori es. I t was argued t hat nat i onal movement s i n t hi s
regi ont endedt o ref l ect t he ef f ort s byl ocal el i t es, pet t y bourgeoi si e, bourgeoi si e,
perhaps al so l andowners, t o f i ght of f t he compet i t i onof t he l arger bourgeoi si e of
t he domi nant _ i mperi al soci et y byt rvi n_e t o secede andf orma st at e i n whi cht hey,
t hel ocal el i t e, ~woul dhol dpower andamore or l ess excl usi ve l i cence t o accumul at e.
Hence smal l nat i onnat i onal i smandi t s adversary, great nat i on nat i onal i sm. The
di f f i cul t yherei s t hat t hi s ki ndof casei s paradi gmat i c onl yf or oneof manyki nds of
nat i onal st ruggl e, a ki ndwhi ch i s no l onger i nanysense t ypi cal .
Theconf l i ct bet weeni nt ernal andext ernal rul i ngcl asses canhavea secondt ype
of out come, somewhat di f f erent i ncharact er f romt heonej ust descri bedal t hough, I
suspect , al l real - worl dcases ref l ect somecombi nat i onof t he t wot ypes. Thi s second
f ormi nvol ves a rel at i onshi p of t ri but e bet weent he ext ernal (subordi nat e- soci et y)
rul i ng cl ass andt he i nt ernal (domi nant ) one: t he f ormer shares surpl us wi t h t he
l at t er. Thi s must i mpl yagreat i ncrease i n t he expl oi t at i ve burdenont he ext ernal
produci ng cl ass. I ndeed, f ai l ure t o i mpose t hi s added pressure woul d f orce t he
ext ernal (subordi nat e- soci et y) rul i ng cl ass ei t her t o accept an erosi on of i t s cl ass
posi t i on or t o engage i n t he ki nd of i nt er- rul i ng- cl ass st ruggl e di scussed i n t he
precedi ngparagraph. Thel at t er st rat egyi s usual l yunavai l abl e i nasi t uat i onof real
domi nance. The most t ypi cal out come seems t o be i nt ensi f i ed expl oi t at i on of t he
ext ernal (subordi nat e- soci et y) produci ngcl ass. Thi s i mpl i es, amongot her t hi ngs, a
syst emat i c vi ol at i onof t hecust omaryrul es governi ngexpl oi t at i on, cl ass rel at i ons,
and t he l i ke, i n t hat soci et y. Thus i ncrement al expl oi t at i on i s accompani ed by
i nt ensi f i ed soci al andcul t ural oppressi on. The resul t s must be vol at i l e.
The Pol i t i cs of Ext ernal Cl ass St ruggl e
Al l cl ass st ruggl e i s pol i t i cal , as anyoneever i nvol vedi na st ri ke pi cket l i ne knows
verywel l . But t hedi f f erent f orms of st ruggl e l i e at di f f eri ng di st ancesf romt he core
of power, t he st at e. The wi nni ng of st at e power does not al ways si gnal def i ni t i ve
vi ct ory- wi t ness Chi l eandGrenada- but i t i s asaf e general i zat i ont hat t he wi nni ng
of real pol i t i cal power, t he sei zure of t he st at e i n t he f ul l est sense, i s normal l y t he
cl osest measurabl epoi nt t o vi ct oryi n t he st ruggl e of subordi nat ecl asses t o di spl ace
rul i ng cl asses, whet her or not t he vi ct ory i s progressi ve and whet her or not i t
produces a change i n t he underl yi ng mode of product i on. Thi s hol ds t rue f or al l
cl ass modes of product i oni f we agree (wi t h Leni nandmanyot her t heori st s) t hat
wherever t here i s a cl ass soci et y t here i s a st at e of one sort or anot her . ;
Ext ernal cl ass st ruggl e empl oys t he same essent i al f orms of st ruggl e as does
i nt ernal cl ass st ruggl e, but t here are nonet hel ess i mport ant di f f erences bet weent he
t wo. Onesuchdi f f erenceunderl i es, andi nmaj or part expt ai ns, al l t he ot hers. Thi s i s
t he speci f i ci t yof ext ernal expl oi t at i on. Ext ernal expl oi t at i oni s al most al ways more
19 2

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
i nt ense t han i nt er nal expl oi t at i on, i nt ensi t y her e meani ng t he pr opor t i on of
pr oduct i on whi ch i s appr opr i at ed by t he r ul i ng cl ass, a pr opor t i on whi ch cannot
exceed a cer t ai n l evel wi t hout i mpedi ng t he mai nt enance ( r epr oduct i on) of t he
pr oduci ng cl ass andgener at i ng i nst abi l i t y. For t he r easons al r eady abundant l y
di scussed, i nt er nal pr oducer s ar e not pushed beyond t hi s l i mi t dur i ng most
segment s of t he l i f e- cycl e of a soci al f or mat i on. Thi s i s not t r ue of ext er nal
pr oducer s. Expl oi t at i on, i n al l cl ass modes of pr oduct i on, has t endedt o be much
mor e i nt ense f or ext er nal pr oducer s t han f or i nt er nal ones .
Ther e ar e a number of f undament al di f f er ences bet ween t he pol i t i cs of cl ass
st r uggl e i n ext er nal l y r ul ed soci et i es andaut onomous soci et i es, di f f er ences whi ch
mor e or l ess di r ect l y r ef l ect t he speci f i ci t y of ext er nal expl oi t at i on. Four such
di f f er ences ar e par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant f or anunder st andi ng of t he r oot s of nat i onal
st r uggl e.
Thef i r st of t hese di f f er ences i s qui t e si mpl y t he f act t hat ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e i s
mor e nakedl y pol i t i cal t han i nt er nal cl ass st r uggl e. Thi s f ol l ows f r omt he f act t hat
cust omar y and st abi l i zi ng r el at i ons exi st bet ween r ul i ng cl ass and i nt er nal
pr oducer s i n agi ven soci et y, sucht hat expl oi t at i on wi l l cont i nue wi t hout t he need
f or much r esor t t o naked, t hat i s, pol i t i cal , power. I nt he case of ext er nal pr oducer s,
we ar e deal i ng wi t hasi t uat i on i n whi chgr eat er expl oi t at i onoccur s, andonewhi ch
t her ef or e i ncor por at es over t pol i t i cal oppr essi on f r ombegi nni ng t o end: i t begi ns
wi t h pr essur e f or i ncr easeddel i ver y of sur pl us, andi t cont i nues t o appl y pr essur e
f or f ur t her i ncr ement al i ncr eases, such pr essur e necessar i l y i nvol vi ng pol i t i cal
oppr essi on. I nour ownt i me t he di f f er ence canbe seen, f or i nst ance, i f we compar e
t he pr i mar i l y, but not excl usi vel y, economi c st r uggl e of t he pr ol et ar i at i n 19t h
Cent ur y Engl andwi t h t he i nt ensel ypol i t i cal andmi l i t ar y st r uggl es i nBr i t ai n' s ol d
andnewcol oni es i n t he same per i od. Not onl ywas t her e a st r i ki ng cont r ast but , as
Mar x, Engel s, andLeni nal l poi nt edout at onet i me or anot her , t he t wo cont r ast i ng
si t uat i ons wer e di al ect i cal l y r el at ed t o each ot her . "
Secondl y, t he f or mof t he st at e i s l i kel y t o be ver y di f f er ent i nsoci et i es whi ch ar e
ext er nal l ydomi nat ed. I t goes wi t hout sayi ng t hat t hi s i s t r ue i nt he capi t al i st er a: we
needmer el ynot e t he f or ms of t he st at e f oundi n col oni es, i nneocol oni es, and, i n t he
r ecent past , i n t he ext er nal l y r ul ed soci et i es wi t hi n t he gr eat mul t i nat i onal
cont i nent al empi r es whi ch exi st edup t o t he endof t he Fi r st Wor l dWar . I n ear l i er
soci al f or mat i ons t he same basi c di f f er ence woul d be f ound. These soci et i es ar e
oppr essi ve. The pr oducer s ar e subj ect s of super expl oi t at i on and, t o enabl e t hi s,
speci al oppr essi on. The l ocal r ul i ng cl ass, i n t hese ext er nal l y r ul ed soci et i es, does
not i ngener al r et ai n r eal power , i t s cl ass posi t i oni s l i kel y t o be under at t ack f r om
t he ext er nal ( domi nant ) r ul i ng cl ass, andi t cannot t r ansmi t al l t hi s pr essur e t o t he
pr oducer s si nce t hey ar e al r eady expl oi t edmor e t han i s, so t o speak; nor mal f or a
gi ven mode of pr oduct i on. Mor eover , t he l ocal r ul i ng cl asshas ver y l i t t l e chance t o
i ncr ease i t s abi l i t y t o accumul at e, t hus t o ` r i se' , under condi t i ons of domi nat i on.
Onemi ght sayt hat t hese ext er nal l y r ul edst at e f or msar e undemocr at i c, al t hough
t hi s begs a ver y compl i cat ed quest i on. Vl ~' e woul d not , f or i nst ance, speak of
democr acyi nf eudal soci et i es, yet i t seems t o be obj ect i vel y t r ue t hat t he oppr essi on
of t hei r pr oduci ngcl asses, eveni ncl udi ngser f s, i s r est r ai nedwi t hi nl i mi t s gover ned
by one or anot her f or mof t he cust omar y r ul es whi ch we di scussed pr evi ousl y.
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

193
Hence, i t i s l egi t i mat e t o suggest t hat ext er nal l y r ul ed soci et i es i nf eudal andot her
pr e- capi t al i st cl ass modes of pr oduct i on wer e i n a r eal sense l ess democr at i c t han
t he aut onomous soci et i es . As t o t he capi t al i st epoch, i t seems t r ue t hat essent i al l yal l
ext er nal l y r ul ed soci et i es, i ncl udi ng col oni es, semi - col oni es, andneocol oni es, ar e,
andmust be, l ess democr at i c t hanaut onomous soci et i es, t hat i s, t he met r opol i t an
count r i es, agai n because of t he i mper at i ves of super expl oi t at i on andi t s const ant
compani on, oppr essi on. Nor i s i t cer t ai n t hat we must make an except i on f or
advancedcapi t al i st count r i es whi ch ar e ( or wer e unt i l r ecent l y) f asci st . Ther ei s no
democr acyunder f asci sm, yet t he most f ear f ul char act er i st i c of f asci smi s i t s abi l i t y
t o mobi l i ze maj or i t y suppor t f or some, at l east , of i t s i nhuman pol i ci es . I n
ext er nal l y r ul edsoci et i es i nwhi chpr nt ~yr Pr s ar e sypPr PxpI ni t PA; t hat i s ; i nc_. nl pni ec ;
neocol oni es, andt he l i ke, i t seems l i kel y t hat t her e i s l ess consent , l ess const r ai nt
upon t he r ul er s, t han even t her e was i n Eur opean f asci st count r i es.
Consent i s not t he same as qui escence, t hat i s, accept ance of ext er nal l y i mposed
r ul e as a r eal i t y agai nst whi ch one may st r uggl e but wi t h t he knowl edge t hat
l i ber at i on wi l l t ake some t i me t o or gani ze. I t i s cl assi cal l y t r ue t hat col oni zed
peopl es have seemed, t o t he col oni zer andt o l i t er ar y t r avel l er s, t o be consent i ng t o
t hei r col oni al condi t i on, si mpl y because l i f e seems t o be goi ngoni na nor mal sor t of
wayandsi gns of st r uggl e ar e not appar ent . One r ecal l s i n t hi s r egar d t he f amous
case of t he Fr ench pl ebi sci t e i ncol oni al Al ger i a, whi ch seemed t o showt hat 97per
cent of t he peopl e want edt o r emai nunder Fr ench r ul e. Shor t l yt her eaf t er t he war of
l i ber at i on br oke out . Af t er t he Fr ench hadbeen beat en, t he Al ger i an gover nment
or gani zedanot her pl ebi sci t e, aski ng t he peopl e whet her t hey want edt o r emai nt i ed
t o Fr ance, and97per cent vot ed ` no' . So muchf or t he appear ance of consent . 3ZI n
al l col oni es, wi t h or wi t hout t he evi dence of an ar t i f i ci al pl ebi sci t e, t he col oni zed
peopl e seemon t he sur f ace t o be consent i ng t o t hei r condi t i on unt i l t hey ar e on t he
ver ge of wi nni ng t hei r l i ber at i on, af t er whi ch t he i dea t hat t hey had ear l i er
consent edt o col oni al i smbecomes l udi cr ous. " I t i s f or t hi s r eason t hat I t hi nkwe
can suppor t t he pr oposi t i on t hat t her e i s no mor e r eal f r eedomi n col oni es t han
t her e i s, or was, i n t he cl assi cal f asci st soci et i es. The pr oposi t i onal so hol ds t r ue f or
some neocol oni es . As I ar gued i n Chapt er 4, undemocr at i c st at es ar e essent i al f or
t he mai nt enance of a pol i t i cal envi r onment per mi t t i ng super expl oi t at i on. One
cannot r eal l y speak of consent i ncount r i es l i ke Chi l e, El Sal vador andI ndonesi a. '
The t hi r d of t he sal i ent di f f er ences i n pol i t i cal pr ocess bet ween ext er nal l y r ul ed
soci et i es, wi t h ext er nal expl oi t at i on of t hei r wor ki ng cl asses, and aut onomous
soci et i es has t o do wi t h t he f act t hat t he st r uggl e t o sei ze t he st at e i s much mor e
l i kel y t o be avi abl e shor t - r un st r at egy f or wor ki ngcl asses i nt he f or mer case t hani n
t he l at t er . I n t he l at t er , i ncr ement al vi ct or i es ar e of t en t o be woni n t he pr oduct i on
pr ocess, i ncul t ur al st r uggl es, i nt he wi nni ngof democr at i c r ef or ms, andt he l i ke. I n
ext er nal l y r ul ed soci et i es, st r uggl es ar e gener al l y car r i ed on i n t he mi dst of di r ect
oppr essi on andnakeduse of pol i t i cal power , andt he di r ect i on of st r uggl e t ends,
t her ef or e, t o t ur n t owar ds t he sei zur e of st at e power , or t o do so mor e di r ect l y t han
i s usual l y t he case i n aut onomous soci et i es . I t i s i mpor t ant t o not e her e t hat t he
or i gi nal i mposi t i on of ext er nal r ul e onasoci et y i s, i t sel f , anakedl ypol i t i cal act . The
st at e t her eaf t er i s i nt ensel yvi si bl e; i t s pr esence cannot be so easi l y myst i f i ed( as` we
t hepeopl e' , f or exampl e) . Andt ypi cal l y, t houghnot i n al l cases of ext er nal r ul e, t he
194

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss a Boundar y
st at e i s mor e cl ear l y, di r ect l y, andi mmedi at el y t he f ocus of cl ass st r uggl e t han i s
t r ue f or aut onomous cl ass soci et i es .
The f our t h pol i t i cal di f f er ence concer ns t he r el at i onshi p of cl asses i n pol i t i cal
st r uggl e. The pr oducer s i n ext er nal l y domi nat edsoci et i es t end t o be, as we have
di scussed, super expl oi t ed. Thi s usual l y i mpl i es a super i mposi t i on of demands on
t hose of t hel ocal ( subor di nat e- soci et y) r ul i ng cl ass. Thepost ur e of t hel ocal r ul i ng
cl ass, as we saw, mayvar yf r omcol l abor at i onwi t h t he ext er nal r ul er s t o opposi t i on.
Dependi ng upon t hi s post ur e, and of cour se upon a number of ot her var i abl es-
r ecal l agai nt hat t hi s di scussi oni s supr emel yabst r act , si nce i t s uni ver se of di scour se
i s t hewhol eof cl ass soci et y- t hepr oduci ngcl ass mayf i nd i t advant ageous t o f or m
anal l i ance wi t h i t s ownr ul i ng cl ass, or some f r act i on of t hat cl ass, i nast r uggl et o be
r i d of ext er nal domi nance and super expl oi t at i on. Gener al l y t hi s seems t o occur
when, f or what ever r eason, t he ext er nal ( domi nant ) r ul er s t r ul y under cut t he cl ass
posi t i onandaccumul at i on oppor t uni t i es of t hei nt er nal ( subor di nat e) r ul i ng cl ass.
But when t hi s al l i ance occur s i t t ends t o have maj or si gni f i cance.
I n pr e- capi t al i st cl ass soci et i es war s wer e of t enwagedwi t hout t hemasses of t he
pr oducer s becomi ng ser i ousl y i nvol ved: t hei r par t i ci pat i on was of t en l i mi t ed t o
obl i gat or y or mer cenar ymi l i t ar yser vi ce, f or ceddel i ver y of addi t i onal sur pl us, and
t hel i ke. Whenr ul er s andpr oducer s wer ej oi nt l y i nvol vedi nast r uggl e, t hi s st r uggl e
t endedt o be qual i t at i vel ydi f f er ent . Thewhol e soci et y andi ndeed t he whol e of t he
cul t ur e shar ed bypr oducer s andr ul er s coul d nowbe di r ect ed t owar ds t he goal of
st r uggl e, andt he st r uggl e hada wayof becomi ng much mor e i nt ense, andmuch
mor e successf ul . I n many of t he 19t h Cent ur y Eur opean and Lat i n Amer i can
nat i onal movement s agai nst ext er nal r ul e we f i ndmuch t he same pr ocess: most ( not
al l ) cl asses wer e mobi l i zed t owar ds a common pol i t i cal goal . Qui t e of t en t he
passi ons, i r r at i onal i t y ( Hobsbawm) , f al se gl or i f i cat i on of nat i onal hi st or y( Nai r n) ,
appeal t o f ol k her oes andsymbol s of nat i onal uni t y, i nvocat i on of t he common
r el i gi on, andt hel i ke, whi cht endt o be t r ai t s of t hi s ki nd of st r uggl e, ar e denounced
or sat i r i zed byt heor i st s of nat i onal i sm, i ncl udi ngas we have seensome Mar xi st s .
But t her e i s passi on, i r r at i onal i t y, et c . , i n al l ki nds of st r uggl e i ncl udi ng t hest r uggl e
f or soci al i sm. Andmor e concr et el y, t he essent i al dynami c of uni f yi ng al l pat r i ot i c
cl asses and i nvoki ng al l avai l abl e symbol s and at t r i but es of uni t y maycor r ect l y
r ef l ect t he l ogi c of cl ass st r uggl e. Of cour se, i t maynot . Ther ear ecount l ess cases of
nar r ownat i onal i smi n whi ch t he i nvol vement of t he pr oduci ngcl asses r ef l ect s, not
cl ass i nt er est , but si mpl e f al se consci ousness : myst i f i cat i on.
Pr obabl yt he desi der at um, i nmost cases t hough not al l , i s t he pr esence or absence
of super expl oi t at i on i nvol vi ngsuper i mposeddemands f or sur pl us pr oduct . When
pr oducer s ar e t hus bot h ext er nal l y andi nt er nal l y expl oi t ed, i t t ends t o be t o t hei r
advant age t o f i ght agai nst t he ext er nal sour ce of expl oi t at i on even i f t hi s i nvol ves
some col l abor at i on wi t h i nt er nal expl oi t er s, t hough onl y i f t he l at t er ar e t r ul y
engaged i nst r uggl e agai nst ext er nal domi nat i on.
I nant i - col oni al st r uggl es t hi s l ogi c of cl assst r uggl e r at her t ypi cal l ycal l s f or some
f or mof al l i ance bet weenpr oduci ng cl asses andt hose who ar e of t en descr i bed as
`pat r i ot i c l ocal busi nessmen' - usual l ypet t ybour geoi sf i gur es, t hough mi ddl e- l evel
bour geoi si e mayoccasi onal l y j oi n t he r anks. I t wi l l be r ecal l ed t hat Leni nf ought a
maj or i deol ogi cal st r uggl e on t hi s i ssue wi t h t hose ( l i ke M. N. Roy) whoconsi der ed
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

195
i t an abomi nat i on t o make any sor t of al l i ance, even a t empor ar yone, wi t h any
bour geoi s sect or s i n t heant i - col oni al st r uggl e. Sai d Leni n, i n ef f ect , t he nat i onal
l i ber at i on movement must t r y t o al l y al l ant i - i mper i al i st sect or s . 3 s
Nowt her e i s al so al ogi c, under cer t ai nci r cumst ances, t o t he f or gi ngof i nt er - cl ass
al l i ances i n t he advancedcapi t al i st count r i es, as f or i nst ance i nan ef f or t t o i sol at e
monopol ycapi t al i smf r omal l ot her sect or s andcl ass f r act i ons. But i t t ends t o be a
gener al , st r uct ur al f act i n ext er nal l y domi nat edsoci et i es i n whi ch pr oducer s ar e
super expl oi t ed andl ocal el i t es ar e f or cedt o f i ght t o def endt hei r cl ass posi t i onf r om
ext er nal at t ack, t hat some f or mof mul t i pl e- cl ass al l i ance t owar ds t he sei zi ng of
st at e power i s cal l ed f or . I n t hi s sense, and not i ng many except i ons, t her e i s a
gnnr i f i r i YvYnt hn, w, l : r ; . . c ~F
ext a. r u

i vi

1

1 . ,

1. .

'

7 - . . - . . 11. . 7 ' . . . . -
1, . . . . . . . . , . . ) .

Yv. aaa~. o

a

a~. , ~~ugg. ~, : . a.: . e. y
,
t i i ~pvt ci i t i ai Yai auci i aui
of cl ass i nt er est s i n opposi t i on t o ext er nal expl oi t at i on and r ul e.
Wemayconcl ude, t hen, t hat t her e i s adegr ee of speci f i ci t y t o t he pol i t i cs of cl ass
st r uggl e i n ext er nal l y r ul ed st at es, st at es i n whi ch t he pr oduci ng cl ass has t o cope
wi t h ext er nal expl oi t at i on. Thi s speci f i cal l y ext er nal f or mof cl ass st r uggl e i s f ound
i n al l cl ass modes- of pr oduct i on, t hough not i n al l soci al f or mat i ons and
geogr aphi cal ci r cumst ances. I n t he moder n wor l d, domi nat edby capi t al i sm, t he
pol i t i cs of ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e becomes t he nat i onal st r uggl e.
Nat i onal St r uggl es and Hi st or y
At t he begi nni ngof t hi s chapt er I under t ook t o br oaden, or gener al i ze, t he t heor y of
nat i onal st r uggl e as cl ass st r uggl e, byt aki ngup t hequest i onwhi chhadbeenposed
i n Chapt er 1 : i s nat i onal st r uggl e a f eat ur e of cl ass st r uggl e i n gener al ? I ~t hen
pr oceededt o ar guet hat t her e i s a di st i nct i ve f or mof cl ass st r uggl e, andaf or mof t he
st r uggl e f or st at e power , whi ch has been char act er i st i c of cer t ai n soci et i es and
geogr aphi cal ci r cumst ances i nal l cl ass modes of pr oduct i on si nce anci ent t i mes. I t
i s, br i ef l y, t hest r uggl e f or cont r ol of a st at e whi ch i s ext er nal l y r ul ed, andi nwhi ch
ext er nal r ul e has t he f unct i onof enabl i ng what I have cal l ed ext er nal expl oi t at i on,
t hat i s, t he pecul i ar l y i nt ense expl oi t at i on of t he pr oduci ng cl ass or cl asses when
par t or al l of t he r ul i ng cl ass i s f r omanot her soci et y and anot her st at e. We
concer nedour sel ves f i r st wi t h t he var i ousf or ms of ext er nal expl oi t at i oni n di f f er i ng
epochs, t hen consi der ed t he i nher ent f unct i ons of ext er nal expl oi t at i on, or mor e
pr oper l y i t s speci f i c di f f er ences f r omi nt er nal expl oi t at i on, t hen exami ned t he
cul t ur al nexus wi t hi n whi ch each f or mof expl oi t at i on i s embedded, andf i nal l y
consi der ed t he pol i t i cal i mpl i cat i ons of ext er nal expl oi t at i on and r esi st ance t o
expl oi t at i on: ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e. We concl udedwi t h a summar yof t he speci f i c
pol i t i cal f eat ur es of ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e i n gener al , t hat i s, i n al l cl ass soci et y.
Does i t f ol l owt hat nat i onal st r uggl es go back t o t he dawn of cl ass soci et y? I t does
f ol l owt hat aspeci f i cal l y ext er nal f or mof t he st r uggl e f or st at e power i s ver y ol d i n
cl ass soci et y. Whenwe t r ace t hi s f or mof st r uggl e down t o moder n t i mes i t i s cl ear
t hat i n al l epochs, andi n al l cl ass modes of pr oduct i on, t hi s f or mhas been bot h
i mpor t ant anddi st i nct i vel y di f f er ent f r omi nt er nal f or ms of st r uggl es.
By concent r at i ng near l y al l t hei r at t ent i on on t he i nt er nal f or m, Mar xi st s have
not onl ybui l t ani ncompl et e model of cl ass soci et y, andof i t s hi st or y; t hey have al so
ver yser i ousl ymi si nt er pr et ed t he nat ur e of cl ass st r uggl es i n ext er nal l y domi nat ed
soci et i es. Today t hese ar e, br oadl y speaki ng, t he count r i es of t he Thi r dWor l d,
196

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
count r i es whi ch shar e a common hi st or y of col oni al i smand i n most cases a
commonexper i ence of neocol oni al i sm. Fai l i ng t o per cei ve t he speci f i ci t y of t hei r
st r uggl es, and t he speci al oppr essi on andsuper expl oi t at i on agai nst whi ch t hese
st r uggl es ar e f ought , f ai l i ng even t o per cei ve t hese st r uggl es as cl ass st r uggl es, many
Mar xi st s accept a model of t he wor l d i n whi cht he Thi r dWor l dsect or i s seen as
r el at i vel yi nconsequent i al f or soci al change onawor l dscal e, andsoci al pr ocesses i n
t hi s sect or ar e r educed t o t he st at us of l at e- ar r i vi ng di f f usi ons f r omt he
met r opol i t ansect or whi chhave no hi st or i cal pot ency. As I have t r i edt o showi nt hi s
book, manyvar i ant s of t he Mar xi st t heor y of nat i onal i smor nat i onal st r uggl e ar e
f l awed i npr eci sel yt hese ways . The`i dea of nat i onal i sm' i s anar t i f act of di f f usi on.
T11G`bvi i r gcvi ~dcl l l ol : r at l l : r evol t l t l on' i s an ar t i f aci of di f f usi on. Li ke Sl eepi ng
Beaut y, t hese soci et i es have sl umber edt hr oughout hi st or y, wai t i ng f or t he Pr i nce t o
wakent hem. Andt he wakeni ng, t he nat i onal movement , i s j ust t hat , anawakeni ng;
i t i s not a f or mof cl ass st r uggl e. Ther e i s no cl ass enemy. And so on.
To avoi d t hese i l l usi ons, moder n st r uggl es f or nat i onal l i ber at i on shoul dbe seen
agai nst anhi st or i cal backdr op of pr i or f or ms of st r uggl est o sei ze st at e power f r om
ext er nal r ul i ng cl asses . The moder n f or ms, l i ke t hei r pr edecessor s, ar e cl ass
st r uggl es, andcl ass st r uggl es of a r el at i vel y di st i nct t ype. But does i t not f ol l owt hat
t he ent i r e soci al cat egor y shoul d be l abel l ed `nat i onal st r uggl e' ?
Themost i mpor t ant r easonwhywe shoul dr eser ve t he t er m`nat i onal st r uggl e' f or
moder nf or ms of ext er nal cl ass st r uggl e, t hose whi cht ake pl ace dur i ng t he l i f et i me
(mor e or l ess) of capi t al i sm, i s pr eci sel y t he i mpor t ance of capi t al i smi n t hi s
equat i on. Nat i onal st r uggl es of t he capi t al i st er a di f f er f undament al l y f r om
compar abl e pr e- capi t al i st st r uggl es f or many r easons, r easons whi chboi l downt o
t he speci f i c di f f er ence bet ween capi t al i smandal l pr i or f or ms of cl ass soci et y i n t he
mat t er of ext er nal expl oi t at i on andcl ass st r uggl e. But t hese di f f er ences, as I ar gued
at anear l i er poi nt i nt hi s chapt er , ar e not absol ut e: t her e ar emanycr uci al pr ocesses
whi chchar act er i ze cl ass soci et y i n gener al , not mer el y capi t al i st soci et y.
We have her e t wo i nt er sect i ng causal pr i nci pl es : t he speci f i c causal i t yof ext er nal
cl assst r uggl es f or st at e power , andt he speci f i c causal i t yof pol i t i cal st r uggl es wi t hi n
capi t al i sm. Nat i onal st r uggl es can onl y be under st ood i f bot h par t s of t he
expl anat i on ar e dr awnt oget her . I nt he case of nat i onal l i ber at i onst r uggl es i nThi r d
Wor l d count r i es, we must t ake account of t he f act t hat t hey ar e ext er nal cl ass
st r uggl es, st r uggl es f uel l ed by speci al oppr essi on and by super expl oi t at i on, and
st r uggl es whi ch ar e di r ect ed agai nst ext er nal r ul i ng cl asses and wi t h t hei r l ocal
al l i es. Andwe must t ake account of t he f act t hat t hese soci et i es ar e domi nat edby
pol i t i cal f or ces unl eashed bycapi t al i sm, wi t h i t s speci al l ogi c of accumul at i onand
expl oi t at i on.
Asecond r eason f or r eser vi ng t he concept `nat i onal st r uggl e' t o ext er nal cl ass
st r uggl es of t he moder n per i od i s mai nl y a semant i c mat t er but st i l l ani mpor t ant
one. Thi s i s t he f act t hat i t i s sensi bl e t o br acket t he t er m`nat i onal st r uggl e' wi t h
ot her i mpor t ant concept s l abel l ed `nat i onal ' , and not abl y t he concept of t he
nat i onal st at e. Mar x andEngel s madeaver y st ur dy ar gument about t he i mpor t ance
t o capi t al i smof f or mi ng moder at el y l ar ge st at es, and st at es whi char e r el at i vel y
undi f f er ent i at edi ncul t ur al t er ms. Thi s was cl assi cal bour geoi s nat i onal i smandt he
cr eat i on of bour geoi s nat i onal st at es . The er a dur i ng whi cht hese st at es emer ged
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

197
andgr ewpower f ul was i ndeed r evol ut i onar y i n t er ms of t he hi st or y of pol i t i cal
f or ms, and al l subsequent st at e f or ms, i ncl udi ng soci al i st f or ms, have i n some
measur e evol ved f r omt he pr i mal capi t al i st nat i onal st at e. ' 6 (I pr ef er not t o use t he
expr essi on `nat i on st at e' i n t hi s di scussi on because i t t ends t o evoke t he i dea of a
st at e wi t h onl y one nat i onal i t y or cul t ur e. ) So i t i s appr opr i at e t o speak of nat i onal
st r uggl e as a mat t er whi cht ypi cal l y(but not al ways) i nvol ved f or ces st r uggl i ng t o
cr eat e a nat i onal st at e and f or ces opposi ng t hi s obj ect i ve. (Nat i onal st r uggl e i s
st r uggl e. ) Theobj ect i ve maybe a soci al i st st at e. I t maybe a mul t i nat i onal st at e. I t
mayr ef l ect some concept of f eder at i on wi t hout t he l oss of sover ei gnt y, as i n t he
pol i t i cal pr ogr ammes of some nat i ve nat i ons: I t mayt ake some ot her f or m. I woul d
mr r Pl y Pmnhaci 7r t hr cPmant i r r r acnnaht r nPCC of hr ar kr t i no t hr nnt i nnc of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r _ _ ~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ - _ - . . . . . . . . . _ . - . . _ . , . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
nat i onal st r uggl e andnat i onal st at e. Thi s i s not t o be conf usedwi t ht he St al i nesque
dogma about `t he nat i on' wi t h whi chwe deal t i n Chapt er 5.
Nat i onal St r uggl es and Cul t ur e
The r emai ni ng t ask of t hi s chapt er i s t o exami ne some r el at i onshi ps bet weent he
t heor y of nat i onal st r uggl e and t wo ot her bodi es of i deas, one concer ni ng t he
concept of t he nat i on, t he ot her t he concept of cul t ur e. Bot hof t hese concept s have
r ecei vedsome at t ent i onher e al r eady, but nei t her has been t r eat edas r eal l y cent r al ,
cr uci al , t o t he t heor y of nat i onal i sm. Ther e i s a wi despr ead vi ewamong Mar xi st s
t hat t he ver y hear t of t he t heor y i s t he exer ci se knownas `def i ni ng t he nat i on' . The
t heor y i t sel f , i nt hi s vi ew, i s at heor y of nat i ons, andt he pr i nci pal appl i cat i onof t he
t heor y t o i nst ances of nat i onal st r uggl e or t he nat i onal quest i on i s a j udgment
whet her apar t i cul ar communi t yengagedi n some f or mof nat i onal st r uggl e i s, or i s
not , a genui ne nat i on: i f i t i s, i t s st r uggl e may possi bl y deser ve t he suppor t of
pr ogr essi ves; i f i t i s not , i t does not . Per i od. Li mi t ed t hough t hi s ent er pr i se i s, i t s
ver y val i di t y depends upont her e bei nga def i ni t e andunvar yi ng t hi ng t o be cal l ed a
`nat i on' . St al i n' s 1913essay, `Mar xi smandt he Nat i onal Quest i on' , post ul at ed such
an i nvar i ant ent i t y, andmost Mar xi st s who adopt t hi s appr oach t o t he t heor y of
nat i onal st r uggl e al so adopt St al i n' s def i ni t i on. I n Chapt er 5 I t r i ed t o showt hat
St al i n' s def i ni t i oni s not wel l - gr oundedandnot ver yusef ul . But mybasi c ar gument
i s t hat we do not needa`har d' (unvar yi ng) concept of nat i oni n or der t o const r uct a
val i d andusef ul t heor y of nat i onal st r uggl e or nat i onal i sm.
Fr omanot her quar t er comes t he t hesi s t hat `cul t ur e' has much t he same
cent r al i t y f or a t heor y of nat i onal i smas St al i naccor dedt o `nat i on' . Thi s i s mai nl ya
conser vat i ve vi ew, echoedbyaf ewMar xi st s . I t s t r adi t i onal f or mi s t he once- f amous
`pr i nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' , t he ar gument t hat each cul t ur e, or (synonymousl y)
nat i onal i t y, has some i nher ent ur ge t o f or mi t s. own separ at e st at e. 3' Today,
pseudo- ant hr opol ogi cal , pseudo- psychol ogi cal , andeven pseudo- bi ol ogi cal ar gu-
ment s ar e added, t o yi el d a t heor y whi ch der i ves nat i onal movement s, nat i onal
aggr andi zement , andi ndeed nat i onal f r i ct i ons i n gener al f r oma sour ce deep i n
humancul t ur e or bi ol ogyor bot h. Thei mpor t ant poi nt f or t he pr esent di scussi oni s
t hat al l ver si ons of t hi s t heor y deny t hat , f i r st , nat i onal pr obl ems ar e r oot ed i n
expl oi t at i on; second, nat i onal st r uggl e i s apar t of cl ass soci et y(i t i s, t hey say, as ol d
as cul t ur e or ol der ) ; andt hi r d, pol i t i cs andt he st at e ar e cent r al t o nat i onal st r uggl e,
not epi phenomenal .
19 8

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
Nat i ons ar e i mpor t ant , not l east t o t hose who ar e t r yi ng t o bui l d nat i ons and
t hose who ar e t r yi ng t o l i ber at e nat i ons. By t he same t oken, cul t ur e i s i mpor t ant ,
not l east as an i nt egr at or of nat i onal st at es and as a di mensi on of l i ber at i on
st r uggl es. But t o sayt hi s i s not t o r educe t het heor yof nat i onal st r uggl e t o at heor y
of nat i ons or a t heor yof humancul t ur e. Thi s poi nt of vi ewwas i mpl i ci t , at l east , i n
t hear gument s of pr i or chapt er s andt he f i r st par t of t hi s chapt er . I n t hef ol l owi ng
par agr aphs I wi l l t r y t o make i t ent i r el y expl i ci t .
Nat i ons
Adi st i nct i on has t o be made bet ween t wo sor t s of concept s of t he nat i on, or t wo
f or ms of def i ni t i on f or t he wor d `nat i on' . One i s `har d' , t he ot her `sof t ' . The one
asser t s exact l y what ar e t he char act er i st i cs of al l nat i ons, andal so asser t s t hat t he
f ut ur e pol i t i cal behavi our of nat i ons canbe pr edi ct ed f r omt hese char act er i st i cs.
Theot her , t he sof t concept or def i ni t i on, mer el y gi ves a descr i pt i onof t he sor t s of
t hi ngs whi char eusef ul l y l abel l ed wi t h t he wor d `nat i on' . I n t he Mar xi st l i t er at ur e,
t her e ar et wover y f amous at t empt s t o s~i ppl y ahar dconcept , t hose of Bauer i n 1907
andSt al i ni n 1913 . Mar x, Engel s, Luxembur g, andLeni nnever went beyonda sof t
concept ; t hey di d not t r y t o gi ve a t echni cal def i ni t i on t o t he wor d `nat i on' . ' $ For
Bauer andSt al i n, on t heot her hand, t he i dea t hat nat i ons ar edef i ni t e, i nvar i abl e,
di scover abl e, hi ghl y pr edi ct abl e ent i t i es l ay at t he r oot of t hei r t heor i es of
nat i onal i sm. As I expl ai ned i n Chapt er 5, St al i ndef i ned t he nat i on i n t er ms of i t s
i nvar i abl e i nt er nal char act er i st i cs, al l of whi ch must bepr esent i nacommuni t yi f i t
i s t r ul y a nat i on, and i n t er ms of i t s i nvar i abl e spacet i me coor di nat es ;
( ` . . . bel ongi ngt o adef i ni t e epoch, t he epoch of r i si ngcapi t al i sm' ) ; he t henasser t ed
t hat nat i ons, andnat i ons al one, enj oyt he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on, t hat i s, have a
pol i t i cal bi ogr aphy, past , pr esent , and f ut ur e. Bauer , as I ment i onedbr i ef l y i n
Chapt er 2, usedt hesame asser t i ve f or mof ar gument , except t hat hi sdef i ni t i onwas
ver ydi f f er ent f r omSt al i n' s andconf or medt o hi s ar gument t hat nat i ons do not have
pol i t i cal bi ogr aphi es anddo not have t he r i ght of sel f - det er mi nat i on.
St al i n' s def i ni t i on, and mor e consequent i al l y hi s f or mof ar gument , became
i mmensel y i nf l uent i al i n Mar xi st di scussi ons about t he nat i onal quest i on. Few
seemedt o not i ce t hat St al i nr eal l y gave no t heor et i cal gr oundi ngf or t he def i ni t i on
i n hi s f amous essay. Nowadays, as I showed i n Chapt er 5, t he def i ni t i on i s onl y
usef ul i n descr i bi ng one t ype of nat i on amongsever al ; most of t he f or mer col oni es
woul dnot qual i f yas nat i ons under t hi s def i ni t i on; nor woul dmanyot her count r i es
t o whi ch we woul d comf or t abl y appl y t he wor d `nat i on' , such as Swi t zer l and,
Czechosl ovaki a, Denmar k, andt he Ger manDemocr at i c Republ i c ( whi ch emer ged
as a nat i on af t er t he r i se of soci al i sm) .
The speci f i c def i ni t i on i s l ess i mpor t ant t han t he f or mof t hear gument . Canwe
l ook at t he ar r ay of humancommuni t i es anddeci de on t he basi s of f i xed cr i t er i a
whi ch of t hemhave t her eal i st i c pot ent i al t o subsi st , vi abl y, as i ndependent st at es?
The answer i s no. For one t hi ng, vi abi l i t y r el at es t o ext er nal as wel l as i nt er nal
condi t i ons . For i nst ance, i t t akes not hi ngawayf r omt her evol ut i onar y achi evement
of some of t he younger andsmal l er soci al i st nat i ons t o sayt hat t hei r vi abi l i t y, t hei r
l ong- t er mabi l i t y t o sur vi ve i n a st i l l l ar gel y capi t al i st wor l d, has somet hi ngt o do
wi t h t he f act t hat t he wor l d envi r onment al so i ncl udes l ar ger , ol der , and mor e
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss a Boundar y

199
f or mi dabl e soci al i st count r i es. For anot her t hi ng, vi abi l i t yi noneepochmaynot be
vi abi l i t y i n anot her epoch, as wi t ness t he bi sect i on of f or mer Ger many. But most
cr uci al l y, t he i nt er nal char act er i st i cs ar e pr edi ct or s of vi abi l i t y onl y i n a
pr obabi l i st i c sense: f or i nst ance, possessi on of a common l anguage i s a good
i nt egr at i ve t r ai t f or a nat i on, but some mul t i - l i ngual st at es have achi eved nat i onal
i nt egr at i on, andhave sur vi ved andf l our i shed.
But not i ce, i naddi t i on, t hat t hef or mof ar gument i s l i ke anequat i on: ononesi de
ar et he necessar yt r ai t s ; ont he ot her si de i s not si mpl y t he concept of nat i on, but t he
concept of pol i t i cal l y i ndependent st at e. I n shor t : St al i n' s def i ni t i onof nat i ons i s
r eal l y anef f or t , aQood onef or i t s t i me, t o advi se Mar xi st s on t he vi abi l i t y of st at es .
Hear guedi nessence: non- st at e communi t i es occupyi ngonespace andpossessi ng a
si ngl e cul t ur e andan i nt egr at edeconomycan become vi abl e st at es, t hough onl y i n
t heper i odof r i si ng capi t al i sm( `si nce whenhave Soci al - Democr at s begunt o occupy
t hemsel ves wi t h "or gani zi ng" nat i ons, "const i t ut i ng" nat i ons, "cr eat i ng"
nat i ons?" 9) . Thechi ef t heor et i cal vi r t ue of St al i n' s def i ni t i onandt heor y of nat i ons
was t hat i t descr i bed t he t ypi cal i ndependent capi t al i st nat i on st at e of t he 19t h
Cent ur yandshowed( i npar t ) whyt hi s ki ndof st at e was vi abl e, cul t ur al uni t ybei ng
a cr uci al f act or .
We ar e no l onger i n t he per i od when t hi s model does us muchgood. We can get
mor e use out of asof t concept of t henat i on. Theonewhi chI amcomf or t abl e wi t h,
and whi ch I suspect ( but cannot pr ove) was t he concept i n t he mi nds of Mar x,
Engel s, and Leni n, i s r oughl y as f ol l ows. The t er m`nat i on' i s usef ul l y appl i ed t o
communi t i es of t wosor t s. One i s an i ndependent st at e whi ch i s vi abl e i nt he sense
t hat i t i s unl i kel y t o decompose or l ose i t s i ndependence. The ot her i s a non- st at e
communi t y whi ch cl ear l y has t he pot ent i al f or becomi ng, andst ayi ng, pol i t i cal l y
i ndependent . Thi s pot ent i al i s assessed i n ei t her of t wo ways; nor mal l y but not
necessar i l y i nbot h. One i s t hepr esence of f or t i f yi ng, uni f yi ng char act er i st i cs, such
as cul t ur al andsoci al i nt egr at i on, economi c pot ent i al , si ze, andspat i al coher ence.
The possessi on of a common pi ece of t er r i t or y i s cr uci al , i n t he sense t hat t he
communi t y wi l l have t o have t er r i t or i al expr essi on when i t has become an
i ndependent st at e: i t wi l l have t o be t he sol e occupant of a spaceont hemap. The
second way of assessi ng t he communi t y' s pot ent i al f or becomi ng an i ndependent
st at e f ocuses on t he nat i onal movement : i s i t ast r ong, popul ar , dur abl e movement
whi ch; i n t he ci r cumst ances pr evai l i ng, i s l i kel y t o wi n t hr ough t o st at e
i ndependence i nt hef ut ur e, near or di st ant ? Gui nea- Bi ssau, as Cabr al poi nt ed out ,
became anat i on t hr oughi t s nat i onal movement andnat i onal st r uggl e. `Tenyear s
ago we wer e Ful a, Mandj ak, Mandi nka, Bal ant e, Pepel , andot her s . Nowwe ar e a
nat i on of Gui neans . '
Ther e i s a si mpl er and mor e di r ect way of expr essi ng t hi s sof t andr at her open
concept of nat i on. We use t he wor d `nat i on' when we ar et al ki ngabout apol i t i cal
communi t y. The wor d br i ngs pol i t i cs i nt o any di scussi on about , f or i nst ance, a
cul t ur e, a soci et y, an economy. We mayengage i n any sor t of di scussi on about
Puer t o Ri co, f or i nst ance, but whenwe begi nt o t al k about t hePuer t o Ri cannat i on
we ar e t al ki ng pol i t i cs - ser i ous pol i t i cs : about t he st r uggl e f or sel f - det er mi nat i on
andi ndependence. I t i s i n pr eci sel y t hi s sense t hat t he concept of nat i on denot es
somet hi ngr eal , t angi bl e, andi mpor t ant . Ther e i s aPuer t o Ri cannat i onbecause t he
200

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
peopl e of Puer t o Ri co f or ma genui ne, i nt egr at ed cul t ur e and communi t y and
because t hey act t oget her f or a common pol i t i cal f ut ur e. Somet hi ng l i ke t hi s
meani ng emer ges al so i n young i ndependent count r i es whi ch ar e st r uggl i ng f or
i nt egr at i on anddevel opment : `Our nat i onmust have . . . must do . . . ' , andso on.
Gr ant ed, t hi s concept of t he nat i on i s not al t oget her pr eci se; nor i s i t t heor et i cal l y
`har d' . But no one has pr oduceda concept whi ch i s so, andmanyhave t r i ed.
When we di scar d St al i n' s def i ni t i on, and t he har d f or mof def i ni t i on of t he
nat i on, we canpr oduceamor e meani ngf ul t heor yof nat i ons. Wecan, f or onet hi ng,
l ook at communi t i es empi r i cal l y t o deci de t hei r act ual pol i t i cal pot ent i al , i nst eadof
dependi ngupona St al i nesque checkl i st . Wecansensi bl y di scuss soci al i st nat i ons.
DnAmnr t e . . o; . ~l e . Wo. , ea- : 1 : x . . . 6. , . , . . . , AL. , e___ . t . , " . . . . t , . ~'
- - - - " - " " " - " " . . ~ . + " ~" . . . . + " . . v Yvooamuay wmaWTi c i 3at i vnS cx i Swu vane me cpwum
r i si ng capi t al i sm' wi t hout f al l i ng i nt o t he mor ass of myst i ci smwhi chi magi nes t hat
nat i ons ar e as ol das humancul t ur e, ar e, i n Poul ant zas' st ar t l i ngl y un- Mar x i st t er m,
`t r anshi st or i cal ' . Thi s mat t er of pr e- capi t al i st nat i ons deser ves a comment , byway
of concl udi ng our di scussi on about t he nat i on.
Usi ng a sof t def i ni t i on of t he nat i on, we can cer t ai nl y poi nt t o pr e- capi t al i st
nat i ons, and not onl y t o ear l y moder n, pr ecoci ous nat i ons and nat i onal
movement s. Ther e seemt o be t wo st i cki ng poi nt s . One i s our gener al t heor y of
nat i onal i smor nat i onal st r uggl e. As we di scussed pr evi ousl y, t her e can be no
di scussi on of nat i onal st r uggl e or nat i ons i npr e- capi t al i st er as i f our t heor y si mpl y
asser t s t hat nat i onal st r uggl e i t sel f i s apr oduct of moder ncapi t al i sm. But , as I ar gue
i nt hi s book, nat i onal st r uggl e i s cl assst r uggl e, andt he f i r st cl ass st r uggl es i nhi st or y
occur r ed l ong bef or e t her e was abour geoi si e. Thesecondst i cki ng poi nt i s al i t t l e bi t
of Eur ocent r i sm, ex pr essed, t ypi cal l y, i n t he f ol l owi ngpr oposi t i on: bef or e t he r i se
of moder n nat i ons came t he per i od of f eudal i sm, whi chwas oneof ex t r emepol i t i cal
f r agment at i on, henceof not hi ngt hat coul dbe cal l ed anat i on; andbef or e t hat came
t he Roman Empi r e, agai n a pol i t y t hat coul d not be cal l ed a nat i on; er go, no
pr e- capi t al i st nat i ons. But t he pol i t i cal f r agment at i on whi ch char act er i zed
medi eval Eur ope ( t hough not al l of i t , and not at al l t i mes) di d not char act er i ze
some ot her r egi ons i n var i ous pr e- moder n per i ods.
Suppose, f or t he sake of ar gument , t hat we wer e t o appl yt he concept of nat i onas
a descr i pt i on of hi st or i cal soci et i es whi ch wer e pol i t i cal l y i ndependent st at es of
some f ai r si ze andpower andwer e r easonabl y wel l i nt egr at edcommuni t i esi nsoci al
andeconomi c t er ms. We woul dal l owf or some degr ee of cul t ur al di f f er ent i at i on,
andf or t he f act t hat economi c i nt egr at i on i n pr e- capi t al i st economi es hadt o be
somewhat l i mi t ed ( al t hough t he bel i ef t hat pr e- capi t al i st economi es wer e
compl et el y uni nt egr at ed i s anot her i nval i d gener al i zat i on f r omf eudal Eur ope) .
Gi venal l of t hi s, onecoul d make a st r ongcase t hat t he f ol l owi ngcount r i es, among
ot her s, wer e nat i ons dur i ng l ong hi st or i cal per i ods: Vi et nam, Chi na, nor t her n I ndi a
( f r om t he Maur yan per i od) , I r an, Zi mbabwe, Sudani c st at es ( f or i nst ance
Songhay) , Egypt , Fr ance. My own pr ef er ence, appl yi ng t he r easoni ng used
pr evi ousl y f or t heconcept of nat i onal st r uggl e, i s t o r eser ve t he concept of nat i on
f or capi t al i st andsoci al i st nat i ons. But I cannot see t hat i t makes muchdi f f er ence
ei t her way, so l ong as t heconcept of nat i oni s congr uent wi t h t he t heor y of nat i onal
st r uggl e; and so l ong as we accept t he l egi t i macy of t he cl ai mby count r i es l i ke
Vi et namt hat t hei r nat i ons ar ever yol d; andso l ong as we avoi d t he dr ear y dogma
t hat a count r ycannot be a nat i on unt i l i t i s f ul l y capi t al i st . '
Cl ass St r uggl e acr oss aBoundar y

201
Cul t ur es
The col l ect i ve concept of cul t ur e, t he i dea of a communi t y of peopl e who hol da
number of f undament al t r ai t s i n common, l anguage usual l y bei ng one of t hese
t r ai t s, has pl ayed a ver y i mpor t ant r ol e i n t he t heor y of - nat i onal i smand i n
nat i onal i smi t sel f . As we di scussed i n Chapt er 2, t he f i r st i mpor t ant Eur opean
t heor y of nat i onal i sm, t he mai nl y Hegel i an Ger mani c t heor y, cl ai med t hat some
cul t ur es, t he `hi st or i c' ones, possess an i nnat e need, r i ght , and `wi l l ' t o become
uni f i ed and sover ei gn st at es . The `pr i nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' ex t ended t hi s t o al l
cul t ur es : `Each nat i onal i t y i t s st at e; each st at e i t s nat i onal i t y. ' ( A`nat i onal i t y' i n
t hi s sor t of di scour se i s acul t ur e . ) 1 9t h Cent ur ynat i onal movement s i ncent r al and .
east er n Eur ope t ended i ndeed t o be gr ounded i n par t i cul ar cul t ur es, and t hei r
st r uggl es made i mpor t ant useof t he cul t ur e' s t r adi t i ons . And, i n gener al , t her e i s no
doubt t hat t he pr e- ex i st i ng uni t yof apeopl e, ex pr essedi nt hef act s whi chmake i t a
si ngl e cul t ur e, i s a power f ul weapon i n any st r uggl e f or i ndependence. By no
coi nci dence, t he opponent s of i ndependence movement s al ways t r yt o dest r oy t hi s
uni t yandsuppr ess t he cul t ur e. I n Puer t o Ri co, f or i nst ance, t he Uni t edSt at es has
been t r yi ng wi t hout success si nce 1 898 t o suppr ess t he Spani sh l anguage, and t o
dest r oy t he consci ousness of nat i onal i t y. At t he same t i me, t he def ence of Puer t o
Ri cancul t ur e has beenoneof t he most i mpor t ant ar enas of st r uggl e i n t he f i ght f or
i ndependence.
Al l of t hi s i s f ai r l y wel l under st ood i nt heMar x i st t heor y of nat i onal i sm. Engel s
wr ot e about cul t ur e i n r el at i on t o soci al evol ut i on andt o nat i onal st r uggl e; i n hi s
1 866 essay, `What Have t he Wor ki ng Cl asses t o Do wi t h Pol and?' he devel oped
what I t hi nk i s t he basal Mar x i st posi t i on oncul t ur e- he wr ot eof `nat i onal i t y' - and
i t s r el at i onshi p t o t he pol i t i cs of nat i onal st r uggl e, t aki ng i nt o account t he
i mpor t ance of l anguage, t er r i t or y, ex t er nal pol i t i cal cont ex t , andot her f act or s, and
he car ef ul l ydi st i ngui shed t he Mar x i st vi ewf r omt he `pr i nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' .
. z
Ot t o Bauer , i n 1 907, ar gued t hat a nat i on i s si mpl y a cul t ur e, f r omwhi ch he
devel opedhi s ar gument t hat nat i ons have not hi ngmucht o do wi t h st at es; pol i t i cal
i mpl i cat i ons asi de, hi s t r eat i se onnat i onal i t y i ncor por at ed a pr of ound anal ysi s of
( Eur opean) cul t ur es anda ver y sensi bl e set of i deas about def endi ng mi nor i t y ci vi l
r i ght s . ' For St al i n ( 1 91 3) , a nat i on i s acul t ur e wi t h added at t r i but es : def i ni t e
t er r i t or y, i nt egr at ed economy, andhi st or i cal empl acement i n t he per i od of r i si ng
capi t al i sm; hi s di scussi on of cul t ur al pr ocesses per se i n t he 1 91 3 ar t i cl e i s qui t e
usef ul . I n mor e r ecent t i mes, Ami l car Cabr al has wr i t t enel oquent l y andpr of oundl y
on t he r ol e of cul t ur e, def ence of cul t ur e, andcul t ur e uni f i cat i on, i n t he nat i onal
l i ber at i on st r uggl es of col oni es ; hi s anal ysi s of t hi s quest i on i s one of t he most
i mpor t ant newcont r i but i ons t o t he Mar x i st t heor y of nat i onal i sm. Ot her
i mpor t ant newcont r i but i ons have been made by Hor ace Davi s, Roza I smagi l ova,
andmanyot her s .
. s
Thi s i s not t he most backwar d sect or of t he Mar x i st t heor y of
nat i onal i sm, al t hough ser i ous pr obl ems r emai n t o be sol ved.
But `cul t ur e' i s al so t he cl oak f or some ver y bad t heor i es about t he i nher ent
nat ur e of nat i onal st r uggl e, i t s pur pose, andi t s pol i t i cs ( or l ack of pol i t i cs) . I wi l l not
go i nt o det ai l on t hese mat t er s now, but I wi l l of f er some gener al i zat i ons about t he
202

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
vi ews whi ch pl ace cul t ur e at t he absol ut e cent r e of t he nat i onal quest i onandt he
t heor yof nat i onal i sm. Most i mpor t ant l y: t her e i s a wi despr eadvi ew, f oundmai nl y
i n conser vat i ve t hought but not unknown among Mar xi st s, t hat a cul t ur e,
somet i mes cal l ed an et hni c gr oup or nat i onal i t y, i s i n some f undament al sense t he
sour ce of nat i onal st r uggl es, i ncl udi ng t he st r uggl es f or st at e i ndependence andf or
t er r i t or i al aggr andi zement , andi ncl udi ngal so ever y sor t of `nat i onal f r i ct i on' and
`et hni c conf l i ct ' amongcul t ur al l y di f f er ent communi t i es wi t hi nst at es andbet ween
st at es .
Al l suchvi ews ar evar i at i ons of t het hesi s, cr i t i ci zed i n Chapt er 2, whi chdescr i bes
nat i onal i smor nat i onal st r ue_el e as an aut onomous f or ce: somet hi ng unr el at ed t o
cl ass st r uggl e. The wor st var i ant of t hi s posi t i on t ur ns up i nf asci st i deol ogy and
pseudo- sci ence, i nneo- r aci st doct r i nes l i ke `soci o- bi ol ogy' , i nt her el at edr i ght - wi ng
ani mal f et i shi smof many`et hol ogi st s' ( I put t hi s wor di n quot es becauset hi s school
ar ose mai nl y as apol i t i cal spl i t f r omt he sci ence of ani mal ecol ogywhi ch, wi t h i t s
t r adi t i ons goi ng back t o Kr opot ki n, was consi der ed t oo soci al i st i c by t he ear l y
`et hol ogi st s' ) , i n mor e t hana f ewcol l ege t ext books ( i ncl udi ng manyi nmyownf i el d
of geogr aphy) , andi n many, many ot her pl aces . I t ar gues t woj uxt aposed t heses:
f i r st , humani t y i s basi cal l y aggr essi ve, acqui si t i ve, compet i t i ve, bel l i cose ( i . e . ,
capi t al i st i c) . And second, peopl e i n gr oups, cul t ur es, behave `t r i bal l y' , t hey
nat ur al l y and i nevi t abl y engage i n st r uggl es wi t h ot her gr oups, st r uggl es f or
`t er r i t or y' . Such st r uggl es emanat e f r oma supposed i nst i nct f or `t er r i t or i al i t y' ,
somet hi ngbequeat hed t o us by our ani mal ancest or s, andsomet hi ngwhi ch l eads
cul t ur es t o make war on one anot her , t o f i ght f or t er r i t or y, f or supr emacy, andso
on, adnauseam.
. 6
Thi s i s of t enl abel l ed `soci al Dar wi ni sm' , but , as Vl adi mi r Novak
has shown, i t i s not r eal l y Dar wi ni an, but i s r at her a pr oj ect i on of t he bel l i cose
pol i t i cs of some sect or s of capi t al i st soci et y t oday, who seek t o per suade us t hat
t hei r poi nt of vi ewhas t he sanct i on of sci ence- wor se, i s ar ef l ect i onof t r ue human
nat ur e. '
I t woul d t ake me t oo f ar af i el d t o di scuss t hese unsci ent i f i c doct r i nes i n t he
pr esent vol ume. Suf f i ce i t t o say t hat even t hose ver si ons of t hi s vi ewwhi chseem
mi l dest , l east `i deol ogi cal ' , st i l l post ul at e t hat humancul t ur es, r ef l ect i ng human
nat ur e, ar e i nnat el y gi ven t o st r uggl i ng wi t h one anot her , t hat i s, t o nat i onal
st r uggl e. Ther e si mpl y i s no evi dence t o suppor t t hi s posi t i on. Or , t o be mor e
pr eci se, t he evi dence t hat menandcul t ur es ar e aggr essi ve, t er r i t or i al , andso on, i s
mor e t han count er bal anced by t he evi dence t hat i ndi vi dual s and cul t ur es ar e
cooper at i ve, soci al , shar i ng, andpeace- l ovi ng. Yet t hi s posi t i on i s ver y near l y t he
convent i onal one i n conser vat i ve soci al sci ence. Even t hose soci al sci ent i st s ( and
ot her s) whoshr i nk f r omt hesuggest i ont hat mani s i nnat el y aggr essi ve, t er r i t or i al ,
and so on, al l owt he doct r i ne t o sl i p i n t hr ough var i ous cr acks i n t he wal l : f or
i nst ance, cl ai mi ng t hat humant er r i t or i al i t y i s `anal ogous' t o ani mal t er r i t or i al i t y,
or f al l i ng back on t he di sgui sed Mal t husi ani sm( popul ar among some human
ecol ogi st s) whi char gues t hat , f oodandot her r esour ces t endi ngt o bescar ce, human
gr oups nat ur al l ycompet e, andst r uggl e wi t h one anot her , i nst ead of cooper at i ng
soci al l y t o di st r i but e r esour ces f ai r l y and i ncr ease t hei r aggr egat e avai l abi l i t y -
whi cht ends t o be what happens i n t he r eal wor l d.
Thi s doct r i ne of t he i nnat e ant agoni smof cul t ur es of f er s a compl et e, packaged
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

203
expl anat i onf or al l pr obl ems of nat i onal i sm. Nat i onal i sm, supposedl y, i s nat ur al . I t
has al ways beennat ur al , andal ways wi l l be. But i f t he i l l ogi cal i t y, andi deol ogy, of
t hi s bodyof doct r i ne be admi t t ed, howshal l we expl ai nt he i mpor t ance of cul t ur e i n
nat i onal st r uggl es? The answer s t o t hese andr el at ed quest i ons ar e st r ai ght f or war d
enough so t hat a skel et al ar gument shoul d suf f i ce f or our pur poses .
To begi nwi t h, we est abl i sh a hi st or i cal base- l i ne. Ther ei s noi mpor t ant evi dence
t o suggest t hat cul t ur es engagedi n syst emat i c st r uggl e bef or e t he or i gi n of cl ass
soci et y. Conser vat i ve exponent s of t he doct r i ne of t he i nnat e t er r i t or i al i t y of
cul t ur es ar e pr onet o poi nt t o exampl es of cul t ur al st r uggl es i nput at i vel y cl assl ess
soci et i es t oday as supposed evi dence f or t he human past . But i t i s danger ousl y
di f f usi oni st t ocl ai mt hat at t r i but es of cl assl ess soci et i es t odayar e a r ef l ect i on of t he
pr e- cl ass past si nce t hese soci et i es ar e al ways under i nt ense pr essur e f r omcl ass
soci et y, andul t i mat el y i mper i al i sm: t hey ar e subj ect t o f or cedr equi si t i ons, f or ced
l abour , f or cedcompr essi onof t hei r l ands or t r ansl ocat i onf r omt hese l ands, andt he
l i ke. Even so, t hese f ewcl assl ess cul t ur es ar e not not abl y bel l i cose. Fur t her mor e,
most st r uggl es bet ween so- cal l ed t r i bes ar e st r uggl es wi t hi n cl ass soci et y, as we
not edi nChapt er 2, andt heyt oor ef l ect t he di r ect or i ndi r ect i mpact of i mper i al i sm.
The pat t er n of expl oi t at i onandoppr essi on i nmul t i - cul t ur al soci et i es, col oni es or
f or mer col oni es, t ends t o be uneven, wi t h some cul t ur es hol di ng pr i vi l eged
posi t i ons, ei t her suf f er i ng l ess expl oi t at i on or par t i ci pat i ng mar gi nal l y i n t he
expl oi t at i onandoppr essi onof ot her gr oups . Most of t he i nt er - cul t ur al f r i ct i ons i n
supposedl y cl assl ess ( t r i bal ) soci et i es ar e f r i ct i ons i n and bet weencl ass soci et i es,
andar e i nci dent s of cl ass st r uggl e.
St i l l , t her e r emai n t he t r ul y i mpor t ant i nt er - cul t ur al st r uggl es i n cl ass soci et y,
st r uggl es mai nl y of t wo sor t s: conf l i ct s bet ween st at e- or gani zed cul t ur es and
conf l i ct s bet ween et hni c communi t i es, cul t ur es, wi t hi n moder n st at es . Some of
t hese ar e genui ne nat i onal conf l i ct s. Ther e i s, I woul d suggest , a f ai r l y
st r ai ght f or war d ar gument whi ch can showi n pr i nci pl e t hat nat i onal st r uggl es
whi ch i ncor por at e whol e cul t ur es or whol e et hni c communi t i es ar e, l i ke ot her
nat i onal st r uggl es, f or ms of t he cl ass st r uggl e, and can be expl ai ned wi t hout
i nvoki ng t he i dea of aut onomous f or ces .
Theessent i al pr i nci pl e i s t hat cl ass r el at i ons of pr oduct i on, andcl ass st r uggl es i n
gener al , ar e not somet hi ng separ at e f r omcul t ur e: t hey occur wi t hi n cul t ur e and
make useof cul t ur e t r ai t s ( l i ke t hose of l anguage) , soci al net wor ks, andt he r est of
cul t ur e as component s of t heexpl oi t at i vepr ocess andt her esponse t o expl oi t at i on.
Thi s l eads t o var i ous ki nds of st r uggl e whi ch seemt o be di spl acement s of cl ass
st r uggl e i nt o non- cl ass channel s . For exampl e, capi t al i sm' s needf or adual l abour
mar ket , wi t h asuper expl oi t edsect or , i nt he ur bancent r es of advancedcapi t al i sm,
r equi r es, as we sawi nChapt er 6 , t he mai nt enance of ghet t os, andt hi s l eads mor e or
l ess di r ect l y t o st r uggl es over housi ng, whi ch i n t ur n seemt o be conf l i ct s bet ween
maj or i t y andmi nor i t y communi t i es, wher eas i n f act t hey ar e di spl aced conf l i ct s
bet ween wor ker s and capi t al . Ot her exampl es can be gi ven i n abundance of
conf l i ct s bet ween cul t ur al l y di st i nct gr oups on bot h t he i nt ea- nat i onal and
i nt er nat i onal l evel s, i n whi cht heappar ent basi s f or conf l i ct i s amat t er of cul t ur e- i t
may, f or i nst ance, be r el i gi on, as i nNor t her nI r el andt odayandi nI ndi aat t het i me
of par t i t i on - but t he under l yi ng f or ces ar e t hose of cl ass expl oi t at i on, wi t h i t s
204

Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y
at t endant oppr essi on, andt he r esi st ance t o bot h.
Muchmor e needs t o be sai dabout t hi s mat t er of nat i onal st r uggl es whi ch seemt o
be cul t ur al conf l i ct s but ar e, beneat h t he appear ances, cl ass conf l i ct s . I wi l l have t o
cont ent mysel f her e wi t h adi scussi on of oneof t he l east vi si bl e, yet most i mpor t ant ,
f or ms of t hepr ocess whi chwe descr i be as di spl acement sof cl ass st r uggl e. I canbest
appr oach i t by usi ngaphysi cal anal ogy. I f ext er nal pr essur e i s put uponan obj ect ,
l et us say, f or i nst ance, a pi ece of cr yst al l i ne r ock, andt he obj ect br eaks apar t , we
have not onebut t wopr obl ems f or anal ysi s. Onei s t henat ur e of t he ext er nal f or ce.
The second i s t he wayi n whi ch t he obj ect br oke up: t he shape and number and
ar r angement of pi eces . I n syst ems t er ms, a f or ce act i ng on a syst emf r omt he
ext er i or wi l l af f ect i t , but i nways det er mi nedby t he i nt er nal sub- syst ems . Thus, t he
cl eavagepl anes, whi chdet er mi net hewayi nwhi ch an obj ect br eaks apar t , must be
anal ysed, al ong wi t h t he f or ce act i ng on t heobj ect . Thi s i mage of cl eavage pl anes
canbe appl i ed t o cul t ur es . Humanbei ngs l i ve i ngr oups of var yi ngsor t s andsi z es,
ext endi ngout war ds f r omt he f ami l y ( of what ever t ype) . Some of t hese gr oups ar e
l ar ge, st abl e over t i me, andconsequent i al i n t he sense t hat t hey st r ongl yaf f ect t he
behavi our of par t i ci pant i ndi vi dual s . Anypr obl emconf r ont edbyapopul at i onwi l l
t end t o be passed onandr espondedt o by t he l ar ge, st abl e, consequent i al gr oups
whi ch st r uct ur e i t . I wi l l cal l t he boundar i es bet weent hese gr oups cl eavage pl anes .
Thet wo most i mpor t ant ki nds of cl eavage pl anear ewhol e- cul t ur e boundar i es and
st at e boundar i es .
Nat i onal st r uggl e i s cl ass st r uggl e, t hat i s, i t i s f uel l ed by t he expl oi t at i ve
behavi our of some cl asses t owar ds ot her cl asses, under st andi ngacl ass t o be agr oup
wi t h some spat i al def i ni t i on ( and not , e. g. , al l t he wor ker s of t he wor l d) . Wer e i t not
f or expl oi t at i on, t her e woul dbe no ser i ous andl ast i ng oppr essi on. The i mposi ng of
t hi s expl oi t at i on and oppr essi on on peopl e of anot her communi t y- what I have
descr i bedi n t hi s book as ext er nal expl oi t at i on andext er nal cl ass st r uggl e - i s t he
nexus of nat i onal st r uggl e. Nowt hewayt hi s st r uggl e i s car r i ed out , andi ndeedt he
wayext er nal expl oi t at i oni s car r i ed out , wi l l dependont he ki nds of gr oupi ngs i nt he
soci et i es whi ch ar e i nvol ved. Some but not al l of t he uni t s of soci al act i on wi l l be
whol e cul t ur es . Expl oi t at i onmay, andi n col oni al si t uat i ons usual l ydoes, at t empt
t o make as much use as i t canof t he di vi si ons bet weent hese gr oups: t he cul t ur al
cl eavage pl anes . Per haps mor e t ypi cal l y, t her e i s no del i ber at e pl an t o set gr oups
agai nst one anot her ; t her e i s, i nst ead, one or anot her sor t of expl oi t at i ve or
oppr essi ve pr essur e on a l ar ge popul at i on such t hat t he ef f ect i s, so t o speak, a
br eaki ng upof t he popul at i onal ongcul t ur al cl eavage pl anes, andconf l i ct s bet ween
t he di f f er ent i at ed gr oups, conf l i ct s whi ch r epr esent a t r ansmi ssi onof cl ass st r uggl e
or a di spl acement of cl ass st r uggl e. The over al l st r uct ur e, descr i bed i n t he most
gener al t er ms, woul d i nvol ve cl eavage pl anes cr eat i ng what Ansel me Remy has
cal l ed `et hno- cl ass communi t i es' . As t he t er msuggest s, t her e ar e t woel ement s: f i r st ,
expl oi t at i on, whi ch pr oduces cl ass di vi si ons, and second, t he st abl e, l ar ge,
consequent i al gr oupi ngs of humanbei ngs, t he cul t ur es . Nei t her expl ai ns t heot her .
Cl ass st r uggl e expl ai ns t hef act of nat i onal st r uggl e. Cul t ur al andot her cl eavage
pl anes expl ai nmanyt hi ngs about t hef or mof t he nat i onal st r uggl e. Thepr obl emi s
much mor e compl i cat edt hant hi s, of cour se, but f ur t her di scussi onwi l l have t o be
l ef t f or anot her vol ume.
Not es
Cl ass St r uggl es acr oss aBoundar y

205
1 . Onpr i vat e pr oper t y i nl and i nmedi eval I ndi a, see, e. g. , I . Habi b, `St r uct ur e of
Agr ar i an Soci et y i n Mughal I ndi a' , i n B. N. Gangul i ( ed. ) , Readi ngs i n I ndi an
Economi c Hi st or y( 1 964) ; M. A. C. Li cer i a, `Emer gence of Br ahmanas as Landed
I nt er medi ar i es i n Kar nat aka, c. A. D. 1 000- 1 300, I ndi anHi st or i cal Revi ew1 ( 1 974) ;
R. S. Shar ma, `I ndi anFeudal i smRet ouched' , I ndi anHi st or i cal Revi ewI ( 1 974) . For
ar evi ewof t he evi dence andi t s r el evance t o Mar xi st hi st or y, see, e. g. , B. Chandr a,
`Kar l Mar x, Hi s Theor i es of Asi anSoci et i es, andCol oni al Rul e' , i n Soci ol ogi cal
Theor i es: Race andCol oni al i sm( 1 980) .
2. V. I . Leni n, `The St at e' , Wor ks 29.
3. OnPoul ant z as' descr i pt i onof nat i ons as `t r anshi st or i cal ' , see Chapt er 2 i n t hi s
vol ume.
4. I pur sue t hi s ar gument i n `Wher e Was Capi t al i smBor n?' Ant i pode 8, 2( 1 976) .
5. Anexcept i on woul d have t o be made f or egal i t ar i an soci et i es ( t he so- cal l ed
`nomads' and`bar bar i ans' ) whi chconquer ot her soci et i es andi mpose t hemsel ves as
a r ul i ng cl ass.
6. The cl assi c st at ement of t hi s pr oposi t i on i s i n F. Engel s, Ant i - Di i hr i ng ( 1 939
[ 1 878] ) , pp. 1 98- 1 99.
7. Onsl aver y i n Chi na see, e. g. , M. Ei vi n, ThePat t er n of t he Chi nese Past ( 1 973) ,
pp. 31 - 34. On I ndi a, see, e. g. , R. S. Shar ma, Li ght on Ear l y I ndi an Soci et y and
Economy ( 1 966) , Chap. 5.
8 . Ont r i but e, see S. Ami n, Unequal Devel opment ( 1 976) , Chap. 1 .
9. AmongMar xi st s t her e i s ast r angel y per si st ent , al most myst i cal bel i ef t hat t he
f act s of pr oduct i on ar e al l aggr egat ed at a si ngl e poi nt i n space; t he movement of
t hi ngs somehowbel ongs t o anot her spher e of r eal i t y, `exchange' or `ci r cul at i on'
( t wo t er ms meani ngdi f f er ent t hi ngs but pl aced t oget her wi t hi n t hi s cur i ous bel i ef ) .
Not e t hat ( I ) t her e i s achange of pl ace i npr oduct i on as wel l as change of f or m, ( 2)
physi cal ent er pr i ses engagedi n movi ng r awmat er i al s, f uel , commodi t i es- medi eval
sai l i ng vessel s, moder n r ai l r oads, et c . - ar e pr oduct i ve ent er pr i ses ( r egar dl ess of
Wal l St r eet ' s pr opensi t y t o separ at e t he `i ndust r i al ' and `t r anspor t at i on' st ock
i ndi ces) , wi t h pr oduct i ve wor ker s andpr oduct i onof val ue. Thenon- spat i al i dea of
pr oduct i on, t hi ng- f et i shi sm, has l ed t o some ser i ous t heor et i cal er r or s, many, andI
t hi nk t he most ser i ous, of whi ch r el at e t o what I cal l her e Eur ocent r i c t unnel
hi st or y, andt o anunder est i mat i on of t he i mpor t ance of ext er nal expl oi t at i on and,
i nmoder nt i mes, i mper i al i sm. For i nst ance, dependencyt heor i st s ar e unf ai r l y t axed
wi t h bei ng `ci r cul at i oni st s' , wher eas t he f l ows bet ween t he Thi r d Wor l d or
Tr i cont i nent andEur ope i n t he 1 6t h- 1 9t h Cent ur i es wer e not pr i mar i l yi nvol vedi n
exchange, bui wer e movement s of commodi t i es, or r awmat er i al s, t ypi cal l ywi t hi n
si ngl e i nt er nat i onal pr oduct i ve ent i t i es l i ke t he East I ndi a compani es, t he j oi nt -
st ock pl ant at i on- cum- shi ppi ng compani es, and agenci es of t he Spani sh and
Por t uguese gover nment . Er nest o Lacl au subt l y moves f r omt hi s ki nd of ar gument
( di r ect ed agai nst A. G. Fr ank and ot her s) t o a concl usi on t hat hi st or i cal
i mper i al i smwas somehowmar gi nal t o t he devel opment of capi t al i sm. SeeLacl au' s
Pol i t i cs andI deol ogy i nMar xi st Theor y( 1 977) . Not onl yi s t hi s t unnel - hi st or i cal but
i t i s al so t i me- bound. When, f or i nst ance, Lacl au mai nt ai ns t hat ( i nessence) ear l y
i mper i al i smwas not capi t al i st because t he pr oduct i on component ( as agai nst
exchange) di dnot i nvol ve wages, he f ai l s t o not i ce t hat ( 1 ) wages andf r ee l abour
wer e not domi nant even i n Eur ope at t he same per i od whi l e ( 2) wage l abour was
ver yi mpor t ant i n col oni al ent er pr i ses, shi ppi ng, mi l i t ar y, et c . See Dal e J ohnson' s
206

Cl ass St ruggl es across aBoundary
st rong argument agai n Lacl au et al . , i n `Economi smand Det ermi ni smi n
DependencyTheory' , Lat i nAmeri canPerspect i ves 8, 3-4( 1981) .
10. I n general , f or a gi venagri cul t ural t echnol ogy, ani ncrease i n ut i l i zabl e l and
per worker resul t s i ngreat er product i onper worker. I di scuss t hi s rel at i onshi pf or
shi f t i ng agri cul t ure i n `The Nat ure and Ef f ect s of Shi f t i ng Agri cul t ure' , i n
Symposi umont heI mpact of ManonHumi d-Tropi cs Veget at i on( 1962) . Thus whena
gi venagri cul t ural popul at i oni s gi venexpandedut i l i zabl e l and, as i n col oni zat i on,
t he t ot al product i onandpot ent i al surpl us wi l l , i n general , i ncrease. Somehi ghl y
i nt ensi ve f armi ng syst ems, l i ke market -gardeni ng, are, under some condi t i ons,
except i ons t o t hi s general i zat i on.
11 . For France, see C. T. Smi t h, AnHi st ori cal Geography of West ernEurope
bef ore i s"w( i 967) , pp. 86-i i 4. ror Chi na, see El vi n, t he Pat t ernof t he CWnese
Past , Chapt er 6. For I ndi a, see R. S. Sharma, I ndi anFeudal i sm: c. 300-1200( 1965) ;
L. Gopal , `Quasi -Manori al Ri ght s i n Anci ent I ndi a' , J ournal of t he Economi c and
Soci al Hi st ory of t he Ori ent 6( 1963) ; B. N. S. Yadav, `I mmobi l i t yandSubj ugat i on
of I ndi anPeasant ryi nEarl yMedi eval Compl ex' , I ndi anHi st ori cal Revi ew1( 1974) ;
f or Sudani c Af ri ca, see A. Smi t h, `TheEarl ySt at es of t he Cent ral Sudan' , i nJ . F. A.
Aj ayi andM. Crowder ( eds. ) , Hi st ory of West Af ri ca, vol . 1 ( 1972) .
12. Asl avemodeof product i onexi st edi nmost ( al l ?) anci ent cl ass soci et i es, but i t
was not usual l y t he domi nant mode, andi t s posi t i on i n any evol ut i onary order i s
not ent i rel y cl ear. For di scussi ons of t hi s probl em, see M. Rodi nson, I sl amand
Capi t al i sm( 1974) , pp. 64-68, and I . Habi b, `Probl ems of Marxi st Hi st ori cal
Anal ysi s' , Enqui ry3, 3 ( 1969) . Whi l eweshoul davoi dt he ol dMarxi st dogmat hat al l
soci et i es pass t hrough a sl ave `st age' , we must al so avoi dt he Eurocent ri c t unnel -
hi st ori cal dogmat hat Europe al one, GreeceandRome, hadat rue `sl ave mode of
product i on' , andt hat t hi s somehowi mpel l edEurope uni quel y f orwardt owards
capi t al i sm. ( Seet heparadi gmof t hi s error, P. Anderson' sPassagesf romAnt i qui t y
t o Feudal i sm( 1974) . ) Most l y, t hi s erroneous argument i s achi ckenandeggmat t er :
expansi ve, i mperi al soci et i es, l i ke some Greekst at es andRome, acqui re sl aves i n
abundance, hence t hei r expl oi t ed l abour i s cruci al t o t he economy. Does sl avery
expl ai n anyt hi ngi nt hese soci et i es t hat i s not more basi cal l y expl ai nedbyi mperi al
expansi on? Whi ch, t hen, i s cause? Sl avery was prof oundl y i mport ant i n some
advanced regi ons of Af ri ca and Asi a, j ust as i t was i n t he advanced European
Medi t erranean. The probl emi s i n part a mat t er of scal e: compari ng, e. g. , At hens
wi t h al l of Chi na.
13. I pursuet hi s quest i oni n`WhereWas Capi t al i smBorn?' Onf eudal i smi nAsi a
andAf ri ca see t he works ci t ed i n not e 11, above.
14. See Sharma, Li ght on Earl y I ndi an Soci et y and Economy; and B. D.
Chat t opadhyaya, `TradeandUrbanCent ers i n Earl yMedi eval Nort hI ndi a' , I ndi an
Hi st ori cal Revi ew1 ( 1974) .
15. Some hi st ori ans t ry t o expl ai n t he ri se of Europe i n t erms of European
medi eval i nvent i veness, supposedl y not mat ched by cont emporaneous soci et i es
el sewhere . The case i s made most st rongl y by L. Whi t e, J r . , i n hi s Medi eval
Technol ogyandSoci al Change( 1962) . Whi t esi mpl yi gnores t he f act t hat t hecri t i cal
i nnovat i ons al so occurred el sewhere, somet i mes much earl i er . Hi s cruci al
argument , t hat t he i nvent i on of a heavy pl ough expl ai ns set t l ement of t he Nort h
EuropeanPl ai nandmuchel se besi de ( f or exampl e, `accumul at i onof surpl us goods,
speci al i zat i on . . . urbani zat i on' , p. 44) , cannot st andupt o t he f act t hat ( 1) heavy
pl oughs wereusedmuchearl i er i nNort h I ndi a ( see D. D. Kosambi , Anci ent I ndi a
[1969]) and ( 2) t he t echnol ogi cal di f f erence bet weennort hernheavy pl oughs and
Cl ass St ruggl es across aBoundary

207
sout hern l i ght er pl oughs i s mi ni mal , suggest i ng t hat f eudal f orces pushi ng
cul t i vat i on i nt o t he heavy, wet , nort hern soi l s, expl ai n t he modi f i cat i on i n
t echni que, not vi ce versa. ( For a cri t i que of Whi t e f roma conservat i ve poi nt of
vi ew, see J . Z. Ti t ow, Engl i shRural Soci et y, 1200-1350[1969], pp. 37-42. ) Thi s i ssue
i s rel evant t o our di scussi on of ext ernal i zat i onf or t wo reasons: f i rst , weat t ri but e
agri cul t ural col oni zat i on of t hi s sort t o cri ses of accumul at i on, not t o t echnol ogy
operat i ngas anaut onomous f orce; andsecond, t het echnol ogi cal argument real l y
di ssol ves i nt o t he Eurocent ri c i deol ogi cal det ermi ni smwhi ch poi nt s, not t o
i nvent i ons, but t oi nvent i veness, andmai nt ai ns t hat onl yEuropeans had, andhave,
t hi scapaci t y. Thecl assi c posi t i oni s MaxWeber' s t rul ybi got edcl ai msf or European
`rat i onal i t y' ( see hi s The Prot est ant Et hi c andt he Spi ri t of Capi t al i sm[1958], pp.
14

Z1

. . . , A. . . , . . v: . . , . t . , -L. -

9n

__ . t ~__ t __ __t ___ . _ c~: ~c_______ _a~L___~: ~_sv

t ____
. r. ra, auuyaaua. ut ai t y
Y. , v, wuct c uc t ct ct ~wuut ct cu~c~ut t t crcut t y ~. L. yut t
Whi t e as much as admi t s, i n anot her work, t hat hi s bel i ef i n t he uni queness of
Europeani nvent i veness i s groundedi n hi s own rel i gi ous f ai t h: see hi s Machi na ex
Deo: Essays i n t he Dynami smof West ern Cul t ure ( 1968) .
16. See, e. g. , H. Wi ens, Chi na' s Marchi nt o t he Tropi cs ( 1954) .
17. SeeA. Das Gupt a, Mal abar i nAsi anTrade: 1740-1800( 1967) ; esp. Chap. 4; S.
Chaudhuri , `Text i l e Trade and I ndust ry i n Bengal Suba, 1650-1720' , I ndi an
Hi st ori cal Revi ew 1 ( 1974) ; E. Rawski , Agri cul t ural Change and t he Peasant
Economyof Sout h Chi na( 1972) ; D. M. Ni chol as, `TownandCount rysi de: Soci al
andEconomi c Tensi ons i n 14t h-Cent uryFl anders' , Comparat i veSt udi es i nSoci et y
andHi st ory10( 1967-68) ; F. C. Lane, Veni ce: AMari t i meRepubl i c ( 1973) . Onsugar
i n t he Medi t erranean( Egypt , Cyprus, Spai n, et c. ) , see N. Deerr, AHi st oryof Sugar
( 1949-50) . On Chi nese pepper pl ant at i ons i n Sout heast Asi a, see J . L. L.
Duyvendak, `Chi nesei nt heDut chEast I ndi es' , Chi neseSoci al andPol i t i cal Sci ence
Revi ew11 ( 1927) ; V. Purcel l , The Chi nesei n Sout heast Asi a ( 1951) .
18 . MarxandEngel s cal l edat t ent i on, f or t hi s peri od, t o t he i mport anceof what I
havecal l edext ernal expl oi t at i on, al t hought hey pl acedgreat er emphasi s oni nt ra-
Europeanprocesses. See Marx, Capi t al , vol . l , Chapt er 26-32; MarxandEngel s,
The GermanI deol ogy( 1976) , pp. 77-80.
19. As I argue i n`WhereWas Capi t al i smBorn' , medi eval mercant i l e-mari t i me
cent res of t he Ol dWorl df ormedasi ngl e hemi sphere-wi de net workor syst em, each
nodeconnect edwi t h al l ot hers i n l ong-di st ance seat rade. Thi s net workconnect ed
port s of west ernEurope, t he Medi t erranean, t he coast s of t he I ndi anOceanf rom
Sof al a t o Mal acca, i nsul ar Sout heast Asi a, andt heChi na seas. I npri nci pl e, anyof
t he l arger port s mi ght have commi ssi oneda voyage such as t hat of Col umbus.
However, cent res wi t h t he requi si t e charact eri st i cs, t echnol ogi cal andeconomi c,
were t o be f ound i n t hi s peri od onl y i n west ern Europe, East Af ri ca ( Sof al a t o
Mogadi shu) , coast al sout hwest Asi a, sout hernI ndi a, af ewpl aces i n sout heast Asi a
andsout hernChi na. Al l cent res ot her t hant he Europeanwereverydi st ant f romt he
NewWorl dandsubj ect t o adversecl i mat i c f act ors, not abl yt heWest erl i es of f t he
Cape of GoodHope and t he Nort h Paci f i c st orms. Earl y i n t he 15t h Cent uryt he
Chi nesesent l arge expedi t i onarymercant i l e-naval f l eet s asf ar as East Af ri ca, andi t
i s knownt hat I ndi ansai l ors expl oredi nt o t he Sout h At l ant i c; such voyages were
easi l yas grandi n scope as were t he Port uguesevoyages t o Af ri ca andCol umbus' s
t ot he West I ndi es, andt heyt ookpl acemanyyears earl i er . I concl udet hat Europe' s
`di scovery' of t he NewWorl dowes not hi ng t o any at t ri but e of l evel or rat e of
devel opment not al so f oundt hroughout t he mercant i l e-mari t i me syst emof t he Ol d
Worl d, andt he si ngl e expl anat ory f act or i s di st ance: f romt he Canary I sl ands t o
Col umbus' s West I ndi anl andf al l was perhaps 2, 500mi l es; f romSof al aor Cal i cut
208

Cl ass St ruggl es across aBoundary
t hedi st ancet o Sout hAmeri ca i s some 5, 000or somi l es, or 7, 000t o advancedWest
I ndi anci vi l i zat i onsl i ke t he Tai nos. Across t he Paci f i c t hedi st ances are great er st i l l .
Nol argemercant i l e- mari t i mecent resareknownf or t hi s peri odonAf ri ca' s west ern
coast , probabl ybecauset he great t raderout es werecont i nent al , not mari t i me( as i n
muchof east ernEurope andi nner Asi a) , andt he great ci t i es were l ocat edi nl and.
Nort h Af ri canci t i es apparent l ywere i n a peri odof economi c ecl i pse, pref i guredby
condi t i ons descri bed by I bn Khal dun, and t hereaf t er rel at ed t o t he Ot t oman
expansi on. Ont heChi nesevoyages ( of Admi ral ChengHo) see, e. g. , MaHuan, The
Overal l Survey of t he Ocean' s Shores ( ( 1433] 1970) ; J . Needham, Sci ence and
Ci vi l i zat i on i n Chi na, vol . 4 ( 1970) . OnChi nese l ong- di st ance t rade i n t he peri od
andrepl i es t o t he myt h of st agnat i on, see, e. g. , J . Chan- Cheung, `The Smuggl i ng
Trade bet weenChi naandSout heast Asi aduri ngt he Mi ngDynast y' , i n F. S. Drake
( ed. ) , Symposi umonHi st ori cal , Archeol ogi cal , andLi ngui st i c St udi es onSout hern
Chi na ( 1967) ; ChangTeh- ch' ang, `Mari t i me Trade at Cant on Duri ng t he Mi ng
Dynast y' , Chi nese Soci al andPol i t i cal Sci ence Revi ew17 ( 1933- 34) ; Purcel l , The
Chi nesei nSout heast Asi a; So Kwan- wei , J apanesePi racy i nMi ngChi naduri ngt he
16t h Cent ury( 1975) ; Ts' ao YungHo, `Chi nese Overseas Trade i n t he Lat e Mi ng
Peri od' , Proceedi ngs, 2nd Bi enni al Conf erence, I nt ernat i onal Associ at i on of
Hi st ori ans of Asi a ( 1962) ; WangGung- wu, `Earl y Mi ngRel at i ons wi t h Sout heast
Asi a' , i n The Chi nese Worl d Order ( 1967) ; Wi et hof f , Bodo, Di e chi nesi sche
Seeverbot spol i t i k andder pri vat e Uberseehandel von 1368bi s I S67 ( 1963) ; WuYu
Kan, `Chi nese Overseas I nt ercourse andTradei nAnci ent Ti mes' , East ernHori zon
4, 2( 1965) . OnI ndi anOceant rade andshi ppi ng i n t he peri od, see, e. g. , R. R. Di
Megl i o, `ArabTradewi t h I ndonesi a andt heMal ayPeni nsul a f romt he 8t h t o t he
16t hCent ury' , i nD. S. Ri chards ( ed. ) , I sl amandt he Tradeof Asi a( 1970) ; S. C. J ha,
St udi es i n t he Devel opment of Capi t al i smi nI ndi a( 1963) ; A. Lewi s, `Mari t i me Ski l l s
i n t heI ndi anOcean, 1368- 1500' , J ournal of t he Economi c andSoci al Hi st oryof t he
Ori ent 16( 1973) ; A. Chi cherov, `Ont heMul t i pl i ci t yof Soci o- Economi c St ruct ures
i n I ndi a i n t he 17t h t o t he Earl y 19t h Cent ury' , i n NewI ndi an St udi es bySovi et
Schol ars ( 1976) ; P. Wheat l ey, The Gol denKhersonese ( 1961) ; Frel i mo, Hi st dri a de
Mozambi que ( 1971) ; Cenrao de Est udos HHst ori cas Ul t ramari nos, Li sbon,
Document s ont he Port uguese i nMozambi que andCent ral Af ri ca, 1497- 1840, vol . 1
( 1962) .
20. The i nf l at i onary pressure was t ransmi t t ed on t o Asi a and, presumabl y,
Af ri ca. See A. Hasan, `Si l ver CurrencyOut put of t he Mughal Empi reandPri ces i n
I ndi a Duri ng t he 16t h and 17t h Cent uri es' , I ndi anEconomi c andSoci al Hi st ory
Revi ew6( 1969) . Al sosee K. N. Chaudhuri , `TreasureandTradeBal ances: TheEast
I ndi a Company' s Export Trade, 1660- 1720' , Economi c Hi st oryRevi ew, 2ndser . 21
( 1968) .
21 . Si monsenest i mat es t he val ue of Brazi l ' s sugar export f or t he year 1600at
2, 258, 300. Mi nchi nt ongi ves anest i mat ef or t ot al export s f romEngl andi n 1601 of
bet ween 960, 000 and 1, 080, 000. See R. C. Si monsen, Hi st ori a Economi cs do
Brasi l , I S00- 1820( 1944) , p. 172; W. E. Mi nchi nt on, TheGrowt hof Engl i shOverseas
Tradei n t he 17t hand18t h Cent uri es ( 1969) , p. 9n.
22. I deal onl y wi t h European capi t al i st s here because our somewhat l i mi t ed
concern, f or t he peri odaf t er 1492, i s t he i nt ernal andext ernal economi c sect ors of
European capi t al i sm. Ext ernal i t y was t o be f ound el sewhere, of course. For
i nst ance, Mi ddl eEast ern, I ndi an, andChi nesecapi t al was i mport ant i nt hi s peri od
i nSout heast Asi a. I n t hi s connect i onI shoul dpoi nt out t hat myf ai l ure t o deal wi t h
t he NewWorl di n i t s ownri ght , ot her t hanas an area of expandi ng European
Cl ass St ruggl es across aBoundary

209
f orces, ref l ect s t he f act t hat compl execonomi c andt echnol ogi cal st ruct ures i n t he
NewWorl dwere l argel ydest royedi n t he Conquest . ( The Conquest ref l ect ed t wo
di f f erent i al f act s about t he NewWorl d: i t s succumbi ng t o epi demi cs of Ol dWorl d
di seases af t er cont act , andi t s somewhat l ower t echnol ogy, part i cul arl y mi l i t ary
t echnol ogy, due t o t he f act t hat set t l ement of t heNewWorl doccurredveryl at e i n
humanhi st ory, andwas f ol l owedbyt echnol ogi cal evol ut i onroughl yparal l el i ng
Ol dWorl dprocesses but t aki ngpl ace somewhat l at er . )
23. Therat i o of sl aves i nBri t i shcol oni es t o product i vewagel abour i nEngl andi s
est i mat edf romGregoryKi ng' s dat a f or Engl andi n 1688( i n P. Deane, TheFi rst
I ndust ri al Revol ut i on[ 1969] ) andPhi l i p Curt i n' s dat a f or sl ave popul at i ons i nThe
At l ant i c Sl ave Trade ( 1969) .
2_ 4. C_ ) n t he Hai t i anS2namh
t i 3^' t ^h

^t er

^d
o


: f i g

~, ~
ye t

'

t .
s . . ara. ,

z . .

, i g. .

al h~

~. VI aJ J l ~. WVrl ~ 1J
C. L. R. J ames, TheBl ack J acobi ns ( 1963) , 2ndedn.
25. Ont he expansi onof col oni al product i oni nt hi s peri od, see W. A. Lewi s ( ed. ) ,
Tropi cal Devel opment : 1880- 1913 ( 1970) .
26. `Thi rdWorl d' i s anambi guous t erm, but i t has ent eredordi narydi scourse-
part i cul arl y i n t he `Thi rdWorl d' i t sel f - andhas a f ai rl y ( but not ent i rel y) cl ear
meani ngi n such di scourse: i t ref ers t ot hat part of t he worl dwhi chwas at onet i me
under Europeancol oni al or scmi - col oni al domi nat i on. Manyaut hori t i es obj ect t o
t he t ermbecause i n i t s ori gi nal meani ng i t post ul at eda `t hi rd' worl dwhi ch was
supposed t o be nei t her capi t al i st ( t he `Fi rst Worl d' ) nor soci al i st ( t he `Second
Worl d' ) . That ori gi nal meani ng, however, has been rat her f orgot t en. The word
`Tri cont i nent ' i s probabl y a bet t er t erm.
27. Ont he pol i t i cal economyof col oni al i smi n Puert o Ri co, see i n part i cul ar
Puert oRi co: CI assSt ruggl eandNat i onal Li berat i on, speci al i ssueof Lat i nAmeri can
Perspect i ves 3, 3 ( 1976) , esp. t he art i cl e byJ . Di et z, `The Puert o Ri canPol i t i cal
Economy' , andt he art i cl e byEconomi c Research Group, Puert o Ri canSoci al i st
Part y, `The Economi c I mport ance of Puert o Ri cof or t he Uni t edSt at es' .
28. Thi s concept of rul e bears no rel at i onshi p t o st ruct ural i st met aphysi cs.
29. However, a smal l percent age of t he i nt ernal ( domi nant - soci et y) produci ng
cl ass, i ncl udi ng some of t hose whopart i ci pat e di rect l y i n conquest , comet o hol d
pri vi l eged posi t i ons i n t he product i ve ent erpri ses i n whi ch f orei gn workers are
expl oi t ed, gai nhi gher mat eri al benef i t i n ent erpri ses at home whi ch are di rect l y
connect edt o andbenef i t f romf orei gnexpl oi t at i on, andt he l i ke. For t hi s sect i on,
t heremayi ndeedbe asi gni f i cant i mprovement i n l evel of l i vi ng andcl ass posi t i on:
sol di ers, f or i nst ance, of t engai nashareof pi l l age, andmaybe al l owedt he ri ght t o
acqui re some of t he conquered l and andeven t he ri ght t o expl oi t t he f orei gn
workers, t hus i n ef f ect bei ng recrui t ed i nt o a l ower f ract i on of t he i nt ernal
( domi nant - soci et y) rul i ngcl ass i t sel f . Tounderst andwhybroadmasses of i nt ernal
workers somet i messupport t he conquest andexpl oi t at i onof f orei gnworkers, asf or
i nst anceEngl i shprol et ari ans support edBri t i shcol oni al i smi nt he 19t hCent ury( see
Engel s' l et t er t o K. Kaut skyof Sept ember 12, 1882i n Marxand Engel s, Sel ect ed
Correspondence[ 1975] , 3rded. , pp. 330- 31) , wemust , I t hi nk, ret urnt o t he mat t er
of rul es. I deol ogi cal rul es governi ng i nt ernal expl oi t at i on, andt hus def i ni ng t he
st at us and ri ght s of al l part i ci pant s i n t heprocess, evol ve duri ng a l ong peri odof
t i me( andst ruggl e) wi t hi nagi vensoci et y, but duri ngal l of t hi s peri odt hei r f i el dof
appl i cabi l i t y remai ns t he members of t hat soci et y: t hey donot appl yt o f orei gners.
Whent he expl oi t at i on of f orei gnworkers commences, t he i nt ernal worki ng cl ass
cannot be expect ed t o demandaut omat i cal l y t hat t hese rul es be ext endedt o t he
f orei gnworkers, evenassumi ng t hat t hey have gai nedknowl edge of t he ext ernal
210

Cl ass St ruggl es across aBoundary
expl oi t at i on. Thi s shoul dnot beconsi dered`f al se consci ousness' . What we have i n
t hi s t ypeof si t uat i on, as i t has repeat edi t sel f t hroughout hi st ory, i s a part i cul arl y
dramat i c case of t he power and part i al aut onomy of t he i deol ogi cal real m: t he
i deol ogi cal rul es t hemsel ves i ndeedhave amat eri al basi s, but t he f act t hat t heydo
not appl yt oworkers out si de t he soci et yi s a di rect i mpl i cat i onof t he f act t hat t hey
do appl y t o a part i cul ar, cl earl y def i ned set of human bei ngs: t hose who are
members of t hesoci et yi t sel f . I t woul dt ake us t oof ar af i el d t oexami ne here t he
connect i onbet weent hese processes andmodernraci sm.
30. See Leni n, `The St at e' , Works 29.
31. . For Marx andEngel s, see H. Davi s, Nat i onal i smandSoci al i sm( 1967) .
For Leni n, see Chap. 5 i nt he present vol ume.
32 ( 1nt he At o '

t ei . ' . . , . : w. .

t m
: . mob^
. . r~r . . _ , ~ v: , . . , . __. r . L- m__a_: r.
. . g. . . ^. anp. . , . . . ~. . . . . . , o, wee ~ .

uaa- i ~a~i , ~a i i s~rvry O~ me~ri u~ruru,
( 1975) , pp. 336- 40.
33. Ont he art i f i ci al pl ebi sci t es i nPuert oRi co, whi chgi ve t he spuri ous i mpressi on
t hat Puert o Ri cans wi sht hei r count ry t o remai na col ony, see, e. g. , L. L. Cri pps,
Puert o Ri co: The Casef or I ndependence Cambri dge, Mass. , ( 1974) ; L. L. Cri pps,
HumanRi ght s i na Uni t edSt at es Col ony( 1982) .
34. I nt heseexcept i onal cases l i ke Mal aysi aandVenezuel a t here i s at best f ormal ,
andpart i al , bourgeoi s democracy.
35 . See Leni n' s `Report of t he Commi ssi on on t he Nat i onal and Col oni al
Quest i ons' of t he 2ndCongress of t he I nt ernat i onal , 1920, Works 31, pp. 240- 45 .
For M. N. Roy' s posi t i on( t he so- t ai l ed `Suppl ement aryTheses' submi t t edt o t he
sameCongress) , see: G. Adhi kari ( ed. ) , Document s of t heHi st oryof t he Communi st
Part yof I ndi a ( 1971) .
36. But t o say t hat al l modernst at e f orms evol vedi nsome degree andi n some
ways f romearl i er capi t al i st st at e f orms i s not t o argue- as Ant honyD. Smi t hand
count l ess ot her mai nst reamschol ars argue- t hat t he col oni al st at e i s somehowj ust
a mi nor vari at i onont heaut onomous bourgeoi s- democrat i c st at e. Col oni al st at es
are absol ut el yunrepresent at i veandundemocrat i c, what ever l ocal aut onomyt hey
maybeal l owedt oexerci se byt he col oni al rul ers. See, e. g. , A. D. Smi t h, St at eand
Nat i oni n t he Thi rdWorl d( 1983) , pp. 25- 36and87.
37. Anexcept i on i s Ot t o Bauer' s cul t ural t heory of nat i ons whi ch i dent i f i es
cul t ures wi t hnat i ons but expl i ci t l ydeni es t he `pri nci pl e of nat i onal i t i es' . Seehi sDi e
Nat i onal i t l i t enf rage andder Sozi al demokrat i e ( 1907) , Chap. 15 .
38. Al t hough Leni ndi dnot def i ne t he nat i on, i t i s cl ear f romhi s wri t i ngs t hat he
woul dnot accept t he i dea t hat a communi t ywhi chdoes not havea t erri t ori al base
can be consi dered a nat i on. M. I . I sayev, i n hi s i nf ormat i ve work, Nat i onal
Languages i n t he U. S. S. R. : Probl ems andSol ut i ons ( 1977) , ci t es Leni ni nsupport of
hi s ( I sayev' s) vi ewt hat a nat i on must have a commonl anguage. I bel i eve t hi s
i nt erpret at i on of Leni n' s posi t i on i s i nerror. I sayevci t es Leni nas f ol l ows: "`The
nat i on", he wri t es, "i s not Kul t ur- , not Schi cksal - , but Sprachgemei nschaf t
[l anguage communi t y]"' . But Leni nmadet hi s st at ement , i nhi s readi ngnot es, as a
summaryof Kaut sky' s vi ews, not hi s own. See Leni n' s Works 41, p. 316. Leni n
never t ri edt o def i ne t he nat i on, andt hi s was not , I f eel cert ai n, anoversi ght .
39. St al i n' s Works 3, p. 340.
40. A. Cabral , Ret urnt o t he Source: Sel ect edSpeeches of Ami l car Cabral ( 1973) ,
p. 78.
41. Thi s dogmat i smhas emerged i n Puert o Ri can Marxi st schol arshi p. Af ew
schol ars arguet hat Puert oRi cowas not f ul l ycapi t al i st at t he t i mei t was i nvadedby
t heUni t edSt at es ( 1898) , hencei t was absorbedi n t he Uni t edSt at es bef orei t coul d
Cl ass St ruggl es across aBoundary

211
become abonaf i de nat i on, wi t hgenui ne nat i onal consci ousness. The i mpl i cat i on
woul dbe t hat Puert oRi co i s not nowa bona f i de nat i oni n pol i t i cal t erms andt hat
t hi s f act , not t he i mmense power and i mperi al i st pol i ci es of t he Uni t ed St at es,
account s f or t he f act t hat t he i ndependence movement has not t hus f ar been
successf ul . These schol ars, nonet hel ess, are st rong i ndependent i st as . See, e. g. , A.
Qui nt ero- Ri vera, `Not es onPuert oRi canNat i onal Devel opment : Cl ass andNat i on
i naCol oni al Cont ext ' , Marxi st Perspect i ves 3{ 1980) . I nt ri gui ngl y, Qui nt ero- Ri vera
pl aces at t he mast head of hi s art i cl e t hi s quot at i on f romLeni n ( 1903) : `Cl ass
ant agoni smhas nowundoubt edl y rel egat ed nat i onal quest i ons f ar i nt o t he
background. ' Thewhol ewei ght of Leni n' s workf rom1914f orwardwas cont raryt o
t hi s posi t i on. Qui nt ero- Ri vera argues t hat Puert o Ri co was a di st i nct l y f eudal
soci et y- heevenuses t he word`sei gneuri al ' - at t he t i mei t was i nvadedby t he US
( 1898) . But t he remnant s of f eudal i smi n Puert o Ri co at t hat t i me were no more
sal i ent t hanf eudal remnant s i nmost ot her col oni es i n t he West I ndi es andaround
t heworl d, andsuchremnant shavenot drast i cal l yi mpededi ndependencest ruggl es
i n t hese ot her col oni es. I prof oundl y respect Qui nt ero- Ri vera' s ef f ort s t o anal yse
Puert o Ri co' s hi st ory as a basi s f or underst andi ng her present andchangi ng her
f ut ure, but I t hi nk he f ai l s t o make a case t hat 19t h Cent ury Puert o Ri co had
at t ri but es whi ch woul dmake i t harder i n t hi s col ony t o wi ni ndependence t hani t
has beeni n ot her col oni es. I t seems t ome t hat t he di f f erent i al f act or i s USpower.
t he ant agoni st i s st ronger t hanot hers, t hough hardl y omni pot ent . Al so see, f or
argument s si mi l ar t o Qui nt ero- Ri vera' s, Hi st ory Task Force, Cent er f or Puert o
Ri can St udi es, Labor Mi grat i on under Capi t al i sm: The Puert o Ri can Experi ence
( 1979) , whi chal so argues t hat f eudal i smdomi nat edbef ore 1898, andt hat t he US
i mposi t i on of capi t al i smaf t er 1898 creat ed a si ngl e economi c space embraci ng
Puert o Ri co, t he US, andot her regi ons and count ri es `regardl ess . . . of pol i t i cal
st at us' , p. 104, t hus obscuri ngt he si gni f i cance of col oni al i smi nsuchmat t ers as t he
mi grat i ont o t he US( whi ch obt ai ns a compl et el y economi st i c expl anat i on) .
42. Engel s, `What Have t he Worki ng Cl asses t o Do wi t h Pol and' ? I n: D.
Fernbach ( ed. ) , Karl Marx: Pol i t i cal Wri t i ngs 3( 1974) . Al sosee i nt hesamevol ume
Marx andEngel s, `For Pol and' .
43. See not e 37.
44. See i npart i cul ar Cabral ' s `Nat i onal Li berat i onandCul t ure' , i nhi s Ret urnt o
t heSource. Al sosee ot her speeches andwri t i ngs i n t hi s vol umeandi nRevol ut i oni n
Gui nea: Sel ect ed Tezt s by Ami l car Cabral ( 1969) ; and see Cabral ' s speech,
`Decl arat i on of Pri nci pl es' , i n Port uguese Col oni es: Vi ct ory or Deat h ( 1971)
( condensedas `The Weaponof Theory' i nRevol ut i oni n Gui nea) .
45. H. Davi s, TowardaMarxi st Theoryof Nat i onal i sm( 1977) ; R. N. I smagi l ova,
Et hni c Probl ems of Tropi cal Af ri ca: CanTheyBe Sol ved. ( 1978) .
46. See, f or i nst ance, L. L. Snyder, `Nat i onal i smandt he Terri t ori al I mperat i ve' ,
Canadi anRevi ewof St udi es onNat i onal i sm2, 1 ( 1975) . Sober ref erences t o `human
t erri t ori al i t y' , `human aggressi on' , andt he l i ke, are nowrout i ne i n mai nst ream
t ext books i n Pol i t i cal Geography: see, e. g. , Ri chard Mui r, Modern Pol i t i cal
Geography( 1975) .
47. See V. J . A. Novak, `The Pri nci pl e of Soci ogenesi s, Real Soci al i sm, andt he
Probl emof aLast i ngPeace' , Ant i pode: ARadi cal J ournal of Geography16, 1( 1984) .
Al so see t he vol ume byt he same aut hor, The Pri nci pl e of Soci ogenesi s ( 1982) .
8 . I n Pl ace of a Concl usi on
Thi s book has arguedt hat nat i onal st ruggl e- `nat i onal i sm' i n t he broadest sense of
t hat word- i s not an aut onomous f orce or process: i t i s af ormof cl ass st ruggl e. Nor
i s i t onl y t he cl ass st ruggl e of t he bourgeoi si e, `bourgeoi s nat i onal i sm' . I t i s t he
cont emporary f ormt akenby a basi c process wi t hi n cl asssoci et yas awhol e, goi ng
back t o anci ent t i mes, namel y, ext ernal cl ass st ruggl e, andmore speci f i cal l y t he
cl ass st ruggl e f or st at e power when a rul i ng cl ass i s ext ernal or `f orei gn' . Thus
nat i onal st ruggl e i s engaged i n by di f f erent cl ass groups i n di f f erent modes of
product i on, bot hexpl oi t i nggroups andexpl oi t edgroups. I mpl i edi n t hi s argument
are a number of subordi nat e t heoret i cal argument s, but t hree of t hemare gi ven
speci al at t ent i on here.
Fi rst , nat i onal i smdi dnot di f f use f romEurope t o t he rest of t he worl dandcannot
be ascri bed t o t he di f f usi on of `moderni zat i on' . Second, nat i onal i smbears no
speci al , organi cconnect i on t o f asci sm, or t o anypart i cul ar ki ndof soci al f ormat i on
wi t hi n capi t al i sm. Andt hi rd, t he l arge- scal e, l ong- di st ance l abour mi grat i ons of t he
era of monopol ycapi t al i smor i mperi al i smdonot , as a rul e, l ead t o t he creat i on of
`nat i onal mi nori t i es' , communi t i es whi ch become assi mi l at ed and l ose t hei r
nat i onal i dent i t y.
Most of t hese proposi t i ons are embeddedwi t hi n t het radi t i onal Marxi st t heory of
nat i onal i smor nat i onal st ruggl e, ori gi nat ed by Marx and Engel s anddevel oped
t hereaf t er byLeni nandl at er Marxi st s, part i cul arl y t hose ( l i ke Ami l car Cabral and
Fi del Cast ro) whowri t e f romt he perspect i ve of t he nat i onal l i berat i on st ruggl e
agai nst col oni al i sm. The t heory has come under at t ack, but , as I t hi nk I have
shown, t he at t acks are i nef f ect ual .
Nonet hel ess, we do not yet have a compl et e, much l ess a perf ect , t heory of
nat i onal st ruggl e or nat i onal i sm. At l east some of t he prof oundl ydi f f i cul t nat i onal
probl ems of t oday' s worl d woul d be more easi l y resol ved i n f avour of human
progress i f our t heory of nat i onal i smwere more sat i sf act ory, more general , and
more expl i ci t . So t hi s book has no concl usi on.
I n pl ace of a concl usi on, I wi l l l i st several of t he i mport ant i ssues of t heory whi ch
have not been deal t wi t h i n t hi s book, or have been deal t wi t h onl y part i al l y.
( 1) Separat i smi n devel oped capi t al i st count ri es. We have seen t hat separat i st
nat i onal movement s are f orms of t he cl ass st ruggl e f or st at e power, but we have not
exami ned t he reasons why movement s f or st at e power maycoi nci de spat i al l ywi t h
cul t ures .
I n Pl ace of a Concl usi on

213
( 2) Separat i smi n devel oped soci al i st count ri es. Marxi st s l i vi ng i n t he capi t al i st
worl dare l i kel y t o exaggerat e t he scope of t hi s probl em, al t houghi n some regi ons
( f or i nst ance, sout hern Yugosl avi a) i t i s very real . Wedonot yet have an adequat e
anal ysi s of t hi s phenomenon, but such an anal ysi s wi l l probabl y showt hat most
cases ref l ect a f ormof cl ass st ruggl e whi ch has l i t t l e t o do wi t h t he exi st ence or
non- exi st ence of remnant cl asses. Thet ypi cal case wi l l probabl y resol ve i t sel f i nt o
some combi nat i on of t hree el ement s: di rect i nt ervent i on or i deol ogi cal i nf l uence
f rom capi t al i st count ri es, real probl ems i n t he const ruct i on of soci al i sm( t he
persi st ence of some regi onal i nequal i t y, or of some great nat i on chauvi ni sm, or of
some ol d- f ashi oned bureaucrat i sm) , and t he t endency of regi onal pol i t i cal
movement s. when t hey exi st ; t o cl eave al ongcul t ural l i nes,
( 3) Nat i ve nat i ons: what t hey are, and why t hei r ri ght t o sel f - det ermi nat i on, t o
soverei gnt y, cannot be opposed by soci al i st s . I n Chapt er 5 we sawt hat t he ol d
St al i nesque def i ni t i on of `nat i on' i s not usef ul f or col oni al and neocol oni al
soci et i es. Thi s ol ddef i ni t i on ( or t heory) , wi t h i t s a pri ori j udgement t hat nat i ons
ari se onl y wi t h t he ( i nt ernal ) ri se of capi t al i sm, and t hat nat i ons are f i xed
t hroughout hi st oryt o aspeci f i c i nvari ant t erri t ory, has been usedbysome Marxi st s
t o argue t hat nat i ve peopl es, such as Ameri can I ndi ans, do not possess or deserve
`t he ri ght of nat i ons t o sel f - det ermi nat i on' . When t hi s i nappropri at e t heory of
nat i ons i s set asi de, t he Marxi st vi ewof t hi s mat t er must change. Al most never have
Marxi st s quest i oned t he moral ri ght of oppressedpeopl es t o wi nequal i t y wi t hot her
peopl es, i ncl udi ng equal ri ght t o cul t ure and t o a sel f - chosen wayof l i f e. The
probl emf or Marxi st s, al most al ways, has been a St al i nesque t endencyt o denyt hat
nat i ve peopl es canf ormvi abl e soverei gn ( or co- soverei gn) st at es, because t hey are
`nat i onal mi nori t i es' i n process of di ssol ut i on . Set t i ngt hi s t heory asi de wi l l si mpl i f y
t he probl em. Under capi t al i sm, nat i ve nat i ons canvi abl y, real i st i cal l y, st ruggl e f or
some cont rol of l and, f or cul t ural survi val , andf or equal i t y wi t h ot her worki ng
peopl e. I n a soci al i st worl d, nat i ve nat i ons wi l l have t he ri ght t o f ul l sel f -
det ermi nat i on, i ncl udi ng st at e- i ndependence or mul t i nat i onal co- soverei gnt y:
vi abi l i t ywi l l no l onger be an i ssue. I t hi nk somet hi ng t hat begi ns t o approach t hi s
soci al i st sol ut i on maybe emergi ng t oday. I t cannot yet be put i nt o ef f ect i n pl aces
where soci al i smi s under si ege, as i n Ni caragua: here, as t he Sandi ni st as have
recogni zed, t he i mmedi at eneedi s t o guarant ee t he ri ght of sel f - det ermi nat i on f or
nat i ve peopl es as a pri nci pl e and t o provi de regi onal aut onomy f or t he t roubl ed
present . The probl emof underst andi ng nat i ve nat i ons i s t erri bl y compl ex, but t he
st art i ng poi nt i s basi cal l y t he accept ance of t he Leni ni st pri nci pl e of sel f -
det ermi nat i on andt he rej ect i on of ol d andi nappl i cabl e concept s of t he nat i on.
( 4) `Nat i onal i sm' i mproperl yi nvoked. Grant i ngt he f act t hat narrownat i onal i sm
maypersi st af t er soci al i st s have wonst at e power, i t i s nevert hel ess i ncorrect t o
decl are every error of st at e pol i cy, i nt ernal as wel l as ext ernal , t o be due t o
`nat i onal i sm' . Pol i t i cal errorsare pol i t i cal errors, andt hey have t o be anal ysed and
underst ood, not consi gned t o a wast e- basket cat egory cal l ed `nat i onal i sm' .
Much work remai ns t o be done.
Bi bl i ogr aphy
Abdel -Mal ek, Anouar , Nati onandRevol uti on, State Uni ver si ty of NewYor kPr ess,
Al bany, 1981
Abun-Nasr , J ami l , AHi stor y of theMaghr i b, 2ndedn. , Cambr i dgeUni ver si ty Pr ess,
Cambr i dge, 1975
Acuna, Rodol f o, Occupi edAmer i ca: The Chi cano' s Str uggl e Towar dLi ber ati on,
Canf i el d, SanFr anci sco, 1972
Adhi kar i , G. (ed. ) , Documents of the Hi stor y of the Communi st Par ty of I ndi a,
Peopl e' s Publ i shi ng House, NewDel hi , 1971
Ami n, Sami r , Unequal Devel opment, Monthl y Revi ewPr ess, NewYor k and
London, 1976
TheAr ab Nati on, ZedBooks, London, 1978
Cl ass andNati on, Hi stor i cal l y andi nthe Cur r ent Cr i si s, Monthl y Revi ew
Pr ess, NewYor k andLondon, 1980
Ander son, J ames, `Regi ons andRel i gi ons i nI r el and: AShor t Cr i ti queof the"Two
Nati ons" Theor y' , Anti pode: ARadi cal J our nal of Geogr aphy, vol . 12, no. 2,
1980, pp. 44-53
Ander son, Per r y, Li neages of theAbsol uteState, NewLef t Books, London, 1974
Passagesf r omAnti qui ty to Feudal i sm, NewLef t Books, London, 1974
Ar r i ghi , Gi ovanni , TheGeometr y of I mper i al i sm, NewLef t Books, London, 1978
Axen, Her mann, Zur Entwi ckl ung der sozi al i sti schen Nati on i nder DRR, Di etz,
Ber l i n, 1973
Bauer , Otto, Di e Nati onal i tl i tenf r age and di e Sozi al demokr ati e, I gnaz Br and,
Vi enna, 1907
Ber gman, L. , Dol gi n, G. , Gabr i ner , R. , McAdoo, M. andRaski n, J . , Puer to Ri co:
TheFl ameof Resi stance, Peopl e' s Pr ess, SanFr anci sco, 1977
Ber r i osMar ti nez, Ruben, Lai ndependenci adePuer toRi co: Razony l ucha, Edi tor i al
Li nea, Mexi co, D. F. , 1983
Bettel hei m, Char l es, Cl assStr uggl es i ntheUSSR, Fi r st Per i od. ' 1917-1923, Monthl y
Revi ewPr ess, NewYor k andLondon, 1976
Bhati a, B. N. , Fami nes i nI ndi a: 1860-1965, 2nd edn. , Asi a Publ i shi ng House,
Bombay, 1967
Bi shop, Maur i ce, `I mper i al i smI s the Real Pr obl em' , i n hi s Sel ected Speeches,
1979-1981, Centr o deEstudi os del Car i be, Casa del as Amer i cas, La Habana,
1982
Bl aut, J . M. , `The Natur e and Ef f ects of Shi f ti ng Agr i cul tur e' , i n UNESCO
Symposi umon the I mpact of ManonHumi d-Tr opi cs Vegetati on, Unesco and
Gover nment of Austr al i a, Canber r a, 1962
Bi bl i ogr aphy 215
`The Ghetto as anI nter nal Neo-Col ony' , Anti pode: ARadi cal J our nal of
Geogr aphy, vol . 6, no. 1, 1974, pp. 37-42
`Wher eWas Capi tal i smBor n?' , Anti pode: ARadi cal J our nal of Geogr aphy,
vol . 8, no. 2, 1976, pp. 1-I 1. Repr i ntedi nPeet (ed. ) , 1977
`Ar ePuer to Ri cans a Nati onal Mi nor i ty?' , Monthl y Revi ew, vol . 29, no. 1,
1977, pp. 35-55. I n Spani sh as `Mar xi smo y l a cuesti on naci onal : el caso de
Puer to Ri co' , i nRevi sta Mensual (Spai n) , vol . 1, no. 6, 1977, pp. 20-38, andi n
Pensami ento Cr i ti co (Puer to Ri co) , vot . 1, no. 2, 1978, pp. 1-11
`Some Pr i nci pl es of Ethnogeogr aphy' , i n S. Gal e and G. Ol sson (eds. ) ,
Phi l osophy i n Geogr aphy, Rei del , Dor dr echt, 1979
`The Di ssenti ng Tr adi ti on' , Annal s of the Associ ati on of Amer i can
GGV~r a~/ Le%J , VVl . V7, 1979,
pp.
15/ -O1
`Nai r nonNati onal i sm' , Anti pode: ARadi cal J our nal of Geogr aphy, vol . 12,
no. 3, 1980, pp. 1-17
`El mi to del a asi mi l aci 6n' , Cl ar i dad(EnRoj o suppl ement) , 1 J anuar y 1982
`Nati onal i smas anAutonomous For ce' , Sci enceandSoci ety, vol . 46, no. 1,
1982, pp. 1-23
`Ghettos Ar eReal , Not I deal ' , Tr ansi ti on, vol . 11, no. 4, 1982, pp. 10-13
`Assi mi l ati on ver sus Ghettoi zati on' , Anti pode: A Radi cal J our nal of
Geogr aphy, vol . 15, no. 1, 1983, pp. 35-41
`Pr i ngl eon"Bour geoi s Nati onal i st I deol ogy", Etceter a' , Anti pode: ARadi cal
J our nal of Geogr aphy, vol . 14, no. 2, 1984, pp. 33-9
Bl aut, J . M. , J ohnson, K. , O' Keef e, P. and Wi sner , B. , `Theses onPeasantr y' ,
Anti pode: ARadi cal J our nal of Geogr aphy, vol . 9, no. 3, 1977, pp. 125-7
Bl oom, Sol omon, TheWor l dof Nati ons: AStudy of theNati onal l mpl i cati ons i nthe
Wor k of Kar l Mar x, Col umbi a Uni ver si ty Pr ess, NewYor k, 1941
Boni l l a, Fr ank, `Puer to Ri cans i ntheUni ted States andPuer to Ri cans i nPuer to
Ri co' , J our nal of Contempor ar y Puer to Ri canThought, vol . 2, no. 2-3, 1975, pp.
65-9
`BeyondSur vi val : Por que segui r emos si endo Puer tor r i quenos' , i nLopez
andPetr as (eds. ) , Puer to Ri co andPuer to Ri cans, pp. 439-51
`Cl awy naci 6n: el ementos par a una di scusi on' , unpubl i shedessay, 1978
`Ethni c Or bi ts: The Ci r cul ati on of Capi tal s and Peopl es' , Contempor ar y
Mar xi sm, no. 10, 1985, pp. 148-67
and Campos, Ri car do, `A Weal th of Poor : Puer to Ri cans i n the New
Economi c Or der ' , Daedal us, Spr i ng, 1981, pp. 133-76
andCampos, Ri car do, `I mper i al i st I ni ti ati ves andthePuer to Ri canWor ker :
f r omFor aker to Reagan' , Contempor ar y Mar xi sm, no. 5, 1982, pp. 1-18
Bottomor e, T. , andGoode, P. , Austr o-Mar xi sm, Oxf or dUni ver si ty Pr ess, Oxf or d,
1978
Br utents, K. N. , Nati onal Li ber ati onRevol uti ons Today, 2vol s. , Pr ogr ess, Moscow,
1977
Br yce-Lapor te, R. S. (ed. ) , Sour cebook on the NewI mmi gr ati on, Tr ansacti on
Books, NewBr unswi ck, 1980
Cabr al , Ami l car , Revol uti oni n Gui nea: Sel ectedTexts, Monthl y Revi ewPr ess, New
Yor kandLondon, 1969
`Decl ar ati on of Pr i nci pl es' , i n Cabr al and other s, Por tuguese Col oni es:
Vi ctor y or Death, Tr i conti nental , La Habana, 1971
`Nati onal Li ber ati onandCul tur e' , i nRetur nto theSour ce: Sel ectedSpeeches
of Ami l car Cabr al , Monthl y Revi ewPr ess, NewYor k and London, 1973
216 Bi bl i ography
Uni ty andStruggl e: Speeches andWri ti ngs of Ami l car Cabral , Monthl y
Revi ewPress, NewYorkandLondon, 1979
Campos, Ri cardo, andBoni l l a, Frank, `I ndustri al i zati on andMi grati on: Some
Effects onthePuertoRi canWorki ngCl ass' , Lati nAmeri canPerspecti ves, vol . 3,
no. 3, 1976, pp. 66-108
andBoni l l a, Frank, `Bootstraps and Enterpri se Zones: The Undersi de of
LateCapi tal i smi nPuertoRi co andthe Uni tedStates' , Revi ew, vol . 4, 1982, pp.
556-590
and Fl ores, J uan, `Mi grati on y cul tura nati onal Puertorri quenos:
perspecti vas prol etari as' , i n Qui ntero and others, Puerto Ri co: I ndenti dad
nn_ri nngl ; np=R1-146
Cardoso, L. A. , Mexi canEmi grati onto the Uni tedStates, 1871-1931, Uni versi ty of
Ari zona Press, Tucson, 1980
Carr, E. H. , Condi ti ons of Peace, Macmi l l an, NewYork, 1942
AHi story of Sovi et Russi a: The Bol shevi kRevol uti on, 1917-1923, vol . l ,
Macmi l l an, NewYork, 1951
Castel l s, Manuel , `I mmi grant Workers and Cl ass Struggl es i n Advanced
Capi tal i sm' , i n R. Cohen and others (eds. ) , Peasants andProl etari ans: The
Struggl es of Thi rdWorl dWorkers, Monthl yRevi ew, London, 1979
Castro, Fi del , `The Revol uti on i n Power: FromReformto Revol uti on' , i n M.
Kenner andJ . Petras (eds. ) , Fi del Castro Speaks, GrovePress, NewYork, 1969
Cenrao de Estudi os Puertorri quenos, Tal l er de Mi grati on: Conferenci a de
Hi stori ografi a, Abri l 1974, CentrodeEstudi os Puertorri quenos, NewYork, 1975
Centro de Estudos Hi stori cas Ul tramari nos, Documents on the Portuguese i n
Mozambi que andCentral Afri ca, 1497-1840, vol . 1, CEHU, Li sbon, 1962
Cesai re, Ai me, Di scourse on Col oni al i sm, Monthl y Revi ewPress, NewYork and
London, 1972
Chan-Cheung, J ohn, `The Smuggl i ng Trade betweenChi na andSoutheast Asi a
duri ng the Mi ng Dynasty' , i n F. Drake (ed. ) Symposi umon Hi stori cal ,
Archaeol ogi cal , andLi ngui sti c Studi es onSouthern Chi na, HongKong, 1967
Chandra, Bi pan, `Karl Marx, Hi s Theori es of Asi anSoci eti es, andCol oni al Rul e' ,
i n UNESCO, Soci ol ogi cal Theori es: Race andCol oni al i sm, UNESCO, Pari s,
1980
Chang Chi h-i , The Party and the Nati onal Questi on i n Chi na, MI T Press,
Cambri dge, Mass. , 1966
ChangTeh-ch' ang, `Mari ti meTradeat CantonDuri ngtheMi ngDynasty' , Chi nese
Soci al andPol i ti cal Sci enceRevi ew, vol . 17, 1933-34, pp. 264-82
Chattopadhyaya, B. D. , `TradeandUrbanCenters i n Earl yMedi eval NorthI ndi a' ,
I ndi an Hi stori cal Revi ew, vol . l , 1974, pp. 203-19.
Chaudhuri , K. N. , `Treasure andTrade Bal ances: The East I ndi a Company' s
Export Trade, 1660-1720' , Economi c Hi storyRevi ew, 2ndseri es, vol . 21, 1968,
pp. 480-503
Chaudhuri , Sushi l , `Texti l e TradeandI ndustryi nBengal Suba, 1650-1720' , I ndi an
Hi stori cal Revi ew, vol . l , 1974, pp. 262-78
Chi cherov, Al exander, `OntheMul ti pl i ci ty of Soci o-Economi c Structures i nI ndi a
i n the 17th to the Earl y 19thCentury' , i nNewI ndi an Studi es by Sovi et Schol ars,
Probl ems of the Contemporary Worl d, no. 33, Soci al Sci ences Today Edi tori al
Board, Moscow, 1977
Churchi l l , Ward(ed. ) , Marxi smandNati ve Ameri cans, Southend Press, Boston,
1983
Bi bl i ography 217
Cl audi n, Fernando, The Communi st Movement: FromComi ntern to Comi nform,
Part 1, Monthl y Revi ewPress, NewYorkand London, 1975
Cobban, Al fred, Nati onal Sel f-Determi nati on, revi sededn. , Uni versi ty of Chi cago
Press, Chi cago, 1951
r
Col ecti vo Soci al l sma de San J uan, Marxi smo o i ndependenti smo soci al i sta.
Pensami ento Cri ti co, ano 5, no. 35, 1983, pp. 38-44
EI Comi te, Comi si on Sobre Cuesti on Nati onal , `Cri ti ca a una perspecti va
naci onal i sta del acuesti 5nnati onal ' , Pensami ento Cri ti co, ano 1, no. 5-6, 1978,
pp. 1-12
Congress of the Peopl es of theEast, Baku, September, 1920: Stenographi cReport,
transl ated andannotated by Bri an Pearce, NewParkPubl i cati ons, London,
1977
Cri pps, L. L. , Puerto Ri co: The Casefor I ndependence, Schenkman, Cambri dge,
Mass. , 1974
HumanRi ghts i n a Uni tedStates Col ony, Schenkman, Cambri dge, Mass. ,
1982
Cuba, Communi st Party, Fi rst Congressof theCommuni st Partyof Cuba: Col l ecti on
ofDocuments, Progress, Moscow, 1976
Cumi n, Phi l i p, TheAtl anti c Sl ave Trade, Uni versi ty of Wi sconsi nPress, Madi son,
1969
Dal berg-Acton, J . E. E. , TheHi storyofFreedomandOther Essays, J . Fi ggi s andR.
Lawrence(eds. ) , London, 1922
Dani el s, R. V. , The Consci enceof theRevol uti on, Si monandSchuster, NewYork,
1960
Das Gupta, A. , Mal abar i nAsi anTrade, Cambri dgeUni versi tyPress, Cambri dge,
1967
Davi s, George, O. , andDonal dson, Fred, Bl acks i n the Uni tedStates: AGeographi c
Perspecti ve, Houghton-Mi ffl i n, Boston, 1975
Davi s, Horace B. , Nati onal i smandSoci al i sm: Marxi st andLabour Theori es of
Nati onal i smto 1917, Monthl y Revi ewPress, NewYorkandLondon, 1967
TowardaMarxi st TheoryofNati onal i sm, Monthl yRevi ewPress, NewYork
andLondon, 1978
Deane, Phyl l i s, The Fi rst I ndustri al Revol uti on, Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press,
Cambri dge, 1969
Debray, Regi s, `Marxi smandtheNati onal Questi on: I ntervi ewwi thRegi s Debray' ,
NewLeft Revi ew, no. 105, 1977, pp. 25-41
Deerr, Noel , AHi story of Sugar, 2vol s. , London, ChapmanandHal l , 1949-1950
Del gado Pasapera, German, Puerto Ri co: sus l uchas emanci padoras, Ed. Cul tural ,
Ri o Pi edras, P. R. , 1984
Deutsch, Karl , Nati onal i smandCommuni cati on, 2ndedn. , MI TPress, Cambri dge,
Mass. , 1966
Nati onal i smandI ts Al ternati ves, Knopf, NewYork, 1969
Di az Qui nones, Arcadi o, Conversati on con J ose Lui s Gonzal ez, Huracan, Ri o
Pi edras, P. R. , 1976
Di etz, J ames, `The PuertoRi canPol i ti cal Economy' , Lati nAmeri canPerspecti ves,
vol . 3, no. 3, 1976
Di Megl i o, R. R. , `ArabTradewi thI ndonesi aandtheMal ayPeni nsul afromthe 8th
to the 16th Century' , i n D. Ri chards (ed. ) I sl amandthe Tradeof Asi a, Oxford
Uni versi tyPress, Oxford, 1970
Duyvendak, J . L. L. , `Chi nesei ntheDutchEast I ndi es' , Chi neseSoci al andPol i ti cal
218 Bi bl i ography
Sci enceRevi ew, vol . 11, 1927, pp. 1- 15
Economi c Research Group, Puerto Ri can Soci al i st Party, `The Economi c
I mportance of Puerto Ri cof or the Uni ted States' , Lati nAmeri canPerspecti ves,
vol . 3, no. 3 ; 1976, pp. 46- 65
Ehrenrei ch, J ohn, `The Theory of Nati onal i sm: ACase of Underdevel opment' ,
Monthl yRevi ew, vol . 27, no. 1, 1977, pp. 57- 61
`Soci al i sm, Nati onal i smand Capi tal i st Devel opment' , Revi ewof Radi cal
Pol i ti cal Economi cs, vol . 15, no. 1, 1983, pp. 1- 40
El vi n, Mark, ThePatternof theChi nesePast, Stanf ord Uni versi ty Press, Stanf ord,
1973
Engel s. Frederi ck. Anti - Duhri nQ_ I nternati onal _ NewYork. 1939
v

`What HavetheWorki ng~Cl asses ToDoWi th Pol and?' i nD. Fernbach ( ed. )
Karl Marx: Pol i ti cal Wri ti ngs, vol . 3, Vi ntage, NewYork, 1974
Letter to K. Kautsky, Feb. 7. 1882. I n B. Kautsky ( ed. ) , Freddri ch Engel s
Bri ef wechsel mi l Karl Kautsky, Vi enna, 1955
Letter to K. Kautsky, Sept . 12, 1882. I n Marxand Engel s, Sel ected
Correspondence, 3 edn. , Progress, Moscow, 1975
Ludwi g Feuerbach and the Endof Cl assi cal German Phi l osophy, Forei gn
Languages Press, Peki ng, 1976
expl anatorynotetothe 1888 Engl i shedn. , Mani f estoof theCommuni st Party,
i n MarxandEngel s Works( MEW) , vol . 6, p. 482
`The Begi nni ng of the Endi n Austri a' , MEW, vol . 6, pp. 534- 36
arti cl es i n the Neue Rhei ni sche Zei tung on the Pol and debates i n the
Frankf urt Assembl y, 1848. I n MEW, vol . 7, pp. 337- 82
`What I s to Becomeof Turkeyi n Europe?' MEW, vol . 12, pp. 32- 5
`Poand Rhi ne' , MEW, vol . 16, pp. 211- 55
Fi chte, J . G. , Addresses to the GermanNati on, Chi cago, Open Court, 1922
Fi gueroa, Loi da, Hi stori ograf za dePuerto Ri co, Parani nf o, Madri d, 1975
Brevehi stori a dePuertoRi co, Edi tori al , Edi l , Ri o Pi edras, 1971
Hi story of PuertoRi co, FromtheBegi nni ng to 1898, NewYork, 1972
Frel i mo, Hi stSri a de Mozambi que, Af rontami ento, Maputo, 1971
Gal i nanes, Mari a Teresa B. de ( ed. ) , Geovi si on de Puerto Ri co, Edi tori al
Uni versi tari a, Uni versi ty of Puerto Ri co, Ri o Pi edras, 1977
Gel l ner, Ernest, Thought andChange, Wei denf el d andNi col son, London, 1964
`Nati onal i sm' , Theory andSoci ety, vol . 10, 1981
Nati ons andNati onal i sm, Cornel l Uni versi ty Press, I thaca, 1983
Gobl et, Y. M. , Pol i ti cal Geography andthe Worl dMap, Praeger, NewYork, 1955
Godel i er, Mauri ce, Sobreel mododeproducti onasi ati co, Edi ci ones Marti nez Roca,
Barcel ona, 1969
Gomez- Qui nones, J uan, andRi os- Bustamente, Antoni o, `Lacomuni dadmexi cana
al norte del Ri o Bravo' i n D. Maci el ( ed. ) , La otra cara deMexi co: El puebl o
Chi cano, Edi ci ones El Cabal l i to, Mexi co, D. F. , 1977
Gonzal ez, J ose Lui s, El pal s de cuatro pi sos, y otros ensayos, Edi ci ones Huracan,
Ri o Pi edras, 1980
Gopal , Lal l anj i , `Quasi - Manori al Ri ghts i n Anci ent I ndi a' , J ournal of theEconomi c
andSoci al Hi story of the Ori ent, vol . 6, 1963, pp. 296- 308
Gramsci , Antoni o, Pri son Notebooks, Lawrence and Wi shart, London, 1971
Habi b, I rf an, `Structure of Agrari an Soci ety i n Mughal I ndi a' , i n B. N. Gangul i
( ed. ) , Readi ngs i n I ndi an Economi c Hi story, Asi a Publ i shi ng House, Bombay,
1964
Bi bl i ography 219
`Probl ems of Marxi st Hi stori cal Anal ysi s' , Enqui ry, newseri es vol . 3, 1969,
pp. 52- 67
Harri s, Ni gel , Bel i ef s i n Soci ety, Pengui n, Harmondsworth, 1971
Hasan, Azi za, `Si l ver CurrencyOutput of theMughal Empi reandPri ces i nI ndi a
duri ngthe 16thand17thCenturi es' , I ndi anEconomi c andSoci al Hi storyRevi ew,
vol . 6, 1969, pp. 85- 116
Haupt, George, `RosaLuxemburgyl a cuesti onnati onal ' , Cuadernos pol i ti cos, no.
21, 1979, pp. 75- 90
Hayes, C. J . H. , `Nati onal i sm' , i n E. Sel i gman ( ed. ) , Encycl opedi a of the Soci al
Sci ences, Vol . 11, Macmi l l an, NewYork, 1933, pp. 231- 49
Nati onal i sm: ARel i gi on, Macmi l l an, NewYork, 1960
Hegei , G. W. F. , Phi l osophy of Ri ght, Oxf ordUni versi ty Press, Oxf ord, 1952
ThePhi l osophy oj Hi story, Dover, NewYork, 1956
Herder, J . G. von, Ref l ecti ons onthePhi l osophy of theHi storyof Manki nd, abri dged
andtransl ated by T. Manuel , Uni versi ty of Chi cago, Chi cago, 1968
Hi storyTask Force, Centro de Estudi os Puertorri quei i os, Labor Mi grati on Under
Capi tal i sm: The PuertoRi canExperi ence, Monthl y Revi ewPress, NewYork,
1979
Hobsbawm, Eri c, TheAgeof Revol uti on: 1789- 1848, Worl d, NewYork, 1962
`The Atti tude of Popul ar Cl asses towards Nati onal Movements f or
I ndependence' , i nMouvementsNati onauxd' I ndependanceet Cl asses Popul ai res,
vol . 1, ArmandCol i n, Pari s, 1971
`Some Ref l ecti ons on Nati onal i sm' , i n T. Nossi ter and others ( eds. ) ,
I magi nati onandPreci si oni n theSoci al Sci ences, Faber andFaber, London; 1972
TheAge of Capi tal . 1848- 1875, Scri bner' s NewYork, 1975
`Some Ref l ecti ons on"TheBreak- Up of Bri tai n"' , NewLef tRevi ew, no. 105,
1977
TheHi storyof Marxi sm, vol . 1, I ndi anaUni versi ty Press, Bl oomi ngton, 1982
Workers: Worl ds of Labour, Pantheon, NewYork, 1984
and T. Ranger ( eds. ) , The I nventi on of Tradi ti on, Cambri dge Uni versi ty
Press, Cambri dge, 1983
Ho Chi Mi nh, Ho Chi Mi nh, Sel ectedArti cl es andSpeeches: 1920- 1967, ed. J .
Woddi s, I nternati onal , NewYork, 1970
Hopki ns, A. G. , AnEconomi cHi storyof West Af ri ca, Col umbi a Uni versi ty Press,
NewYork, 1973
I nternati onal Worki ng- Men' s Associ ati on, The General Counci l of the Fi rst
I nternati onal , 1871- 1872: Mi nutes, Progress Publ i shers, Moscow, 1968
I sayev, M. L, Nati onal l anguages i n the USSR: Probl ems andSol uti ons, Progress,
Moscow, 1977
I smagi l ova, R. N. , Ethni c Probl ems of Tropi cal Af ri ca, Progress, Moscow, 1978
J ames, C. L. R. , The Bl ackJ acobi ns, 2ndedn. , Vi ntage, NewYork, 1963
J ha, S. C. , Studi es i n the Devel opment of Capi tal i smi n I ndi a, Mukhopadhyay,
Cal cutta, 1963
J ohnson, Dal e, `EconomsmandDetermi ni smi n Marxi st Theory' , Lati nAmeri can
Perspecti ves, vol . 8, nos. 3- 4, 1981, pp. 108- 118
Kal taj chi an, Suren, `El conceptode"nati on"' , Hi stori a ysoci edad, 2ndseri es, no. 8,
1975, pp. 20- 37
Kamenka, Eugene ( ed. ) , Nati onal i sm, theNature andEvol uti onof an I dea, Edward
Arnol d, London, 1976
Kautsky, Karl , `La naci onal i dad moderns' ( `Di e moderne Nati onal i tat' ) , i n K.
220 Bi bl i ography
Kautskyandothers( anthol ogy) , Lasegundai nternati onal yel probl emanati onal
y col oni al , part 1, Cuadernosdepasadoy presente no. 73, Mexi co, D. F. , 1978
Kedouri e, El i e, Nati onal i sm, Hutchi nson, London, 1960
Nati onal i smi nAsi aandAf ri ca, Worl d, NewYork, 1970
Ki m, YongMok, `The KoreanMi nori tyi nJ apanandThei r Di l emma of Cul tural
I denti ty' , i nT. S. Kang( ed. ) , Nati onal i smandthe Cri sesof Ethni c Mi nori ti esi n
Asi a, Greenwood, Westport andLondon, 1979
Kohn, Hans, `Nati onal i sm' , I nternati onal Encycl opedi aof the Soci al Sci ences, 2nd
edn. , vol . 11, Macmi l l an, NewYork, 1968, pp. 63-70
Kosambi , D. D. , Anci ent I ndi a, Meri di an, NewYork, 1969
Lacl au, Ernesto, Pol i ti csandI deol ogyi nMarxi st Theory, NewLef t Books, London,
~n^i ^r
i i i
Lane, Frederi c, Veni ce: A Mari ti me Republ i c, J ohns Hopki ns Uni versi ty Press,
Bal ti more, 1973
Lati nAmeri canPerspecti ves, speci al i ssue, PuertoRi co: Cl assStruggl eandNati onal
Li berati on, vol . 3, no. 3, 1976
Le Duan, Thi sNati onandSoci al i smAre One, Vanguard, Chi cago, 1976
Leni n, V. L, Col l ected Works ( ci ted here as Works) , Progress, Moscow, vari ous
dates
`The "Vexed Questi ons" of Our Party: The "Li qui dati oni st" and
"Nati onal " Questi ons' , Works, vol . 18, pp. 405-12
Letter to S. G. Shahumyan, December 6, 1913, Works, voi . 19, pp. 499-502
`TheNati onal Programme of the R. S. D. L. P. ' , Works, vol . 19, pp. 539-45
`Cri ti cal Remarks onthe Nati onal Questi on' , Works, vol . 20, pp. 17-51
`The Ri ght of Nati ons to Sel f -Determi nati on' , Works, vol . 20, pp. 393-455
`The Questi on of Peace' , Works, vol . 21, pp. 290-94
`Soci al i smandWar' , Works, vol . 21, pp. 295-338
`The Revol uti onary Prol etari at and the Ri ght of Nati ons to Sel f -
Determi nati on' , Works, vol . 21, pp. 407-14
`The Soci al i st Revol uti onandthe Ri ght of Nati ons to Sel f -Determi nati on:
Theses' , Works, vol . 22, pp. 150-52
`I mperi al i sm: TheHi ghest Stageof Capi tal i sm' , Works, vol . 22, pp. 185-304
`The Di scussi onof Sel f -Determi nati onSummedUp' , Works, vol . 22, pp.
320-60
`The Nascent Trendof I mperi al i st Economi sm' , Works, vol . 23, pp. 13-21
`Repl y to P. Ki evsky ( Y. Pyatakov) ' , Works, vol . 23, pp. 22-27
`ACari cature of Marxi smandI mperi al i st Economi sm' , Works, vol . 23, pp.
28-76
`I mperi al i smandthe Spl i t i n Soci al i sm' , Works, vol . 23, pp. 105-120
`War andRevol uti on' , Works, vol . 24, pp. 400-421
`Revi si onof the Party Programme' , Works, vol . 26, pp. 149-78
`The State' , Works, vol . 29, pp. 470-88
"`Lef t-Wi ng" Communi sm- anI nf anti l e Di sorder' , Works, vol . 31, pp.
17-118
`Prel i mi naryDraf t Theses ontheNati onal andCol oni al Questi ons' , Works,
vol . 31, pp. 144-51
`Termsof Admi ssi oni ntotheCommuni st I nternati onal ' , Works, vol . 31, pp.
206-11
`Report onthe I nternati onal Si tuati on' , Works, vol . 31, pp. 215-34
`Report of the Commi ssi ononthe Nati onal andthe Col oni al Questi ons' ,
Bi bl i ography 221
Works, vol . 31, pp. 240-45
`The Questi onof Nati onal i ti es or "Autonomi sati on"' , Works, vol . 36, pp.
605-11
Notes f or a l ecture on `i mperi al i smand the ri ght of nati ons to sel f -
determi nati on' gi veni nGeneva, October, 1915, Works, vol . 39, pp. 735-42
`Thesesf or aLecture onthe Nati onal Questi on' , Works, vol . 41, pp. 313-23
Lerner, Warren, Karl Radek: TheLast I nternati onal i st, Stanf ordUni versi ty Press,
Stanf ord, 1970
Lewi s, Archi bal d, `Mari ti me Ski l l s i n the I ndi an Ocean, 1368-1500' , J ournal of
Economi c andSoci al Hi story of the Ori ent, vol . 16, 1973, pp. 238-64
Le. .

, `3rd_

n. , rt~R: Cv' Freedv

-dPo. ~2r . . < the ~artbbe. . , ~' I On^. i f 1 ne. . . . . . . y. .
Press, NewYorkandLondon, 1963
Notesonthe PuertoRi canRevol uti on, Monthl yRevi ewPress, NewYorkand
London, 1974
Lewi s, W. Arthur ( ed. ) , Tropi cal Devel opment: 1880-1913, NorthwesternUni versi ty
Press, Evanston, 1970
Li ceri a, M. A. A. , `Emergence of Brahmanas as Landed I ntermedi ari es i n
Karnataka, c . A. D. 1000-1300' , I ndi anHi stori cal Revi ew, vol . 1, 1974
Li di n, Harol d, Hi story of the Puerto Ri can I ndependence Movement, vol . 1 ( 19th
Century) , SanJ uan, 1981
Lopez, Adel berto, andPetras, J ames ( eds. ) , PuertoRi co andPuertoRi cans, Wi l ey.
NewYork, 1974
Lopez, J ose A. ( ed. ) , Puerto Ri can Nati onal i sm: A Reader, Edi tori al Coqui ,
Chi cago, 1977
Lowi th, Karl , FromHegel to Ni etzsche, Doubl eday, GardenCi ty, 1964
Lowy, Mi chael , `Marxi smand the Nati onal Questi on' , i n R. Bl ackburn ( ed. )
Revol uti onandCl assStruggl e: AReader i nMarxi st Pol i ti cs, Fontana, Gl asgow,
1977
Luxemburg, Rosa, The Nati onal Questi on: Sel ected Wri ti ngs of Rosa Luxemburg,
edi ted and wi th ani ntroducti on by Horace B. Davi s, Monthl y Revi ewPress,
NewYorkandLondon, 1976
Forewordtotheanthol ogy, ThePol i sh Questi onandthe Soci al i st Movement
( 1905) . I nher TheNati onal Questi on. . . , pp. 60-100
`TheNati onal Questi onandAutonomy' , I nher TheNati onal Questi on. . . ,
pp. 101-288
`The Cri si s of Soci al Democracy' , ( the `J uni us pamphl et' ) , i n Rosa
LuxemburgSpeaks, ed. Mary-Al i ce Waters, Pathf i nder Press, NewYork, 1970
Macartney, C. A. , Nati onal StatesandNati onal Mi nori ti es, 2ndedn. , Russel l and
Russel l , NewYork, 1968
MaHuan, The Overal l Survey of the Ocean' sShores, Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press,
Cambri dge, 1970
Mal donado-Deni s, Manuel , PuertoRi co: ASoci o-Hi stori c I nterpretati on, 4thedn. ,
Vi ntage, NewYork, 1472
`Prospectsf or Lati nAmeri canNati onal i sm: The Caseof PuertoRi co' , Lati n
Ameri canPerspecti ves, vol . 3, no. 3, 1976, pp. 36-45
`El naci onal i smo en Puerto Ri co: una approxi maci bn cri ti ca' , Hi stori a y
Soci edad, no. 13, 2ndseri es, 1977, pp. 47-69
Haci a una i nterpretati on marxi sta de l a hi stori c de Puerto Ri co, y otros
ensayos, Edi tori al Anti l l ana, Ri o Pi edras, 1977
TheEmi grati onDi al ecti c: PuertoRi coandthe USA, I nternati onal , NewYork,
1980
222 Bi bl i ography
`En torno a "el pai s de cuatro pi sos" : approxi mati on cri ti ca a l a obra
soci ol ogi ca de J ose Lui s Gonzal ez' , Casa de l as Ameri cas, no. 135, 1982, pp.
151-159
`PuertoRi canEmi grati on: Proposal s f or i ts Study' , ContemporaryMarxi sm,
no. 5, 1982, pp. 19-26
Pedro Al bi zu Campos: l a conci enci a nati onal Puertorri quena, Edi ci ones
Compromi sos, SanJ uan, 1984
`PuertoRi co: TheNati onal andSoci al Struggl e duri ngthe 20thCentury' , i n
Lopez andPetras ( eds . ) , PuertoRi co andPuertoRi cans
Mao Tse-Tung, `On NewDemocracy' , i n hi s Sel ected Works, vol . 2, Forei gn
Languages Press, Peki ng, 1967
14l ari ; : . ras, J ua: . , `Al bi zu Carr~pos : Hi s Hi stori cai Si gni f i cance' , i nI . Lavai aandf t .
Rodri guez ( eds . ) , The I ntel l ectual Roots of I ndependence: AnAnthol ogy of
Pol i ti cal Essays, Monthl yRevi ewPress, London, 1980
Puerto Ri co: el otro col oni al i smo: i ntervenci ones en l a Organi zati on de
Naci ones Uni dasyel Movi mi entodePai sesNo-Al i neados( 1973-1981) , SanJ uan,
Parti do Soci al i sta Puertorri quei i o, 1982
EI i ndependenti smo: supasado, supresente, ysuf uturo, Edi tori al Cepa, San
J uan, 1984
Marx, Karl , Contri buti onto the Cri ti que of Hegel ' s Phi l osophy of Law, MEW, vol .
13, pp. 3-129
Capi tal , 3vol s. , Fowkes transl ati on, RandomHouse, NewYork, 1977-1981
andEngel s, Frederi ck, Col l ectedWorks ( ci ted here as MEW) , I nternati onal
Publ i shers, NewYork, vari ous dates
The GermanI deol ogy, MEW, vol . 5, pp. 19-450
Mani f esto of the Communi st Party, MEW, vol . 6, pp. 477-519
`Demands of the Communi st Partyof Germany' , MEW, vol . 7, pp.
3-7
I rel andandthe I ri sh Questi on( anthol ogy) , Progress, Moscow, 1971
Marz and Engel s on Prol etari an I nternati onal i sm( anthol ogy) ,
Progress, Moscow, 1972
Marx and Engel s: Sel ected Correspondence, 3rd edn. , Progress,
Moscow, 1975
MercedRosa, Fl orenci o, `One Nati on, OneParty' , J ournal of ContemporaryPuerto
Ri can Thought, vol . 2, no. 2-3, 1975, pp. 49-63
Mi l i band, Ral ph, Marxi smandPol i ti cs, Oxf ordUni versi ty Press, Oxf ord, 1977
Mi nchi nton, W. E. , The Growth oj Engl i sh Overseas Trade i n the 17th and18th
Centuri es, Methuen, London, 1969
Mi nogue, K. R. , Nati onal i sm, Pengui n, Harmondsworth, 1970
Nai rn, Tom, TheBreak-Up of Bri tai n, NewLef t Books, London, 1977
Needham, J oseph, Sci ence andCi vi l i zati on i n Chi na, vol . 4, part 3, Cambri dge
Uni versi ty Press, Cambri dge, 1970
Nettl , J . P. , RosaLuxemburg, 2vol s. , Oxf ordUni versi ty Press, London, 1966
Nguyen Khac Vi en, Tradi ti onal Vi etnam: Some Hi stori cal Stages, Vi etnamese
Studi es, no. 21, Hanoi , c. 1970
Ni chol as, D. M. , `TownandCountrysi de: Soci al andEconomi c Tensi ons i n 14th-
Century Fl anders' , Comparati ve Studi es i n Soci ety andHi story col . 10, 1967-
1968, pp. 458-485
Novak, V. J . A. , `The Pri nci pl e of Soci ogenesi s, Real Soci al i sm, andthe Probl emof
Lasti ng Peace' , Anti pode. ' ARadi cal J ournal of Geography, vol . 16, no. 1, 1984,
pp. 5-11
Bi bl i ography 223
ThePri nci pl e of Soci ogenesi s, Academi a Publ i shi ng House, Czechosl ovak
Academy of Sci ences, Prague, 1982
Pal umbo, M. , andShanahan, W. ( eds . ) , Nati onal i sm: Essays i nHonor of Loui s L.
Snyder, Greenwood, Westport, 1981
Parti do Soci al i sta Puertorri queno, Secti onal de Estados Uni dos, Desde l as
entranas, NuevaLucha ( Puerto Ri co) , speci al number, 1974
Peet, J . R. ( ed. ) , Radi cal Geography, Maarouf a, Chi cago, 1977
Perrons, Di ane, `I rel and andthe Break-Upof Bri tai n' , Anti pode: ARadi cal J ournal
of Geography, vol . 12, no. 2, 1980
Pi ore, Mi chael , Bi rds of Passage: Mi grant Labour andI ndustri al Soci eti es, Cambri dge
Uni versi tyPress, Cambri dge, 1979
Ponl antzas, N: c

State, Pv' rVcr, . avi i ai i 57i i , i LTCwLef i nook, London, 1970
Pri ngl e, Denni s, ~`Marxi sm, the Nati onal Questi on, and the Conf l i ct i nNorthern
I rel and: AResponse toBl aut' , Anti pode: ARadi cal J ournal of Geography, vol . 14,
no. 2, 1982, pp. 21-32
Purcel l , Vi ctor, The Chi nese i n Southeast Asi a> Oxf ord Uni versi ty Press, London,
1951
Qui ntero-Ri vera, Angel , `Backgroundto the Emergence of I mperi al i st Capi tal i sm
to Puerto Ri co' , i n Lopez andPetras ( eds. ) , PuertoRi coandPuertoRi cans
`The Devel opment of Soci al Cl asses andPol i ti cal Conf l i cts i n Puerto Ri co' ,
i n Lopez and Petras ( eds . ) , PuertoRi co andPuertoRi cans
( ed. ) , Workers' Struggl es i nPuertoRi co: ADocumentaryHi story, Monthl y
Revi ewPress, NewYork andLondon, 1976
Conf l i ctosde cl ase ypol i ti caenPuertoRi co, Edi ci ones Huracan, Ri oPi edras,
1977
`I mperi al i smandCl ass Struggl e i n Puerto Ri co' , Two Thi rds, vol . 2, no. 1,
1979, pp. 4-11
`Notes on Puerto Ri can Nati onal Devel opment : Cl ass and Nati on i n a
Col oni al Context' , Marzi st Perspecti ves, vol . 3, no. 1, 1980, pp. 10-31
Gonzal ez, J ose Lui s, Campos, Ri cardo, and Fl ores, J uan, Puerto Ri co:
I denti dadnati onal y cl ases soci al es ( col oqui ode Pri nceton) . Edi ci ones, Huracan,
Ri o Pi edras, 1981
Ramos Mattei , Andres, La haci enda azucarera: Su creci mi ento y cri si s enPuerto
Ri co ( Si gl o 19) , CEREP, SanJ uan, 1981
Rawski , Evel yn, Agri cul tural Changeandthe Peasant Economyof SouthChi na, MI T
Press, Cambri dge, Mass. , 1972
Renner, Karl , Der Kampf der osterrei chi schen Nati onenumder Staat, Vi enna, 1903
Ri os-Bustamante, Antoni o, Mexi cans i n the Uni ted States and the Nati onal
Questi on: Current Pol emi cs andOrgani zati onal Posi ti ons, Edi tori al La Causa,
Santa Barbara, 1978
Rodi nson, Maxi me, I sl amandCapi tal i sm, Pantheon, NewYork, 1974
Royal I nsti tute of I nternati onal Af f ai rs, Nati onal i sm, Oxf ordUni versi ty Press, 1939
Santi ago, Kel vi nAntoni o, `PuertoRi co: l a cuesti 6nnati onal ' , Hi stori cySoci edad,
no. 16, 2ndseri es, 1977, pp. 24-38
`Lacuesti 5nnati onal : Al gunas tesi s i gnoradas' , Proceso( PuertoRi co) , no. 4,
1981
Searl e, Chri s, Grenada: The Struggl e Agai nst Destabi l i zati on, Wri ters andReaders,
London, 1983
Shaf er, Boyd, Nati onal i sm: MythandReal i ty, Harcourt Brace, NewYork, 1955
Sharma, R. S. , I ndi anFeudal i sm: c. 300-1200, Uni versi ty of Cal cutta, Cal cutta,
1965
224 Bi bl i ography
Li ght onEarl yI ndi anSoci ety andEconomy, Manaktal as, Bombay, 1966
`I ndi anFeudal i smRetouched' , I ndi anHi stori cal Revi ew, vol . 1, 1974, pp.
320-330
Si l en, J uanAngel , `Aspectos sobresal i entes del probl ema naci onal puertorri quei i o
y l a nueva l ucha de i ndependenci a' , J ournal of Contemporary Puerto Ri can
Thought, vol . 2, no. 2-3, 1975, pp. 14-20
PedroAl bi zuCampos, Edi tori al Ani i i l ana, 1976
Si monsen, Roberto, Hi stdri a Economi ca do Brasi l , I S00-1820, Edi tora Nati onal ,
Sao Paul o, 1944
Smi th, Abdul l ahi , `The Earl y States of the Central Sudan' , i nJ . F. A. Aj ayi andM.
Crowder ( eds. ) , Hi story of West Af ri ca, vol . 1, Col umbi a Uni versi ty Press, 1972
Smi th; Anrhnny_i ~

Thoori es
;
~
t,"' o. , a! i s, , Tuarper and Ra

r ^nd^

' 471
Nati onal i sm~i n the Twenti eth Century, NewYork Uni versi ty Press, New
York, 1979
State andNati oni n the Thi rd Worl d, Harvester Press, Bri ghton, 1983
Smi th, C. T. , AnHi stori cal Geography of WesternEuropebef ore 1800, Longmans,
London, 1967
Snyder, ~Loui s L. , The Meani ng of Nati onal i sm, Rutgers Uni versi ty Press, New
Brunswi ck, 1954
The Dynami cs of Nati onal i sm: A Reader, Pri nceton Uni versi ty Press,
Pri nceton, 1964
`Nati onal i smand the Terri tori al I mperati ve' , Canadi anRevi ewof Studi es i n
Nati onal i sm, vol . 3, no. 1, 1975, pp. 1-21
So Kwan-wei , J apanesePi racy i n Mi ng Chi na duri ng the 16th Century, Mi chi gan
State Uni versi ty Press, East Lansi ng, 1975
Stal i n, J oseph, Foundati ons of Leni ni sm, I nternati onal , NewYork, 1939
`TheOctober Revol uti onandthe Nati onal Questi on' , Col l ected Works, vol .
4, Progress, Moscow, 1953-1955, p. 170
`Marxi smand the Nati onal Questi on' , Col l ected Works, vol . 3, Progress,
Moscow, 1953-1955, pp. 300-384
Marxi smandthe Nati onal -Col oni al Questi on( anthol ogy) , Prol etari an, San
Franci sco, 1975
Stover, C. A. , `Tropi cal Exports' , i n W, A. Lewi s ( ed. ) , Tropi cal Devel opment,
1880-1913
Suret-Canal e, J ean, French Col oni al i smi n Tropi cal Af ri ca, 1900-1945, Pi ca Press,
NewYork, 1971
Tal l er de Formaci on Pol i ti ca, La cuesti on naci onal . ~ el Parti do Naci onal i sta y el
movi emi ento obreropuertorri queno, Edi ci ones Huracan, Ri o Pi edras, 1982
Tal l eres Soci al i stas, and Pensami ento Cri ti co, `Cri ti ca a l a ponenci a del
Col ecti vo Soci al i sta de SanJ uan' , Pensami ento Cri ti co, ai i o 7, no. 36, 1984
Tal mon, J . L. , The Myth of the Nati onand the Vi si on of Revol uti on, Secker and
Warburg, London, 1981
Tayl or, P. J . `Geographi cal Scal es Wi thi ntheWorl d-EconomyApproach' , Revi ew,
vol . 5, 1981, pp. 3-11
Thapar, Romi l a, `I deol ogy andthe I nterpretati on of Earl yI ndi anHi story' , Revi ew,
vol . 5, 1982, pp. 389-412
Thompson, E. P. , ThePoverty of TheoryandOther Essays, Monthl y Revi ewPress,
London, 1978
Ti tow, J . Z. , Engl i shRural Soci ety, 1200-1350, Al l enandUnwi n, London, 1969
Ti vey, L. , ( ed. ) , TheNati on-State, St . Marti n' s, London, 1981
Bi bl i ography 225
Townsend, MaryEvel yn, `Hi tl er andthe Revi val of GermanCol oni al i sm' , i nE. M.
Earl y ( ed. ) , Nati onal i smandI nternati onal i sm, Col umbi a Uni versi ty Press, New
York, 1950
Toynbee, Arnol d, AStudyof Hi story, 11 vol s. , Oxf ord Uni versi ty Press, London,
1954
Trotsky, Leon, Stal i n, Stei nand Day, NewYork, 1967
Ts' ao YungHo, `Chi nese Overseas Trade i n the Late Mi ng Peri od' , Proceedi ngs,
2ndBi enni al Conf erence, I nternati onal Associ ati onof Hi stori ans of Asi a, Tai pei ,
1962
Turner, Bryan, Marxandthe Endof Ori ental i sm, Al l enand Unwi n, London, 1978
Uni ted States Commi ssi ononCi vi l Ri ghts, PuertoRi cansi n the Conti nental Uni ted
States: An Uncertai n Future, U. S. Commi ssi on on Ci vi i Ri ghts, Washi ngton
D. C. , 1976
Uni ted States Department of Commerce, Economi c Study of PuertoRi co, 2vol s. ,
U. S. Government Pri nti ng Of f i ce, Washi ngton, 1979
Vazquez Cal zada, J ose L. , `La pobl aci 5nde Puerto Ri co' , i n M. Gal i i i anes ( ed. ) ,
Geovi si 6ndePuertoRi co
Vi l ar, Pi erre, `On Nati ons and Nati onal i sm' , Marxi st Perspecti ves, vol . 2, no. 1,
1979, pp. 8-29
Vi l l ami l , J ose, `ThePuertoRi canModel : The Li mi ts of Dependent Growth' , Two
Thi rds, vol . 1, no. 2, 1979, pp. 12-24
( ed. ) , Transnati onal Capi tal i smand Nati onal Devel opment, Humani ti es,
Atl anti c Hi ghl ands, N. J . , 1979
Vol kov, Mai , `The "I nterdependence of Nati ons" and Neocol oni al i sm' , Soci al
Sci ences, vol . 13, no. 1, 1982, pp. 126-136
Wal l erstei n, I mmanuel , `The Future of the Worl d Economy' , i nT. Hopki ns and I .
Wal l erstei n( eds. ) , Processes of the Worl d-System, Sage, Beverl y Hi l l s, 1980
`Cri si s as Transi ti on' , i n S. Ami n, G. Arri ghi , A. G. Frank, and I .
Wal l erstei n, Dynami cs of Worl dCri si s, Monthl y Revi ew, London, 1983
`Patterns andPerspecti ves of theCapi tal i st Worl d-Economy' , Contemporary
Marxi sm, no. 9, 1984, pp. 59-70
WangGung-Wu, `Earl y Mi ngRel ati ons wi th Southeast Asi a' , i n J . K. Fai rbanks
( ed. ) , The Chi nese Worl dOrder, MI TPress, Cambri dge, Mass. , 1967
Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethi c and the Spi ri t of Capi tal i sm, Scri bner' s, New
York, 1958
Wi ens, Herol d, Chi na' s March i nto the Tropi cs, Yal e, NewHaven, 1954
Wi ethof f , Bodo, Di e ehi nesi sche Seeverbotspol i ti k and der pri vate Uberseehandel
von 1868 bi s 1567, Gesel l schaf t f ur Natur- and Vol kerkunde Ostasi ens,
Hamburg, 1963
Wheatl ey, Paul , The Gol den Khersonese, Uni versi ty of Mal aya Press, Kual a
Lumpur, 1961
Whi te, LynnJ r . , Medi eval Technol ogyandSoci al Change, Oxf ordUni versi ty Press,
London, 1962
Maehi na ex Deo: Essays i n the Dynami smof Western Cul ture, MI T Press,
Cambri dge, Mass. , 1968
WuYuKan, `Chi nese Overseas I ntercourse andTrade i n Anci ent Ti mes' , Eastern
Hori zon, vol . 4, no. 2, 1965, pp. 6-17
Yadav, B. N. S. , `I mmobi l i ty and Subj ugati on of I ndi an Peasantry i n Earl y
Medi eval Compl ex' , I ndi anHi stori cal Revi ew, vol . 1, 1974, pp. 18-27
Zaval a, I ri s M. , andRodri guez, Raf ael , The I ntel l ectual Roots of I ndependence: An
226 Bi bl i ography
Anthol ogyof Pol i ti cal Essays, Monthl yRevi ewPress, NewYorkandLondon,
1980
Zubai da, Sami , `Theori esof Nati onal i sm' , i nG. Li ttl ej ohnandothers (eds. ), Power
andtheState, St . Marti n' s, London, 1978
I ndex
accul turati on, 160, 165
Acton, Lord, 59, 116, 137, 217
Afri ca, 30, 38, 55, 68, 83, 87, 116, 180, 206
Afro-Ameri cans, 160-4, 167-8; Leni non, 154
aggressi on25, 175, 202, 211
Al geri a, 20, 116, 193, 210
Ameri cans, Nati ve52, 54, 63, 154, 160-1, 181,
213
Anderson, P. , 99, 206, 214
Angol a, 3, 11, 20, 27-8, 46, 116, 122, 134
antagoni sm, i nnate, 202
anti -semi ti sm, 85-7
Arri ghi G. , 40, 43-4, 56, 214
Asi a, 30, 38, 83, 176, 180, 181, 207, 208
Asi ans, i nEurope, 143; i nUS, 160-1
assi mi l ati on, 2, 6, 10, 48-54, 142-3, 153-5,
159-71, 184, 212; psychol ogi cal theoryof,
165
Austri a, 72, 107-8, 146
Austri a-Hungary, 49, 60, 61, 82, 89, 108-9
autonomy, l 3, 23, 39, 51, 61, 115, 146, 213
bal kani zati on, 107, 109, 111, 114-7
Bauer, 0. , 24, 25, 44, 59-62, 72-3, 82, 105,
108, 127, 136, 146, 148, 198, 201, 210, 214
Bel gi um, 82, 93, 109, 131
Bol shevi ks, 49, 51, 61, 67, 108, 109, 146-8
Boni l l a, F, 6, 137, 215, 216
boundari es, 29, 71, 204; seeal soexternal
cl assrel ati ons
bourgeoi s-democrati c revol uti on, 4, 6, 9, 10,
26-9, 32, 48, 103, 122, 140, 172
bourgeoi s revol uti ons, l 7th-century, 30, 176
bourgeoi si e, 9, 11, 12, 28, 102, 117, 123, 132,
161, 164, 191; nati onal , 40; ri si ng, 24, 26,
32, 44, 60-1, 97, 102, 110, 122, 130, 173
Brazi l , 43, 113, 117, 118, 181, 208
Break-upof Bri tai n, 47, 77, 88, 92
Bri tai n, 18, 20, 34, 38, 42, 44, 46, 47, 59, 60,
65, 77, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91-3, 95, 108,
111, 112, 113, 122, 149, 162, 163
BrunnProgramme, 73, 136
Bukhari n, N. , 41, 48, 131-3, 137, 117, 140
Bundi sts, Sl , 62
Cabral , A. , 68; 69, 71, 74, i 65, 171, 199, 210,
211, 212, 215; oncul ture, 201
Campos, R. , 6, 137, 216, 223
capi tal i sm, 5, 12, 16, 22, 25, 32, 39, 54;
i nternati onal i zati onof, 4, 6, 9-12, 28-9,
38, 40-2, 45, 47-8, 51-2, 62, 103-4, 106,
111-8, 127, 132, 135, 157; ori gi ns of, 180-2;
mature, 151, 153; mercanti l e, 30;
monopol y, 162; proto-, 176; ri si ng, 3, 4, 6,
26, 121, 130, 154, 182; ri si ngcapi tal i smas
epochorstage, 51, 62, 143, 148-9, 151-4,
157; spaci al expansi onof, 128
Carr, E. , 38, 56, 156, 216
Castro, F, 15, 69, 212, 216
Chi l e, 43, 85, 113, 191, 193
Chi na, 33, 67, 74, 91, 116, 118, 128, 138, 178,
179, 181, 200, 205, 206, 207
Chi nesei nSoutheast Asi a, 71, 154
ci vi l equal i ty, 25, 49, 61, 146, 166
ci vi l i zati on21, 25, 31, 66, 78, 91, 94, 103, 190
cl ass, 3, 4, 5, 12, 16, 19, 23-6, 29, 33, 35,
57-75, 77, 78, 79, 83, 97, 98, 102, 132, 133,
152, 167, 176-95; al l i ances, 194-5;
consci ousness, 160, 164; fracti ons, 64,
188; i denti ty, i nmi nori ty communi ty, 168;
rel ati ons, external , 4, 23, 32, 71, 132,
176-95; rel ati ons, i nterna1, 176-95;
soci ety, 32, 195; seeal soexternal
expl oi tati on; external i sati on, cl ass
cl assstruggl e, 4, S, 9-12, 19, 23, 47, 57-62, 72,
92, 100, 102, 120, 176-95; betweenrul i ng
cl asses, 191; i ncol oni es, speci 6ci tyof,
196; pre-capi tal i st, 173; seeal soexternal
cl assstruggl e
cl asses, external , 132; i nternal andexternal
produci ng, 177; i nternal andexternal
rul i ng, 177; worki ng, 28, 29, 60, 62, 96,
227
TheNati onal Questi on
123, 160- I , 168
cl assl ess soci eti es, 58, 68, 150, 190; conf l i ct
i n, 203
Cobban, A. , 38, 56, 217
col oni al questi on, 140, 153, 158
col oni al i smandcol oni es, 1- 13, 16, 18- 22,
25- 30, 32, 34- 7, 38- 40, 42- 3, 45- 8, 51- 4,
62, 65- 6, 68, 78, 82, 85- 7, 92, 94, 100- I ,
104, 108, 110- 2, 114- 6, 118- 9, 122, 126,
128- 30, 135, 138, 141, 143, 144- 6, 147, 149,
151- 8, 161, 164- 6, 172- 6, 182- 4, 192, 194- 6,
201, 203, 211- 3; Leni n' s theoryof , 2, 86- 7,
103, 129, 138- 40, 151- 8~ca! tural , h4; ;
i nternal , 54, 155; settl er, 30, 31, 32, 33,
178
communi ti es, mi nori ty, 49, 50, 52- 3, 159- 71
concentrati on, 60, 108, 117, 132- 3; seeal so
si ze
Congress of thePeopl es of theEast, Baku,
217
consci ousness, l 2; f al se, 102, 188, 194, 210;
al soseei deol ogy
corporati ons, mul ti nati ona128, 42, 43, 113,
114, 118, 120, 131
Cuba, 3, 11, 28, 60, 69, 75, 77, 120, 122, 134
cul tural - nati onal autonomy, 73, 146, 148
cul ture, Zl , 23- 26, 44- 5, 49, 52, 57- 8, 60- 3,
68, 87, 91, 108, 133, 155, 157, 159, 160,
164- 9, 177, 186- 91, 193, 195, 197- 8, 201- 4,
210, 213; as source of nati onal struggl e,
202; nati onal struggl e and, 197- 8, 201- 4;
rul es of , andexpl oi tati on, 187- 9; shared,
187- 8
cul turechange, i n mi nori tycommuni ti es,
164- 9
Czechosl ovaki a, 62, 93, 108- 9, 198
Davi s, H. , 25, 33, 37, 56, 57, 64, 67- 9, 74, 75,
157, 210, 217
Debray, R. , 25, 48, 57, 64- 5, 73, 217
decol oni zati on, 21, 22, 38, 39, 43, 45, 47, 69,
81, 111, 115- 7
democracy, 34, 114; i deaof , 31; i npre-
capi tal i st soci eti es, 192- 3
devel opment, uneven, 2, 9- 10, 42- 3, 64, 65,
70, 76, 79, 89, 92, 94, 97
di f f usi on(i sm), 2, 4- 5, 8- 12, 17- 19, 21- 2, 25,
29, 30- 1, 38- 9, 42, 47, 55, 59, 65, 70,
76- 100, 103, 130, 134, 138, 162, 172- 6, 183,
196, 203, 212
East I ndi ans i n Cari bbean, 71 ; f orced
mi grati on, 154
East I ndi acompani es, 43, 118, 173, 205
228
Economi c ResearchGroup, PSP, 137, 209,
218
economi sm, 29, 41, 42, 132; seeal so
i mperi al i st economi sm
Ehrenrei ch, J . , 48, 57, 63, 64, 66- 7, 73, 74,
218
EI Sal vador 11, 100, 135, 193
Engel s, F. , 1, 19, 23- 8, 48, 52- 60, 68, 71- 2, 74,
75, 94, 97, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 122, 127,
128, 136, 138, 143- 6, 149, 150, 157, 173- 4,
192, 196, 205, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 218,
222; andnati on, 105- 6, 156, 157, 198- 9; on
cui ture, 106, 201; onmi nori ti es, 48, 52- 6,
143- 6
Engl and, 42, 89, 91, 94, 144, 146, 149, 181, 208
Engl i shI anguage, 144, 150, 166- 7, 173
Enl i ghtenment, 25- 32, 66, 80, 90, 91, 99, 125
ethni ci ty, 39, 45, 143
Eurocentri sm, 4, 172- 6, 200; seeal so
di f f usi oni sm
Europe, 9, 16, 18, 49, 162, 176 (term), 208
evol uti on, soci al , 3- 4, 22, 26, 29, 30, 32, 40,
58, 61, 68, 76, 90, 99, 100, 102, 154,
172- 211
expl oi tati on, 12, 17, 23, 98; external : see
external expl oi tati on; i nternal , 29, 176-
95; i nternal &external , co- presence of ,
190; pre- capi tal i st f ormsof , 174; seeal so
super expl oi tati on
external cl ass struggl e, pol i ti cs of , 191- 5
external expl oi tati on, 29, 175, 191, 195;
geography&hi storyof , 176- 95; i ndevt.
of capi tal i sm, 182; i ntensi tyof , 184, 192;
180; negl ect of i n Marxi st theory, 195;
19th- 20thcenturi es, 183; speci f i ci tyof ,
184- 91; 16th- 18thcentury, 181; l evel i n
pre- capi tal i st agri cul ture, 186
external i zati on, cl ass, 179, 181, 207
f asci sm, 4- S, 10- 12, 20, 33- 4, 36- 7, 66, 77,
85- 90, 100, 193, 212; seeal soNazi sm
f eudal i sm, 68, 82, 174, 176, 178- 80, 205, 211;
i nAf ri caandAsi a, 179
Fi chte, J . G. , 34, 58, 63, 72, 218
f orei gnworkers, 53- 4, 190
f orei gners; 187, 189; ki l l i ngof , 189
France, 11, 18, 20, 34, 37, 38, 44, 53, 59, 60,
65, 81- 96 passi m, 108, 111, 149, 163, 178,
200, 206
f reedom, 85, 135, 193; i dea of , 31, 65
Gel l ner, E. 34, 55, 218
genoci de, 25, 86, 178; andexternal i zati on,
182; andl andsettl ement, 189
geography, 4, 18, 42, 100, 107, 117- 18, 165,
173, 174, 202, 211
Germany19, 20, 34, 37, 38, 60, 72, 81- 9, 91,
92, 107, 109, 110, 122, 133, 163, 199
ghetto, as semi col ony, 165
ghettoi zati on, 163- 9; resi stanceto, 169- 70
ghettoi zedcul tures, growi ng- together of , 167
ghettos, 13, 48- 50, 52- 4, 71, 145, 151, 155,
159- 71, 203; Af ro- Ameri can, Mexi can,
andPuertoRi cani nUS, 159- 71, 163;
receptacl e andrepl acement theori es, 159
Gonzal ez, J . L. , 6, 218, 223
Goode, P. , 72, 73, 215
Greece, 33> 82, 107, 109, 206
Hegel , G. WF, 25, 34- 5> 43, 56, 58- 60, 62- 6,
72, 84, 168, 219
Hobsbawn, E. , 4, 28- 9, 34, 40- 1, 45- 7, 48,
101- 42, 219
hol ocaust, 86- 7
i dea, stateor nati onas, 24, 25; Hegel i an,
56- 9
i deas, geographyandhi storyof , 77
i deol ogi cal contagi on, pri nci pl eof , 90, 102
i deol ogi es: nati onal i st, 1i - 15, 26, 33, 45, 65,
78, S8; of nati onal i sm, 36, 85
i deol ogy, 8- 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21- 2, 31, 35- 8, S0,
5S, 57, 76, 78, 83, 86, 88, 96, 97, 187- 93,
202; bourgeoi s- nati onal i st, 102;
col oni al i st, 87; conservati ve, 44; Nazi , 87
i mperi al i sm, 2, 25, 43, 44, 54, 92, 96, 98, 100,
143, 149, 151; theoryof , 9, 2S, 54, 69- 70,
79, 131- 5, 145- 6, 151- 4; seeal soLeni n,
theoryof i mperi al i sm
i mperi al i st economi sm, 29, 41, 46, 56, 117,
137
I ndi a, 20, 83, i 16, 117, 118, 131, 149
i ndi genous communi ti es, seenati ve peopl es,
54
I ndonesi a, 20, 83, 116, i 18
I nternati onal , Fi rst (I nternati onal Worki ng-
Men' sAssoc. ), 144- 5, 156, 219; Second,
SS; Thi rd, 126, 135, 158
i nternati onal i sm, 15, 16, 40, 142, 160
I rel and, 24, 27, 53, 60, 72, 77, 83, 94- 5, 108,
110, 116, 131, 138, 144- 6, 149, 153, 156;
Northern, 24, 66> 77, 88- 9, 93- 6
I ri shi nEngl and, 48, 53, 143- 6, 154, 159, 162
I tal y, 20, 37, 38, 81- 91passi m, 107, 109
J apan, l l , 20, 53, 81, 84, 89, 110, 122, 163
J ews, i nNazi Germany, 86- 7; i nRussi a, 145,
148, 149, , 150
Kant, L, 44, 56, 60
Kautsky, x. , 59, 62, 113, 127, 219, 220
Kedouri e, E. , 35, 55, 220
Kohn, H. , 55, 220
Koreansi nJ apan, i l , 52, 143
I ndex
I abourf orce, expandi ng, 160- 2;
superexpl oi tedsector, 169
l abour market, dual or spl i t, 171
l abour mi grati on, l ong- di stance, 52, 53, 71,
153- 6, 159, 212; tometropol i s, 184; see
al cnmi grati n, *
l anguage, 23- 6, 35, 44, 49, 50, 54, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 144, 148- 9, 155, 157, 165- 8, 188, 199,
201, 210
Lati nAmeri ca, 33, 81- 3, 116, 138
Lati nos i nUS, 164- 7; seeal soPuerto Ri cans
i n US, Mexi cans i n US
Leni n, 220- 1; nati onal pol i cy, 67- 8, 138;
theoryof i mperi al i sm, 2, 3, 53, S5, 86- 7,
117, 123- 35, 139- 40, 151- 8; theoryof
mi nori ti es, 51- 4, 143, 151- 8; theoryof
nati onal struggl e(or nati onal i sm), 1, 4,
23- 4, 26, 27, 29, 40- 2, 53, 46- 8, 57, 59, 60,
61- 3, 67, 69- 70, 74, 75, 82, 97, 108, 117,
122, 123- 35, 137, 146- 7, 151- 8, 212; theory
of col oni al i sm, seecol oni al i sm, Leni n' s
theory
Luxemburg, R. , 4, 23- 4, 27- 29, 40, 41, 46, 48,
51, 56, 61, 62, 66, 67, 70, 74, 82, 102, 105,
106, 107, 112, 117, 119, 124, 126- 7, 131,
134- 5, 136, 137, 139, 221
Mal donado- Deni s, M. , 6, 7, 55, 221, 222
mani f est desti ny, 66, 85, 92
Mari Bras, J . , 6, 222
Marx, K. , 1, 19, 42, 72, 74, 75, 78, 94, 97, 99,
101, 103, 105, 106, 108, 122, 124, 126- 7, 128,
138, 143- 6, 149, 157, 173, 222; onHegel i an
theoryof nati onal i sm, 58- 60
Marx, K. , andEngel s, F. , oncl ass basi s of
nati onal i sm, 23- 8, S7, 97, 99, 172; on
mi nori ti es, 48, 52- 6, 143- 6, 156, 157; on
nati onal state, 108, 124; onnati onal i smas
autonomous i deol ogy, 59- 60, 69
Marxi sm, post- cl assi cal , 27, 48, S0, 52, SS,
60, 126, 130- 3
Marxi st theoryof nati onal i smor nati onal
struggl e, 1, 3, 5, 8- 9, 10, 13, 16, 23- 4, 26,
29- 30, 32. 35, 39, 40- 8, 55, 58, 61, 63, 70,
72, 76, 88, 98, 101, 104, 122, 129, 142- 58,
172, 201, 212
Mazzi ni , G. , 34, 107
mel ti ngpot, 50, 52, 71, 108, 151, 155
229
TheNati onal Questi on
Mexi cansi nUS, 50, 52, 160- 1, 163- 4,168
mi grati on, 6,12, 48- 54, 71,142- 5,150- 6,
159- 71; f orced,50,53,144- 6,151,153,155,
170- 1; seeal sotransl ocati on; l abour
mi grati on
mi nori ti es: col oni a1,155; conservati ve
theori esof , 48- 50; di ssol uti onof 50;
Marxi st theoryof , 2, 5,10- 11,16,19- 20,
48- 54, 63, 71,142- 71; nati onal : see
nati onal mi nori ti es
mi nori tynati onal i ty, 49
mi ni - col ony, 47,116,131
mi . ^. t- Stat, 2uf l , 39,
ec e- n
. . ~~,- ri ,i vi ,i 07/ - 12,114,116,
118,130- 1,133, seeal sostates, si zeof
modesof producti on, capi tal i st, 46; f eudal ,
179; andcul ture,187; non- capi tal i st 9, 29,
179; seeal socl assl esssoci ety, f eudal i sm,
sl avery
moderni zati on, 2- 4, 8- 9,12, 21, 22, 25, 31, 34,
37,38,47,64,65- 6,78- 9,81- 3,99,103
Nai rn, T, 4, 24- 5, 31- 2, 34- 7, 40, 44- 8, 55, 57,
63, 64- 5, 73, 74, 76- 100,102,103,118,194,
222
Nami bi a, 41, 83,100,101,111,134,141
nati on, l , 6,11,16, 20, 24- 5, 27, 34- 5, 45, 49,
50- 3, 56, 61, 63, 65, 68, 71, 72, 73, 93, 94,
102,103,106,124,132,133,135,142- 58,
175,197,198- 201, 210, 213; as I dea, 59, 61 ;
as spi ri t, 60; asorgani smor
superorgani sm24, 34, 58- 9, 63- 5; as wi l l ,
58- 9, 201; corporeal , 60, 62, 64; cul tural
i ntegrati onof 199; def i ni ti onsof ,148- 9,
197; detachedf racti onof ,145,149,159;
di ssol vi ng, 51- 2, 53, 62, 96,154;
essenti al i st vi ew, 62 ; hardandsof t
conceptsof ,197- 9; hol i sti c, 58; i deaof ,
172; metaphysi cs of , 63; PuertoRi can,
142- 4,155,199- 200,210- 11 ; Protestant, i n
NorthernI rel and(Nai rn), 95; pseudo-
sci enceof ,197; soci al i st, 62, 71,198, 200;
term,105- 6; al soseenati ons, nati onstate
nati onstate, 4,18, 22, 24, 26, 28, 39, 41, 44,
47, 49, 56, 58, 60- 2, 81,101,103- 4,106- 9,
117,118,124,126,133, 135,136,137, 149,
150; asI dea, 58- 9, 65; asSpi ri t, 58- 9;
corporeal , 58; superorgani sm, 58; wi l l ,
58, 59; seeal sonati onal state, state,
nati on
nati ons: hi stori c, 201; Leni non, 51, 61, 71,
105- 6,153,198- 9; Marxi st theoryof , 60,
71,142- 58, 197- 201; mi nori ty,145, 146;
Nati veAmeri can, 63; oppressor, 151- 2;
pre- capi tal i st, 200; rui ns of ,145; Stal i n' s
230
def i ni ti on&theoryof , 71,148- 9; vi abl e,
145; seeal sonati on
nati onal barri ers, break- downof ,139,151,
153,160
nati onal character, f ol k- psychol ogy,148,157
nati onal economy,111,112,121,157
nati onal i nsti nct, 65
nati onal l oyal ty, 59
nati onal l i berati on, 4- 5, 8- 9,10 . 11, 20, 24, 26,
28- 9, 32, 36, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 87, 97,196
nati onal mi nori ti es,153,160, 212, 213;
Stal i n' s theoryof , 51- 2, 71,146- 51; theory
of , 2, 6,16,19, 20, 48- 54,142- 158
nati onal movements, 3, 5,12,13,15,17,19,
26- 31, 33, 35- 6, 38, 40, 44, 46, 47, 51, 57,
61, 80, 88, 95, 96,101,104,106- 12,127; as
anachroni sti c46, 47; 19thC. European
bourgeoi s, 96; nati onal - revol uti onary,
134
nati onal organi sm, German35, 58, 63
nati onal questi on, 2, 5, 8- 9,10,13,17, 25, 47,
48, 51, 52, 54, 57, 96,101,103, 58, 71,126,
139,142,147,153; 1916 debateson,131- 3
nati onal state, 4, 5, 39, 45, 62,102,133,196;
as anachroni sm, 41, 46- 7,117; capi tal i st,
197; conservati vetheoryof , 38- 40;
decl i ni ng, di ssol vi ng, 38- 48,112- 18;
evol uti onary- di f f usi oni st theoryof , 38- 9
nati onal struggl e(al soseenati onal i sm),1, 3,
4,8- 12,14,16- 17,19,22- 6,28,32,36- 7,54,
57, 58, 62, 64, 76,104,122,123,126,184,
191, 212; asdecl i ni ngor out- of - date, 40- 8,
53; seeal soMarxi st theoryof nati onal i sm
or nati onal struggl e
nati onal i sm(al soseenati onal struggl e), 3, 5,
12,17, 19- 20, 27, 29, 32- 4, 36, 41, 44, 57,
58, 80, 89, 90, 96,102,110,121,146,175,
212; al l - nati onal i sm- i s- bourgeoi s theory,
27- 9,102; anti - col oni al 37; anti -
secessi oni st 371; asautonomousf orce, 4,
10, 24- 26, 57- 75, 97- 8,102, 204, 212; as
decl i ni ng, 38, 40, 51, 52, 70, 88, 97; as
f actor,24,58; asi dea,i deol ogy,l 6- 21,
24- 5, 31, 32, 35, 64, 65, 67, 77,102,172; as
i ntensi f yi ng,152; as natural i nhuman
cul tures, 203; as psychol ogi cal
phenomenon, 47, 66, 77, 80; as stageof
hi story, 27; Austri antheoryof , 61;
bourgeoi s, 3- 6,10,12- 13,16, 26- 7, 28,
33- 4,45,57,60,70- 1,103,105,130,134,
148,152,185, 212; cul tural , 89; def ensi ve
37; Engel son,145 (al soseeEngi ss) ;
ethni c, 44, 45, 47; Eurocentri smi n
Marxi st theoryof ,172- 6; expansi oni st,
33,35- 7,66,86,87,122; andf asci sm,
Nazi sm, 33- 7, 83- 88; f i ssi parous45;
Germani ctheoryof , 34- 7, 44; great-
nati on,15,17- 20, 24, 27- 8, 41, 89, 92,122,
127- 8; Hobsbawmon, 28, Chap. 4; i dea
of ,11,17; i deol ogi es of , 32, 34, 37, 58- 60,
77, 85, 92; mai nstreamtheori es of , 8- 9,
15,17- 26, 31- 2, 34- 7, 58- 9, 79, 82, 89,
97- 8; Marxi st theoryof , seeMarxi st
theoryof nati onal i sm; Nai rnon, Chap. 3;
narrow, 3,13,15, 16, 32, 52, 53, 57, 71,
105,144,194, 213' 19thC. Europeatt,l 9,
25, 212; psychopathol ogyof , 37, 74, 91,
93; rati onal i ty4,10,18, 20, 28, 34, 45- 47,
55,83,101- 2,104,106- 12,120- 1,130;
reacti onary1, 5, 8,11,13,16, 45, 51, 69,
85,119,123,125,134,135; andri seof
capi tal i sm, 27; Ruri tani an, 34,121;
smal l - nati on191; state- f ormi ng37; term,
10,11,13- 16,33,45,57,105- 6,128,213;
theori es of comparedtoi deol ogi esof ,
34- 37,57- 60
nati onal i st, term,l 6- 17
Nati onal i st Party, PuertoRi co, 6,18, 54
nati onal i ty,11,19, 23, 39, 45, 50, 52- 3, 57, 59,
108,142,153,159, 201
nati onal i ti es, pri nci pl eof , 25, 44, 45, 49, 59,
60,103,106,138,197,210
Nati veAmeri cans, seeAmeri cans, Nati ve
nati vepeopl es, 52, 213
nati venati ons, 63,197, 213
Nazi sm,l 9, 20, 34, 36- 7, 77, 85- 9
neocol oni al i sm, 2, 5, 8- 9,10- 13, 22, 32,
38- 40, 42- 3, 52, 57, 79, 83,100, 101,104,
l l 1,114- 6,118- 21,122,135,138,155- 6,182,
184,192,196, 213
Neo- Kanti ani sm, 59, 61, 66, 90
neo- nati onal i sm(Nai rn), 88
Ni caragua,3,46,118,120,121,122,135,213
Novak, V. , 202, 211, 222, 223
peasants, l 2, 28,130,152, 179- 80,182,186
Pol and,60,107,109,145
Portugal , 85,109,120, 205
Poul antzas, N. , 25, 57, 63- 4, 73,175, 200,
205, 223
PuertoRi co1- 7,11,17- 18, 20, 27, 32, 39, 42,
46,54,53,60,70- 1,83,86,100,101,104,
115,116,121,122,134,135,137,142- 6,
160- 3,166,199, 201, 209, 210; arti f i ci al
pl ebi sci tei n, 210; di vi dednati on,170;
i ndependencemovement, 6, 7, 15, 17, 18,
40, 53,199; soci al i smi n,170
PuertoRi cannati on, 2, 3, 6; nati onal i ty,
170- 1
Qui ntero- Ri vera, A. , 6, 211, 223
I ndex
PuertoRi cansi nUS, 2, 6,11, 49, 52, 53, 54,
142- 58,160- 71
producti onrel ati onsvs. exchangerel ati ons,
173,176,178,205
prol etari at, 40,123,151,161,168; Engl i sh, &
col oni al i sm, 209
Pyatakov, Y. ,41,131,117,140
raci sm; S0; 85; R6,R7,16A202,2n7,21n
Radek, K. , 41,131- 2,137,140
rati onal i tyof Europeans, 66, 78- 80, 90, 207
rel i gi on,23,24,25,58,194,203,204
Renner, K. , 25, 60, 61, 72, 223
reparti ti on,128- 9,152
Roy, M. N. , 194, 210
Royal I nsti tuteof I nternati onal Af f ai rs, 20,
55,223
rul es,192; cul tura1,187- 92; andexternal
expl oi tati on,189; governi ngcl ass
rel ati ons; i deol ogi cal ,187, 209- 10
Russi a, Tsari st, 42, 49, 50- 51, 61, 89,109,127,
129,147,149
Saxe- Coburg- Gotha,109- 110,120
scal e, spati a1,104, 113, 132; seeal sosi ze
Scotl and, Scots, 42, 77, 83, 88- 9,130
secessi on, ri ght of : seesel f - determi nati on,
ri ght of
segregati on, spati al , 54,163- 6
sel f - determi nati on, ri ght of , 2,18, 38, 49, 51,
61,68,104,105,130- 2,143,149- 50,213
separati smi ndevel opedcapi tal i st countri es,
212- 3; i ndevel opedsoci al i st countri es,
213
Shaf er, B. , 56, 156, 223
Sharma, R. , 205, 206, 223, 224
si ze, 60; of states, seestate, si zeof ; nati on,
199; al soseeconcentrati onscal e
sl avetrade, Af ri can,154,181
sl avery,177- 9,189; West I ndi an, and
i ndustri al revol uti on, 182
Smi th, A. D. , 55, 73, 210, 224
Snyder, L. , 17- 18, 54, 55, 211, 224
soci al f ormati ons,26,37,192,195
soci al mobi l i ty, networks, i nter- cl ass,188
soci al theory, mai nstream,17- 23, 29- 31,
38- 40,48- 50,58- 60,98,159,174
soci al i sm, soci al i sts, 48, 54, 60,100, 125, 194
soci al i st countri es, 5, 9,11, 22, 25, 27- 9, 33,
39, 43, 46, 69, 74, 83, 99,120,122- 3,
129- 30,137,138,197- 9,213
soci al i st movements, 3, 16, 32, 36, 40, 48, 60,
69, 116, 134
231
TheNati onal Questi on
SouthAf ri ca, 2, 42, 54, 66, 94, 163
Southeast Asi a, 207-8
soverei gnty1, 9, 13, 15-16, 28, 31, 38-9, 43,
47, 63, 104, 110, 113, 119-20, 129, 170; of
nati venati ons, 213
Sovi et Uni on, 51, 52, 62, 82, 133
space, 42, 43, 44, 64, 73, 167, 176, 184, 199
Spai n, 44, 85, 109, 111, 205, 207
spi ri t, (Hegel ), 34, 43, 56
stagetheory of soci al evol uti on, 4, 26, 123
Stal i n, J . , 27, 59, 61, 63, 70, 73, 75, 97, 136,
142-3, 201, 224; theory &def i ni ti on of
2, 20, `v2-3, i 48-9, i 53, i 56, i 57,
197200, 210; theory of nati onal
mi nori ti es, 2, 48, 51-3, 142-58
state, 1-16, 20, 22-4, 26, 28-9, 31-5, 39-40,
42-3, 46-7, 49, 58> 60, 61, 62, 64, 72, 73,
96, 103, 113, 123, 135, 172, 174, 175, 191,
192, 193-5, 201; as I dea, 59; as
superorgani sm, 24; col oni al , 210;
corporeal , 64; di ssol vi ng, 62, 112-18;
mul ti cul tura1, 106; mul ti l i ngual , 62;
mul ti nati ona1, 15, 19, 35, 44, 45, 59, 62,
68, 149, 197; pre-capi tal i st, 26; si ze
(concentrati on), 60, 107-12, 115, 124,
127-8, 131; vi abi l i ty, 39, 60, 82, 106-8,
110-12, 124, 198
superexpl oi tati on, l 2-13, 21, 23, 30, 32, 43,
54, 70, 94, 98, 110, 164-5, 183-5, 194-6,
203; externa1, 189
surpl us, 177, 184, 186, 189, 206
terri tori al i ty, 25, 175, 211
terri tory, 23, 62-3, 143, 148-50, 157, 199, 201,
210, 213
Thi rdWorI d, 183, 159, 209; cl ass processes
i n, 173, 196
transl ocati on, 155-6, 166, 171, 203
tri bal soci etyand cl ass, state, 190
tri be, 150, 203
tri bute, 178-9, 191, 205
Tri conti nent, 176, 183, 209
Trotsky, L. , 41, 117, 137, 143, 156, 225
Turkey, 49, 60, 72, 82, 107, 108, 109, 149
Uni ted Nati ons, 39, 59; 109, 110
underdevel opment, 2, 8, 21, 25, 78
US, 3, 6, 17-18, 20, 31, 38-9, 43, 53, 82, 85,
92, 108, 116, 153, 160, 162, 163
Versai l l es Treaty, 19, 82, 87, 109
Vi etnam, 3, 9, 11, 20, 27-8, 33, 60, 75, 77, 85,
116, 118, 120, 122, 125, 134, 200
232
Wal es, 83, 88-89, 103
Wal l erstei n, L, 40, 43-4, 50, 56, 81, 22S
Weber, M. , 78-9, 207, 225
West I ndi es, 55, 83, 117, 207, 208, 211
wi l l : Hegel i an, 56, 168; nati onal , 34; stateor
nati onas, 24
Wi l son, W. , 38, 49, 107-5
worki ngcl ass, l 2, 85, 100, 123, 132, 152, 160,
184, 193, 203
workers: f orei gn, 154-5, 162-3, 170-1, 209;
guest, 71, 162, 189; i mmi grant or i n-
mi grant, 48-9, 52-4; producti ve, 205;
Thi rdWorI d, 160; undocumented, 163,
169
worl dsystem, capi tal i st, 9, 11, 43
Worl dWar I , 128-9, 152; Leni n' stheory, 8b
worl d-systemanal ysi s, seeWal l erstei n
xenophobi a, 17-19
Yugosl avi a, 62, 83, 107, 109, 123, 213
Zi mmerwal d Lef t, 131