Walker Connor's "The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy" (Book Note)

 

Walker Connor's work, "The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy," offers an evaluation of the enduring interplay between nationalism and Marxist-Leninist theory. The term "National Question" encompasses a wide array of issues arising from the presence of distinct nations and nationalities. Connor primarily examines this within the context of the USSR, Chinese People's Republic, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Romania.

 

In the USSR, it has often been asserted that the nationality question has been resolved, and the Leninist approach has been actively promoted among various satellite states. Many contemporary Marxist-Leninist states, akin to the USSR, fall under the multinational category. However, there are significant distinctions within this framework. China, like the USSR, is dominated by one primary ethnic group—the Han people, roughly equivalent to the Russians in this regard. Nevertheless, China's ethnic composition differs notably. Minorities are predominantly situated in China's inland border regions, and non-Han communities have historically harbored a traditional aversion to the Chinese. Additionally, distinct historical circumstances and events have had profound impacts. Unlike Czarist Russia, China experienced imperialist aggression and, in certain regions, colonialism. The Chinese Revolution was considerably more protracted than its Russian counterpart, and it transitioned from rural to urban centers, making it relatively easier to align minority nationalities with the goals of the revolution from the outset.

 

In Yugoslavia, the experience of invasion and conquest, particularly by the Germans, contributed to a temporary overshadowing of local hostilities and the formation of anti-fascist fronts, even when these alliances were not inherently pro-Yugoslavia. Unlike China or the USSR, Yugoslavia lacks a singularly dominant ethnic group. Instead, it maintains a precarious coexistence of what Tito termed "the nations of Yugoslavia." Czechoslovakia similarly grapples with deep internal divisions, and even states like Romania and Vietnam face challenges posed by significant minority populations. Communism's achievement has largely been to contain these national differences within fundamentally national-style states. Nonetheless, the existing disparities within the so-called communist "bloc" serve as a testament to the enduring depth of nationalism.

 

Connor contends that Lenin's initial proposition in his three-fold strategy for addressing nationalism, which promised all national groups the right to self-determination prior to assuming power, while also extending equality to those who choose to remain within the state, met with considerable success. However, his second and third directives, which advocated for ending the practical (though not necessarily perceived) right to secession after taking power, and initiating the protracted process of assimilation through the dialectical path of territorial autonomy for compact groups, as well as maintaining the party's distance from all nationalist tendencies, have proven far less effective. As Djilas has argued, "The problem is primarily that even though social, and especially political, systems change, nations persist. That means that the national question in a multinational state can be resolved at best only for a specific period, in the framework of a specific political and social structure."

 

Walker Connor contends that Marx shared with Hegel the belief that history was progressing through a discernible dialectical pattern, but he argues that Marx erred in removing from Hegel's theory the notion that nations are the effective agents of social history, replacing it with the struggle of social classes. While this assertion is debatable, as the emphasis on class has undeniably made significant contributions in various domains, it is also crucial to acknowledge that if Marxist-Leninism has not resolved the issues of nationalism, credit should be given to several of these states for effectively managing the complexities of nationalities. The loosening of stringent central control in Czechoslovakia in 1968, for instance, seemed to inevitably lead to a resurgence of national differences within the state. It's plausible that many of these multinational states governed by communist regimes simply cannot afford the luxury of pluralism as we understand it.