4th ISp Conference: “Marxism and the National Question”

The 4th annual Conference of Internationalist Standpoint (ISp) took place between the 18th and 22nd of April. The main discussions were based on three documents:

• World Perspectives update

• On Tactics

• Marxism and the National Question

Other discussions included:
• The building and the development of ISp’s work internationally,
special sessions on:
• Iran
• Brazil
• United States

and special reports on our work in:
• Romania
• Taiwan
• Nigeria

The resolution on the “World Perspectives update” and the document “On Tactics” have already been uploaded, and can be read at the relevant links.

Today we upload the document “Marxism and the National Question”, based on the discussion that took place before and in the course of the conference. The document was voted on at a special online meeting of the delegates elected to the 4th conference of ISp, in the beginning of July 2026.

Introduction

1. An on-going process of debate, discussion and clarification of ideas on the national question is necessary for any serious Marxist formation. Today the national question is central to the work of some of our sections and groups and is an important aspect of the work of many others.
2. It is necessary to discuss our general programme, and to refine our position on specific issues, because changes in the world situation, and in working-class consciousness, result in unresolved national questions taking on different forms over time. A fixed and formulaic approach will lead to errors. In the tinder-box situations engendered by unresolved national questions, where violence is often not far away, mistaken positions can destroy once healthy Marxist organisations.
3. It is also necessary to restate our fundamental positions because of the ideological disorientation of much of the revolutionary left. As we outlined in our 2025 conference documents “post-colonial theory” and forms of identity politics have come to dominate the thinking of many groups. These anti-Marxist ideas have resulted in the adoption of distorted positions even by groups which previously held to a rigorous scientific class analysis and a Marxist programme. This can most clearly be seen in relation to the conflict in Gaza and the wider Middle East, but also with regards to the national question in Ireland and elsewhere. Trotsky described the national question as a “labyrinthine and complex but at the same time extremely important form of class struggle”: much of the revolutionary left can be accurately described as lost in the labyrinth.
4. We have never adopted a fixed programme on the national question, and with good reason. As Irish Marxist Peter Hadden explained in 1999:

“The national question is one of the most difficult questions faced by Marxists.It has to be examined concretely, with an understanding of how it has arisen, as well as where it is headed. It cannot be viewed statically but rather as it changes and develops. It requires sensitivity as well as an ability to register the subtle shifts in consciousness taking place among various layers in society.”

This document aims to both restate our fundamental position, and to update our specific programme on key unresolved national questions in the third decade of the 21^st century.

The resurgence of the national question

5. On a global scale the national question has come more to the fore in the recent period. Whilst we recognise that in some cases nationalism of the oppressed, in Trotsky’s famous words, is an expression of class anger –“only the outer shell of an immature Bolshevism”– this is essentially a negative development, one result of the international crisis of capitalism and the failure of the workers movement to challenge for power over an extended period of decades. It is important however that we carefully differentiate the various layers within any national movement-between the working class, the rural poor, and the impoverished masses for whom national aspirations are an expression of revolt and a desire for freedom from oppression and poverty, and the bourgeois class which desires the freedom to oppress and exploit in a new national state.
6. The national question in its classical sense is properly understood as an unfinished task of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Today we argue that under capitalism it is not possible to overcome national antagonisms, and to ensure the self-determination of oppressed peoples. This does not mean that every national question is fixed and unchanging, however, and even in the context of capitalism in decay, partial and temporary solutions are possible. Until successful workers’ revolutions intervene, “solutions” imposed by the sword are inherent in many situations. To give one recent stark example, on 19^th September 2023, Azerbaijan launched a military offensive on the Artsakh region of Nagorno-Karabakh which swept away all armed opposition within hours. After one day a cessation of hostilities was agreed though the mediation of Russian forces in the region. In the aftermath of the offensive, an exodus of Armenians from the region started and on 28th September 2023, the Republic of Artsakh agreed to dissolve itself by 1 January 2024. One of the many ‘frozen conflicts’ around the globe seemed to be finally over, but only through forced population movements at the point of a gun.
7. In the ex-colonial world, the post war period saw the emergence of dozens of new nation states, some based on homogenous peoples, but others (such as Nigeria) amalgams of many different groupings. In some of these new states national antagonisms were apparent from the start and often resulted in insurgencies or civil war. Over decades some unitary states survived intact but only after much bloodshed, for example Nigeria, but in others new states emerged after conflict (for example, the secession of South Sudan from Sudan and of Eritrea from Ethiopia).
8. The partition of the Indian sub-continent saw the emergence of new nation states, after conflicts which left up to 2 million dead and 20 million displaced. Since that time national conflicts-the Kashmir conflict, the civil war in Pakistan which resulted in a second partition and the emergence of Bangladesh, and between India and Pakistan over border disputes, amongst others-have continued without pause. As recently as early 2025 an all-out war between India and Pakistan seemed to be imminent before both sides stepped back.
9. The Stalinist regimes argued that national questions within their borders were resolved, or were in the process of resolution. This was most pertinent in the case of the former USSR, which incorporated many different peoples within its borders, and Yugoslavia where efforts were made to resolve differences between the Serbs, largest national group, and others such as the Croats and Bosnian Muslims. In fact, the national questions in these multi-national states were far from resolved and in the period after the collapse of the Stalinist states open conflict with mass casualties were the result. The disintegration of the USSR saw the creation of 15 new nation states and several dozen greater or lesser conflicts (including the first and second Chechen wars which left 60,000 dead). When the deformed workers’ state in Yugoslavia collapsed, the multiple wars which resulted left 140,000 dead.
10. In the context of the post war long boom (approximately 1950-1974) the national question in the advanced capitalist countries was less of an issue in most cases. This however disguised the real situation, and in time it would once again come to the fore. In the case of Scotland, for example, nationalism was a weak political force, with almost no support in the working-class areas of Scotland’s cities, large towns, and mining areas, where the (British) Labour Party was absolutely dominant for most of the twentieth century. The Scottish National Party (SNP), established in 1928, was a fringe organisation with support mostly in rural areas, and was often derided as the “Tartan Tories” (the British Conservative Party is also known as “the Tories”). The first world recession since the 1930s, in 1974-1975, and the inability of the Labour Party to deliver for the working class saw the beginnings of the rise of the SNP into a serious force. In time the unthinkable happened, and working-class communities which had supported Labour in every election for 100 years switched to the nationalists. As Lenin argued, politics is concentrated economics: the growth of nationalism and of support for a bourgeois nationalist party, with a thin veneer of radical phraseology, is a result of the crisis of capitalism, the failure of both right and left reformism, and the failure to build a mass revolutionary party in Scotland and in Britain. More recently the same process has unfolded in Wales. In the Seannad (devolved Welsh Assembly) elections in May 2026 the Welsh nationalist party Plaid Cymru won the most seats, followed closely by the right-wing populist Reform UK. Welsh Labour, which had won every election in Wales for over one hundred years was humiliated and came a distant third.
11. The “victory” of the capitalist class in the Cold War gave impetus to peace efforts in the advanced capitalist world. Seemingly intractable national problems were “solved”. Northern Ireland, previously described as a “problem without a solution” by The Economist magazine, saw the end of thirty years of intense violence and an inter-party and inter-government peace agreement (the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement). The underlying issues had not been resolved, and in many cases since have deepened, with greater division between communities. However, for a generation of working-class people in Northern Ireland the benefits are clear-life is easier without the constant threat of sectarian assassination and state repression, and thousands of lives that would have been lost have been saved. Nevertheless, the national question remains a live issue with the threat of violence still present.
12. In Spain, the Basque separatist campaign for an independent state came to an end, in this case through the military and political defeat of the armed group ETA and its political allies (ETA declared a ceasefire in 2010, disarmed in 2017, and dissolved in 2018).
13. The Oslo Accords (1993) raised hopes for a new political arrangement in the Middle East based on a two-state solution. In Cyprus, after more than 51 years, the ruling classes still claim that they want a solution to the national problem, but it is quite clear that this is hypocritical, as the de facto partition of the island is there to stay.
14. The idea that in any of these cases the national question had been “solved” is a mirage. Within a few short years the capitalist system was in crisis and a resurgence of national sentiment and nationalism has been a feature of the period since 2008, noted by bourgeois commentators as well as Marxists. In many cases the result was a resurgence not of left nationalism but of right-wing or populist nationalism, on a scale not seen since the 1930s.
15. The initial sense that the end of the Cold War and the victory of “liberal democracy” would negate the importance of national questions has been falsified by events. In 2017, for example, a drive for independence in Catalonia plunged the Spanish state into its biggest political crisis in 40 years. In a referendum on October 1^st, 2017, 90% backed independence, but only 43% had voted as most of those who opposed independence boycotted the poll. The referendum was declared illegal in advance by the Spanish Constitutional Court and it was clear that the central Spanish regime, backed by the EU, would not allow for secession by Catalonia. There were clashes when Spanish National police tried to stop people voting. The majority Catalan nationalists in the regional parliament declared that the referendum was a valid expression of the people’s will and an independent state was announced on October 27^th. The central government responded by imposing direct rule from Madrid, sacking the Catalan leaders, dissolving the regional parliament and calling a snap regional election. Nationalist parties again obtained a majority but the momentum of the nationalist movement had been checked. In June 2018 direct rule was lifted.
16. Belgium too illustrates how even in the advanced capitalist counties national antagonisms, if unresolved, can come to the fore and challenge the stability of a capitalist state. Belgium is governed by a complex system of checks and balances: there is a unified national government but also separate administrations in French speaking Wallonia in the South, Dutch speaking Flanders in the North, and the shared city of Brussels in the middle. Belgium was wracked by a prolonged crisis from 2007 to 2011 which was marked by communal tensions and political instability. After elections in 2010 it took 541 days to form a government, a world record. More recently, Brussels was without regional administration for 600 days between June 2024 and February 2025. Seven parties required months of prolonged discussion after an inconclusive election in June 2024 before an uneasy agreement could be reached.
17. In Asia, the Tibetan national question remains unresolved. The Chinese regime is engineering massive changes in the population by bringing in workers from other parts of China, and consequently, the Tibetan proportion of the population is falling. The future of Taiwan –to be reabsorbed back into China, independence, or continuation of its current uncertain status– remains a central geopolitical concern.
18. The Balkans and the Caucasus remain tinderboxes and flare ups of violence cannot be excluded. Most recently, a number of Serbian border guards were killed in a confrontation in October 2023 in the disputed Kosovo region. The status of Kashmir remains unresolved, and India and Pakistan continue to intermittently clash across the Line of Control. Clashes also continue on the China-India border over territorial disputes.
19. The list of national problems around the planet is in no way exhausted in the examples we mention above. The re-emergence of the national question over the last three decades is a result of:

a) the inability of capitalism to take society forward, raising the living standards of the population and thus eliminating the very roots of national conflict – the poverty, the alienation, the social deprivation and the lack of hope of whole sections of the population

b) the oppression of national rights which ultimately reinforces nationalism as workers and young people revolt against their chains and

c) the failure of the leadership of the workers’ organisations to unite all workers on a socialist programme and tackle the problems of the working class and society as a whole through a socialist revolution.

20. This is the context in which it is essential that we further develop our programme, applying the method of Marxism to each new development in its concrete detail. An open discussion in the coming months will assist us in clarifying our ideas for the stormy period ahead. Such a discussion should come together around both points of principle and their practical application, learning from the approach of Lenin and Trotsky after the October revolution.
21. Like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, we recognise that there are two sides to nationalism: the nationalism of the oppressor and the nationalism of the oppressed. An understanding of what this means in practice is essential. A misunderstanding of this formulation lies at the heart of the errors of many on the left: their approach to the national question is reduced to a search for the oppressed nation, and then a formulaic approach to programme.
22. An equal error is to ignore or downplay the importance of the national question in all its forms. As Trotsky explained “the national struggle cannot be suspended by bare reference to the future world revolution”.

Marx, Engels and the National Question

23. Marxism is a living science. If there is one area which illustrates this more than any other it is the Marxist or revolutionary position on the national question. When Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto their emphasis was on internationalism, and the perspective that the advent of socialism would do away with all artificial borders. It is not surprising that this was their focus, given that in the 1840s there were relatively few nation states on the planet, as we understand them today. The exception was in the Americas, north and south, where modern nation states were the rule, nearly all of which continue to exist down to the 21st Century. Europe, in contrast, was dominated by large multinational States-Britain, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire. To the east lay the Ottoman Empire. Africa and Asia were still yet to see the era of “great power” colonisation, but the process had begun.
24. The thinking of Marx and Engels evolved over their relatively long lives – they lived through an era of great change. Famously, they changed their position on Ireland. Initially they welcomed the prospect of a revolution led by the Chartist movement in England and believed that it offered the best prospect for the freedom of Ireland. With the defeat of the Chartists their perspective changed to one in which they both expected the Irish masses to free themselves, and held that the English working class could not free itself from its own chains without supporting the right of the Irish to self-determination. Their initial coolness, even hostility, towards the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe, who despite their imprisonment within the boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, were employed in its armies and helped to put down the 1848 revolutions changed over time. In the later 19^th century, as these nationalities stirred into revolt and sought independent nation states, they came to support their struggles.
25. In the late 19th century, the “Austro Marxists” tried to draw up a programme which would map out a way to a socialist multinational state in which cultural autonomy would allow for unity within existing capitalist borders. Lenin and the Bolsheviks recognized that a program of national autonomy within the borders of the old autocracies would not meet the aspirations of the working-class and peasant masses, and instead proposed political self-determination, which, in the last analysis, can only mean the right to secession and independent nation states. They understood that Marxists must propose and argue for the right to self-determination and be prepared to grant self-determination after the socialist revolution, in order to detach the working masses from nationalism, and potential influence of bourgeois elements, and to one day see a federation or confederation of socialist states.
26. The Bolsheviks came to power in the period which saw the disintegration of the European multinational empires and the beginning of the revolution in the ex-colonial countries, starting with Ireland in 1916-1921, and spreading to India and Egypt in the 1920s. The idea of national self-determination was an urgent political demand of the day and was expressed in distorted form even by US President Woodrow Wilson at the Versailles peace talks. Wilson’s view was that self-determination was to be allowed to some, but not all, European nationalities, but on no account was to be extended to the colonial world.
27. In the 1920s the Bolsheviks went far beyond the constraints of the pre-1914 idea of a nation (which we discuss below) and were prepared to grant self-determination flexibly and creatively, in the ultimate interests of the emancipation of the working masses.
28. Today, many left formations and revolutionary groups apply a non-dialectical caricature of the Leninist approach. They consider the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky to be fixed for all time. The result is a form of vulgar Marxism which fails to apply the lessons of the past to the concrete situation of today.

The Modern Nation State

29. Marx and Engels first and foremost sought to understand and to explain the mechanisms by which the capitalist class extracts surplus value from the labour of working-class people. They went beyond a basic understanding of the capitalist mode of production and explored the various phenomena which have arisen as a result of the development of the capitalist system. One such phenomenon was the rise of the modern nation state, which began in the aftermath of the French Revolution, and which was an unfolding process in the era in which they lived. They found it necessary to study and understand the process by which nations come into being, and the ways in which the ideology of nationalism attracts the mass support of the working class, and especially the peasant masses, in specific circumstances.
30. The nation is not simply a bourgeois phenomenon, and Marx and Engels considered the Phoenicians in the Mediterranean region as a nation. They argued that in the period when the Roman empire was disintegrating “the elements of new nations were present everywhere.” In the pre-capitalist era, when early capitalist modes of production were developing, they could see the outline of “feudally organized nations, from which bourgeois national states later sprang.”
31. The modern nation state however is a capitalist formation and helped propel the early explosive growth of capitalism. In this sense, as Marx explained, the rise of the nation state played a progressive role and was necessary to overcome feudal parochialism and backwardness. German national unification, for example, resulted in a single unitary state where before there were 38 states and principalities, some tiny, with their own laws, taxes, and customs, and often their own armed forces. Unification laid the foundations of national infrastructure and of economic integration, a prerequisite for the creation of a modern capitalist society.
32. The nineteenth century multi-national states –Russia, Austria-Hungry, the Ottoman Empire– where smaller, weaker national groups were subjected within the borders of larger states, often acted as a barrier to capitalist development. Today, unlike at the dawn of capitalism, the nation state, and private property, stand as a barrier to the further development of society, of industry and of the economy. Some of the representatives of capitalism partially recognise this fact – the realisation that relatively small European states cannot effectively compete with the economic powerhouses of the world economy, China and the USA, is the main driving force towards European integration. In turn, China and the US create their own trading blocs.

Oppressed and Oppressor Nations

33. We recognise that there are two sides to nationalism: the nationalism of the oppressor and the nationalism of the oppressed.
34. Historically the application of the slogan of “the right to self-determination” has been applied by Marxists to oppressed nations. The slogan starts from the principle that the people belonging to any nation must be free to decide for themselves, against colonial and imperialist domination and subjugation, but at the same time it may not be applicable in all circumstances, it is not an end in itself and is designed to separate workers and other oppressed layers from political nationalism. This approach is neatly summarised in Marx’s comment on Irish independence “after separation may come federation”.
35. Lenin formulated his position on the right to self-determination of nations in a period when most of the world was held either within the fetters of large multinational empires, either in Europe, for example, the Austro-Hungarian empire, or internationally on a global scale, for example, the British Empire. In this context, the right to self-determination was applied as a slogan to oppressed nations.
36. This remains our position today as it is not logical to call for the right to self-determination of a dominant nation state such as England in the case of Ireland, or the central Spanish state in the case of the Basque Country or Catalonia. Whilst this is true, it is important that we update our position for the 21st Century. Older forms of colonialism no longer exist. Instead, we have forms of neocolonialism, and our political program should reflect this, where the national question is most acute. However, a simple divide into oppressed and oppressor nations is seldom easy to achieve. If we consider the case of Scotland, it is arguable that the Scottish nation is not oppressed in the sense that would have been understood by Lenin or Trotsky.
37. The slogan of self-determination should not be applied in a formalistic manner, and never in a way which, far from separating workers from political nationalism, actually works to bolster nationalism, and national divisions. For example, in the context of Ireland today the slogan of the right to self-determination does not advance understanding or clarify the rights of either Catholics or Protestants. Instead, we have adopted a series of negative demands-against national oppression, against coercion, and against the denial of rights.
38. At the time of Marx and Engels the two countries where the question of national oppression, and the rise of nationalism as a political movement, were most to the fore were Poland and Ireland. It is thus the case that much of their writings on the national question specifically focus on the centuries-old domination of Ireland by England and on the dismemberment of Poland by the great European powers.
39. It is well known that Marx and Engels changed their position on the national question, in part as a response to events, most famously on the question of Ireland. Prior to the 1860s Marx thought that Ireland ‘would not be liberated by the national movement of the oppressed nation, but by the working-class movement of the oppressor nation’(in Lenin’s words). Lenin continued ‘However it so happened that the English working class fell under the influence of the liberals for a fairly long time, became an appendage to the liberals, and by adopting a liberal-labour policy left itself leaderless. The bourgeois liberation movement in Ireland grew stronger and assumed revolutionary forms. Marx reconsidered his view and corrected it.’ Lenin cited a letter from Marx to Engels of 2 November 1867, in which Marx wrote as follows: “The Fenian trial in Manchester was exactly as to be expected. You will have seen what a scandal ‘our people’ have caused in the Reform League. I sought by every means at my disposal to incite the English workers to demonstrate in favour of Fenianism … I once believed the separation of Ireland from England to be impossible. I now regard it as inevitable, although Federation may follow upon separation”.
40. Marx has been criticised for taking a position on India which appeared to welcome the development of the productive forces (and the destruction of old ways of living) under capitalism. He was indeed drawing attention to these phenomena when he wrote that:

“The bourgeois period of history has to create the material basis of the new world — on the one hand universal intercourse founded upon the mutual dependency of mankind, and the means of that intercourse; on the other hand the development of the productive powers of man and the transformation of material production into a scientific domination of natural agencies. Bourgeois industry and commerce create these material conditions of a new world in the same way as geological revolutions have created the surface of the earth”. He continued to outline how capitalist development would be surpassed in time with the social revolution and in doing so made clear his view that capitalist ‘progress’ was achieved on the bones of the masses “: “When a great social revolution shall have mastered the results of the bourgeois epoch, the market of the world and the modern powers of production, and subjected them to the common control of the most advanced peoples, then only will human progress cease to resemble that hideous, pagan idol, who would not drink the nectar but from the skulls of the slain.”^[1]

41. The “Great Indian mutiny” (the first war of Indian independence) saw Marx turn from a theoretical focus to the struggle of the colonised Indians, whom he supported unconditionally, including by drawing a sharp division between the violence of the oppressed and that of the oppressor.
42. After the defeat of the revolutions of 1848, in part because some nationalities were apparently willing to provide the soldiery necessary to suppress the insurgents, Engels drew a distinction between those national groups which were moving in the direction of nationhood, and were deserving of self-determination, and those which he described as “ahistoric peoples”. Later developments lead him to drop this concept.
43. Karl Marx raised the question of the ‘right to self-determination’ as early as 1843^[2]. There he wrote that “in democracy the constitution, the law, the state, so far as it is political constitution, is itself only a self-determination of the people, and a determinate content of the people”.^[3] He used the more specific term of ‘self-determination of nations’ in 1865, when he referred to “the need to eliminate Muscovite influence in Europe by applying the right of self-determination of nations, and the re-establishment of Poland upon a democratic and social basis”.[4] In 1866, the Belgian newspaper L’Echo de Verviers published a letter written by Marx and others which explained:

“The Central Council … has founded three newspapers … one in Britain, The Workman’s Advocate, the only English newspaper which, proceeding from the right of the peoples to self-determination, recognises that the Irish have the right to throw off the English yoke”.^[5]

44. With regards to Poland, in an 1863 speech he again referred to self-determination:

“What are the reasons for this special interest of the Working Men’s Party in the fate of Poland? First of all, of course, sympathy for a subjugated people which, by continuous heroic struggle against its oppressors, has proven its historic right to national independence and self-determination. It is by no means a contradiction that the international Working Men’s Party should strive for the restoration of the Polish nation”.^[6]

What is a nation?

45. Over a period of decades there was intense debate in the international workers movement on the national question. In the late 19^th century and the years before WW1, the leading Marxists developed the formulation of the right to self-determination for oppressed nations. We base ourselves on the approach of Lenin and the Bolsheviks to the national question, as developed over the first decade and a half of the 20th century, and then implemented after the October revolution. The Bolsheviks were firm in principle but flexible in practice, and it is this flexibility which often draw upon in considering the complex national questions in many places today.
46. Before doing so it is necessary to examine in detail a more formulaic, but at the same time fundamentally important definition of a nation – a definition which much of the left and bourgeois thinkers adhere to.In a famous 1913 pamphlet, Marxism and the National Question, published under the name of Stalin but almost certainly written under the guidance of Lenin,^[7] the Bolshevik programme was set out in outline. “Marxism and the National Question” sought to define a “nation” and its criteria are still the basis of our general approach. It should be emphasised however thatLenin, whilst taking the definition as a starting point, as a guide, was very flexible in its application. He developed the rather fixed criteria it contained in a series of nuanced articles over the next several years, and in practice after October the Bolsheviks were much more flexible than the pamphlet implied.
47. In the pamphlet the nation is defined in a series of steps. The first of these is that

“A nation is primarily a community, a definite community of people”.^[8] The point is made that “This community is not racial, nor is it tribal” and concluded “Thus, a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people”. Earlier state formations did not meet this basic criterion for a nation. The conclusion drawn was that a nation must be a “not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people”.

48. But then the point is made that “not every stable community constitutes a nation”. Examples are given:

“Austria and Russia are also stable communities, but nobody calls them nations. What distinguishes a national community from a state community? The fact, among others, that a national community is inconceivable without a common language, while a state need not have a common language”. The conclusion is that “a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation”.

49. But a common language does not make a nation:

“This… does not mean that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages, or that all who speak one language necessarily constitute one nation... Englishmen and Americans speak one language, but they do not constitute one nation”.

50. Flowing from this consideration is given to the question of geography:

“But why, for instance, do the English and the Americans not constitute one nation in spite of their common language? Firstly, because they do not live together, but inhabit different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation… Thus, a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation”.

51. But this is still not enough:

“Common territory does not by itself create a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic bond to weld the various parts of the nation into a single whole… Thus, a common economic life, economic cohesion, is one of the characteristic features of a nation”.

52. The final factor is the question of “culture”:

“If England, America and Ireland, which speak one language, nevertheless constitute three distinct nations, it is in no small measure due to the peculiar psychological make-up which they developed from generation to generation as a result of dissimilar conditions of existence… Thus, a common psychological make-up, which manifests itself in a common culture, is one of the characteristic features of a nation”.

53. The pamphlet concludes:

“We have now exhausted the characteristic features of a nation.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”.

Lenin and Self-Determination

54. The context of the Stalin pamphlet was Lenin’s series of polemics against Rosa Luxemburg’s negative position on the right to self-determination. In December 1913 he wrote on the question of independence for Ukraine – he argued for its ‘freedom to secede, for the right to secede’. He was clear however that:

“the right to self-determination is one thing, of course, and the expediency of self-determination, the secession of a given nation under given circumstances, is another’.^[9] Later that month he again declared that ‘[a] democrat could not remain a democrat (let alone a proletarian democrat) without systematically advocating, precisely among the Great-Russian masses and in the Russian language, the “self-determination” of nations in the political and not in the “cultural” sense’.^[10]

55. In “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, Lenin opposed the arguments of Luxemburg unambiguously. The latter argued that the idea of new nation states emerging in her era was utopian, and the fight for self-determination a distraction from the class struggle. She argued for autonomous status within the existing borders for national minorities.^[11] Lenin insisted that

“it would be wrong to interpret the right to self-determination as meaning anything but the right to existence as a separate state”.^[12] He further argued that ‘the national state is the rule and the “norm” of capitalism: the multi-national state represents backwardness… from the standpoint of national relations, the best conditions for the development of capitalism are undoubtedly provided by the national state’.^[13]

56. Lenin adopted a clear historical framework:

“The epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Western, continental Europe embraces a fairly definite period, approximately between 1789 and 1871. This was precisely the period of national movements and the creation of national states. When this period drew to a close, Western Europe had been transformed into a settled system of bourgeois states, which, as a general rule, were nationally uniform states. Therefore, to seek the right to self-determination in the programmes of West-European socialists at this time of day is to betray one’s ignorance of the ABC of Marxism. In Eastern Europe and Asia, the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions did not begin until 1905. The revolutions in Russia, Persia, Turkey and China, the Balkan wars—such is the chain of world events of our period in our ‘Orient’. And only a blind man could fail to see in this chain of events the awakening of a whole series of bourgeois-democratic national movements which strive to create nationally independent and nationally uniform states. It is precisely and solely because Russia and the neighbouring countries are passing through this period that we must have a clause in our programme on the right of nations to self-determination”.^[14]

57. Thus, Lenin’s conception of self-determination was intended to apply not only to the Ottoman, Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empire, but also to the colonies of Britain, France and other European states. In contrast, as we have outlined above, in 1919 Woodrow Wilson only considered self-determination to be applicable to the former and not the latter and would not entertain the claim for self-determination put forward by Britain’s colonies.
58. In the period between the February and October revolutions (May 1917) Lenin drafted a resolution on the “national question”.^[15] His starting-point was the recognition of the right of all nations in the Russian Empire to freely secede and form independent states. If they were denied this right by a socialist regime this would in effect be to support a policy of forcible annexation. Lenin’s position was opposed by some leading Bolsheviks including Nikolai Bukharin and Georgy Pyatakov.
59. There are important aspects of the phrase the right to self-determination that we must consider. Firstly, the implication of a right is that it should always be awarded in all circumstances. Sometimes the right to self-determination is described as a principle, and again, the implication is the same-principles must be implemented.However, there are conditions in which the right of self determination could best be described as a tactical approach, or at least that it has elements of a tactical approach.
60. It is important to state that the right to self-determination is not an absolute. That this so is underlined if we consider concrete examples, even of these examples that are somewhat unique. When the southern states seceded from the United States of America in 1864 Marx and Engels did not raise some hypothetical right to self-determination of the Southern population. It is reasonable to assume that the majority of the white population of the southern states were in favour of political separation, though, of course, the vote was only exercised by a minority of that population, and black people were enslaved. Rather than supporting the ‘right to self-determination’ Marx and Engels recognized the progressive nature of the war prosecuted by the northern bourgeoisie. It was not just a question as to whether Southern whites constituted a nation (they did not, but as we have described elsewhere the Marxist position is not rigid when considering when the right to self-determination) but of the class character of a “national” movement (in the case of the Confederacy, a slave-owning aristocracy with the support of poor white tenant farmers). If secession had been successful, and after several generations a new nation had in fact crystallised (and abolished slavery) the position of Marxists may have changed. Much would have depended, of course, on the status of the black population by then, and their aspirations.
61. It is also important to re-state that whilst Marxists recognize the right to self-determination, we do not, in general, advocate for separation or secession. Sometimes it is correct to do so, but more often not.

The Bolsheviks in Power

62. Lenin and the Bolsheviks sought to connect with the genuine national grievances of the masses without ever giving succour to national chauvinism or offering political support to nationalist ideas or nationalist forces. Trotsky recognised that “For the oppressed nations of Russia the overthrow of the monarchy inevitably meant also their national revolution”.^[16] Russians accounted for 43% of the population – the rest of the population was made up of Poles, Ukrainians, Finns, Armenians, Tartars, and many other. Lenin explained that without a correct programme on the national question, it would not have been possible for the Bolsheviks to have defeated capitalism, landlordism and imperialism in the Tzarist empire.
63. The Bolshevik programme on the national question was intended to display to the nationally oppressed that the working class of the oppressor nation had nothing to gain from their enslavement. One of the Bolsheviks first decrees was for the right of nations to self-determination. Finland and Poland immediately declared their independence, and this was recognised by the new Bolshevik government. However, the programme of the Bolsheviks did not end there. While proclaiming the right to secede, Lenin also appealed to the nationally oppressed to join in an alliance with the working class of Russia in the struggle to overthrow capitalism, landlordism and imperialism, including their own national variant.
64. The Bolshevik government also declared its support for the rights of the peoples of the southern and eastern empire, whilst calling on them to support the revolution:

“Muslims of Russia, Tatars of the Volga and the Crimea, Kirgiz and Sarts of Siberia and Turkestan, Chechens and Mountaineers of the Caucasus, and all you whose mosques and customs have been trampled underfoot by the Tzars and the oppressors of Russia. Your beliefs and usages, your national and cultural institutions are henceforth free and inviolable. Organise your national life in complete freedom. You have that right. Know that your rights, like those of all the peoples of Russia, are under the powerful safeguard of the revolution and its organs, the Soviets of workers, soldiers, and peasants. Lend your support to this revolution and to its government.“

65. The Bolsheviks did not advocate separatism. While standing against national oppression and the coercion of nations, and supporting the right of nations to self-determination, the Bolsheviks explained that the creation of new nation states would not be a solution to the problems of the working class and the peasantry of the oppressed nations. The creation of small independent states on a capitalist basis would inevitably be dominated by the larger imperialist states. Instead, the Bolsheviks stood for the unity of the toilers of all countries.
66. A debate developed inside the Bolsheviks on the relationship between the various new workers’ states, especially after the overthrow of capitalism and landlordism in Ukraine, Georgia, Byelorussia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Lenin and Trotsky both stood for the closest alliance, that is a federation, between the workers’ states, but on a voluntary, free and equal basis. Lenin would not tolerate any nation, especially Russia, having any special privileges. The powers held at federal level would be agreed democratically between the constituent nations. At the height of the civil war, on 1 June 1919, an agreement was concluded between Russia and Ukraine which united the armies of the two workers’ states within a unified military command. In his Military Writings Trotsky commented: “This arrangement will remain in full force until the Ukrainian Soviet authorities tell us that the bond is severed.”
67. Lenin’s position on the relations between Russia and the Ukraine was summed up in the ‘Letter to Workers and Peasants of Ukraine’ on 28 December 1918:

“The independence of the Ukraine has been recognised by the… RSFSR. It is therefore self-evident that only the Ukrainian workers and peasants themselves can and will decide at their All-Ukraine Congress of Soviets whether the Ukraine shall amalgamate with Russia, or whether she shall remain a separate and independent republic, and, in the latter case, what federal ties shall be established between that republic and Russia.” He continued: “We want a voluntary union of nations – a union which precludes coercion of one nation by another – a union founded on complete confidence, on a clear recognition of brotherly love, on absolutely brotherly consent.”

68. He concluded:

“The question of the demarcation of frontiers now, for the time being –for we are striving towards the complete abolition of frontiers– is a minor one, it is not fundamental or important. In this matter we can afford to wait, and must wait, because the national distrust among the broad mass of peasants and small owners is often extremely tenacious, and haste might only intensify it, in other words, jeopardise the cause of the complete and ultimate unity… “Whatever the boundaries of the Ukraine and Russia maybe, whatever may be the forms of their mutual state relationships, that is not so important; that is a matter in which concessions can and should be made, in which one thing, or another, or a third may be tried – the cause of the workers and peasants, of the victory over capitalism, will not perish because of that.”

69. Lenin’s was only one of three positions inside the Bolshevik Party on this question. Stalin advocated direct rule from Moscow, and the integration of all the workers states into one unitary state. Another tendency advocated the complete independence of Ukraine, with no links whatsoever with Russia.
70. There are conditions in which the right of self-determination comes second and other needs of the working class or the revolution, nationally or internationally, take priority. For example, the Bolsheviks decided to invade Poland after the failed attack of the Polish army against them, aiming at the overthrow of the workers’ state. The Bolsheviks did not stop at the border but proceeded to invade Poland, in the hope that the Polish working class and layers of the peasantry would rally to the side of the invading Red Army and establish a Polish Soviet regime, but that did not happen. The decision was taken by majority. Lenin defended it against Trotsky’s opposition. Later Lenin took the position that it was a mistake.
71. The Bolsheviks not only granted state independence to the various nations of the former Tzarist Empire, but also granted national states or autonomy to national, ethnic and religious groups. This took the form of autonomous republics for national groupings, such as the Volga Germans and the Tatars. The definition of which groups were entitled to minority rights was broad, and famously included Jews living within the boundaries of the former Czarist Empire. The Jews were not a nation as defined in the 1913 pamphlet but nevertheless were granted land for a homeland in the Soviet Far East.
72. Some years later Trotsky commented on this initiative:

“But that does not mean that I have the right to be blind to the Jewish problem which exists and demands a solution. “The friends of the USSR” are satisfied with the creation of Birobidjan. I will not stop at this point to consider whether it was built on a sound foundation and what type of regime existed there (Birobidjan cannot help reflecting all the vices of bureaucratic despotism). But not a single progressive thinking individual will object to the USSR designating a special territory for those of its citizens who feel themselves to be Jews, who use the Jewish language in preference to all others, and who wish to live as a compact mass.

It may be presumed that a socialist democracy will not resort to compulsory assimilation. It may very well be that within two or three generations the boundaries of an independent Jewish republic, as of many other national regions, will be erased. I have neither time nor desire to meditate on this. Our descendants will know better than we what to do. I have in mind a transitional historical period when the Jewish “question” as such, is still acute and demands adequate measures from a world federation of workers’ states”.^[17]

73. This is just one example of the flexible approach adopted by the Bolsheviks in power, to the “labyrinthine and complex but at the same time extremely important form of class struggle” which is the national question.
74. In the 1930s Trotsky engaged in discussions with the American Trotskyists organized in the Socialist Workers Party on the question of self-determination for the black population in the southern states. He argued that the position of Marxists should be determined by the aspirations and the demands of the black population themselves. If they wished for a separate state within determined geographical boundaries Marxists should support such a demand. When Trotsky raised his position, there was no question that black people in the southern states met the 1913 criteria for nationhood, but nevertheless he was prepared to go as far as to raise the right of self-determination. His position was not dissimilar to the position he took over the question of the Jewish autonomous homeland in the USSR.

In Summary: The Right to Self-Determination

75. The general programme of Marxism on the national question advances the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination. However, as Lenin explained a programme cannot be put above place and time: “There can be no question of the Marxists of any country drawing up their national programme without taking account of all the historical and concrete state conditions“. We apply the method of Marxism to the national question after a thorough discussion of each concrete situation.
76. At no time is it permissible to put forward the slogan of the right to self-determination without raising the class composition of national political movements and in particular the class character of those who lead such movements. In Lenin’s words the right to self-determination must always be “subordinated to the interests of the class struggle”.
77. However, to baldly state that this is the case is an empty, and potentially dangerous, formula. It must be tied to a nuanced approach to the consciousness of the masses and in particular, the consciousness of the working class. We must be alert to the necessity of providing an outlet for the genuine national grievances of the masses without ever giving succor to national chauvinism or offering political support to nationalist ideas or nationalist forces.
78. For Marxists the formulation of the right to self-determination is not an end in itself but is designed to separate workers and other oppressed layers from political nationalism. The slogan of self-determination should not be applied in a formalistic and rigid manner. In particular it should never be used in a way which, far from separating workers from political nationalism, actually works to bolster nationalism, and national divisions. At no time is it permissible to put forward the slogan of the right to self-determination without raising the class composition of national political movements and in particular the class character of those who lead such movements. For Lenin,

“Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism – such are the two irreconcilably hostile slogans that correspond to the two great class camps throughout the capitalist world and express two policies (more than that – two world outlooks) in the national question” and “Whoever wants to serve the proletariat must unite the workers of all nations and fight bourgeois nationalism, ‘home’ and foreign, unswervingly”.

79. Whilst Marxists support the right to self-determination of oppressed peoples, such a right should be understood as a negative demand. We stand with Lenin when he argued in Critical Remarks on the National Question:

“That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving any guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation.”

80. In our programme we stand with Lenin against national privileges, and all forms of national oppression:

“In order that different nations may freely and peacefully live in harmony, or separate one from the other when it suits them, and set up different States—complete democracy is necessary, and this is being fought for by the working class… Not a single privilege for any nation or any language! Not the slightest oppression of or unfairness to national minorities! These are the principles of workers’ democracy”. ^[18]

81. The approach taken by Lenin and the Bolsheviks remains the approach for today, but it is important to stress that no ready-made programme tailored to all situations can be found in the writings of Lenin. Our programme and demands on the national question must be related to concrete circumstances, to reality, and to the consciousness of all layers, especially of the working class. Objective conditions change, especially in this epoch of “perma-crisis”, and consciousness changes, for all layers. The consciousness of the working class is of especial importance in all our calculations and plays a determining role in the phraseology we use in our programme above all else. In a changing world we must re-evaluate and fine tune our demands. But we do so with the lodestone of Marxism as our guide.
82. What we take from Lenin and from Marxism generally, is a method. Our method, our analysis can help unlock the complexities of the national question and help us find our way through the “labyrinth”. Without a method, based on the foundations of Marxism, historical materialism, dialectical materialism, and Marxist economics, we are lost.
83. Lenin stressed the need to be concrete, to view things as they are, as they have arisen and as they are developing:

“The categorical requirement of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits and, if it refers to a particular country (e.g. the national programme for a given country) that account be taken of the specific features distinguishing that country from others in the same historical epoch.”

84. Much of the left deals in abstractions and refuses to engage in actual circumstances. As a result, many have adopted a left nationalist approach. In contrast we are internationalists.
85. Whilst the development of the nation state, a product of capitalism, has helped take society forward in the past, modern productive techniques have far outstripped the limitations of national boundaries. The regional markets which capitalism has created in their spheres of influence –Europe, North America and Asia–are still not large enough to satisfy the productive appetites of modern corporations. Modern capitalism is both national and supra-national. It simultaneously elevates national differences to its own ends and supersedes such differences in its search for profit. It both defends national particularities (national low tax regimes for example) and the need for international rules (when they work in the favour of the rapacious oligarch).
86. The nation state is outmoded from the point of view of the destructive appetites of production for profit. It is also outmoded from the perspective of the future. A harmonious and socialised development which protects the climate, environment and eco-systems of the world, whilst providing a safe and secure future for all, will be based on a world plan of production. The nation state and private property together have provided the growth in productive forces which provide the basis of socialism.
87. The starting point of our programme is the need for the unity of the working class of all races, tribes, religions and nations, both within the boundaries of existing states and across all boundaries.
88. We reject the fundamental assumption of nationalism – that I have more in common with my fellow national citizen than I do with the citizens of another nation. We recognise that within every capitalist nation there are two distinct groups – the ruling class and the working class on the other, with various other strata in between. In terms of mutual interest, lifestyle and broad culture (increasingly determined by the shared experiences brought about by the digital age) the working class of one country have far more in common with the working class of every country, than they do with their own rulers. If this were true when Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, it is many more times true now. We argue for the international solidarity between workers, not the national solidarity of the exploited with their exploiters.
89. The advanced sections of the working class understand an appeal for class solidarity and internationalism, but this layer is narrower than over the last decades. In addition, in any situation where national oppression is the reality of working people it will be necessary to develop a programme which addresses the aspirations of the oppressed masses but simultaneously points to the need for international workers solidarity, including solidarity between workers of the oppressed nation and the oppressor nation.
90. Marxists must demonstrate in practice that we stand opposed to all national oppression and are the firmest advocates of the rights of nationalities and of all minorities within any state. Hence the need for a programme of democratic demands; against oppression, against the suppression of language and other aspects of national culture. But we must go further and include the right to self-determination: the right of a national minority within a state to secede from that state and establish itself as an independent nation.
91. While nationalism itself is ultimately divisive it has two quite distinct aspects. The nationalism of the right-wing is not the same as the nationalism of an oppressed minority (or nation). A fascist or far-right nationalist is expressing an exclusionary and expansionist form of nationalism. A Palestinian in a refugee camp is striving for a homeland for their people and is expressing an aspiration for freedom and for a better life. The mass national liberation movements of the twentieth century have been one of the greatest engines of (positive) historical change.
92. Within every national movement there are conflicting class elements. On the one side is the nationalism of the emerging bourgeois ruling elite which wants to establish a nation state, ending in the exploitation of its own working class and of other national minorities. On the other side is the nationalism of the oppressed who struggle for freedom from domination and a better life. A Marxist programme supports the progressive elements in national movements but rejects all backward features. As already stated, we adopt a negative programme. We are against the oppression of culture, language, and nationality without elevating any culture, language or nationality over any other.
93. The aim of this largely negative programme is to say to those who look to nationalism as a solution that it is the working class who are the only real guarantors of their national and democratic rights as well as their economic liberation. Its intent is not to promote nationalism, but to open up class divisions in national movements, to develop class unity and to promote the class struggle.
94. The right to self-determination means basically the right to secede from a state. Marxists do not apply this right to each and every minority but to historically evolved communities, who have a distinct sense of national identity and who have or could have the territorial basis to realise themselves as a nation. The issue of whether or not such a state would be economically viable is not key. No small or even medium-sized state is independently fully viable in this age of multinational corporations and global finance.
95. Upholding the right to secede does not necessarily mean that we advocate secession from existing states-it will depend on many factors whether we do so. In relation to colonies or territories occupied by foreign armies it is a different matter. Under such circumstances Marxists stand unequivocally for independence and for the withdrawal of imperialist troops. For example, Trotsky demanded of the Republican government during the Spanish civil war that it issue a decree guaranteeing Morocco its independence.
96. When we are considering the question of a national minority within the boundaries of an existing centralised state, for example Basques and Catalans in Spain and the Scottish and Welsh in Britain, the question is more complex. We have a responsibility to point to the pitfalls of independence, especially when we are based among the subject nationality. While dealing sympathetically with the national aspirations of the people we need to counter illusions that capitalist independence will be an answer to their problems. And we must point to the dangers of the unity that exists between the working class of the existing state being broken. Needless to say, we support the right of self-determination of these people (Basques, Catalans, Scots, Welsh) when they demand it.
97. The idea that a national problem would be solved by secession is most often also an illusion. Instead, new problems will emerge. This does not mean that in every case Marxists uphold the right to secede but argue against its implementation in practice in every case. Our position will depend on the concrete situation. And our position may change over time, as it has for Scotland. When the desire for independence has achieved a majority among the working class, and is firm, we would have to consider going further and raising independence.
98. This would be reflected in our programme but also in our activity. We would have to not just advocate, but also struggle, in both parts of the existing state for independence, but linking it to the idea of a socialist federation. Whilst Marxists in general defend the right to self-determination, we do not in general advocate secession or the formation of new nation states, but there are certain circumstances in which we do. One example is the demand of the Kurdish people, currently imprisoned within four nation states, for an independent homeland. Another is the issue of an independent nation state for the Palestinian people.
99. It would of course be impossible to take up all regions where there are national problems of different kinds. In what follows we take up some examples of national questions, apart from the ones already developed, either because of their importance and the lessons they provide or because of the involvement of forces linked to ISp, in an attempt to elaborate on the issues more concretely and go into greater depth. Also, at the end of the document we present a list for further reading from articles on our website.
    
    

Palestine

100. We argue for socialism as the only way to solve the national problem. The right of self-determination of the Palestinian people can only take form as an independent socialist Palestinian state. We are at the same time opposed to any ideas of the destruction of Israel as a national state (of course we’d be in favor of destroying the “bourgeois state” or the “Zionist state”, but we do not use such terminology because it is confusing) as propagated by sections of the Left. We support the right of Israeli Jews to have their own national state. Of course, we would like to see the two people living peacefully next to each other, without any borders between them. But as things stand now that does not seem possible – rather, Marx’s expression “separation and then federation” is relevant also here. In other words what would be correct to argue for today, would be two socialist states, one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis. This means a redrawing of existing boundaries since a viable Palestinian state would also have to include those Palestinian areas of Israel where a majority would opt to join it.
101. The alternative of a single socialist state –now widely supported on the left– would, for Palestinians, fall short of their aspiration for a land of their own. Whilst we support the ultimate aim of a coming together which implies a single state, and while we recognize that of course the final form and structure of the state/states will be decided by the Palestinian and Israeli working classes, at present our programme must accept the reality of division. Of course, we also put forward the idea of a socialist federation of the entire region – when new states are formed, we argue for the closest possible association between states.

The Kurdish Question

102. The Kurdish national question is one of the most enduring and explosive in the world today. It concerns tens of millions of Kurds divided between four states –Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria– plus a large diaspora. The borders that partition Kurdistan were shaped by the defeat of the post-World War I revolutionary wave and by imperialist deals such as the Sykes–Picot Agreement and the Treaty of Lausanne. From the start, Kurds were denied self-determination and each of the new regimes instead relied on repression and occasional concessions to their Kurdish populations. This makes the Kurdish question a concentrated example of the national question under capitalism: unfinished democratic tasks, deep national antagonisms and the need for an independent working-class programme.
103. In all four states Kurds have faced national oppression: bans and restrictions on language and culture, forced assimilation, discrimination and military repression whenever national movements were organised. In Turkey, even the existence of a distinct Kurdish people was officially denied for decades. In Iraq, policies culminated in the Anfal campaign (late-1980s genocidal operation) and the massacre in Halabja (1988) where chemical weapons were used. In Iran, Kurdish uprisings under both the Pahlavi monarchy and the Islamic Republic have been crushed. In Syria, the Ba’ath regime combined Arabisation with stripping many Kurds of citizenship. At the same time, millions of Kurds have become part of the urban working class, sharing workplaces and neighbourhoods with Turkish, Arab and Persian workers – a material basis for united class struggle that has repeatedly been undermined by nationalist, religious and chauvinist leaderships.
104. In all four countries, imperialist powers –above all the United States, but also the European Union states and Russia– have instrumentalised Kurdish aspirations: encouraging uprisings when this weakens a rival regime, then abandoning the Kurds when alliances shift; arming Kurdish forces as proxies against jihadist organisations such as ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) while maintaining strategic ties to the states that oppress them.
105. Marxists oppose both the repression carried out by regional ruling classes and the cynical manipulation by imperialism. We reject any strategy that treats Washington, Moscow, Brussels, Tehran, Ankara, Baghdad or Damascus as reliable guarantors of Kurdish rights.
106. Our programme on the Kurdish question therefore includes:

• Full and unconditional democratic and national rights for the Kurdish people – use of the Kurdish language in all areas of life, cultural development, independent organisation, freedom of expression and political representation, an end to militarisation, village destruction and forced displacement, and the release of political prisoners.
• Support for the right to self-determination for the Kurds, including the right to a united and independent Kurdistan, if this is the conscious, democratic choice of the Kurdish masses. We do not counterpose abstract “unity” or “territorial integrity” to the concrete aspirations of an oppressed people.
• Building independent, democratic mass organisations of workers and the poor, Kurdish and non-Kurdish, in workplaces, neighbourhoods and educational institutions, capable of uniting national and social demands. We favour united-front action with Kurdish organisations against oppression while preserving our political independence and openly discussing the class limits of their leaderships.
• A perspective of a voluntary socialist federation of the Middle East, in which different arrangements are possible –independent Kurdish state(s), federated units, cross-border autonomous regions– to be decided freely by the peoples themselves.

107. Thus, our approach is neither to trail behind bourgeois-nationalist forces nor to downplay the reality of national oppression in the name of an abstract “class unity”. We start from the lived experience of Kurdish workers, peasants, women and youth, defend all their rights, and argue that only the common struggle of all the exploited and oppressed of the region, armed with a socialist programme, can secure those rights in a lasting way.

Cyprus

108. Cyprus is another one of the unresolved problems under capitalism, as is the general antagonism between Greece and Turkey, of which the Cyprus problem is part. There is no prospect of a solution to the national problem of the island that has kept the two communities separated since 1974, when Turkiye invaded and captured close to 40% of the island. And there is no prospect of a solution to the Greek-Turkish antagonism which covers a huge range of issues (apart from Cyrpus), from the Aegean Sea, to Eastern Mediterranean, the Balkans and the Middle East in general.
109. In relation to Cyprus, it’s quite clear that the ruling classes on both sides of the island, Turkish Cypriot (T/C) in the north and Greek Cypriot (G/C) in the south, have concluded that they prefer to stay separate than “unify” the island in any kind of federal or confederal solution. The T/C ruling class, following the line of Erdogan in Turkiye, make clear that the only “solution” to the Cyprus problem is the creation of two separate states on the island. The G/C side, with the support of the Greek (mainland) ruling class, pretends to want a solution, as a tactical option in order to “expose” Turkiye as an occupying force that refuses to abide by “international law” and UN resolutions. In reality all their actions indicate that they prefer to have their own state on the south of the island rather than have some common federal structure with the T/C, that would force them to share state power with their enemy. Sharing power with the T/C ruling class means that the G/C capitalists will have to make compromises and concessions to enemy capitalists and this is something no capitalist ruling class wants; it means a restriction of their freedom to decide on the best ways to serve their profits and geopolitical interests. In the context of the general antagonism between Greece and Turkey in the region, power sharing in a federal state can easily lead to paralysis and instability which could then be escalated to military confrontation. This is what happened in the 1960s, after the island’s independence, and led to the collapse of the power-sharing structure established by the 1960 independence constitution and then to the Turkish invasion of 1974.
110. The situation is entirely different for the working class and the organisations of the Left. They are the only forces that speak in the name of one common island for both communities. In words, but only in words, this is supported even by the reformist Left – AKEL in the south and CTP in the north (both ex pro-soviet, Stalinist parties). This is a reflection of the class character of the problem – only the working class can provide the basis for a solution. However, when both AKEL and CTP were in government in the past period they failed to show any progress in bringing the two communities closer to a solution; the reason being that both parties, being reformist, are in no way willing to clash with the ruling class of their side.
111. G/C Marxists, in their effort to counter capitalist propaganda and to build bridges towards the T/C working class, need to include in their programme the right of the T/C to self-determination. It seems a bit contradictory, on the surface, given the fact that the G/C can argue that they are the nationality which is being suppressed by the army and ruling class of mainland Turkiye. However, recognizing the right of self-determination (RSD) of the T/C is absolutely necessary for G/C to be able to win the confidence of the T/C, who in the case of a solution of the problem, which is based on the concept of one common state, will find themselves in the position of a minority (as used to be the case up until 1974).
112. The T/C anticapitalist Left, on the other hand, are already arguing for the Turkish army to leave the island and for a solution that will unite the two communities on the island. In this way the T/C anticapitalist Left are defending the RSD of the G/C against the Turkish ruling class. The only hope for a solution to the problem lies in the strengthening of the forces of Marxism on the island, based on the unity of the G/C and T/C working classes and poor layers. The concrete structure of the state is a secondary issue as long as fraternal relations of the two communities are established: it can be a unitary state, a unitary state with fully autonomous minority enclaves, a federal or a confederal state – this is something to be decided by the two communities under conditions of workers’ power and a socialist society.

Greece and Turkiye

113. Hopes among sections of the ruling class or reformist parties that the tensions between Greece and Turkey could gradually cool down, based on the further development of economic and trade relations, have been disappointed, as was predicted by Marxists in Greece, Turkey and Cyprus. The two countries came close to war on a number of occasions, and have been among the biggest spenders on military armaments in NATO and internationally.
114. Turkiye is questioning parts of the Aegean Sea, including many islands (about 150) that Greece considers as Greek; it is continuing with the occupation of nearly 40% of Cyprus; it is questioning the right of the Cyprus government to exploit hydrocarbons in the sea bed around Cyprus and through the latter’s agreements with Israel, etc. Greece claims its right to expand its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles, but if that takes place the Aegean as a whole will become a Greek sea. This will never be accepted by Turkiye, who has described such a move as a “casus belli”. The Cyprus government wants to exploit hydrocarbons in the surrounding sea bed, but without giving rights to the T/C in the north of the island. Greece (and Cyprus) belong to an alliance formed in the last 1-2 decades with Israel and the US, which started from common interests in the extraction of hydrocarbons in the Eastern Mediterranean, and is rapidly and significantly expanding onto the military front. Turkiye and Israel belong to different camps in the Middle East conflicts – Turkey supports, in words, the Palestinian people’s rights and the new Islamic regime in Syria, whilst Israel is determined to crush the Palestinian people and is building alliances with the Druze and the Kurds in Syria who are opposed to the regime. The antagonism between the two is so intense that some analysts claim that Turkey will take the position of Iran in its conflict with Israel – this is an exaggeration but it shows how far things have gone. Greece and Turkiye are also competing in the Balkans for economic penetration. Apart from economic factors, Turkiye is exploiting the fact that sections of the Balkan people are Muslims while Greece is exploiting the fact that other sections are Orthodox Christians. This adds of course to the flames of national and religious antagonism and fanaticism in the region.
115. Both countries are armed to the teeth, in a race that has been going on for decades with Turkey and Greece being in the top 3 countries in NATO as regards “defence” spending to GDP, for most of the time (the other one being the USA). In this race Turkiye has a clear advantage, for a number of reasons: it has about 9 times the population of Greece and 5 times the Greek GDP, it has an army experienced in battle in the many war fronts in the Middle East (especially in the Kurdish areas, in Turkiye, Iraq and Syria) and finally it has a dynamic arms industry. The narrative developed by the Greek ruling class (together with the Greek Cypriot one) that entry into the EU would provide support against “Turkish aggression” has been completely exposed. The main European powers take different positions depending on their interests (and arms trade) – France has a pro-Greek inclination, Germany and Britain a pro-Turkish one.
116. One has to be naïve to think that these conflicting interests can somehow be resolved peacefully within the context of capitalism by the two ruling classes. Things go from escalation to escalation. A military confrontation in the future cannot be excluded. Only the working class can put an end to this – Greek and Turkish workers have nothing to divide between themselves; they have no conflicting strategic or economic interests. But there is no leadership in the Left to provide an internationalist perspective. Actually, the last time the reformist Left (SYRIZA) was in power, that is Tsipras in the period 2015 to 2019, relations between Greece and Israel received a new forward push and deterioration of relations with Turkey continued as normal.
117. Once again, the building of new left forces, of a socialist-revolutionary-Marxist character, is the only way to see a solution to the conflicting interests. A socialist federation of Turkiye, Greece and Cyprus, would be the natural development once the working class is in power in the three countries, in the context of course of the broader region, the Middle East, the Balkans and the European continent.

Nigeria

118. Nigeria’s national question has remained unresolved since independence in 1960, leading to political instability, recurring ethnic tensions, and periodic calls for increased rights for ethnic minorities or self-determination and secession. The fundamental issue is how can a state composed of diverse nations, each with its own history, culture, and aspirations, have a single political framework that is just, equitable, and democratic? The current situation is rooted in the role of British colonialism, which created Nigeria in pursuit of its own economic and strategic interests. In 1914, British imperialism merged distinct regions into what became modern Nigeria without the consent of the peoples involved. This artificial union ignored deep differences among ethnic nationalities such as the Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa-Fulani, Ijaw, and many others. After independence, instead of renegotiating this arrangement, successive governments—civilian and military—centralized power, often favoring certain ethnic groups over others.
119. The call for an independent Biafra is once again being raised. This is a reflection of the enduring problems facing many in the South East. An independent Biafra represents the prospect of justice, dignity, and self-rule for some. It also raises concerns about economic viability, regional fragmentation, and the risks of renewed conflict. This tension underscores the central dilemma: whether Nigeria can be restructured to accommodate its diversity, or whether its contradictions will continue to generate centrifugal pressures.
120. Any attempt at secession that is not combined with a mass movement to guarantee democratic rights (including for minorities within any new state) and an end to capitalism will end in conflict. The establishment of a new capitalist state will mean replacing one form of elite rule with another. Without socialism, a sovereign Biafran state would represent a dead end for working people. Under socialism, key sectors of the economy would be nationalized under democratic workers’ control and management, allowing for a planned use of resources to meet social needs rather than private profit. Our Nigerian affiliate, the Revolutionary Socialist Movement (RSM) defends the right to self-determination up to and including secession if democratically decided, while firmly advocating the unity of Nigeria under a workers’ and poor people’s government based on socialist policies.

Scotland

121. An example from recent decades of the flexibility that is required around a concrete question is the question of Scottish independence. In the 1970s it would not have been correct to advocate or argue for the separation of Scotland from the UK but instead emphasize the importance of a unified British working class, with shared class organizations (the trade unions and the trade union linked British Labor Party). The disappointment and disillusionment resulting from the failure of the Labour governments of the 1960s and the 1970s to deliver for working people fostered an increase in national sentiment. Support for Scottish independence grew over several decades and took on a more working-class character. The previous support for Scottish nationalism was based on a rural layer but began to be supplemented by increasing support for separation amongst younger working-class people in the urban areas who were seeking a better society, and who saw independence as a vehicle for change.
122. In the late 1970s the question of devolution, or partial autonomy within the United Kingdom, became a major issue and it was correct for Marxists to take a position in favour of devolution (this caused intense debates in the Left – it’s indicative that in the then section of the CWI, the ‘Militant’, a number of prominent cadres resigned as a result of the CWI changing its position). In a 1978 referendum devolution was passed, but not by the required 60% majority, and was therefore not implemented. Between 1979 and 1993 Scotland voted against the Tories at every election and overwhelmingly for the Labour Party. Deindustrialisation and a sense that the wealth generated by North Sea oil was dwindling led to a growth of nationalism from the 1980s into the 21st Century, which was magnified by the anti-working-class actions of the New Labour government from 1997 onwards. In this context, it was correct for Marxists to move from a position of pro-devolution to a pro-independence position, albeit qualified as a call for an independent socialist Scotland. It would be necessary of course to put, at the same time, major emphasis on the importance of a united working-class movement, including united trade union organizations, and to defend the gains won by this movement (especially the National Health Service). Furthermore, the emphasis on an independent socialist Scotland tends to suggest that independence in itself will be beneficial, so it should be balanced by sufficient emphasis on the traditional Marxist position that larger unitary states are in the interests of the working class.
123. Scotland is not an ‘oppressed nation’ in the classical sense, of the times of Marx and the Bolsheviks. The Scottish ruling class is integrated into the wider British ruling class and without any separate interests. The Scottish working-class face class oppression, just as workers are oppressed everywhere. The Scottish working-class are arguably politically oppressed in that they are denied a left government by the majority vote of English voters. There is little or no evidence of the oppression of Scottish culture, including language and in this sense, the nationalism of the Scottish working class is merely an expression of their desire for social change, which they have come to believe is impossible within a unitary United Kingdom. They look to an independent Scotland and draw the negative conclusion that the English working class are less left wing than the Scottish working class. Having said all the above, we should clarify that Marxists defend the right of self-determination of the Scottish people, at the same time explaining that separation in itself would not solve the problems faced by the Scottish working class, and raising the necessity of joint struggle with the rest of the workers in England, Wales and Ireland, both north and south.

Taiwan

124. The national question in Taiwan can become, potentially, one of the most explosive issues in international developments in the next years. China considers Taiwan as its own territory, and will not make any concessions on it. The US on the other hand is arming Taiwan, which has entered an era of intense militarization, and is encouraging it to move in the direction of independence, without however formally stating so. The Biden administration, in the context of the US-China antagonism, was in fact more provocative compared to Trump, on this issue. Among other things, in September 2022 Biden stated that if China attacked Taiwan the US would enter the war to defend Taiwan. Trump seems more restrained in relation to arming Taiwan after his summit with Xi on 13-15 May 2026, but tensions remain high.
125. What is clear in relation to the Taiwanese national question, is that it is impossible to see any solution to it on the basis of capitalism. Taiwan is extremely important to both sides, China and the US/West. Not only for reasons of prestige or of the strategic position of the island, being very close to China and aligned to the West, but also for economic reasons: Taiwan hosts the world’s most advanced chip manufacturing plant on the planet, TSMC. TSMC manufactures about 90% of the world’s most advanced semi-conductors – which are vital in nearly everything that is produced today and even more so in the military sphere.
126. The last 3 elections, since 2016 have been won by the pro-Western DPP (Democratic Progressive Party). This reflects among other things the opposition of the Taiwanese masses to the Chinese regime. Despite the fact that the big majority of the Taiwan people are of Chinese origin, in the preceding decades consciousness has been changing in the direction of a Taiwanese national consciousness. Clearly things are not black and white and not settled once and for all. It’s indicative that the leader of the main opposition party, KMT (which follows similar, capitalist neoliberal policies as the ruling DPP) visited China between April 7^th and 12^th 2026 stressing the need for good relations, in opposition to the current policy of DPP.
127. Marxists need to take the mood and consciousness of the Taiwanese popular masses into consideration when formulating a position on the national question. The majority of the population are opposed to a unification with China because it means they will lose all the democratic rights they have in Taiwan: many more liberties in their personal life compared to what exists in China, including the freedom to create or take part in political formations and/or social movements, the freedom to create trade unions, youth organisations, independent campaigns, etc. It also seems that a majority of the population today would choose to describe themselves as Taiwanese rather than Chinese, despite speaking the same language. But, on the other hand, there is no mood to fight for national independence and against Chinese aggression. Actually, the vast majority of the population would be opposed to any kind of adventurism that would risk the peace and stability they have in their lives, in the name of defending national interests (see for example paragraphs 120 – 122 in the perspectives document of the 2^rd conference of the ISp, 2024).
128. The simple fact is that neither US nor Chinese imperialism will respect the right of self-determination of the Taiwanese people. The US would be willing to push hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese youths into the nightmare of war, with the sole aim of weakening China. And the Chinese regime will never bother to ask the Taiwan masses if they want to voluntarily unify with China or not.
129. This clarifies the class character of the national question of Taiwan. Marxists should support the right of self-determination of the Taiwanese people, with the understanding that capitalism will never respect this right. This right can only be realized if the working class of Taiwan and China work together for a common socialist future – in the context of which the issue of a border or of a national identity is a less important issue. There could be unification, on the basis of a voluntary agreement and no coercion, or if the Taiwanese masses opt for a separate state, there could be a socialist federation between the two.
130. Many on the left take a position of supporting the Chinese regime in the conflict over Taiwan, because of its opposition to Western imperialism. This neglects entirely the rights of the Taiwanese people – and creates either the conditions for war or a time bomb for the future. Marxists support the right of self-determination of the Taiwanese masses, fight for the building of fraternal class relations between the Chinese and Taiwanese workers and youth and fight against the militarization of Taiwan society encouraged by the US and its allies.

In Conclusion

131. Our ability to maintain an independent class position on the national question is a cornerstone of our work. We understand that the working class is the only class which can provide a solution to all the problems facing humankind, including unresolved national questions everywhere.
132. We cannot afford mistakes on key aspects of our tactics, slogans and programme on the national question. This is why it is important that we engage in a broad discussion on the national question in all its manifestations. We hope that this document will assist activists in the international workers’ movement in finding a way forward when considering complex national questions everywhere. We will continue to publish material on specific national questions and invite others to contribute material to our ongoing debates.

______________________

[1] Karl Marx, The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859

[2] in ‘Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’

[3] MECW, Vol.3, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law, (Lawrence & Wishart 1975) 29. and at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/ch02.htm

[4] Karl Marx ‘Marx To Hermann Jung In London’, 20 November 1865, in MECW , Vol 42, (Lawrence & Wishart 1987) 200. And at https://marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_11_20a.htm

[5] Documents of the First International. The General Council of the First International, 1864-1866. The London Conference 1865. Minutes, published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, for the Centenary of the First International in 1964, pp. 355-356; at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1866/l-echo-letter.htm

[6] MECW Vol. 24 (Lawrence & Wishart 1989) 57.

[7] Marxism and the National Question, Stalin, 1913.

[8] Marxism and the National Question, Stalin, 1913.

[9] Vladimir I Lenin, ‘The Cadets and “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”’, in VI Lenin, Collected Works, vol 19 (4th ed. Progress Publishers 1977) 525–27]

[10] Vladimir I Lenin, ‘National-Liberalism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination’, in VI Lenin, Collected Works, vol 20 (3rd edn, Progress Publishers 1977) 56–5884]

[11] Vladimir I Lenin, ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’, in VI Lenin, Collected Works, vol 20 (3rd edn, Progress Publishers 1977) 393.

[12] [85] Vladimir I Lenin, ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’, in VI Lenin, Collected Works, vol 20 (3rd edn, Progress Publishers 1977) 393.86]

[13] Vladimir I Lenin, ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’, in VI Lenin, Collected Works, vol 20 (3rd edn, Progress Publishers 1977) 393.87]

[14] Vladimir I Lenin, ‘The Right of Nations to Self-Determination’, in VI Lenin, Collected Works, vol 20 (3rd edn, Progress Publishers 1977) 393.88]

[15] Vladimir I Lenin, ‘Resolution on the National Question’, in VI Lenin, Collected Works, vol 24 (4th edn, Progress Publishers 1977) 302–3.91]

[16] History of the Russian Revolution

[17] Leon Trotsky 1937, Internet Archive (www.marxists.org).

[18] The Working Class & the National Question, Lenin, May 1913.

Further Reading – ISp material

Palestine: Positions of ISp on Palestine and Tag: 2023 Gaza Massacre

Ukraine: ISp Conference: World Perspectives, part 2 – The war in Ukraine and Tag: Ukraine

North Ireland: Debates on Irish Border Poll

Cyprus: 50 years since the coup and invasion- 3 articles on Cyprus and cyprus 

Nigeria: Nigeria’s Unresolved National Question: The Case of Biafra