Nationalism of the Oppressed

For those of us in the West who try to live into our liberal ideals as fervently as we can, the word "nationalism" tends to make us "raise our shackles" so to speak. But is nationalism always negative? When applied to the theory of self-determination, nationalism has the potential to take on a more liberal identity. In this paper, I have looked at two theories; one from Vladimir Lenin, and one from Rosa Luxembourg, to try to simplify the nuances of this debate.

The self-determination of autonomous states has been a topic of debate for as long as there have been autonomous states. When communities moved from a hunter-gatherer system into a feudalist system, this created the need for different communities to conquer others to gain more land. After many years of this, communities that had been conquered decided to start using the transition into more democratic societies to stand up for their own independence. One noted example of this was the situation in Poland following the partitions of Poland where they were consistently annexed by different powers for 123 years. This specific instance of self-determination opened up the greater discussion of states’ rights to become independent of the world. Two theorists joined in on different sides of the debate, Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg.

For Vladimir Lenin, there were a series of observations on self-determination he had which were detailed in his book “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination.” According to Lenin, self-determination is the political separation of specific nations from foreign national bodies to create the formation of an independent country. He believed the nation in question had to have a common language and general identity that made them distinct from the nation they wanted to be independent of. Although he supported the theory of self-determination, he wanted to specify that autonomous nations could overcompensate and become elitist powers of their own. In Asia, there were many communities and principalities that do not have their own nationhood, but the one that does (Japan) is an imperialist power. In his detailing of self-determination, he specified that there were two forms of nationalism, that of nationalism from above, and that of nationalism from below.

Lenin points out that it is important for his supporters to support self-determination when it applies to those that are being oppressed by another country, but only then. In his book, he states, “If the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we are opposed.” (Lenin, 1914). These instances happen in two different cases. One is when the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country takes advantage of the proletariat to advance their personal benefit through a revolution. An example of this is the South in the U.S. Civil War. While this war was clearly fought over slavery and the racist institutions in place that kept it going, the wealthy elites of the South manipulated the proletariat into fighting for them. Another example is when a prosperous community separates from the surrounding community in order to keep their riches within their community. An example of this that I have witnessed personally is the case of San Antonio, Texas, where the infrastructure is failing due to rich communities separating and becoming townships to keep their money in their neighborhoods and their own schools, so as not to help anyone else in the greater community. Both of these examples of nationalism stem from perceived national exceptionalism which make the bourgeoisie feel that they are better than those of any other country. Lenin, being anti-oppression, does not support this form of nationalism. “Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot” (Lenin, 1914).

The other side comes in the form of nationalism from below. “If the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights against the oppressing one, we are always...in favor, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression.” (Lenin, 1914). In situations where the nation in question is being suppressed, Lenin supports the out-clause, but the people of the nation must be the ones to make this decision. He is wary of the press or the governments that do not support the secession of the other nation, saying, “Those who stand by democratic principles, i.e., who insist that questions of state must be decided by the people, know very well there is a big difference between what the politicians prate about and what the people decide” (Lenin, 1914). Ultimately, Lenin said if they don’t at least stand up for the possibility of secession, they are playing into the hands of the feudalists/imperialists. On the subject of self-determination, Lenin stated that the people know the benefits of being a part of a larger nation, so they’ll only want to separate when the costs outweigh the benefits.

While Lenin ultimately supported the theory of self-determination, Luxemburg was not as convinced. While she understood the difference between nationalism from above and below, she still believed that autonomous nations that had been formerly oppressed could then become oppressive to minorities within their countries. She pointed out that the right of self-determination could potentially infringe on others’ rights, so it was not a given, such as the right to free speech. In order to determine which of these countries should have the right to independence, she identified a series of questions that should be asked, including who will be gaining independence, at the expense of whom, and will the nation even be economically viable as a sovereign nation? These questions help determine for Luxemburg who should have self-determination and who should not.

In order to better examine these differences in approaches to self-determination, I have identified two countries that are going through the issue of the national question: Catalonia and Scotland. Even though both of these countries are in Western Europe, they have very different histories and different contexts for their desires to be independent. In the case of Scotland, the desires for independence stem from a difference in political virtues, economic issues, and a contradictory view of Brexit. When answering Lenin and Luxemburg’s questions of whether they should be independent, these are the factors to consider. The Scots have been oppressed by the British since becoming a part of the United Kingdom, including multiple proven attempts to get rid of aspects of Scottish culture, overtaxing them, and generally attempting to undermine their right to make their own decisions. A big aspect of Scotland’s culture is its culture of being hospitable and open to immigrants (Mackenzie, 2010), which is part of why two-thirds of Scotland voted against Brexit. While Scottish independence would benefit the Scots, it would cause the UK to lose a small amount of revenue from taxation of Scotland. As far as being economically viable, the offshore oil fields would be able to sustain Scotland’s economy, and the UK makes economic calls for Scotland without giving them much say. Scotland’s economy would benefit from investment into their infrastructure, but England would not. But England still gets to make that call on behalf of Scotland (Keating, 2017). Ultimately, Scotland wants to gain its independence so it can make decisions for itself that benefit its people, in addition to creating a Scotland that is open to others, therefore being an example of nationalism from below. On the other hand, Catalonia is a slightly more complicated situation. Catalonia is a prosperous state of Spain, with its own unique culture. Catalonian nationalists claim that they worry that their culture is going to be erased, and that they have paid more money in taxes that they have received the benefits of. While there was one point that the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco of Catalan in schools, it’s actually been proven that Catalonia has banished Spanish in some schools (Hachuel, 2012), and as far as the claim concerning taxes, this has not been substantiated (Kraus, 2015). What has been proven is that Spain is 77 billion euros in debt to the EU, but they do not want to pay for other Spaniards (Paluzie, 2015). When revisiting the national question and the factors to consider when looking at self-determination, it would seem like Catalonia would be an example of nationalism from above, but the situation is seen as a little more complicated due to the reaction from Spain against the Catalonian nationalists. The Economist Intelligence Unit said that Spain could be downgraded to a “flawed” democracy after the police brutality following 2017’s independence referendum (Sullivan, 2018). Even though Spain has reacted poorly to Catalonia’s self-determination, it still wants independence so they can continue to be exclusionary, ultimately making their pursuit one of nationalism from above.

In conclusion, Vladimir Lenin believes that as the opponents of oppression, his followers need to support the right to self-determination, but be particular about which movements they think should actually follow through with their vote for independence. Rosa Luxemburg on the other hand, believed that the issue of self-determination was not so black and white, and that there were other factors that needed to be considered when determining which countries should be dependent. Simply put, Lenin believed that all nations should have the right to self-determination, but Luxemburg said that this does not mean that all states have the moral ground to be independent.

Hachuel, E. (2012). Local history, heritage and associativism in Catalonia. Treballs DArqueologia, 18, 31. doi: 10.5565/rev/tda.15

Keating, M. (2017). The Political Economy of Devolution. A Wealthier, Fairer Scotland. doi: 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474416429.003.0001

Kraus, P. A. (2015). Language policy and Catalan independence. Catalonia in Spain and Europe, 128–139. doi: 10.5771/9783845258256-128

Lenin, V. I. (1914). The right of nations to self-determination.

Mackenzie, J. M. (2010). Scotland and Empire: Ethnicity, Environment and Identity. Northern Scotland, 1(1), 12–29. doi: 10.3366/nor.2010.0003

Paluzie, E. (2015). Fiscal issues of Catalan independence. Catalonia in Spain and Europe, 140–155. doi: 10.5771/9783845258256-140

Sullivan, T. (2018). Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). CC Advisor. doi: 10.5260/cca.199450