V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v48;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

I absolutely disagree. It does not mean the right to federation. Federation is a union of equals, a union requiring common consent. How can there be a right of one party to the consent of the other party?? That is absurd. We are in principle against federation—it weakens economic ties, it is an unsuitable type for a single state. Do you want to secede? Go to the devil if you can break the economic tie, or, rather, if the oppression and friction of “cohabitation” are such that they spoil and ruin the economic tie. Do you not want to secede? Then excuse me, do not decide for me, do not think that you have a “right” to federation.

“Right to autonomy”?? Again incorrect. We are for autonomy for all parts, we are for the right to secession (not for secession of all!). Autonomy is our plan for organising a democratic state. Secession is by no means our plan. We do not preach secession at all. In general, we are against secession. But we stand for the right to secession in view of the Black-Hundred Great-Russian nationalism, which has so befouled the cause of national cohabitation that sometimes greater ties will be obtained after free secession!!

The right to self-determination is an exception to our general premise of centralism. This exception is absolutely necessary in the face of Black-Hundred Great-Russian nationalism, and the slightest renunciation of this exception is opportunism (as with Rosa Luxemburg), is a foolish playing into the hands of Great-Russian Black-Hundred nationalism. But the exception cannot be interpreted broadly. Nothing, absolutely nothing except the right to secession is here and should be here.

I am writing about this in *Prosveshcheniye*. Be sure to write to me in more detail when I finish these articles (they will be in three issues). I will send something else. It was I who mainly pushed through the resolution. In the summer I read papers on the national question 266 and studied it a little.

* See V. I. Lenin, “Critical Remarks on the National Question” (Collected Works, 5th ed., Vol. 24, pp. 113-150). Ed.

Therefore I intend to “stand firm”, although, of course, ich lasse mich belehren* by comrades who have studied the question more and longer.

4. Against “changing” the programme—against a “national programme”?? Here too I disagree.
You are afraid of words. There is no need to fear them. All the same, everyone is changing it (the programme) secretly, basely, for the worse. We, however, in its spirit, in a consistently democratic spirit, in a Marxist (anti-Austrian) spirit, define, precisify, develop, consolidate it. This had to be done. Let the opportunist scoundrels (Bundist, liquidator, Narodnik) now try—let them give their own equally precise and equally complete answers to all our questions touched upon and decided in our resolution. Let them try. No, we did not “back down” before the opportunists, but defeated them on every point!

- A popular pamphlet on the national question is very necessary. Write it. I await your reply and firmly, firmly press your hand.

Yours, V. I. Greetings to all friends.