V. I.

Lenin

On the Question of National Policy [4]

I wish to deal with our government’s policy on the national
question. This is one of the most important of the questions that come
within the jurisdiction of our Ministry of the Interior. Since the time the
Duma last discussed the estimates of this Ministry, our ruling classes have
been bringing the national question in Russia into the forefront and
rendering it more, and more acute.

The Beilis case attracted the repeated attention of the whole civilised
world to Russia and exposed the disgraceful state of affairs in this
country. There is not a vestige of legality in Russia. The Administration
and the police are given a free hand in their wanton and shameless
persecution of the Jews, even to the extent of covering up and condoning
crimes. This precisely was the, upshot of the Beilis case, which revealed
the closest and most intimate connection.... [1]

To show that I am not exaggerating when I speak of the pogrom
atmosphere Russia is breathing, I can quote the evidence of that most
“reliable”, most conservative writer, Prince Meshchersky, the
“minister-maker”. Here is the opinion of “a Russian from Kiev”,
published in Prince Meshchersky’s journal, Grazhdanin . [5] “ The atmosphere in which we are living is
suffocating;;wherever you go there is whispering, plotting; everywhere
there is blood lust, everywhere the stench of the informer, everywhere
hatred, everywhere mutterings, everywhere groans....” [2] the political atmosphere which Russia is
breathing. To talk or think about law, legality, a constitution, and
similar liberal na\"iveties in such an atmosphere is simply ridiculous, or
rather, it would be ridiculous, were it not so ... serious!

This atmosphere is felt day in day out by every person in the country
who is at all intelligent and observant. But not everyone has the courage
to admit the significance of this pogrom atmosphere. Why does such
an atmosphere reign in our country? Why is it able to reign? Only
because the country is actually in a state of scarcely concealed civil war . Some find it very unpleasant to admit this truth; they would put
a cloak over it. Our liberals, both the
Progressists [6] and the Cadets, are particularly fond of stitching such
a cloak out of patches of almost quite “constitutional” theories. But I
permit myself to consider that there is nothing more harmful, nothing more
criminal than for representatives of the people to spread edifying
deception from the rostrum of the Duma.

The government’s entire policy towards the Jews and other “subject
peoples”—pardon me for using this “government” expression—will at
once become clear, natural and inevitable if we face the truth and admit
the undoubted fact that the country is in a state of scarcely concealed
civil war. The government is not ruling, but is waging war.

It chooses “genuinely Russian”, pogrom methods of warfare because it
has no others at its disposal . Everybody defends himself the best
he can. Purishkevich and his friends cannot defend themselves otherwise
than by pursuing a “pogrom” policy, for they have no other means. It is
no use sighing; it is absurd to try to make shift with talk about a
constitution, or law, or the system of administration; here it is simply a
matter of the class interests of Purishkevich and Co., a matter of
the difficult position this class is in.

Either settle accounts with this class resolutely and not merely in
word, or else admit that the “pogrom” atmosphere is inevitable and
inescapable in the entire policy of Russia. Either resign yourselves to
this policy, or else support the popular, mass, and, in the first place,
the proletarian movement against it. These are the only alternatives. There
can be no middle course here.

In Russia, even according to official, i. e., palpably exaggerated
statistics, which are faked to suit the “government’s plans”, the Great
Russians constitute no more than 43 per cent of the entire population of
the country. The

Great Russians in Russia constitute less than half the population. Officially, according to Stolypin “ himself ”, even
the Little Russians, or Ukrainians, are classed as a “ subject people ”. Consequently, the “subject peoples” in Russia constitute
57 per cent of the population, i. e., the majority of the population,
almost three-fifths, in all probability actually more than three-fifths. In
the Duma I represent Ekaterinoslav Gubernia, the overwhelming majority of
whose population are Ukrainians. The ban on the celebrations in honour of
Shevchenko [7] was such an excellent, splendid, exceptionally happy and
well-chosen measure as far as anti-government agitation is concerned, that
no better agitation could be conceived. I think that none of our best
Social-Democratic agitators against the government could ever have achieved
such sensational success in so short a time as was achieved by this measure
in rousing opposition to the government. After this measure was taken,
millions upon millions of ordinary people began to be converted into
public-minded citizens and were made to see the truth of the saying that
Russia is “a prison of nations”.

Our parties of the right and our nationalists are now clamouring so
vehemently against the “Mazeppists” and our famous Bobrinsky is defending
the Ukrainians from the oppression of the Austrian Government with
such splendid, democratic zeal, that one would think he wanted to join the
Austrian Social-Democratic Party. But if by “Mazeppism” is meant
gravitation towards Austria and preference for the Austrian political
system, then perhaps Bobrinsky will not he one of the least prominent of
the “Mazeppists”, for he complains and rants about the oppression of the
Ukrainians in Austria! Just think how hard it must be for a Russian
Ukrainian, for instance for an inhabitant of Ekaterinoslav Gubernia which I
represent, to read or hear this! If Bobrinsky “himself”, if the
nationalist Bobrinsky, if Count Bobrinsky, if squire Bobrinsky, if factory
owner Bobrinsky, if Bobrinsky who has links with the highest nobility
(almost with the “spheres”) thinks that the status of the national
minorities is unjust and oppressive in Austria, where there is nothing like
the disgraceful Jewish Pale of Settlement, or the despicable practice of
deporting Jews at the whim of despotic governors, or the prohibition of the native language in schools,
then what should be said about the Ukrainians in Russia? What should be
said about the other “subject peoples” in Russia?

Do not Bobrinsky and the other nationalists, as well as the Rights,
realise that they are bringing home to the “subject peoples” in Russia,
that is, to three-fifths of the population of Russia, the fact that Russia
is a backward country even compared with Austria, which
is the most backward of European countries?

The whole point is that the position of Russia, which is governed by
the Purishkeviches, or rather, groaning under the heel of the
Purishkeviches, is so peculiar that the utterances of the nationalist
Bobrinsky admirably explain and foment Social-Democratic agitation.

Keep it up, noble factory owner and landlord Bobrinsky; you will
certainly help us to arouse, enlighten and stir up both the Austrian and
the Russian Ukrainians! In Ekaterinoslav I heard several Ukrainians say
that they wanted to send Count Bobrinsky an address of thanks for his
successful propaganda in favour of the Ukraine’s secession from Russia. I
was not surprised to hear this. I saw propaganda leaflets, on one side of
which was the Ukase banning the Shevchenko celebrations while on the other
side were excerpts from Bobrinsky’s eloquent speeches in favour of
the Ukrainians.... I advised sending these leaflets to Bobrinsky,
Purishkevich and other Ministers.

But if Purishkevich and Bobrinsky are superlative agitators in favour
of transforming Russia into a democratic republic, our liberals, including
the Cadets, are trying to conceal from the people their agreement
with the Purishkeviches on certain fundamental questions of national
policy. I would not be fulfilling my duty if, in speaking on the estimates
of the Ministry of the Interior, which is pursuing a national policy
everybody is aware of, I did not mention this agreement of the
Constitutional-Democratic Party with the Ministry of the Interior’s
principles.

Indeed, is it not clear that anybody who wishes to be—putting it
mildly—in “opposition” to the Ministry of the Interior must also know
the ideological allies of this Ministry in the Cadet camp.

According to a Rech report, the Constitutional-Democratic
Party, or the “party of people’s freedom”, held its regular conference in
St. Petersburg on March 23 to 25 of this year.

“ National questions,” says Rech (No. 83), “were discussed... in a most lively manner. The deputies from Kiev, who were
supported by N.V. Nekrasov and A. M. Kolyubakin, stated that the national
question was a maturing major factor which had to be met more firmly than
it had been up to now. But F. F. Kokoshkin said that both the programme and
previous political experience called for very careful handling of the
‘elastic formulas’ of political self-determination for ‘nationalities’.”

This is Rech’s version of the matter. And although this
version is deliberately worded to keep the greatest numbers of readers
in the dark , the gist of the matter is nevertheless clear to every
observant and thinking person. Kievskaya Mysl , [8] which sympathises with the Cadets and voices their views,
reports Kokoshkin’s speech with the addition of the following comment:
“Because it may lead to the disintegration of the state.”

This, undoubtedly, was the gist of Kokoshkin’s speech. Among the
Cadets, Kokoshkin’s point of view prevailed even over the extremely timid
democratism of the Nekrasovs and Kolyubakins. Kokoshkin’s point of view is
that of the Great-Russian liberal-bourgeois nationalist who
defends the privileges of the Great Russians (although they are a
minority in Russia), and defends them hand in hand with the
Ministry of the Interior. Kokoshkin “theoretically” defended the policy
of the Ministry of the Interior—that is the gist, the core, of the
matter.

“ More careful handling of political self-determination” of nations!
Care must be taken that it does not “lead to the disintegration of the
state”!—that is the substance of Kokoshkin’s national policy,
which fully coincides with the main line of policy pursued by the
Ministry of the Interior. But Kokoshkin and the other Cadet leaders are not
infants. They are perfectly familiar with the saying:
“The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” The state
exists for the people, not the people for the state. Kokoshkin and the
other Cadet leaders are not infants. They know perfectly well that in our country the state is (in
effect) the Purishkevich class. The integrity of the state is the integrity
of the Purishkevich class. If one looks at the essence of their
policy, stripped of its diplomatic trappings, one will realise what the
Kokoshkins are concerned about.

For the sake of illustration I shall quote the following simple
example. In 1905, as you know, Norway seceded from Sweden in face of
vehement protests from the Swedish landlords, who threatened to go to war
against Norway. Fortunately, the feudalists in Sweden are not all-powerful
as they are in Russia, and there was no war. Norway, with a minority of
the population, seceded from Sweden in a peaceful, democratic, and
civilised way, not in the way the feudalists and the militarist, party
wanted. What happened? Did the people lose by it? Did the interests of
civilisation or the interests of democracy, or the interests of the working
class, suffer as a result of this secession?

Not in the least! Both Norway and Sweden are countries that are far
more civilised than Russia is—incidentally, precisely because
they succeeded in applying in a democratic manner the formula of the
“political self-determination” of nations. The breaking of
compulsory ties strengthened voluntary economic ties, strengthened cultural intimacy, and mutual respect between these two
nations, which are so close to each other in language and other things. The
common interests, the closeness of the Swedish and Norwegian peoples
actually gained from the secession, for secession meant the
rupture of compulsory ties.

I hope that this example has made it clear that Kokoshkin and the
Constitutional-Democratic Party take their stand entirely with the Ministry
of the Interior when they try to scare us with the prospect of the
“disintegration of the state” and urge us to be “careful in handling”
an absolutely clear formula, which is accepted without question by the
entire international democracy—the “political self-determination” of
nationalities. We Social-Democrats are opposed to all nationalism
and advocate democratic centralism . We are opposed to particularism, and are convinced that, all other things being equal , big states can solve the problems of economic progress and of
the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie far more effectively than small states
can. But we value only voluntary ties, never compulsory ties. Wherever we
see compulsory ties between nations we, while by no means
insisting that every nation must secede, do absolutely and
emphatically insist on the right of every nation to political
self-determination, that is, to secession.

To insist upon, to advocate, and to recognise this right is to
insist on the equality of nations, to refuse to recognise
compulsory ties, to oppose all state privileges for any nation
whatsoever, and to cultivate a spirit of complete class solidarity in the
workers of the different nations.

The class solidarity of the workers of the different nations is
strengthened by the substitution of voluntary ties for compulsory,
feudalist and militarist ties.

We value most of all the equality of nations in popular liberties and
for socialism.... [3] and insist on the privileges of the Great Russians. But we say: no
privileges for any one nation, complete equality of nations and
the unity, amalgamation of the workers of all nations .

Eighteen years ago, in 1896, the International Congress of Labour and
Socialist Organisations in London adopted a resolution on the national
question, which indicated the only correct way to work for both real
“popular liberties” and socialism. The resolution reads:

“ This Congress declares that it stands for the full right of all
nations to self-determination, and expresses its sympathy for the workers
of every country now suffering under the yoke of military, national or
other absolutism. This Congress calls upon the workers of all these
countries to join the ranks of the class-conscious workers of the whole
world in order jointly to fight for the defeat of international capitalism
and for the achievement of the aims of international Social-Democracy.”

And we, too, call for unity in the ranks of the workers of all nations
in Russia, for only such unity can guarantee the equality of nations and
popular liberties, and safeguard the interests of socialism.

The year 1905 united the workers of all nations in Russia. The
reactionaries are trying to foment national enmity. The liberal bourgeoisie
of all nations, first and foremost the Great-Russian bourgeoisie,
is fighting for the privileges of its own nation (for example, the
Polish kolo [9] is opposed to equal rights for Jews in Poland), is fighting for
national segregation, for national exclusiveness, and is thereby
promoting the policy of our Ministry of the Interior.

But true democracy, headed by the working class, holds aloft the banner
of complete equality of nations and of unity of the workers of all nations
in their class struggle. From this point of view we reject so-called
“cultural-national autonomy”, that is, the division of educational
affairs in a given state according to nationality, or the proposal that
education should be taken out of the hands of the state and transferred to
separately organised national associations. A democratic state must grant
autonomy to its various regions, especially to regions with mixed
populations. This form of autonomy in no way contradicts democratic
centralism; on the contrary, it is only through regional autonomy that
genuine democratic centralism is possible in a large state with a
mixed population. A democratic state is bound to grant complete freedom for the native languages and annul all privileges for
any one language. A democratic state will not permit the oppression or the
overriding of any one nationality by another, either in any particular
region or in any branch of public affairs.

But to take education out of the hands of the state and to divide it
according to nationality among separately organised national associations
is harmful from the point of view of democracy, and still more harmful from
the point of view of the proletariat. This would merely serve to perpetuate
the segregation of nations, whereas we must strive to unite them. It would
lead to the growth of chauvinism, whereas we must strive to unite the
workers of all nations as closely as possible, strive to unite them for a
joint struggle against all chauvinism, against all national exclusiveness, against all nationalism. The workers of
all nations have but one educational policy: freedom for the native
language, and democratic and secular education.

I conclude by expressing my gratitude once again to Purishkevich,
Markov II and Bobrinsky for their effective agitation against the entire
political system in Russia, for the object-lessons they have
given, which prove that Russia’s transformation into a democratic republic
is inevitable.