Marxism and The National Question by J. V. Stalin

 'The period of counter-revolution in Russia brought not only "thunder and lightning" in its train, but also disillusionment in the movement and lack of faith in common forces. As long as people believed in "a bright future," they fought side by side irrespective of nationality - common questions first and foremost! But when doubt crept into people's hearts, they began to depart, each to his own national tent - let every man count only upon himself! The "national question" first and foremost!' (Stalin, 1913)

Introduction

A name as embedded into our cultural consciousness as Josef Stalin really requires little introduction for the vast majority of modern readers. This article will not serve to portray the character or the story of the man himself but rather the brief work of his authorship entitled: "Marxism and The National Question." This work was written in an attempt to explain a core contention in Marxist theory in 1913 during his time in Vienna. Most prominently the issue of national identity and nationalism is a threat to the Marxist vision of proletariat unity.

For those considering reading this work, I can sincerely recommend it. Its relative brevity, peculiar contradictions, and illuminating insights provide a valuable resource, particularly for those concerned with criticising Marxist theory and methodology. For fear of dismissing the work based on the aforementioned criteria, I must preface this article with an acknowledgment of the author's great knowledge of his local and contemporary history. Of the criticisms that could be laid at Stalin's feet, one that will not sustain scrutiny will be his awareness of the issues facing the fledgling Social-Democratic movement of early 20th Century Russia and its surrounding localities.

What I will attempt to present within this article are the dangers and failings of a poor understanding of the issues of nationhood, nationality, and nationalism and the consequent disastrous impact of removing the symbolic and transcendental qualities of "nation" upon the people residing within them. I shall then proceed to make assessments of the value of nationalism and undermine the toxic discussion of "class struggle" and the Marxists' desire to remove the unifying effects of symbolic and transcendental national qualities.

Stalin's Anatomy of the Nation

'A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people. The community is not racial, nor is it tribal...but a historically constituted community of people.' (Stalin, 1913)

The work initially provides the grounds for anatomically labeling the composite parts of a nation in order to undermine the authority of a sovereign nation and assert Stalin's grander vision for an international Social-Democratic movement. The first heading of the work explores his general criteria for national entities:

'A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.' (Stalin, 1913)

'It is only when all these characteristics are present together that we have a nation.' (Stalin, 1913)

Essentially Stalin finds four characteristics which, when brought together, indicate a national body and therefore allow for its respective "self-determination". Each of these observations is by itself a reasonable characteristic of a nation and its sum parts would naturally be distinguishing factors in identifying a national identity. However, what is removed from this clinical separation of characteristics is an acknowledgment of the symbolic quality of the holistic national body. This methodology is all too familiar for the seasoned Marxist critic. Indeed Marxist analysis of items of traditionally established value typically involves a cold, anatomical, and materialist scalpel of broad assumptions and uncharitable generalisations. 

The Symbolic Entity of the Nation

Stalin finds great fault in acknowledging this proposition:

From Bauer he quotes: 'A nation is an aggregate of people bound into a community of character by a common destiny.' (Stalin, 1913)

Indeed he launches a scathing dismissal of the idea of nations holding an innermost "spiritual" form which may root the isolated characteristics into a composite body:

'Bauer's point of view, which identifies a nation with its national character, divorces the nation from its soil and converts it into an invisible, self-contained force. The result is not a living and active nation, but something mystical, intangible and supernatural.' (Stalin, 1913)

Yet when one considers the inherent traits of his nation, one is rarely met with an image of multiple, isolated characteristics or properties. In essence, one rarely thinks of all the sum parts of a nation in its conception. These properties are anchored to an immutable symbolic body that cannot be wholly dissected but nonetheless remains the fixture of our imagination. From the "mystical" spirit is derived these external properties of the nation. The Anglo-Saxon peoples of England have no genetic or cultural congruence with the Celtic peoples that resided on the island before them and yet they find in Boudica an image worthy of immortalising outside the Houses of Parliament in their capital city. The apotheosis of the nation is a symbolic entity that cannot be fully comprehended but yet, in its spiritual substance, ties together numerous disparate fragments into an image of a body that transcends its physical boundaries.

Stalin is unable to entertain this notion and therefore attributes all "national character" to solely physical and environmental circumstances. He surveys the nation in a manner befitting the butcher who picks at a flank of beef in order to quantify its marbling.

'But what is national character if not a reflection of the conditions of life, a coagulation of impressions derived from environment?' (Stalin, 1913)

However, one should not be surprised, after all, what great thing ever came out of Georgia? What national character can be derived from a nation of relative obscurity?

Nationalism and The "Class Struggle"

'But the unity of a nation diminishes not only as a result of migration. It diminishes also from internal causes, owing to the growing acuteness of the class struggle.' (Stalin, 1913)

Stalin correctly identifies nationalism as a threat to the Social-Democratic struggle insofar as it denies the vision of an international united movement of workers. Nationalism does not require a particular political disposition on economic and social theory. It is a statement of self-evident fact made by the inhabitant of a given nation realising the tangible bounds of their own reality. The nation in its symbolic form exists and is conceived by all members of its grouping by some form of expression or symbolism. Nationalism is a cause that can bind together all subdivisions within society as a uniting force in the face of an existential threat. Nationalism does not require a hegemonic cultural body in order to defend and prosper the cause it has prescribed unto itself.

For these reasons, the Marxist is ever fearful of the national body's inherent strength in group association beyond mere matters of class. The proletariat discovers in national identity a greater, more valuable treasure than that which is made available in their enfranchisement and social upheaval: a heritage of national heroes, dutiful service to the nation's head of state, a common identity with one's countrymen, and a bountiful profit from protectionist economic practices. This does not mean that the effects of "ugly nationalism" are desirable nor that the blunt tool of nationalism is always appropriate in securing the nation's political means. However, it does allow for undeserved self-fulfillment achievable merely by right of birth in a given nation. This gift is what the Marxist fears also, that a common purpose would transcend the mere burdens of class and lead to the harmonious societal body that would be the goal of all political action.

Stalin refuses to contend on the matters of the value of national identity in this work and neither does he desire to acknowledge the presence of a symbolic national body. It would, after all, be far easier to attribute such a phenomenon of unexplained origin to the simple charge of "capitalism":

'A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism. The process of elimination of feudalism and development is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations.' (Stalin, 1913)

-Maccabeus