# The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

The article "Das revolutionäre Proletariat und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Nationen" ("The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination") was written by Lenin at the end of 1915, probably in November, in German.
This article is directed against Parabellum's (K. Radek's) article "Annexionen und Socialdemokratie" ("Annexations and Social Democracy"), published in the Swiss Social-Democratic newspaper "Berner Tagwacht," Nos. 252 and 253 of October 28 and 29, 1915.
In addition to the manuscript of the article, a Russian translation of it, written in P. K. Krupskaya's handwriting with corrections by Lenin, has also been preserved.
On the last sheet of the manuscript and translation, Vladimir Ilyich wrote: "To the archive. Old article on self-determination against Radek." In addition, on the reverse side of the last sheet of the translation, there are excerpts from newspapers made by him that are not related to this article.

DAS REVOLUTIONÄRE PROLETARIAT UND DAS SELBSTBESTIMMUNGSRECHT DER NATIONEN.
Das Zimmerwalder Manifest, sowie auch die Mehrheit der Programme oder der taktischen Resolutionen der sozialdemokratischen Parteien, proklamiert das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Nationen. Genosse Parabellum erklärt in den Nr. 252—3 der «Berner Tagwacht» [für «illusorisch»] «den Kampf um das nicht existierende Selbstbestimmungsrecht» [der] für illusorisch und stellt demselben den «revolutionären Massenkampf des Proletariats gegen den Kapitalismus» entgegen, indem er versichert, dass «wir gegen die Annexionen» seien (diese Versicherung ist fünf Mal im Artikel des Genossen Parabellum wiederholt worden) sowie auch gegen alle «nationale Gewaltakte».
Die Motivierung des Standpunktes [der Stellungnahme] des Genossen Parabellum reduziert sich darauf, dass jetzt alle nationalen Fragen, die elsäss-lothringische, die armenische u. s. w. die des Imperialismus seien; dass das Kapital über die Rahmen der nationalen Staaten gewachsen sei; dass «das Rad der Geschichte zurück-schieben» zu dem überlebten Ideal des Nationalstaates unmöglich sei u. s. w.
Wollen wir sehen, ob die Ausführungen des Genossen Parabellum richtig sind.
Erstens, es ist eben der Genosse Parabellum, der rückwärts und nicht vorwärts schaut, wenn er, seinen Feldzug gegen die [Übernahme] Annahme durch die Arbeiterklasse «des Ideals des Nationalstaates» öffnend, seine Blicke auf England, Frankreich, Deutschland, Italien richtet, dass heisst auf Länder, wo die nationalbefreiende Bewegung in der Vergangenheit liegt, und nicht auf den Osten, Asien, Afrika, Kolonien, wo diese Bewegung nicht in der Vergangenheit, sondern in der Gegenwart und in der Zukunft liegt. Es genügt Indien, China, Persien, Ägypten zu nennen.

THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION.
The Zimmerwald Manifesto 1), like the majority of programs or tactical resolutions of Social-Democratic parties, proclaims the "right of nations to self-determination." Comrade Parabellum, in Nos. 252-3 of the Berner Tagwacht 2), declares the "struggle for a non-existent right to self-determination" to be "illusory" and opposes to it the "revolutionary mass struggle of the proletariat against capitalism," while assuring that "we are against annexations" (this statement is repeated five times in the article by Comrade Parabellum) and against any violence against nations.
The motivation for Comrade Parabellum's position boils down to the fact that now all national questions, the Alsace-Lorraine, the Armenian, and others, are questions of imperialism – that capital has outgrown the framework of national states – that it is impossible to "turn the wheel of history back" to the obsolete ideal of national states, etc.
Let's see if Comrade Parabellum's reasoning is correct.
Firstly, it is precisely Comrade Parabellum who looks backward, not forward, when, embarking on a campaign against the working class's adoption of "the ideal of the national state," he turns his gaze to England, France, Italy, Germany, i.e., to countries where the national liberation movement lies in the past, and not to the East, Asia, Africa, the colonies, where this movement lies in the present and future. It suffices to name India, China, Persia, Egypt.

Weiter. Der Imperialismus bedeutet, dass das Kapital aus dem Rahmen des Nationalstaates herausgewachsen ist, er bedeutet die Erweiterung und die Zuspitzung des nationalen Druckes auf einer neuen, historischen Basis. Daraus folgt, im Gegensatz zu dem Genossen Parabellum, eben, dass wir den revolutionären Kampf für den Sozialismus mit einem revolutionären Programm in der nationalen Frage verbinden müssen.
Bei dem Genossen Parabellum [(in den Ausführungen des Genossen Parabellum)] kommt es so heraus, dass er im Namen der sozialistischen Revolution das konsequent revolutionäre Programm auf dem Gebiet der Demokratie mit [Verachtung] Geringschätzung wegwirft. Das ist nicht richtig. Das Proletariat kann nicht anders siegen als durch die Demokratie, dassheisst indem es die Demokratie vollständig [uneingeschränkt] verwirklicht, indem es mit jedem Schritt seiner Bewegung die demokratischen Forderungen in ihrer entschiedensten Formulierung verbindet. Es ist Unsinn, die sozialistische Revolution und den revolutionären Kampf gegen den Kapitalismus einer der Fragen der Demokratie, in unserem Falle der nationalen Frage entgegenzustellen. Wir müssen vielmehr den revolutionären Kampf gegen den Kapitalismus mit dem revolutionären Programm und mit der revolutionären Taktik in Bezug auf alle demokratischen Forderungen verbinden: die Forderungen der Republik, der Miliz, der Wahl der Beamten durch das Volk, der gleichen Rechte für Frauen, der Selbstbestimmung der Nationen u. s. w. 
Solange bis der Kapitalismus fortbesteht, sind all diese Forderungen nur ausnahmsweise und dazu nicht vollständig, nur verstümmelt verwirklichbar. Indem wir uns auf die schon verwirklichte Demokratie stützen, indem wir die Unvollständigkeit derselben unter dem Kapitalismus [denunzieren] entlarven, fordern wir die Niederwerfung des Kapitalismus, die Expropriation der Bourgeoisie, als eine notwendige Basis [nicht] für die Abschaffung des Massenelends sowie auch für die volle und allseitige Durchführung aller demokratischen Umgestaltungen [(Umbildungen, Reorganisationen)]. Einige von diesen Maßnahmen werden begonnen werden vor der Niederwerfung der Bourgeoisie, die anderen im Gange dieser Niederwerfung, wieder andere nach derselben. Die sozialistische Revolution ist keineswegs eine einzige Schlacht, sondern im Gegenteil eine Epoche, bestehend aus einer ganzen Reihe von Schlachten um alle Fragen der ökonomischen und politischen Reorganisationen, welche nur durch die Expropriation der Bourgeoisie vollendet werden können. Eben

Further. Imperialism means that capital has outgrown the framework of the national state; it means the expansion and intensification of national oppression on a new historical basis. From this it follows, in contrast to Comrade Parabellum, precisely that we must combine the revolutionary struggle for socialism with a revolutionary program on the national question.
With Comrade Parabellum [(in the arguments of Comrade Parabellum)] it turns out that, in the name of the socialist revolution, he throws away the consistently revolutionary program in the field of democracy with [contempt] disdain. This is not correct. The proletariat can only win through democracy, i.e., by fully realizing democracy, by combining democratic demands in their most decisive formulation with every step of its movement. It is nonsense to oppose the socialist revolution and the revolutionary struggle against capitalism to one of the questions of democracy, in our case the national question. Rather, we must combine the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with the revolutionary program and with the revolutionary tactics in relation to all democratic demands: the demands of the republic, the militia, the election of officials by the people, equal rights for women, the self-determination of nations, etc.
Until capitalism persists, all these demands can only be realized exceptionally, and moreover, not completely, only mutilated. By relying on the democracy already realized, by [denouncing] exposing its incompleteness under capitalism, we demand the overthrow of capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, as a necessary basis [not] for the abolition of mass misery as well as for the full and all-round implementation of all democratic transformations [(transformations, reorganizations)]. Some of these measures will be started before the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, others in the course of this overthrow, still others after it. The socialist revolution is by no means a single battle, but on the contrary, an epoch consisting of a whole series of battles for all questions of economic and political reorganizations, which can only be completed by the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. Precisely.

REV. PROLETARIAT AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION

Further. Imperialism means capital overflowing the bounds of national states, it means the expansion and exacerbation of national oppression on a new historical basis. Hence it follows, contrary to Comrade Parbellum, precisely that we must link the revolutionary struggle for socialism with a revolutionary program on the national question.
Comrade Parbellum presents the matter as if, in the name of the socialist revolution, he dismisses with disdain a consistently revolutionary program in the democratic sphere. This is incorrect. The proletariat cannot triumph otherwise than through democracy, i.e., by implementing democracy fully and linking with each step in its struggle democratic demands in their most resolute formulation. It is absurd to counterpose the socialist revolution and the revolutionary struggle against capitalism to one of the questions of democracy, in this case the national question. We must combine the revolutionary struggle against capitalism with a revolutionary program and tactics in relation to all democratic demands: for a republic, and for a militia, and for the election of officials by the people, and for equality of women *), and for self-determination of nations, and so on. As long as capitalism exists, all these demands are realizable only as an exception and, moreover, in an incomplete, distorted form. Relying on the already realized democratism, exposing its incompleteness under capitalism, we demand the overthrow of capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, as a necessary basis for the elimination of the poverty of the masses and for the full and comprehensive implementation of all democratic transformations. Some of these transformations will be started before the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, others in the course of this overthrow, others after it. The social revolution is not one battle, but an epoch of a whole series of battles on all and every question of economic and democratic transformations, completed only by the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. Precisely in the name of this ultimate goal, we must give a consistently revolutionary formulation of each of our democratic demands. It is quite conceivable that the workers of some particular country will overthrow the bourgeoisie before even one fundamental democratic transformation is fully realized. But it is completely inconceivable that the proletariat, as a historical class, could [overthrow] triumph *) over the bourgeoisie, if it is not prepared for this by education in the spirit of the most consistent and revolutionary-resolute democratism.
Imperialism is the progressive oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of great powers, is an epoch of wars between them for the expansion and strengthening of oppression over nations, an epoch of deceiving the popular masses by hypocritical social-patriots, i.e., people who, under the pretext of "freedom of nations," "the right of nations to self-determination" **) and "defense of the fatherland," justify and defend the oppression of the majority of the nations of the world by the great powers.
Therefore, in the program of the Social-Democrats, the central place must be precisely that division of nations into oppressing and oppressed, which constitutes the essence of imperialism and which the social-chauvinists and Kautsky falsely circumvent. This division is not essential from the point of view of bourgeois pacifism or the petty-bourgeois utopia of peaceful competition of independent nations under capitalism, but it is precisely essential from the point of view of the revolutionary struggle against imperialism. And from this division must follow our, consistently democratic, revolutionary, and corresponding to the general task of the immediate struggle for socialism, definition of the "right of nations to self-determination." In the name of this right, defending its non-hypocritical recognition, the Social-Democrats of oppressing nations must demand freedom of secession for oppressed nations,— for otherwise the recognition of equality ***) of nations and international solidarity of workers would in fact ***) be only an empty word, only hypocrisy ****). And the Social-Democrats of oppressed nations must place at the forefront the unity and fusion of the workers of oppressed nations with the workers of oppressing nations,— for otherwise these Social-Democrats will involuntarily find themselves allies of one or another national bourgeoisie, always betraying the interests of the people and democracy, always ready, in turn, for annexations and for the oppression of other nations.
A instructive example is the posing of the national question in the late 60s of the last century. Petty-bourgeois democrats, alien to any thought of class struggle and socialist revolution, imagined a utopia of peaceful competition of free and equal nations under capitalism. The Proudhonists completely "denied" the national question and the right of nations to self-determination, from the point of view of the immediate tasks of the social revolution. Marx ridiculed French Proudhonism, showing its kinship with French chauvinism ("all of Europe can and must sit quietly and calmly on its ass, while gentlemen in France abolish poverty"... "under the denial of nationalities, they, without even realizing it, seem to understand their absorption by the exemplary French nation") 3). Marx demanded the secession of Ireland from England,— "even if after the separation the matter should come to a federation"— and demanded it not from the point of view of the petty-bourgeois utopia of peaceful capitalism, not out of "justice to Ireland," but from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of the oppressing, i.e., English nation against capitalism. The freedom of this nation was constrained and disfigured by the fact that it oppressed another nation. The internationalism of the English proletariat would remain a hypocritical phrase if it did not demand the secession of Ireland. Never being a supporter either of small states or of state fragmentation in general, or of the principle of federation, Marx considered the secession of an oppressed nation as a step towards federation and, consequently, not towards fragmentation, but towards concentration, both political and economic, but towards concentration on the basis of democratism. From the point of view of Comrade Parbellum, Marx was probably waging an "illusory struggle" *), when he put forward this demand for the secession of Ireland. But in fact, only such a demand was a consistently revolutionary program, only it corresponded to internationalism, only it defended concentration not in an imperialist way.
The imperialism of our day has led to the fact that the oppression of nations by the great powers has become a common phenomenon. It is precisely the point of view of the struggle against the social-chauvinism of the great-power nations, who are now waging an imperialist war in order to strengthen the oppression over nations and who oppress the majority of the nations of the world and the majority of the earth's population, it is precisely this point of view that must be decisive, main, basic in the national program of the Social-Democrats.
Look at the current trends of Social-Democratic thought on this issue. The petty-bourgeois utopians, dreaming of equality and peace of nations under capitalism, have given way to social-imperialists. While fighting the former, Comrade Parbellum is fighting windmills, unwittingly playing into the hands of the latter. What is the program of the social-chauvinists on the national question?
Either they deny the right to self-determination altogether, giving arguments of the Parbellum type (Kuno, Parvus, Russian opportunists: Semkovsky, Libman, etc.) 4). Or they recognize this right in an obviously hypocritical manner, namely, not applying it precisely to those nations that are oppressed by their own nation or by a military ally of their own nation (Plekhanov, Hyndman, all Francophile patriots, then Scheidemann, etc., etc.). The most plausible, and therefore the most dangerous for the proletariat, formulation of the social-chauvinist lie is given by Kautsky. In words, he is for the self-determination of nations, in words, he is for the Social-Democratic party to "die Selbständigkeit der Nationen allseitig(!!) und rückhaltlos achtete und forcierte" (Neue Zeit, 33, II, S. 241; 21. IV. 1915). In reality, however, he adapts the national program to the dominant social-chauvinism, distorts and curtails it, does not precisely define the duties of the socialists of oppressing nations, and even directly falsifies the democratic principle, saying that to demand "staatliche Selbständigkeit" for every nation would mean demanding "zu viel" (Neue Zeit 33, II, S. 77; 16. IV 1915). In his opinion, "nationaler Autonomie" is enough!! Kautsky circumvents precisely that main question that the imperialist bourgeoisie does not allow to be touched—the question of the borders of the state, built on the oppression of nations, throwing out of the program the very essence in order to please this bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie is ready to promise any "equality of nations" and any "national autonomy," if only the proletariat remains within the bounds of legality and "peacefully" submits to it on the question of the borders of the state! Kautsky formulates the national program of the Social-Democrats reformistically, not revolutionarily.
The national program of Comrade Parbellum, or rather his assurances that "we are against annexations," the Parteivorstand **), Kautsky, Plekhanov and Co. sign with both hands, precisely because this program does not expose the dominant social-patriots. Bourgeois-pacifists will also sign this program. Parbellum's excellent general program ("revolutionary mass struggle against capitalism") serves him,—as it did the Proudhonists in the 60s—not to develop in accordance with it, in its spirit, an irreconcilable, equally revolutionary program on the national question, but to clear the field here before the social-patriots. The majority of socialists in the world in our imperialist epoch belong to nations that oppress other nations and seek to expand this oppression. Therefore, our "struggle against annexations" will remain meaningless, not at all frightening to the social-patriots, if we do not declare: that socialist of an oppressing nation who does not conduct propaganda for the freedom of secession of oppressed nations both during peace and during war, is not a socialist and not an internationalist, but a chauvinist! That socialist of an oppressing nation who does not conduct this propaganda despite the prohibitions of governments, i.e., in a free, i.e., in an illegal press, remains a hypocritical supporter of equality of nations!
About Russia, which has not yet completed its bourgeois-democratic revolution, Comrade Parbellum said one single phrase:
"Selbst das wirtschaftlich sehr zurückgebliebene Russland hat in der Haltung der polnischen, lettischen, armenischen Bourgeoisie gezeigt, dass nicht nur die militärische Bewachung es ist, die die Völker in diesem «Zuchthaus der Völker» zusammenhält, sondern Bedürfnisse der kapitalistischen Expansion, für die das ungeheure Territorium ein glänzender Boden der Entwicklung ist."
This is not a "Social-Democratic point of view," but a liberal-bourgeois, not an internationalist, but a Great-Russian-chauvinist one. Apparently, Comrade Parbellum is very little familiar with this last chauvinism, so excellently fighting against German social-patriots! In order to make a Social-Democratic position and Social-Democratic conclusions out of this phrase of Comrade Parbellum, it must be rendered and supplemented as follows:
Russia is a prison of peoples not only by virtue of the military-feudal character of Tsarism, not only because the Great-Russian bourgeoisie supports Tsarism, but also because the Polish bourgeoisie, etc., sacrificed the freedom of nations to the interests of capitalist expansion, as well as democratism in general. The proletariat of Russia can neither lead the people to a victorious democratic revolution (this is its immediate task), nor fight together with its brothers—the proletarians of Europe—for the socialist revolution, without demanding already now, fully and "rückhaltlos" *), the freedom of secession of all nations oppressed by Tsarism from Russia. We demand this not independently of our revolutionary struggle for socialism, but because this last struggle will remain an empty word if it is not inextricably linked with a revolutionary posing of all democratic questions, including the national one. We demand freedom of self-determination, i.e., independence, i.e., freedom of secession of oppressed nations not because we dream of economic fragmentation or of the ideal of small states, but on the contrary because we want large states and rapprochement, even fusion **) of nations, but on a truly democratic, truly internationalist basis, unthinkable without freedom of secession. Just as Marx in 1869 demanded the secession of Ireland not for fragmentation, but for the further free union of Ireland with England, not out of "justice to Ireland," but for the sake of the interest of the revolutionary struggle of the English proletariat, so we consider the refusal of the socialists of Russia to demand freedom of self-determination of nations, in the sense indicated by us, as a direct betrayal of democracy, internationalism and socialism.

N. Lenin.

* — contain your laughter, friends!
** — Central Committee of the German Social-Democratic Party.