Critical Remarks on the National Question
V.I. Lenin

It is obvious that the national question has now become
prominent among the problems of Russian public life. The aggressive
nationalism of the reactionaries, the transition of counter-revolutionary
bourgeois liberalism to nationalism (particularly Great-Russian, but also
Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, etc.), and lastly, the increase of nationalist
vacillations among the different “national” (i. e., non-Great-Russian)
Social-Democrats, who have gone to the length of violating the Party
Programme—all these make it incumbent on us to give more attention to the
national question than we have done so far.

This article pursues a special object, namely, to examine, in their
general bearing, precisely these programme vacillations of Marxists and
would-be Marxists, on the national question. In Severnaya
Pravda [2] No. 29 (for September 5, 1913, “Liberals and Democrats on
the Language
Question” [1] )

I had occasion to speak of the opportunism of the liberals on the national
question; this article of mine was attacked by the opportunist Jewish
newspaper Zeit , [3] in an article by Mr. F. Liebman. From the other side,
the programme of the Russian Marxists on the national question has been
criticised by the Ukrainian opportunist Mr. Lev Yurkevich
( Dzvin , [4] 1913, Nos. 7–8). Both these writers touched upon so
many questions that to reply to them we are obliged to deal with the most
diverse aspects of the subject. I think the most convenient thing would be
to start with a reprint of the article from Severnaya Pravda .

### 1. LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS ON THE LANGUAGE QUESTION

On several occasions the newspapers have mentioned the report of the
Governor of the Caucasus, a report that is noteworthy, not for its
Black-Hundred [5] spirit, but for its timid “liberalism”. Among other
things, the Governor objects to artificial Russification of non-Russian
nationalities. Representatives of non-Russian nationalities in the Caucasus
are themselves striving to teach their children Russian; an
example of this is the Armenian church schools, in which the teaching of
Russian is not obligatory.

Russkoye Slovo [6] (No. 198), one of the most widely circulating liberal
newspapers in Russia, points to this fact and draws the correct conclusion
that the hostility towards the Russian language in Russia “stems
exclusively from” the “artificial” (it should have said “forced”)
implanting of that language.

“ There is no reason to worry about the fate of the Russian
language. It will itself win recognition throughout Russia,” says the
newspaper. This is perfectly true, because the requirements of economic
exchange will always compel the nationalities living in one state (as long
as they wish to live together) to study the language of the majority. The
more democratic the political system in Russia becomes, the more
powerfully, rapidly and extensively capitalism will develop, the more
urgently Will the requirements of economic exchange impel various
nationalities to study the language most convenient for general commercial
relations.

The liberal newspaper, however, hastens to slap itself in the face and
demonstrate its liberal inconsistency.

“ Even those who oppose Russification,” it says, “would
hardly be likely to deny that in a country as huge as Russia there must be
one single official language, and that this language can be only Russian.”

“ Even those who oppose Russification,” it says, “would
hardly be likely to deny that in a country as huge as Russia there must be
one single official language, and that this language can be only Russian.”

Logic turned inside out! Tiny Switzerland has not lost anything, but
has gained from having not one single official language, but
three—German, French and Italian. In Switzerland 70 per cent of the
population are Germans (in Russia 43 per cent are Great Russians), 22
per cent French (in Russia 17 per cent are Ukrainians) and 7 per cent
Italians (in Russia 6 per cent are Poles and 4.5 per cent Byelorussians). If Italians in Switzerland often speak French in their common parliament
they do not do so because they are menaced by some savage police law (there
are none such in Switzerland), but because the civilised citizens of a
democratic state themselves prefer a language that is understood by a
majority. The French language does not instil hatred in Italians because it
is the language of a free civilised nation, a language that is not imposed
by disgusting police measures.

Why should “huge” Russia, a much more varied and terribly backward
country, inhibit her development by the retention of any kind of
privilege for any one language? Should not the, contrary he true, liberal
gentlemen? Should not Russia, if she wants to overtake Europe, put an end
to every kind of privilege as quickly as possible, as completely as
possible and as vigorously as possible?

If all privileges disappear, if the imposition of any one language
ceases, all Slays will easily and rapidly learn to understand each other
and will not be frightened by the “horrible” thought that speeches in
different languages will be heard in the common parliament. The
requirements of economic exchange will themselves decide which
language of the given country it is to the advantage of the
majority to know in the interests of commercial relations. This decision
will be all the firmer because it is adopted voluntarily by a population of
various nationalities, and its adoption will be the more rapid and
extensive the more consistent the democracy and, as a consequence of it,
the more rapid the development of capitalism.

The liberals approach the language question in the same way as they
approach all political questions—like hypocritical hucksters, holding out
one hand (openly)to democracy and the other (behind their backs) to the
feudalists and police. We are against privileges, shout the liberals, and
under cover they haggle with the feudalists for first one, then another,
privilege.

Such is the nature of all liberal-bourgeois nationalism—not
only Great-Russian (it is the worst of them all because of its violent
character and its kinship with the
Purishkeviches [7] ), but Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian and every
other nationalism. Under the slogan of “national culture” the bourgeoisie of all nations, both in Austria and in Russia, are in fact pursuing the policy of splitting the workers, emasculating
democracy and haggling with the feudalists over the sale of the people’s
rights and the people’s liberty.

The slogan of working-class democracy is not “national culture” but
the international culture of democracy and the world-wide working-class
movement. Let the bourgeoisie deceive the people with various “positive”
national programmes. The class-conscious worker will answer the
bourgeoisie—there is only one solution to the national problem (insofar
as it can, in general, be solved in the capitalist world, the world of
profit, squabbling and exploitation), and that solution is consistent
democracy.

The proof—Switzerland in Western Europe, a country with an old
culture and Finland in Eastern Europe, a country with a young culture.

The national programme of working-class democracy is: absolutely no
privileges for any one nation or any one language; the solution of the
problem of the political self-determination of nations, that is, their
separation as states by completely free, democratic methods; the
promulgation of a law for the whole state by virtue of which any measure
(rural, urban or communal, etc., etc.)  introducing any privilege of any
kind for one of the nations and militating against the equality of nations
or the rights of a national minority, shall be declared illegal and
ineffective, and any citizen of the state shall have the right to demand
that such a measure be annulled as unconstitutional, and that those who
attempt to put it into effect be punished.

Working-class democracy contraposes to the nationalist wrangling of the
various bourgeois parties over questions of language, etc., the demand for
the unconditional unity and complete amalgamation of workers of all nationalities in all working-class
organisations—trade union, co-operative, consumers’, educational and all
others—in contradistinction to any kind of bourgeois nationalism. Only
this type of unity and amalgamation can uphold democracy and defend the
interests of the workers against capital—which is already international
and is becoming more so—and promote the development of mankind towards a
new way of life that is alien to all privileges and all exploitation.

## Notes

[1] See present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 354–57.— Ed .

[2] Severnaya Pravda ( Northern Truth )—one of the names
of the newspaper Pravda . Pravda —a legal Bolshevik daily published in
St. Petersburg. Founded on the initiative of the St. Petersburg workers in
April 1912.

Pravda was a popular working-class newspaper, published with
money collected by the workers themselves. A wide circle of
worker-correspondents and worker-publicists formed around the
newspaper. Over eleven thousand correspondence items from workers were
published in a single year. Pravda had an average circulation of
40,000, with some issues running into 60,000 copies.

Lenin directed Pravda from abroad, where he was living. He
wrote for the paper almost daily, gave instructions to the editorial board
and rallied the Party’s best literary forces around the newspaper.

Pravda was subjected to constant police persecution. During
the first year of its existence it was confiscated forty-one times, and
thirty-six legal actions were brought against its editors, who served
prison sentences totalling forty-seven and a half months. In the course of
two years and three months Pravda was closed down eight times by
the tsarist government, but reissued under new names: = Rabochaya Pravda , Severnaya Pravda , Pravda
Truda , Za Pravdu , Proletarskaya Pravda , Put
Pravdy , Rabochy , and Trudovaya Pravda . =

On July 8 (21), 1914, on the eve of the First World War, the paper was
closed down.

Publication was not resumed until after the February
Revolution. Beginning from March 5(18), 1917, Pravda appeared as
the Central Organ of the R.S.D.L.P. Lenin joined the editorial board on
April 5(18), on his return from abroad, and took over the paper’s management. In July–October 1917 Pravda changed its name
frequently owing to persecution by the Provisional Government, appearing
successively as Listok Pravdy , Proletary , Rabochy , and Rabochy Put . On October 27 (November 9) the
newspaper began to appear under its old name— Pravda .

[3] Zeit ( Time )—a weekly,organ of the Bund, published
in Yiddish in St. Petersburg from December 20, 1912 (January 2, 1913) to
May 5(18), 1914.

[4] Dzvin ( The Bell )—a monthly legal nationalist
journal of Menshevik trend, published in the Ukrainian language in Kiev
from January 1913 to the middle of 1914.

[5] The Black Hundreds —monarchist gangs formed by the tsarist
police to fight the revolutionary movement. They murdered revolutionaries,
assaulted progressive intellectuals and organised pogroms.

[6] Russkoye Slovo ( Russian Word )—a daily, published in
Moscow from 1895 (the first trial issue appeared in 1894) to
July 1918. Formally non-party, the paper defended the interests of the
Russian bourgeoisie from a moderate-liberal platform. News was given a wide
coverage in the paper, which was the first in Russia to send special
correspondents to all the large cities at home and to many foreign
capitals.

[7] Purishkevich, V. M. —(1870-1920)—a big landlord and rabid
reactionary (a Black-Hundred monarchist).


### 2. “NATIONAL CULTURE”

As the reader will see, the article in Severnaya Pravda , made
use of a particular example, i. e., the problem of the official language,
to illustrate the inconsistency and opportunism of the liberal bourgeoisie,
which, in the national question, extends a hand to the feudalists and the
police. Everybody will understand that, apart from the problem of an
official language, the liberal bourgeoisie behaves just as treacherously,
hypocritically and stupidly (even from the standpoint of the interests of
liberalism) in a number of other related issues.

The conclusion to be drawn from this? It is that all liberal-bourgeois nationalism sows the greatest corruption among the
workers and does immense harm to the cause of freedom and the proletarian
class struggle. This bourgeois (and bourgeois-feudalist) tendency is all
the more dangerous for its being concealed behind the slogan of
“national culture”. It is under the guise of national culture—Great-Russian, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, and so forth—that the
Black-Hundreds and the clericals, and also the bourgeoisie of all nations, are doing their dirty and reactionary work.

Such are the facts of the national life of today, if viewed from the
Marxist angle, i. e., from the standpoint of the class struggle, and if the
slogans are compared with the interests and policies of classes, and not
with meaningless “general principles”, declamations and phrases.

The slogan of national culture is a bourgeois (and often also a
Black-Hundred, and clerical) fraud. Our slogan is:
the international culture of democracy and of the world working-class
movement.

Here the
Bundist [1] Mr. Liebman rushes into the fray and annihilates me with the
following deadly tirade:

“ Anyone in the least familiar with the national question
knows that international culture is not non-national culture (culture
without a national form); non-national culture, which must not be Russian,
Jewish, or Polish, but only pure culture, is nonsense; international ideas
can appeal to the working class only when they are adapted to the language
spoken by the worker, and to the concrete national conditions under which
he lives; the worker should not be indifferent to the condition and
development of his national culture, because it is through it, and only through it, that he is able to participate in
the ‘international culture of democracy and of the world working-class
movement’. This is well known, but V. I. turns a deaf ear to it all....”

“ Anyone in the least familiar with the national question
knows that international culture is not non-national culture (culture
without a national form); non-national culture, which must not be Russian,
Jewish, or Polish, but only pure culture, is nonsense; international ideas
can appeal to the working class only when they are adapted to the language
spoken by the worker, and to the concrete national conditions under which
he lives; the worker should not be indifferent to the condition and
development of his national culture, because it is through it, and only through it, that he is able to participate in
the ‘international culture of democracy and of the world working-class
movement’. This is well known, but V. I. turns a deaf ear to it all....”

Ponder over this typically Bundist argument, designed, if you please,
to demolish the Marxist thesis that I advanced. With the air of supreme
self-confidence of one who is “familiar with the national question”, this
Bundist passes off ordinary bourgeois views as “well-known” axioms.

It is true, my dear Bundist, that international culture is not non
national. Nobody said that it was. Nobody has proclaimed a “pure”
culture, either Polish, Jewish, or Russian, etc., and your jumble of empty
words is simply an attempt to distract the reader’s attention and to
obscure the issue with tinkling words.

The elements of democratic and socialist culture are present,
if only in rudimentary form, in every national culture, since in every nation there are toiling and exploited masses, whose
conditions of life inevitably give rise to the ideology of democracy and
socialism. But every nation also possesses a bourgeois culture
(and most nations a reactionary and clerical culture as well) in the form,
not merely of “elements”, but of the dominant culture. Therefore, the general “national culture” is the culture of the
landlords, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. This fundamental and, for a
Marxist, elementary truth, was kept in the background by the Bundist, who
“drowned” it in his jumble of words, i. e., instead of revealing
and clarifying the class gulf to the reader, he in fact obscured it. In
fact , the Bundist acted like a bourgeois, whose every interest
requires the spreading of a belief in a non-class national culture.

In advancing the slogan of “the international culture of democracy and
of the world working-class movement”, we take from each national
culture only its democratic and socialist elements; we take them only and absolutely in opposition to the bourgeois
culture and the bourgeois nationalism of each nation. No democrat,
and certainly no Marxist, denies that all languages should have equal
status, or that it is necessary to polemise with one’s “native”
bourgeoisie in one’s native language and to advocate anti-clerical or
anti-bourgeois ideas among one’s “native” peasantry and petty bourgeoisie. That goes without saying, but the Bundist uses these
indisputable truths to obscure the point in dispute, i. e., the real issue.

The question is whether it is permissible for a Marxist, directly or
indirectly, to advance the slogan of national culture, or whether he should
oppose it by advocating, in all languages, the slogan of workers’ internationalism while “adapting” himself to all local and
national features.

The significance of the “national culture” slogan is not determined
by some petty intellectual’s promise, or good intention, to “interpret”
it as “meaning the development through it of an international
culture”. It would be puerile subjectivism to look at it in that way. The
significance of the slogan of national culture is determined by the
objective alignment of all classes in a given country, and in all countries
of the world. The national culture of the bourgeoisie is a fact (and, I repeat, the bourgeoisie everywhere enters into deals with the
landed proprietors and the clergy). Aggressive bourgeois nationalism, which
drugs the minds of the workers, stultifies and disunites them in order that
the bourgeoisie may lead them by the halter—such is the fundamental fact
of the times.

Those who seek to serve the proletariat must unite the workers of all
nations, and unswervingly fight bourgeois nationalism, domestic and foreign. The place of those who advocate the slogan of national culture
is among the nationalist petty bourgeois, not among the Marxists.

Take a concrete example. Can a Great-Russian Marxist accept the slogan
of national, Great-Russian, culture? No, he cannot. Anyone who does that
should stand in the ranks of the nationalists, not of the Marxists. Our
task is to fight the dominant, Black-Hundred and bourgeois national culture
of the Great Russians, and to develop, exclusively in the internationalist
spirit and in the closest alliance with the Workers of other countries, the
rudiments also existing in the history of our democratic and working-class
movement. Fight your own Great-Russian landlords and bourgeoisie, fight
their “culture” in the name of internationalism, and, in so fighting,
“adapt” yourself to the special features of the Purishkeviches and
Struves—that is your task, not preaching or tolerating the Slogan of national culture.

The same applies to the most oppressed and persecuted nation—the
Jews. Jewish national culture is the slogan of the rabbis and the
bourgeoisie, the slogan of our enemies. But there are other elements in
Jewish culture and in Jewish history as a whole. Of the ten and a half
million Jews in the world, somewhat over a half live in Galicia and Russia,
backward and semi-barbarous countries, where the Jews are forcibly kept in the status of a caste. The other half lives in the civilised world,
and there the Jews do not live as a segregated caste. There the great
world-progressive features of Jewish culture stand clearly revealed: its
internationalism, its identification with the advanced movements of the
epoch (the percentage of Jews in the democratic and proletarian movements
is everywhere higher than the percentage of Jews among the population).

Whoever, directly or indirectly, puts forward the slogan of Jewish
“national culture” is (whatever his good intentions may be) an enemy of
the proletariat, a supporter of all that is outmoded and connected
with caste among the Jewish people; he is an accomplice of the
rabbis and the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, those Jewish Marxists who
mingle with the Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other workers in
international Marxist organisations, and make their contribution (both in
Russian and in Yiddish) towards creating the international culture of the
working-class movement—those Jews, despite the separatism of the Bund,
uphold the best traditions of Jewry by fighting the slogan of “national
culture”.

Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism—these are the
two irreconcilably hostile slogans that correspond to the two great class
camps throughout the capitalist world, and express the two policies (nay,
the two world outlooks) in the national question. In advocating the slogan
of national culture and building up on it an entire plan and practical
programme of what they call “cultural-national autonomy”, the Bundists
are in effect instruments of bourgeois nationalism among the
workers.

## Notes

[1] The Bund (The General Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania,
Poland, and Russia) came into being in 1897 at the Inaugural Congress of
Jewish Social-Democratic groups in Vilna. It consisted mainly of
semi-proletarian Jewish artisans of Western Russia. At the First Congress
of the R.S.D.L.P. in 1898 the Bund joined the latter “as an autonomous
organisation, independent only in respect of questions affecting the Jewish
proletariat specifically”. ( The C.P.S.U. in Resolutions, and Decisions
of Congresses, Conferences and Plenary Meetings of the Central
Committee , Russ. ed., Part I, 1954, p. 14.)

The Bund was a vehicle of nationalist and separatist ideas in Russia’s
working-class movement. In April 1901 the Bund’s Fourth Congress resolved
to alter the organisational ties with the R.S.D.L.P. as established by the
latter’s First Congress. In its resolution, the Bund Congress declared that
it regarded the R.S.D.L.P. as a federation of national organisations, of
which the Bund was a federal member.

Following the rejection by the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. of the
Bund’s demand for recognition as the sole representative of the Jewish
proletariat, the Bund left the Party, but rejoined it in 1906 on the basis
of a decision of the Fourth (Unity) Congress.

Within the R.S.D.L.P. the Bund constantly supported the Party’s
opportunist wing (the Economists, Mensheviks, and liquidators), and waged a
struggle against the Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. To the Bolsheviks’
programmatic demand for the right of nations to self-determination the Bund
contraposed the demand for autonomy of national culture. During the years
of the Stolypin reaction and the new revolutionary upsurge, the Bund
adopted a liquidationist stand and played an active p art in the formation
of the August anti-Party bloc. During the First World War (1914–18) the
Bundists took a social-chauvinist stand. In 1917 the Bund supported the
bourgeois Provisional Government and sided with the enemies of the Great
October Socialist Revolution. During the foreign military intervention and
the Civil War, the Bundist leaders made common cause with the forces of
counter-revolution. At the same time a tendency towards co-operation with
the Soviets became apparent among the Bund rank and file. In March 1921 the
Bund dissolved itself, part of the membership joining the Russian Communist
Party (Bolsheviks) in accordance with the general rules of admission.


### 3. THE NATIONALIST BOGEY OF “ASSIMILATION”

The question of assimilation, i. e., of the shedding of national
features, and absorption by another nation, strikingly illustrates the
consequences of the nationalist vacillations of the Bundists and their
fellow-thinkers.

Mr. Liebman, who faithfully conveys and repeats the stock arguments, or
rather, tricks, of the Bundists, has qualified as “the old
assimilation story ” the demand for the unity and amalgamation of the
workers of all nationalities in a given country in united workers’
organisations (see the concluding part of the article in Severnaya
Pravda ).

“ Consequently,” says Mr. F. Liebman, commenting on the concluding
part of the article in Severnaya Pravda , “if asked what
nationality he belongs to, the worker must answer: I am a
Social-Democrat.”

Our Bundist considers this the acme of wit. As a matter of fact, lie
gives himself away completely by such witticisms and outcries
about “assimilation”, levelled against a consistently democratic
and Marxist slogan.

Developing capitalism knows two historical tendencies in the national
question. The first is the awakening of national life and national
movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation
of national states. The second is the development and growing frequency of
international intercourse in every form, the break-down of national
barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic
life in general, of politics, science, etc.

Both tendencies are a universal law of capitalism. The former
predominates in the beginning of its development, the latter characterises
a mature capitalism that is moving towards its transformation into
socialist society. The Marxists’ national programme takes both tendencies
into account, and advocates, firstly, the equality of nations and languages
and the impermissibility of all privileges in this respect (and
also the right of nations to self-determination with which we shall deal
separately later); secondly, the principle of internationalism and
uncompromising struggle against contamination of the proletariat with
bourgeois nationalism, even of the most refined kind.

The question arises: what does our Bundist mean when he cries out to
heaven against “assimilation”? He could not have meant the
oppression of nations, or the privileges enjoyed by a particular
nation, because the word “assimilation” here does not fit at all, because
all Marxists, individually, and as an official, united whole, have quite
definitely and unambiguously condemned the slightest violence against and
oppression and inequality of nations, and finally because this general
Marxist idea, which the Bundist has attacked, is expressed in the Severnaya Pravda article in the most emphatic manner.

No, evasion is impossible here. In condemning “assimilation”
Mr. Liebman had in mind, not violence, not inequality, and not privileges. Is there anything real left in the concept of
assimilation, after all violence and all inequality have been eliminated?

Yes, there undoubtedly is. What is left is capitalism’s
world-historical tendency, to break down national barriers, obliterate
national distinctions, and to assimilate nations—a tendency
which manifests itself more and more powerfully with every passing decade,
and is one of the greatest driving forces transforming capitalism into
socialism.

Whoever does not recognise and champion the equality of nations and
languages, and does not fight against all national oppression or
inequality, is not a Marxist; he is not even a democrat. That is beyond
doubt. But it is also beyond doubt that the pseudo-Marxist who heaps abuse
upon a Marxist of another nation for being an “assimilator” is simply a nationalist philistine . In this unhandsome category of people are
all the Bundists and (as we shall shortly see) Ukrainian
nationalist-socialists such as L. Yurkevich, Dontsov and Co.

To show concretely how reactionary the views held by these nationalist
philistines are, we shall cite facts of three kinds.

It is the Jewish nationalists in Russia in general, and the Bundists
in particular, who vociferate most about Russian orthodox Marxists being
“assimilators”. And yet, as the afore-mentioned figures show, out of the
ten and a half million Jews all over the world, about half that
number live in the civilised world, where conditions favouring “assimilation” are strongest , whereas the unhappy, down trodden,
disfranchised Jews in Russia and Galicia, who are crushed under the heel of
the Purishkeviches (Russian and Polish), live where conditions for
“assimilation” least prevail, where there is most segregation,
and even a “Pale of Settlement”, [1] a numerus clausus [2] and other charming features of the Purishkevich regime.

The Jews in the civilised world are not a nation, they have in the main
become assimilated, say Karl Kautsky and Otto Bauer. The Jews in Galicia
and in Russia are not a nation; unfortunately (through no fault of
their own but through that of the Purishkeviches), they are still a caste here. Such is the incontrovertible judgement of people who
are undoubtedly familiar with the history of Jewry and take the above-cited
facts into consideration.

What do these facts prove? It is that only Jewish reactionary
philistines, who want to turn hack the wheel of history, and make it
proceed, not from the conditions prevailing in Russia and Galicia to those
prevailing in Paris and New York, but in the reverse direction—only they
can clamour against “assimilation”.

The best Jews, those who are celebrated in world history, and have
given the world foremost leaders of democracy and socialism, have never
clamoured against assimilation. It is only those who contemplate the “rear
aspect” of Jewry with reverential awe that clamour against assimilation.

A rough idea of the scale which the general process of assimilation of
nations is assuming under the present conditions of advanced capitalism may
be obtained, for example, from the immigration statistics of the United
States of America. During the decade between 1891-1900, Europe sent
3,700,000 people there, and during the nine years between 1901 and 1909,
7,200,000. The 1900 census in the United States recorded over 10,000,000
foreigners. New York State, in which, according to the same census, there
were over 78,000 Austrians, 136,000 Englishmen, 20,000 Frenchmen, 480,000
Germans, 37,000 Hungarians, 425,000 Irish, 182,000 Italians, 70,000 Poles,
166,000 people from Russia (mostly Jews), 43,000 Swedes, etc., grinds down
national distinctions. And what is taking place on a grand, international scale in New York is also to be seen in every big
city and industrial township.

No one unobsessed by nationalist prejudices can fail to perceive that
this process of assimilation of nations by capitalism means the greatest
historical progress, the break down of hidebound national conservatism in
the various backwoods, especially in backward countries like Russia.

Take Russia and the attitude of Great Russians towards the
Ukrainians. Naturally, every democrat, not to mention Marxists, will
strongly oppose the incredible humiliation of Ukrainians, and demand
complete equality for them. But it would be a downright betrayal of
socialism and a silly policy even from the standpoint of the
bourgeois “national aims” of the Ukrainians to weaken the ties
and the alliance between the Ukrainian and Great-Russian proletariat that
now exist within the confines of a single state.

Mr. Lev Yurkevich, who calls himself a “Marxist” (poor Marx!), is an
example of that silly policy. In 1906, Sokolovsky (Basok) and Lukashevich
(Tuchapsky) asserted, Mr. Yurkevich writes, that the Ukrainian proletariat
had be come completely Russified and needed no separate
organisation. Without quoting a single fact bearing on the direct
issue , Mr. Yurkevich falls upon both for saying this and cries out
hysterically—quite in the spirit of the basest, most stupid and most
reactionary nationalism—that this is “national passivity”, “national
renunciation”, that these men have “split [!!] the Ukrainian Marxists”,
and so forth. Today, despite the “growth of Ukrainian national
consciousness among the workers”, the minority of the workers are
“nationally conscious”, while the majority, Mr. Yurkevich assures us,
“are still under the influence of Russian culture”. And it is our duty,
this nationalist philistine exclaims, “not to follow the masses, but to
lead them, to explain to them their national aims ( natsionalna
sprava )” ( Dzvin , p. 89).

This argument of Mr. Yurkevich’s is wholly bourgeois-nationalistic. But
even from the point of view of the bourgeois nationalists, some of whom
stand for complete equality and autonomy for the Ukraine, while others
stand for an independent Ukrainian state, this argument will not wash. The
Ukrainians’ striving for liberation is opposed by the Great-Russian and Polish landlord class and by the bourgeoisie of these two
nations. What social force is capable of standing up to these classes? The
first decade of the twentieth century provided an actual reply to this
question: that force is none other than the working class, which rallies
the democratic peasantry behind it. By striving to divide, and thereby
weaken, the genuinely democratic force, whose victory would make national
oppression impossible, Mr. Yurkevich is betraying, riot only the interests
of democracy in general, but also the interests of his own country, the
Ukraine. Given united action by the Great-Russian and Ukrainian
proletarians, a free Ukraine is possible ; without such unity, it
is out of the question.

But Marxists do not confine themselves to the bourgeois-national
standpoint. For several decades a well-defined process of accelerated
economic development has been going on in the South, i. e., the Ukraine,
attracting hundreds of thousands of peasants and workers from Great Russia
to the capitalist farms, mines, and cities. The “assimilation”—within
these limits—of the Great-Russian and Ukrainian proletariat is an
indisputable fact. And this fact is undoubtedly progressive. Capitalism is replacing the ignorant, conservative, settled
muzhik of the Great-Russian or Ukrainian backwoods with a mobile
proletarian whose conditions of life break down specifically national
narrow-mindedness, both Great-Russian and Ukrainian. Even if we assume
that, in time, there will be a state frontier between Great Russia and the
Ukraine, the historically progressive nature of the “assimilation” of the
Great-Russian and Ukrainian workers will be as undoubted as the progressive
nature of the grinding down of nations in America. The freer the Ukraine
and Great Russia become, the more extensive and more rapid will be
the development of capitalism, which will still more powerfully attract the
workers, the working masses of all nations from all regions of the
state and from all the neighbouring states (should Russia become a
neighbouring state in relation to the Ukraine) to the cities, the mines,
and the factories.

Mr. Lev Yurkevich acts like a real bourgeois, and a short-sighted,
narrow-minded, obtuse bourgeois at that, i. e., like a philistine, when he
dismisses the benefits to be gained from the intercourse, amalgamation and assimilation of the proletariat of the two nations, for the sake of the momentary
success of the Ukrainian national cause ( sprava ). The national
cause comes first and the proletarian cause second, the bourgeois
nationalists say, with the Yurkeviches, Dontsovs and similar would-be
Marxists repeating it after them. The proletarian cause must come first, we
say, because it not only protects the lasting and fundamental interests of
labour and of humanity, but also those of democracy; and without democracy
neither an autonomous nor an independent Ukraine is conceivable.

Another point to be noted in Mr. Yurkevich’s argument, which is so
extraordinarily rich in nationalist gems, is this: the minority of
Ukrainian workers are nationally conscious, he says; “the majority are
still under the influence of Russian culture” ( bilshist perebuvaye
shche pid vplyvom rosiiskoi kultury ).

Contraposing Ukrainian culture as a whole to Great-Russian culture as a
whole, when speaking of the proletariat, is a gross betrayal of the
proletariat’s interests for the benefit of bourgeois nationalism.

There are two nations in every modern nation—we say to all
nationalist-socialists. There are two national cultures in every national
culture. There is the Great-Russian culture of the Purishkeviches, Guchkovs
and Struves—but there is also the Great-Russian culture typified in the
names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. There are the same two cultures in the Ukraine as there are in Germany, in France, in England,
among the Jews, and so forth. If the majority of the Ukrainian workers are
under the influence of Great-Russian culture, we also know definitely that
the ideas of Great-Russian democracy and Social-Democracy operate parallel
with the Great-Russian clerical and bourgeois culture. In fighting the
latter kind of “culture”, the Ukrainian Marxist will always
bring the former into focus, and say to his workers: “We must snatch at,
make use of, and develop to the utmost every opportunity for intercourse
with the Great-Russian class-conscious workers, with their literature and
with their range of ideas; the fundamental interests of both the
Ukrainian and the Great-Russian working-class movements demand it.”

If a Ukrainian Marxist allows himself to he swayed by his quite
legitimate and natural hatred of the Great-Russian oppressors to such a degree that he transfers even a particle of this hatred,
even if it be only estrangement, to the proletarian culture and proletarian cause of the Great-Russian workers, then such a
Marxist will get bogged down in bourgeois nationalism. Similarly, the
Great-Russian Marxist will be bogged down, not only in bourgeois, but also
in Black-Hundred nationalism, if he loses sight, even for a moment, of the
demand for complete equality for the Ukrainians, or of their right to form an independent state.

The Great-Russian and Ukrainian workers must work together, and, as
long as they live in a single state, act in the closest organisational
unity and concert, towards a common or international culture of the
proletarian movement, displaying absolute tolerance in the question of the
language in which propaganda is conducted, and in the purely local or
purely national details of that propaganda. This is the imperative
demand of Marxism. All advocacy of the segregation of the workers of one
nation from those of another, all attacks upon Marxist “assimilation”, or
attempts, where the proletariat is concerned, to contrapose one national
culture as a whole to another allegedly integral national culture, and so
forth, is bourgeois nationalism, against which it is essential to
wage a ruthless struggle.

## Notes

[1] Pale of Settlement —districts in tsarist Russia where Jews
were permitted permanent residence.

[2] Numerus clausus —the numerical restriction imposed in tsarist
Russia on admission of Jews to the state secondary and higher educational
establishments, to employment at factories and offices, and the
professions.


### 4. “CULTURAL-NATIONAL AUTONOMY”

The question of the “national culture” slogan is of enormous
importance to Marxists, not only because it determines the ideological
content of all our propaganda and agitation on the national question, as
distinct from bourgeois propaganda, but also because the entire programme
of the much-discussed cultural-national autonomy is based on this slogan.

The main and fundamental flaw in this programme is that it aims at
introducing the most refined, most absolute and most extreme
nationalism. The gist of this programme is that every citizen registers as
belonging to a particular nation, and every nation constitutes a legal
entity with the right to impose compulsory taxation on its members, with national parliaments (Diets) and national secretaries of state
(ministers).

Such an idea, applied to the national question, resembles Proudhon’s
idea, as applied to capitalism. Not abolishing capitalism and its
basis—commodity production—but purging that basis of abuses,
of excrescences, and so forth; not abolishing exchange and exchange value,
but, on the contrary, making it “constitutional”, universal, absolute,
“ fair ”, and free of fluctuations, crises and abuses—such was
Proudhon’s idea.

Just as Proudhon was petty-bourgeois, and his theory converted exchange
and commodity production into an absolute category and exalted them as the
acme of perfection, so is the theory and programme of “cultural-national
autonomy” petty bourgeois, for it converts bourgeois nationalism into an
absolute category, exalts it as the acme of perfection, and purges it of
violence, injustice, etc.

Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the “most
just”, “purest”, most refined and civilised brand. In place of all forms
of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all
nations in the higher unity, a unity that is growing before our eyes with
every mile of railway line that is built, with every international trust,
and every workers’ association that is formed (an association that is
international in its economic activities as well as in its ideas and aims).

The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois
society and, taking this society into due account, the Marxist fully
recognises the historical legitimacy of national movements. But to prevent
this recognition from becoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be
strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that
this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian
consciousness.

The awakening of the masses from feudal lethargy, and their struggle
against all national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people, of the
nation, are progressive. Hence, it is the Marxist’s bounden duty
to stand for the most resolute and consistent democratism on all aspects of
the national question. This task is largely a negative one. But this is the
limit the proletariat can go to in supporting nationalism, for beyond that begins the “positive” activity of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism.

To throw off the feudal yoke, all national oppression, and all
privileges enjoyed by any particular nation or language, is the imperative
duty of the proletariat as a democratic force, and is certainly in the
interests of the proletarian class struggle, which is obscured and retarded
by bickering on the national question. But to go beyond these
strictly limit ed and definite historical limits in helping bourgeois
nationalism means betraying the proletariat and siding with the
bourgeoisie. There is a border-line here, which is often very slight and
which the Bundists and Ukrainian nationalist-socialists completely lose
sight of.

Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any
kind of national development, for “national culture” in
general?—Of course not. The economic development of capitalist society
presents us with examples of immature national movements all over the
world, examples of the formation of big nations out of a number of small
ones, or to the detriment of some of the small ones, and also examples of
the assimilation of nations. The development of nationality in general is
the principle of bourgeois nationalism; hence the exclusiveness of
bourgeois nationalism, hence the endless national bickering. The
proletariat, however, far from undertaking to uphold the national
development of every nation, on the contrary, warns the masses against such
illusions, stands for the fullest freedom of capitalist intercourse and
welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations, except that which is
founded on force or privilege.

Consolidating nationalism within a certain “justly” delimited sphere,
“constitutionalising” nationalism, and securing the separation of all
nations from one another by means of a special state institution—such is
the ideological foundation and content of cultural-national autonomy. This
idea is thoroughly bourgeois and thoroughly false. The proletariat cannot
support any consecration of nationalism; on the contrary, it supports
everything that helps to obliterate national distinctions and remove
national barriers; it supports everything that makes the ties between
nationalities closer and closer, or tends to merge nations. To act differently means siding with reactionary nationalist philistinism.

When, at their Congress in
Br\"unn [2] (in 1899), the Austrian Social-Democrats discussed the plan
for cultural-national autonomy, practically no attention was paid to a
theoretical appraisal of that plan. It is, however, note worthy that the
following two arguments were levelled against this programme:
(1) it would tend to strengthen clericalism; (2) “its result would be the perpetuation of chauvinism, its introduction
into every small community, into every small group” (p. 92 of the official
report of the Br\"unn Congress, in German. A Russian translation was
published by the Jewish nationalist party, the
J.S.L.P. [3] ).

There can be no doubt that “national culture”, in the ordinary sense
of the term, i. e., schools, etc., is at present under the predominant
influence of the clergy and the bourgeois chauvinists in all countries in
the world. When the Bundists, in advocating “cultural-national” autonomy,
say that the constituting of nations will keep the class struggle within
them clean of all extraneous considerations, then that is manifest
and ridiculous sophistry. It is primarily in the economic and political
sphere that a serious class struggle is waged in any capitalist society. To
separate the sphere of education from this is, firstly, absurdly
utopian, because schools (like “national culture” in general) cannot be
separated from economics and politics; secondly, it is the economic and
political life of a capitalist country that necessitates at every
step the smashing of the absurd and outmoded national barriers and
prejudices, whereas separation of the school system and the like, would
only perpetuate, intensify and strengthen “pure” clericalism and “pure”
bourgeois chauvinism.

On the boards of joint-stock companies we find capitalists of different
nations sitting together in complete harmony. At the factories workers of
different nations work side by side. In any really serious and profound
political issue sides are taken according to classes, not nations. With
drawing school education and the like from state control and placing it
under the control of the nations is in effect an attempt to separate from economics, which unites the nations, the most
highly, so to speak, ideological sphere of social life, the sphere in which “pure” national culture or the national
cultivation of clericalism and chauvinism has the freest play.

In practice, the plan for “extra-territorial” or “cultural
national” autonomy could mean only one thing: the division of
educational affairs according to nationality , i.e., the introduction
of national curias in school affairs. Sufficient thought to the real significance of the famous Bund plan will enable one to
realise how utterly reactionary it is even from the standpoint of
democracy, let alone from that of the proletarian class struggle for
socialism.

A single instance and a single scheme for the “nationalisation” of
the school system will make this point abundantly clear. In the United
States of America the division of the States into Northern and Southern
holds to this day in all departments of life; the former possess the
greatest traditions of freedom and of struggle against the slave-owners;
the latter possess the greatest traditions of slave ownership, survivals of
persecution of the Negroes, who are economically oppressed and culturally
backward (44 per cent of Negroes are illiterate, and 6 per cent of whites),
and so forth. In the Northern States Negro children attend the same schools
as white children do. In the South there are separate “national”, or
racial, whichever you please, schools for Negro children. I think that this
is the sole instance of actual “nationalisation” of schools.

In Eastern Europe there exists a country where things like the Beilis
case [4] are still possible, and Jews are condemned by the Purishkeviches
to a condition worse than that of the Negroes. In that country a scheme for nationalising Jewish schools was recently mooted in the
Ministry. Happily, this reactionary utopia is no more likely to be realised
than the utopia of the Austrian petty bourgeoisie, who have despaired of
achieving consistent democracy or of putting an end to national bickering,
and have invented for the nations school-education compartments to
keep them from bickering over the distribution of schools ... but
have “constituted” themselves for an eternal bickering of one
“national culture” with another.

In Austria, the idea of cultural-national autonomy has remained largely
a flight of literary fancy, which the Austrian Social-Democrats themselves have not taken seriously. In Russia, however,
it has been incorporated in the programmes of all the Jewish bourgeois
parties, and of several petty-bourgeois, opportunist elements in the
different nations—for example, the Bundists, the liquidators in the
Caucasus, and the conference of Russian national parties of the
Left-Narodnik trend. (This conference, we Will mention parenthetically,
took place in 1907, its decision being adopted with abstention on
the part of the Russian
Socialist-Revolutionaries [5] and the
P.S.P., [6] the Polish social-patriots. Abstention from voting is a
method surprisingly characteristic of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
P.S.P., when they want to show their attitude towards a most important
question of principle in the sphere of the national programme!)

In Austria it was Otto Bauer, the principal theoretician of
“cultural-national autonomy”, who devoted a special chapter of his book
to prove that such a programme cannot possibly be proposed for the Jews. In
Russia, however, it is precisely among the Jews that all the bourgeois
parties—and the Bund which echoes them—have adopted this
programme. [1] What does this go to show? It goes to show that history, through the
political practice of another state, has exposed the absurdity of Bauer’s
invention, in exactly the same way as the Russian Bernsteinians (Struve,
Tugan-Baranovsky, Berdayev and Co.), through their rapid evolution from Marxism to liberalism, have exposed the real ideological content of
the German
Bernsteinism. [7]

Neither the Austrian nor the Russian Social-Democrats have incorporated
“cultural-national” autonomy in their programme. However, the Jewish
bourgeois parties in a most backward country, and a number of
petty-bourgeois, so-called socialist groups have adopted it in
order to spread ideas of bourgeois nationalism among the working class in a
refined form. This fact speaks for itself.

Since we have bad to touch upon the Austrian programme on the national
question, we must reassert a truth which is often distorted by the
Bundists. At the Br\"unn Congress a pure programme of “cultural-national autonomy” was presented. This was the
programme of the South-Slav Social Democrats, § 2 of which reads:
“Every nation living in Austria, irrespective of the territory occupied by
its members, constitutes an autonomous group which manages all its national
(language and cultural) affairs quite independently.” This programme was
supported, not only by Kristan but by the influential Ellenbogen. But it
was withdrawn; not a single vote was cast for it. A territorialist programme was adopted, i. e., one that did not create any national
groups “irrespective of the territory occupied by the members of the
nation”.

Clause 3 of the adopted programme reads: “The self governing regions of one and the same nation shall jointly form a nationally
united association, which shall manage its national affairs on an
absolutely autonomous basis” (cf. Prosveshcheniye , 1913, No. 4,
p. 28 [8] ). Clearly, this compromise programme is wrong too. An example
will illustrate this. The German colonists’ community in Saratov Gubernia,
plus the German working-class suburb of Riga or Lodz, plus the German
housing estate near St. Petersburg, etc., would constitute a “nationally
united association” of Germans in Russia. Obviously the Social-Democrats
cannot demand such a thing or enforce such an association, although of course they do not in the least deny freedom of every kind of association, including associations of
any communities of any nationality in a given state. The segregation, by a law of the state, of Germans, etc., in different
localities and of different classes in Russia into a single German-national
association may be practised by anybody—priests, bourgeois or
philistines, but not by Social-Democrats.

## Notes

[1] That the Bundists often vehemently deny that all the Jewish
bourgeois parties have accepted “cultural-national autonomy” is
understandable. This fact only too glaringly exposes the actual role being
played by the Bund. When Mr. Manin, a Bundist, tried, in Luch [9] to repeat his denial, he was fully exposed by N. Skop
(see Prosveshcheniye No. 3 [10] ). But when Mr. Lev Yurkevich, in Dzvin (1913,
Nos. 7–8, p. 92), quotes from Prosveshcheniye (No. 3, p. 78)
N. Sk’s statement that “the Bundists together with all the Jewish
bourgeois parties and groups have long been advocating cultural-national
autonomy” and distorts this statement by dropping the word “Bundists”, and substituting the words “national rights”
for the words “cultural national autonomy”, one can only raise one’s
hands in amazement! Mr. Lev Yurkevich is not only a nationalist, not only
an astonishing ignoramus in matters concerning the history of the
Social-Democrats and their programme, but a downright falsifier of
quotations for the benefit of the Bund. The affairs of the Bund and
the Yurkeviches must be in a bad way indeed!  — Lenin

[2] This refers to the Congress of the Austrian Social-Democratic Party
held in Br\"unn (Austria) from September 24 to 29, 1899 (new style). The
national question was the chief item on the agenda. Two resolutions
expressing different points of view were submitted to the Congress: = (1) the resolution of the Party’s Central Committee supporting the idea of
the territorial autonomy of nations, and = (2) the resolution of the Committee of the South-Slav Social-Democratic
Party supporting the idea of extra-territorial cultural-national autonomy.

The Congress unanimously rejected the programme of cultural-national
autonomy, and adopted a compromise resolution recognising national autonomy
within the boundaries of the Austrian state. (See Lenin’s article “A
Contribution to the History of the National Program me in Austria and in
Russia”, pp. 36 of this volume.)

[3] J.S.L.P. (Jewish Socialist Labour Party)—a petty-bourgeois
nationalist organisation, founded in 1906. Its programme was based on the
demand for national autonomy for the Jews—the creation of
extra-territorial Jewish parliaments authorised to settle questions
concerning the political organisation of Jews in Russia. The J.S.L.P. stood
close to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, with whom it waged a struggle
against the R.S.D.L.P.

[4] The Beilis case —a provocative trial engineered by the
tsarist government in 1913 in Kiev. Beilis, a Jew, was falsely accused of
having murdered a Christian boy named Yushchinsky for ritual purposes
(actually, the murder was organised by the Black Hundreds). The aim of this
frame-up was to fan anti-Semitism and incite pogroms so as to divert the
masses from the mounting revolutionary movement. The trial excited great
public feeling. Workers’ protest demonstrations were held in a number of
cities.  Beilis was acquitted.

[5] Socialist-Revolutionaries —a petty-bourgeois party in Russia,
which came into being at the end of 1901 and beginning of 4902 as a result
of a merger of various Narodnik groups and circles. The S.R.s saw no class
distinctions between the proletarian and the petty proprietor, played down
the class differentiation and antagonisms within the peasantry, and refused
to recognise the proletariat’s leading role in the revolution. Their views
were an eclectic mixture of the ideas of Narodism and revisionism. In
Lenin’s words, they tried, to mend “the rents in the Narodnik Ideas with
bits of fashionable opportunist ‘criticism’ of Marxism.” (See present
edition, Vol. 9, p. 310.)

The Socialist-Revolutionaries’ agrarian programme envisaged the
abolition of private ownership of the land, which was to be transferred to
the village commune on the basis of the “labour principle” and
“equalised land tenure” and also the development of co-operatives. This
programme, which the S.R.s called “socialisation of the land”, had
nothing socialist about it. In his analysis of this programme, Lenin showed
that the preservation of commodity production and private farming on
communal land would not do away with the domination of capital or free the
toiling peasantry from exploitation and impoverishment. Neither could the
co-operatives be a remedy for the small farmers under capitalism, as they
served only to enrich the rural bourgeoisie. At the same time, as Lenin
pointed out, the demand for equalised land tenure, though not socialistic,
was of a progressive, revolutionary-democratic character, inasmuch as it
was directed against reactionary landlordism.

The Bolshevik Party exposed the attempts of the S.R.s to pass
themselves off as socialists. It waged a stubborn fight against them for
influence over the peasantry, and revealed the damage their tactic of
individual terrorism was causing the working-class movement. At the same
time, the Bolsheviks, on definite terms, entered into temporary agreements
with the Socialist-Revolutionaries to combat tsarism.

The Socialist-Revolutionary Party’s political and ideological
instability and organisational incohesion, as well as its constant
vacillation between the liberal bourgeoisie and the proletariat, were due
to the absence of class homogeneity among the peasantry. During the first
Russian revolution, the Right wing of the S.R.s broke away from the party
and formed the legal Labour Popular Socialist Party, whose views were close
to those of the Constitutional-Democrats (Cadets), while the Left wing split away and formed a semi-anarchist league
of “Maximalists”. During the period of the Stolypin reaction, the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party suffered a complete break-down ideologically
and organisationally. During the First World War most of its members took a
social-chauvinist stand.

After the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917 the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, together with the Mensheviks and the Cadets,
were the mainstay of the counter-revolutionary Provisional Government of
the bourgeoisie and landlords. The leaders of the S.R. Party—Kerensky,
Avksentyev and Chernov—were members of this Cabinet. The S.R. Party
refused to support the peasants’ demand for the abolition of landlordism,
and stood for the preservation of landlord ownership. The S.R. members of
the Provisional Government authorised punitive action against peasants who
had seized landed estates.

At the end of November 1917 the Left win of the S.R. Party formed an
independent party of Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who, in an endeavour
to preserve their influence among the peas ant masses, formally recognised
Soviet rule and entered into an agreement with the Bolsheviks. Shortly,
however, they began a struggle against the Soviets.

During the years of foreign intervention and the Civil War the S.R.s
carried on counter-revolutionary subversive activities. They actively
supported the interventionists and whiteguards, took part in
counter-revolutionary plots, and organised terroristic acts against leaders
of the Soviet state and the Communist Party. After the Civil War, the S.R.s
continued their anti-Soviet activities within the country and in the camp
of the White émigrés.

[6] The Polish Socialist Party (Polska Partia Socjalistyczna)—a
reformist nationalist organisation founded in 1892. Adopting the slogan of
struggle for an independent Poland, the P.S.P., under Pilsudski and his
adherents, carried on separatist nationalist propaganda among the Polish
workers, whom they tried to divert from the joint struggle with the Russian
workers against the autocracy and capitalism. Throughout the history of the
P.S.P. Left-wing groups kept springing up within the party, as a result of
the activities of the rank-and-file workers. Some of these groups
eventually joined the revolutionary wing of the Polish working-class
movement.

In 1906 the party split up into the P.S.P. Left wing and the Right,
chauvinist wing (the so-called “revolutionary faction”).  Under the
influence of the Bolsheviks and the Social-Democratic Party of Poland and
Lithuania, the Left wing gradually adopted a consistent revolutionary
stand.

During the First World War some of the P.S.P. Left-wing adopted an
internationalist stand. In December 1918 it united with the
Social-Democrats of Poland and Lithuania to form the Communist Workers’
Party of Poland (as the Communist Party of Poland was known up to 1925).

During the First World War, the P.S.P. flight wing continued its policy
of national chauvinism, organising Polish legions on the territory of
Galicia to fight on the side of Austin-German imperialism. With the
formation of the Polish bourgeois state, the Right P.S.P. in 1919 united
with the P.S.P. organisations existing on Polish territories formerly
seized by Germany and Austria, and resumed the name of the P.S.P. At the
head of the government, it arranged for the transfer of power to the Polish
bourgeoisie, systematically carried on anti-communist propaganda, and
supported a policy of aggression against the Soviet Union, a policy of
conquest and oppression against Western Ukraine and Western
Byelorussia. Various groups in the P.S.P. who disagreed with this policy
joined the Communist Party of Poland.

After Pilsudski’s fascist coup d’état (May 1926), the P.S.P. was
nominally a parliamentary opposition, but actually it did not carry on any
active fight against the fascist regime, and continued its anti-communist
and anti-Soviet propaganda. During that period the Left-wing elements of
the P.S.P. collaborated with the Polish Communists and supported
united-front tactics in a number of campaigns.

During the Second World War the P.S.P. again split up. Its reactionary
and chauvinist faction, which assumed the name “Wolność,
Równosc, Niepodłeglość” (Liberty, Equality, Independence), took part in the reactionary Polish
émigré “government” in London. The Left faction, which called itself the Workers’ Party of Polish Socialists, under the influence
of the Polish Workers’ Party, which was founded in 1942, joined the popular
front against the Nazi invaders, fought for Poland’s liberation, and
pursued a policy of friendly relations with the U.S.S.R.

In 1944, after the liberation of Poland’s eastern territories and the
formation of a Polish Committee of National Liberation, the Workers’ Party
of Polish Socialists resumed the name of P.S.P. and together with the
P.W.P. participated in the building up of a people’s democratic Poland. In
December 1948 the P.W.P. and the P.S.P. amalgamated and formed the Polish
United Workers’ Party.

[9] Luch ( Ray )—a legal daily of the Menshevik
liquidators, published in St. Petersburg from September 16(29), 1912 to
July 5(18), 1913. Put out 237 issues. The newspaper was maintained chiefly
by contributions from the liberals. Ideological leadership was in the bands
of P. B. Axelrod, F. I. Dan, L. Martov, and A. S. Martynov. The liquidators
used the columns of this newspaper to oppose the revolutionary tactics of
the Bolsheviks, advocate the opportunist slogan of an “open party”,
attack the revolutionary mass strikes of the workers, and attempt to revise
the most important points of the Party Programme. Lenin wrote that Luch was “enslaved by a liberal policy” and called the paper a
mouthpiece of the renegades.

[10] Prosveshcheniye ( Enlightenment )—a Bolshevik, legal
theoretical monthly, published in St. Petersburg from December 1911 to
June 1914, with a circulation of up to five thousand copies.

The journal was founded on Lenin’s initiative to replace the
Moscow-published Mysl , a Bolshevik journal which was closed down
by the tsarist government. Other workers on the new journal were
V. V. Vorovsky, A. I. Ulyanova-Yelizarova, N. K. Krupskaya and
others. Lenin enlisted the services of Maxim Gorky to run the journal’s
literary section. Lenin directed Prosveshcheniye from Paris and
subsequently from Cracow and Poronin. He edited articles and regularly
corresponded with the editorial staff. The journal published the following
articles by Lenin: “The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of
Marxism”, “Critical Remarks on the National Question”, “The Right of
Nations to Self-Determination”, “Disruption of Unity Under Cover of
Outcries for Unity” and others.

The journal exposed the opportunists—the liquidators, otzovists, and
Trotskyists, as well as the bourgeois nationalists. It highlighted the
struggle of the working class under conditions of a new revolutionary
upsurge, propagandised Bolshevik slogans in the Fourth Duma election
campaign, and came out against revisionism and centrism in the parties of
the Second International. The journal played an important role in the
Marxist inter nationalist education of the advanced workers of Russia.

On the eve of World War I, Prosveshcheniye was closed down by
the tsarist government. It resumed publication in the autumn of 1917, but
only one issue (a double one) appeared, containing Lenin’s “Can the
Bolsheviks Retain State Power?” and “A Review of the Party Programme”.

[7] Bernsteinism —an anti-Marxist trend in international
Social-Democracy. It arose towards the close of the nineteenth century in
Germany and bore the name of the German opportunist Social-Democrat Eduard
Bernstein. After the death of F. Engels, Bernstein publicly advocated
revision of Marx’s revolutionary theory in the spirit of bourgeois
liberalism (see his article “Problems of Socialism” and his book The
Premises of Socialism and the Tasks of Social-Democracy ) in an attempt
to convert the Social-Democratic Party into a petty-bourgeois party of
social reforms. In Russia this trend was represented by the “legal
Marxists”, the Economists, the Bundists; and the Mensheviks.

[8] Lenin refers to Stalin’s article “Marxism and the National Question”
published in the legal Bolshevik journal Prosveshcheniye , Nos. 3,
4 and 5 for 1913 under the title “The National Question and
Social-Democracy”. Chapter 4 of Stalin’s article quotes the text of the
national programme adopted at the Br\"unn Congress of the Austrian
Social-Democratic Party.


### 5. THE EQUALITY OF NATIONS AND THE RIGHTS OF NATIONAL MINORITIES

When they discuss the national question, opportunists in Russia are
given to citing the example of Austria. In my article in Severnaya
Pravda [1] (No. 10, Prosveshcheniye , pp. 96–98), which the opportunists have
attacked (Mr. Semkovsky in Novaya Rabochaya
Gazeta , [4] and Mr. Liebman in Zeit ), I asserted that,
insofar as that is at all possible under capitalism, there was only one
solution of the national question, viz., through consistent democracy. In
proof of this, I referred, among other things, to Switzerland.

This has not been to the liking of the two opportunists mentioned
above, who are trying to refute it or belittle its significance. Kautsky,
we are told, said that Switzerland is an exception; Switzerland, if you
please, has a special kind of decentralisation, a special history, special
geographical conditions, unique distribution of a population that speak
different languages, etc., etc.

All these are nothing more than attempts to evade the issue. To be sure, Switzerland is an exception in that she is not a
single-nation state. But Austria and Russia are also exceptions (or are
backward, as Kautsky adds). To be sure, it was only her special, unique
historical and social conditions that ensured Switzerland greater democracy than most of her European neighbours.

But where does all this come in, if we are speaking of the model to be adopted? In the whole world, under present-day
conditions, countries in which any particular institution has been founded
on consistent democratic principles are the exception. Does this
prevent us, in our programme, from upholding consistent democracy in all
institutions?

Switzerland’s special features lie in her history, her geographical and
other conditions. Russia’s special features lie in the strength of her
proletariat, which has no precedent in the epoch of bourgeois revolutions,
and in her shocking general backwardness, which objectively necessitates an
exceptionally rapid and resolute advance, under the threat of all sorts of
drawbacks and reverses.

We are evolving a national programme from the proletarian standpoint;
since when has it been recommended that the worst examples, rather than the
best, be taken as a model?

At all events, does it not remain an indisputable and undisputed fact
that national peace under capitalism has been achieved (insofar as it is
achievable) exclusively in countries where consistent democracy
prevails?

Since this is indisputable, the opportunists’ persistent references to
Austria instead of Switzerland are nothing but a typical Cadet device, for
the
Cadets [5] always copy the worst European constitutions rather than the
best.

In Switzerland there are three official languages, but bills
submitted to a referendum are printed in five languages, that is
to say, in two Romansh dialects, in addition to the three official
languages. According to the 1900 census, these two dialects are spoken by
38,651 out of the 3,315,443 inhabitants of Switzerland, i.e., by a little
over one per cent . In the army, commissioned and non-commissioned
officers “are given the fullest freedom to speak to the men in their
native language”. In the cantons of Graub\"unden and Wallis (each with a
population of a little over a hundred thousand) both dialects enjoy
complete equality. [2]

The question is: should we advocate and support this, the living experience of an advanced country, or borrow from the Austrians inventions like “extra-territorial autonomy”, which have not yet
been tried out anywhere in the world (and not yet been adopted by the
Austrians themselves)?

To advocate this invention is to advocate the division of school
education according to nationality, and that is a downright harmful
idea. The experience of Switzerland proves, however, that the greatest (relative) degree of national peace can be, and has been, ensured in practice where you have, a
consistent (again relative) democracy throughout the state.

“ In Switzerland,” say people who have studied this question, “there is no national question in the East-European
sense of the term. The very phrase (national, question) is unknown
there....”
“Switzerland left the struggle between nationalities a long way behind, in

1797–1803.” [3] “ In Switzerland,” say people who have studied this
question, “there is no national question in the East-European
sense of the term. The very phrase (national, question) is unknown
there....”
“Switzerland left the struggle between nationalities a long way behind, in

1797–1803.” [3]

This means that the epoch of the great French Revolution, which
provided the most democratic solution of the current problems of the
transition from feudalism to capitalism, succeeded incidentally, en passant , in “ solving ” the national question.

Let the Semkovskys, Liebmans, and other opportunists now fry to assert
that this “exclusively Swiss” solution is inapplicable to any
uyezd or even part of an uyezd in Russia, where out of a population of only
200,000 forty thousand speak two dialects and want to have complete equality of language in their area!

Advocacy of complete equality of nations and languages distinguishes
only the consistently democratic elements in each nation (i. e., only the
proletarians), and unites them, not according to nationality, but
in a profound and earnest desire to improve the entire system of state. On
the contrary, advocacy of “cultural-national autonomy”, despite the pious
wishes of individuals and groups, divides the nations and in fact
draws the workers and the bourgeoisie of any one nation closer together
(the adoption of this “cultural-national autonomy” by all the Jewish
bourgeois parties).

Guaranteeing the rights of a national minority is inseparably linked up
with the principle of complete equality. In my article in Severnaya
Pravda this principle was ex pressed in almost the same terms as in
the later, official and more accurate decision of the conference of
Marxists. That decision demands “the incorporation in the constitution of
a fundamental law which shall declare null and void all privileges enjoyed
by any one nation and all infringements of the rights of a national
minority”.

Mr. Liebman tries to ridicule this formula and asks:
“Who knows what the rights of a national minority are?” Do these rights,
he wants to know, include the right of the minority to have “its own
programme” for the national schools? How large must the national minority
be to have the right to have its own judges, officials, and schools with
instruction in its own language? Mr. Liebman wants it to be inferred from
these questions that a “ positive ” national programme is
essential.

Actually, these questions clearly show what reactionary ideas our
Bundist tries to smuggle through under cover of a dispute on supposedly
minor details and particulars.

“ Its own programme” in its national schools!... Marxists, my dear
nationalist-socialist, have a general school programme which
demands, for example, an absolutely secular school. As far as Marxists are
concerned, no departure from this general programme is anywhere or
at any time permissible in a democratic state (the question of introducing
any “local” subjects, languages, and so forth into it being decided by
the local inhabitants). However, from the principle of “taking educational
affairs out of the hands of the state” and placing them under the control
of the nations, it ensues that we, the workers, must allow the “nations”
in our democratic state to spend the people’s money on clerical schools!
Without being aware of the fact, Mr. Liebman has clearly demonstrated the
reactionary nature of “cultural-national autonomy”!

“ How large must a national minority be?” This is not defined even in
the Austrian programme, of which the Bundists are enamoured. It says (more
briefly and less clearly than our programme does): “The rights of the
national minorities are protected by a special law to he passed by the
Imperial Parliament” (§4 of the Br\"unn programme).

Why has nobody asked the Austrian Social-Democrats the question: what
exactly is that law, and exactly which rights and of which minority is it
to protect?

That is because all sensible people understand that it is inappropriate
and impossible to define particulars in a programme. A programme lays down
only fundamental principles. In this case the fundamental principle is
implied with the Austrians, and directly expressed in the decision of the latest conference of Russian Marxists. That principle is:
no national privileges and no national inequality.

Let us take a concrete example to make the point clear to the
Bundist. According to the school census of January 18, 1911, St. Petersburg
elementary schools under the Ministry of Public “Education” were attended
by 48,076 pupils. Of these, 396, i. e., less than one per cent, were
Jews. The other figures are: Rumanian pupils—2, Georgians—1,
Armenians—3, etc. [6] Is it possible to draw up a “positive” national programme that
will cover this diversity of relationships and conditions? (And
St. Petersburg is, of course, far from being the city with the most mixed
population in Russia.) Even such specialists in national “subtleties” as
the Bundists would hardly be able to draw up such a programme.

And yet, if the constitution of the country contained a fundamental law
rendering null and void every measure that infringed the rights of a
minority, any citizen would be able to demand the rescinding of orders
prohibiting, for example, the hiring, at state expense, of special teachers
of Hebrew, Jewish history, and the like, or the provision of state-owned
premises for lectures for Jewish, Armenian, or Rumanian children, or even
for the one Georgian child. At all events, it is by no means impossible to
meet, on the basis of equality, all the reasonable and just wishes of the
national minorities, and nobody will say that advocacy of equality is
harmful. On the other hand, it would certainly be harmful to advocate
division of schools according to nationality, to advocate, for example,
special schools for Jewish children in St. Petersburg, and it would be
utterly impossible to set up national schools for every national
minority, for one, two or three children.

Furthermore, it is impossible, in any country-wide law, to define how
large a national minority must be to be entitled to special schools, or to
special teachers for supplementary subjects, etc.

On the other hand, a country-wide law establishing equality can be
worked out in detail and developed through special regulations and the
decisions of regional Diets, and town, Zemstvo, village commune and other
authorities.

## Notes

[1] See pp. 20–22 of this volume.— Ed .

[2] See René Henry: La Suisse et la question des langues ,
Berne, 1907.  — Lenin

[3] See Ed. Blocher: Die Nationalit\"aten in der Schweiz , Berlin,
1910.  — Lenin

[4] Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta ( New Workers’ Paper )—a
legal daily of the Menshevik liquidators, published in St. Petersburg from August 1913. From January 30 (February 12), 1914 it was superceded by Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta ( Northern Workers’ Paper ) and
subsequently by Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta ( Our Workers’
Paper ). Lenin repeatedly referred to this newspaper as the Novaya
Likvidatorskaya Gazeta ( New Liquidationist Paper ).

[5] Cadets —members of the Constitutional-Democratic Party, the
principal party of the liberal-monarchist bourgeoisie in Russia. It was
formed in October 1905 and consisted of representatives of the bourgeoisie,
landlord members of the Zemstvos, and bourgeois intellectuals. Prominent
leaders of the Cadets were: =

P. N. Milyukov, S. A. Muromtsev, V. A. Maklakov, A. I. Shingaryov,
P. B. Struve and F. I. Rodichev. To mislead the masses the Cadets called
themselves the “party of people’s freedom”, but actually they went no
further than the demand for a constitutional monarchy. They considered the
fight against the revolutionary movement their chief aim, and strove to
share power with the tsar and the feudalist landlords. During World War I
the Cadets actively supported the tsarist government’s aggressive foreign
policy, and during the February 1917 bourgeois-democratic revolution they
tried to save the monarchy. Holding key posts in the bourgeois Provisional
Government, the Cadets pursued an anti-popular and counter-revolutionary
policy. After the victory of the October Socialist Revolution, the Cadets
came out as the avowed enemies of Soviet rule, taking part in all armed
counter-revolutionary acts and campaigns of the interventionists. Living
abroad as émigrés after the defeat of the interventionists
and whiteguards, the Cadets continued their anti-Soviet activities.

[6] Lenin obtained these figures from the statistical handbook One-Day
Census of Elementary Schools In the Empire, Made on January 18,
1911. Issue I, Part 2, St. Petersburg Educational Area. Gubernias of
Archangel, Vologda, Novgorod, Olonets, Pskov and
St. Petersburg . St. Petersburg, 1912, p. 72.


### 6. CENTRALISATION AND AUTONOMY

In his rejoinder, Mr. Liebman writes:

“ Take our Lithuania, the Baltic province, Poland, Volhynia, South Russia, etc—everywhere you will find a mixed population; there is not a single city that does not have a large national
minority. However far decentralisation is carried out, different
nationalities will always be found living together in different places
(chiefly in urban communities); and it is democratism that surrenders a
national minority to the national majority. But, as we know, V. I. is
opposed to the federal state structure and the boundless decentralisation
that exist in the Swiss Federation. The question is: what was his point in
citing the example of Switzerland?”

“ Take our Lithuania, the Baltic province, Poland, Volhynia, South Russia, etc—everywhere you will find a mixed population; there is not a single city that does not have a large national
minority. However far decentralisation is carried out, different
nationalities will always be found living together in different places
(chiefly in urban communities); and it is democratism that surrenders a
national minority to the national majority. But, as we know, V. I. is
opposed to the federal state structure and the boundless decentralisation
that exist in the Swiss Federation. The question is: what was his point in
citing the example of Switzerland?”

My object in citing the example of Switzerland has already been
explained above. I have also explained that the problem of protecting the
rights of a national minority can be solved only by a country-wide
law promulgated in a consistently democratic state that does not depart
from the principle of equality.  But in the passage quoted above,
Mr. Liebman repeats still another of the most common (and most fallacious)
arguments (or sceptical remarks) which are usually made against the Marxist
national programme, and which, therefore, deserve examination.

Marxists are, of course, opposed to federation and decentralisation,
for the simple reason that capitalism requires for its development the
largest and most centralised possible states. Other conditions being
equal , the class-conscious proletariat will always stand for the
larger state. It will always fight against medieval particularism, and will
always welcome the closest possible economic amalgamation of large
territories in which the proletariat’s struggle against the bourgeoisie can
develop on a broad basis.

Capitalism’s broad and rapid development of the productive forces calls for large, politically compact and united territories, since
only here can the bourgeois class—together with its inevitable antipode,
the proletarian class—unite and sweep away all the old, medieval, caste,
parochial, petty-national, religious and other barriers.

The right of nations to self-determination, i. e., the right to secede
and form independent national states, will be dealt with elsewhere. [1] But while, and insofar as, different nations constitute a single state, Marxists will never, under any
circumstances, advocate either the federal principle or
decentralisation. The great centralised state is a tremendous historical
step forward from medieval disunity to the future socialist unity of the
whole world, and only via such a state ( inseparably connected with capitalism), can there be any road to socialism.

It would, however, be inexcusable to forget that in advocating
centralism we advocate exclusively democratic centralism. On this
point all the philistines in general, and the nationalist philistines in
particular (including the late
Dragomanov [7] ), have so confused the issue that we are obliged again and
again to spend time clarifying it.

Far from precluding local self-government, with autonomy for
regions having special economic and social conditions, a distinct national
composition of the population, and so forth, democratic centralism
necessarily demands both . In Russia centralism is constantly
confused with tyranny and bureaucracy. This confusion has naturally arisen
from the history of Russia, but even so it is quite inexcusable for a
Marxist to yield to it.

This can best be explained by a concrete example.

In her lengthy article “The National Question and
Autonomy”, [2] Rosa Luxemburg, among many other curious errors (which we shall deal with
below), commits the exceptionally curious one of trying to restrict the demand for autonomy to Poland alone.

But first let us see how she defines autonomy.

Rosa Luxemburg admits—and being a Marxist she is of course bound to
admit—that all the major and important economic and political questions
of capitalist, society must be dealt with exclusively by the central
parliament of the whole country concerned, not by the autonomous Diets of
the individual regions. These questions include tariff policy, laws
governing commerce and industry, transport and means of communication
(railways, post, telegraph, telephone, etc.), the army, the taxation
system, civil [3] and criminal law, the general principles of education (for example, the law on purely
secular schools, on universal education, on the minimum programme, on
democratic school management, etc.), the labour protection laws, and
political liberties (right of association), etc., etc.

The autonomous Diets—on the basis of the general laws of the
country—should deal with questions of purely local, regional, or national
significance. Amplifying this idea in great—not to say excessive—detail, Rosa Luxemburg mentions, for example, the construction
of local railways (No. 12, p. 149) and local highways (No. 14–15, p. 376),
etc.

Obviously, one cannot conceive of a modern, truly democratic state that
did not grant such autonomy to every region having any appreciably distinct
economic and social features, populations of a specific national
composition, etc. The principle of centralism, which is essential for the
development of capitalism, is not violated by this (local and regional)
autonomy, but on the contrary is applied by it democratically , not
bureaucratically. The broad, free and rapid development of capitalism would
be impossible, or at least greatly impeded, by the absence of such
autonomy, which facilitates the concentration of capital, the
development of the productive forces, the unity of the bourgeoisie and the
unity of the proletariat on a country-wide scale; for bureaucratic
interference in purely local (regional, national, and other)
questions is one of the greatest obstacles to economic and political
development in general, and an obstacle to centralism in serious,
important and fundamental matters in particular.

One cannot help smiling, therefore, when reading how our magnificent
Rosa Luxemburg tries to prove, with a very serious air and “purely
Marxist” phrases, that the demand for autonomy is applicable only to Poland and only by way of exception! Of course, there is not a
grain of “parochial” patriotism in this; we have here only “practical”
considerations ... in the case of Lithuania, for example.

Rosa Luxemburg takes four gubernias—Vilna, Kovno, Grodno and
Suvalki—assuring her readers (and herself) that these are inhabited
“mainly” by Lithuanians; and by adding the inhabitants of these gubernias
together she finds that Lithuanians constitute 23 per cent of the total population, and if
Zhmuds are added, they constitute 31 per cent—less than a third. The
natural inference is that the idea of autonomy for Lithuania is “arbitrary
and artificial” (No. 10, p. 807).

The reader who is familiar with the commonly known defects of our
Russian official statistics will quickly see Rosa Luxemburg’s mistake. Why
take Grodno Gubernia where the Lithuanians constitute only 0.2 per cent, one-fifth of one per cent , of the population? Why take the whole
Vilna Gubernia and not its Troki Uyezd alone, where the Lithuanians
constitute the majority of the population? Why take the whole
Suvalki Gubernia and put the number of Lithuanians at 52 per cent of the
population, and not the Lithuanian uyezds of that gubernia, i. e., five out
of the seven, in which Lithuanians constitute 72 per cent of the
population?

It is ridiculous to talk about the conditions and demands of modern
capitalism while at the same time taking not the “modern”, not the
“capitalist”, but the medieval, feudal and official-bureaucratic
administrative divisions of Russia, and in their crudest form at that
(gubernias instead of uyezds). Plainly, there can be no question of any
serious local reform in Russia until these divisions are abolished and
superseded by a really “modern” division that really meets the
requirements, not of the Treasury, not of the bureaucracy, not of routine, not of the landlords, not of the priests, but of capitalism; and one of the modern
requirements of capitalism is undoubtedly the greatest possible national
uniformity of the population, for nationality and language identity are an
important factor making for the complete conquest of the home market and
for complete freedom of economic intercourse.

Oddly enough, this obvious mistake of Rosa Luxemburg’s is repeated by
the Bundist Medem, who sets out to prove, not that Poland’s specific
features are “exceptional”, but that the principle of national-territorial autonomy is unsuitable (the Bundists stand for
national extra-territorial autonomy!). Our Bundists and liquidators collect
from all over the world all the errors and all the opportunist vacillations
of Social-Democrats of different countries and different nations and appropriate to themselves the worst they can find in
world Social-Democracy. A scrap-book of Bundist and liquidator writings
could, taken together, serve as a model Social-Democratic museum of bad
taste .

Regional autonomy, Medem tells us didactically, is good for a region or
a “territory”, but not for Lettish, Estonian, or other areas
( okrugs ), which have populations ranging from half a million to
two million and areas equal to a gubernia. “ That would not be
autonomy, but simply a Zemstvo.... Over this Zemstvo it would be
necessary to establish real autonomy” ... and the author goes on to
condemn the “break-up” of the old gubernias and uyezds. [4]

As a matter of fact, the preservation of the medieval, feudal, official
administrative divisions means the “break up” and mutilation of the
conditions of modern capitalism. Only people imbued with the spirit of
these divisions can, with the learned air of the expert, speculate on the
contra-position of “Zemstvo” and “autonomy”, calling for the
stereotyped application of “autonomy” to large regions and of the Zemstvo
to small ones. Modern capitalism does not demand these bureaucratic
stereotypes at all. Why national areas with populations, not only of half a
million, but even of 50,000, should not be able to enjoy autonomy; why such
areas should not be able to unite in the most diverse ways with
neighbouring areas of different dimensions into a single autonomous
“territory” if that is convenient or necessary for economic
intercourse—these things remain the secret of the Bundist Medem.

We would mention that the Br\"unn Social-Democratic national programme
is based entirely on national-territorial autonomy; it proposes that
Austria should be divided into “nationally distinct” areas “instead of
the historical crown lands” (Clause 2 of the Br\"unn programme). We would
not go as far as that. A uniform national population is undoubtedly one of
the most reliable factors making for free, broad and really modern
commercial intercourse. It is beyond doubt that not a single Marxist, and
not even a single firm democrat, will stand up for the Austrian crown lands and the Russian gubernias and uyezds (the latter are not as bad as the
Austrian crown lands, but they are very bad nevertheless), or challenge the
necessity of replacing these obsolete divisions by others that will conform
as far as possible with the national composition of the population, Lastly,
it is beyond doubt that in order to eliminate all national oppression it is
very important to create autonomous areas, however small, with entirely
homogeneous populations, towards which members of the respective
nationalities scattered all over the country, or even all over the world,
could gravitate, and with which they could enter into relations and free
associations of every kind. All this is indisputable, and can be argued
against only from the hidebound, bureaucratic point of view.

The national composition of the population, however, is one of
the very important economic factors, but not the sole and not the
most important factor. Towns, for example, play an extremely
important economic role under capitalism, and everywhere, in Poland,
in Lithuania, in the Ukraine, in Great Russia, and elsewhere, the towns are
marked by mixed populations To cut the towns off from the villages and
areas that economically gravitate towards them, for the sake of the
“national” factor, would be absurd and impossible. That is why Marxists
must not take their stand entirely and exclusively on the
“national-territorial” principle.

The solution of the problem proposed by the last conference of Russian
Marxists is far more correct than the Austrian. On this question, the
conference advanced the following proposition:

“... must provide for wide regional autonomy (not for
Poland alone, of course, but for all the regions of
Russia] [5] and fully democratic local self-government, and the boundaries of the
self-governing and autonomous regions must he determined [not by the
boundaries of the present gubernias, uyezds, etc., but] by the local
inhabitants themselves on the basis of their economic and social
conditions, national make-up of the population, etc.” [6] “... must provide for wide regional autonomy (not for
Poland alone, of course, but for all the regions of
Russia] [5] and fully democratic local self-government, and the boundaries of the
self-governing and autonomous regions must he determined [not by the
boundaries of the present gubernias, uyezds, etc., but] by the local
inhabitants themselves on the basis of their economic and social
conditions, national make-up of the population, etc.” [6]

Here the national composition of the population is placed on the
same level as the other conditions (economic first, then social, etc.) which must serve as a basis for determining the new
boundaries that will meet the needs of modern capitalism, not of
bureaucracy and Asiatic barbarism. The local population alone can
“assess” those conditions with full precision, and on that basis the
central parliament of the country will determine the boundaries of the
autonomous regions and the powers of autonomous Diets.

We have still to examine the question of the right of nations to
self-determination. On this question a whole collection of opportunists of
all nationalities—the liquidator Semkovsky, the Bundist Liebman and the
Ukrainian nationalist-socialist Lev Yurkevich—have set to work to
“popularise” the errors of Rosa Luxemburg. This question, which has been
so utterly confused by this whole “collection”, will be dealt with in our
next article. [8]

## Notes

[1] See pp. 393–454 of this volume.— Ed .

[2] Przegląd Socjaldemokratyczny , [9] Kraków, 1908 and 1909.  — Lenin

[3] In elaborating her ideas Rosa Luxemburg goes into details, mentioning,
for example—and quite rightly—divorce laws (No. 12, p. 162 of the
above-mentioned journal).  — Lenin

[4] V. Medem: “A Contribution to the Presentation of the National Question
in Russia”, Vestnik
Yevropy , [10] 1912, Nos. 8 and 9.  — Lenin

[5] Interpolations in square brackets (within passages quoted by Lenin) are
by Lenin, unless otherwise indicated— Ed .

[6] See present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 427–28.— Ed .

[7] Dragomanov, M. P. (1841–1895)—Ukrainian historian,
ethnographer and publicist. Exponent of Ukrainian bourgeois
national-liberalism.

[9] Przegląd Socjaldemokratyczny ( Social-Democratic
Review) —a journal published by the Polish Social-Democrats in close
co-operation with Rosa Luxemburg in Cracow from 1902 to 1904 and from 1908
to 1910.

[10] Vestnik Yevropy ( European Messenger )—a monthly
historico-political end literary magazine of a bourgeois-liberal
trend. Appeared in St. Petersburg from 1866 to 1918. The magazine published
articles against the revolutionary Marxists.

[8] Lenin is referring to an article he was planning on “The Right of
Nations to Self-Determination”. The article was written in February-May 1914 and published in April-June in the journal Prosveshcheniye Nos. 4, 5 and 6. (See pp. 393–454 of this
volume.)