* RECORD OF DEBATES ON THE REPORT IN BERNE.1
13. VII. 1913.
Segalevich * "to the maximum ] meaning" self-determination]
.. "giving too much gives n[othing]"...
"experience" a:
separation ]
1 1 [more ] = enslavement ] of Je[ws ]
D a n g e r o u s //3 (Milyukov is far from a nat[ionalist]!!)
Merit of S.-B.4 — general [state ] si[gnificance] 11
Ka- u[tsky] on the constitutional ] po[int] of vi[ew].
In B[auer's] extraterritoriality] only a corr[ective] to the territorial!! 5
O n c e s e l f-d e t [e r m i n a t i o n ] , t h e n — Je[wish] autonomy].6
Subjectively it would be . . .
!
M[ay] b[e] a b o u t m e d i e v [a l ] Je[ws] and one can
say .. . . Is it not that orth[odox] Jew[ishness].. .. Mis-
understanding!
Birnbaum: renais[sance] of Jew[ishness] m[ay] b[e] o[nly]
in the E[ast].4
/WYYWV • wvww ГГч Y m v /VVYWYV' wwwvv WVVYVV'rvVVV/WNnA'YVYYYVW7VWVVWV\A^^v-' Л/VYVYWWYYYYYV^
l
All signs ] of national ] renaissance ] are present.
\
ЧЛАЛЛА>\Л> \А \Л /ЛЛЛУ ^ЛЛЛЛЛЛ у v ААЛЛЛЛ Л^Л^ЛлЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛУии>ЛЛЛЛЛЛМ АЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛА/ ЧЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛ/^\ЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛЛУ
Zionist Rogovin : "Exploit[ation]" of the gentlemen b[olshe]v[iks]-
!! They support ] national ] expl[oitation].. . . O n
w h [a t ] l a n g [u a g e ] w i l l [ t h e y ] t e a c h [ i n s c h [o o l s ]!8
G[entleman] Le[nin] dared to ass[ert] that the Jew[s are a]
caste!! "Y[ou] ... free-thinking ] people... that's enough"... sh[ame]
. .. . National ] death is worse than Physical. . . .
1 Kornblum was the chairman at the report.
2 Segalsvich — at that time a student of the philosophical faculty, a former
Bundist, inclined towards Zionism and subsequently completely
slipped into it. Currently lives in Egypt.
*
The speaker expressed, obviously, the fear that with the autonomy of Poland
Jewry, as a national minority, would find itself in an even more oppressed
position.

The letters S and B are not written quite clearly. It is possible that we are talking
about
Springer and Bauer—creators of "cultural-national autonomy."

See Bauer's book "The National Question and Social Democracy" § 22
"Personal Principle," publ. 1909, p. 368 and further.

"§ 3 of the Brno program of the Austrian Social Democrats..., a compromise slogan,
because there is not a shadow of extraterritorial (personal) national
autonomy here. But even this slogan is erroneous and harmful... All the more erroneous
is the slogan of extraterritorial (personal) national autonomy with established
(according to the plan of consistent supporters of this slogan) national
parliaments and national state secretaries (O. Bauer and
K. Renner)" (Lenin's Works, vol. XVI, p. 510).
6 The "territorialist program adopted by the Brno party congress,
which directly excludes, for example, Jewish cultural-
national autonomy," — wrote Lenin in the article "On the History of the National Program in Austria and Russia." "The main theorist" of "cultural-national autonomy," Otto Bauer, devoted a special chapter
of his book (1907) to proving the impossibility of demanding "cultural-
national autonomy" for Jews" (Works, vol. XVII, p. 203).
7 Nathan Birnbaum (pseudonym Acher Mathias) — a theorist of Zionism and
nationalism, who, however, disagreed with the theory of Zionism about the denial
of the "golus" (diaspora) and believed that even in the countries of the diaspora Jewry
can achieve conditions that would ensure its cultural-national life, namely, by creating an organization with a central representative institution. A supporter of Jewish national autonomy
for Austrian Jewry, Birnbaum sharply emphasized the difference between
Eastern and Western Jewry; the former, living in compact masses, leads a national life and has its own culture based on two national languages (ancient Hebrew and jargon), while the latter, interspersed in the surrounding population, is deprived of national culture.
And, according to his point of view, only with close spiritual communication and
interaction of Western Jewry with Eastern Jewry can the former acquire
the necessary national atmosphere. See his article "Jews"
in the book "Forms of the National Movement in Modern States.
Austria-Hungary. Russia. Germany." Edited by A. I. Kastelyansky. St. Petersburg. Publ. by the "Public Benefit" partnership, 1910, pp. 179 — 189.
8 See Lenin's Works, vol. XVII, pp. 113 — 115.
20333 "RUSSIAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE NATIONAL
QUESTION.1
21/III 1914, Krakow.
9. 55
Kamensky : L[ong] l[ive] independent ] Poland!
Note ] in parentheses by comrade ] Kam[ensky]: Mate-\\ rial on the nat[ional] q[uestion], that one has to! spea- I i
,k] in Rus[sian] [ „ 4
•
'
) !

RUSSIAN S. D.
AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION

•
Condemned P.P.S.2— P.P.S. is more logical— and set the de|"e]m[and]-
jj i[ng] and fought--
Japan — ... * ‘л (
Russian ] bourgeois, revolution with the participation of the pro- J
l[etaria]t.
)

Lenin has sunk to the level of the liquidators, because the liquidators; [stand for
a bourgeois-democratic] revolution].
//
The prol[etaria]t cannot set the task of a national '
I : state, because it is for unity, and not for dis- *
V \ unity
.L[enin] is for the originality of Russia, for Slavophilism...
(
Autonomy! Roza
Luxemburg not under Asian ] j |desp[otism]),4 but under a rep[ublic].
I 1
j
Agr[arian] pr[ogram] — clear and concrete 1. Incomparable
. A bstr[act] me]t[a]ph[ysical phrase__ 5
Comrade En (PPS : In defense of "Napszud" (the king did not want......in
not Russian (L[enin]!), but Polish 'we):...
(In this slog[an] of independence of P[ola]nd we do not disag[ree]
with L[enin].))
For him — theoretical, for us self-serving__
Q[uestio]ns of national ] c[ulture] are broader than class ones.
We are v[ery] sorry that the PPS is a petty b[ourgeois] p[arty]
National ] c[ulture]??**
Lazovsky:
Kazan (PPS): Weakness of the Social Democratic movement in Russia etc.—
these are the reasons for the special position of the P.P.S.
In concrete ] activ[ity] the P.P.S. did not deviate from the po[int]
of vi[ew] of the prol[etaria]t... *'*
* One word is illegible. Ed.
** This phrase was written by Lenin on the side of the speech record. Ed.
*** The first two paragraphs of the record of Lazansky's speech in the manuscript
are crossed out. Ed.

__ He speaks about the Russian ] revolution ] as a quantite negligeable__ * The Polish prol[etaria]t must be diverted from this.,..
— I fully agree with him against R[oza] L[uxemburg... i
decentralism of the Russian ] st[ate], — the role of each
nation, the degree of their development determines ] this decentr[aliza-
!| tion]
1) aut[onom]y (national ] districts are not large, but small)?...))))
"suburbs of Lodz";7
2) c[ultural]-n[ational] autonomy i. I am against, but for a de-
claration ] of the Social Democratic F[raction] in the State ] D[uma]8 (for guar-
antees). (minorities)...
En: does not believe in the infallibility of popes......
"Without the inde[pendence] of Poland, there can be no talk of a Polish ] soc[ialist] movement]..."
) )
Pshi6[yshevsky]. It is unclear that the internal ] m[arke]t de- m[ands] a national ] st[ate]...
(a)? Language, a social, not o[nly] an economic ] factor..*
(R) C[ultural]-national ] aut[onomy] and the rights of m[inor-
itie]s?
(y) "almost impossible"...
|the Social Democrats will not achieve the guaranteeing of this right by laws|
(8) the task of the prol[etaria]t is negative?? 9 the independence of Poland is the most complete resolution ] of the q[uestion]*
(e) Is it an ABC that the PSD is the only socialist party.
Kam[enev].
Is an inde[pendent] P[ola]nd necessary.
To preach this...
The position of good b[ourgeois] r[a]d[ica]ls?((superfluous))...
Complete unacq[uaintance] with Polish ] nat[ionalism].1
We do not need it, — (a loophole for the PPS)— we have our own concrete ] slogans......
In Poland
1904 — 5 we already had "Proletaria]t") ||
*— a quantity that can be neglected. Ed.

RUSSIAN S. D.
AND THE NATIONAL QUESTION

Pan Kulchitsky10 "eradicate"......
|for Jews?|
c[ultural]-n[ational] autonomy j
^there is no ground
^
^empty phrase^
1what to say to the Russian ] worker?
I
Sweden and N[o]rw[ay]: 11
| was Lenin there?
II
I
I
I against oppression, against militarism!!
Dombrovsky: W[estern]-Eur[opean] st[ates]
| Against oppression, this is not concrete}
"Quixotism"__

The document is a record of the debates made by Lenin
at his report in Krakow on March 21, 1914. According to Ch. I. Yasinsky
(Pshibyshevsky), Lenin's report on the topic: "Russian Social Democracy and
the National Question" took place in the student society "Spujnia" on
the initiative of the Krakow section of the SDP and L "rozlamovtsy" and took several days together
with the debates. On the first day, according to Yasinsky, Lenin's speech was devoted to "the general line of development of Russian socialist
thought and the formation of Bolshevik ideology." The report consisted of
three parts devoted to separate stages of forging revolutionary social democratic ideology and the struggle against populism, economism, and Menshevism.
"A brief analysis of the economic roots of autocracy and the relationship
of the main classes in Russia, the exposure of the populist illusion
about the possibility of bypassing the path of capitalist development for Russia, the
question of the driving forces and the specific nature of the Russian bourgeois
revolution, the question of the leading role of the proletariat in relation to the petty-
bourgeois, and, in particular, the peasant revolutionary movement
and the leading role of the militant revolutionary workers' party in the struggle for
the overthrow of autocracy, the question of the further path of development of the revolution,
the need for a complete exposure of Menshevik opportunism, which
is a conductor of the influence of the anti-revolutionary bourgeoisie in the ranks
of the proletariat, the need to approach the national question from the point
of view of the revolutionary tasks of this historical epoch — these are the main,
core thoughts-problems of this first part of Lenin's report.
"A concise but carefully developed Marxist formulation of the national question in connection with the development of capitalism in general and the Russian

22 8
LENINIST COLLECTION
revolution in particular — constituted the content of Lenin's second lecture
in our society, which took place the next day or one of the nearest
days.
((The starting point of this part of Lenin's report was the thesis that
the Marxist approach to the national question requires, first of all,
a concrete consideration of historical conditions. It is necessary to distinguish between the era of early
capitalism and the era of mature capitalism. In the first case, on the basis of the formation of the internal market, there arises and prevails a tendency towards the formation of national states, and it is indeed one
of the most characteristic features of all bourgeois-democratic revolutions. In
the era of mature capitalism, the development of productive forces outgrows
national frameworks, the share of the external market increases, world
exchange increasingly deepens the interdependence of individual national
economies, and the tendency towards the creation of large
"international" states comes to the fore. But these two eras, of course, are not strictly separated from each other and do not pass in all countries simultaneously.
A characteristic feature of the current Russian revolution is precisely that
it is a product of a transitional period, when in Russia there are
factors characteristic of both one and the other era: the international antagonism of the proletariat and
the bourgeoisie comes to the fore, but the unresolved tasks of the democratic revolution and barbaric national oppression inevitably give rise to elements of national liberation movements.
"The revolutionary party of the proletariat must take these peculiarities into account, striving to pour national liberation movements into the mainstream
of the general revolutionary struggle against Tsarism under the hegemony of the working class.
It is precisely this goal that the slogan of self-determination of nations serves.
"We, the revolutionary social democrats, strive to create a united,
closely knit, centralized party of the proletariat and set as a political
goal a democratic, as large as possible "international" republic.
"We conceive of this republic as a centralized state, with
local and regional self-government, with the breaking of old administrative
divisions and with their adaptation to concrete national-everyday
conditions, with the abolition of any privileges (including
a mandatory state language) and full equality of all local languages on the model of Switzerland.
"However, such a republic cannot, without threatening the entire democratic system of the state, forcibly retain those regions in which
mass national liberation movements would manifest themselves, i.e.
tendencies towards the formation of independent national states. In
order to bring nations closer together, it is necessary to fight even against the very idea of suppressing such movements. Thus, the struggle for a centralized, truly democratic republic is inevitably linked to the slogan of self-determination. In practice, this means that where, due to the peculiarities
of the national way of life and customs, frictions caused by the centralization of the state system would hinder (even under the condition of formal equality] the actual implementation of full democratization, we,

RUSSIAN S. D. II THE NATIONAL QUESTION

revolutionary social democrats, — must stand for the state
separation of this territory. Thus, for example, after the declaration of independence
of Norway, the duty of Swedish socialists was to support in
deed the decision of the Norwegian people and to resist the aspirations for
the forcible annexation of Norway.
"Such a formulation of the question is a necessary condition for the creation
of an international party of the proletariat, the rallying of all revolutionary
forces for the struggle against Tsarism and the actual rapprochement of nations — separated at present by national oppression — on the basis of full
equality. This equality will also fundamentally undermine the utopian and reactionary aspirations for national-cultural autonomy caused by today's isolation and national oppression.
"Thus, in the interests of the class revolutionary struggle of the proletariat,
Russian social democracy will strive to ensure that the future democratic constitution includes not only a law on the equality of nations, but also a law on the right of nations to political self-determination, i.e.
to separation."
Such, in general terms, was the content of Lenin's report as presented
by Yasinsky, who was present at it.
Since Polish Social Democrats as well as social patriots from the PPS ("Fraki") were present at Lenin's report in Krakow, Lenin, obviously, with
a political goal, carefully avoided direct polemics with the SD
II and L and never even mentioned the mistakes of R. Luxemburg, reports
Yasinsky. Moreover. As far as he remembers, "in the entire report of Lenin on
the Polish question separately, it was not even mentioned."
But "precisely in view of the fact that Lenin's report was read before a PPS
audience, the Polish Social Democrats considered it absolutely necessary to defend
their point of view on this question," reports Comrade V. Kraevsky (Dombrovsky).
Kamensky (G. Stein-Kamensky, Domsky), a Social Democrat "rozlamovets," was
the main opponent on behalf of the Polish Social Democrats.
"Since Lenin had to speak in Russian, all the other
speakers also spoke in Russian," — recalls Kraevsky (Dombrovsky). — "In connection with this, Kamensky at the beginning of his speech
caustically remarked "in parentheses" that an illustration, a material on the
national question, the question of the right to self-determination, is
already the fact that the speakers have to speak in Russian.
"Then Kamensky said that whoever recognizes the right to self-determination
of nations must, in relation to the Polish question, directly accept
the slogan: "Long live independent Poland," i.e. take the position
of the "Fraks," a position not proletarian, but petty-bourgeois and counter-revolutionary. Meanwhile, Comrade Lenin manages to combine the recognition of the right
to self-determination of nations up to separation and the formation of an independent
state with the struggle against the position of the "Fraks." This is illogical.
Lenin says that the recognition of the right to self-determination up to separation does not mean a struggle for this separation under all conditions. Under certain historical conditions — says Lenin — the struggle for the implementation

LENINIST COLLECTION
of the right to self-determination can lead to the camp of imperialism. In this
case, the "Fraks" are more logical than Lenin, because they have always not only put forward
the demand for the independence of Poland, but also fought for it. But precisely
because they fought and are fighting for this slogan, they are a party
of counter-revolution. Precisely for this reason, we, the Polish Social Democrats, have always condemned them and fought against them. One is inextricably linked to the other, and whoever says A must also say B. Whoever fights for the independence of Poland
has to resort to such means as, for example, the "Fraks" (Pilsudski) in 1904, during the Russo-Japanese War,
when they sent a delegation to the Japanese military command with
a proposal of their services against Russia in exchange for receiving weapons from
Japan.
"Comrade Lenin says that the slogan of the right to self-determination
must be put forward in the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions.
But this was only correct in relation to Western Europe, in relation to the bourgeois revolution of 1848. And the Russian "bourgeois"
revolution is no longer purely bourgeois, no longer the old bourgeois-democratic
revolution of 1848, because it takes place with the participation of the proletariat
and it is its driving force. Without emphasizing this, Lenin has sunk
to the level of the liquidators, because the liquidators stand for a bourgeois-democratic
revolution, not understanding the role of the proletariat in our revolution (Lenin
laughed very cheerfully when Kamensky came up with the argument about Lenin-
the liquidator).
"Then Kamensky expressed the view, common at that time in the mouths of the Polish Social Democrats, that the proletariat cannot set itself the task of building a national state, because it is for the unity of all forces, and not for their disunity in the struggle against Tsarism and the bourgeoisie. Lenin must be consistent and, since he recognizes the right to self-determination up to separation, — must fight for the separation of all nations from the Great Russians. But
then Lenin slides into Slavophilism, then he is for the originality of
Russia.
"In contrast to Lenin's formulation of the question, Rosa Luxemburg,
justifying the program, put forward the slogan of autonomy. For us, the slogan of autonomy, and not the slogan of the right to self-determination, is associated with the revolution, because autonomy is possible not under Asian despotism, but under a republic.
"Due to the special conditions of Poland, the Polish Social Democrats do not put forward
the Bolshevik slogan of nationalization of land. But in any case, the agrarian program of the Bolsheviks is clear and concrete. This cannot be said about
the program of the RSDLP on the national question. The slogan of the right of nations to
self-determination is an abstract, metaphysical phrase. Since there are no
united nations, but there is a struggle of classes within nations, there cannot
be a single "self-determination of nations"".
"The "Frak" En (Marushevsky) was Lenin's main opponent on the part
of the PPS. According to Yasinsky, Marushevsky made the starting point
of his speech the opposition of the position of Polish socialists, as representatives of an oppressed nation, to the position of Lenin, as a representative of the proletariat of the dominant nation. "For Lenin," — he said: — the national question is a theoretical question, for us it is a self-serving question," "because national oppression lies as a heavy burden
on our entire life, distorts all manifestations of this life. For the Polish proletariat, the slogan of independence is a necessary condition for all
its liberation movement. We have the right to demand from the socialists
of the dominant nations to support our aspiration for independence."
"Lazovsky-Lazansky and Pshshibyshevsky (Yasinsky) — were representatives
of the "maiden" of the PPS," — reports Kraevsky. All representatives
of the PPS — "each in his own way — seized on Lenin's views in order to attack
the Polish Social Democrats for their misunderstanding of the revolutionary significance of the slogan
of the independence of Poland."
"The main content of Kamensky's second speech," — according to Kraevsky, — "was a polemic with the assertion of all three previous speakers, that it is necessary to fight for the independence of Poland, because the creation of an independent Poland is the most complete and therefore the best resolution of the national question for the proletariat. Kamensky argued that such a formulation of the question has nothing in common with the class point of view, that this is the position of bourgeois radicals, and not of the party of the proletariat. The slogan of the right to self-determination — said Kamensky — we do not need, it leaves a loophole for the PPS, for all overt and covert nationalists. The Polish Social Democrats have their own concrete slogans in the national question — the slogan of autonomy, which meets the interests of the proletariat. If in relation to the Polish nation we are talking about the right to self-determination, then how to apply this point to the Jews? To accept the Bundist program of cultural-national autonomy?" "Lenin says that on the national question negative slogans are not enough — against national oppression, positive ones are needed in order to eradicate nationalism from the Russian worker," — recalls Kamensky. — "In that case, he is illogical if he rejects the slogan of cultural-national autonomy, which is the only possible positive slogan on the Jewish question.
"We believe that those positive slogans, which in reality are an unfounded phrase, are not needed for agitation among Russian workers.
The Russian worker simply needs to be told that the Polish worker, out of solidarity, renounces the slogan of the independence of Poland. Such a formulation of the question will much better eradicate nationalism among Russian workers.
"In Poland, we had Kulchitsky's party "Proletariat" in 1904 —
1905, which put forward the slogan of independence precisely as facultative, as Lenin. It did not become a mass party and melted away: it turned out that the masses understand only a clear and absolute formulation of the question: either for independence, or against it." "Since in his report Lenin gave the example of Sweden and Norway," — reports Kraevsky, — "Kamensky returned in his second speech to this point, asking: "Was Lenin in Sweden and Norway? Did the separation of Norway from Sweden stem from the aspirations of the revolutionary proletariat? Nothing of the kind. It was a manifestation of ordinary bourgeois separatism, which the workers reject. The workers went under the slogan: against oppression, against militarism."

Dombrovsky (Kraevsky) — a Polish Social Democrat "rozlamovets" conveys his speech in the following form: "I spoke very briefly, if only because I heard only the last part of the report, while all the speakers spoke about the entire cycle of Lenin's lectures. Of course, I, like Kamensky, defended the views of Polish social democracy, the views of Rosa Luxemburg, against Lenin. I dealt, in essence, with only one main point of Lenin's report, namely the question of the connection between the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination and the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions. I tried to prove that in the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Western Europe this slogan was appropriate, but it was precisely a slogan of bourgeois radicals, and Marx and Engels supported this slogan only insofar as they had to support bourgeois radicals. But in relation to the Russian revolution, the driving force of which is the proletariat, this slogan, taken from the arsenal of Western European bourgeois radicalism of the past century, is outdated, utopian and reactionary.
"The proletariat cannot put forward this slogan, the only slogan of the proletariat is the most general slogan: the struggle against national oppression. As the history of our struggle in Poland proves, this slogan is quite sufficient for conducting the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, this slogan is consistently internationalist and excludes any possibility of interpretation in a nationalistic spirit. The struggle for the right of nations to self-determination, in addition to inevitable nationalistic interpretations, is quixotism, is a struggle for a metaphysical fiction." "In his reply, Lenin, of course, had no difficulty in refuting all our argumentation," — reports Kraevsky. — "But he tried to do this with the greatest caution. Emphasizing his solidarity with the Polish Social Democrats, emphasizing that the principle of joint revolutionary struggle of the Polish and Russian proletariat put forward by the Polish Social Democrats is a higher principle and it is this principle that predetermines the revolutionary international character of the Polish Social Democrats, — Lenin with all his might attacked the Polish social nationalists, pointing out what a chasm lies between the revolutionary formulation of the question of the right to self-determination and between all attempts to use this slogan for nationalistic, chauvinistic agitation in the masses. Lenin proved that the "Fraks" raise the question not as proletarian revolutionaries, but as petty-bourgeois nationalists."
In his reply to Kamensky (according to Kamensky-Domsky),
Lenin pointed out "that the point is not in this slogan, but in the content that is put into it. The PPS puts a petty-bourgeois content into it and strives for the separation of the struggle of the Polish proletariat from the struggle of the Russian proletariat. The right to independence by no means means for the proletariat the obligation to fight for independence in all cases. It is bad that the SDP and L do not know how to use the slogan of self-determination, because it, as a truly proletarian party, would interpret it in practice not in a nationalistic spirit, like the PPS."
"Answering Kamensky's reproaches, Lenin" — according to Yasinsky —

RUSSIAN S. D. II THE NATIONAL QUESTION

"said that he is not afraid if they say that his position benefits
the nationalism of oppressed national minorities; with no less reason it can be argued that the opposite position benefits
Russian great-power nationalism and in favor of autocracy...
"One must be blind not to see that the experience of 1903 proved just the opposite. The national liberation movement, in the form of federalist aspirations, manifested itself in many outskirts. A reflection of this movement was, among other things, the numerous faction of autonomists-federalists in the 2nd Duma. Federalist aspirations are, in essence, aspirations to create their own statehood.
"National aspirations continue to grow further. Recently, the Ukrainian student congress adopted the slogan "independent Ukraine."
This does not mean that this slogan is the slogan of the broad working masses of Ukraine. But since the struggle for "independence" of Ukraine really flares up, we, the Social Democrats, cannot be embarrassed by this slogan. The barbaric oppression of Tsarism cannot but foster national liberation aspirations among Ukrainians, especially in view of the position of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia. Austria is a wild, clerical, conservative country, but "Austria is paradise compared to Russia." "In view of national oppression, in view of national strife and national hatred, the slogan of self-determination is not an abstract phrase. It is, first of all, a tool of struggle against Great Russian nationalism, which for centuries has instilled in the masses of the people, the masses of soldiers, the conviction that the lands and peoples conquered by their weapons, their blood, are their legitimate prey, which can be treated as their property, as an object of exploitation. Without a categorical opposition to this ideology of great-power nationalism, there can be no talk of either genuine international solidarity or the conquest of democracy. The most consistent opposition to this ideology is the slogan of self-determination. And therefore it is for us a practical, vital slogan, which we cannot renounce under any circumstances."
2 PPS — Polish Socialist Party, — formed in
1893 and was the ideologue of the most revolutionary part of the Polish
petty bourgeoisie and intelligentsia. The central point of its program
was the restoration of the independence of the Polish state by means of armed
uprising. In 1906, the PPS split into two factions: 1) the socialist "left" (which in 1918 merged with the Social Democrats of Poland and Lithuania into
the Polish Communist Party) and 2) the nationalist "right"
or the so-called "revolutionary" faction ("Fraki"). The latter is currently the main leader of the policy of white Poland and the most ardent enemy of Soviet Russia.
*
We are obviously talking about attempts by Polish nationalists to enter into
relations with the Japanese government during the Russo-Japanese War.
In the "History of Russian Social Democracy" Martov writes: "The war
with Japan greatly revived the hopes of the oppressed nationalities on the outskirts of Russia and, thanks to the skillful policy of agents of Japanese diplomacy, caused in the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties leading the movements of these nationalities certain speculations on Japanese assistance in their struggle against Tsarism. Very soon the danger of involving Russian revolutionary parties in these intrigues became apparent...
The Polish Socialist Party, in the person of its nationalist wing, which later formed the "revolutionary faction," or "right," openly professed Japanophilism, and its agents directly and almost openly entered into relations with the Japanese government" (p. 95,
publ. 1918).
4 "Rosa Luxemburg," — writes Lenin, — "characterizes the state system of Russia by signs, obviously, both economic, and political, and everyday, and sociological — a set of features that give in sum the concept of "Asian despotism" (D? 12 "Przegląd", p. 137;»
(see Lenin's Works, vol. XVII, p. 434).
5 In No. 6 of "Przegląd" for 1908 (p. 188) Rosa Luxemburg writes:
" "The right of nations," applied equally to all countries and at all times, is only a metaphysical phrase like "the rights of man" and "the rights of the citizen."

In his report, Lenin, as an illustration of the correctness of the
slogan of self-determination of nations, gave, obviously (see Kamensky's second speech, in which he objected to Lenin), "a concrete example of the separation of Norway from Sweden." Lenin believed that "this example actually proves the obligation for conscious workers of systematic propaganda and preparation so that possible clashes over the separation of nations are resolved only as they were resolved in 1905 between Norway and Sweden" ("On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination," Works, vol. XVII, p. 452).
Rosa Luxemburg looked at this differently: "The latest event in the history of federal relations," — she wrote, — "the separation of Norway from Sweden, — hastily picked up at the time by the social-patriotic Polish press (see Krakow's "Napszud") as a gratifying manifestation of the strength and progressiveness of aspirations for state separation, — immediately turned into a striking proof that federalism and the state separation resulting from it are by no means an expression of progressiveness or democracy. After the so-called Norwegian "revolution," which consisted in the removal and expulsion of the Swedish king from Norway, the Norwegians calmly chose another king for themselves, formally rejecting the project of establishing a republic by popular vote. What superficial admirers of all national movements and all kinds of semblances of independence proclaimed a "revolution" was a simple manifestation of peasant and petty-bourgeois particularism, the desire to have a "own" king for their money instead of one imposed by the Swedish aristocracy, and therefore was a movement that had absolutely nothing to do with revolutionism. At the same time, this story of the rupture of the Swedish-Norwegian union again proved to what extent and in this case the federation that existed until then was only an expression of purely dynastic interests, and therefore a form of monarchism and reaction..." ("Przegląd". We quote from Lenin's article "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination". Works, vol. XVII, pp. 450 — 451.)

"CONDITIONS OF PEACE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION

Objecting to Rosa Luxemburg (see the article cited above), Lenin
reproached her that she "did not say a word on the merits."
"Undoubtedly," — he wrote (p. 451), — "that the Norwegian petty bourgeois, wishing to have their own king for their money and failing the project of establishing a republic by popular vote, showed very bad petty-bourgeois qualities. Undoubtedly, that "Napszud," if he did not notice this, showed equally bad and equally petty-bourgeois qualities."
"But what does all this have to do with it??" — wrote Lenin (see the cited article) and gave arguments on the merits. In his speech, the "Frak" En stood up, obviously, for "Napszud," proving that he "did not want a little king."
7 See Lenin's Works, vol. XVII, p. 156.
8 We are talking about the bill on national equality, introduced
into the IV State Duma by the RSDLP Fraction (see Lenin's Works, vol. XVII, pp. 291— 292).
9 The opponent's bewilderment was caused, obviously, by the following thought of Lenin:
"... the unconditional duty for a Marxist to defend the most decisive and most consistent democratism in all parts of the national question" — wrote Lenin in "Critical Remarks on the National Question" (Works, vol. XVII, p. 145). "This is a task, mainly negative. And the proletariat cannot go further in supporting nationalism, because further begins the "positive" (positive) activity of the bourgeoisie, striving to strengthen nationalism."
10 The Polish Socialist Party "Proletariat" arose in
1900 from a group that broke away, led by Kulchitsky, from the PPS, published
the organ "Proletariat". The party put forward the demand for the autonomy of Poland,
spoke out for terror and stood for close