The newspapers repeatedly noted the report of the Caucasian viceroy, distinguished not by Black Hundred reaction but by timid "liberalism." Among other things, the viceroy speaks out against artificial Russification, that is, the assimilation of non-Russian nationalities. In the Caucasus, representatives of non-Russian nationalities themselves endeavor to teach their children Russian, for example in Armenian church schools, in which instruction in the Russian language is not compulsory.

Pointing to this, one of the most widely distributed liberal newspapers in Russia—"Russkoe Slovo"{54} (No. 198)—draws the just conclusion that the hostile attitude in Russia toward the Russian language "occurs exclusively" as a consequence of the "artificial" (one should have said: coercive) implantation of the Russian language.

"There is nothing to worry about regarding the fate of the Russian language. It will itself conquer recognition throughout all of Russia," the newspaper writes. And this is just, because the needs of economic intercourse will always compel nationalities living in one state (so long as they wish to live together) to study the language of the majority. The more democratic the system of Russia becomes, the more strongly, rapidly, and widely capitalism will develop, the more urgently will the needs of economic intercourse drive various nationalities to study the language most convenient for general commercial relations.

But the liberal newspaper hastens to defeat itself and demonstrate its liberal inconsistency.

"It is hardly likely," it writes, "that even opponents of Russification would deny that in such an enormous state as Russia there must be one unified state language and that such a language can only be Russian."

Logic turned on its head! Little Switzerland does not lose but gains from the fact that it has not one unified state language but three: German, French, and Italian. In Switzerland 70% of the population are Germans (in Russia 43% are Great Russians), 22% are French (in Russia 17% are Ukrainians), 7% are Italians (in Russia 6% are Poles and 4½% are Belarusians). If Italians in Switzerland often speak French in the general parliament, they do so not under the threat of some barbarous police law (there is none in Switzerland), but simply because civilized citizens of a democratic state themselves prefer the language understood by the majority. The French language does not inspire hatred in Italians because it is the language of a free, civilized nation, a language not imposed by repugnant police measures.

Why, then, should "enormous" Russia, far more variegated, terribly backward, retard its development by preserving any sort of privilege for one of the languages? Is it not the opposite, gentlemen liberals? Should not Russia, if it wishes to catch up with Europe, liquidate all and every privilege as quickly as possible, as completely as possible, as decisively as possible?

If all privileges disappear, if the imposition of one of the languages ceases, then all Slavs will easily and quickly learn to understand one another and will not be frightened by the "terrible" idea that speeches in different languages will be heard in the general parliament. And the needs of economic intercourse will themselves determine the language of the given country which it is advantageous for the majority to know in the interests of commercial relations. And this determination will be all the firmer because the population of different nations will accept it voluntarily; it will be all the faster and wider, the more consistent the democracy is, the more rapid the development of capitalism as a consequence thereof.

Liberals approach the question of languages, as they do all political questions, like hypocritical traders, extending one hand (openly) to democracy while extending the other hand (behind their back) to the serf-owners and police. We are against privileges—cries the liberal, while behind his back he haggles with the serf-owners, securing for himself now one, now another privilege.

Such is all liberal-bourgeois nationalism—not only Great Russian (it is the worst of all, owing to its coercive character and kinship with Messrs. Purishkevich), but also Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian, and every other kind. The bourgeoisie of all nations both in Austria and in Russia, under the slogan of "national culture," actually pursues the fragmentation of workers, the weakening of democracy, trading deals with serf-owners over the sale of the people's rights and the people's freedom.

The slogan of workers' democracy is not "national culture" but the international culture of democratism and the world workers' movement. Let the bourgeoisie deceive the people with all sorts of "positive" national programs. The conscious worker will answer it: there is only one solution to the national question (insofar as it is at all possible to solve it in the world of capitalism, the world of greed, strife, and exploitation), and that solution is consistent democratism.

Proof: Switzerland in Western Europe—a country of old culture—and Finland in Eastern Europe—a country of young culture.

The national program of workers' democracy: no unconditional privileges to any nation or any language; a solution to the question of the political self-determination of nations, that is, their state separation, by means wholly free and democratic; the enactment of a unified state law, by virtue of which any measure (zemstvo, municipal, communal, etc., etc.) carrying out in any way a privilege of one of the nations, violating the equality of rights of nations or the rights of a national minority, is declared illegal and void—and any citizen of the state has the right to demand the annulment of such a measure as contrary to the constitution and the criminal punishment of those who would carry it out.

To the national strife of various bourgeois parties over questions of language and the like, workers' democracy opposes the demand: the unconditional unity and complete merger of workers of all nationalities in all workers' organizations—professional, cooperative, consumer, educational, and all others—in opposition to all and every form of bourgeois nationalism. Only such unity and merger can defend democracy, defend the interests of workers against capital—which has already become and is increasingly becoming international—defend the interests of humanity's development toward a new way of life, alien to all privileges and all exploitation.