Originally published in Historia de las Ideas nº 5 in January 2026s nº 5 en enero de 2026

RESUME

This article explores the national question in the political thought of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels through a close examination of various of their texts, including their personal correspondence, which reveals the development of their perspectives in light of the changing political landscape of 19th-century Europe.

Living in an era marked by the emergence of national movements, Marx and Engels devoted particular attention to cases such as Poland and Ireland, thereby laying the foundations for a materialist interpretation of nationalism. Their analysis primarily emphasizes the imperative subordination of national movements to the broader revolutionary struggle; the differentiation between revolutionary nations and historically passive peoples; the issue of national self-determination; and the political tension between federalism and centralism as models of state organization.

Another key aspect is their conceptualization of the nation, and how it differs from the notion of nationality, taking into consideration elements such as territory, language, and historical development.

Although their views evolved over time, they remained strategically coherent within the framework of class struggle. Their positions should not be reduced to isolated quotations, nor interpreted through the lens of the dogmatism and doctrinal readings that pervade much of contemporary Marxist scholarship.

This study constitutes the initial installment of a broader research project aimed at reconstructing and elucidating the original perspectives held by some of the most influential figures in Marxist theory, from its early formation to the late twentieth century.

Keywords: Engels; state; Marx; Marxism; nation

INTRODUCTION

For many years now, we have lived in a state of permanent social and political polarization. This has led, due to strategic needs, to the political parties and business groups that govern us and also dominate the academic, cultural, and media spheres developing a series of policies that have resulted in a general alienation and dumbing down of the population and in the use of political terms that has brought about an indeterminacy or blurring of issues and concepts that were previously clear.

It is necessary to undertake a process of political and ideological clarification regarding concepts that are vital for a useful analysis of our reality. Anything related to fascism and communism is perhaps the most affected. This has been particularly pronounced in the national question from a Marxist perspective, making this clarification necessary not only in the name of truth and the pursuit of it and the advancement of knowledge, but also out of intellectual honesty and a duty to social science and the people of Spain.

Therefore, a series of texts will be published, presenting an exhaustive research study of each Marxist author, [1]followed by a comparative analysis and an independent study of the issue in the present day, in this first half of the 21st century.

Retrospective of the issue and the authors

The national question is addressed by both authors in several writings and letters (including their own) on specific issues, especially the situation in Ireland and Poland; but never clearly in works that indicate the line they defended on the problem in general, which did happen with Lenin, Stalin, Rosa Luxemburg and other communists who succeeded them over time.

This work will attempt to extract the lessons of the founders of scientific socialism, striving to reach the essence of their thinking on this matter. Both authors faced challenges that shaped their evolving positions; therefore, those who resort to out-of-context quotations can, and indeed do, defend one thing and its opposite.

In subsequent texts, we will undoubtedly see how theorists and leaders of the Second International fell into an internal doctrinal struggle over the national question, a struggle that would be swept away by the impetus, influence, and evolution of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Both authors approach the national question, and let us not forget the colonial question, which is entirely linked to the former, as something secondary, subordinate to the interests of the general revolutionary struggle. In the Irish case, they also highlight the importance of and interrelationship with the agrarian struggle. [2].

Marx and Engels wanted to use the potential of the national movement, especially that of the colonies, to promote the revolution; therefore, specific movements had to be subordinated to the general revolutionary movement.

In the case of Poland, they linked the struggle for agrarian reform with the national struggle, without the possibility of obtaining satisfactory results independently, all, of course, under the needs of the general revolutionary struggle. [3].

Therefore, it is so important to understand that the essence conveyed by both authors in all their texts is more relevant than the value of the literal meaning. All the changes over time in Marx and Engels' positions on the national question were due to the need for adaptation within the revolutionary movement; under no circumstances were they ideological shifts or fundamental errors.

Continuing with the above, the terminology they use regarding revolutionary and reactionary peoples, peoples without history, or national rejects is striking. What prevails in both authors is the importance of the class struggle, clearly separating those who have a mission of progress from those who do not.

They were firmly committed to the independence of Poland (Slavs), while maintaining a critical stance, often resorting to harsh condemnations of the other Slavic peoples, whom they saw as linked to Russia's imperial vision. They were particularly harsh on Russia, which, according to both of them, represented the most vibrant force of reaction. [4].

It is important to note that over time they went from thinking that there were no revolutionary possibilities in Russia to believing that a revolution would soon take place in that country. [5].

They held a similar position regarding Ireland, being strong advocates for its independence not only to advance the workers' struggle in that country, but also to overthrow the English oligarchy and liberate the nation's workers. They always prioritized the class struggle and the general movement over specific issues.

For Marx and Engels, "a nation cannot be free while it continues to oppress other nations," [6]a principle particularly evident in their work on Poland and Ireland, which led to heated debates within the International.

Marx pointed out that even if the oppression of a people were reduced compared to previous periods (referring to Ireland), if the oppression was annihilating in its nature, it left only the path of independence, for it was either independence or destruction. [7].

Regarding self-determination, both authors opposed granting this right to everyone; only large nations should possess it. Smaller peoples, such as the Slavic nations, should not have this possibility, as Marx and Engels believed they were destined to disappear for the sake of historical progress.

Support for the separation of nations should be contingent upon revolutionary struggle, not cultural sentimentality. Supporting all processes of self-determination was more characteristic of Bakunin than of Marxist positions. Fixed formulas have never served a living, creative Marxism.

Another point to consider, and one that must be included in this introduction to Marx and Engels's position on the national question, is the famous, mutilated, and out-of-context phrase "the workers have no country" from the Communist Manifesto.

It is necessary to show the complete fragment:

"Communists are also accused of wanting to abolish the homeland, nationality. Workers have no homeland. What they do not possess cannot be taken from them, since the proletariat must first conquer political power, rise to the status of a national class, constitute itself as a nation—it is still national, though by no means in the bourgeois sense." [8].

We can see that Marx's intended meaning is precisely the opposite of that used by those who employ this distorted phrase to attack any national attitude or position from a class perspective.

Although later Marxist authors further developed these issues, the work of Marx and Engels reveals a theory centered on revolution, yet one that does not shy away from discussing or championing national movements in its pursuit—a far cry from the anti-Marxist national nihilism they attempt to attribute to them.

Key aspects of Marx and Engels on the national question

The approach to the thinking of Marx and Engels on the national question cannot be developed as a monothematic and historical explanation of what happened in Ireland, Poland, Turkey or the Austro-Hungarian Empire in isolation; one must try to extract from all the documents they bequeathed to us general positions on the question, transversal in some of them, not only applicable to a specific case of that historical moment.

These are, without doubt, the main questions to be developed.

Federalism or centralism. The small states

The existence of small states was meaningless to Marx and Engels; their position clearly adapted to the material conditions of the time. They supported a federation between Ireland and England, but understood it as an exceptional measure given their existing material circumstances.

On the issue in general, they were quite clear:

"What should take the place of present-day Germany? In my view, the proletariat can only use the form of a single, undivided republic. The federal republic remains, even now, considered as a whole, a necessity in the vast territory of the United States, although in the East it is already beginning to be an obstacle. It would be progress in England, where four nations live on two islands and where, despite a single Parliament, three distinct legislative systems exist side by side. In tiny Switzerland, it has long been a tolerable obstacle only because Switzerland is content to be a purely passive member of the European system of states.

For Germany, a federal organization in the Swiss style would be a considerable step forward. Two points distinguish a federal state from a unitary state: each federated state, each canton, has its own civil and criminal legislation and its own judicial organization; moreover, alongside the People's Chamber, there is a House of Representatives of the States, in which each canton, large or small, votes as such.

As for the first point, we have happily overcome it and we are not going to be so naive as to reinstate it; as for the second, we have it in the form of the Federal Council, which we could perfectly well do without, all the more so since our "federal state" is already the transition to a unitary state. And our mission is not to reverse the revolution carried out from above in 1866 and 1870, but, on the contrary, to ensure that the necessary additions and amendments are introduced into it through a movement from below." [9].

For them, most of the federations existing in their time were federations in name only, due to extraordinary circumstances, or were in the process of transitioning to a unitary republic, since federalism represented merely an obstacle to progress. A unitary republic would be more efficient and have fewer bureaucratic problems, which would lead to the implementation of federalism under normal conditions being seen as a step backward.

A unitary republic would be more efficient and have fewer bureaucratic problems, which would lead to the implementation of federalism under normal conditions being seen as a step backward. [9].

Engels connects the need for political centralization with the industrial, economic, and communication advancements made by different countries in their development. [10].

For him, a unitary republic represents a higher stage than a bourgeois liberal regime or a return to the old regime and its feudal-type divisions. In fact, he referred to this type of division as odious feudal fragmentation. [11].

Self-determination. Potential of oppressed nations

As already stated in the previous section, for Engels, self-determination was a right that all the great nations of Europe had; in fact, he restricted access to self-determination to Italy, Poland, Germany, Hungary, and Ireland. [12].

For a time, Marx argued that it was impossible for Ireland to secede politically from England, but over time he adopted a position advocating for separation as a means to carry out a revolution in Ireland and, consequently, in England itself.

After separation, he saw the possibility, the challenge, of a federation, but on equal footing. [13].

If England maintained an army in Ireland, the English workers' and revolutionary movement could never emancipate itself; it had to weaken its own bourgeoisie before it could mount any real assault on power. Without a common cause with the oppressed people of Ireland, Marx saw no possibility of victory. [14].

Engels was clear that national struggle possessed a definite potential in advancing the interests of the proletariat, since its revolutionary development led to a fierce struggle not only against foreign oppressors, but also against the aristocracy of one’s own country.

He also pointed to the example of Poland as a national struggle against reaction at all levels. [15]This revolutionary potential of the national struggle is one of the reasons why the communists put so much effort into dominating this struggle over the years.

It is important to note that the author himself asserted that both Poland and Ireland had the right and the duty to be nationalist before internationalist, as they needed to build their national identities first before embracing and developing internationalism.

He points out that if the struggle for Polish national independence had been separated from the Polish people, they would have shifted their sympathies toward European transformation. [16].

Nation

For Marx, the nation is an objective condition, not an individual choice; one is born as part of a nation, which is conditioned by the development of preceding history, in which multiple factors have intervened, initially highlighting geographical and linguistic ones.

The constitution of the modern nation is linked to the bourgeois class, to ascendant capitalism. [17].

Engels highlights as relevant characteristics of the nation having a large population and a clear delimitation of the community of territory. [18].

Furthermore, it distinguishes between nation and nationality. The former would be that which has managed to establish itself as an independent state, with ethnolinguistic borders and whose birth is linked to bourgeois revolutions; while the latter would be those that have not achieved the above and are dominated, in a relationship of dependence with more powerful nations that will eventually absorb them. [19].

Marx points out that the bourgeoisie of different countries, even in competition and confrontation, unites against the oppressed to maintain their exploitation. According to him, the only way to achieve working-class emancipation is through the unification of peoples, which, moreover, can only be achieved based on their shared interests, that is, on the abolition of capitalist property relations.

He links the victory of revolutionary forces and national liberation to the total defeat of the bourgeoisie by the working class. [20].

Therefore, the communists would be the only ones whose positions and actions would be developed independently of national affiliation and representing the interests of the general revolutionary movement. [21].

Marx adds that, despite the religious and linguistic differences and the labor competition between Irish and English workers, the weight of the economic sphere they share is stronger, so the union should focus on what they have in common. [22].

Language, in Engels’ view, is one of the key factors in the formation of a State, although linguistic borders do not necessarily coincide with national ones. Likewise, even where a State exists that represents or defends a nation, that nation is not necessarily confined to that State. [23].

Germany's example is clear in this regard. Furthermore, it points out that nationalities strive to become nations; some succeed as a result of and alongside the general progress of their region, while others fail, remaining in their status as a decaying people dependent on a larger nation.

There is no European country—and it is usually an exception outside of Europe as well—in which there is not a province or territory seeking secession, under a wide variety of arguments.

Engels himself stated that many of these regions are nothing but ruins, remnants that could not constitute themselves as a nation in time and were absorbed by the one that could. He even called them the waste of peoples whose only options are to assimilate into the powerful nation, disappear, or join the reaction, as he saw the small Slavic peoples doing.

For the author, the only possibility of progress for these peoples is to disappear. He cites the Basques in Spain with the Carlists as an example of this. [24].

He divided nations into two groups: revolutionary and counter-revolutionary. The former were those with the historical mission of being bearers of progress, meaning their development was geared towards fulfilling the demands of historical development; however, the latter were those condemned to disappear, their existence nothing more than resistance to progress, to the future.

He cited the Germans, Poles, and Hungarians as examples of revolutionary nations, and the small Slavic nations that played into Russia's hands as counter-revolutionary ones. [25].

The proponents of what Engels himself called "peoples without history" resorted to national narratives to try to equate themselves with other nations, especially in the moral sphere, which, according to the author, had little to do with economic and historical issues.

For him, these peoples lacked any kind of historical viability; the only way for them to achieve progress was through the intervention of foreign powers. [26].

IN CONCLUSION

The national question from a Marxist perspective is difficult to understand if one is not familiar with dialectical materialism and its application to practical reality, if one does not understand the motivations behind the class struggle and the ongoing pursuit of social transformation, of socialist revolution.

It is necessary to grasp the revolutionary essence of Marxism and prioritize it over its literal interpretation, because otherwise, the evolution of positions—not only those of Marx and Engels, but also of all those who continued their thought—will not be understood.

It may seem somewhat incoherent or like there are ideological swings, let alone if we study Lenin or Stalin; but if all the above issues are understood and the primacy of the development of the class struggle, of the interests of the general revolutionary movement, is assimilated, we will realize the coherence of his perspectives over time, not of a specific past positioning, but of the essence of his thought itself.

Communists are often pitted against each other based on outdated principles, but if we approach this with an understanding of the ideology itself, the Marxist authors' own views on it, and dialectical and historical materialism, we realize that they maintain their essence and coherence, even if they advocate different solutions to the same problem. Material conditions change, and Marxists must adapt to them

What may have been correct in 1850 is not necessarily correct in 1917, much less in 2025.

Scientific socialism, popularly known as Marxism, is not limited to the life and work of Marx and Engels; one only needs to read these two authors on the subject to realize this.

It offers a concrete analysis of the concrete situation, a guide for the study, interpretation, and transformation of society. There is no other way to understand Marxism and to make a historical, political, economic, or philosophical approach to it.

This series of texts arose from the need to clarify existing concepts. Therefore, a separate study was conducted by each author, addressing the national question from the perspective of each author or group of authors (due to their contemporaries), before proceeding to conduct their own updated analysis.

It is quite possible that the first series of articles will be published separately, due to issues, commitments, and publishing contracts, with the intention that they will all be published together in the medium term, including previously unpublished material. Historical and theoretical development is an ongoing task that should not be interrupted by problems of this kind.

REFERENCES

[1] En un principio se realizarán trabajos sobre Marx y Engels; Lenin; Rosa Luxemburgo; Stalin, tratando en otro artículo la evolución de la Internacional Comunista; Kautsky, junto a otros autores de la II Internacional, y Hoxha.

[2] Renato Levrero, «Marx, Engels y la cuestión nacional», en Imperio y colonia. Escritos sobre Irlanda. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1979, pp. 44-45.

[3] Friedrich Engels, «El debate sobre Polonia en Francfort», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, p. 78.

[4] Friedrich Engels, «El paneslavismo y la guerra de Crimea», en Los nacionalismos contra el proletariado. Ediciones Espartaco Internacional, 2008, pp. 78-85. Disponible en: https://ayanrafael.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/marx-k-engels-f-los-nacionalismos-contra-el-proletariado.pdf.

[5] Friedrich Engels, «Un llamamiento polaco», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980.

[6] Friedrich Engels, «Discurso sobre la cuestión nacional, el maquinismo y la agudización del antagonismo burguesía-proletariado», en El Manifiesto del Partido Comunista (anexos). Obras escogidas de Carlos Marx y Federico Engels. Edicions Internacionals Sedov, 2022. Disponible en: https://www.grupgerminal.org/?q=system/files/1847-11-29-discurso-engels.pdf.

[7] Karl Marx, «Un llamamiento polaco», en Imperio y colonia. Escritos sobre Irlanda. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1979, p. 156.

[8] Friedrich Engels y Karl Marx, El Manifiesto del Partido Comunista. Disponible en: https://omegalfa.es/downloadfile.php?file=libros/el-manifiesto-comunista.pdf.

[9] Friedrich Engels, «Contribución a la crítica del proyecto socialdemócrata de 1891», en Obras escogidas, tomo III. Moscú: Editorial Progreso, 1974. Disponible en: https://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1890s/1891criti.htm.

[10] Friedrich Engels, «El paneslavismo democrático», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, p. 115.

[11] Friedrich Engels, «Revolución y contrarrevolución en Alemania», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, pp. 154-156.

[12] Aunque se añada Irlanda en esta enumeración, trata la cuestión en otros textos que no son el citado.

[13] Karl Marx, «Marx a Engels», en Imperio y colonia. Escritos sobre Irlanda. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1979, p. 138.

[14] Karl Marx, «Marx a Ludwig Kugelmann», en Imperio y colonia. Escritos sobre Irlanda. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1979, pp. 187-189.

[15] Friedrich Engels, «El debate sobre Polonia en Francfort», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, pp. 66-67.

[16] Friedrich Engels, «La cuestión polaca», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, p. 261.

[17] Georges Haupt y Claudie Weil, «Marx y Engels frente al problema de las naciones», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, pp. 7-11.

[18] Friedrich Engels, «Revolución y contrarrevolución en Alemania», en Las guerras campesinas / Revolución y contrarrevolución en Alemania, pp. 184-186. Disponible en: https://proletarios.org/books/Engels-Revolucion_y_contrarrevolucion.pdf.

[19] Friedrich Engels, La decadencia del feudalismo y el ascenso de la burguesía. Edicions Internacionals Sedov, 2022, pp. 8-16. Disponible en: https://omegalfa.es/downloadfile.php?file=libros/la-decadencia-del-feudalismo-y-el-ascenso-de-la-burguesia.pdf; Georges Haupt y Claudie Weil, «Marx y Engels frente al problema de las naciones», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, p. 13.

[20] Karl Marx, «Discurso sobre Polonia», en Los nacionalismos contra el proletariado. Ediciones Espartaco Internacional, 2008, pp. 41-42. Disponible en: https://proletarios.org/books/Marx-Engels_Los-nacionalismos-contra-el-proletariado.pdf.

[21] Friedrich Engels, «Marx y la Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-1849)», en Obras escogidas, tomo III. Moscú: Editorial Progreso, 1974. Disponible en: https://www.marxists.org/espanol/m-e/1880s/1884-nrz.htm.

[22] Karl Marx, «Posición de la Asociación Internacional de Trabajadores en Alemania e Inglaterra», en Imperio y colonia. Escritos sobre Irlanda. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1979, p. 316.

[23] Friedrich Engels, La decadencia del feudalismo y el ascenso de la burguesía. Edicions Internacionals Sedov, 2022, p. 9. Disponible en: https://omegalfa.es/downloadfile.php?file=libros/la-decadencia-del-feudalismo-y-el-ascenso-de-la-burguesia.pdf.

[24] Friedrich Engels, «La lucha magiar», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, pp. 101-105.

[25] Friedrich Engels, «La lucha magiar», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, pp. 97-100.

[26] Friedrich Engels, «El paneslavismo democrático», en La cuestión nacional y la formación de estados. México: Ediciones Pasado y Presente, 1980, pp. 109-111.