The German-Dutch Communist Left - Libcom

Paradoxically, in his pamphlet Pannekoek used Bauer’s definition of the nation as “a group of men tied by a
community of destiny and character”, adding to it language as “the most important attribute of a nation, although
nations are not identical with human groups sharing the same language”.
But the difference between Bauer’s conception and that of Pannekoek – and Luxemburg – emerges very quickly.
Unlike Bauer, who saw the ‘nation’ as an eternal category, Pannekoek showed its transitory nature: “...the nation
is only a temporary and transitory structure in the history of humanity’s evolution, one of many forms of
organisation which follow each other, or appear simultaneously: tribes, peoples, empires, churches, village
communities, states. Amongst them, the nation is essentially a product of bourgeois society, and will disappear
with it”. 257
This is why, once bourgeois nations were formed on the basis of the exploitation of the proletariat, the latter
affirmed itself as their negation. “The national community of character and destiny more and more disappears”
between bourgeoisie and proletariat; and contrary to Bauer’s ideas, with capitalism’s accelerated development,
relations between the two antagonistic classes “are dominated more and more by their different destinies”. As for
the “proletarian nationalism” which existed at the time of bourgeois revolutions, this “lost its roots” as soon as
the exploited class confronted its “own bourgeoisie, which took charge of its exploitation”.
Apart from the bourgeoisie, the only class which has national roots and manifests the most virulent nationalism,
is the petty bourgeoisie. Pannekoek’s argument here comes close to that of Strasser, who shows how ‘language
workers’ – in fact civil servants, office workers, etc – have an interest in the maintenance of the national
framework which guarantees their subsistence. But Pannekoek emphasised more than Strasser the parasitic
nature of these petty bourgeois strata, attached to national ‘privileges’ and functioning as a clientele: “The nation
as a bonded community is for those who are part of it, a clientele, a market, a domain for exploitation, where
they have an advantage over their competitors from other nations”. 258 Their nationalism is that of cliques
amongst themselves for “influence over the state, or power in the state”. 259 This analysis was to be maintained by
the Communist Left, whenever it pointed out the social forces involved in ‘national liberation struggles’.
Finally, Otto Bauer’s argument of a community of ‘culture’ used to defend the idea of a ‘national identity’ is a
false one. The only valid culture for the proletariat of any given country is a socialist one, which has nothing
national about it, and stands against the entire bourgeois world: “What we call the cultural effects of the class
struggle, the workers’ acquisition of self-consciousness, knowledge and the desire to learn, of elevated
intellectual demands, have nothing in common with bourgeois national culture, but represent the growth of
socialist culture. This culture is the product of a struggle which is a struggle against the entire bourgeois
world.” 260
It is the international class struggle, developing in every country, that strikingly reveals the proletariat’s
international and internationalist nature. In the modern epoch, this international character of the proletariat grows
constantly, as workers in mass strikes exchange and use each others’ theory and tactics, their methods of
struggle. By definition, the proletariat is a single army, temporarily dispersed in national battalions to combat the
same world-wide capitalist enemy: “The proletariat of every country sees itself as a single army, as a great union
which is only compelled by practical reasons – since the bourgeoisie is organised into states, and therefore there
are numerous fortresses to be taken – to split into separate battalions which must combat the enemy
separately.” 261
This is why, Pannekoek emphasised, Marxism’s role is to make a constant propaganda to strengthen the
workers’ class-consciousness, and their feeling of belonging to a same world-wide army. The strength of the
national idea is directly proportional to the stifling of class-consciousness. The national idea “is a barrier to the
class struggle, whose prejudicial power must as far as possible be eliminated”. This is why Pannekoek followed
257 Pannekoek, op. cit., p. 166.
258 Pannekoek, op. cit., p. 137.
259 Idem, p. 148.
260 Idem, pp. 153-154.
261 Idem, p. 160.
85