Unity
& Struggle 9, 2002Organ of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations
Unity
& Struggle 9, 2002Communist October Organisation of Spain
ORGANIZACION COMUNISTA OCTUBRE DE ESPANA
"Our Galician dialect deserves all our sympathy, because it is the language of the labourer, the worker, the artisan, the peasant, the sailor (...) and is despised only by the flashy unemployed young toffs in the province's capitals." (Castelao)
The tragic events involving ETA, both in the Basque country as well as other parts of the country, pose in the most pressing way the problem of nationalities, and what attitude to take towards this question.
To start with, we have to take on board the fact that the problem of nationalities and national minorities is not restricted to the Basques. In Spain, national unity was established formally in the 15th century with the annexation of the kingdom of Navarre (1) by Ferdinand II (nevertheless, it was not until the 18th century that the title of "King of Spain" came into use, and the titles of Aragon and Castilla etc. were no longer used). Since then, different nationalities have co-existed, such as Galician, Catalan, and Basque. The three Basque provinces united voluntarily under the kingdom of Castilla: Vizcaya in 1179 and Guipúzcoa and Alava in 1200.
We must remember that the question of nationalities is one of the forms under which the class struggle is played out in every country. Marx and Engels are quite right when they explain:
"The bourgeoisie takes over more and more the division of the means of production, property and population, centralising the means of production and concentrating ownership in the hands of a few. The necessary consequence of this is the centralisation of political power. The independent provinces, linked together only by federal connections, with different interests, laws, government and customs (border taxes), are then consolidated into a single nation, under a single government, a single system of law, a single national class interest, and a single customs system."
The present process of globalisation, deregulation, etc., which we are undergoing, in no way invalidates the foregoing statement, which has been confirmed throughout a long historical process, demonstrating that the class struggle under capitalism can change its form but not its content.
The forces of reaction, and not only in Spain, are trying to create confusion in terminology. We must not confuse nationality with nation. In one nation, various nationalities may exist, as in Spain. Nationality is not always convertible into nationhood. To use a classic formulation:
"A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture."
In the historical process of the formation of nations, not all manage to achieve statehood. The uneven development of capitalism results in a range of underdeveloped and weaker nations (Africa is a paradigm for this), through the development of their own bourgeoisie fall under the claws of colonial and now neo-colonial imperialism.
Faced with the forced "unification" imposed by the strong imperialist countries, there arises the resistance of the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation. The said bourgeoisie calls on the entire people, appropriates the national flag, and attempts to identify its own cause with that of the people. That is how the "national problem" arises.
But for the bourgeoisie the main problem is not about how to "liberate the entire nation, with all its people and nationalities." Its main problem is the market, finance, competition with the bourgeoisie of other nations, and how to emerge triumphant from out of this competition and confrontation. For this reason, at a certain point, the bourgeoisie has to chose: either it remains at the head of the national movement and takes the struggle to its conclusion, towards independence, towards separation from the dominant imperialism and the creation of its own state - or else it abandons the national movement smoothly and completely, and integrates itself with the dominant class. In Spain the big bankers and financiers, Basque, Catalan and Gallic, are perfectly integrated into the state, form part of it and are opposed to any national movement. (2)
What is certain is that the Catalan, Basque and Gallic nationalities, in existence before the 16th century, never succeeded in asserting themselves in every aspect within the population of the rest of Spain, nor did they enjoy the freedom to practise their national identity, with equal rights within the state which was establishing itself little by little.
We must not confuse the state with the nation. The state is a political manifestation, an instrument of class rule, and the oppression by one class of the others. The state has existed since, with the dissolution of primitive communism, there began the division of society into distinct, antagonistic classes.
The characteristics of Spain as a nation, not only as a state, made up of various nationalities, took place over several centuries and particularly over the last 150 years, without any social class from any of the nationalities having chosen to establish their own state. (3) These features of Spain as a nation have developed to such a point that today it is out of place, almost grotesque, to claim that the only thing that unites the various peoples of Spain is the existence of a unified and centralised state apparatus. And we repeat, the transitional home rule states are nothing more than a cruel joke, a mockery of all the peoples of Spain.
Nevertheless, there remain regions with their own characteristics which define them as nationalities or national minorities. It is clear that the difference between nation and nationality rests on the fact that to exist as a nation, there must be given, in a stable form, a community of language, history, territory, economic and cultural life. All this is given in Spain, in spite of existing differences.
In the heart of any nation it is possible for there to exist various nationalities, although in some of the aspects indicated, such as language, there are differences, or dialects spoken by the said nationalities or a part of them. (4) In relation to community of territory or economic life, it is equally evident that there is no need to demonstrate this. One would have to be very myopic or closed to deny it. In particular, during more or less the last two centuries, this community has developed throughout Spain; it is a given, it exists, in spite of some or others being opposed to it.
Self-determination
"The
right of self-determination (...) signifies exclusively the right to independence
in the political sense, of the free political separation from the oppressor nation.
This demand of democratic politics requires full freedom of agitation in favour
of separation and that it should be decided by means of a referendum of the nationality
which wishes to separate itself. Therefore, this demand is in no way equivalent
to the separation, breaking away and formation of small states. It is nothing
more than the consequent expression of the struggle against all national oppression"
(V.I. Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, April 1916)
The banner of self-determination cannot be raised outside the context in which we are living; that is to say, of sharp class struggle, which neither globalisation nor "unified thinking" can prevent. This epoch, which continues to be imperialist, is one of larger or smaller confrontations, mitigated sometimes, aggravated at others, and in which the progressives, not to say the revolutionaries, have to openly take the side of the working people.
It must be observed that the imperialist wars for the re-division of the world, the transformation of the national states of Europe into first colonial and now neo-colonial states, shows that the bourgeoisie, far from having resolved the national question, has actually revived the rivalry between nations. The Yugoslav war, or rather, the war against Yugoslavia, is a good example of the foregoing, as is the two-facedness applied by the imperialist powers, including Spain.
This
reality has been examined, even by bourgeois sociology. Thus we see that the French
sociologist Maurice Duverger writes:
"The concept of the "Nation"
in the 18th century is forced through by the bourgeoisie: it serves it to establish
a solidarity with the people and to mobilise their communal feelings against the
cosmopolitan aristocracy" (But when the proletarian class appears as
a revolutionary class with sufficient ability to put the capitalist class in danger):
"the bourgeoisie continues to use nationalist ideology, but now against
the people, to the point of relegating the international tendency to socialism.
The nation serves to establish solidarity between the privileged and the exploited
classes, in order to prevent the workers of all countries uniting against capitalism."
(Sociology and Politics, Barcelona 1968)
The right to self-determination is a democratic demand, insofar as the people clearly do not counterpose their interests to those of people of other nationalities. Marx's statement is absolutely true: "The people who oppress other people cannot be free." In a full democracy, not this Bourbon succession, in order that equality between the different nationalities should be effective, it is necessary to recognise the right to self-determination, that is to say, the right to free and peaceful separation. "Unity" and "democracy" are only deceptive phrases, if one does not recognise the right to separation.
Faced with this problem, we cannot limit ourselves to putting forward some abstract generalities, denouncing repression, etc. We make it very clear that our support for self-determination goes well beyond the bringing down of the monarchy and the establishment of a Federal Republic. This is a revolutionary proposal, which will certainly bring us headaches due to the incomprehension of some, and the angry attacks of others. More precisely, within a truly revolutionary point of view, Marx proposed in 1869 the separation of Ireland from England and added: "Even though after separation there comes federation."
Years
after, Castelao shared in this idea:
"No, it is not certain that Spain
will be united and indivisible, and it is from here that there come the dangers
of disintegration when Power concentrates itself in one province, one city, or
one man. Separatism in Spain is the consequence of an all-absorbing, uniform,
totalitarian politics. Why is it not legitimate for me to feel separatist from
Franco? Oh, if in those moments I could separate Galicia from totalitarian Spain,
I would do it without hesitation, even if it was only to be able to say to the
expatriate Spanish: 'Here you have a Spain where you can live in liberty.' We
would not feel ourselves separatist if we had a Republic legally constituted by
the will of the people, and based on Spanish realities. And in order to defend
this republic, there would not and could not be differences between the genuinely
republican Spanish (...) Spain is not an intellectual concept, but a tangible
reality; it is not an abstract space, but the result of concrete realities: Castille,
as well as Catalonia, the Basque country, Galicia, (...) Spanish republicanism
was born federal; it is obliged to fight against unitarian and centralised Caesarism..."
(Montevideo, 18 April 1943)
The nationalists must understand that by themselves they will never achieve their aims, and that they must unite their forces together with all those who are fighting against the monarchy and for the republic. Their hopes do not have any influence, they cannot be fulfilled within the limits of the Constitution of 1978, and not because that Constitution is already discredited (it has never seen the light of day), but rather because from the first moment it has been and remains a centralist and anti-nationalist Constitution, intended to betray the nationalities.
* * *
Today the nationalist movement is led by the bourgeoisie with the support of elements of the oligarchy. This is clearly evident as much in Catalonia as in Galicia and the Basque country, even though the movement does not exclude -far from it- popular participation to a greater or lesser degree. Here enters into play the role to be developed by the proletariat, since, as we said at the beginning, the movement has components of class struggles.
The first question to be posed is: does the proletariat direct this struggle? It does not direct it, neither in the Basque country, in Catalonia, nor in Galicia, even though there are proletarian sectors or layers in the three nationalities involved in this fight, and to deny this, independently of whatever posture is taken, is pure blindness.
Second question: the framing of the issues is being carried out by the petit and middling bourgeoisie, partly supported by some proletarian sectors and by the oligarchy. Nobody can deny that important sections of the population, particularly in the Basque country, support the nationalist demands of the three nationalities.
Third question: the splitting or division of the bourgeoisie held to the setting up of numerous regional platforms and forces, and the appearance of numerous nationalist political tendencies (and not only in the three historic nationalities). The oligarchy is rubbing its hands at the sight of this panorama of forces, each one occupying its own national niche. This is why, whenever there is any indication of unity among the nationalist forces, such as after the last Catalan, Gallic and Basque elections, alarm bells sound and they attempt to boycott and to stop unity by any means possible. The maxim of divide and rule gives them very good results. In particular the Pact of Lizarra has caused panic in the ruling class. Faced with this Pact, government layers have attacked to the death those forces represented -particularly by the PP and the PSOE in the Basque country. There has been no threat or menace left unused, slanders, insults, every kind of pressure, etc., etc.
What do the various nationalist forces propose? All of them, all without exception, ignore class differences, class contradictions, and refer only to national differences (the differentiating factor, as says Sr. Pujol). In this way, and perhaps unconsciously on the part of some of these forces, they are separating themselves from the proletariat, essentially, as a class. A crass mistake, since in spite of the difficulties suffered, it is the proletariat who will achieve the social, political, economic, and national changes, like it or not.
This posture, this aberration into which the nationalists have fallen, has led them into pronouncements in the very recent past, such as "war against Spain", "war against the Spanish, as Spaniards, whether they are on the left or the right", we are anti-francoists, but above all we are anti Spanish", "Francoism is only an epiphenomenona, our struggle is against Spain", "the Spanish working class is imperialist in the Basque country", and other similar ideas.
Thus even today, or perhaps more than ever today, there persist in the Basque country and Catalonia derogatory expressions aimed at immigrant workers, who are, in general, the most exploited and discriminated against.
The fact cannot be hidden or avoided that the Basque, Catalan, Gallic, (as well as Andaluzian, Extremenan, Cantabran, etc.) ruling classes are the real exploiters and oppressors of the people of their respective nationalities and of the rest of Spain, since these ruling classes are not divided by nationality: they form a unity with a deep sense of class and they close ranks in defence of their interests, their class interests.
Equally, one cannot be unaware of the size of the problem. The reactionary forces attempt, and often succeed, in mobilising one national, regional or area population against another. Once again, they divide and rule. We are of the people, with all our ideological and political differences, but with a common objective: to create a federal Republic in which all the peoples of Spain have influence. It is not too much to remember the great Catalan scientist and republican, Bosch y Guimpera, who warned:
" If Spain is not united with all its peoples, and does not conceive itself and does not conceive itself as an entity formed by all of them, it will never achieve a structure in which no-one feels suppressed or belittled, trailing behind hegemonic groups and peoples, there will be no monopoly on what some believe it necessary to demand, before calling themselves Spanish, and about Spain..."
Is this Spain, "united with all its peoples", the existing Spain with its autonomous regions and imposed monarchy? Evidently not. And not only this: one can state that within the framework of the present constitution, such a Spain has no influence, it cannot succeed, because not only does it ignore all reference to the right of self-determination: it also forbids alliances between communities: "In no case is the federation of Autonomous Communities permitted." (Art. 145)
Nationalism in the Basque Country today
It is necessary to be able to distinguish between oppressor and oppressing nations and nationalities; between patriotic and chauvinist parties on the one hand, and the national movements fighting for their rights on the other.
ETA and its political wing EH speak of their "oppression by the Spanish state." The Government, now of Aznar, previously of Felipe Gonzalez, Calvo Sotelo and Adolfo Suarez, has always described ETA as a terrorist organisation without a political component, and has tried by every means, including the most unscrupulous, to destroy that organisation, and to declare that "there is no Basque problem", that in relation to such a "problem" (euphemism for concealing the real armed conflict), the framework within which to resolve it is the Constitution and the statutes of Guernica.
The reactionary capitalist Government, bound to foreign imperialism, tries to reduce the question to the sole responsibility of "Basque fascism with its greatest exponent, ETA and others like EH, as well as those who ignore them, with clear reference to the PNV and other nationalist forces.
However, nationalism in the Basque country did not rise only with ETA. ETA is the effect, not the cause. Similarly, it is not, as some claim, the invention of Sabino de Arana y Goiri, from Bilbao.
Nationalism made its appearance, more or less structured, with the Carlist guerrillas of the X1X Century; and started rebellious demonstrations with the abolition of the Basque forces in 1876, lost during the second Carlist war.
What Sabino de Arana did do, was to give organisation to the idea of Basque nationalism. In his pamphlets and speeches, Arana expressed ideas which this writer believes no-one can share today. His famous motto "Jaoungoukua eta Lagizarrak" (Gods and Old Laws), reveals the essence of his thought; this is, according to Professor Corcuera Atienza of the University of Euskal Erico, "the foundation of Basque nationalism is religious (...) The defence of Basque nationality, which is of course naturally Christian, demands separation from Spain which is naturally impious (unbelieving)."
It
would be difficult for anyone today to reclaim for the Basque Country the proposals
of Sabina de Arana. Arana wrote, in June 1897:
"There are many Basques
who do not know the Basque language. This is bad. There are some 'maketos' who
do know it. This is worse. A hundred Basques who do not know Basque do grave damage
to the fatherland. A single 'maketo' who does know it does worse damage."
Obsessed
by language, he did not hesitate to attack those nationalists who did not share
his ideas. He wrote in the review Bizkaiterra (October 1894):
"...
The Catalan people wish that all other Spaniards established in the region should
speak Catalan. For us it would be disastrous if the 'maketos' living in our territory
were to speak Basque." (5)'
One of the components of bourgeois, or petit bourgeois, nationalism is traditionalism. In the Basque country this leapt into view. Now they no longer speak of their ancient lost statutes. However they continue to use them to justify their demand for their "lost independence." And as far as nationalism is concerned, the Basque country was independent while they had the old Statutes. The Statutes were abolished in 1876, the date at which, according to nationalist logic, the Basque country lost its independence.
What is certain is that the aberrations like those cited concerning language, are not widely shared, we believe, or at least nobody now proposes them so brutally. But the notion of nationalism manifested as much by ETA as by the PNV, is still in essence that which was held by the aforementioned Biscayan, excluding those who are waverers or undecided. Arana stated:
"(We must separate) nationalism in two classes: the common name which means the restoration of national characteristics, whether they are political, social, ethnographic, religious, literary, etc., and the claim adopted by the political system a few years ago, when we proclaimed ourselves for the restoration of the Basque nation (...) there are no quantities in nationalism, there are no grades: it is one and indivisible; one either is or is not a nationalist, and all those who are, are so equally, and the reason is clear: because nationalism, as distinct from the politics which surround us, is formed only on essential foundations: in order to profess nationalism, you have to profess all its fundamentals: anyone who excludes any of these is not a nationalist..." (Ibid.)
Recent statements by Arzalluz, with whatever nuances one cares to put on them, and of course without falling into the shameful manipulation practised by the PP and the PSOE, are completely Aranist.
The fact that we do not share the postures of the PNV (let us not forget that, nationalism apart, it belongs to the same family as the PPO, nor do we share the tactics and strategy of ETA, lends itself to confusion. We denounce uncompromisingly the reactionary posture of the Government of Spain and of the "Espanolistas" (nationalism of the opposite side), which claims to introduce the idea that anyone who disagrees with them must be with "terrorism".
In the Basque Country there is a percentage of nationalists who are not with ETA nor with the PNV, there are those also who are not nationalists. One cannot marginalize those nationalist sectors nor demonise them. To claim that the solution to the problems is in the Constitution and n the Statute of Guernica, is a complete deception. We have already seen how the Constitution of 78 is anti-nationalist and opposed to any regrouping or agreement between the nationalisms of different zones and regions.
On the other hand, the indiscriminate repression against the Basque nationalists, repression led by the cynical Mayor Oreja, with the keen support of Judge Baltasar Garzon, is creating a real climate of civil war in the Basque country. In effect, an actual State of Emergency has been imposed. How else to understand, except within the framework of a State of Emergency, the monstrous penalties inflicted on minors under 16 years of age who participate in the kale borroka? How to justify ETA prisoners being incarcerated for more than thirty years, in flagrant violation of the monarchic Constitution, while the convicted and condemned bosses of GAL, Barrionuevo and Vera, with twenty-seven assassinations to their name, come out of prison after few weeks, greeted by the leaders of the PSOE? One cannot dismiss the words of General Sabino Fernández Aranda, now monarchist, before a Francoist, demanding this State of Emergency, or the warning of Sr. Serra, crying that if anyone makes any attempt "against the unity" of Spain, it will be necessary to mobilise the Army, as laid down in the Constitution.
Faced with the power and repression of the Government of Aznar, the PSOE (which when it was in government knew only how to utilise state terrorism) adopts servile postures, calling for "united anti-terrorist pacts", etc. They have very little to say about organisations of the left, which sometimes by deed, sometimes by omission, play the same game as the reaction.
The solution is not, as they claim, in the Constitution, a "consensual" constitution, which has avoided since its beginning what should have been its first measure. Since the monarchy arose from an insurrectional uprising against the regime legally established as was the Republic, and there never having been allowed since then any kind of democratic election or referendum, the first question should have been "monarchy or republic." This has not been forthcoming. The Constitution of 78 had a significant number of abstentions, throughout Spain. That is why when the Bourbons or their ministers or Felipe Gonzalez say "the people of Spain gave themselves" this Constitution, they are lying.
In the Basque country, there was a global participation of 44.65%. That is to say, half of the Basques on the electoral register did NOT vote for the Constitution, and of those who did vote, 23.5% voted against. If we summarise these official percentages, we find that 68.5% did not approve this Constitution. (6)
In conclusion
Neither policy measures, nor state terrorism, nor police (7) and judicial repression can solve a problem which has its roots in more than a century and a half ago: nor can they put an end to an organisation which, whether mistaken or not, has remained active both inside and outside the Basque country for more than half a century, and which moreover has the support of an important section of the population, without which it could not have maintained its existence.
Equally certain is that the solution will not come from bombings, kidnappings and accumulated deaths. ETA, by itself, within the present framework, can maintain itself but it cannot win, just as Basque nationalism and its inalienable right to self-determination cannot be heard. Trying to gain from the violence of ETA will not give results to anyone.
We insist that the only solution must be political. Now, the right of self-determination does not mean anything if one cannot indicate the conditions under which it may be exercised. This right presupposes independence and free separation. One cannot pretend that the people of Spain's nationalities can exercise their right outside the framework of the struggle for a new constitution, for the abolition of the monarchy and the restoration of a federal republic. Only within this framework (that of a federal Republic) can one guarantee freedom of propaganda and agitation in favour of self-determination.
In this way, yes, the Basques, the Catalans, the Galicians will be able to exercise their right to self-determination: the right which we will defend up to its ultimate consequences, without giving up our right to proclaim and defend federalism.
One can object that Spain has already existed as a nation and as a state for several centuries, which is true. But a nation is not immoveable; still less so is a state. Both can evolve and change. History is full of examples of this, from the separation of Norway from Sweden in 1905, to the division of ex-Yugoslavia recently (a problem still not concluded), passing through the ending of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or the division of Pakistan, or the dismemberment of the ex-USSR, or thousands more examples.
History can analyse and judge the past; it cannot do so with the future.
Footnotes:
(1)
Navarre, which was the last independent kingdom to join with the kingdoms of Castille
and Aragon, had times when it was dominant over Castille. Thus, King Sancho III
(1004-1035) had under his dominion the Independent County of Castille, Vizcaya
and Alava, and went on to take Leon and Astorga. He called himself, not King of
Navarre, but "King of all the Spains". After its annexation by Castilla,
Navarre preserved its privileges and forces.
(2) There are, nevertheless, certain Basque oligarchies, like the Urquijo, who subsidised the PNV under Franco. The PNV, in spite of the cheap demagogy of its leaders, in particular the ex -Jesuit Arzalluz, represents clerical, oligarchic and reactionary nationalism, and the enemies of social change who, for example, simultaneously demand "liberty" for Euskalerria and applaud the Yankee intervention in Vietnam: "the great Amwerican nation is defending in Vietnam western civilisation against communism."
(3) In the revolt of Barcelona, known as the War of the Reapers (segadores) (1640), against the royal power, Catalonia constituted itself as the Independent Republic of Castille and put itself under the protection of the King of France. When its laws were recognised by the crown, it once again united with Castille in 1653.
(4) For example, in Euskalerria, only one part, I think not the majority, of the Indigenous population speaks Basque, or rather unified Basque or Euskera-batua, while the other part of the population neither speaks it nor understands it.
(5) The quotes from Sabino de Arana are taken from the article by Corcuera Atienza: "Basque nationalism: on the statutory reintegration of historical rights."
(6) In Alava 40.7% abstained and 11.37% voted NO. In Biscay, there were 57.54% abstentions and 8.91% NOs; in Guipúzcoa, 56.57% abstentions and 12.97% NOs.
(7) During the Franco dictatorship, the repression against the nationalists, the forbidding for years of speaking or writing in Catalan, Basque, etc. Awoke a great current of sympathy among those who were not nationalist, and led us to support the struggle for freedoms for the minorities, united in struggle against the dictator. Paradoxically, one can say that Franco gave more support to nationalism than did the nationalists themselves.
Raúl
Marco
December 2000
Communist October
Organisation of Spain
- End -