It should be noted that a serious intellectual transformation has occurred that necessarily affects the national question in Iran. The issue of nationality has a two-hundred-year history that begins with the French Revolution. The French Revolution was, at the same time, the result of a significant ideological revolution at the end of the 18th century, which transformed it into a political and social revolution with global reverberations. It was this great revolution in France that first transferred political power from kings to the people in the form of a nation. In fact, the emphasis of the French Revolution on the indivisibility of national sovereignty was a reaffirmation of the indivisibility of popular sovereignty, which became the banner of subsequent national revolutionary movements.
In human history, no nation existed in the political sense before this ideological revolution, which established the concept of the nation-state. The people, having formed a collective identity as a nation, became the sole source of legitimate political authority. Since then, the concept of the nation has been understood as a gathering of a large group of people, unified by various forms of allegiance, such as loyalty to a king, a religion, or a specific social status. In other words, the concept of the nation became independent of the historical context of monarchies or military regimes. The idea of transferring sovereignty to the people, presented to the world through the French Revolution, was in itself a subversive idea that paved the way from a Europe of kings to a Europe of nations and the age of democracy. Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 resonated as the beginning of this glorious era of popular sovereignty, seemingly transmitting the revolutionary message to future generations with a global tone. However, the success of this formation of the people identified as a nation depended on their ability to reconcile their future existence with their past identity.
Therefore, both nations recognized as such and those striving for recognition inevitably had to resort to historical symbols and signs, using history, ethnology, and linguistics to establish property rights over the territories where these national populations had lived during the Middle Ages.
This historical project for establishing national identity was largely accompanied, at least until the revolutions of 1848 in Europe, by the struggle for freedom, modernity, and progress, and the fight against feudal tyranny, with success in any of these areas benefiting the general populace.
The revolutions of 1848 in Europe presented another ideological revolution and a competing historical project against this identity-forming project, which was the international unification of the workers of nations against class unity within a nation.
The emphasis on class identity was simultaneously an emphasis on denying the national identity of workers. The idea that the workers of a country might suffer not only from class oppression but also from other forms of oppression, including national, racial, and religious oppression, practically lost its significance. These two historical movements sometimes coexisted and often stood in opposition to each other. The outcome is now clear to all, and the reasons for the retreat of the second movement—essentially due to its disregard for democracy in general and the national question in particular—require serious reconsideration. Otherwise, merely reiterating commitment to the working class and socialism, along with the ideological assumptions that have repeatedly failed the test of time, will be akin to engaging in self-dialogue without making any positive impact in the realm of political developments. Engels once wrote that when a theory repeatedly fails in practice, it indicates serious flaws within the theory itself. This statement also applies to socialism without democracy.
The Marxist branch of the socialist movement, with one or two specific exceptions concerning Poland and Ireland, can be said to have lacked a coherent theory regarding the national question from the revolutions of 1848 in Europe until the early 20th century. Marx and Engels’ statements regarding the national question are completely scattered and sometimes contradictory. However, certain lines of thought can be identified that persisted until the Second International and some aspects of which continued later. Here, I will only briefly mention them:
The national question was viewed by Marx and especially by Engels not as an issue of oppressed peoples but rather as a concern of the dominant nations and as the engine of the revolutions of Europe.
Initially, it was perceived primarily from an economic standpoint and as a linear evolutionary perspective: the bourgeoisie, through its progress worldwide, presented itself as the future for all nations, homogenizing them.
European and American nations, in the name of civilizational progress, were granted the right to occupy and seize other countries, which was interpreted as the annihilation of national distinctions.
Dominant nations were given the right to eliminate the culture and language of oppressed nations, and the defense of the rights of these peoples was considered romantic and childish sentimentality.
The national question was not an independent and self-sufficient issue; it was not viewed in terms of democracy but rather as a function of the abstract theory of global revolution and was assessed based on that. This perspective persisted throughout the lives of Marx and Engels and remained in the Bolsheviks’ outlook until the end, and even today, it has not changed in some factions of the left political spectrum.
A quasi-Darwinian theory posited the survival of superior nations and the decline of others, categorizing nations into "historical nations" and "non-historical nations." Although they eventually distanced themselves from this perspective, its intellectual legacy was transmitted to the Second International, especially to its right-wing factions like Edward Bernstein and Dutch socialists, who openly defended the armed occupation of underdeveloped countries.
Emphasizing the international identity of workers was a struggle against the identification of national identity and its explicit denial. The Marxist branch of this movement emphatically insisted on denying the national identity of workers, which was later criticized by some of its followers, including Jean Jaurès and even anarchists like Bakunin. The Communist Manifesto, in addressing the denial of the national identity of workers, stated, "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains," yet paradoxically called for them to form themselves into a nation:
"Since the proletariat must first seize political control and constitute itself as a national class, it must itself form a nation; thus, it is still nationalist, albeit not in the bourgeois sense."
In the midst of the revolutions of 1848-1849, when the wave of national movements, especially in Eastern and Central Europe, was rising, Engels introduced the theory of "historical nations" and "non-historical nations" in the publication "New Rhine," which any colonial power could unconditionally adopt as its slogan.
According to this theory, "historical nations" were those that had achieved the status of nation-states through their previous struggles for independence, while "non-historical nations" were those still fighting for their independence or living under the yoke of great powers. Nations like France and Germany, Poland and Hungary were considered "historical nations," whereas the Czechs, Slavs, Ukrainians, Romanians, and similar groups were labeled "non-historical nations," which would never be able to form their own state.
It is true that, in the balance of political power in Europe at that time, Russia played the role of guardian of Europe's reaction, and in this competitive power game, it supported the independence movements of "non-historical nations" against the great powers of Europe. However, the aforementioned theory was not limited to the political considerations of the day; rather, Engels elevated it to the level of a general historical theory. Accordingly, "historical nations" had the right to occupy and "civilize" the so-called "non-historical nations." Engels criticized the claims of national rights and the quest for independence and state formation from such nations:
"Peoples that have never had a history of their own, peoples that from the very first steps of their rudimentary civilization fell under the dominion of foreign powers or were forced to take their first steps towards civilization under foreign yoke, are not viable peoples and will never achieve any form of independence." And "Do the Slavs, this 'nation,' which is absolutely nonexistent historically, dare to claim independence?" Engels continued:
"If for eight centuries eight million Slavs have suffered under the forced yoke of four million Magyars, that alone is sufficient evidence of which has been stable and viable, the populous Slavs or the less populous Magyars?"
The idea of "historical nations" was one that Engels directly derived from Hegel's "Philosophy of Mind," incorporating it without reservation into his historical theory regarding nations. In Hegel's historical outline, the dialectic of the transformation of national minds into a world mind plays a central role, where only those nations that have had the capacity and actual power to create advanced political systems, that is, to establish a state, are able to undertake the historical progression and its driving force:
"In the existence of a nation, the fundamental aim is to be a state and to maintain its very existence. A nation that has not achieved statehood is merely a 'nation.' More precisely, the history of these nations and those that are still in a state of barbarism has never been a history comparable to that of nations that have reached the level of states."
The quasi-Darwinian idea of the survival of the fittest, recognizing the right of historical nations as deserving of history and the decline of non-historical nations, is reiterated many times in Engels' writings and occasionally takes on a harsher tone. Based on the classification of nations into historical and non-historical, nations are also broadly divided into revolutionary and counter-revolutionary nations:
"How did this division of nations come about, and what is its foundation? This classification arose based on the entire previous history of the nations in question. Now is the moment of decision regarding the life and death of nations, both large and small. Among all the small and large nations of Austria, only three notable nations have actively participated in history and still retain their vital element. They are the Germans, the Poles, and the Hungarians. They are now revolutionary nations. The rest of the nations and peoples, large and small, have long been condemned to extinction in the face of the storm of global revolution. For this reason, they are now counter-revolutionary... With the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat... the Germans and Hungarians of Austria will be liberated and will take bloody revenge on the barbaric Slavs. The general war that will break out will crush the Slavs of the Sandband and even erase the name of these pig-headed nations from the earth. Another world war will not only cleanse the reactionary classes and dynasties but will also eradicate all reactionary peoples from the face of the earth, and this will be a step forward."
Engels writes about the occupation of Slavic regions by the Germans:
"The Slavic regions have been completely 'Germanized.' Water that has flowed away does not return! Unless the Pan-Slavists resurrect the extinguished languages of Sorbs, Wendish, and Obodrites from the ground and impose them on the inhabitants of Leipzig and Berlin and Stettin! But there is no doubt that this conquest has been in favor of the advancement of civilization."
Based on this logic, Engels strongly defended the occupation of parts of Mexico and their annexation to the United States:
"The independence of a few Spanish in California and Texas may have suffered, in places, the principles of 'justice' and morality may have been violated, but all of this pales in comparison to realities that have historical global significance, what importance can they hold?"
In the article Engels wrote in 1866 titled "What Does the Working Class Have to Do with Poland?", which was designed to negate the principle of "nationalities" from the perspective of "historical nations," he stated:
"European importance and the vitality of a people, it seems, from the viewpoint of the principle of nationalities, is nothing. From this perspective, the Wallachian Romanians, who have never had a history or have failed to acquire the energy of history, are as important as the Italians, who have a two-thousand-year history and complete national vitality."
With the issue of Ireland, which Marx was more familiar with, a complete shift in Marx's thinking can be observed, moving away from the simple conception of the national issue as an economic-social development and increasingly viewing it as a political issue. In a letter to Engels on November 2, 1867, Marx wrote:
"I once thought that the separation of Ireland from England was impossible. Now I believe that there is no other way, even though after separation, a federation might emerge."
Three years later, Marx again wrote in a letter to Siegfried Mayer and August Vogt:
"In all the industrial and commercial centers in England, the working class is now divided into two enemy camps: the English proletariat and the Irish proletariat. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker and perceives him as a competitor who lowers his standard of living. In relation to the Irish worker, the English worker feels like part of the ruling nation; thus, he becomes a tool in the hands of the English aristocracy and capitalists against the Irish, thereby reinforcing his own subjugation. The Irish worker, in turn, sees the English worker as a fool and a tool of the English government against himself."
From Marx's perspective at that time, there were two possible solutions for Ireland: separation from England, which Marx considered impossible but desirable, and the formation of a federation, which he deemed possible and desirable.
The transition from "historical nations" and "non-historical" and "revolutionary nations" from an economic-social issue to the national issue as a political one indicates a significant change in the theoretical framework of Marx and Engels.
It is crucial to note that one of the main reasons for the formation of the "First International" was to create an international organization of workers to support the national movement in Poland, even though the national movement in Poland was led by reactionary forces and the landed aristocracy. At that time, it was believed that Poland was defenseless and that only a global workers' movement could rise to defend the national movement in Poland. It is noteworthy that Marx not only defended the national movement in that country but also advocated for Poland's complete independence, which led to ideological clashes between Marx and Proudhon’s supporters within the International. Proudhon’s supporters deemed the struggles of the Poles, the Irish, and the Italians as insignificant, arguing that the important revolution was in France, which would solve everything.
On June 20, 1866, Marx wrote:
"Yesterday, there was a discussion in the International Council about the current war. The discussion fell apart, and as expected, it turned to the 'nationality question' in general and the position we must adopt regarding it. The representatives of 'Young France' (the Proudhonists) came with the announcement that all nationalities, and even nations themselves, are just old prejudices... as if the whole world must wait for France to be ready for social revolution."
In the 1880s, a socialist movement in Poland known as the "Revolutionary Proletarian Party," which supported Marx and published a journal called "Equality" in Geneva, reflected the tendencies of Ludwik Waryński in Poland and was fundamentally opposed to any form of nationalism. Later, Rosa Luxemburg showed the closest ideological affinity with the Waryński movement regarding the national issue, which is not dissimilar to the theories of some political organizations supporting socialism in our country. Engels, in criticizing the Waryński movement, wrote:
"The international proletarian movement can only exist among independent nations.... As long as Poland is divided and remains under oppression, no powerful socialist party can grow there, nor can there be a real international relationship between the proletarian parties in Germany and elsewhere; aside from Polish emigrants having some social interaction, nothing else will happen. Every peasant and worker who wakes up from the collective slumber and participates in the common interests confronts the reality of national oppression. This reality stands as the first obstacle everywhere. Removing this barrier is the fundamental condition for any healthy and free development. Polish socialists who do not place the liberation of their country at the forefront of their program resemble German socialists who prioritize, above all else, the repeal of the socialist law, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly and association. In order to fight, one must first have ground to stand on, air to breathe, and light."
Moreover, Marx and Engels were concerned that the intensification of class struggle in Poland might serve the interests of the European gendarme, namely Russia. The prominence of the national issue in Poland and Ireland also highlighted the significance of the national issue within a specific context, indicating the prominence of the democratic issue. Although they saw the national issue in the context of global revolution, they emphasized its precedence in specific situations. In other words, the resolution of the socialist issue, in their view, was primarily contingent on addressing the democratic issue, which had to be prioritized rather than the other way around. While they believed that Poland would be "freed socially in England," this did not prevent them from prioritizing the political liberation of Poland, Ireland, and Italy, signifying the precedence of the political and democratic issue over the social issue.
The socialist movement at the beginning of the twentieth century seriously examined the national issue, particularly from the perspective of Russian and Austrian Marxists, yet maintained it as a function of the socialist issue. Austrian socialists, like Otto Bauer and Karl Renner, limited the right to self-determination to cultural autonomy. In contrast, Russian social democrats distinguished between the national issue among oppressed nations and ruling nations, viewing it from the perspective of a political right. Nevertheless, their proposed political model effectively nullified any right to self-determination and stripped it of its real content. The political model favored by the Bolsheviks was a highly centralized state. If nationalities in the hypothetical socialist state were to remain without exercising their political right to independence and were to live within a single country, on what basis would they enjoy that political right?
Lenin's conclusions about a future state were based on two premises:
The conclusion of a future socialist state is based on the law of concentration and the concentration of capitalist systems on a global scale. Consequently, the future socialist state must necessarily be a large and completely centralized state as an alternative to capitalism.
The right to self-determination is subordinated to the interests of the working class.
Since Lenin deduced the direct concentration of political power and thus the centralized political state from the law of capitalist concentration in the era of monopolies, he opposed any form of political decentralization, including any federal political system. Therefore, if a nationality remained within the framework of the assumed socialist state, according to the aforementioned requirements, its political rights would also be transferred to the centralized state. Lenin himself wrote:
"We Marxists, of course, oppose federalism and decentralization for the simple reason that capitalists need the largest and most centralized states for their development. If other conditions were equal, the working class would always favor larger states. The working class will always fight against the medieval particularism."
The development and rapid expansion of capitalist productive forces require vast and politically compact territories, because only in this way can the bourgeoisie—along with its unavoidable counterpart, the proletariat—unite and eliminate all the old, medieval, sectarian, local, and petty national, religious, and other obstacles.
"But as long as other nations have not established their separate states, we Marxists will never, under any circumstances, support the principle of federalism or a non-centralized state. A large centralized state is a historic step forward from medieval fragmentation to a future socialist unity, and only through such a state (which is inextricably linked to capitalism) can a path to socialism be paved."
The Russian social democrats, who were pioneers in theoretically addressing the national issue among oppressed peoples and included the right to self-determination in their program until the October Revolution, transformed the slogan of the right to self-determination into "the right to self-determination for the working class and the laboring masses" after the civil war.
Stalin's emphasis that "the national rights issue is not a separate and self-sufficient matter but a part of the general issue of proletarian revolution and is subordinate to the whole, and must be viewed from the perspective of the whole" continues the same line of thought that effectively ignores the national issue as an independent political matter.
The emphasis by Russian Marxists on a highly centralized state and the subordination of the democratic right to self-determination to the interests of the working class and socialism, which, in a nascent form, implied the negation of other forms of democracy, also diluted the real content of the slogan of the right to self-determination. It was no coincidence that what was implemented in practice was the same slogan of the Austrian social democrats, which reduced the rights of nationalities to limited cultural rights that the theoretical substance of Russian social democracy had previously been mobilized against. I referred to limited cultural rights in this sense, because the interests of the working class and socialism would inevitably impose additional constraints on those cultural rights.
In contemporary Iranian history, leftist movements have primarily arisen in defense of the rights of nationalities. Consequently, the right to self-determination, up to and including separation, has been one of the provisions in the political programs of most leftist organizations and parties.
However, the declaration of this right has been one aspect of the social and class demands, rather than an inherent right in and of itself. Therefore, wherever socialist movements have gained political power worldwide, any emphasis on national rights has effectively been equated with the bourgeoisie’s efforts. These movements did not make false or deceptive slogans; rather, they stemmed from a specific intellectual understanding of socialism that primarily summarizes the fundamental content of political activity and complex political and social relations solely within the class framework. As a result, the national issue is practically relegated to the background. Secondly, the Jacobin understanding of the socialist state, which is highly centralized, conflicts with the democratic rights of nationalities that require both horizontal and vertical separation of political power. It was not coincidental that in socialist countries, even if they were nominally federative, the extreme concentration of political power meant that a truly federative system did not exist. In Iran, it was precisely based on this political logic that many political organizations prioritized socialist struggle, viewing Khomeini's "anti-imperialism" as at least a step in that direction, distancing themselves from the struggle for democracy in general and the struggle for the rights of nationalities in particular, and at times even positioning themselves politically in opposition to these movements.
Now, the struggle for various levels of democracy, including the struggle for the democratic rights of nationalities, is particularly prominent. Intellectually, two significant factors have accelerated the return of the late 18th-century project, namely national identity:
The collapse of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries through the national issue, which exposed the undemocratic and highly centralized nature of these regimes.
The rapid advance of neoliberal globalization, which has undermined the concept of the nation-state and has made the appeal to national identity a refuge for those social strata that have suffered the most from neoliberal policies.
These combined factors have created the objective conditions for a shift in thinking towards democracy and the prioritization of democratic struggles, including the struggle for the rights of various nationalities in Iran.
Acceptance of the principle of democracy as a fundamental principle in political life necessarily has theoretical chain effects. Anyone who considers themselves a democrat and wants to fight for democracy must also be aware of its chain effects. In a democratic system, not only are individuals equal to one another and should enjoy equal political rights, but the units of human groups that we refer to as nationalities, or the two genders of women and men, or adherents of different religions, or secularists, must also enjoy equal rights.
Democracy loses its real weight if it stops at a certain point. One cannot accept part of democracy while cutting out another part. Therefore, if we accept that in Iran, there are not one but multiple nationalities, adherence to democratic principles dictates that we recognize them as equals in every respect. It is not possible to claim that everyone is equal, but some are "more equal" than others. This equality encompasses not only political rights but also cultural and religious rights, among others.
My intention here is not to address the national issue, as it is an independent topic, and its existence is assumed in this writing. Only a few Reza Khanist intellectuals, who are in a state of compounded ignorance, could deny the existence of various nationalities in Iran. Rather, my aim is to address the issue of if we acknowledge the existence of multiple nationalities in Iran, based on which political mechanism can we, firstly, ensure the political, cultural, and religious rights of each nationality as an equal nationality within not only a democratic political system but as components and building blocks of that system, and secondly, facilitate the peaceful coexistence of all of them within the larger political unit of Iran instead of conflict with one another.
In today's world, mechanisms other than the separation of nationalities from one another and the formation of "Lilliputian republics" can exist that can secure their complete democratic rights within the framework of a political system of which they are a part. Federalism can be an appropriate mechanism for the free coexistence of all nationalities within a united Iran.
