The Dangers of Nationalism: Lessons from Mansoor Hekmat

My acquaintance with Mansoor Hekmat began in 2004, during a time of turbulence, both in the world and in my own search for meaning. It was in Sanandaj, center city of Kurdistan province in Iran, in the quiet defiance of an underground gathering, that I met a group of members from the Communist Workers’ Party of Iran. They spoke not with the polished rhetoric of those who seek approval but with the raw urgency of those who believe in what they say. It was there, amid whispered discussions of revolution and struggle, that his name first entered my consciousness—a beacon and a question mark, all at once.

Hekmat’s writings have a way of demanding your attention, not because they aim to seduce but because they confront. They do not wrap you in the comfort of abstract theories; they challenge the ground you stand on, the assumptions you have allowed to settle. He spoke of nationalism in a way that seemed almost heretical in a world where every banner, every anthem, was tied to the promise of liberation. He asked what it meant to be free when the boundaries of that freedom were drawn not by the people but by those who sought to contain them.

As I delved deeper into his work, I found myself wrestling with questions I had never thought to ask. What is the role of identity in struggle? Can the language of nations ever serve the interests of the working class? Hekmat did not shy away from these questions; he pulled them into the light, even when the answers were uncomfortable.

This article is not a mere recounting of his ideas. It is an attempt to wrestle with the implications of his critiques, to understand how a Marxist thinker from Iran could offer such a piercing indictment of nationalism that it echoes far beyond the borders of where it comes from. This is not just Hekmat’s story; it is the story of those who carry his legacy and the story of those of us who still seek to understand it.

Hekmat’s Perspective on Nationalism

Hekmat’s critique of nationalism is not simply an ideological dismissal; it is a fierce dissection of its role as a counter-revolutionary force. To him, nationalism does not serve the people; it serves the state. It does not liberate; it binds. And more than that, it betrays the working class. “Communism,” Hekmat wrote, “has become almost everything but this. It has been turned into an ideological and organizational framework for expressing the dissatisfaction of a wide range of individual, nationalist, and local tendencies against aspects of the ‘old social order.’”

His words cut sharply against the grain of those who sought to merge socialist movements with nationalist aspirations. For Hekmat, nationalism is inherently at odds with the class struggle. It co-opts the language of liberation to divide and conquer, turning workers into pawns in the service of state-building rather than agents of their own emancipation. This is not a theoretical abstraction for him; it is rooted in the historical reality of the Iranian left.

Reflecting on the Iranian socialist movement, Hekmat argued that nationalism infiltrated the left to the point where its leaders “represented the radical tendencies within the nationalist, reformist, and liberal traditions of bourgeois opposition.” He does not mince words when describing the result: “Iranian socialism was born detached from the practice and action of the working class and was alien to the socialism of Marx and Lenin”.

This critique does not merely denounce the past; it warns the present. Hekmat’s piercing question is: Can a movement built on the illusions of nationalism truly lead to liberation? His answer is unequivocal. The proletariat’s cause cannot align with national boundaries or cultural essentialism because these are the tools of capital, not its destruction.

In another text, Hekmat questions the universality of the so-called “right to self-determination,” a principle often invoked by leftists to justify nationalist struggles. He writes, “We must ask ourselves: what does this principle truly achieve? To whom does it give power?” He dismantles the romanticism surrounding national independence, arguing that “self-determination,” as used in global politics, often serves as a euphemism for the reconfiguration of imperialist control. “The global demand for self-determination,” he writes, “has not been a beacon of liberation but a shadowy tool for justifying oppression, exploitation, and war”.

These words speak directly to those who have witnessed the rise of nationalist movements cloaked in the language of justice, only to see them devolve into new forms of tyranny. Hekmat’s skepticism is not a rejection of the oppressed but a demand that we recognize the limits of nationalism’s promises. For him, the liberation of the working class cannot be achieved through the division of the world into ever-smaller national units, each claiming sovereignty while perpetuating exploitation.

Hekmat’s vision is radical because it rejects the comforting illusions of partial solutions. He calls for a politics rooted in class, not borders; in solidarity, not identity. His words resonate not because they soothe but because they demand accountability. They force us to ask: Are we willing to abandon the false promises of nationalism to build a truly universal movement for liberation?

Nationalism vs. Worker-communism

Mansoor Hekmat’s analysis draws a sharp line between nationalism and what he terms “Worker-communist.” For Hekmat, nationalism is not just a misstep in revolutionary strategy—it is an outright betrayal of the working class. He argues that nationalism, even in its most radical guise, serves as a vehicle for consolidating power among ruling elites, not for dismantling systems of exploitation. In Leftist Nationalism and Worker-communist, he states:

“Nationalism transformed socialism into a doctrine for achieving national independence, economic development, bourgeois democracy, and social reform. Such socialism represented the radical and militant tendencies within the nationalist, reformist, and liberal traditions of bourgeois opposition.”

This transformation is not accidental. It is deliberate, Hekmat insists, and it reflects the interests of those who adopt nationalism as a framework. Nationalism elevates the interests of the nation-state over the interests of the working class, forcing workers to subordinate their struggles to the goals of “national liberation” or “economic independence.” For Hekmat, this is a profound distortion of Marxism, which he asserts should focus unequivocally on the emancipation of the proletariat.

In rejecting nationalism, Hekmat critiques not only the bourgeoisie but also sections of the left that have adopted nationalist rhetoric and strategies. He writes:

“The radical nationalism of the left substitutes the interests of a ‘people’ or a ‘nation’ for the interests of the working class. This substitution is not a theoretical mistake—it is a political alignment. It reflects the class content of those who advocate it.”

This alignment, Hekmat argues, reveals the class nature of nationalist movements, even when they claim to represent the oppressed. Nationalism may rally workers under a shared identity, but it does so at the cost of dividing them from their comrades across borders. It replaces class solidarity with allegiance to a state, a culture, or an ethnic group.

The Misuse of “Self-Determination”

Hekmat reserves particular criticism for the principle of “self-determination,” which he views as a cornerstone of leftist nationalism. While this principle has often been invoked to support struggles against imperialism, Hekmat insists that its practical application has rarely, if ever, benefited the working class. In Nation, Nationalism, and the Worker-Communist Program, he writes:

“The principle of self-determination has often become the ideological tool of bourgeois factions seeking to carve out their own share of the imperialist order. It does not liberate nations; it shuffles the chains.”

This critique is not abstract. Hekmat points to the global history of nationalist movements, showing how the right to self-determination has been used to justify wars, ethnic cleansing, and the consolidation of new systems of domination. He cautions that even in cases where self-determination seems justified—such as the Kurdish struggle in Iran—it must be approached critically, with a clear focus on class struggle rather than nationalist sentiment.

Hekmat’s analysis underscores a fundamental contradiction: the rhetoric of self-determination often conceals the ways in which nationalist movements perpetuate the very systems of exploitation they claim to oppose. As he explains:

“The working class has no homeland. The liberation of the working class lies not in national self-determination but in the abolition of capitalism, the root of all oppression and exploitation.”

Towards a Proletarian Alternative

Hekmat does not stop at critique; he offers an alternative rooted in the principles of Worker-communism. He calls for a return to the foundational ideas of Marx and Engels: internationalism, class solidarity, and the primacy of the proletariat in revolutionary politics. He insists that socialism must reject nationalism entirely and instead build a universal movement for the working class.

“Worker-communist begins where nationalism ends. It is not concerned with the borders of nations but with the boundaries of class.”

Hekmat’s vision demands a politics that is unyielding in its commitment to class independence. He warns against the temptation to dilute socialism with nationalist rhetoric, insisting that only a truly internationalist movement can achieve the liberation of humanity. In his words, “The working class must reclaim communism from those who have turned it into a banner for reforming capitalism. Only then can it become a tool for class struggle and the emancipation of all.”

Hekmat’s rejection of nationalism is not simply theoretical; it is a call to action. It challenges us to abandon the comforting illusions of nationalist solutions and to build a revolutionary politics that is rooted in class, solidarity, and universal emancipation. In doing so, he reaffirms the radical promise of communism—a promise that transcends borders and refuses to compromise with the forces of oppression.

Case Studies: Nationalism and the Iranian Left

Hekmat’s critique of nationalism is deeply rooted in his analysis of the Iranian left. He views the Iranian socialist movement as a cautionary tale of how nationalism co-opts revolutionary potential, diluting class-based politics into reformist projects. He writes:

“The Iranian left of the 20th century became the vessel of bourgeois-democratic aspirations, aligning socialism with nationalist projects of economic development and state-building. Its ideological framework reflected the demands of the nationalist opposition rather than the working class.”

This alignment, according to Hekmat, was not accidental. It emerged from the specific historical and social conditions of post-World War II Iran, where socialism was shaped more by the interests of the urban petty bourgeoisie and nationalist elites than by the working class. He notes:

“Iranian socialism, from the 1940s to the 1970s, evolved within two intersecting histories: the rise of international communist movements and the historical trajectory of Iran’s nationalist-bourgeois opposition. These influences reduced socialism to a nationalist reformist ideology, divorced from the revolutionary Marxism of Marx and Lenin.”

Hekmat points to the Tudeh Party, the most prominent communist organization in Iran, as a prime example of how socialism was subordinated to nationalist goals. The Tudeh Party embraced alliances with nationalist figures like Mohammad Mossadegh, framing socialism as a tool for achieving national independence rather than a movement for class emancipation. He criticizes this approach, stating:

“The Tudeh Party represented a synthesis of pro-Soviet internationalism and local nationalist reformism. This combination not only alienated it from the working class but also bound it to the failures of the nationalist bourgeoisie.”

The Radical Left and Nationalist Rhetoric

Hekmat does not spare the more radical factions of the Iranian left, such as the Maoists and urban guerrilla groups of the 1970s. While these groups rejected the reformist politics of the Tudeh Party, they too, according to Hekmat, fell into the trap of nationalism. He writes:

“Radical nationalism reemerged in the guise of Maoism and urban guerrilla movements. Their rhetoric of anti-imperialism and national independence continued to prioritize the nation over the class. The working class became a means to an end, a tool for achieving a nationalist project rather than the engine of its own emancipation.”

This critique highlights a recurring theme in Hekmat’s work: the tendency of leftist movements to frame anti-imperialism as a nationalist struggle rather than a class struggle. For him, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism, which views imperialism as a function of global capitalism, not merely a national oppression to be overcome by creating new states.

The Kurdish Question

The Kurdish struggle in Iran, like many other national liberation movements, embodies a profound paradox. It is at once a just fight against national oppression and, under its current leadership, constrained by a nationalist framework that Mansoor Hekmat critiques as insufficient for true liberation. His analysis of the Kurdish question reflects his broader rejection of nationalism as a tool for achieving meaningful and lasting freedom for oppressed peoples.

Hekmat unequivocally recognizes the reality of the oppression faced by Kurds in Iran and beyond. He acknowledges the legitimacy of their resistance against a state apparatus that has consistently denied them fundamental rights, imposed cultural and linguistic assimilation, and violently suppressed their demands for autonomy. In Nation, Nationalism, and the Worker-Communist Program, he writes:

“The Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom is undeniably a just cause. They have faced systemic oppression, marginalization, and brutality at the hands of regimes that see their existence as a threat to the integrity of the nation-state.”

This acknowledgment forms the foundation of his critique: while the struggle is just, the nationalist framework in which it is currently pursued undermines its transformative potential. For Hekmat, the fight against national oppression must be reframed as part of a broader class struggle rather than confined to the establishment of a Kurdish nation-state.

The Limits of Kurdish Nationalism

Hekmat critiques Kurdish nationalist movements for prioritizing state-building over class liberation. He argues that these movements, while opposing the oppression of Kurds, often replicate the same structures of exploitation and inequality within their proposed solutions. He warns:

“Kurdish nationalism, like all nationalisms, seeks to unite people across class lines under the banner of ethnic or cultural identity. In doing so, it obscures the fundamental antagonism between workers and their exploiters, replacing the struggle against capitalism with the goal of creating a new ruling class.”

Hekmat’s analysis is particularly critical of the Kurdish nationalist leadership’s reliance on alliances with imperialist powers and regional states. He views these alliances as compromises that ultimately serve the interests of external powers rather than the Kurdish working class. He writes:

“The Kurdish leadership has often sought legitimacy through deals with imperialist powers, trading the interests of the Kurdish masses for promises of statehood or autonomy that never materialize. These alliances reveal the class character of Kurdish nationalism—it is not a movement of the workers but of the bourgeoisie.”

A Class-Based Alternative

Hekmat’s critique of Kurdish nationalism is not a rejection of the Kurdish struggle itself but a call for its reorientation. He argues that the Kurdish working class must break free from the confines of nationalist politics and align itself with the broader struggle of the Iranian and international working class. He explains:

“The liberation of the Kurdish people cannot be achieved by replacing one ruling class with another. True liberation requires the unification of Kurdish and Iranian workers in a common struggle against capitalism and the state apparatus that sustains it.”

Hekmat advocates for a revolutionary approach that addresses both national oppression and class exploitation. He emphasizes that the fight for Kurdish rights must be integrated into a socialist program that seeks to dismantle the systems of oppression that affect all workers, regardless of their ethnicity or nationality.

Critique of the “Right to Self-Determination”

One of the most contentious aspects of Hekmat’s critique is his reevaluation of the principle of self-determination, particularly as it applies to the Kurdish question. While he initially supported the Kurdish right to self-determination as part of the broader Marxist tradition, he later revisited this position, questioning its practical implications in the context of contemporary global politics. He writes:

“The right to self-determination, as it is commonly understood, has often served to legitimize the creation of new states that replicate the same oppressive structures. It does not guarantee freedom; it guarantees the right of a new ruling class to oppress its own people.”

Hekmat critiques the application of this principle in a world dominated by imperialist interests, arguing that it often leads to the fragmentation of the working class rather than its unification. He insists that the goal must not be the creation of new nation-states but the abolition of all states that serve the interests of capital.

A Vision for Kurdish Liberation

Hekmat’s alternative to Kurdish nationalism is grounded in his broader vision of Worker-communism. He calls for a movement that unites Kurdish workers with their counterparts in Iran and beyond, emphasizing class solidarity over ethnic or national identity. He writes:

“The liberation of the Kurdish people lies not in the creation of a Kurdish state but in their active participation in the global struggle against capitalism. Only through such a struggle can they achieve true freedom—freedom from exploitation, oppression, and the divisions imposed by nationalism.”

This vision rejects the idea that the Kurdish struggle must be isolated or exceptional. Instead, it situates it within the broader fight for a socialist future, one that transcends borders and unites workers in their shared struggle for liberation.

Global Implications of Hekmat’s Critique

Hekmat’s critique extends beyond Iran, addressing the global dynamics of nationalism in the post-Cold War era. Reflecting on the breakup of the Soviet Union and the rise of ethnic nationalism in Eastern Europe, he wrote:

“The disintegration of multinational states has not brought liberation but has unleashed ethnic cleansing, civil wars, and new forms of oppression. Nationalism, far from being a force for progress, has become a justification for barbarism.”

He warned against romanticizing nationalist movements, arguing that they often lead to new forms of exploitation and division rather than genuine freedom. His conclusion is clear:

“Nationalism is not the answer to imperialism. It is its twin.”

By examining both the Iranian left and global examples, Hekmat demonstrates that nationalism, even when framed as a liberation struggle, ultimately serves to reinforce the systems it claims to oppose. For him, the task of socialism is not to navigate within nationalist frameworks but to dismantle them entirely, replacing them with the universal solidarity of the working class.

Hekmat’s Vision of Worker-communism

For Mansoor Hekmat, the alternative to the dead ends of nationalism and bourgeois reformism is what he calls “Worker-communism.” This is not a vague return to Marxist orthodoxy but a radical re-centering of Marxism on the working class as an independent force. Hekmat’s vision is unapologetically internationalist, rejecting nationalism in all its forms. He writes:

“Worker-communism begins where the illusions of nationalism and bourgeois socialism end. It is not a movement for better governance within capitalism but for the abolition of capitalism itself.”

Hekmat argues that socialism cannot coexist with nationalism because the two represent fundamentally opposed interests. Nationalism seeks to unify people across classes under the banner of the nation, while socialism seeks to unite workers across borders against their exploiters. This is not merely a theoretical distinction but a political imperative.

The Centrality of Class Independence

Hekmat emphasizes the importance of maintaining the political independence of the working class. For him, this is the cornerstone of any genuinely revolutionary movement. He writes:

“The working class must not become the foot soldiers of nationalist movements or the tools of bourgeois factions. Its strength lies in its ability to act as a class, independent of national, ethnic, or religious divisions.”

This principle is particularly significant in contexts like Iran, where leftist movements have historically aligned themselves with nationalist struggles against imperialism. Hekmat rejects such alliances as fundamentally flawed, arguing that they compromise the class struggle for the sake of short-term gains.

A Proletarian Approach to Oppression

While Hekmat is critical of nationalism, he does not dismiss the reality of oppression faced by national minorities. He acknowledges the legitimacy of struggles against national oppression but insists that these struggles must be approached through a class lens. In the context of Kurdish resistance in Iran, he writes:

“The liberation of the Kurdish people cannot be achieved through the creation of a Kurdish state. True liberation requires the unification of Kurdish and Iranian workers in a common struggle against the capitalist system that oppresses them both.”

This approach reflects Hekmat’s broader commitment to internationalism. For him, the fight against oppression is inseparable from the fight against capitalism. Any movement that prioritizes national identity over class unity, he argues, ultimately undermines the prospects for genuine liberation.

The Role of a Revolutionary Party

Central to Hekmat’s vision of Worker-communism is the role of a revolutionary party. He sees the party not as an electoral machine or a bureaucratic institution but as a vehicle for organizing and empowering the working class. He writes:

“A revolutionary party must be the political expression of the working class. Its task is to articulate the demands of workers, to organize their struggles, and to unite them in a global movement against capitalism.”

Hekmat’s emphasis on the party reflects his belief that spontaneous uprisings, while important, are insufficient to bring about systemic change. Without a clear political program and organizational structure, he argues, movements risk being co-opted or crushed.

Internationalism as a Foundation

At the heart of Worker-communism is a commitment to internationalism. Hekmat views the global working class as a single entity, united by shared conditions of exploitation and a common interest in overthrowing capitalism. He writes:

“The working class has no homeland. Its liberation lies not in the creation of new borders but in their abolition. Worker-communism is the realization of this principle, the building of a movement that knows no boundaries.”

This internationalist perspective is not merely aspirational for Hekmat—it is a practical necessity. He argues that capitalism operates on a global scale, and therefore, the struggle against it must be equally global. Nationalist movements, by contrast, fragment the working class and hinder the development of a unified revolutionary movement.

A Vision for Liberation

Hekmat’s Worker-communism is a vision of socialism as it was originally conceived: a movement of the working class for the abolition of capitalism and the creation of a classless society. It rejects the compromises and distortions that have turned socialism into a tool for reforming capitalism rather than overthrowing it. As he writes:

“Socialism is not a project for better managing capitalism. It is the abolition of the wage system, the end of exploitation, and the realization of human freedom. Anything less is not socialism but its betrayal.”

In articulating this vision, Hekmat challenges not only the nationalist left but also those within the socialist movement who have abandoned its revolutionary core. His work is a call to return to the radical roots of Marxism, to build a movement that is uncompromising in its commitment to class solidarity, internationalism, and the liberation of humanity.

Hekmat’s vision is both a critique of the present and a blueprint for the future. It demands that we confront the illusions that have plagued leftist movements and commit ourselves to the hard, unglamorous work of building a revolutionary movement rooted in the working class. In this, Hekmat’s legacy is not just a set of ideas but a challenge to all of us who claim to fight for a better world. Are we willing to take up this challenge?

Mansoor Hekmat’s Legacy on Nationalism

Mansoor Hekmat’s critique of nationalism and his articulation of Worker-communism resonate as a profound challenge to leftist movements worldwide. His work compels us to reconsider the foundations of our politics, demanding clarity and honesty in the face of the seductive but ultimately divisive rhetoric of nationalism. As he writes:

“Nationalism is not a step toward liberation; it is a barrier. It divides where unity is needed, obscures where clarity is essential, and replaces class struggle with loyalty to the state.”

Hekmat’s rejection of nationalism is rooted in his unwavering commitment to the working class. For him, the proletariat’s struggle cannot be subordinated to nationalist projects, no matter how noble they may appear. He saw nationalism not as a vehicle for progress but as a mechanism for reproducing the very systems of exploitation and oppression it claims to oppose. His critique is as much a warning as it is a call to action.

The Relevance of Hekmat’s Critique Today

In the contemporary world, where nationalism continues to rise in both reactionary and progressive forms, Hekmat’s critique feels more urgent than ever. From the resurgence of far-right nationalism to the persistence of nationalist rhetoric in anti-imperialist movements, the dynamics he described remain deeply entrenched. His work invites us to ask: How often do movements claiming to represent the oppressed inadvertently reinforce the very systems they seek to dismantle? How can we build a politics that truly transcends borders and identities to unite workers in a global struggle for emancipation?

Hekmat’s insights into the Iranian left offer a valuable lens for understanding the broader challenges facing socialist movements. His critique of the Tudeh Party’s alignment with nationalist reformism and his rejection of the Maoist glorification of national liberation as a revolutionary end serve as cautionary tales for leftists who might be tempted to make similar compromises. As he warned:

“The lesson of Iran’s left is clear: any movement that ties its fate to nationalism will find itself bound, not liberated. It is not the nation that will free the worker but the worker who must free humanity.”

Worker-communism as a Guide

Hekmat’s alternative, Worker-communism, provides a roadmap for those seeking to build a genuinely revolutionary movement. His emphasis on class independence, internationalism, and the abolition of capitalism speaks to the core of Marxist thought while addressing the distortions that have plagued the left for decades. By centering the working class and rejecting all forms of nationalist compromise, Worker-communism reaffirms the universal aspirations of socialism.

Hekmat’s vision is not merely theoretical—it is deeply practical. It calls for the construction of revolutionary organizations rooted in the working class, capable of articulating and advancing a global struggle against capitalism. It demands a rejection of the false dichotomies of nationalism and internationalism, of reformism and revolution, and insists on the primacy of class struggle as the driving force of history.