{"id":4817,"date":"2024-12-13T07:49:47","date_gmt":"2024-12-13T07:49:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=4817"},"modified":"2025-03-07T17:15:19","modified_gmt":"2025-03-07T17:15:19","slug":"national-issues-the-change-of-the-principle-of-national-self-determination-from-nation-to-nationality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=4817&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"National Issues: The Change of the Principle of National Self -determination: From Nation to Nationality"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

National Issues: The Change of the Principle of National Self -determination: From Nation to Nationality<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

On Engels’ Criticism of “<\/strong>Principle of Nationalities “<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author: Xie Jiangping<\/strong>, May 2014<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent years, by the spread of national separatism in the globe leads to national conflicts, resulting in many countries and regions political turmoil, economic recession, and even racial vendetta, and split countries. National separatism brought endless disaster to the international community, it resorts to the theory of “national self-determination”. We see that “national self-determination” “one race-one nation theory” has become an excuse for national separatists, Marxist view of “national self-determination” is often misinterpreted by national separatists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 As Engels pointed out in the article “What Have the Working Classes to Do with Poland?\u201c, the principle of nationalities has changed qualitatively in Eastern Europe. “Das Nationalit\u00e4tsprinzip ist nicht etwa eine bonapartistische Erfindung zur Wiedergeburt Polens, sondern lediglich eine russische Erfindung, die ausgeheckt wurde, um Polen zu vernichten<\/em>.”. (Marx and Engels, Vol. 21, p. 226)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is particularly necessary to clarify the Marxist view of national self-determination and criticize national separatism and defend the Marxist concept of national self-determination in today’s increasingly rampant ethnic separatist forces. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please also see my article; Engels\u2019 & International Workers\u2019 Association\u2019s\u00a0 View on the Study of the Polish National Question: Engels proposed Two Concepts: Nationality and Nation<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. <\/strong>The difference between past and present nationality<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Nation in English comes from the past participle of Latin Nasci, and later evolved into Nation, whose source meaning is “birth”, a group of people born in one place, a social group of the same blood and common language Marx pointed out that language and region are the prerequisites for the formation of the nation in the book “Conspectus of Lewis Morgan’s Ancient<\/em> Society “. Engels also repeatedly language, geographical, common history, common feelings as a national character.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Stalin made a general summary of the Marxist view of the nation, they are “common language, common geographical, common economic life and performance in the common culture of the common psychological quality” of the four elements as an important feature to identify the nation. Because of the emphasis on common economic life, Stalin argues that there is no nation before capitalism, instead there is only the tribe, because the pre capitalist society is a natural economy, the lack of necessary economic exchanges within the nation, many nationals have a common language, history and cultural psychology, but they lack a common economic life. The advent of the capitalist commodity economy makes it possible for the common economic life within the nation. Stalin’s view of the nation is controversial in academia. According to Stalin, the Jewish nation scattered over Europe and around the world for thousands of years and did not constitute a nation, but contrary to popular understanding, Marx and Engels have not denied the existence of the Jewish nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Although the Marxist classics are different in the definition of the nation but one thing is common, that is, they all emphasize the development of the nation there are ancient and modern nations. In the pre capitalist society, the nation is in the traditional stage of development, the nation and the state are in a state of separation, and the development of the nation is constrained by the feudal political and economic conditions. In the case of Europe, in the Middle Ages, religious theology dominated, and the teaching was higher than the royal power, and the state was the kingdom of God, folk not the nation, nor the state. In addition, the hierarchical feudal system also hindered the formation of the concept of nation-state, the subjects were only loyal to their own lord, and not loyal to the state. Eugene Weber convincingly proved the argument that even until 1870, most of the French and small town residents did not realize that they were members of the French nation until the First World War, Many people still do not consciously do that”. (Pan Zhiping, p. 218)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It is clear that the long-standing small peasant economy in France limited the formation of nation-state consciousness. The development of the commodity economy has broken through the political and economic barriers among the various ethnic groups in Europe, and the increase in economic exchanges has enhanced the common consciousness of the people of all nationalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the 15th to 16th centuries, with the development of the commodity economy, the emerging citizen stratum, in order to maintain its own economic and political interests, resorted to the common blood, language and culture, the bourgeoisie carried the banner of nationalism and cooperated with the Enlightenment, regarded the oppressive government and religion as the main enemy of freedom and liberation, initiated religious reform and the Renaissance in Europe, opposing theocracy, strengthening the monarchy and human rights. In this influence and promotion, the centralized states of the monarchic kingdom system have been established one by one. With the emergence of capitalist society, national development into the modern stage, its significant sign was the formation of the nation-state, later the emergence of nation-state so that the nation and the state formed inextricably linked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Engels argued that the prominent feature of the modern nation is that it is closely linked with the bourgeois state, to a certain extent, the state is the nation, the nation is the state, the nation\u2019s naturalness and the state’s politicalness became highly consistent, the nation\u2019s boundary became state\u2019s territory. From the meaning of English vocabulary nation can be seen as national integration process. In modern times, the English lexical meaning includes two aspects: one is living in a territory of a nation, unified in a government under a system of all the people, that is, the national sense of the (Nation), or polity of the state; which refers to their territory, that is, the geographical sense of the country. In any case, the word nation refers to the combination of nation and state in the nation in the sense of nation-state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Part 2. An Analysis Framework of Marx-Engels on National Issues<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Marx and Engels’ research and reflection on national issues are subordinate to their analysis of class problems. In their view, the inherent contradictions and fundamental motivations of social development are the fundamental starting point for the analysis and study of national issues. They saw national issues as part of a broader social problem. Marx and Engels recognized the existence of national problems and national contradictions, but they believed that there was no fundamental conflict among various national groups and argued that national contradictions were rooted in class contradictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The bourgeoisie overthrew the feudal autocratic system, promoted the formation of the nation-state, made great contributions to the independence and freedom of all nations, but the bourgeoisie did not have equality, freedom and democracy among various nations: Capitalism did not eliminate national oppression and national exploitation, on the contrary, the national exploitation and national oppression was spread to the world, exacerbated the world class contradictions and national conflicts, leading to class relations and national relations confrontation and conflict. ” The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the cities. … just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, , the East on the West. (“Marx-Engels Works; Volume 2, page 36)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Therefore, the solution of national contradictions is bound to solve the class contradictions, as long as the elimination of class antagonism, oppression, national opposition, national contradictions will naturally disappear, ” In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end. ” (Ibid., P. 50)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Because of the subordinate nature of the national contradiction, Marx and Engels never talked about the national problem abstractly, but contacted the specific conditions of the liberation movement of the proletariat, analyzed and judged the nature of the national movement, stood in the position of the proletarian liberation movement, analyzed and evaluated national movement around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In the 19th century Europe, a very important political phenomenon was that national rulers were strongly advocating and inciting nationalist sentiments of their own people. The bourgeoisie was always under the banner of “national interest” and strongly instigated the “nationalist sentiment” of the people and workers, trying to cover the “class contradiction” with “national contradictions” so as to consolidate the ruling regime, external aims of the bourgeoisie for the exploitation and oppression of other peoples.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Marx and Engels exposed the myth of the “national interests” fabricated by the bourgeoisie. “Wie die Bourgeoisklasse eines Landes gegen die Proletarier desselben Landes vereinigt und verbr\u00fcdert ist, trotz der Konkurrenz und des Kampfes der Mitglieder der Bourgeoisie unter sich selbst, so sind die Bourgeois aller L\u00e4nder gegen die Proletarier aller L\u00e4nder verbr\u00fcdert und vereinigt, trotz ihrer wechselseitigen Bek\u00e4mpfung und Konkurrenz auf dem Weltmarkte.” (“Marx and Engels) In the European political proletariat to overthrow the capitalist rule and the class struggle as the core of the political pattern, Marx and Engels believe that any “nationalist” propaganda has become the division and destruction of the proletarian revolutionary movement, “nationalism” has been completely reduced by the reactionaries to maintain their ruling ideology tools. In the Communist Manifesto, they called for “Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” and advocate the organization and unite of the working class scattered among the nations “m\u00fcssen sie der Verbr\u00fcderung der Bourgeois aller V\u00f6lker eine Verbr\u00fcderung der Arbeiter aller V\u00f6lker entgegenstellen” (“Marx- Engels, Vol. 1, p. 697), proletarian internationalism against narrow bourgeois nationalism. Engels pointed out that the counter-revolutionary national movement must be given a strong blow for the people of Europe to ” Dann Kampf, “unerbittlichen Kampf auf Leben und Tod” mit dem revolutionsverr\u00e4terischen Slawentum; Vernichtungskampf und r\u00fccksichtslosen Terrorismus – nicht im Interesse Deutschlands, sondern im Interesse der Revolution! “(Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 6, p. 342)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Part 3. National self-determination: to support the independence and liberation of the oppressed nationality<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As Lenin put it, Marxist solution to the national problem is not to \u201cinvent\u201d abstract definitions, but look for solutions by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements.\u201d (Lenin, Vol. 25, p. 225).   Marx and Engels distinguished between different national movements and took a different attitude towards them. This was the basic principle of Marx and Engels’ treatment of various national movements in Europe during the 1848 revolution, and when the national movement coincides with the proletarian political liberation movement, Marx and Engels took a positive attitude towards the national movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For the liberation movement of the oppressed nations, Marx and Engels gave full support, Engels believed that national independence was the inalienable power of the oppressed nations through national self-determination. “mu\u00df jedes Volk unabh\u00e4ngig und Herr im eignen Hause sein.” (“The Complete Works of Marx and Engels”, vol. 21, p. 463)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Self – determination comes from the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Enlightenment<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bourgeois thinkers which started from the concept of “natural rights” and “social contract theory” of the Enlightenment, sought legitimacy and rationality for the national independence and liberation. In the American War of Independence and the French Revolution, the bourgeoisie first put forward the requirements of “national independence” and “national separation”, and “national self-determination” was the first time in the international political arena. In the view of Marxism, the right to self-determination was human rights, it refers to the freedom of people to determine their own political status and the right to the future. British philosopher John Locke in the “government” that the government must be ruled by the rulers (people), if the government betrayed the people, the people have the right to establish a new government. This is the first political claim of the right to self-determination. Kant stressed that self-determination is the basic moral rights of man, is the basis of human freedom. National self-determination is clearly an application of the Enlightenment to the right to self-determination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The right of national self-determination refers to the “human rights” of people with a certain national consciousness. In short, every nation has the right to decide its own destiny as a person, including the power to establish an independent state. Engels argued that every nation has the freedom to decide its own destiny, as long as it does not violate the freedom of other peoples. ” Es konnte wirklich nicht zwei Meinungen geben \u00fcber das Recht jeder der gro\u00dfen nationalen Gebilde Europas, in allen inneren Angelegenheiten, unabh\u00e4ngig von ihren Nachbarn, selbst zu bestimmen, solange dies nicht die Freiheit der andern beeintr\u00e4chtigte.” (Ibid. 223)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In Engels’s view, for the oppressed nations, national self-determination was the only way to political emancipation. ” f\u00fcr Polen, Deutschland und Italien der allererste Schritt jeder politischen Bewegung das Streben nach Wiederherstellung der nationalen Einheit, ohne die nationales Leben nur ein Schatten war. “(Ibid.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The principle of national self-determination and the principle of national sovereignty played an important role in the formation of early nation-state. The national movement based on the right of national self-determination has become the prerequisite for the formation of sovereign state, and the national sovereignty has become the ultimate goal and the highest form of national self-determination, which together constitute the modern nation-state formation and development process of two important Aspects. Marx and Engels argue that the right of national self-determination is \u201ceine der grundlegenden Bedingungen der inneren Freiheit f\u00fcr alle\u201d. (Ibid., Pp. 223-224)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

     It is in this sense that Engels is firmly committed to the national self-determination movement which aimed at nation-state, ” Dieses Recht der gro\u00dfen nationalen Gebilde Europas auf politische Unabh\u00e4ngigkeit, anerkannt von der europ\u00e4ischen Demokratie, mu\u00dfte nat\u00fcrlich die gleiche Anerkennung insbesondere von seiten der Arbeiterklasse finden. Das bedeutete in der Tat nichts anderes als die Anerkennung des gleichen Rechts auf eigene nationale Existenz f\u00fcr andere gro\u00dfe, zweifellos lebensf\u00e4hige Nationen, das die Arbeiter jedes einzelnen Landes f\u00fcr sich beanspruchten.\u201c, (Ibid., P. 224)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    At the 1866 session of the International Workers’ Association, Marx and Engels openly advocated ” Die Notwendigkeit der Beseitigung des russischen Einflusses in Europa durch Verwirklichung des Rechts der Nationen auf Selbstbestimmung und die Wiederherstellung Polens auf demokratischer und sozialer Grundlage. “. (“The Complete Works of Marx and Engels”, vol. 21, p. 260)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Part IV. Nationalitaetenprinzip: Divergent Change of the Principle of National Self Determination<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The idea of “national self-determination” is largely part of the Western concept of human rights, and it has played a very progressive role in history, like freedom and equality, but the principle of national self-determination has changed today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    National separatists abuse the principle of self-determination, to promote “one nation, one country”, that any nation in the world can rely on national self-determination to establish their own nation-state. “National self-determination” was distorted and misused as the moral and spiritual pillar of the national separatist movement. Engels calls this idea of “one family and one country” the theory of “national nature” (Principle of Nationalities) to distinguish it from the principle of national self-determination (Principle of Nations).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As early as the mid-19th century, the bourgeois nation, the climax of democratic revolution, “state nation unity” theory based on the principle of national self-determination has undergone a qualitative change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The original meaning and main content of the national self-determination right was the right of political independence, and the right of national self-determination had a very positive significance for the colonial and semi-colonial peoples and people to get rid of imperialist oppression and enslavement, to defeat the imperialist colonial system, realize national independence and people’s liberation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, in the case where the nation-state obtains political independence and becomes an independent sovereign state, it became unrealistic and harmful for the people of all ethnic groups to separate from the sovereign state under the banner of national self-determination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    If every nation in a sovereign state builds its own country in accordance with the principle of national self-determination, then the national integrity of any nation-state will be questioned and separatism will be endless. Engels argued that in some people have acquired power, access to political independence of the nation-state, “the principle of national self-determination” transformed into the powers to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, whale swallow their territory, differentiation of the means of dismembering these countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    “Das Nationalit\u00e4tsprinzip ist nicht etwa eine bonapartistische Erfindung zur Wiedergeburt Polens … … Ru\u00dfland hat den gr\u00f6\u00dferen Teil des alten Polens unter dem Vorwand des Nationalit\u00e4tsprinzips verschluckt, wie wir noch sehen werden.. (Ibid., P. 226)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In Engels’s view, the national separatists distorted the principle of national self-determination. The first distortion was to regard the concept of nationalities in national self-determination as a concept related to ethnic. According to this concept, any nation can demand self-determination, naturally be understood as any ethnic group have the right to separate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In Engels there, nation is a nation-state concept, that is, Nation is a blood, cultural groups, but also a sense of the geographical sense of the territory. Since Nation is different from the ethnic group, the boundaries of nation do not coincide with the ethnicity of the ethnic group and the language and culture. In this case, there are some blood groups of the same culture, do not expect to join the same nation (national) had a common national life, emphasizing a family and one country, only things will mess up. “Es gibt kein Land in Europa, in dem es nicht verschiedene Nationalit\u00e4ten unter einer Regierung g\u00e4be. Die Hochland-G\u00e4len und die Waliser unterscheiden sich zweifellos der Nationalit\u00e4t nach von den Engl\u00e4ndern, doch niemandem fiele ein, diese Reste l\u00e4ngst verschwundener V\u00f6lker – oder gar die keltischen Bewohner der Bretagne in Frankreich – als Nationen zu bezeichnen. \u00dcber dies stimmt keine Staatsgrenze mit der nat\u00fcrlichen Grenze der Nationalit\u00e4t, mit der Sprachgrenze, \u00fcberein. Es gibt viele Menschen au\u00dferhalb Frankreichs, deren Muttersprache Franz\u00f6sisch ist, ebenso wie es au\u00dferhalb Deutschlands viele Menschen deutscher Zunge gibt; und aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach wird das auch immer so bleiben. Es ist ein nat\u00fcrliches Resultat der verworrenen und allm\u00e4hlichen historischen Entwicklung Europas w\u00e4hrend der letzten tausend Jahre, da\u00df sich fast jede gr\u00f6\u00dfere Nation von einigen Randteilen ihres K\u00f6rpers trennen mu\u00dfte, die sich vom nationalen Leben losgel\u00f6st haben und meistenteils dem nationalen Leben eines anderen Volkes anschlossen; und dies so gr\u00fcndlich, da\u00df sie kein Bed\u00fcrfnis haben, sich ihrem Hauptstamm wieder anzuschlie\u00dfen<\/strong>. “(Ibid., page 225)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So, Engels argued that  “national principle” does not touch the big question of the national survival rights of the peoples of Europe, if it is touched, it is only necessary to put the water together. “(Ibid.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    From the history of the development of the nation and the status quo, the nation-state and the national structure is not essentially related. Single national structure and multi-ethnic structure of the country are modern nation-state. With the evolution of history, that in accordance with the blood, ethnic division, attempt to establish a single attribute of the nation-state “family and one country”, already out of date. The modern nation-state did not gain recognition through the uniqueness of the clan, but was formed by the citizens’ political and cultural identity with the national community. Modern nation-state not only depends on national identity, to a large extent it depends on the legal arrangements. As Habermas said: “A nation can only say that it is a modern state\/country since the completion of the transition from the ‘human community’ to the ‘legal community’.” (Xu Zhangrun, p. 25)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The content of the international legal documents and point of view, the United Nations defines the “national” of the national self-determination, whose origin is People or Peoples, not the Ethnic group of the Ethnic sense.  In other words, the United Nations also accepted that a nation, ethnic group or ethnic minority within a State cannot simply enjoy the right of national self-determination and demand separation. The United Nations General Assembly, in particular, explained that the exercise of the right to self-determination was not only “geographically separated from it” but also racially or culturally different from it, the second day after the adoption of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Of the region “, which ruled out the colonial requirements other than self-determination. On August 5, 1772, Russia, Prussia, and Austria signed a treaty that partitioned Poland. Later during the Napoleonic Wars<\/a> and in their immediate aftermath the borders between partitioning powers shifted several times. Ultimately, Russia ended up with most of the Polish core at the expense of Prussia and Austria. Following the Congress of Vienna<\/a>, Russia controlled 82% of the pre-1772 Commonwealth’s territory (this includes Russia\u2019s puppet state<\/a> of Congress Poland<\/a>), Austria 11%, and Prussia 7%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Engels supported Poland\u2019s national self-determination against Russia\u2019s domination but Engels\u2019 position on the issue and the position of nationalists were very different. As Engels said, ” Hier sehen wir nun den Unterschied zwischen dem “Nationalit\u00e4ts<\/em>-prinzip” und dem alten Grundsatz der Demokratie und der Arbeiterklasse \u00fcber das Recht der gro\u00dfen europ\u00e4ischen Nationen<\/em> auf selbst\u00e4ndige und unabh\u00e4ngige Existenz. ” (Marx and Engels, Vol. 21, What is the “national principle”? Engels argues that the difference between the principle of national self-determination and the national principle is that one is Nation in English and the other is Nationality. “Nur beachte man – nicht von Nationen<\/em> mehr war jetzt die Rede, sondern von Nationalit\u00e4ten<\/em>. “. (Ibid., P. 224) Engels argues that not all nations can have independent political rights in the name of Nation, “die Waliser und die Bewohner der Insel Man h\u00e4tten, wenn sie es w\u00fcnschten, das gleiche Recht auf unabh\u00e4ngige politische Existenz wie die Engl\u00e4nder, so absurd das auch erscheinen mag.\u201c. (Ibid., P. 226)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Epilogue <\/strong> In fact, since the beginning of the principle of self-determination, it did not mean that national self-determination, but broad self-determination, refers to the fact that in the absence of external oppression, the people are free to choose their own behavior. With the development of history, at different stages, the theme and content of the principle of self-determination are different, some people will self-determination is divided into national self-determination, and people’s self-determination. In addition, the essence of the right of self-determination lies in the right to self-management, the right of self-determination does not mean that separation, separation or independence is only one of the options for self-determination. Thus, self-determination is equivalent to national self-determination, which is defined as the power to separate from the original sovereign state, which is clearly narrow. As Kramnick said: “The French Revolution and the American Revolution, despite the nationalist tones, are largely cosmopolitan and global – not only for the benefit of a nation, but also for the benefit of all mankind. (Kramnick, p. 45) and later in the period Napoleon\u2019s expansionism, the principle of national self-determination transformed into national separatism, turned into a blatant opposition to the power of freedom. In today’s world, there is no exact line of delineation between nations. In this case, distorting the theory of national self-determination, not only cannot bring liberation to all ethnic groups, on the contrary such distortion will only bring endless disaster.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    National Issues: The Change of the Principle of National Self -determination: From Nation to Nationality On Engels’ Criticism of “Principle of Nationalities “ Author: Xie Jiangping, May 2014 In recent years, by the spread of national separatism in the globe leads to national conflicts, resulting in many countries and regions political turmoil, economic recession, and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4817","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-en","category-international-en"],"blocksy_meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4817","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4817"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4817\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5253,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4817\/revisions\/5253"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}