V. I.

Lenin

Marxists resolutely oppose nationalism in all its forms,
from the crude reactionary nationalism of our ruling circles and of the
Right Octobrist parties, down to the more or less refined and disguised
nationalism of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties.

Reactionary, or Black-Hundred, nationalism strives to safeguard the
privileges of one nation, condemning all other nations to an inferior
status, with fewer rights, or even with no rights at all. Not a single
Marxist, and not even a single democrat, can treat this nationalism with
anything else but the utmost hostility.

In words, bourgeois and bourgeois-democratic nationalists recognise the
equality of nations, but in deeds they (often covertly, behind the backs of
the people) stand for certain privileges for one of the nations, and always
try to secure greater advantages for “their own” nation (i.e., for the
bourgeoisie of their own nation); they strive to separate and segregate
nations, to foster national exclusiveness, etc. By talking most of all
about “national culture” and emphasising what separates one nation from
the other, bourgeois nationalists divide the workers of the
various nations and fool them with “nationalist slogans”.

The class-conscious workers combat all national oppression and
all national privileges, but they do not confine themselves to
that. They combat all, even the most refined, nationalism, and advocate not
only the unity, but also the amalgamation of the workers of
all nationalities in the struggle against reaction and against
bourgeois nationalism in all its forms. Our task is not to segregate
nations, but to unite the workers of all nations. Our banner does not carry the slogan
“national culture” but international culture, which unites all
the nations in a higher, socialist unity, and the way to which is already
being paved by the international amalgamation of capital.

The influence of petty-bourgeois, philistine nationalism has infected
certain “would-be socialists”, who advocate what is called
“cultural-educational autonomy”, i.e., the transfer of educational
affairs (and matters of national culture in general) from the state to the
individual nations. Naturally, Marxists combat this propaganda for the
segregation of nations , they combat this refined nationalism, they
combat the segregating of the schools according to nationality . When our Bundists, and later, the liquidators, wanted to
support “cultural-national autonomy” in direct opposition to our
Programme, they were condemned not only by the Bolsheviks, but also by the
pro-Party Mensheviks (Plekhanov).

Now Mr. An, in Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta (No. 103) is trying to
defend a bad case by subterfuge, and by showering abuse upon us. We calmly
ignore the abuse; it is merely a sign of the liquidators’ feebleness.

To have schools connected in the native languages—this, Mr. An
assures us, is what is meant by segregating the schools according to the
nationalities of the pupils; the Pravda people, he says, want to
deprive the non-Russians of their national schools!

We can afford to laugh at this trick of Mr. An’s, for everybody knows
that Pravda stands for the fullest equality of languages, and even
for the abolition of an official language! Mr. An’s impotent rage is
causing him to lose his head. This is dangerous, dear Mr. An!

The right of a nation to use its native language is explicitly and
definitely recognised in § 8 of the Marxist programme. [2]

If Mr. An is right in stating that having schools conducted in the
native languages means segregating the schools according to nationality,
why did the Bundists in 1906, and the liquidators in 1912, “supplement”
(or rather, distort ) the Programme adopted in 1903—at the very
Congress which rejected “cultural-national autonomy”—which
fully

recognises the right of a nation to use its native language ?

Your subterfuge will fail, Mr. An, and you will not succeed in covering
up with your noise, clamour and abuse the fact that the liquidators have
violated this Programme, and that they have “adapted socialism to
nationalism”, as Comrade Plekhanov expressed it.

We do not want to have the Programme violated. We do not want socialism
to be adapted to nationalism. We stand for complete democracy, for the
complete freedom and equality of languages, but give no support whatever to
the proposal to “transfer educational affairs to the nations” or to
“segregate schools according to nationality”.

“ The question at issue is that of segregating the schools according to nations,” writes Mr. An, “hence, these nations must
exist in each locality, hindering each other’s development; and
consequently, they must be segregated in the sphere of public
education as well.”

The words we have emphasised clearly reveal how liquidationism is
dragging Mr. An away from socialism towards nationalism. The
segregation of nations within the limits of a single state is
harmful, and we Marxists strive to bring the nations together and to amalgamate them . Our object is not to “segregate” nations, but to
secure for them, through full democracy, an equality and coexistence as
peaceful (relatively) as in
Switzerland. [1]

---
Notes:
[1]

Mr. An boldly asserts that “there is no intermixing of nations even in
the cantons of Switzerland”. Will he not blush if we mention four
cantons: Berne, Fribourg, Graub\"unden and Valais? — Lenin

[2]
This refers to §8 of the Programme of the R.S.D.L.P. adopted at
the Second Congress of the Party.