Nationalism and Marxism in Eastern Europe

Abstract

This paper analyses the impact of nationalism on communism in Eastern Europe. It argues that the communist idea, by itself, is too narrow, weak and ambiguous to succeed in real life. Left to itself, communism cannot generate a vigorous, effective political system. But, coupled with the simple, encompassing idea of nationalism, comprehensible and convincing to everybody, communism can become an efficacious political force for a while. On the other hand, when nationalism clashes with communism, political tension results that weakens and/or destroys the latter ideology. In fact, communism has to deny its own nature in order to become an efficacious political movement. It resembles a bottle with a false label: the contents differ from that which the label proclaims. The impact of nationalism upon communism has been twofold, depending on circumstances. It can bolster communism among independent nationals, as in Soviet Russia and—for over a generation—in part of Eastern Europe. Or, nationalism can weaken communism in dependent countries, as among the non-independent nationalities of the Soviet Union and—once Soviet military protection was withdrawn—in the eastern bloc states. Nationalism clearly has the capability to either stabilise or destabilise communist polities.

Notes

1. In Kohn's view, nationalism is a state of mind, in which the supreme loyalty of the individual is felt to be due to the nation-state (1965, p. 9).

2. Hugh Seton-Watson argued that the term nationalism had two meanings: one of these meanings is a doctrine about the character, interest, rights and duties of nations. The second is an organised political movement, designed to further the alleged aims and interest of nations (1997, p. 3). See also MacLaughlin (1987, p. 12).

3. On the relation of nationalism to communism regarding Poland, Marx argued that ‘only then, when Poland regains its independence, only when it is able to dispose of itself as an independent nation, will its internal development be resumed, and only then will it be able to participate in the social transformation of Europe. So long as a vital nation is subjugated by invaders, it directs of necessity all its efforts, all its energies to the struggle against a foreign enemy. Its internal life is then so paralysed, that it is impossible for it to work for socialism’ (cited in Talmon, 1981, p. 54). Marx restated his position on Poland's struggle for independence during the January Uprising of 1863, arguing that ‘Either Asiatic barbarism under Muscovite direction, will burst around its head like an avalanche, or else it must re-establish Poland, thus putting twenty million heroes between itself and Asia and gaining a breathing space for the accomplishment of its social regeneration’ (cited in Zwick, 1975, p. 135. See also Zwick, 1971).

4. On the question of Russian nationalism in the defunct Soviet Union, see Pospielovsky, 1984, pp. 71–85; and Dunlop, 1986, pp. 79–97.

5. According to Zwick, ‘nationalism is communism's major source of strength’ (1983, p. 2).

6. Wiadomosci Polskie (Sydney), Easter 1989 and July 1989; and Tygodnik Polski (Melbourne), 15 April 1989.