The demand for the self-determination of nations played, contrary to the erroneous assertion of Polish Social-Democrats, no lesser role in our party's agitation than, for example, the arming of the people, the separation of church from the state, the election of officials by the people, and other so-called "utopian" points in the eyes of philistines. On the contrary, the revival of national movements after 1905 naturally called forth a revival of our agitation as well: a series of articles in 1912–1913, a resolution of our party in 1913 that gave a precise and "anti-Kautskyist" (i.e., uncompromising with respect to purely verbal "recognition") definition of the crux of the matter[16].

Already at that time there came to light a fact which it is impossible to overlook: opportunists of different nations—the Ukrainian Yurkevich, the Bundist Libman, the Russian lackey of Potresov and Co.—Semkovsky—came out with the arguments of Rosa Luxemburg against self-determination! That which was merely an incorrect theoretical generalization of the particular conditions of the movement in Poland in the case of the Polish Social-Democrat, proved itself at once in practice, in a broader setting, in the conditions not of a small state but of a large one, on an international scale rather than a narrow Polish one, proved itself to be objectively an opportunistic support for Great Russian imperialism. The history of currents of political thought (in contrast to the views of individual persons) confirmed the correctness of our programme.

And now frank social-imperialists, like Lensch, directly rebel both against self-determination and against the rejection of annexations. But the Kautskyists hypocritically recognize self-determination—in Russia Trotsky and Martov follow this path. Both on paper are for self-determination, like Kautsky. But in practice? In Trotsky—take his articles "Nation and Economy" in *Our Word*—we see his usual eclecticism: on the one hand, economy fuses nations; on the other hand, national oppression divides them. The conclusion? The conclusion is that the reigning hypocrisy remains unexposed, agitation remains lifeless, failing to touch the main, the fundamental, the essential, that which is close to practice: the relationship to the nation oppressed by "my" nation. Martov and other emigrant secretaries preferred simply to forget—a convenient forgetfulness!—the struggle of their colleague and comrade Semkovsky against self-determination. In the legal press of the Gvozdev group (*Our Voice*{31}), Martov wrote in favour of self-determination, proving the indisputable truth that in an imperialist war it still does not obligate participation, etc., but passing over the main point—and he passes over this even in the illegal, free press!—namely, that Russia even in times of peace has beaten the world record in the oppression of nations on the basis of imperialism of a far more crude, medieval, economically backward, military-bureaucratic character. A Russian Social-Democrat who "recognizes" the self-determination of nations approximately in the way that Messrs. Plekhanov, Potresov and Co. recognize it, i.e., without fighting for the freedom of separation of the nations oppressed by tsarism, is in fact an imperialist and a lackey of tsarism.

Whatever the subjective "good" intentions of Trotsky and Martov may be, objectively their evasiveness supports Russian social-imperialism. The imperialist epoch has transformed all the "great" powers into oppressors of a number of nations, and the development of imperialism will inevitably lead to a more distinct division of currents on this question in international Social-Democracy as well.

Written in July 1916

Published in October 1916 in *Collection of "Social-Democrat"* No. 1
Signature: N. Lenin

Printed according to the text of the *Collection*