V. I.

Lenin

Critical Remarks on the National Question

It is obvious that the national question has now become
prominent among the problems of Russian public life. The aggressive
nationalism of the reactionaries, the transition of counter-revolutionary
bourgeois liberalism to nationalism (particularly Great-Russian, but also
Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, etc.), and lastly, the increase of nationalist
vacillations among the different “national” (i. e., non-Great-Russian)
Social-Democrats, who have gone to the length of violating the Party
Programme—all these make it incumbent on us to give more attention to the
national question than we have done so far.

This article pursues a special object, namely, to examine, in their
general bearing, precisely these programme vacillations of Marxists and
would-be Marxists, on the national question. In Severnaya Pravda [2] No. 29 (for September 5, 1913, “Liberals and Democrats on
the Language
Question” [1]

)

I had occasion to speak of the opportunism of the liberals on the national
question; this article of mine was attacked by the opportunist Jewish
newspaper
Zeit , [3] in an article by Mr. F. Liebman. From the other side,
the programme of the Russian Marxists on the national question has been
criticised by the Ukrainian opportunist Mr. Lev Yurkevich
( Dzvin , [4] 1913, Nos. 7–8). Both these writers touched upon so
many questions that to reply to them we are obliged to deal with the most
diverse aspects of the subject. I think the most convenient thing would be
to start with a reprint of the article from Severnaya Pravda .

1. LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS ON THE LANGUAGE QUESTION

On several occasions the newspapers have mentioned the report of the
Governor of the Caucasus, a report that is noteworthy, not for its
Black-Hundred [5] spirit, but for its timid “liberalism”. Among other
things, the Governor objects to artificial Russification of non-Russian
nationalities. Representatives of non-Russian nationalities in the Caucasus
are themselves striving to teach their children Russian; an
example of this is the Armenian church schools, in which the teaching of
Russian is not obligatory.

Russkoye Slovo [6] (No. 198), one of the most widely circulating liberal
newspapers in Russia, points to this fact and draws the correct conclusion
that the hostility towards the Russian language in Russia “stems
exclusively from” the “artificial” (it should have said “forced”)
implanting of that language.

“ There is no reason to worry about the fate of the Russian
language. It will itself win recognition throughout Russia,” says the
newspaper. This is perfectly true, because the requirements of economic
exchange will always compel the nationalities living in one state (as long
as they wish to live together) to study the language of the majority. The
more democratic the political system in Russia becomes, the more
powerfully, rapidly and extensively capitalism will develop, the more
urgently Will the requirements of economic exchange impel various
nationalities to study the language most convenient for general commercial
relations.

The liberal newspaper, however, hastens to slap itself in the face and
demonstrate its liberal inconsistency.

“ Even those who oppose Russification,” it says, “would
hardly be likely to deny that in a country as huge as Russia there must be
one single official language, and that this language can be only Russian.”

Logic turned inside out! Tiny Switzerland has not lost anything, but
has gained from having not one single official language, but
three—German, French and Italian. In Switzerland 70 per cent of the
population are Germans (in Russia 43 per cent are Great Russians), 22
per cent French (in Russia 17 per cent are Ukrainians) and 7 per cent
Italians (in Russia 6 per cent are Poles and 4.5 per cent Byelorussians).

If Italians in Switzerland often speak French in their common parliament
they do not do so because they are menaced by some savage police law (there
are none such in Switzerland), but because the civilised citizens of a
democratic state themselves prefer a language that is understood by a
majority. The French language does not instil hatred in Italians because it
is the language of a free civilised nation, a language that is not imposed
by disgusting police measures.

Why should “huge” Russia, a much more varied and terribly backward
country, inhibit her development by the retention of any kind of
privilege for any one language? Should not the, contrary he true, liberal
gentlemen? Should not Russia, if she wants to overtake Europe, put an end
to every kind of privilege as quickly as possible, as completely as
possible and as vigorously as possible?

If all privileges disappear, if the imposition of any one language
ceases, all Slays will easily and rapidly learn to understand each other
and will not be frightened by the “horrible” thought that speeches in
different languages will be heard in the common parliament. The
requirements of economic exchange will themselves decide which
language of the given country it is to the advantage of the
majority to know in the interests of commercial relations. This decision
will be all the firmer because it is adopted voluntarily by a population of
various nationalities, and its adoption will be the more rapid and
extensive the more consistent the democracy and, as a consequence of it,
the more rapid the development of capitalism.

The liberals approach the language question in the same way as they
approach all political questions—like hypocritical hucksters, holding out
one hand (openly)to democracy and the other (behind their backs) to the
feudalists and police. We are against privileges, shout the liberals, and
under cover they haggle with the feudalists for first one, then another,
privilege.

Such is the nature of all liberal-bourgeois nationalism—not
only Great-Russian (it is the worst of them all because of its violent
character and its kinship with the
Purishkeviches [7] ), but Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian and every
other nationalism. Under the slogan of “national culture” the bourgeoisie of all nations, both in Austria and in Russia, are
in fact pursuing the policy of splitting the workers, emasculating
democracy and haggling with the feudalists over the sale of the people’s
rights and the people’s liberty.

The slogan of working-class democracy is not “national culture” but
the international culture of democracy and the world-wide working-class
movement. Let the bourgeoisie deceive the people with various “positive”
national programmes. The class-conscious worker will answer the
bourgeoisie—there is only one solution to the national problem (insofar
as it can, in general, be solved in the capitalist world, the world of
profit, squabbling and exploitation), and that solution is consistent
democracy.

The proof—Switzerland in Western Europe, a country with an old
culture and Finland in Eastern Europe, a country with a young culture.

The national programme of working-class democracy is: absolutely no
privileges for any one nation or any one language; the solution of the
problem of the political self-determination of nations, that is, their
separation as states by completely free, democratic methods; the
promulgation of a law for the whole state by virtue of which any measure
(rural, urban or communal, etc., etc.) introducing any privilege of any
kind for one of the nations and militating against the equality of nations
or the rights of a national minority, shall be declared illegal and
ineffective, and any citizen of the state shall have the right to demand
that such a measure be annulled as unconstitutional, and that those who
attempt to put it into effect be punished.

Working-class democracy contraposes to the nationalist wrangling of the
various bourgeois parties over questions of language, etc., the demand for
the unconditional unity and complete amalgamation of workers of
all nationalities in all working-class organisations—trade union, co-operative, consumers’, educational and all
others—in contradistinction to any kind of bourgeois nationalism. Only
this type of unity and amalgamation can uphold democracy and defend the
interests of the workers against capital—which is already international
and is becoming more so—and promote the development of mankind towards a
new way of life that is alien to all privileges and all exploitation.

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 354–57.— Ed .

[2]
Severnaya Pravda ( Northern Truth )—one of the names of the newspaper Pravda .

Pravda —a legal Bolshevik daily published in
St. Petersburg. Founded on the initiative of the St. Petersburg workers in
April 1912.

Pravda was a popular working-class newspaper, published with
money collected by the workers themselves. A wide circle of
worker-correspondents and worker-publicists formed around the
newspaper. Over eleven thousand correspondence items from workers were
published in a single year. Pravda had an average circulation of
40,000, with some issues running into 60,000 copies.

Lenin directed Pravda from abroad, where he was living. He
wrote for the paper almost daily, gave instructions to the editorial board
and rallied the Party’s best literary forces around the newspaper.

Pravda was subjected to constant police persecution. During
the first year of its existence it was confiscated forty-one times, and
thirty-six legal actions were brought against its editors, who served
prison sentences totalling forty-seven and a half months. In the course of
two years and three months Pravda was closed down eight times by
the tsarist government, but reissued under new names: =

Rabochaya Pravda , Severnaya Pravda , Pravda Truda , Za Pravdu , Proletarskaya Pravda , Put Pravdy , Rabochy , and Trudovaya Pravda . =

On July 8 (21), 1914, on the eve of the First World War, the paper was
closed down.

Publication was not resumed until after the February
Revolution. Beginning from March 5(18), 1917, Pravda appeared as
the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin joined the editorial board on
April 5(18), on his return from abroad, and took over the paper’s management. In July–October 1917 Pravda changed its name
frequently owing to persecution by the Provisional Government, appearing
successively as Listok Pravdy , Proletary , Rabochy , and Rabochy Put . On October 27 (November 9) the
newspaper began to appear under its old name— Pravda .

[3]
Zeit ( Time )—a weekly,organ of the Bund, published in Yiddish in St. Petersburg from December 20, 1912 (January 2, 1913) to
May 5(18), 1914.

[4]
Dzvin ( The Bell )—a monthly legal nationalist journal of Menshevik trend, published in the Ukrainian language in Kiev
from January 1913 to the middle of 1914.

[5]
The Black Hundreds —monarchist gangs formed by the tsarist
police to fight the revolutionary movement. They murdered revolutionaries,
assaulted progressive intellectuals and organised pogroms.

[6]
Russkoye Slovo ( Russian Word )—a daily, published in
Moscow from 1895 (the first trial issue appeared in 1894) to
July 1918. Formally non-party, the paper defended the interests of the
Russian bourgeoisie from a moderate-liberal platform. News was given a wide
coverage in the paper, which was the first in Russia to send special
correspondents to all the large cities at home and to many foreign
capitals.

[7]
Purishkevich, V. M. —(1870-1920)—a big landlord and rabid
reactionary (a Black-Hundred monarchist).