Slightly Higher Hemaglobin

By Paul Mattick (1959)

Whether welded by ideology, by the objective conditions or by the usual combination of both , Nations are products of a social development. There is no more reason to cherish or curse or tribalism or, for the same reason, a cosmopolitan ideal. The nation is an act for or against which we struggle, according to historical circumstances and their implications for people and, within these populations to different classes.
The modern national state is both product and condition of capitalist development. Capitalism tends to destroy the traditions and national characteristics by extending its production worldwide. However, although the world production, and though the "real" capitalist market is the market global capitalism emerged earlier in some nations than in others, found more favorable conditions in some places, there is more successful, and combined capitalist interests and special with specific domestic needs. "The progressive nations" of the last century were those which produced a rapid capitalist development, "the nations reactionaries" were those where social relations impeded the development of the capitalist mode of production. Because the "near future" belongs to capitalism, because capitalism is the prerequisite of socialism, utopian socialists favored the non- capitalism as opposed to the old social relations of production, and saluted nationalism insofar as it could hasten the development of capitalism. Without openly admitting they were not yet far from accepting capitalist imperialism as a means to end the stagnation and the return of non-capitalist countries, and to guide their development in ways progressive. They were also favorable to the disappearance of small nations unable to develop the economy on a large scale, and their absorption by larger national entities, capable of capitalist development. They argued however small "nations progressive" reactionary against the big countries and whether they were absorbed by them, made common cause with the national liberation movements.
At no time and no opportunity, however, nationalism was seen as a societal goal, he was accepted as an instrument of social progress which in turn would ultimately lead to socialist internationalism. The "capitalist world" of the last century, Western capitalism. The national question arose about the unification of countries like Germany and Italy, the liberation of oppressed nations such as Ireland, Poland, Hungary, Greece and the consolidation of states "synthetic" as the United States. It was also the world of socialism, a limited world, saw the twentieth century. While national issues which agitated the socialist movement in the mid nineteenth century ¬ place were either resolved or well on its way of being and had in all this ceased to have any real importance for the Western socialism, the revolutionary movement twentieth century, expanded the world, raised anew the question of nationalism.
This new nationalism, which shook Western domination and establish the relations of capitalist production and modern industry in areas still underdeveloped, it is still a force "progressive" as was the nationalism of the past? These national aspirations they coincide anything with socialist aspirations? They hasten the end of capitalism by undermining Western imperialism or they inject new life into capitalism by extending to the whole world its mode of production?
The position of socialism of the nineteenth century, towards nationalism was not only to prefer capitalism to more static social systems. Socialists intervened in the bourgeois revolutions democratico who were also nationalists, and they supported the national liberation movements of oppressed peoples because they presented themselves as bourgeois-democratic forms, because in the eyes of the Socialists, the bourgeois-democratic national revolutions n ' were more strictly capitalist revolutions. They could be used, if not install socialism itself, at least to promote the growth of socialist movements and to ensure better conditions.
However, at the end of the century, imperialism, not nationalism, which was the order of the day. German interests "national" had become imperialist interests competing with the other imperialist countries. The "national" interests were those French of the French empire, such as Great Britain were those of the British Empire. Control of the world and sharing control between the major imperialist powers determined the "national". Wars "national" were imperialist wars culminating in World Wars.
is generally considered that the Russian situation at the beginning of Twentieth century was in many respects similar to the revolutionary situation in Western Europe from the mid-nineteenth century. The positive attitude of the first socialist revolution against the national bourgeoisie was based on hope, if not the belief that proletarian element in these revolutions, beyond the limited purpose of the bourgeoisie. For Lenin, the Russian bourgeoisie was no longer able to fulfill its own democratic revolution so that the working class was called to complete the bourgeois revolution and proletarian revolution Through a series of social changes that constitute a "permanent revolution". In a sense, the new situation seemed to repeat on a grander scale, the revolutionary situation in 1848. Instead of old alliances, limited and temporary movements between democratic-bourgeois and proletarian internationalism, there was now global, a set of revolutionary forces of nature as both social and national, should be trained in- beyond their narrow objectives towards proletarian purposes.
An international socialism consists, like Rosa Luxemburg, for example, opposed to "national self-determination" of the Bolsheviks. For her, the existence of independent national governments would not alter the fact that they would be controlled by the imperialist powers since the latter dominated the global economy. Could never be read ¬ ter cons imperialist capitalism, nor weaken, creating new nations, but only between the supra-nationalism capitalist proletarian internationalism. Of course, proletarian internationalism can not stop and has no reason to prevent the movement of national liberation against imperialist domination. These movements belong to the capitalist society, just as imperialism. But "use" these national movements for socialist goals could mean anything but shed their nationalistic movements and turn them into socialist-oriented internationalism.
World War I produced the Russian Revolution, and, whatever his original intentions, it was and remained a national revolution. While she waited for help from abroad it did not brought the revolutionary forces from outside, except in-aid that it was dictated by the interests of Russian nationals. The 2nd World War and its aftermath brought independence to India and Pakistan, the Chinese Revolution, the liberation of South East Asia, and self-determination for some nations in Africa and the Middle East. At first glance, this revival of nationalism contradicts both the position of R. Luxemburg and Lenin on the "national question". Apparently, the era of national liberation is not complete, and it is obvious that the current increasingly strong against imperialism does not serve the purposes socialist revolutionary worldwide.
What really reveals this new nationalism, what are the structural changes in the global capitalist economy and the end of colonialism in the nineteenth century. The "white man's burden" became a burden instead of a real godsend. The profits of colonial decline while the cost of empire is growing. No doubt individuals, corporations and even governments, getting richer by colonial exploitation. But this is more due to special conditions, control of oil resources concentrated, great discoveries uranium deposits, etc. .. rather than the general power to make operations profitable in the colonies and other dependent countries. The exceptional profit rate of the past have now fallen at the rate of profit "normal". When profit is still exceptionally high, it is mainly due to government subsidies. In general, colonialism does not pay, so that is part of the profit principle itself, which invites to reconsider the problem of imperialist domination.
Two world wars have more or less destroyed the old imperialist powers. But they have not brought the end of imperialism, while taking new forms and expressions, maintains the economic and political control of strong nations over the weak. An indirect imperialism seems richer in pro ¬ masses that colonialism of the nineteenth century or the late Renaissance in Russian politics satellites. Naturally, one does not exclude the other, and we see strategic considerations real or imagined wearing the U.S. to control Okinaya, and the angle ¬ land, Cyprus. But in general, indirect control may be greater than direct control, as well as the labor system employee was superior to slave labor. Alone in the Western Hemisphere, America was not an imperialist power in the traditional sense. She made sure the benefit of imperial control over the "dollar diplomacy" by direct military intervention. As the largest capitalist power, America hopes to dominate the way the regions of non-Soviet world.
No European powers is in force today to oppose the complete dissolution of his empire, except with the aid U.S.. But this aid shall submit these nations as their foreign possessions, the penetration and control Americans. Inheriting the abandoning imperialism and its decline, the United States do not feel the need to fly to the rescue of western European imperialism unless such relief does defrauds the Eastern bloc. "The anti-colonialism" is not a U.S. policy deliberately intended to weaken Western allies - although in fact it weakens them - but was chosen in view of strengthening the "¬ Free". It is Certainly, this comprehensive perspective, covering many special interests more closely, resulting in "anti-imperialist" U.S. and its hypocritical nature leads us to think that in opposing imperialism of other nations, America develops his own. Deprived of opportunities
imperialists, Germany, Italy and Japan, have no independent policy. The gradual decline of French and British Empires has made those nations the powers of second order. At the same time, the national aspirations of the less developed and weaker can be achieved only if they fall within the plans of imperialist conquest dominant. Although Russia and the United States share the world supremacy, the smaller countries nevertheless trying to defend their specific interests and influence some policy of the superpowers. The opposition and international contradictions of these two great rivals also allow newly emerging nations like China and India, a degree of independence they could not have reached without it. Under the neck of the green ¬ neutrality, a small nation like Yugoslavia for example, may leave a block of power for return to the other. Less weak independent countries can sustain their independence, as seen through the only major conflict between Russia and the United States.
erosion of Western imperialism, they say, creates a power vacuum in areas previously subjugated. If the vacuum is not filled by the West, it will be by Russia. Of course neither the representatives of "new nationalism" nor the "old imperialism" does not include this kind of assertion, since nationalism replaces imperialism, no gap occurs. What is meant by " vacuum "is that" national self-determination "of underdeveloped countries are allowed to thank you for a" communist aggression "inside and outside, unless the West does not guarantee their independence". In other words, the national self-determination does not include the free choice of its allies, though it sometimes involves a preference for the "protection" of Western powers.

"Independence" of Tunisia and Morocco, for example, is recognized as long as the inde ¬ dence on of France implies loyalty, not against Russia but against the Western bloc dominated by America.

the extent it can still carry the world in two blocks, the national self-determination is an expression of the cold war, a political-military stalemate. But the development trend is towards a world of many nations, each independent and live in safety, but to the disintegration of weak nations is to say to their "integration" in one or block to another. Without doubt, the struggle for emancipation National rivalries within the imperialist countries to enable some exploit the power struggle between East and West. But this fact itself tends to limit their national aspirations since an agreement or a war between East and West would end their ability to maneuver between the two blocs. And while Russia does not hesitate to destroy any attempt at national self-determination in the actual countries that are under his direct control, is ready to support any national self-determination against the Western domination, America claiming self-determination for satellites of Russia, does not hesitate to practice in the Middle East she abhors in Eastern Europe. Despite national revolutions and self-determination, the era of national emancipation is virtually obsolete. These nations can maintain formal independence does not release the economic and political domination of the West. They can not escape that by accepting the supremacy of Russia, by placing himself within the Eastern bloc.
The national revolutions in areas of delayed development view of capitalist modernization are essays by industrialization, or they simply express opposition to foreign capital, either because they tend to change the existing social relations. But while the nationalism of the nineteenth century was an instrument of development of private capital, the nationalism of the twentieth century is essentially a tool for development of state capitalism. And while the nationalism of the last century, created the free world market and the degree of economic independence as possible within the private capitalism, nationalism current door moves to a new world market already disintegrating and destroying this degree of international integration "automatic" mechanism had created the free market.
Behind nationalist movements, there is, of course, the pressure of poverty, which is becoming increasingly volatile with increasing difference between rich and poor nations. The international division of labor as determined by the private capital formation involves the exploitation of the poorest countries by the richest and the concentration of capital in the advanced capitalist countries. The new nationalism is opposed the concentration of capital ¬ finished by the market, so as to ensure indutrialisation of underdeveloped countries. Under current conditions, however, the organization of capitalist production on a national plan to increase its global disruption. Today, private enterprise and government control operate simultaneously in every capitalist country, and worldwide. So there exist side by side the overall competition fiercer, the subordination of private competition to the national competition the most ruthless, and the subordination of the national competition requirements supranational policy blocks.
At the base of national aspirations and imperialist rivalries, is the real need for a global organization of production and distribution, to the benefit of mankind as a whole. First ¬ ment, as the geologist KF Mather noted, because "earth is done much more to be occupied by men organized on a global scale, which can carry up through my entire ¬ free trade in raw materials and finished products, by men who persist in raising barriers between regions, even if these areas are large countries or continents. Secondly because social production can not develop fully, and free men of the need and misery through international cooperation, without regard to national interests. The progress of industrial development is based on interdependence inevitable. If it is not accepted and used for human purposes, a never-ending struggle between nation to imperialist domination, occur as a result of failure to achieve internationally what has been achieved or is in the process of be the national plan ¬ nal: the partial or total elimination of capitalist competition.
Despite the elimination of private capital and its restrictive rules, class antagonisms exist in all countries, following the nationalization of capital has left intact the class relations, it is impossible to escape from international competition; defense of a country and its growing strength really means defense and reproduction of new leadership groups. "The love of the socialist homeland" in communist countries, the desire to get a place as seen in the countries of Governments economy "socialist" and the national self-determination in the countries formerly subjugated, means the existence and the rise of new ruling classes related to the existence of the national state.
While a positive attitude towards nationalism betrays a lack of interest in socialism, the socialist position on nationalism is clearly inefficient as the countries that oppress others. An anti-nationalist intransigence seems, at least indirectly support imperialism. However, imperialism operates through its own springs, independent Socialist attitudes towards nationalism. Moreover, the Socialists have no role in fomenting the struggles for national autonomy, as demonstrated by the movements of "liberation" that arose in the wake of World War II. Contrary to the hopes of the past, nationalism could not be used for socialists and there was not a good strategy to hasten the end of capitalism.
Instead, nationalism destroyed socialism, using it for nationalistic purposes.

This is not the role of socialism to support nationalism, even when it fight imperialism. Fight imperialism without weakening simultaneous ¬ ment nationalism, it is something other than combat some imperialists and support others, because nationalism is necessarily imperialist or illusory. Support Arab nationalism is opposed to Jewish nationalism; support it means fighting against the first because it is impossible to sustain without support nationalism as national rivalries, imperialism and war. Being a good Indian nationalist, is fighting Pakistan, being a true Pakistani, India is hate. Both countries recently "Liberated" are preparing to fight for the disputed territory and submit them to the destructive development of the capitalist war economy.
And so on: "liberate Cyprus from British rule was intended merely to open a new battle for Cyprus between Greeks and Turks do not delete control on western Turkey and Greece. "Liberate" Poland under Russian rule may lead to war with Germany for the "liberation" of the German provinces now dominated by Poland, and new struggles for Polish territories taken by Germany. Independence the real ¬ of Czechoslovakia certainly reopen the fight for the Sudetenland, a struggle which would in turn fight for independence of Czechoslovakia, and perhaps that of the Slovaks who want to separate from the Czechs.
Who should we be? With the Algerians against the French? With the Jews? With the Arabs? With both? Where Jews will they go to make room for Arabs? What will the Arab refugees to stop being an "evil" for the Jews? What do a million French settlers threatened with expropriation and expulsion when the Algerian liberation will be accomplished? Similar questions arise everywhere. ; Jews respond to Jews, Arabs for Arabs, Algerians for Algerians, the French for the French, the Poles for Poles, and so on, so they remain unsolved and insoluble. If that may seem utopian search of international solidarity in the fray of national antagonisms and imperialists, no other way seems open to escape the fratricidal struggles and achieve a global efficiency.
Although socialist sympathies are with the oppressed, they are not nationalistic feeling that arises ¬ doubling but the condition of the oppressed who face both a class of indigenous leaders and foreign leaders. Their national aspirations are part of the aspirations "socialists" because they contain the vain hope of impoverished people who believe they will improve their conditions through national independence. The national self-determination has not emancipated the working classes in advanced countries. It will not do either now in Asia and Africa. National revolutions, the Algerian, for example, do little to help the poorer classes, except the right to share more equitably national prejudices.
Undoubtedly, this is something for Algerians, who suffered a particularly arrogant colonial system. But we can predict possible outcomes of Algerian independence by examining the case of Tunisia and Morocco, where existing social relations have not changed, and where the lives of the exploited classes were not significantly improved.
Unless you are a mere mirage, socialism reborn as an international movement - or not - In all cases, and on the basis of past experience, those who are interested the revival of socialism, must above all emphasize its international character. If can not become a socialist nationalist, it is nonetheless an anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist. However, his struggle against colonialism does not imply endorsement of the principle of national self-determination, but expressed his desire for an international socialist society, a society without exploitation. If the Socialists can not identify with the national struggle, they may as socialists, oppose both nationalism and imperialism. For example, the role of the French Socialists is not fighting for Algerian independence, but to turn France into a socialist society. The struggle for this goal would certainly help the liberation movement in Algeria and anywhere, but this would be a secondary consequence, not the reason for the socialist struggle against imperialist nationalism. In the next stage, Algeria should be "de-nationalized" and integrated into a socialist mode internationally.