National communism
| Part of a series on |
| Callahanism |
|---|
National communism was a Continental state policy introduced by Seamus Callahan, and is one of the cornerstone beliefs of Callahanism. In orthodox Marxism a central idea is that of proletarian internationalism, or the perception that all communist revolutions are part of a single global class struggle rather than separate localized events, and that a world revolution will overthrow capitalism in all countries though conscious revolutionary action of the organized working class to create global communism. As a political theory, national communism does not contradict this central idea, but rather argues that in light of the failures of the Revolutions of 1917–1923 to immediately initiate the world revolution, it is necessary for the existing socialist states, namely the United Commonwealth, to strengthen its position and strive to build socialism domestically. Considered one of the primary doctrines to Marxist theory contributed by Seamus Callahan, this idea would be highly controversial and denounced by other Marxist theoreticians, such as the historic Labor Front, the United Opposition, and the Anti-Callahan left, many of whom subscribe to the theory of a permanent revolution. Despite their similar names, national communism is philosophically and historically distinct from the Derzhavist appropriation of socialist rhetoric, which popularizes “national socialism” as an alternative to international socialism as promoted by Marx.
Background
In Marxist theory, all communist revolutions are part of a single, global class struggle, and conscious revolutionary action of the working class will overthrow capitalism in all countries. The United Commonwealth made efforts to propagate a global revolution, such as through the creation of the Landonist International and Continental aid for rebellions in Superior. The defeat of other revolutions worldwide gradually caused belief that the world revolution was imminent to be walked back. At the beginning of the Continental Revolution, the expectation was that revolution would soon spread to the rest of the world. However, with the defeat of proletarian revolutions in countries such as Superior, the consensus among the Continentalist Party of the United Commonwealth was that this revolution may not be imminent, leading to the signing of the Treaty of Bernheim. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels gave differing statements on the possibility of revolution and socialist construction taking place in only one country, although the consensus view is that they believed it was highly unlikely if not impossible. Marx and Engels were skeptical of the possibility of a socialism being built in one country alone, writing that capitalism had created global interdependence and the necessity for revolution in all industrialized countries. The Communist Manifesto also notes that, “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.” In 1847 Engels wrote in Principles of Communism the following explanation:
Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?
No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others. Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries—that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany. It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace. It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.
However, Callahan would also point to what Marx and Engels wrote in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, which included the following statements:
The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationalities. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
Although Aeneas Warren subscribed to belief in the world revolution, he stressed that it would be possible and perhaps necessary to begin revolutions in certain countries. In 1915 he would write:
Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organizing their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world.
After the Continental Revolution, in 1918 he would respond to criticism the following:
There are some who call themselves Socialists, who assert that power should not have been seized until the revolution had broken out in all countries. They do not suspect that by speaking in this way they are deserting the revolution and going over to the side of the bourgeoisie. To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.
Theory
Seamus Callahan followed the direction of Aeneas Warren during his lifetime, although his opinion began to change after Warren's death, or at least his outward appearance. Although Callahan claimed to be following the same teachings and doctrine of Warren, he reinterpreted these statements as justifying the need for the state to construct socialism domestically before exporting it, and popularized the belief that the United Commonwealth should look internally and build socialism domestically, as this would create adequate conditions to defend the revolution, would establish a positive example and model for the rest of the world, and would help erode the capitalist hegemony. In Callahan's theory it was stressed that the idea of the world revolution was not rejected, but rather was confirmed to be inevitable, but rather Callahan looked toward the defense and enrichment of countries gradually, in order to better prepare for such a revolution. A cornerstone of Callahanism became the self-sufficiency and economic success of the United Commonwealth, which would dislodge the country from the global market and shield it from capitalist manipulation.
According to a 1928 article to the Daily Worker authored by Callahan, Warren stated "we have all that is necessary for the building of a complete socialist society", and claimed that socialism would be indeed constructed through the five-year plan. However, Callahan would reiterate that the final victory was only possible on the international scale with the help of all workers of other countries, and therefore said that national communism is a temporary measure that does not vanquish capitalism globally. Proponents of national communism seek to create a self-sufficient society that would not be vulnerable to capitalist manipulation on the global market, and the economic plans of the 1920s issued by Callahan sought to achieve this through a focus on industrialization and urbanization. Beginning around 1926, Callahan also directly influenced the doctrine of the Landonist International to move toward the mobilization of Landonists globally not toward immediate revolution, but rather the defense of the Continental state, in what became known as the New Epoch.
Criticism
According to Zhou Xinyue, the adoption of a nationalist or patriotic character in Continental socialism supported by Callahan contributed to Continental isolation, and that isolation bred bureaucratization of the proletarian dictatorship. Callahanism would be criticized by the “Left Opposition” of the United Commonwealth for allowing a “degeneration” toward bureaucracy, which deprioritized the rights and privileges of the working classes, and stated that Callahanist isolation created an “us versus them” mindset that reinforced state control, weakened criticism, and made opposition seem criminal. According to Zhou and Harry Haywood, national communism also bred an embrace for white American nationalism as a consequence of its non-internationalism. This is most widely seen in Callahan’s undermining of Okaloosa. According to Haywood, while this may have had a political or strategic interest, it was also chiefly guided by a nationalist, racist ideology. Anti-Callahanists also cite Callahan’s proclivity for exportations and mass migrations of peoples, which later inspired similar ethnic nationalist tendencies in China and other countries.
The primary alternate perspective on national communism is known as permanent revolution, which holds that the optimal strategy for the revolutionary class is to continue pursue the revolution without compromise or alliance with opposing sections of society. Proponents of this theory reject national communism, and instead advocate for a proletarian revolution to surpass the "bourgeois-democratic revolutions", and for this revolution to be made permanent, holding to the belief that a workers' state would not be able to survive in the face of global capitalism unless it catalyzed immediate revolution in the rest of the world.