V. I.

Lenin

The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

APRIL 24–29, 1917

18

Speech on the National Question

April 29 (May 12)

Beginning from 1903, when our Party adopted its programme, we
have been encountering violent opposition on the part of the
Polish comrades. If you study the Minutes of the Second Congress you will see that they were using the same
arguments then that they are using now, and that the Polish
Social-Democrats walked out from that Congress because they held
that recognition of the right of nations to self-determination
was unacceptable to them. Ever since then we have been coming up
against the same question. Though imperialism already existed in
1903, the Polish Social-Democrats made no mention of it in their
arguments. They are making the same strange and monstrous error
now as they were then. These people want to put our Party’s
stand on a par with that of the chauvinists.

Owing to long oppression by Russia, Poland’s policy is a wholly
nationalist one, and the whole Polish nation is obsessed with
one idea—revenge on the Muscovites. No one has oppressed
the Poles more than the Russian people, who served in the hands
of the tsars as the executioner of Polish freedom. In no nation
does hatred of Russia sit so deep as with the Poles; no nation
dislikes Russia so intensely as the Poles. As a result we have a
strange thing. Because of the Polish bourgeoisie, Poland has
become an obstacle to the socialist movement. The whole world
could go to the devil so long as Poland was free. Of course,
this way of putting the question is a mockery of internationalism. Of course, Poland is now a victim of violence,
but for the Polish nationalists to count on Russia liberating
Poland—that would be treason to the International. The
Polish nationalists have so imbued the Polish people with their
views that this is how the situation is regarded in Poland.

The Polish Social-Democratic comrades have rendered a great
historic service by advancing the slogan of internationalism and
declaring that the fraternal union of the proletariat of all
countries is of supreme importance to them and that they will
never go to war for the liberation of Poland. This is to their
credit, and this is why we have always regarded only these
Polish Social-Democrats as socialists. The others are patriots,
Polish Plekhanovs. But this peculiar position, when, in order to
safeguard socialism, people were forced to struggle against a
rabid and morbid nationalism, has produced a strange state of
affairs: comrades come to us saying that we must give up the
idea of Poland’s freedom, her right to secession.

Why should we Great Russians, who have been oppressing more
nations than any other people, deny the right to secession for
Poland, Ukraine, or Finland? We are asked to become chauvinists,
because by doing so we would make the position of
Social-Democrats in Poland less difficult. We do not pretend to
seek to liberate Poland, because the Polish people live between
two states that are capable of fighting. Instead of telling the
Polish workers that only those Social-Democrats are real
democrats who maintain that the Polish people ought to be free,
since there is no place for chauvinists in a socialist party,
the Polish Social-Democrats argue that, just because they find
the union with Russian workers advantageous, they are opposed to
Poland’s secession. They have a perfect right to do so. But
people don’t want to understand that to strengthen internationalism you do not have to repeat the same words. What
you have to do is to stress, in Russia, the freedom of secession
for oppressed nations and, in Poland, their freedom to unite. Freedom to unite implies freedom to secede. We Russians
must emphasise freedom to secede, while the Poles must emphasise
freedom to unite.

We notice here a number of sophisms involving a complete
renunciation of Marxism. Comrade Pyatakov’s stand repeats that
of Rosa Luxemburg .... [1] (Holland is an example.)

This is how Comrade Pyatakov reasons, and this is how he refutes
himself, for in theory he denies freedom of secession, but to
the people he says that anyone opposing freedom of secession is
not a socialist. Comrade Pyatakov has been saying things here
that are hopelessly muddled. In Western Europe most countries
settled their national questions long ago. It is Western Europe
that is referred to when it is said that the national question
has been settled. Comrade Pyatakov, however, puts this where it
does not belong—to Eastern Europe, and we find ourselves in
a ridiculous position.

Just think of the dreadful mess that results! Finland is right next door to us. Comrade Pyatakov has no definite
answer for Finland and gets all mixed up. In yesterday’s
Rabochaya Gazeta you read that the movement for separation is growing in Finland. Finns arriving here tell us
that separatism is growing there because the Cadets refuse to grant the country complete autonomy. A crisis is
approaching there, dissatisfaction with Governor-General Rodichev is rife, but Rabochaya Gazeta writes that
the Finns should wait for the Constituent Assembly , because an agreement will there be reached between
Finland and Russia. What do they mean by agreement? The Finns
must declare that they are entitled to decide their destiny in
their own way, and any Great Russian who denies this right is a
chauvinist. It would be another thing if we said to the Finnish
worker: Decide what is best for yourself.... [2]

Comrade Pyatakov simply rejects our slogan, saying that it means
giving no slogan for the socialist revolution, but he himself
gives no appropriate slogan. The method of socialist revolution
under the slogan “Down with frontiers” is all muddled up. We
have not succeeded in publishing the article in which I called
this view “Imperialist
Economism”. [3]

What does the “method” of socialist revolution under the slogan “Down with frontiers” mean? We
maintain that the state is necessary, and a state presupposes
frontiers. The state, of course, may hold a bourgeois government, but we need the Soviets .
But even Soviets are confronted with the question of frontiers. What does “Down with frontiers” mean? It is the
beginning of anarchy.... The “method” of socialist revolution
under the slogan “Down with frontiers” is simply a mess. When
the time is ripe for socialist revolution, when it finally
occurs, it will spread to other countries. We shall help it
along, but in what manner, we do not know. “The method of
socialist revolution” is just a meaningless phrase. We stand for
the settlement of problems which the bourgeois revolution has
left unsolved. Our attitude to the separatist movement is
indifferent, neutral. If Finland, Poland or Ukraine secede from
Russia, there is nothing bad in that. What is wrong with it?
Anyone who says that is a chauvinist. One must be mad to
continue Tsar Nicholas’s policy. Didn’t Norway secede from
Sweden? Alexander I and Napoleon once bartered nations, the
tsars once traded Poland. Are we to continue this policy of the
tsars? This is repudiation of the tactics of internationalism,
this is chauvinism at its worst. What is wrong with Finland
seceding? After the secession of Norway from Sweden mutual trust
increased between the two peoples, between the proletariat of
these countries. The Swedish landowners wanted to start a war,
but the Swedish workers refused to be drawn into such a war.

All the Finns want now is autonomy. We are for Finland receiving
complete freedom, because then there will be greater trust in
Russian democracy and the Finns will not separate. While
Mr. Rodichev goes to Finland to haggle over autonomy, our
Finnish comrades come here and say, “We want autonomy.” But what
they get is a broadside, and the answer: “Wait for the
Constituent Assembly.” But we say: “Any Russian socialist who
denies Finland freedom is a chauvinist.”

We say that frontiers are determined by the will of the [local] population. Russia, don’t you dare
fight over Kurland !
Germany, get your armies out of Kurland! That is how we solve
the secession problem. The proletariat cannot use force, because
it must not prevent the peoples from obtaining their freedom. Only when the socialist revolution has become a
reality, and not a method, will the slogan “Down with frontiers”
be a correct slogan. Then we shall say: Comrades, come to us....

War is a different matter entirely. If need be, we shall not draw
the line at a revolutionary war. We are not pacifists....

When we have Milyukov sitting here and sending Rodichev to Finland to shamefully
haggle with the Finnish people,we say to the Russian people:
Don’t you dare coerce Finland; no nation can be free that
oppresses other nations. [4] In the resolution concerning Borgbjerg we say: Withdraw your troops and let the
nation settle the question itself. But, if the Soviet takes over
power tomorrow, that will not be a “method of socialist
revolution”, and we shall then say: Germany, get your troops out
of Poland, and Russia, get your troops out of Armenia. If we did
otherwise we should be deceiving people.

Comrade Dzerzhinsky tells us that in his oppressed Poland everybody is a
chauvinist. But not a single Pole has said a word about Finland
or Ukraine. We have been arguing over this so much since 1903
that it is becoming difficult to talk about it. Do as you
please.... Anyone who does not accept this point of view is an
annexationist and a chauvinist. We are for a fraternal union of
all nations. If there is a Ukrainian republic and a Russian
republic, there will be closer contact and greater trust between
the two. If the Ukrainians see that we have a Soviet republic,
they will not secede, but if we have a Milyukov republic, they
will. When Comrade Pyatakov said in self-contradiction that he
is against the forcible retention of nations within the
frontiers, he actually recognised the right of nations to
self-determination. We certainly do not want the peasant in Khiva
to live under the Khan of Khiva. By developing our revolution we
shall influence the oppressed people. Propaganda among the
oppressed mass must follow only this line.

Any Russian socialist who does not recognise Finland’s and
Ukraine’s right to freedom will degenerate into a chauvinist. And no sophisms or references to his “method” will
ever help him to justify himself.

| A brief report published May 15 (2), 1917 in Pravda No. 46 | Published according to the typewritten copy of the Minutes |

---
Notes:
[1]
A gap in the minutes.— Ed .

[2]
A gap in the minutes.— Ed .

[3]
See present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 28–76.— Ed .

[4]
See Engels, “Flüchtlings-Literatur. 1. Eine polnische Proklamation”. Der Volksstaat , Nr. 69, 17. VI. 1874.