Lenin: Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Mon Jan 1, 0001
  1. Meaning: Political independence as state.
  2. History: RSDLP program reflect that Russias unique case.
  3. Russia’s late capitalism: Finns, Swedes, Poles, Ukrainians nationalism spilling into Russia.
  4. Practical means bourgeois: Bourgeoise demand stand on “their” (undemocratic) nationalism.
  5. Liberals: Kadets afraid of secession ⇒ cultural self-determ., not their own state.
  6. Norway secession from Sweden: A bourgeoise chose monarchy. S workers fought S aristocracy. N workers saw friendship. N workers must propagandise.
  7. 2nd Int. London resolution: Marx’ ~1850 support of Polish aristocracy revolution obsolete. Now: As London res. says: “Right to self.determ. for all nations. Equal! right. By 1900: Democratic movements abound.”
  8. Marx’ and Engels’ stance: English working class suffers until Ireland free.
  9. The 1903 programme: Secession always a tenet. Polish delegates suggested §9 changes. Rejected.
  10. Conclusion: Acknowledge Russian peasants’ thoughts on nationalism to avoid liberal nationalism. Reject liquidationists.

RSDLP Program: https://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/rsdlp/1903/program.htm

Vladimir Lenin’s articles: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm#ch01

Rosa Luxemburg’s articles: https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm

1. What is meant by the self-determination of nations?

Delt with in Russian Programme (1903), London International Congress (1896)

Quotes Kautzsky “Nationality and Internationality”.

Capitalism needs a one-language unified market ⇒ The nation state Size irrelevant. Russia depends on rich western states. America was subordinated Europe.

Asia

  • Rosa mentions Kautsky: Lenin counters her position (apparently a realist position: Small nations have only illusory independence). But Kautsky qua Marxist knows this. Kautsky discusses indepencence as nations, not economical.
  • Rosa mentions Asia: Lenin argues that imperial Japan pressures other people into nationalism.
  • Kautsky: Multinational state is obsolete.

Quotes:

self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state.

Unity and unimpeded development of language are the most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commerce on a scale commensurate with modern capitalism

2. The historically concrete presentation of the question

Capitalism 1st period:

During transition from feudalism/absolutism to bourgeois democratic states

Features: National movements, the slow peasants also mobilized.
Capitalism 2nd period:

Fully capitalist states.

Constitution long established.
Features: No bourgeois movements. Conflict between international capital and international working-class.

Muddy transition between the two.

  • Rosa on §9 of the RSDLP program: Metaphysical / idealistic language. Lenin counters that just like Marx, Engels, Lasalle, they analyse that Russia in the early 20th century, they also approach materialistically.

3. The concrete features of the national question in russia, and russia’s bourgeois-democratic reformation

Eastern Europe, Asia:

  • National movements started ~1905
  • Events: Russia, Persia, Turkey, China, Balkan Wars.
  • Ongoing bourgeois agrarian reforms.

West:

  • National movements flourished 1789 ~ 1871.
  • Agrarian reforms already made

Austria. Rosa says Social-Democ. programme contains no “right to self-det.”. Lenin:

  • Their bourgeois-democ. revol.: 1848-1867 ⇒ bourgeois constition and a legal worker’s party.
  • Russia can split up into many smaller nationalities.
  • Austria contains Hungarians, Slavs. If they split from Austria, they will likely be swallowed by Prussia. So they work against nationalist breakup.

Russia:

  1. 57% are “Great Russians”. They inhabit the border regions.
  2. Oppression inside Russia much stronger than in bordering countries.
  3. Finnishs, Swedishs, Polishs, Ukraininans, Rumanians split inside and outside the border. On the outside, they have more freedom.
  4. Culture and capitalism more developed in non-Russian border regions.
  5. Nationalism starts amongst border people outside Russia, then spreads in.

It is precisely and solely because Russia and the neighbouring countries are passing through this period that we must have a clause in our programme on the right of nations to self-determination.

4. “Practicality” in the national question

Rosa complains that §9 is not practical. Lenin examines three meanings of practicality of right to self-determination.

(Version 1) support for all national aspirations

  • Bourgeoise (B) are always leaders of national endeavours.

  • Working class (WC) supports nationalism but not the bourgeoisie.

  • B’s support is practical. WC’s support is in principle only.

  • B’s aim is selfish: Get advantages for their nation. WC opposes privileges. Thus only supports pure nationality, no privileges.

The working class supports the bourgeoisie only in order to secure national peace (which the bourgeoisie cannot bring about completely and which can be achieved only with complete democracy)

(Version 2) demand a ‘yes’ or ’no’ on the matter of secession.

  • B’s gambit: Exploit nationalism as a device to gain advantages. Demand a yes/no answer to push WC’s agenda in the background.
  • WC: Only support the right to self-determination, in principle.
  • Nationalism has a purely democratic aim, not a selfish aim.
  • Proletariat (P) against nationality, against privilege. B will see them as unpractical and demand a ‘yes’ in a few cases where B stands to gain.
  • When B’s goal (stripped of selfish aims) gains the WC, the P supports secession.

(Version 3) in general: National demands must be practical.

  • Rosa should not just go 180 degree against B. Then she supports the feudal lords.
  • Russian nationalism is feudal more than bourgeois. Opposition to B nationalism = support for Black Hundreds and absolutists.
  • Great-Russian Black Hundreds fosters prejudice against subjugated people.
  • Great-Russian B tolerates them.

We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.

5. The liberal bourgeoisie and the socialist opportunists in the national question

Given oppressor nation ON, suppressed nation SN, individual X:

Rosa says:

  • If X recognises r.t.self.det ⇒ X supports B-nationalism of SN
  • If X takes §9 to mean combating violence ⇒ no need for special program

Lenin says:

  • X not recognise r.t.self.det ⇒ X supports B-nationalism of ON
  • Rosa evades question: National equality ⇒ r.t.self.det ?

Analysing classes

  • Feudal landlords + bureaucracy:
    • Serfdom style: Autocracy, orthodoxy, essence of Great-Russians (excluding e.g. Ukrainians/language)
    • Rejects r.t.self.det, eq.of.nations.
    • In Duma: Octobrists and the Rights
    • “Autocracy, orthodoxy, and national essence”
  • Liberal bourgeoisie:
    • Kadets:
      • Only cultural self-determination.
      • No right to secede.
      • Political self-determination is an “elastic” concept.

A controversy:

  • Dontsov (national-socialist Ukrainian) lauds the notion of a free Ukraine at an Ivan Franko (UA. Writer) celebration.

  • Mogilyansky, in the Kadet’s paper Rech, attacks the idea of UA seceding.

  • Rabochaya Pravda counter attacks that the principle of r.t.self.det is good.

  • Mogilyansky replies: Can criticise Dontsov without criticising r.t.self.det.

  • Proletarskaya Pravda asks Mogilyansky.

  • Rech replies:

    1. §11 of Kadets’s prog.: Cultural self.det only.
    2. Self-det. ≠ secession.
    3. Cadets don’t pledge right to secede.

  • Cadets share viewpoint with Black Hundreds on the issue.

  • Democratic movements of Eastern Europe and Asia will leave the feudal power system intact.

Another controversy:

  • Reference to Kadet conference 1914. Two deputies from Kiev advocated independence for Ukraine. F. F. Kokoshkin wanted self-determination “elastic formulas” to be handled carefully.

  • Kokoshkin: R.t.secede ⇒ increased danger of disintegration

  • Lenin: R.t.secede ⇒ decreased danger of disintegration

  • Nationalities don’t secede because they have a right.

    • Big markets etc. makes non-secession a good idea.
    • Unless being harassed.

  • Cadets are really lackeys of Great-Russian B.

  • Sell-out marxists (e.g. liquidator Semkovsky, the Bundist Liebman, the Ukrainian petty-bourgeois Yurkevich) corrupting WC

Divorce:

  • Rosa Luxemburg: The (central) state should retain jurisdiction over divorce matters.
    • (Otherwise it could mean “the disintegration of the family” - Lenin’s paraphrase)
  • Democrats: Kadets and Rosa L defends police and oppresses women.

Working class objectives:

  • Solidarity with workers in all nations.
  • Resist nationalist policy of liberals.
  • Don’t accept all demands of B of SN, even though suppressed.
  • Don’t ignore demands of B of SN. They have a right to secede.
  • WC indifferent to exploitation by B in ON or SN.
  • Capitalism develops toward the catastrophe no matter what.

autocracy, orthodoxy, and the national essence—the last term applying only to the Great-Russian nation. Even the Ukrainians are declared to be an “alien” people and their very language is being suppressed.

It remains unexplained why Russia cannot try to “strengthen” her ties with the Ukrainians through the same method that the Savenkos blame Austria for using, i.e., by granting the Ukrainians freedom to use their own language, self-government and an autonomous Diet.

Just as in bourgeois society the defenders of privilege and corruption, on which bourgeois marriage rests, oppose freedom of divorce, so, in the capitalist state, repudiation of the right to self-determination, i. e., the right of nations to secede, means nothing more than defence of the privileges of the dominant nation and police methods of administration, to the detriment of democratic methods.

6. Norway’s secession from Sweden

Rosa Luxemburg on the 1905 separation of Norway from Sweden:

  • N just became another monarchy. A republic was down-voted. They wanted their own king.
  • The N-S federation was thus shown to be in the interests of the monarchs.

Lenin: Focus on history.

  • N and S language are close, like Russian and some Slav languages.
  • N was ceded to S by monarchs during Napoleonic wars.
  • S brought troops to N to suppress rebellion.

Lenin: Theory must prevail:

  • N workers would prefer republic.
  • N workers forced to fight S aristocracy, thus get in line with N Soc.Dem. party.
  • Educate workers to propagandise to avoid cases like N-S secession.
  • S workers fought S aristocracy, thus N workers witnessed the fraternity.
  • S aristocracy may have scared S workers to think like the case with Ukraine: “Danger of disintegration of state”, etc.

Side note: Lenin extols the Polish Soc.Dem. party: First Marxist party in nationalistic Poland.

[Verbal insults directed at the “Fracy”, the nationalist and revolutionary section of Polish Socialist Party and the Cracow newspaper Naprzod omitted]

7. The resolution of the London International Congress, 1896

(“Fracy” = Polish Socialist Party, Democrats = Polish Social-Democrats)

  • Resolution reads:

    • Full right to self determination.
    • Workers to unite against capitalism.

  • Congress debates on Poland’s independence - relevant / in program of 2nd Int.:

    • “Fracy”/Haecker: Yes. Include in program.
    • Rosa: No, Democrats should not pursue.
    • Kautzsky: Not in program yet. Democrats can pursue it, though.

  • Historical perspective:

    • 1840-1860 - Bourgeois revolutions and peasant reforms, but no revolutionary democratic movement in East Europe and Asia.
    • Marx, Engels: Then support the bourgeois liberation movements. Lenin agrees this decision was right back then.
    • 1900-onward - Plenty of democratic or even proletarian movements. No aristocratic Poland anymore.
    • Lenin Democrats attacks nationalism of Fracy is correct. Not 1840 anymore.

  • Modern perspective:

    • Bourgeois-democratic reform not over in Eastern Europa and Asia.
    • Proletarians must fight for each others’ right to secede.
    • Proletarians must fight for equal rights for all countries.
    • Then they are in opposition to opportunistic capitalists.

8. The utopian Karl Marx and the practical Rosa Luxemburg

  • Marx was testing socialists of oppressor nations: Would they support socialists in oppressed nations?

  • Marx, Engels supported Poland (when later Polish “whites” were seething).

    • But Engels denounced privately Polish gentry as progressive force:

      And one cannot point to a single instance in which Poland has successfully represented progress, even in relation to Russia, or done anything at all of historical importance.

  • Marx, 1864: »denounced Russia, not the minores gentium«.

  • Marx, 1866: Criticises Proudhonism’s anti-nationalistic stance.

  • Marx says about Ireland:

    1. Needs self-government and independence from England
    2. Needs an agrarian revolution
    3. Repression of Ireland has been a misfortune.

  • Marx, 1869: Socialist success better way to end nationalism than anti-nation talk.

  • Marx denounces W.E.Gladstone’s rejection of amnesty to Irish patriots.

  • Marx, 1869: English working class will never accomplish anything until Ireland becomes independent. Suppression of Ireland is ingrained in English history and affects W.C.

  • Marx first thought Ireland would be freed by English W.C until it turned to liberal views. Then the only revolutionary force was Irish bourgeoisie.

  • Reaction in England is strengthened and fostered by the enslavement of Ireland.

Theory:

  • If English capitalism overthrown => No need for Irish bourgeoisie secession movement.
  • Marx advised English workers to support B. liberation movement.

Footnote: Socialists favour right to self determination, not just autonomy or federation.

The 1903 programme and its liquidators

  • G. V. Plekhanov in Zarya No. 4, 1902 made right to self determination mandatory.
  • You cannot both advocate freedom for workers and deny some oppressed group right to secede.
  • 1903 program adopted
  • In 1903 Warszawski and Hanecki defended same view as Rosa (perhaps here)
  • The 1903 congress ridiculed the views.
  • Poles suggested that §9 should also allow for just cultural self-determination. Rejected.
  • Kadets also advocates cultural autonomy only.
  • Congress’ perception of self det.:
    • Martynov: separate polity, not regional self-government
    • Goldblatt (a Bundist): “When a nation is fighting for independence, that should not he opposed. If Poland refuses to enter into lawful marriage with Russia, she should not be interfered with, as Plekhanov put it.”
    • Lieber: “if any nationality finds that it cannot live within the frontiers of Russia, the Party will not place any obstacles in its way”
  • After that, no Polish marxist proposed changes to §9 again.

Trotsky:

  • Summed up Polish marxists’ attitude to §9 as: “Devoid political content. Should be deleted.”
  • No proof: He relied on gossip.
  • Trotsky’s characterisation invalidated when in 1906 Polish marxists rejoined the party.
  • Trotsky’s motive: Emphasise differences between Polish and Russian marxists.

He always contrives to worm his way into the cracks of any given difference of opinion, and desert one side for the other.

Liebmann:

  • The word ‘self determination’ not explained in program. Wrapped in mist.
  • Lenin broadly ridicules this.

Yurkevich:

  • Self-det = right to secession. But lies and says RSDLP don’t want Ukraine to have the right.

. And such alienation is in line with the entire policy of the group of Dzvin publicists who advocate the separation of the Ukrainian workers in a special national organisation!

Semkovsky:

  • Considers it absurd that Russia should vote for secession of Poland even though Polish workers don’t want - just to be politically correct.
  • Lenin: Of course the whole situation must start with a Polish referendum. If that = secession, then the workers of Russia should support it.

10. Conclusion

  • Proletariat of both oppressor and oppressed nations must fight side by side.
  • Unity must be preserved
  • Anti-secession pollutes the Duma, newspapers etc.
  • Proletariat in oppressed nations succumb to anti-nationalist sentiments against local liberal nationalist.
  • Octobrists, Kadets, Peshekhonov (Popular Socialist Party) rejects peasant nationalism.
  • Bolsheviks knowns peasants have prejudices too. Must have nationalism on the program. Otherwise peasants lost other parties.
  • Russia must (social-)democratise fast or nationalism will win leading to similar reactionary movements in oppressed nations.
  • Acknowledging right to secession does not imply impossibility of agitation against secession!

The awakening of nationalism among the oppressed nations, which be came so pronounced after 1905 (let us recall, say, the group of “Federalist-Autonomists” in the First Duma, the growth of the Ukrainian movement, of the Moslem movement, etc.), will inevitably lead to greater nationalism among the Great-Russian petty bourgeoisie in town and countryside.

Other notes:

Semkovsky: Leon Trotsky’s cousin. https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CS%5CE%5CSemkovskySemen.htm

Liebman Hersch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebmann_Hersch. Member of Jewish Labour Bund (hence “bundist”). Somewhat opposed to zionism, but later supported the pre-Israel community (Yishuv) presence in Palestine.

Lev Yurkevich: https://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CY%5CU%5CYurkevychLev.htm

Vladimir Purishkevich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Purishkevich. Member of the Black Hundreds.