February–March 1914. Kraków

I
There are none in other European programs.
Austrian Social Democrats versus the RSDLP and the Ukrainian Social Democrats.
Nothing “practical.”
The sootiness of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia.
The national question in Austria. (Indecision.
Disintegration?).
The London Congress of 1896 and the circumvention (“tricks”) of its decisions.
The right
to self-determination
and
the Great Russian
“population”
.
The right to self-determination and secession (interpretation).
The right to self-determination and divorce.
Education in an anti-national spirit.
Cadets and the right to self-determination.
National oppression in general and the right to secession...
Three ways of the bourgeois solution to the national question (1. Junker-serfdom; 2. Bourgeois-liberal; 3. Democratic).
i
Capitalism unites Russia and Poland versus
“Asian despotism.”
Empty talk (who and how will determine their own fate? The Constituent Assembly? etc.).
The merit of the RSDLP minus the omfusku of Rosa Luxemburg.
The RSDLP program in 1909 and self-determination.
Norway in 1905 and Rosa Luxemburg versus Napszod*.
“Forward” — organ of the Polish Socialist Party of Galicia and Silesia. Editor.
Peasantry in the national question (Karl Kautsky versus Rosa Luxemburg).
Nationalism of the bourgeoisie (oppressed Asia) versus
nationalism of the Black Hundreds.
Ukrainian movement and the Ukrainian question.
Social Revolutionaries and their “unconditional” right to self-determination.
Separation of the state versus strengthening economic, cultural, and class ties.
Economic convergence and language as an economic factor.
“National state”....
Rosa
Luxemburg and the opportunists
(Libman -j-
-J- Semkovsky -f- Yurkevich 2).
The utopian Magh and the practical Rosa Luxemburg.
(Ireland). Magh versus Lopatin.
Russia and its “neighbors”: Austria and Asian states
(-)-Balkans).
“Except perhaps Finland”
(Sem-
k e v s k i y).
General metaphysical phrases (Rosa Luxemburg).
People — a concept of bourgeois ideology (Rosa
L u x e m b u r g).
Either “nic” * or support all nationalist tendencies (Rosa Luxemburg).
Concrete, historical formulation of the issue (Rosa Luxemburg)
“bM l eM n n st*) species?” (Rosa Luxemburg).
National state
versus
predatory
state
(Rosa Luxemburg)
colonialism (Rosa Luxemburg)
nationalist reactionaries
»
-liberals
»
-democrats (Peshkhonov).
II
1. General metaphysical phrases?
2. “National state.”
3. Consistent democrats (versus liquidators).
4. London Congress of 1896.
‘Nothing.’ Editor.
5. Nationalism of the oppressed bourgeoisie and nationalism of the ruling Black Hundreds.
6. Magh on Ireland.
7. Norway.
8. Opportunism of Rosa Luxemburg & i£ 0!!
9. National question in Russia in 1905 & after*.
10. Austria, Russia, Balkans, Asia.
11. Impudence and intrigue: Libman
Yurkevich -)- Sem-
k o v s k i y.
12. Unfinished
bourgeois-democratic revolution and three ways of solving the national question:
(1. reactionary, 2. liberal, 3. democratic).
13. National oppression and self-determination.
K.-d. on
self-determination.
III
1.
A) Concept
interpretation of legal terminology or economic-strategic?
... separation; national state........
I. B) National state = type, norm.
(Rosa
Luxemburg
yersus
predatory
state
).
Economic factor = language.
III.
C) “Merger with Russia”...
versus Asian despotism.
Situation in Germany.
I Y . D ) “Metaphysical Phrases”
people = concept of bourgeois ideology
(Rosa
Luxemburg).
U.
e) Concrete
and
historical
formulation
of the question
(Rosa Luxemburg).
Y I . C) Russia — 6 unfinished bourgeois-democratic transformations (peasants?). (National movement of 1905 & after).
V II .
t) Russia and Austria (Ukrainian question)
(not in the program?)
* and after. Editor.
VIII.
0) Russia and Asia.
IX.
nic or
support for all
national
t e n d e n c i e s
(Rosa Luxemburg)— “except perhaps Finland.”
X. “Practical” is absent.
(Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg)
— educate in an anti-national spirit peasants of Great Russians versus foreigners
Great Russian population
nationalist reactionaries
»
-liberals
»
-democrats
nationalism of the oppressed bourgeoisie and oppressing Black Hundreds.
XI.
National
oppression and k.d. in
the question of the right
to self-determination.
XII. Three ways of solving the national question.
((bourgeois-democratic transformation =
convergence)).
Norway
(Rosa Luxemburg and Fraki)
(Merit of the RSDLP — Rosa Luxemburg).
Right to self-determination and divorce..
London resolution of 1896
(roses of Rosa Luxemburg)
(Social Revolutionaries and their “unconditional” right).
“Program of 1903 — fiasto RSDLP.
Impudence of opportunists. Rosa Luxemburg against
sus opportunists.
XVIII.
Utopian Magh
and
“practical))
Rosa Luxemburg
(Ireland).
XIX.
Summary—
(Opportunism of Rosa Luxemburg).
IV
S I.
Concept
of self-determination and the question of “na-
(I —  И)
national state>>.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
§ I.
Arguments of Rosa Luxemburg and her p o s t a p o v k a
(III — U)
in the question.
S i l l .
»is the 6 u r j u a z no-d e m o k r a t i c transformation finished?
(Y1 — VIII)
not yet a revolution in Russia?
Concretely
o s o 5 e p n o s t i
of the national question in Russia.
S IV
“Anarchic Phraseology.”
(IX — X)
“All or nothing” and “p r a k t i c i z m” in the national question.
(Right to divorce (XIV)).
S У.
K.-d. and Rosa Luxemburg in the national question
(XI) (XII)
(opportunist)
three ways of solving the national question.
S VI.
N o r w e g i y a   (Rosa Luxemburg yersus Fraki).
(XSH )
_
____ ___________________________________
S VII.
L on d o p e k a y a   resolution of 1896.
(XV)
(Rosa Luxemburg and Social Revolutionaries)
§ VIII.
Program of 1903.
(XVI) (XVII)
fiasko of RSDLP (now collapse).
Impudence of opportunists.
S IX.
U t o p i s t M a g h and practical Rosa Luxemburg
(XVIII)
L u x e m 6 u r g.
X.
Conclusion.
(XIX)
V
I. What is national self-determination?
II.
Concrete and historical formulation of the question.
III. Bourgeois-democratic
transformation of Russia and peculiarities of the national question here.
IV. “Pragmatism” in the national question.
V.
Liberal bourgeoisie and opportunism of social revolutionaries in the national question.
VI. Example of Norway.
VII. Resolution of the London Congress of 1896.
VIII. Program of Russian Marxists of 1903.
IX.
Utopian Kjarl Magh and practical Rosa Luxemburg.
X. Conclusion.
(Resume.)
1 Lenin’s article “On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” was published in the journal ((Enlightenment)) in issues No. 4, 5, and 6, April, May, and June
1914, signed by V. Ilyin. Reprinted in Works XVII, pp. 425–474.
2 F. Libman. “New edition of an old mistake.” (“Zeit” No. 28, September 30, 1913, in Hebrew). L. Yurkevich. “Russian Marxists and
Ukrainian labor movement” (“Dzvsh” JVLNs 7 and 8, 1913, in Ukrainian). Lenin’s underlinings in this article were partially published
in “Lenin Collection” XVII, pp. 271–275. S. Semkovsky. “Simplified Marxism
in the national question” (“New Labor Newspaper” No. 69,
November 11 (October 29), and No. 71, November 13 (October 31), 1913). Analysis of these articles was given by Lenin in his essays “Critical Notes on the National Question” (Works XVII, p. 133) and “On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” (Works XVII, p. 427).