The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

10. CONCLUSION

To sum up.

As far as the theory of Marxism in general is concerned, the question
of the right to self-determination presents no difficulty. No one can
seriously question the London resolution of 1896, or the fact that
self-determination implies only the right to secede, or that the formation
of independent national states is the tendency in all bourgeois-democratic
revolutions.

A difficulty is to some extent created by the fact that in Russia the
proletariat of both the oppressed and oppressor nations are fighting, and
must fight, side by side. The task is to preserve the unity of the
proletariat’s class struggle for socialism, and to resist all bourgeois and
Black-Hundred nationalist influences. Where the oppressed nations are
concerned, the separate organisation of the proletariat as an independent
party sometimes leads to such a bitter struggle against local nationalism
that the perspective becomes distorted and the nationalism of the oppressor
nation is lost sight of.

But this distortion of perspective cannot last long. The experience of
the joint struggle waged by the proletarians of various nations has
demonstrated all too clearly that we must formulate political issues from
the all-Russia, not the “Cracow” point of view. And in all-Russia
politics it is the Purishkeviches and the Kokoshkins who are in the
saddle. Their ideas predominate, and their persecution of non-Russians for
“separatism”, for thinking about secession, is being preached,
and practised in the Duma, in the schools, in the churches, in the
barracks, and in hundreds and thousands of newspapers. It is this
Great-Russian nationalist poison that is polluting the entire all-Russia
political atmosphere. This is the misfortune of one nation, which, by
subjugating other nations, is strengthening reaction throughout Russia. The
memories of 1849 and 1863 form a living political tradition, which, unless
great storms arise, threatens to hamper every democratic and
especially every Social-Democratic movement for decades to come.

There can be no doubt that however natural the point of view of certain
Marxists belonging to the oppressed nations (whose “misfortune” is
sometimes that the masses of the population are blinded by the idea of their “own” national liberation)
may appear at times, in reality the objective alignment of class
forces in Russia snakes refusal to advocate the right to self-determination
tantamount to the worst opportunism, to the infection of the proletariat
with the ideas of the Kokoshkins. And these ideas are, essentially, the
ideas and the policy of the Purishkeviches.

Therefore, although Rosa Luxemburg’s point of view could at first have
been excused as being specifically Polish, “Cracow” narrow-mindedness, [1] it is inexcusable today, when nationalism and, above all, governmental
Great-Russian nationalism, has everywhere gained ground, and when policy is
being shaped by this Great-Russian nationalism . In actual fact; it
is being seized upon by the opportunists of all nations, who fight
shy of the idea of “storms” and “leaps”, believe that the
bourgeois-democratic revolution is over, and follow in the wake of the
liberalism of the Kokoshkins.

Like any other nationalism, Great-Russian nationalism passes through
various phases, according to the classes that are dominant in the bourgeois
country at any given time. Up to 1905, we almost exclusively knew
national-reactionaries. After the revolution, national-liberals
arose in our country.

In our country this is virtually the stand adopted both by the
Octobrists and by the Cadets (Kokoshkin), i.e., by the whole of the
present-day bourgeoisie.

Great-Russian national-democrats will inevitably appear later
on. Mr. Peshekhonov, one of the founders of the “Popular Socialist”
Party, already expressed this point of view (in the issue of Russkoye Bogatstvo for August 1906) when he called for caution in regard to the
peasants’ nationalist prejudices. However much others may slander us
Bolsheviks and accuse us of “idealising” the peasant, we always have made and always will make a clear distinction between peasant
intelligence and peasant prejudice, between peasant strivings for democracy
and opposition to Purishkevich, and the peasant desire to make peace with
the priest and the landlord.

Even now, and probably for a fairly long time to come, proletarian
democracy must reckon with the nationalism of the Great-Russian peasants
(not with the object of making concessions to it, but in order to combat
it). [2]

The awakening of nationalism among the oppressed nations, which be came so
pronounced after 1905 (let us recall, say, the group of
“Federalist-Autonomists” in the First Duma, the growth of the Ukrainian
movement, of the Moslem movement, etc.), will inevitably lead to greater
nationalism among the Great-Russian petty bourgeoisie in town and
countryside. The slower the democratisation of Russia, the more
persistent, brutal and bitter will be the national persecution and
bickering among the bourgeoisie of the various nations. The particularly
reactionary nature of the Russian Purishkeviches will simultaneously give
rise to (and strengthen) “separatist” tendencies among the various
oppressed nationalities, which sometimes enjoy far greater freedom in
neighbouring states.

In this situation, the proletariat, of Russia is faced with a twofold
or, rather, a two-sided task: to combat nationalism of every kind, above
all, Great-Russian nationalism; to recognise, not only fully equal rights,
for all nations in general, but also equality of rights as regards polity, i.e., the right of
nations to self-determination, to secession. And at the same time, it is
their task, in the interests of a successful struggle against all and every
kind, of nationalism among all nations, to preserve the unity of the
proletarian struggle and the proletarian organisations, amalgamating these
organisations into a close-knit international association, despite
bourgeois strivings for national exclusiveness.

Complete equality of rights for all nations; the right of nations to
self-determination; the unity of the workers of all nations—such is the
national programme that Marxism, the experience of the whole world, and the
experience of Russia, teach the workers.

This article had been set up when I received No. 3 of Nasha Rabochaya Gazeta , in which Mr. Vl. Kosovsky writes the following about
the recognition of the right of all nations to self-determination:

“Taken mechanically from the resolution of the First
Congress of the Party (1898), which in turn had borrowed it from the
decisions of international socialist congresses, it was given, as is
evident from the debate, the same meaning at the 1903 Congress as was
ascribed to it by the Socialist International, i.e., political
self-determination, the self-determination of nations in the field of
political independence. Thus the formula: national self-determination,
which implies the right to territorial separation, does not in any way
affect the question of how national relations within a given state
organism should be regulated for nationalities that cannot or have no
desire to leave the existing state.”

It is evident from this that Mr. Vl. Kosovsky has teen the Minutes of
the Second Congress of 1903 and understands perfectly well the real (and
only) meaning of the term self-determination. Compare this with the fact
that the editors of the Bund newspaper Zeit let Mr. Liebman loose
to scoff at the programme and to declare that it is vague! Queer “party”
ethics among these Bundists.... The Lord alone knows why Kosovsky should
declare that the Congress took over the principle of self-determination
mechanically . Some people want to “object”, but how, why, and
for what reason—they do not know.

---
Notes:
[1]

It is not difficult to understand that the recognition by the Marxists
of the whole of Russia , and first and foremost by the Great
Russians, of the right of nations to secede in no way precludes
agitation against secession by Marxists of a particular
oppressed nation, just as the recognition of the right to divorce
does not preclude agitation against divorce in a particular case. We think,
therefore, that there will, be an inevitable increase in the number of
Polish Marxists who laugh at the non-existent “contradiction” now being
“encouraged” by Semkovsky and Trotsky. — Lenin

[2]

It would be interesting to trace the changes that take place in Polish
nationalism, for example, in the process of its transformation from gentry
nationalism into bourgeois nationalism, and then into peasant
nationalism. In his book Das polnische Gemeinwesen im preussischen Staat ( The Polish Community in the Prussian State ; there is a
Russian translation), Ludwig Bernhard, who shares the view of a German
Kokoshkin, describes a very typical phenomenon: the formation of a sort of
“peasant republic” by the Poles in Germany in the form of a close
alliance of the various co-operatives and other associations of
Polish peasants in their struggle for nationality, religion, and
“Polish” land. German oppression has welded the Poles together and
segregated them, after first awakening the nationalism of the gentry, then
of the bourgeoisie, and finally of the peasant masses (especially after the
campaign the Germans launched in 1873 against the use of the Polish
language in schools). Things are moving in the same direction in Russia,
and not only with regard to Poland. — Lenin