1995
Why the Working Class Must Constitute the Nation – How the Issue Poses Itself
The following article was published in TML Daily, Vol 25, No. 48, May 3, 1995.
First of all, it has to be acknowledged that the national question is a class question. This is because the very foundation of the modern European nation-state, which set the pattern for all present-day nation-states, was formed by the ascendant bourgeoisie at that time, as a territorial base, a resource base and a manufacturing base from which it could operate and enter into relations with other countries on the world scale. Its motive in doing this was determined by its aim to make maximum profits for itself.
The modern system of government, based on the notions of peace, order and good government, was forged in the course of consolidating these nation-states. Peace came to mean the consolidation of the colonies and the ability to suppress the colonial peoples. Order came to mean the forces of law and order at home, able to keep the people of the home country in line. Good government came to mean the perfected system of electing the political parties of the bourgeoisie to power and of cabinet rule. Properly speaking, good government refers to the system of government and the political process which safeguards the state power in the hands of the bourgeoisie and prevents it from falling into the hands of the people.
Thus, the world order was established on the basis of the existence of those nation-states and the relations they entered into with one another.
These nations were synonymous with the interests of the class in whose image they were created. In other words, the bourgeoisie literally constituted itself as the nation. The concept of the nation and the bourgeois class in power were, in a manner of speaking, one and the same thing. How could one speak, in concrete terms, of a bourgeoisie without taking into account that its existence was due to the existence of the nation itself? The one was, so to speak, the condition for the existence of the other.
Today, however, this same bourgeoisie is no longer primarily identified by the existence of the nation. The bourgeoisie is primarily identified by the fact that it is a financial oligarchy and today the base of operation of the financial oligarchy is international, not national as such. The constraints of the nation which initially rendered the bourgeoisie able to operate on the world scale, today block its ability to operate globally. If one looks into the situation one will find that international finance capitalists today are even citizens of several countries in order to be able to own property in those countries and other such things. Corporations are also incorporated wherever the tax breaks are the most advantageous, and so on.
The result is that the aims the bourgeoisie gave the nation during the period of its ascendancy and consolidation as the class in power are no longer of assistance to the bourgeoisie under the current conditions. For instance, at one time, the bourgeoisie needed infrastructure to be built within its own nation so as to unify the national market and link it to the international market, as well as facilitate the mobility of its armed and police forces throughout the territory. Even in its colonies, it required the infrastructure to facilitate getting resources to ports of export. Infrastructure projects, such as the building of railways, were extremely profitable for the bourgeoisie, which put the state treasury at their disposal while they reaped the benefits.
Today the building of such infrastructure is financed by entire nations which pay enormous rates of interest to the international money lenders such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The incurring of the kinds of loans which are involved and the payment of interest on such loans has become a huge drain on entire countries. In other words, while at one time building nations is what coincided with the interests of the bourgeoisie to make maximum profit, today the same profit motive has become extremely destructive of the very same nations.
Another interference and block to the aims of the bourgeoisie are the demands of the peoples of the various nations. The working class is reduced more than ever before to a mere productive force. Wage slavery is seen as never before, to be exactly what it is: slavery with not even the responsibility of those who buy the labour power to look after their slaves. There is a world supply of labour aplenty not only in terms of cheap labour in various countries, but immigrant, migrant and refugee labour. A huge brain drain is also occurring in Asia, Africa and Latin America as well as the countries of eastern Europe.
Today the bourgeoisie's quest for maximum profits has become the most destructive to the interests of the peoples all over the world and their nations. This is why the working class must constitute itself as the nation. It must come to the rescue of the people in this regard. It does so by carrying forward its plan to emancipate itself, in the course of which it will open the door to the progress of society. Not only will society be able to progress but so will the collectives of women, youth and all others which clearly cannot affirm themselves within the present conditions.
It is suggested that a good part of the significance of calling on the working class to constitute itself as the nation is that in modern political life the demand has been that people constituting themselves as the nation must be sovereign. According to this view, it is said that the question of who leads and who decides was answered by saying it is "the people" constituted as nation-states.
However, this really does not clarify the matter. As discussed in yesterday"s TML, the modern European nation-state, which set the pattern for all the present nation-states, was constituted by the bourgeoisie. It was the bourgeois class in power which led and decided, as is still the case today. The difference between then and today is that then, they defended their sovereignty like the apple of their eye, at a time this sovereignty was synonymous with the nation itself. Today, on the other hand, they satisfy their interests by betraying that sovereignty. The fact that they claimed that sovereignty on behalf of "the people" and ruled in the name of "the people" was then and is today merely designed to fool the people and give themselves credibility. Its material base was that by making the concept of a people synonymous with the nation-state, the bourgeoisie provided itself with productive forces at the disposal of its aims, as well as cannon fodder.
This shows us that when we speak of "modern political life," it is necessary to qualify what one means. If what is meant is that nowadays, because of being brought up in what are called democracies, people are imbued with the notion that a democracy is "rule by the people," then it is true that in modern political life there is an expectation that there should be rule by the people who should lead and should decide. But when did "the people" in Canada ever rule or ever decide matters which concern either the internal or the external policy of the nation?
In Canada this notion is only activated when decisions go in a manner which does not favour the people. In that instance, people get outraged and say that it is their society and decisions should favour their interests. However, even then it is a very limited form in which it is activated. It usually takes the form of discontent, of complaining, or protest. Only on the occasion of the Referendum on the Charlottetown Accord did it really find a true expression in the rejection of the Accord. In other words, it so turned out that the people were actually empowered to make a decision.
This shows that the explanation of the significance of the sovereignty of nations being that people lead and people decide does not help us to pinpoint what is required at this time. It is a very inadequate rendition of the issue, since it pays no attention to what is, in fact, modern political life, on one hand, or to what is, in fact, the sovereignty of the nation, on the other.
The word "modern" should not be used in a manner which gives it no meaning. If by modern is merely meant present-day, then it has to be acknowledged that today, in Canada, the main expectation people have, as a result of our political system, is that their elected representatives are elected to make whatever decisions and whatever leading is required. The notion people have is that they themselves are not political and that politics is a specific domain which it is beyond them to deal with or even comprehend. This is, of course, accompanied by notions which automatically connect politics with corruption and self-seeking aims.
Such a rendering of what is political clearly gives the powers that be a free hand to do whatever they like. It is one of the means in the hands of the bourgeoisie to safeguard their positions of privilege and power and keep the decision-making power away from the people. Since one of the major concerns of the people on the agenda for solution is to exercise control over their lives, including over the direction of the economy, one of the most fundamental issues which has to be dealt with is to ensure that a proper notion of what is political is rendered in the course of work.
What is political is all the affairs which pertain to how society is governed, how decisions are taken. The most crucial element is participating in arriving at decisions in order to guarantee that they are implemented. Without this, it is not possible to take control of one's life. Eventually, it will require ending the situation in which there is a legislative apparatus separate from an executive apparatus, not just in terms of ending cabinet rule on the level of governments but in all aspects of life.
When all is said and done, this will require dealing with the issue of the ownership of the means of production. This is because the relations people enter into are determined by the fact that at present the ownership of the means of production is private. This is what determines the kinds of relations people enter into in the course of production and in the course of daily life. It is what deprives people of the power to make decisions and exercise control over their lives.
However, just because in the end who owns the means of production has to be settled in favour of the working class and people, does not mean that one waits until this settlement takes place in order to participate in political life.
Since how decisions are arrived at imbues all aspects of life, not merely the field of national or provincial or local government per se, it becomes clear that this matter touches every aspect of life. It touches how one conducts oneself at the place of work, in the family and in political, social and cultural affairs. No organization at any level, including the level of the family, is immune. This is why great pressure is put on the people not to be political.
Often we hear the refrain that "we can only deal with local issues" because they directly affect us and we can "do something about them." This expresses the feeling that people can have direct control over matters which immediately affect them, but not over other matters.
In trying to deal with this position, the response is often to say that this attitude is parochial. The word parochial has come to mean narrow-minded. This attitude is described as being narrow-minded in order to say that people should be broad-minded. However, the point is missed. Narrow-minded this attitude may be, but not because it is parochial. On its face value, the word parochial means on the level of the parish. Clearly, then, if one considers the matter seriously, the problem which is identified here as parochialism is not the problem since people are not able to deal with problems on the level of the parish either. This means we have to go further to identify the problem. Even on the level of the family, the power to take decisions which affect the lives of family members and the family as a whole is beyond people. This is because all the decisions which affect families and family life are presently beyond their control. This is just as true on the level of the work-place, neighbourhood or at any other level.
Clearly, then, if one does not deal with the issue of what it means to be political and give a modern definition to the idea of political life, it does not matter which the concerns are, they will not be dealt with. The issue is not whether an individual or a group deals with the so-called larger issues facing the society, or local or immediate issues facing a collective. The dichotomy is not between parochial issues and larger issues.
In this vein, it is true that since sovereignty means self-determination, so long as the bourgeoisie is in power, it is the bourgeoisie which has the power to determine the future course of society and make all the decisions. But since the matter at hand is the sovereignty of the nation and the bourgeoisie is using its positions of power to sell that sovereignty, it can only be concluded that the bourgeoisie can no longer be entrusted with the sovereignty of the nation. Only when the working class empowers itself to make the decisions will that sovereignty be effective once again to defend the interests of society. However, when it comes to how decisions are taken, it is not a matter of waiting until the working class comes into power. It is an immediate issue.
In this regard, the immediate issue which has been put on the agenda by CPC(M-L) is to ensure that the working class raises its level of consciousness and organization by building the Groups of Writers and Disseminators. This is the first step in exercising control over their lives, since participating in arriving at the decisions of these groups, and implementing them are their starting point. These groups necessarily deal with their own concrete conditions, but this does not mean they are parochial in the sense of being narrow minded. It does mean they are political in the broadest sense possible.
This article was published in
Volume 55 Number 1 - January 2025
Article Link:
https://cpcml.ca/Tmlm2025/Articles/M550016.HTM
Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca