What do you think?
Rate this book
The National Question
6 problems for the theory of Nationalism; Nationalism as an autonomous force; and other chapters focusing on Nationalism.
- GenresPhilosophy
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
4 people are currently reading
49 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 25, 2016
In The National Question James Blaut’s primary objective is to support and advance the Puerto Rican nationalist movement and defend it from its critics, but he does so in a way that challenges much of the contemporary Marxist thought on nationalism as broad concept. The foundation of his argument is that most scholars have ignored or discarded the fact that national struggle is inherently class struggle and that, in doing so, they have found ways to dismiss nationalism as a valid path towards socialism. Moreover, nationalism has been effectively overly-theorized to the point where is no longer useful for the real struggles that are taking place on the ground. The author, therefore, seeks to construct a Marxist theory of nationalism that is both pragmatic and consistent with his contention that national and class struggle are one and the same.
Blaut’s extensive introduction lays out the theoretical context of contemporary anti-nationalist Marxist thought. He begins by arguing that a common misconception, rooted in conservative (i.e. non-Marxist) theories of nationalism is that anti-colonial struggles are perceived as autonomous processes rather than “products of oppression”. This allows for the actors to be misidentified as bourgeois, despite the fact that “national struggles are struggles for state power, and state power is sought by all classes in all class struggles”. He also points out that theorists tend to ignore the reciprocal nature of nationalism: those forces opposing a nationalist movement are doing so to assert a nationalism of their own, which means that nationalism cannot be an autonomous movement. Theories that tie nationalism to the bourgeois class, meanwhile, are those that attempt to “naturalize” colonialism and see nationalism as a stage where the colonized have benefitted enough from the colonizers to no longer require tutelage. For the author, however, this “stage theory” is too simplistic and points out that diffusion-based theories that claim that nationalism came from Europe and spread outwards ignores the fact that similar ideals were repressed when they arose in colonized areas so that the exploitation could continue. He then addresses the mistaken belief that nationalism is no longer relevant in an era of internationalism, arguing that even if nation states have declined, they have not disappeared, because capitalism needs state power and multinational corporations only exploit non-advanced nations. This belief, he postulates, “erodes support for anti-colonial national struggles”.
The remainder of Blaut’s work addresses these and other issues in greater detail. In chapter two, he delves deeper into the idea of nationalism as an autonomous force in order to buttress his contention that national struggle is class struggle. He demonstrates that both are struggles for state power and are thus one and the same, and that the idea of autonomy is based in conservative theory. He next tackles the theory of diffusionism, specifically that of Tom Nairn, which argues that nationalism spread from Europe and was a way to fix the situation of elites who suffer under uneven development. Blaut points out, however, that this does not explain decolonization and argues that the theory does not describe things broadly, but instead provides clarity to several exceptional examples and then denies the importance of state power, despite evidence to the contrary. According to the author, Nairn’s errors include associating national struggle with the bourgeoisie due to a misreading of sources, accepting that nationalism is autonomous (and therefore not part of class struggle) without any analysis, and failing to relate nationalism to exploitation.
Blaut’s next target is Eric Hobsbawm and his theory that nationalism is irrational in the contemporary era of globalization and imperialism, since it only made sense the context of the capitalist and bourgeois processes of 19th century Europe. Blaut sees this idea as stemming from a failure to connect class struggle to nationalism, or an association of bourgeois class struggle to nationalism. He argues that decolonization was a result of colonial resistance, and was not necessary instigated as part of a natural process that benefitted the colonizer and the international economic order. Hobsbawm’s theory also fails to account for national movements that created socialist states. Furthermore, even though Lenin argued that national movements died out as capitalism grows stronger, since capitalism had uneven growth across the world, national movements can be relevant in many places as they are confronted by “great national” nationalism, which seeks “to repartition economic space”. In the imperial world national movements can struggle for socialism (rather than capitalism) and “will at least be struggles against monopoly capitalism”. Blaut then engages the theory of “national minorities”, which postulates that there is a specific set of conditions that create a sufficient foundation for a “nation” and that those groups not meeting the criteria are merely “national minorities”. He suggests that this idea stems from a Stalinist theory that was meant as an attack on reformist nationalism in the context of European capitalism and has no validity when dealing with a colonial or imperialist world.
The “national minorities” theory is often one levied against the idea of Puerto Rican independence and the author uses this discussion as a springboard into his final two chapters, which are designed more explicitly to provide support for this particular movement. He first deals with the belief that assimilation will integrate the ghettos or life people out of them and labels it a myth, since capitalism no longer assimilates. Even though this happened in the past, it can only occur when there is a loss of origin culture and a gain of host culture, which is only possible when there is “room” to assimilate, which in turn was only possible during capitalism’s expansion phase. In the contemporary situation, control is asserted over migration to prevent assimilation, and thus ensure profits, while other methods are used against those who cannot be controlled (such as Puerto Ricans, who have citizenship rights within the system). One of these methods is ghettoization, which is created through spatial segregation, segregation within the workforce, and cultural colonialism. Assimilation can still occur in these circumstances, but is rare and occurs only as a factor of being lucky enough to possess the correct circumstances. This process can only be ended with the demise of capitalism, but it can be resisted by slowing it down, fighting for labor legislation, and assimilation followed by a return to the culture of origin.
Blaut’s final main chapter examines the impact of Eurocentrism on Marxist theories of nationalism, which most visible in the theory of geographical diffusionism, as it leads to a failure to see processes when they emanate from places other Europe and too heavy of a focus on the modes of industrial capitalism. He therefore seeks to construct a Marxist theory of nationalism that demonstrates that nationalism is a particular iteration of the type of class struggles (i.e. for state power) that have occurred in all forms of societies. He begins with the contention that ruling and producing classes have both internal and external components, and that external exploitation follows a reaching of the natural limitations of internal exploitation. Although the boundaries between internal and external exploitation are often blurred, his general idea is that external exploitation becomes more intense and thus engenders more and evolving forms of resistance. The problem with contemporary Marxism, he argues, is that it focuses on internal exploitation and ignores colonial struggle and suggests that rather than emphasizing a “hard” definition of the nation with strict criteria, a “soft” definition should be pursued. He suggests that this description could encompass “an independent state which is viable in the sense that it is unlikely to decompose or lose its independence” and “a non-state community which clearly has the potential for becoming, and staying, politically independent”, with potential being assessed by “the presence of fortifying, unifying characteristics” and a national movement that is “strong, popular, [and] durable”.
Aside from a brief recapitulation of his major points, Blaut does not offer a conclusion, but instead highlights ideas with which he has not properly dealt. Without a solid background in Marxist theory, it is difficult to evaluate his work in context, but his arguments are detailed, well-written, and developed strongly, although it did seem to me that he discounts other arguments by placing their theoretical foundations in their proper context, yet does not do the same effectively for his own contentions. As an academic, but a non-specialist, this work was accessible to me once I got used to its style, but it would be of limited value to a casual reader looking to gain greater insight on Marxist theories of nationalism, even though it does succeed in providing pragmatic support for the idea of Puerto Rican nationalism. Overall, however, The National Question is an excellent resource for any scholar of nationalism and, regardless of whether or not one agrees his arguments, it cannot be said that they are not well-developed and written.
Blaut’s extensive introduction lays out the theoretical context of contemporary anti-nationalist Marxist thought. He begins by arguing that a common misconception, rooted in conservative (i.e. non-Marxist) theories of nationalism is that anti-colonial struggles are perceived as autonomous processes rather than “products of oppression”. This allows for the actors to be misidentified as bourgeois, despite the fact that “national struggles are struggles for state power, and state power is sought by all classes in all class struggles”. He also points out that theorists tend to ignore the reciprocal nature of nationalism: those forces opposing a nationalist movement are doing so to assert a nationalism of their own, which means that nationalism cannot be an autonomous movement. Theories that tie nationalism to the bourgeois class, meanwhile, are those that attempt to “naturalize” colonialism and see nationalism as a stage where the colonized have benefitted enough from the colonizers to no longer require tutelage. For the author, however, this “stage theory” is too simplistic and points out that diffusion-based theories that claim that nationalism came from Europe and spread outwards ignores the fact that similar ideals were repressed when they arose in colonized areas so that the exploitation could continue. He then addresses the mistaken belief that nationalism is no longer relevant in an era of internationalism, arguing that even if nation states have declined, they have not disappeared, because capitalism needs state power and multinational corporations only exploit non-advanced nations. This belief, he postulates, “erodes support for anti-colonial national struggles”.
The remainder of Blaut’s work addresses these and other issues in greater detail. In chapter two, he delves deeper into the idea of nationalism as an autonomous force in order to buttress his contention that national struggle is class struggle. He demonstrates that both are struggles for state power and are thus one and the same, and that the idea of autonomy is based in conservative theory. He next tackles the theory of diffusionism, specifically that of Tom Nairn, which argues that nationalism spread from Europe and was a way to fix the situation of elites who suffer under uneven development. Blaut points out, however, that this does not explain decolonization and argues that the theory does not describe things broadly, but instead provides clarity to several exceptional examples and then denies the importance of state power, despite evidence to the contrary. According to the author, Nairn’s errors include associating national struggle with the bourgeoisie due to a misreading of sources, accepting that nationalism is autonomous (and therefore not part of class struggle) without any analysis, and failing to relate nationalism to exploitation.
Blaut’s next target is Eric Hobsbawm and his theory that nationalism is irrational in the contemporary era of globalization and imperialism, since it only made sense the context of the capitalist and bourgeois processes of 19th century Europe. Blaut sees this idea as stemming from a failure to connect class struggle to nationalism, or an association of bourgeois class struggle to nationalism. He argues that decolonization was a result of colonial resistance, and was not necessary instigated as part of a natural process that benefitted the colonizer and the international economic order. Hobsbawm’s theory also fails to account for national movements that created socialist states. Furthermore, even though Lenin argued that national movements died out as capitalism grows stronger, since capitalism had uneven growth across the world, national movements can be relevant in many places as they are confronted by “great national” nationalism, which seeks “to repartition economic space”. In the imperial world national movements can struggle for socialism (rather than capitalism) and “will at least be struggles against monopoly capitalism”. Blaut then engages the theory of “national minorities”, which postulates that there is a specific set of conditions that create a sufficient foundation for a “nation” and that those groups not meeting the criteria are merely “national minorities”. He suggests that this idea stems from a Stalinist theory that was meant as an attack on reformist nationalism in the context of European capitalism and has no validity when dealing with a colonial or imperialist world.
The “national minorities” theory is often one levied against the idea of Puerto Rican independence and the author uses this discussion as a springboard into his final two chapters, which are designed more explicitly to provide support for this particular movement. He first deals with the belief that assimilation will integrate the ghettos or life people out of them and labels it a myth, since capitalism no longer assimilates. Even though this happened in the past, it can only occur when there is a loss of origin culture and a gain of host culture, which is only possible when there is “room” to assimilate, which in turn was only possible during capitalism’s expansion phase. In the contemporary situation, control is asserted over migration to prevent assimilation, and thus ensure profits, while other methods are used against those who cannot be controlled (such as Puerto Ricans, who have citizenship rights within the system). One of these methods is ghettoization, which is created through spatial segregation, segregation within the workforce, and cultural colonialism. Assimilation can still occur in these circumstances, but is rare and occurs only as a factor of being lucky enough to possess the correct circumstances. This process can only be ended with the demise of capitalism, but it can be resisted by slowing it down, fighting for labor legislation, and assimilation followed by a return to the culture of origin.
Blaut’s final main chapter examines the impact of Eurocentrism on Marxist theories of nationalism, which most visible in the theory of geographical diffusionism, as it leads to a failure to see processes when they emanate from places other Europe and too heavy of a focus on the modes of industrial capitalism. He therefore seeks to construct a Marxist theory of nationalism that demonstrates that nationalism is a particular iteration of the type of class struggles (i.e. for state power) that have occurred in all forms of societies. He begins with the contention that ruling and producing classes have both internal and external components, and that external exploitation follows a reaching of the natural limitations of internal exploitation. Although the boundaries between internal and external exploitation are often blurred, his general idea is that external exploitation becomes more intense and thus engenders more and evolving forms of resistance. The problem with contemporary Marxism, he argues, is that it focuses on internal exploitation and ignores colonial struggle and suggests that rather than emphasizing a “hard” definition of the nation with strict criteria, a “soft” definition should be pursued. He suggests that this description could encompass “an independent state which is viable in the sense that it is unlikely to decompose or lose its independence” and “a non-state community which clearly has the potential for becoming, and staying, politically independent”, with potential being assessed by “the presence of fortifying, unifying characteristics” and a national movement that is “strong, popular, [and] durable”.
Aside from a brief recapitulation of his major points, Blaut does not offer a conclusion, but instead highlights ideas with which he has not properly dealt. Without a solid background in Marxist theory, it is difficult to evaluate his work in context, but his arguments are detailed, well-written, and developed strongly, although it did seem to me that he discounts other arguments by placing their theoretical foundations in their proper context, yet does not do the same effectively for his own contentions. As an academic, but a non-specialist, this work was accessible to me once I got used to its style, but it would be of limited value to a casual reader looking to gain greater insight on Marxist theories of nationalism, even though it does succeed in providing pragmatic support for the idea of Puerto Rican nationalism. Overall, however, The National Question is an excellent resource for any scholar of nationalism and, regardless of whether or not one agrees his arguments, it cannot be said that they are not well-developed and written.
Displaying 1 of 1 review