Workers don’t have any homeland and national pride is totally alien to the working
class. But first we reproduce some quotes from Lenin:
“Is a sense of national pride alien to us, Great-Russian class-conscious proletarians?
Certainly not! We love our language and our country, and we are doing our very utmost to
raise her toiling masses (i.e., nine-tenths of her population) to the level of a democratic
and socialist consciousness. To us it is most painful to see and feel the outrages, the
oppression and the humiliation our fair country suffers at the hands of the tsar’s
butchers, the nobles and the capitalists. We take pride in the resistance to these
outrages put up from our midst, from the Great Russians; in that midst having produced
Radishchev the Decembrists and the revolutionary commoners of the seventies; in the
Great-Russian working class having created, in 1905, a mighty revolutionary party of
the masses; and in the Great-Russian peasantry having begun to turn towards democracy
and set about overthrowing the clergy and the landed proprietors.... We are full of a
sense of national pride, and for that very reason we particularly hate our slavish past...”
And Lenin continues:
“And, full of a sense of national pride, we Great-Russian workers want, come what may,
a free and independent, a democratic, republican and proud Great Russia, one that will
base its relations with its neighbors on the human principle of equality, and not on
the feudalist principle of privilege, which is so degrading to a great nation. Just
because we want that, we say: it is impossible, in the twentieth century and in Europe
(even in the far east of Europe), to “defend the fatherland” otherwise than by using
every revolutionary means to combat the monarchy, the landowners and the capitalists
of one’s own fatherland, i.e., the worst enemies of our country. We say that the Great
Russians cannot “defend the fatherland” otherwise than by desiring the defeat of tsarism
in any war, this as the lesser evil to nine-tenths of the inhabitants of Great Russia.”
As we saw earlier Second International had lack of clarity in the parliamentary and
national question. Lenin inherited his vagueness of the national question from the
Second International. He tried to adapt it to Marxism. Contrary to today's leftists,
who support "national liberation" throughout the world, Lenin tried to solve the problem
from historical conditions. He claimed that in the developed capitalist countries is
meaningless national liberation, but he argued that the situation in backward countries
like Russia, which had a progressive capitalist development was different. Therefore,
“First of all, it implies that a clear distinction must be drawn between the two periods
of capitalism, which differ radically from each other as far as the national movement is
concerned. On the one hand, there is the period of the collapse of feudalism and absolutism,
the period of the formation of the bourgeois-democratic society and state, when the
national movements for the first time become mass movements and in one way or another draw
classes of the population into politics through the press, participation in representative
institutions, etc. On the other hand, there is the period of fully formed capitalist states
with a long-established constitutional regime and a highly developed antagonism between the
proletariat and the bourgeoisie - a period that may be called the eve of capitalism’s downfall.
The typical features of the first period are: the awakening of national movements and the drawing
of the peasants, the most numerous and the most sluggish section of the population, into these
movements, in connection with the struggle for political liberty in general, and for the rights
of the nation in particular. Typical features of the second period are: the absence of mass
bourgeois-democratic movements and the fact that developed capitalism, in bringing closer
together nations that have already been fully drawn into commercial intercourse, and causing
them to intermingle to an increasing degree, brings the antagonism between internationally
united capital and the international working-class movement into the forefront.”
The same assessment of the situation the differences between developed and non-developed
countries, which is the focus of Lenin’s discussion with Rosa Luxemburg.
”In this respect Rosa Luxemburg has lost sight of the most important thing—the difference
between countries, where bourgeois-democratic reforms have long been completed, and those
where they have not.” 
Despite the lack of clarity that Lenin had in this matter, he rejects the national movements
in developed countries such as Poland and focuses on class solidarity and class struggles.
Therefore, he says about the Polish Social Democracy and the Polish workers as the following:
”The Polish Social-Democrats were therefore quite right in attacking the extreme nationalism
of the Polish petty bourgeoisie and pointing out that the national question was of secondary
importance to Polish workers, in creating for the first time a purely proletarian party in
Poland and proclaiming the extremely important principle that the Polish and the Russian
workers must maintain the closest alliance in their class struggle.”
We must point out that Lenin's ultimate goal was class goal or better said his only goal was
class goal contrary to today's leftists and he did not believe any privilege to any nation.
”In Russia, the creation of an independent national state remains, for the time being, the
privilege of the Great-Russian nation alone. We, the Great-Russian proletarians, who defend
no privileges whatever, do not defend this privilege either. We are fighting on the ground
of a definite state; we unite the workers of all nations living in this state; we cannot
vouch for any particular path of national development, for we are marching to our class
goal along all
Rosa Luxemburg and the national question
Rosa Luxemburg was one of the leaders of the left wing of the Second International, she was
clearer than Lenin in the national question. She stressed that it is only through socialism
which self-determination can be realized. Her lessons about the decadence of capitalism,
nationalism, imperialism and so on are still an inspiration source for revolutionaries.
For her national war during the decadence of capitalism is no longer possible. She believed
that referring to national interests is only to mislead the masses and lure them to serve
their mortal enemy, imperialism.
”International socialism recognizes the right of free independent nations, with equal rights.
But socialism alone can create such nations; can bring self-determination of their peoples.
This slogan of socialism is like all its others, not an apology for existing conditions, but
a guidepost, a spur for the revolutionary, regenerative, active policy of the proletariat. So
long as capitalist states exist, Le., so long as imperialistic world policies determine and
regulate the inner and the outer life of a nation, there can be no “national self-determination”
either in war or in peace.
In the present imperialistic milieu there can be no wars of national self-defence. Every
socialist policy that depends upon this determining historic milieu, that is willing to
fix its policies in the world whirlpool from the point of view of a single nation, is built
upon a foundation of sand.” 
The core of Rosa Luxemburg's lessons in the national question is the following:
"No one oppressed nation can obtain freedom and independence by the states that was
provided by imperialist or as a result of the war. The small nations whose ruling
classes are in cahoots with their reigns colleagues in the power group is merely
chess pieces in major powers' imperialist game and like the proletariat abused of the
war as a tool for them, therefore, after the war, abandonment and extradited to capitalist
interests." [Our translation]
In fact, during the decadence of capitalism, an organization cannot be a revolutionary
one unless its programs are internationally oriented.
“The labor movement of today, [because of] its more arduous daily economic struggle,
bases its mass organization on cooperation [with worker movements] in all capitalist countries.”
Rosa Luxemburg and the united German Republic question
Rosa Luxembourg was unclear when she as a platform against to the imperialist war set Marx and
Engels's national program from 1848, the slogan for a united German Republic. This platform was
articulated by avant-garde of the proletariat, during the rise period of capitalism and was
adapted to this period. Therefore, Lenin criticized with a Marxist method the lack of clarity
of Rosa Luxemburg in this question. Rosa Luxemburg writes:
”In Germany the determination of the people found concrete expression in the demands formulated
by the German revolutionary democrats of 1848; the first fighters of the German proletariat,
Marx, Engels, Lassalle, Bebel and Liebknecht, proclaimed and fought for
a united German Republic
Is imperialism a major (economic and military) oppressive power?
The left of capital defines imperialism as a major economic, military and repressive power such
as United States, Japan, Britain and so on. The consequence of this definition is to mobilize
the working class behind the weakness of imperialism.
"But while the leftists condemn the imperialism in countries like USA, UK and France, they
usually also argue that Iraq or other ‘small’ countries are not imperialist. For them, only
great powers are imperialist and by challenging of the United States by Saddam Hussein,
he is fighting "objectively" against imperialism and therefore would be worthy to support
by workers and "socialists". In this way using both the right and left of capital their
definition of imperialism to mobilize workers behind one or the other side of the conflict
in the Persian Gulf.
Against this assert the revolutionaries like Rosa Luxemburg said during the First World
War against all hypocrites and charlatans who claimed that only one side was imperialistic
but not the other."
A Free State and nation cannot exist in the decadence period of capitalism. It must integrate
itself into the capitalist mode of production and participation in world markets. This means
that the new states arising from the national movement will itself become imperialists
regardless of their size or economic power.
An illustrative example is, “Worker” “Communist” party of Iran that support or require the
creation of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. If this state arises, then the state
"Kurdistan" will to become an imperialist state. Moreover this state will be a weak imperialist
state. This means that the "Worker" "Communist" party of Iran supports a future "Kurdish"
imperialism against the "Arab" (Iraq) imperialism. The consequence will be that “Worker”
“Communist” party of Iran trying to kill or distract the class struggle in the region. This
in the leftist milieu. Like the
must be condemned
according to them.
“If a national bourgeoisie escaped the tentacles of one bloc, it immediately
fell into the maws of another.
To give a few examples:
In the Middle East the Zionists fight the British-backed Arab armies
with Russian and Czech arms, but Stalin’s plans to draw Israel into Russia’s
sphere of influence fail, and Israel is integrated into the US orbit. Since
then, Palestinian resistance to Zionism, having previously relied on British
and German imperialism, is forced into the hands of imperialist powers hostile
to the US or to Israel: Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China;
In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh helps the French and British defeat the
Japanese; then under the aegis of Russia and China he defeats the French,
and inflicts wounding blows on the Americans;
In Cuba, Castro withdraws from the US orbit to fall unambiguously
into the hands of Russian imperialism.”
"Just as the military regimes that time, they were forced to put
down the workers' resistance to the austerity. They are and remained
self-imperialists, and then, they were forced to make their way in the
world market. Imperialism is not a matter of 'great' against 'small',
but it is the capitalism as a mode of global production where everyone is
strong or weak capital in international competition. Therefore, the production
may not 'is disturbed' by the workers' struggle."  [Our translation]
Are all states (regardless of their size, wealth, power, etc.) imperialist?
In the decadence period of capitalism
states regardless of their size,
wealth and power imperialist. The fact is that the capital cannot be accumulated
and no state can avoid this. They had to integrate itselves
into the global market. "Nation or Class" describes this as follows:
“In addition to acting as agents of the big imperialisms by accepting their aid,
advice, and arms, local bourgeois factions themselves become imperialist pure and
simple as soon as they grab control of the state. Because no nation can accumulate
in absolute autarky they have no choice but to begin to expand at the expense of
ether nations even more backward, and thus engage in policies of annexation,
unequal exchange, etc.
In the epoch of capitalist decadence, every nation state is an imperialist power