Thirteen observations on the national question

1. Not all nationalism is positive.

2. The nationalism of hegemonic capitalist countries, for example, is profoundly reactionary. It is the imperialist discourse of the central bourgeoisies.

3. European social democracy collapsed before the First World War because it adhered to grand-bourgeois nationalism and accepted supporting, in each nation, its own ruling class against the others, renouncing the primacy of the unity of the working classes against all bourgeoisies. This was the main reason for Lenin's break with the Second International: a merciless critic of this type of nationalism, which he called the "nationalism of the oppressors," the Bolshevik leader defended the slogan "war against war," understanding that the main enemy of the proletariat of each European country was its own bourgeoisie.

4. Nationalism in dependent countries, in turn, can have a progressive and even revolutionary character. The working classes of these nations, after all, suffer a double oppression: that of local capitalists and that of imperialism, which sometimes clashes with the interests of factions within the national ruling classes.

5. But it is not automatic that nationalism is progressive in dependent countries. It depends on the hegemonic thought in command. Bourgeois nationalism may clash with imperialist interests, but it may not represent anything good for the working classes. On the contrary: it can emerge in the form of neo-fascism, like the military dictatorship during the Geisel period, leveraging industrial development with the super-exploitation of labor and political repression.

6. It is also worth remembering that bourgeois nationalism in underdeveloped countries can represent certain forms of sub-imperialism, of oppression of other nations and peoples, as was the logic of the Brazilian dictatorship in relation to other South American countries.

7. In current times, nationalism is only progressive when it possesses a democratic and popular character. That is, when the defense of national sovereignty is structurally linked to a program favorable to the interests of the working classes and the political empowerment of the people.

8. Anyone who considers that the main contradiction of dependent countries is between the nation and imperialism, therefore, makes a double mistake: they accept any nationalism as positive, even that which represents the most oppression of the working classes, and they are deluded about the possibility of some significant fraction of the ruling classes being anti-imperialist.

9. The consolidation of rentier capitalism led to the structural subordination of productive capital and the liquidation of any autonomy or independence aspirations of the backward bourgeoisies. Many individuals from other classes are honestly against imperialism, including in the Armed Forces, but only the working classes can today be the backbone of a progressive nationalism.

10. This situation is explained by the fact that the main contradiction in dependent capitalist countries is also between capital and labor, albeit under the special circumstances of imperialist domination. The defense of the nation-state, national wealth, sovereignty, and development are therefore fundamental banners, but they only acquire a consequential character with the defense of a new social order. In dependent countries, one cannot conceive of the anti-capitalist struggle without the national question, it is true, but to imagine that the national question can be resolved within capitalism would be to underestimate its revolutionary effect on the entire system, to be mistaken about a supposed independent path of development, or simply to bluff. “National capitalism” is dead and buried, as a result of the second phase of the imperialist stage of accumulation, that of global financialization.

11. Furthermore, progressive nationalism only exists if it is internationalist. In the specific case of Latin America, there is no anti-imperialist solution without regional integration, the merging of national economies, political and military unity, the sharing of infrastructure and finances, the redress of inequalities between nations, and the strengthening of common institutions.

12. Not even the regionalization of nationalism is enough: the fight against imperialist hegemony will only be effective on a planetary scale, with the creation of systems and alliances that weaken the economic power of the central capitalist states, while simultaneously eroding their military, political, and cultural advantages.

13. If we were to draw a diagram, both the national and democratic questions would be determined by the social question: only the hegemony of the working classes and their historical perspective of a new society, of a socialist character, could give a progressive nature to the defense of democracy and the nation.

*Originally published on the Opera Mundi website