V. I.

Lenin

The more strongly the working-class movement develops the
more frantic are the attempts by the bourgeoisie and the feudalists to
suppress it or break it up. Both these methods—suppression by force and
disintegration by bourgeois influence—are constantly employed all over
the world, in all countries, and one or another of these methods is adopted
alternately by the different parties of the ruling classes.

In Russia, particularly after 1905, when the more intelligent members
of the bourgeoisie realised that brute force alone was ineffective, all
sorts of “progressive” bourgeois parties and groups have been more and
more often resorting to the method of dividing the workers by
advocating different bourgeois ideas and doctrines designed to weaken the
struggle of the working class.

One such idea is refined nationalism, which advocates the division and
splitting up of the proletariat on the most plausible and specious
pretexts, as for example, that of protecting the interests of “national
culture”, “national autonomy, or independence”, and so on, and so forth.

The class-conscious workers fight hard against every kind of
nationalism, both the crude, violent, Black-Hundred nationalism, and that
most refined nationalism which preaches the equality of nations
together with ... the splitting up of the workers’ cause,
the workers’ organisations and the working-class movement according to nationality. Unlike all the varieties of the nationalist
bourgeoisie, the class conscious workers, carrying out the decisions of the
recent (summer 1913) conference of the Marxists, stand, not only for the
most complete, consistent and fully applied equality of nations and languages, but also for the amalgamation of the
workers of the different nationalities in united proletarian
organisations of every kind.

Herein lies the fundamental distinction between the national programme
of Marxism and that of any bourgeoisie, be it the most “advanced”.

Recognition of the equality of nations and languages is important to
Marxists, not only because they are the most consistent democrats. The
interests of proletarian solidarity and comradely unity in the workers’
class struggle call for the fullest equality of nations with a view to
removing every trace of national distrust, estrangement, suspicion and
enmity. And full equality implies the repudiation of all privileges for any
one language and the recognition of the right of self-determination for all nations.

To the bourgeoisie, however, the demand for national equality very
often amounts in practice to advocating national exclusiveness and
chauvinism; they very often couple it with advocacy of the
division and estrangement of nations. This is absolutely
incompatible with proletarian internationalism , which advocates,
not only closer relations between nations, but the amalgamation of the workers of all nationalities in a given state
in united proletarian organisations. That is why Marxists
emphatically condemn so-called “cultural-national autonomy”, i. e., the
idea that educational affairs should be taken out of the hands of
the state and transferred to the respective nationalities. This
plan means that in questions of “national culture” educational affairs
are to be split up in national associations according to the
nationalities in the given state federation, each with its own
separate Diet, educational budgets, school boards, and educational
institutions.

This is a plan of refined nationalism, which corrupts and divides the
working class. To this plan (of the Bundists, liquidators and Narodniks,
i. e., of the various petty-bourgeois groups), the Marxists contrapose the
principle of complete equality of nations and languages and go to the
extent of denying the necessity of an official language; at the same time
they advocate the closest possible relations between the nations, uniform
state institutions for all nations, uniform school boards, a
uniform education policy (secular education!) and the unity of the workers of the different nations
in the struggle against the nationalism of every national bourgeoisie , a nationalism which is presented in the form of the
slogan “national culture” for the purpose of deceiving simpletons.

Let the petty-bourgeois nationalists—the Bundists, the liquidators,
the Narodniks and the writers for Dzvin—openly advocate their principle
of refined bourgeois nationalism; that is their right. But they should not
try to fool the workers, as Madam
V. 0. [1] does, for example, in issue No. 35 of Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta , where she assures her readers that Za Pravdu is
opposed to instruction in schools being given in the native
languages!

That is gross slander. The Pravdists not only recognise this right, but
are more consistent in recognising it than anyone else. The
Pravdists, who identified themselves with the conference of Marxists, which
declared that no compulsory official language was necessary , were
the first in Russia to recognise fully the right to use
the native language!

It is crass ignorance to confuse instruction in the native language
with “dividing educational affairs within a single state according to
nationality”, with “cultural-national autonomy”, with “taking
educational affairs out of the hands of the state”.

Nowhere in the world are Marxists (or even democrats) opposed to
instruction being conducted in the native language. And nowhere in the world have Marxists adopted the programme of “cultural-national
autonomy”; Austria is the only country in which it was proposed .

The example of Finland, as quoted by Madam V. 0., is an argument
against herself, for in that country the equality of nations and languages (which we recognise unreservedly and more consistently than
anybody) is recognised and carried out, but there is no question there about taking educational affairs out of the hands of the state , about
separate national associations to deal with all educational affairs, about
partitioning up the school system of a country with national barriers, and
so forth.

---
Notes:
[1]
V.0. —author of the article “The Deterioration of School
Education” published in Severnaya Rabochaya Gazeta No. 35,
March 21, 1914.