The importance of theoretical struggle on national question springs essentially from the need to take a correct political attitude based on Marxist foundations in the face of the liberation struggle of oppressed nations. Marxism is not an impressionist or positivist philosophy limiting itself only with interpreting the world, but an integral world view which strives to change the world and develops in an inextricably dialectical relationship with revolutionary practice. At the time of Marx and Engels, when ideological foundations of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat were being established, the historical framework of national question was dealt with in the context of bourgeois democratic revolutions and formation of nation-states. Marx and Engels focused their attention on the downfall of old feudal political structures and the formation of nation-states which clear the way for the development of modern capitalist society. In the transition period from feudalism to capitalism “national republic” as the embodiment of demands for bourgeois democratic transformations and “civil rights and bourgeois nationalism” as a current of thought, both had a progressive content. The fact that founders of Marxism credited bourgeois democratic struggles and establishment of nation-states in Europe from the standpoint of general historical perspective was a reflection of their revolutionary attitude. While Polish nationalism struggling against Tsarist Russia which is the closest ally of reactionary powers at that time in Europe was supported by Marx and Engels, those like southern Slavs that were serving reactionary forces were bitterly criticised by them. In a historical period when West Europe was an arena of bourgeois democratic struggles, Marx and Engels, considered national question in this same context with the perspective that these struggles would bring the proletariat’s turn. While capital creates a historical tendency toward economic integration on a world scale, the bourgeois ideology is politically “nationalist” since the bourgeois world is divided into different nation-states. While regarding bourgeois nationalism historically as a step forward compared with feudal society, Marxism also reveals how it would acquire a reactionary content once the capitalist world-system is formed. As the revolutionary world view of the proletariat, the final goal of Marxism is to smash all nation-states, end national privileges and form a world community of humanity on a voluntary basis; that is true internationalism. For this reason, it is incompatible with the essence of Marxism to identify national liberation movements that aim to establish a nation-state with the proletarian struggle that aims to end the nation-state phenomenon. Although a national liberation movement has a limited revolutionary character, it is clear that proletariat cannot shape its revolutionary policy on the basis of national liberation movement and limit itself with this. Thus national question can have only a secondary and limited place in the whole body of Marxism and there’s nothing strange about it. However, Marxism could not stay and has not stood indifferent, as long as a national question stands out as a political problem which must be resolved in relation to the interests of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Therefore Marx and Engels’ attitude when they supported national liberation movement in Ireland and Poland is still a guiding attitude of historical importance. On the national question, as on other political questions, we can assume a correct political attitude only on the basis of internationalist communist principles provided by Marxism and which we must always uphold. Thus in this work we will put forward our main principles on national question.

1- Those who have an academic way of approach claim that there’s no methodological approach in Marx and Engels on the national question, that they even have not made a comprehensive definition of nation. However, Marxism is not a collection of “doctrines” made of academic studies and frozen definitions in the face of various problems. Since its first days Marxism has taken shape as a philosophy of action, aiming at changing the world through conscious revolutionary action of the proletariat and it has had a constantly developing character. It is not the method of Marxism to examine and define a historical-social phenomenon as something frozen by isolating it from the complex elements that shape or characterize it and from the variability of factors it is related. Even a definition which seems most near to truth is faced with the risk that it may not embrace all aspects of that phenomenon’s movement and different properties it can assume at different historical moments. Marxism is neither a pile of dead ideas nor a collection of ready-made recipes. Marxism is a lively and dynamic worldview which aims at finding solutions in accordance with the needs of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat to the problems arising at different historical moments. 2- As capitalist production relations developed and expanded within the hearth of the feudal society, the desire of the emerging bourgeoisie to dominate its market and commercial relations began to intensify. In the course of the bourgeoisie’s fight against feudal reaction to establish a modern central unity under its political power, the ideological foundations of nation and nation-state were created. Thus the main themes of bourgeois-democratic revolutions were embodied as the formation of a new society on the basis of a united market (a nation-community instead of old feudal provincialism and a society of kingdom subjects) and this appeared as the political target. In the course of transition from feudalism to capitalism, the pace, sweep and form (from above or from below) of bourgeois-national democratic transformations involved great variety depending on whether the capitalist development was early (England, the Netherlands, France) or delayed (Germany). In the final analysis, nationalism appeared on the stage of history as the bourgeois ideology which is formed during the bourgeoisie’s struggle to establish its domination on the market and form its political unity. 3- Bourgeois nationalism was the main impetus of the revolutionary surges which broke out in Europe in 18th and 19th century; and bourgeois nationalist movements were everywhere in Europe. On the other hand, the 1848 revolutions breaking out in Europe were a turning point which began exhibiting the essential character of class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat which began entering the stage of history with its own political demands. The political significance of this turning point began to find its reflection in the analyses of the founders of Marxism following the 1848 revolutions. There were two main axes dominating the assessments of Marx and Engels at the time when the Communist Manifesto (1847) was written. The first was the estimation of the development tendencies of modern capitalism taking England -the country in which it was most developed- as base and from there to produce a historical perspective for the proletariat. The second was determining the role of the proletariat it can play (to be extreme opposition party) in a bourgeois democratic revolution and its demands on this basis, in light of the Germany example where feudal reaction was not overcome. But later on the experiences of the 1848 revolutions, Marx and Engels both in “Address to the League” (1850) and in 18th Brumaire (1852) put forward that the war slogan of the proletariat had to be “permanent revolution”. Thus, a perspective was developed, which asserted that the proletariat must not limit itself with the role of an extreme opposition party even in countries such as Germany and should enter political struggle with its own demands and for its own power. Marx and Engels were exhibiting the contradiction between the progressive aspect of the bourgeoisie in relation to the past (feudal reaction) and the reactionary aspect it shows in relation to the future (the proletariat entering the stage of history) in a historical moment when bourgeois democratic struggles were still being carried out. This contradiction would put its stamp on the bourgeois democratic struggles carried out in the 19th century. Under these circumstances, the perspective of “permanent revolution” put forward by Marx and Engels to define the character of the proletarian struggle found its significance as an expression of a historical perspective. 1871 Paris Commune was, a preliminary experience proving that the historical perspective of the proletariat could be realized, the war cry of communards who set out to conquer the sky reaching into the 20th century. 4- The approach of Marx and Engels towards the two national questions which were on the agenda in those days (Poland and Ireland) formed the essential lines of the revolutionary program of the proletariat on this question. Supporting the nationalist independence movement of Poland against the Holy Alliance (Prussia, Austria and Tsarist Russia) which was the bastion of reaction at that time was in accordance with the class interests of the proletariat in regards with the elimination of the obstacles before its own development. For this reason, Marx and Engels regarded the national independence movement of Poland as one deserving support. As with the Irish question, at first, they saw it as one which could be solved during the progress of the social revolution in Britain. That is, a national question that can be solved by the proletarian revolution in passing. But in a situation where the social revolution was at rest and the British imperialism managed to spread chauvinism to the working class, the national independence struggle in Ireland came to the fore and gained importance. Marx and Engels thought that under these concrete conditions, a success of the national liberation struggle would be an important political blow to British imperialism and that this could wake up the proletariat in Britain and trigger the social revolution. Therefore, although they were against federation in principle, they defended that, once the right to separate was acknowledged, it could be accepted as a means for a possible way of transition to voluntary unity. Most important conclusion the founders of Marxism drew from the Irish experience about national question was: “A nation which oppresses other nations cannot be free.”[i] 5- As a consequence of mainly the unequal development of capitalism, national awakenings have not taken place simultaneously all over the world. While the struggle for national unions which accompanies the period of bourgeois democratic revolutions mainly between 1789-1871, this awakening came about in the beginning of the 20th century in East Europe, Balkans and Asia. And the second half of the 20th century has seen the national liberation struggles in Africa. After colonies obtained their independence, the national liberation struggles took their place in history as a thing of the past with the exception of just a few belated cases (Ireland, Basque, Palestine, Kurdistan etc.). 6- Before the nation-state, which corresponds to modern capitalism, in every form of the feudal state (either a small kingdom or a great empire), the people or peoples under its sovereignty used to constitute a state community but not a national unity. So “nation” is not as old as state and its emergence on the scene of history does not correspond to state in general, but to a certain (capitalist) state in a certain historical moment. Thus, it is not in conformity with historical reality to consider the pre-capitalist past of peoples which differ in geography, culture and history under the title “national-cultural identity”. Although it is true that the past of communities which acquire a “national identity “ in the process of the formation of modern bourgeois state would have its impact on this identity to a certain extent, freezing the historical-cultural differences of communities by categorizing them as “characteristics of nations “ is an idealistic approach. So, trying to explain the phenomenon of nation mainly by “historical-cultural-psychological” arguments is not a correct approach. Such an approach found its essential expression in the analyses of Austrian Marxist Otto Bauer and influenced many other Marxists.[ii] The thesis Bauer defended as a solution to national question was based on raising national cultural autonomy against the right of nations to self-determination. This approach was the natural outcome of Bauer’s reformist and social-chauvinist understanding. 7- On the basis of the fact that rigid-definitionist approaches would be insufficient in grasping formations in motion, Lenin too approached the problem from the standpoint of the historical formation of nation-state 8- Historically, nation is a socio-economic phenomenon which formed at a certain stage (transition to capitalism) of the evolution of society. The nation phenomenon which depends on the existence conditions particular to the bourgeois society, such as a united market and economic competition with other societies on the basis of this market, is doomed to be transient in the flow of history. And so called “national consciousness” which is the reflection of this phenomenon will not be everlasting on the basis of ‘cultural unity’ or “lingual unity” of various communities; it has a content and lifespan limited with bourgeois ideology which supports bourgeois society. Marxism is in favour of fusion of nations and elimination of national divides. Capitalist development and worldwide expansive nature of capital create a historical tendency towards overcoming the obstacles of nation and state. But the realization of this potential is possible only with overthrowing the capitalist system, which is divided into different nation states on the basis of economic competition, by the advance of world proletarian revolution. Under capitalism the nation state is a reality. 9- Although various economic-political-military unions may well be formed between bourgeois nation states as a result of the worldwide expansion of capitalism, these unions can only be “unions” in competition. And while imperialist struggle for getting a bigger share from the global market disintegrates existing “unions” and leads to new ones, the inner tendency for conflict and competition continues to dominate. While capital tends to internationalize, the bourgeois ideology reflects the interests of a certain nation-state because of the division into nation states and economic competition. The bourgeois ideology, as the means of bourgeois hegemony on the proletariat, must keep its nationalist essence in order to conceal class struggle and maintain bourgeois domination with the propaganda of “national unity” Marxism, on the other hand, which aims at forming the international unity of the proletariat, is internationalist in essence. Even in the case that proletarian revolution breaks out in a single state, the target of the proletariat is not to form and strengthen a new kind of “nation-state”, but carrying on the struggle in order to spread the revolution to the whole world. This is one and the most important of the points which must be understood from the permanency of the revolution. Otherwise, proletarian revolutions will inevitably be isolated and destroyed leading to formation of new “nation states” in the form of bureaucratic dictatorships. 10- The proletariat, whose state of wage-slavery is international, whose class enemy is international, whose liberation conditions are international, has no country. It will reach genuine freedom by gaining internationalist communist class consciousness and forming its international unity of struggle. Marxism, revealing that national borders are reactionary, that emancipation of humanity is possible only by abolishing nation-states by proletarian revolutions, aims at reaching the synthesis of word citizenship via voluntary fusion of nations.

1- The right of nations to self-determination is in essence the right to establish a separate state

2- The right of nations to self-determination is still relevant

3- Distinction between the oppressed and oppressor nation is the first condition of a correct attitude on the national self-determination

4- Defending the right of nations to self-determination is vital for the international unity and hegemony of the proletariat

5- It is the class contradiction and not national contradiction that is essential for the proletariat

6- Revolutionary proletariat fights the tendency of the oppressed nation’s bourgeoisie to obtain privileges

7- We must be alert against illusions stemming from petty-bourgeois radicalism

8- Revolutionary proletariat does not support every national movement

9- The criterion is not national Interests, but class interests of the proletariat in defending the right of separation

10- Acknowledgement of national self-determination is necessary to overcome national prejudices

11- It is the oppressed nation’s business to decide how to use the right to separation

12- Revolutionary proletariat is for big and democratically united states

13- Policies of oppressor and oppressed nation communists are same in their essence despite they may differ on the level of tactics

14- Chief organizational task must be to secure organizational unity of the proletariat

15- Criticising nationalism of the oppressed nation should not serve oppressor nation chauvinism

16- Raising the demand of “national cultural autonomy” against the right of nations to self-determination is unacceptable

1- The demand for educating and raising consciousness of workers on the basis of national cultural differences prevents the class from assimilating an international revolutionary culture and eventually serves bourgeois nationalism. And ideas like preserving national culture under the revolutionary power of the working class can only be attractive for petty-bourgeois leftism whose one leg rests on a pseudo socialism and the other on bourgeois nationalism. Every national culture is made of different elements depending on the class divide, the character of class struggles within that nation and the impact of these struggles on the society. Depending on the level of economic and political development it involves feudal-reactionary, imperialist-chauvinist, bourgeois democratic and socialist cultural elements in different compositions. But whatever the composition, in the final analysis the dominant culture of a society is the culture of the ruling class. Thus the ”national culture” is generally the culture inculcated by big landowners, the bourgeoisie and the religious caste. Thus defending the national culture is not the problem of the proletariat. Demanding that the proletariat who aims to create a social order without classes and exploitation on a world scale reconcile with feudal provincialism or bourgeois nationalism or its tail-ender petty-bourgeois nationalism on defence of culture means demanding rolling back the wheel of history. 2- There are two main tendencies of capitalism. First the development capitalism leads to the birth of national movements and bourgeois democratic struggles to establish nation states. This tendency makes possible for the bourgeois culture to carry in cultural elements to the society, which are progressive in comparison to the past. But it is not only “progressive” elements that comes with the bourgeoisie in its process of rising to the level of ruling class. This process is also marked by its conciliations with reaction in varying degrees (depending on the transition from feudalism to capitalism is accompanied by radical bourgeois democratic revolutions or takes place in a Prussian way), with religious caste, repression exerted on oppressed classes and nations and, most important of all, the fact that the bourgeoisie itself is an exploiting class (which means a lot of reactionary elements). Therefore although the bourgeois culture involves progressive elements compared with the past, the proletariat can accept only the progressive elements and must reject the reactionary elements. The second tendency of capitalism is the development of economic life that destroys various barriers between nations with the need of internationalisation of capital. However, this tendency under capitalism in its imperialist stage and unless capitalism is surpassed by a working class revolution, is driving humanity into barbarism and decadence. Therefore it would surely be wrong to examine the capitalist trend only from the angle of economic development and describe it as “progressive”. 3- The response of the working class to the advocates of “national culture” is a defence of international culture which will be created by the world revolutionary working class movement. This culture is a synthesis of the cultural heritage of humanity and democratic and socialist elements of various national cultures. While defence of “national culture” serves nothing but reinforcing bourgeois nationalism, the idea of proletarian internationalism adopted to all languages and local characteristics can pave the way to socialism. 4- In conclusion, tendency to give the proletariat a national consciousness is a reactionary one. And it is has been the attitude of all petty-bourgeois revolutionary leaderships who, on the one hand, proclaim themselves as “Marxist-Leninist” and on the other hand defend “national culture” in their all ideological and political practice. Rejecting the defence of “national culture” as part of proletarian internationalism is not only the task of the communists of the oppressing nation. This task is equally up to the communists of the oppressed nation.

1- How general democratic demands concerning wide toiling masses and the proletariat’s goal of socialism should be linked is a problem that aroused many important debates and serious differences within Marxist movement. While accepting that imperialist era is politically a period of reaction, Lenin did not conclude that the importance of democratic demands diminished. On the contrary, the fact that democracy has increasingly become a dream in the imperialist era increased the importance of democratic demands for the toiling masses. Proceeding from this fact Lenin called for an utmost interest towards developing a revolutionary policy and programme in relation to the question of linking the struggle of broad masses for democratic demands and proletariat’s goal of socialism in its struggle for power. Lenin pointed out to “the problem of transition to proletarian revolution” and wanted communists to think over this problem seriously in the second congress of the Comintern (1920). He was pointing to the fact that the problem of revolution cannot be solved simply by winning over the vanguard of the proletariat to the idea of proletarian dictatorship and that ways, methods, programmatic formulations and demands which draw the mass of the proletariat and other toiling layers to revolutionary struggle under the hegemony of the proletariat must be found. The chain broke at this point because of Lenin’s illness and death and the rise of Stalinism. “The problem of transition” could enter again the agenda of communists only with the 1938 Transition Programme that Trotsky wrote as part of his efforts to build the Fourth International. Lenin put forward a general approach we find still relevant while he was criticising the tendency to underestimate the struggle for democracy in the imperialist era: “Capitalism and imperialism can be overthrown only by economic revolution. They cannot be overthrown by democratic transformations, even the most “ideal”. But a proletariat not schooled in the struggle for democracy is incapable of performing an economic revolution.”[1] “The Marxist solution of the problem of democracy is for the proletariat to utilise all democratic institutions and aspirations in its class struggle against the bourgeoisie in order to prepare for its overthrow and assure its own victory.”[2] “We must combine the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with a revolutionary programme and tactics on all democratic demands: a republic, a militia, the popular election of officials, equal rights for women, the self-determination of nations, etc. While capitalism exists, these demands—all of them—can only be accomplished as an exception, and even then in an incomplete and distorted form.”[3] 2- Polish Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, Radek (or Russian ones like Pyatakov Bukharin) legitimately opposed the conception of the Second International separating the minimum and maximum programmes. However they went too far to an erroneous point of completely underestimating the democratic demands that would serve as a lever for a transition to the proletarian revolution. Lenin named this political tendency as “imperialist economism” and criticised in a way that is still relevant today. According to Lenin’s assessment the imperialist economism did not manage to link the struggle for reforms and democracy with the birth of imperialism just as “late” economism (that of early 19.th century) could not link the fight for democracy with the birth of capitalism. Imperialism is the period in which the capital outgrows the borders of national states. Rosa Luxemburg etc. interpreted possible results of this economic development in a mechanical way. According to them since development was towards merging of nations it was unnecessary to defend the freedom of secession of nations and recognise this under proletariat’s power. Thus they argued against including the right of nations to self-determination in the party programme. Lenin on the contrary thought that revolutionary fight for socialism had to be combined with a revolutionary programme on the national question as in all other democratic tasks. Lenin‘s criticisms against those Marxists who defend the thesis that “the right of nations to self-determination is impossible under capitalism and unnecessary under socialism” are important from two points of view. First is the stressing of the point that the right of nations to self-determination is a political right. Of course under capitalism these political rights have not been, and could not have been, granted automatically. Serious reforms have largely been by-products of revolutionary struggle of masses against bourgeoisie. It would be completely wrong for the revolutionary proletariat to approach the question of the right of nations to self-determination in a reasoning of “impossible under capitalism”. Second, the revolutionary proletariat would strive to gain hegemony in a political fight by including this type of demands which could turn into an important lever to mobilise broad masses into its programme. Another important point in Lenin’s criticisms of imperialist economism is the following: To say that “the right of nations to self-determination is useless in socialism” (by “socialism” he means in a careless way the dictatorship of the proletariat) would be to fall into a lightminded way of thinking that the discrimination between oppressed and oppressor nations created through ages and its deep effects can simply be washed away with the proletarian revolution once and for all, spontaneously and without any effort. Any lack of attention to this question would result in nothing but helping to sustain and even deepen in practice the negative imprints of oppressor nation chauvinism. 3- Therefore Lenin considered it absolutely necessary for the proletariat in power to recognise the right of oppressed nations to self-determination. The Bolshevik Party under Lenin’s leadership defended to implement this right immediately after the October Revolution and the resolution of the II. Congress of the Soviets to recognise the right of nations to self-determination were further clarified by the principles determined by the Committee of People’s Commissars (“Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia” dated 15 November 1917): “1. The equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia. 2. The right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination, even to the point of secession and the formation of an independent state. 3. The abolition of any and all national and national-religious privileges and disabilities. 4. The free development of national minorities and ethnographic groups inhabiting the territory of Russia.”[4] Lenin defended that the principle “merging of nations is possible only through voluntary association” could be implemented by the proletarian power taking measures in favour of the oppressed nation and that real equality could only by this way be achieved. He expressed his view on this point in a sharp warning against the danger of “Great Russian chauvinism” which arose among Bolsheviks: “In my writings on the national question I have already said that an abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation. “In respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence… “That is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or "great" nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies), must consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially petty bourgeois in his point of view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of view.”[5] 4- What lies beneath the mistake of some Marxists Lenin accused of being fallen into a tendency of imperialist economism was reducing political problems directly to economy and thinking that by removing the economic base problems it creates would automatically disappear. It is true that in the last analysis economic base determines everything. But to proceed from this fact to ignore the complexity of political problems and interpret the dialectical relationship between economic base and political effects in a mechanical way is a caricature of Marxism. Those Marxists who fell into this mistake, starting from the impossibility of economic independence except the proletarian world revolution carried it as such to the political sphere. In short, on the question of the right of nations to self-determination they confuse the question of political independence of nation-states with the question of economic dependence. It is sure that a complete elimination of national oppression is possible only under proletarian power. But this in no way changes the meaning of the right of nations to self-determination which is the right of secession of an oppressed nation from the oppressor nation, i.e. the right of establishing its own nation-state achieving its political independence. It is known that imperialist countries, because they have the economic means of applying pressure on small countries, may stop resisting too much against the demand of independence on the part of small nations when they find it too costly, or find it useful to divide a region into tiny nation-states. It is a clear fact that imperialist countries continue, through economic means, to keep under pressure nations that have achieved their own nation-states but are weak economically. But the right of nations to self-determination should not be considered in this context. The struggle in these countries cannot be described with reference to the national question unless there is an open imperialist annexation. It is also a caricature of Marxism not to take the demand of the right of nations to self-determination in a clearest way as “political independence, the right to establish a separate state” and think that economic independence can also be achieved[6] by a national liberation struggle. Imperialism is a world system that links all nation-states large or small to each other through diverse (and of course unequal) economic relations. For this reason, to defend that nation-states can even be fully independent in an economic sense despite the imperialist system is not overthrown by proletarian revolutions progressing on a world scale is a distortion of Marxism. In conclusion we have to point out once again that we must understand from national liberation nothing but achieving political independence. Economic liberation is a matter of social revolution.