V. I.

Lenin

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 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, as, for
example, in the Armenian church schools, in which the teaching of Russian
is not obligatory.

Russkoye Slovo (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” (the right word would have
been “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, be cause 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 the common
parliament they do not do so because they are compelled 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 under
stood by a majority. The French language does not excite 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 be 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 will be 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 this, the more rapid will be 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 serf-owners and police. We are against
privileges, shout the liberals, and under cover they haggle with the
serf-owners 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) 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
serf-owners 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 privilege 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 (Zemstvo, 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 counterposes to the nationalist wrangling of
the various bourgeois parties over questions of language, etc., the demand
for the unconditional unity and complete solidarity 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 solidarity 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: