Re－Thinking Classic Marxist Writers’Explications on Nationalism:on the“Difficult Dialogue between Marxism and Nationalism”〔*〕

Zhang Sannan，Zhang Jianping

Ⅰ．The existence of the problem:difficulty dialogue

Being one of the most influential thoughts，ideologies and movements，studies on nationalism of rheology and contention natures are just unfolding for its great theoretical and practical significance．Among the researches on nationalism，Marxism，widely regarded as one of the far－reaching thoughts of mod-ern times，also has a lot of publications on nationalism．Analyzed from the usual thinking pattern，Marxism should have been universally regarded as an important research school of nationalism．However，“Difficult Dialogue”is a representative opinion regarding the relationship between Marxism and nationalism，as well as classic writers’relative documents because of the marked differences between Marxism and nationalism，and the critical standpoint of Marxism against nationalism．

In exact，rather than the theory of a particular school of thought，“Difficult Dialogue”is the collective term for the opinions and phenomena that evaded，neglected，ridiculed or even criticized classic Marxist writers’statements on nationalism by exaggerating the differences between Marxism and nationalism．

Ronaldo Munck，among western scholars，expresses his opinion by the title of his book，Difficult Dialogue:Marxism and Nationalism，which in a sense became the hallmark of this school of thought．Munck argues that，“ Marxism — an ideology which claims to plot a course for the liberation of humankind—has had singular difficulty in understanding nationalism”，“Essentially，Marxism has no theory of nationalism”，“Marxism and nationalism have sometimes fused in an explosive encounter，but more often the relation between them can only be described as a misencounter．”〔1〕

Isaiah Berlin，a great master of Liberalism，said:“Marx throughout his life understated nationalism as an independent power，which is one of the major weaknesses of his great thought system．”〔2〕Shlomo Avineri，the author of the Nationalism Theory towards a kind of Socialism，also said:“among all the historical phenomena，the researches of Karl Marx on nationalism，nationalism movement and appearance of nation － state are most dissatisfying．”〔3〕In addition，scholars like Craig Calhoun，Montserrat Guibernau and Tom Bottomore also expressed similar ideas．

Some Chinese scholars，like Mr．Wang Xi’en，argued that the opinions of classic Marxist writers on nationalism be reconsidered．〔4〕Undoubtedly，“Difficult Dialogue”is still an extensive practical existence．It seems that wordings like“Marxism and nationalism are non －reconcilable”，“Proletariat can never support the practice of consolidating nationalism”and“be against any forms of nationalism”are insurmountable．〔5〕

As one of the major research producers of nationalism，the Chinese scholars of international politics still remain at the stage of introducing and digesting the research results of western nationalism，almost neglecting Marxism while importing and analyzing nationalism theoretical thoughts．A full understanding of classic Marxist writers’publications about nationalism makes it necessary to comment and analyze the opinion and phenomenon of“Difficult Dialogue”．

Ⅱ．The intersection of two major schools of thought

The key of“Difficult Dialogue”lies in its exaggerating the differences between Marxism and nationalism to the track－type parallel state that the two schools of thought can never interact and dialogue．

Admittedly，Marxism and nationalism have a variety of distinctions．“Human society can be laterally classified into classes and vertically into nations”．〔6〕Marxism classifies human population in class society into the ruling class and ruled class(the bourgeoisie and proletariat in the capitalism period)by applying class analysis method．However，nationalism classifies“self”and“otherness”according to the different national communities(the highest hierarchy is country)by adopting nation(state)viewpoint．Accordingly，in terms of their basic ideas and aspirations，Marxism，governed by proletarian internationalism，regards“Human Liberation”and communism as its highest goal．Nonetheless，starting from safeguarding the interests of the national community，nationalism aims to obtain the independence of its nation －state and corresponding state power．

This difference between Marxism and nationalism is the distinction between human society’s two major schools of thought．Both Marxism and nationalism aim to demand benefits，seek progress and explore emancipation for their corresponding human groups．Both are influential in their respective believers and practitioners，or supporters．

In terms of the practical reality，the supporters of Marxism and nationalism actually have large areas of overlap，which has been neglected by“Difficult Dialogue”．In other words，these overlapped human groups，being supporters of Marxism，harbor the reasonable demands and ideas of nationalism．

In China，describing Chinese people in the international stage using the language of class，Li Ta － chao once called Chinese people a proletariat nation oppressed by western bourgeois and an indispensible part of international proletariat．〔7〕The government the Communist Party of China intended to established“represent workers and farmers，as well as the nation”，〔8〕which is exactly the type of“class－nation”．Abdallah Laroui and Walker Connor called this kind of nationalism as“Class Nationalism”．〔9〕Of course，“Class Nationalism”exists not only in China．Many nation state forms which have mature sense of nationalism “spontaneous behavior”and sense of class“conscious behavior”have this kind of“Class Nationalism”．

Ⅲ．Historical implications:“Long－period Theory”and“Grand Theory”focusing on“Human Liberation”

The classic Marxist writers’explications on nationalism shows us a macro－view of“Long－period Theory”and“Grand Theory”focusing on“Human Liberation”．Surpassed the theories of their predecessors such as Hegel and Feuerbach，and those of their peers，including Hess，Lugar and La Salle，Marx discovered the most essential regulation for human society’s material world and spiritual world．He also tried his life efforts to achieve the great goal of“philosophers have only interpreted the world，in various ways;the point is to change it”．This great goal，“Human Liberation”，is the final target for Marxism．

In his article on the Jewish Question published in 1843，Marx put forward the two core concepts，“Political Liberation”and “Human Liberation”，which surpassed the theory of“Political Liberation”．Marx discovered the unfair and unreasonable situation of human existence and its nature from the specific historic reality of German Jews’liberation．The necessity principle of“Human Liberation”is put forward．

Marx and Engels critically inherited German philosophy essences represented by Feuerbach’s“Basic Kernel”and Hegel’s“Rational Kernel”．They discovered the law of surplus value and created dialectical materialism，historical materialism and scientific socialism．Starting from the height of all human society，they tried to create a social formation which guarantees the blessings of all human being upon critically analyzing human society，in particular the class society．

Their efforts lead to the great theoretical system of Marxism，which centers on the theme of“Human Liberation”focusing on the macro“Long－period Theory”and“Grand Theory”．Accordingly，classic Marxist writers always considered the national issue from the aspects of“general problem of revolution”and“general problem of society”，like Stalin said，“National issue is a part of general problem of proletariat revolution．”〔10〕

Ⅳ．The dialectical illustration of classic marxist writers on“duality”of nationalism and the Issue of“two kinds of nationalism”

In terms of the historical implications of“Long－period Theory”and“Grand Theory”，Marxism in general held a critical attitude against nationalism．However，Marxism theories are not dogmatic．Classic Marxist writers dialectally shows the distinctions of nationalisms，be it the sense of“nation”or“nationality”．

Thus，we should dialectally evaluate classic Marxist writers’explications on nationalism．Their critical attitude，their“borrowing and absorption”and their distinction of“two kinds of nationalism”in theory and practice should all be taken into consideration．

The“Duality”of nationalism refers to its negative nature and positive nature．The former is mainly manifested as egoism，intolerance，extreme and separation．The latter is mainly embodied in its reasonableness and progress．Objectively speaking，the percentage of nationalism’s negative nature and positive nature varies in accordance with time and space．Its qualitative determination should be decided according to specific circumstances．

While criticizing the“Basic Kernel”of nationalism，negative nature，Marx and Engels didn’t negate its“Reasonable Kernel”，its reasonableness and pro-gress．Lenin likewise dialectally discussed the nationalism issue．On the one hand，he had somber consciousness about the self－ interest of the bourgeois nationalism．On the other hand，Lenin suggested“Major Nationalism”and“Minor Nationalism”，“Oppressor Nationalism”and“Oppressed Nationalism”be distinguished．Of course，the precondition for Lenin’s distinction of“two kinds of nationalism”and seeking help from nationalism is for the benefits of the proletariat．

Thus，the judgment of“Difficult Dialogue”seems to make the mistake of sweeping generations．It merely realized classic Marxist writers’emphasis on class theory and their contradiction sense of nationalism and class relation．However，“Difficult Dialogue”believers didn’t understand the other side，that is，classic Marxist writers referred to the appropriateness and progressiveness of nationalism in the particular historical stage．

Ⅴ．Classic Marxist writers’nation－state practice from“the Workers have no country”to“sing the song of country”

The related theory and practice of classic Marxist writers experienced a nation－state process from“the workers have no country”to“sing the song of country”．They realized the interaction between Internationalism and nationalism．We can see that their sense and solution on nationalism advance with the specific timing and circumstance．

Marx and Engels put forward the renowned conclusion that“the workers have no country”in The Communist Manifesto，which was still misinterpreted as“abolish countries and nationality”out of context．

On the contrary，the exact reason why Marx and Engels drew the conclusion that“the workers have no country”is to refute the reproach that“desiring to abolish countries and nationality”．The time in which The Communist Manifesto was published was an age when the proletariat were cruelly oppressed and exploited by the bourgeois．Such“country”has no attachment value for the proletariat．Marx and Engels made this point to find a solution to the bourgeois cosmopolitanism(the united efforts of international bourgeoisie)．They emphasized on the proletarian internationalism and world revolution by finding“workers’own country”．

With the success of October Revolution and the inauguration of Soviet U-nion，the first socialist state in the human history，“Triumph of one country”theory was successfully practiced．The theories and practice of Lenin and Stalin developed Marxism by strategically transforming the“Long － term Goal”．The wide dissemination of Marxism after the times of Marx，Engels，Lenin and Stalin，especially its successful practice in China，likewise showcased the typical characteristics of Marxism’s nationalization．(Nationalization was called“Chinalization”later in China)．The classic Marxist writers’explications on nationalism glowed new vitality in the new historical development stage．

Ⅵ．Re－thinking the causes of“difficult dialogue”:the contemporary significance of classic marxist writers’related explications

The history and reality，theories and practices in the past century fully stated that Marxism and nationalism，as two civilization achievements of human being，had intense ideological collision and interaction rather than“Difficult Dialogue”．However，we can’t evade the actual existence of“Difficult Dialogue”．The only way out is to argue against it with reasoning．

In addition to factors of guiding ideology and political positions，we can’t neglect those phenomena evolving around Marxism and nationalism，such as dislocation，misreading，denying and cognitive inertia．

The first is the focus dislocation of the two theory systems．Marxism regards proletarian internationalism and“Human Liberation”to be its fundamental orientation，reflected as world history view and world －revolutionary ideas．In contrast to the“Long－period Theory”and“Grand Theory”of Marxism，nationalism emphasizes on the nation－state issue or national community issue by focusing on the interest of a particular“nation or ethnic group”rather than the whole interest of human society，especially the interest of the proletariat．The focus dislocation of Marxism and nationalism leads to the understanding of“Difficult Dialogue”．

The second is the misreading and denying of some statements of classic Marxist writers．Similar to the biased understanding of Marx and Engel’s statement of“the workers have no country”，there are other out－ of－ context sense of Marxism theorists’explications such as“Marxism and nationalism are irreconcilable”，“the proletariat is unsupportive to any nationalism consolidation practice”，“be against any form of nationalism”．These prejudiced understanding impressed people that Marxism and nationalism were completely distinct paradigms by denying classic Marxist writers’relative explications．In other words，the criticism attitude of Marxism against nationalism is deliberately emphasized．Marxism’s“confirmation”at some circumstances has not been realized．

The third is the trademarked inertia sense．Nationalism is habitually sensed as derogatory and ideologilized．On the one hand，nationalism is trademarked as derogatory，leading to people’s inertia thinking．The criticism attitude of Marxism against nationalism reinforced this kind of perception．Accordingly，the cognitive differences between Marxism and nationalism are deliberately consolidated．On the other hand，the relative definitions of nationalism have long understood in the sense of ideological field，which was most dominant in the Chinese Mainland．

In fact，the classic Marxist writers’explications on nationalism formed a wide－ranging theoretical system．The intersection and dialogue between Marxism and nationalism are reflected in many fields．Its contemporary significance lies in its source of reference when dealing with the relation between socialism and national-ism for the socialism countries，like China．

On the one hand，socialism countries should handle appropriately“two kinds of nationalism”during the state governance．On the other hand，socialism countries should rationally understand the relation between“international”and“country”，namely，the association of international communist movement with“internationalism and patriotism(nationalism)”．

Moreover，the contemporary significance for the nationalism － related statements of Marxism pioneers lies in its coincidence with the justice direction of the world political civilization．In comparison with feudalism，classic Marxist writers fully realized and approved the historical progressiveness of nationalism during the rising period of capitalism．During the imperialist period，while criticizing the negative nature of the general sensed nationalism，Marxism theorists likewise positively confirmed the national liberation movements against imperialism and colonial rule in the colonies and semi－colonies．And these national liberation movements in fact had strong nationalism features．

Nationalism is still one of the most influential social trends of thoughts in the modern times．The relative explications of classic Marxist writers still have current significance．In short，they strongly disagree with imperialism，colonialism，hegemonism and extreminism．The progressiveness and reasonableness of nationalism are identified．Nonetheless，the extreme self－ interest of nationalism is strongly excluded．In particular，the statements of the extremely harmful“Wholesale Selfishness”〔11〕have upright morality and practical guidance for our current struggle against the strong xenophobic extreme nationalism．

〔1〕Ronaldo Munck， The Difficult Dialogue:Marxism and Nationalism，London and Atlantic Highlands，NJ:Zed Books Ltd．，1986，pp．1，2，162．

〔2〕伯林:《反潮流:观念史论文集》，冯克利译，译林出版社，2002年，第333页。

〔3〕Shlomo Avineri，Toward to A Socialist Theory of Nationalism， Dissent，Fall 1990，p．447．转引自童世骏:《1989年以后的欧洲人文思想界》，《欧洲》1995年第1期。

〔4〕王希恩:《批判、借助和吸纳——对马克思主义经典作家关于民族主义论述的再认识》，《民族研究》2007年第5期。

〔5〕《列宁全集》第24卷，人民出版社，1990年，第136、138页;《列宁全集》第25卷，人民出版社，1988年，第284页。

〔6〕〔澳〕伊恩·卡明斯:《马克思恩格斯与民族运动》，柯明译，湖北人民出版社，1983年，第30页。

〔7〕Maurice Meisner， Li Ta－chao and the Origins of Chinese Marxism，Cambridge:Harvard University Press，1967，p．188．

〔8〕《毛泽东选集》(第1卷)，人民出版社，1991年，第158页。

〔9〕〔美〕杜赞奇:《从民族国家拯救历史:民族主义话语与中国现代史研究》，王宪明等译，社会科学文献出版社，2003年，导论，第11页;周传斌:《民族主义话语与现当代的中国》，《西北第二民族学院学报》(哲社版)，2005年第2期。

〔10〕《斯大林选集》(上卷)，人民出版社，1979年，第239页。

〔11〕中国社会科学院民族研究所编:《马克思恩格斯论民族问题》(上册)，民族出版社，1987年，第48页。