National Unity or Class Struggle: In Response to Dr. Khatchik Derghougassian (Part 1)
Several months ago, I found myself embroiled in a debate concerning socialist theory with Dr. Khatchik Derghougassian. The central matter of discussion was whether a political party should work in favor of the interests of the entirety of the nation or the working class; Dr. Derghougassian posited the former, while I defended the latter. Though I responded then, with the benefit of a better grasp on theory and on the occasion of the 203rd anniversary of Friedrich Engels’ birth, I will now elucidate on this matter and respond to this important question: national unity or class struggle? Strongly believing in the necessity and benefit of critique and self-criticism, I choose to critique his approach but do so with immense comradely respect; while I believe that Derghougassian’s theoretical worldview is permeated with bourgeois-nationalism, he has made an indelible mark on the modern Armenian leftist movement and contributed even to my own political thought.
Dr. Derghougassian writes:
I do not believe that this approach [prioritization of the interests of the working class] — with which I do not agree as a socialist but respect in the broad framework of discussions surrounding the socialist struggle as occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — can bear in mind the return [re-liberation] of Artsakh’s benefit to the Armenian nation. The logic, if I understood it correctly, is the subordination of the Artsakh struggle and, generally, national-liberation struggles to the first priority: class struggle on an international scale, as a result of which, all national questions, including, for us Armenians, Artsakh’s right to self-determination. But we saw that one a century ago when the Sovietization of Armenia ended in the sacrifice of Artsakh, Nakhijevan, Javakhk, and Western Armenia in the name of the international revolution. In the case of blockaded Artsakh, what logic does class struggle have when the survival of 120,000 Armenians is the matter in question?
Let us first address Derghougassian’s argument in general and then in detail — piece by piece.
National Unity against the Class Struggle
First, let us ask ourselves why the issue is framed as an opposition. Surely the two are not mutually exclusive? But it is not those who support class struggle that have placed the two in opposition. Throughout history, the oppressed classes of Armenian society have clamored for their own liberation from oppression but have been met with violence or told to be patient, as the national struggle must take precedence. These classes take the form of traditional economic classes (i.e., peasants, proletarians, capitalists) and non-traditional classes (i.e., men and non-men). All of these causes — the socialist movement, feminist revolution, queer liberation, and so forth — are indefinitely paused in favor of the fundamental national question.
In reality, those who demand patience do not ever, unless forced, intend to support the class struggle — economic or otherwise. It is those parts of the intelligentsia who wish to indefinitely postpone economic liberation that have forced this opposition between the class struggle and the national movement. However, we will also find that the very nature of the class struggle precludes resolving the national question through nationalist means.
Thus, in this dichotomy between class and nation, which must we choose? To answer this question, let us consider who calls for class struggle and who calls for national solidarity.
National solidarity is almost exclusively promoted by the exploiter class, and it could only be such. Calls for unity only appear in the absence of it — after all, if people are united, there is no reason to call for solidarity and unity. A people’s unity is only disrupted by class struggle (economic or otherwise), which means that class struggle predates the movement for national solidarity and that the latter only appeared in reaction to the former. In practice, we see this class struggle manifested in the conflict between monarchs and lords, between the noble class and the bourgeois class, and today, that struggle is manifested as the conflict of the exploiter bourgeoisie (owner) and exploited proletariat (worker) classes. And every time, the ruling authority of the day ordered the people to unite for the sake of national (or tribal, imperial, kingdom’s) interests and fight against the rebel force.
Moreover, when we examine this issue, we see that there is no such thing as a national interest because one’s interests are dictated by the material and physical conditions of their life. There can be no such thing as national interests because the interest of the exploiter is to squeeze the life out of the working class, and the interest of the worker is to not be worked to death. A common place of origin does not indicate common interest. The gazelle and the lion, who may share a common place of origin in the savanna, cannot have a common interest: the interest of the lion is to eat the gazelle, and the interest of the gazelle is to not be eaten.
Class struggle, obviously, is called for by the oppressed classes of society, as the upper echelons have no desire to change a system that benefits them. In fact, these exploiter elements and all those in their service (including those who call themselves revolutionary) are prepared to do anything in order to stave off class struggle; this typically manifests in artificially created national unity through diversionary wars and conflicts. This can be seen in dictatorial Azerbaijan, where the fascist Aliyev has consistently used Armenophobia and the Artsakh Issue in order to distract the Azerbaijani working class from their own political, economic, and social enchainment.
But what of the extranational (foreign) threats to an entire people? you will likely ask. To answer this question, it is necessary to adopt a minimum and maximum approach — the first based in the realm of pragmatism and the second based on a currently unrealizable ideal.
Let us begin with the minimum approach, which is the defense of the nation. Essentially, Derghougassian asks: when the issue of national survival is at hand, what use is class struggle? In this context, is class struggle still relevant? First, let us consider the nature of the intranational oppressor and oppressed classes during periods of struggle for survival (գոյամարտ). The nature of the bourgeois-oppressor class is to hoard wealth during times of crisis and to profit off of the miserable conditions of their own people. The expropriation and just re-distribution of bourgeois wealth are not only not irrelevant but are critical for responding to invasion and crises. If the bourgeois class continues to oppress and exploit the people during a crisis, then the people must continue their class struggle during that very same crisis.
After all, it is the working class who suffers, not the bourgeoisie; it is the working class that is tied to the land out of material necessity, while the bourgeoisie can easily leave for other countries; it is the working class refugees of Artsakh that must now find a way to provide for their families while the oligarchic class, many of whom already had homes in the Republic of Armenia, continue to live like royalty. Imagine how many Artsakh refugees could be housed in the mansions of Gagik Tsarukyan, Robert Kocharyan, and other oligarchs; imagine how much more capable the defense of the Armenian people could be if these exploiters’ millions could be appropriated and used for the benefit of the people. Thus, we see that from the perspective of necessary popular defense, interclass solidarity is still not necessary.
As for the maximum approach, first, we must realize that all national questions will be resolved through the end of the political and economic dictatorship of the bourgeois-wealthy class, which muddles national issues and actively creates more national antagonisms. In its place, when the workers of all nations unite and overthrow their oppressors, the brotherhood of all peoples and peace on Earth will be created. International, not national, solidarity is what will stave off the threat of foreign invasion; in the event of war, international solidarity is what will foment anti-war and pro-peace general strikes and rebellions. Yes, we are far away from this beautiful ideal, yet it is achievable.
The next part of this article will focus on the concepts of national liberation, colonialism, and contextualized class struggle, specifically examining the cases of Artsakh, Javakhk, and Western Armenia.
