Date: 1910
Source: ru:PSS/v27

1. Excerpts from the book “Hofkalender”

On the National Question

The Great-Power Nations

(“Hofkalender”[191], 1914)

1910

2. Draft Outline

Topic: Imperialism and the Self-Determination of Nations.

[Not “the National Question”]

Down with the two-thirds of the national program (only self-determination).

+ Democratic Reforms under Imperialism?

+ Norway, 1905: An “Exception”?

+ Ireland, 1869: A “Utopia”?

+ National Movements in Asia and the Colonies…

and in Africa (Egypt)…

+ Why divide along national lines when imperialism is an epoch of the fusion of nations?

Why maintain national movements in Ukraine, China, Persia, India, Egypt, and elsewhere—“if” (when) the advanced countries have reached the stage of imperialism, which welds nations together? If capitalism (= imperialism) in the advanced countries has outgrown the confines of national states? The Proudhonists and Marx in the 1860s (“Other nations must sit on their backs and wait until France carries out a social revolution”).

Marx, 1848, in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung{160}. Engels, 1866, and Marx, 1869: It is precisely in the interests of the working class of oppressed nations that we must demand the right to secede.

* Apparently a reference to pages from some manuscript by V. I. Lenin. Ed.

** Against Parvus’s “most hackneyed” slogan. Ed.

Only the bourgeois‑democratic principle? But what about the BROTHERHOOD of workers?

No, we must also embrace the socialist principle.

____

____

When we raise the slogan: freedom of self‑determination—that is, freedom to secede—we are, through all our agitation, demanding that the oppressors strive to retain power not through violence, but through economic advantages and cultural influence. When we fail to recognize and place at the forefront the right to secede, we effectively leave the door wide open for the lackeys of violence.

___

Only in this way can we strike the nail on the head[192]—we must teach the workers: drive out all those who do not sincerely and honestly uphold both the democratic and the socialist principles.

3. Theses

Better four—

?

Five theses: 1) Social Democrats of oppressed nations—especially those of the so‑called great powers—must demand the right to self‑determination = the right to secede for oppressed nations, defending this right not only in legal publications, but especially in the underground press and, above all, during times of war. – 2) Social Democrats of oppressed nations must strive for the fullest possible integration—not merely rapprochement—of the workers of the oppressed nation with the workers of the oppressing nation. – 3) On the basis of these principles, Social Democrats in all the advanced countries of the twentieth century—and particularly in the great powers—must place at the forefront of their national policies the principle: “Workers have no fatherland,” without in any way denying the world‑historical significance of the national‑liberation movements of the backward peoples of Eastern Europe and of the colonies of Asia and Africa. – 4) Social Democrats of all countries must champion not the federal principle, not the formation of small states as an ideal, but rather the widest possible rapprochement of nations; they must see the harm in every form of national separation, the harm in cultural‑national autonomy, and the benefits of democratic centralism, of large states and of alliances among states.

Thesis No. 5: Given the utter simplicity of Thesis No. 1, its recognition by the entire democratic movement and by Marx and Engels (1848–1876), and its confirmation by the experience of war, it is imperative that Social Democrats who do not accept this thesis be treated as enemies of the proletariat, as the worst kind of deceivers, and be expelled from the party.

4. Imperialism and the Right of Nations to Self‑Determination

(outline)

[28 October 1915]

Introduction

(1) The urgency of the question. It is on everyone’s lips—or in everyone’s ears.

Why?

(α) War fuels national hatred and threatens national oppression.

(β) Imperialism is an epoch of national oppression founded upon new historical grounds.

(2) The task of the Z. L. (“Zimmerwald Left”) is to unite and, on this very basis, to break with social‑shovinism and to clarify the consciousness of the working class.

I. The Economic Perspective

(3) “Capital has outgrown national boundaries. The unification of nations (within a single state) is both inevitable and progressive.” True! But Marxism is not Sturmerism{161}, nor is it a justification or defense of violence against nations; rather, it is a revolutionary struggle for socialism, for the unity of workers of different nations, for their brotherhood.

(4) Against violence in the name of democratic unification of nations. “Freedom to secede” is the highest expression of democracy.

(5) Economic integration benefits from democracy, from freedom to secede (Norway and Sweden; America vs[193] Germany).

II. The Historical Perspective

(6) “The self‑determination of nations is a worn‑out slogan of a bygone era of bourgeois‑democratic revolutions and movements.”

– Imperialism creates national oppression on new foundations. Imperialism renews this old slogan.

(7) The East and the colonies (> 1 billion people worldwide). “New” bourgeois‑democratic national movements.

Colonies, 1876: 314 million.

+ 81%.

1914: 570 million.

III. The Political Perspective

(8) We do not discard bourgeois‑democratic slogans; rather, we carry them forward more consistently, more fully, and with greater resolve.

(9) Not the interests of nations, but the interests of brotherhood and solidarity among workers of different nations.

IV. The Perspective of State Borders

(10) We do not defend existing state borders.

(11) We do not advocate the utopia of small states; we do not everywhere and always demand “the independence of national states”…

(12) We place the interests of the class struggle of workers at the forefront, even in the face of all possible changes in state borders.

(13) The “disintegration” of Russia (of England, of Austria?) = the United States.

V. The Perspective of the International Class Struggle of the Proletariat

(14) The danger—and the inevitability, under capitalism—of national hatred and distrust (à la Axelrod? No!)

(15) The crucial point: the attitude of oppressing nations toward the oppressed.

(16) Class solidarity among workers of different nations is impossible without recognition of the right to secede.

VI. “Practical Feasibility”

(17) “A Utopia!” Norway vs. Sweden.

(18) “An Exception!” (“Backwater.”)

Yes, just like all democratic reforms and transformations.

(19) “Practically = zero.”

No =

(α) freedom to agitate for secession

(β) resolution of the secession question via referendum (2 sections of the constitution).

(20) “What guarantees are there? Only war will decide!”

(Our guarantees lie in educating the working masses in the spirit of international brotherhood.)

VII. The Military Perspective

(21) “The self‑determination of nations = a justification for participation in war.”

There is war, and there is war. We do not “deny” national wars—they remain possible even now.

(22) “If self‑determination, then Holland, Sweden, etc., have the right to defend themselves.” But how can one defend oneself in an imperialist war?

VIII. The Struggle Against Social‑Shovinism

(23) Social‑shovinism is as inevitable a product of imperialism as wireless telegraphy.

The struggle against it is now the very essence of our work.

(24) The struggle against the shovinism of one’s own nation.

(25) The main enemy is great‑power shovinism.

(26) “Recognition of equality” = evasion of the question of state building, of secession, of the outbreak of imperialist war.

(27) We strike the nail on the head only through our own formulation. Only this formula truly hits home and cuts deep into international social‑shovinism.

IX. Comparison with Divorce[194]

(28) Rosa Luxemburg on divorce (vs. autonomy).

(29) Semkovsky’s objection.

(30) His error.

X. The Case of Weil

(31) Social‑shovinists expelled Weil—betraying their own principles.

(32) From our perspective, participation in war is not a sin. But what about agitation within the army? About transforming war into civil war?

(33) The choice of nation. (In which army?)

XI. The Attitude of the Liberal Bourgeoisie

(34) In Russia: we (Kadets) stand for equality, but we never undertook to defend the right to secede from the Russian state.

(35) Karl Kautsky on political self‑determination (“merely cultural and autonomous”…).

XII. The Experience of the RSDLP

(36) The question was raised at the Congress of 1903.

(37) The departure of the R.S.D. and their entry in 1906{162}.

(38) Not once did we officially demand the repeal of § 9.{163}

(39) The “alliance” of opportunists with Rosa in 1914 (the liquidators Semkovsky, Liebmann, Yurkevich, Alexinsky).

XIII. The Example of Marx and Engels

(40) 1848: Germany versus the oppressed nations (“Nachlaß,” III, pp. 109, 113, and 114) [195].

1866: Engels and the First International (Marx) on Poland and Germany.

1869: Marx on Ireland.

(41) The perspective of the interests of the workers of the oppressing nation.

XIV. The “Formula” of the Zimmerwald Left

(42) “Not to uphold the dominance of one nation over another”…

This formula is “the first step toward rapprochement”…[196]

Written in October, before the 15th (28th), 1915.

First published in 1937 in Volume XXX of the Lenin Collection.

Printed from the manuscript.