Lenin CW-Vol. 20.pdf

W O R K E R S O F A L L C O U N T R I E S , U N I T E!

L E N I NCOLLECTED WORKS

0

A

THE RUSSIAN EDITION WAS PRINTEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION

OF THE NINTH CONGRESS OF THE R.C.P.(B.)AND THE SECOND CONGRESS OF SOVIETS

OF THE U.S.S.R.

CTTT C p K KCC

B. n. l d H n H E

a u m p m o e

M

V. I. L E N I NcOLLEcTED WORKS

V O L U M E

0December 1(1/ AuGust 1(14

PROGRESS PUBLISHERSM O S C O W

TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIANBY BERNARD ISAACSAND JOE FINEBERG

EDITED BY JULIUS KATZER

First printing 1964Second printing 1972Third printing 1977

l 10102985

6577

014(01)77

From Marx to Mao

ML

Digital Reprints2011

www.marx2mao.com

7C O N T E N T S

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1913

CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION . . . . . .1. Liberals and Democrats on the Language Question. . .2. National Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. The Nationalist Bogey of Assimilation . . . . . . .4. Cultural-National Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . .5. The Equality of Nations and the Rights of National

Minorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. Centralisation and Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . .

ONCE MORE ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAUAND THE LIQUIDATOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NATIONAL LIBERALISM AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NARODISM AND LIQUIDATIONISM AS DISINTEGRATING ELEMENTSIN THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . .COMMENT ON KAUTSKYS LETTER . . . . . . . . . . . . .NOVOYE VREMYA AND RECH ON THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TOSELF-DETERMINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A LETTER TO THE EDITOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1914

FOUR THOUSAND RUBLES A YEAR AND A SIX-HOUR DAY . . . .IS A COMPULSORY OFFICIAL LANGUAGE NEEDED? . . . . . .TO CAMILLE HUYSMANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

1720232733

4045

52

56

59

63

65

67

68

71

74

CONTENTS8

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE PURPOSE OF ZEMSTVO STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . .

BOOK REVIEW. Labour Protection Exhibits at the All-RussiaHygiene Exhibition in St. Petersburg in 1913. St. Petersburg1913. Pp. 78. Price not indicated . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LIBERALS CORRUPTION OF THE WORKERS . . . . . . .

LETTER TO THE EDITOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LIQUIDATORS LEADER ON THE LIQUIDATORS TERMS OFUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL PRO-GRAMME IN AUSTRIA AND IN RUSSIA . . . . . . . . . . .

A HIGHBORN LIBERAL LANDLORD ON THE NEW ZEMSTVO RUS-SIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NARODISM AND THE CLASS OF WAGE-WORKERS . . . . . . .

MORE ABOUT NATIONALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE PEASANTRY AND HIRED LABOUR . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. STRUVE ON THE NEED TO REFORM THE GOVERNMENT

THE NARODNIKS ON N. K. MIKHAILOVSKY . . . . . . . . . .

CONCERNING A. BOGDANOV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EDITORIAL COMMENT ON VETERANS ARTICLE THE NATIONALQUESTION AND THE LETTISH PROLETARIAT . . . . . . . .

PREFACE TO THE SYMPOSIUM: MARXISM AND LIQUIDATIONISM

POLITICAL DISPUTES AMONG THE LIBERALS . . . . . . . . .

THE LABOURING PEASANTRY AND THE TRADE IN LAND . . .

WHAT IS WORRYING THE LIBERALS . . . . . . . . . . . .

NARODNIKS AND LIQUIDATORS IN THE TRADE UNION MOVE-MENT. (A Valuable Admission) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

747576767 778

82

89

90

93

95

99

102

105

109

1 1 1

114

117

121

125

126

129

132

136

138

9CONTENTS

PIOUS WISHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A LIBERAL PROFESSOR ON EQUALITY . . . . . . . . . . .THE BRITISH LIBERALS AND IRELAND . . . . . . . . . . .THE TAYLOR SYSTEMMANS ENSLAVEMENT BY THE MACHINE

A RESPONSIBLE OPPOSITION AND THE PARTICIPATION OF THECONSTITUTIONAL-DEMOCRATS IN THE MARCH 1 CONFERENCE

THE BREAK-UP OF THE AUGUST BLOC . . . . . . . . . . .CAPITALISM AND THE PRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A RADICAL BOURGEOIS ON THE RUSSIAN WORKERS . . . . .POLITICAL LESSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THE NATIONAL EQUALITY BILL . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Bill for the Abolition of All Disabilities of the Jewsand of All Restrictions on the Grounds of Origin or Na-tionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FARM LABOURERS WAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THE LETTISH WORKERS AND THE SPLIT IN THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC GROUP IN THE DUMA . . . . . . . . . . . .HE AUGUST FICTION EXPOSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SOCIALISM DEMOLISHED AGAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FORMS OF THE WORKING CLASS MOVEMENT (The Lockout andMarxist Tactics) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LEFT NARODNIKS WHITEWASH THE BOURGEOISIE . . . .

ON THE QUESTION OF NATIONAL POLICY . . . . . . . . . .

142

144

148

152

155

158

162

166

170

172

173

174

1 7 7

182

187

1901 9 1193196197200202204206207

209

213

217

CONTENTS10

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FOR

COMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN BRITAIN . . . . . . . . . . . .

UNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ORGANISED MARXISTS ON INTERVENTION BY THE INTERNA-TIONAL BUREAU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NATIONAL EQUALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LIQUIDATORS AND THE LETTISH WORKING-CLASS MOVE-MENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SERF ECONOMY IN THE RURAL AREAS . . . . . . . . . . .

FROM THE HISTORY OF THE WORKERS PRESS IN RUSSIA . . .

WHAT SHOULD NOT BE COPIED FROM THE GERMAN LABOURMOVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BOOK REVIEW, N. A. Rubakin, Among Books, Vol. II. NaukaPublishers, Moscow, 1913. Price 4 rubles. Second Edition . . .

LIQUIDATIONISM DEFINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUDING REMARKS TO THE SYMPOSIUM MARXISM ANDLIQUIDATIONISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MORE ABOUT THE POLITICAL CRISIS . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE IN THE WORKING-CLASS MOVE-MENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BILL ON THE EQUALITY OF NATlONS AND THE SAFEGUARDINGOF THE RIGHTS OF NATIONAL MINORITIES. . . . . . . . . .

NEIGHBOURING SQUIRES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE NARODNIKS AND FACTIONAL COERCION . . . . . . . .

CORRUPTING THE WORKERS WITH REFINED NATIONALISM . . .

THE POLITICAL SITUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

WORKERS UNITY AND INTELLECTUALIST TRENDS . . . . . .

THE LEFT NARODNIKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LIQUIDATORS AND MALINOVSKYS BIOGRAPHY . . . . . .

TWO PATHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PLEKHANOV, WHO KNOWS NOT WHAT HE WANTS. . . . . . .

226

230

233

237

239

242

245

254

259

262

265

274

277

281

284

286

289

292

294

298

302

306

309

11CONTENTS

THE ESTIMATES OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE . . . . .

UNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A FOOLS HASTE IS NO SPEED . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DISRUPTION OF UNITY UNDER COVER OF OUTCRIES FOR UNITY

I. Factionalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II. The Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. The Break-up of the August Bloc . . . . . . . . .IV. A Conciliators Advice to the Seven . . . . . . .V. Trotskys Liquidationist Views. . . . . . . . . . .

BOOK REVIEW. I. Drozdov, The Wages of Farm Labourers inRussia in Connection With the Agrarian Movement in 1905-06.St. Petersburg (published by M. I. Semyonov), 1914. Pp. 68.Price 50 kopeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CLARITY HAS BEEN ACHIEVED. Class-Conscious Workers, PleaseNote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. The Programme and the National Question . . . . .2. The Decision of 1908 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. The 1910 Decision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ADVENTURISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LIQUIDATORS AND THE DECISIONS OF THE LETTISHMARXISTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE WORKING CLASS AND ITS PRESS . . . . . . . . . . .

LEFT-WING NARODISM AND MARXISM . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE AGRARIAN QUESTION IN RUSSIA . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF VITUPERATION. (On theQuestion of Unity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OBJECTIVE DATA ON THE STRENGTH OF THE VARIOUS TRENDSIN THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOW STRONG IS THE LEFT-NARODNIK TREND AMONG THEWORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION . . . . . .1. What Is Meant by the Self-Determination of Nations?2. The Historically Concrete Presentation of the Question

313

319

322

325

327332336339342

348

351

351353354355

356

360

363

372

375

378

381

388

393

395400

CONTENTS12

3. The Concrete Features of the National Question inRussia, and Russias Bourgeois-Democratic Refor-mation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Practicality in the National Question . . . . . .5. The Liberal Bourgeoisie and the Socialist Opportunists

in the National Question . . . . . . . . . . . .6. Norways Secession from Sweden . . . . . . . . .7. The Resolution of the London International Congress,

1896 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. The Utopian Karl Marx and the Practical Rosa Luxem-

burg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9. The 1903 Programme and Its Liquidators . . . . . .

10. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THE BOURGEOIS INTELLIGENTSIAS METHODS OF STRUGGLEAGAINST THE WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. The Liquidators and the Narodniks Alliance Againstthe Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. How the Liberals Defend Unity Between the Workersand the Liquidators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Why the Workers Organisations Publicly Denouncedthe Liquidators as Slanderers? . . . . . . . . . .

THE VPERYODISTS AND THE VPERYOD GROUP . . . . . . . .EDITORIAL COMMENT ON OCKSEN LOLAS APPEAL TO THEUKRAINIAN WORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .REPORT OF THE C.C. OF THE R.S.D.L.P. TO THE BRUSSELS CON-FERENCE AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE C.C. DELEGATION . . . .

I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix. Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. Notes prives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. Notes prives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III. Not for the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HOW THE WORKERS RESPONDED TO THE FORMATION OF THERUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC LABOUR GROUP IN THE DUMA

What Is Shown by the Activities of the Two GroupsDuring the First Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CLARITY FIRST AND FOREMOST! (On the Question of Unity) . .1. People Holding Two Opinions . . . . . . . . . .

404409

414425

430

435442451

455

456

463

474

487

494

495497502513515528528529530532

536

541

544544

13CONTENTS

I L L U S T R A T I O N S

V. I. Lenin. 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pages 29-30 of Lenins Letter to Camille Huysmans datedJanuary 31-February 1, 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A page of Lenins manuscript with a rough draft of his tableto the article Objective Data on the Strength of the Various

16-17

78-81

THE RESULTS OF WORKERS PRESS DAY SUMMED UP. From theReport Published in Put Pravdy . . . . . . . . . . . .

St. Petersburg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE POLISH SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION AT THE PARTINGOF THE WAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REPLY TO THE ARTICLE IN LEIPZIGER VOLKSZEITUNG . . . .

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Life and Work of V. I. Lenin. Outstanding Dates . . . .

548553

556

558

561

615

Trends in the Working-Class Movement. June 1914 . . . . 382-83

PREFACE

Volume 20 contains the works of V. I. Lenin writtenbetween December 1913 and August 1914, with the excep-tion of the article Critical Remarks on the NationalQuestion, which was written somewhat earlier and pub-lished serially in October to December 1913.

The bulk of the volume is devoted to the Bolsheviksstruggle against opportunism in the Russian and internationallabour movement: against the liquidators, the Trotskyists,the Vperyod group, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and theopportunists of the Second International. Among these arethe articles: The Break-up of the August Bloc, Disrup-tion of Unity Under Cover of Outcries for Unity, Narodismand Liquidationism as Disintegrating Elements in theWorking-Class Movement. The Ideological Struggle inthe Working-Class Movement, The Vperyodists and theVperyod Group, Report of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. tothe Brussels Conference and Instructions to the C.C. Dele-gation, A Fools Haste Is No Speed, Comment on Kaut-skys Letter.

The Bolshevik programme on the national question iselaborated in the articles Critical Remarks on the Nation-al Question and The Right of Nations to Self-Determi-nation.

A conspicuous place in the volume is occupied by articleson the agrarian question, among them The Peasantry andHired Labour, Serf Economy in the Rural Areas andThe Agrarian Question in Russia.

Articles published for the first time in Lenins CollectedWorks are The Liquidators and the Decisions of the LettishMarxists, Reply to the Article in Leipziger Volks-zeitung. In these articles Lenin denounces the liquidators

V. I. LENIN16

attempts to distort Party decisions and conceal objectivedata concerning monetary contributions to the Marxistand liquidationist newspapers. Other articles included forthe first time in the Collected Works are: Bill on theEquality of Nations and the Safeguarding of the Rights ofNational Minorities, and The Polish Social-DemocraticOpposition at the Parting of the Ways. These were pub-lished previously in Lenin Miscellany XXX.

The Instructions to the Central Committee Delegation tothe Brussels-Conference have been supplemented by a newletter of Lenins.

In previous editions of the Collected Works the draftspeech on The Estimates of the Ministry of Agriculturewas published from the manuscript, four pages of whichwere missing. In the present edition the missing pages,which were found in 1941, have been restored.

V. I. Lenin1914

CRITICAL REMARKSON THE NATIONAL QUESTION 1

Written in October-December 1 9 1 3Published in 1 9 1 3 in the journal Published according to

Prosveshcheniye Nos. 1 0 , 1 1 , and 1 2 the journal textSigned: N. Lenin

CRITICAL REMARKSON THE NATIONAL QUESTION1

Written in October-December 1913Published in 1913 in the journalPublished according to

Prosveshcheniye Nos. 10, 11, and 12the journal textSigned: N. Lenin

19

It is obvious that the national question has now becomeprominent among the problems of Russian public life. Theaggressive nationalism of the reactionaries, the transitionof counter-revolutionary bourgeois liberalism to national-ism (particularly Great-Russian, but also Polish, Jewish,Ukrainian, etc.), and lastly, the increase of nationalistvacillations among the different national (i.e., non-Great-Russian) Social-Democrats, who have gone to thelength of violating the Party Programmeall these makeit incumbent on us to give more attention to the nationalquestion than we have done so far.

This article pursues a special object, namely, to exam-ine, in their general bearing, precisely these programmevacillations of Marxists and would-be Marxists, on thenational question. In Severnaya Pravda2 No. 29 (for Sep-tember 5, 1913, Liberals and Democrats on the LanguageQuestion*) I had occasion to speak of the opportunism ofthe liberals on the national question; this article of minewas attacked by the opportunist Jewish newspaper Zeit,3in an article by Mr. F. Liebman. From the other side, theprogramme of the Russian Marxists on the national ques-tion had been criticised by the Ukrainian opportunistMr. Lev Yurkevich (Dzvin,4 1913, Nos. 7-8). Both thesewriters touched upon so many questions that to reply tothem we are obliged to deal with the most diverse aspectsof the subject. I think the most convenient thing would beto start with a reprint of the article from Severnaya Pravda.

* See present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 354-57.Ed.

V. I. LENIN20

1. LIBERALS AND DEMOCRATS ON THE LANGUAGEQUESTION

On several occasions the newspapers have mentioned thereport of the Governor of the Caucasus, a report that isnoteworthy, not for its Black-Hundred5 spirit, but for itstimid liberalism. Among other things, the Governor ob-jects to artificial Russification of non-Russian nationali-ties. Representatives of non-Russian nationalities in theCaucasus are themselves striving to teach their children Rus-sian; an example of this is the Armenian church schools,in which the teaching of Russian is not obligatory.

Russkoye Slovo6 (No. 198), one of the most widely cir-culating liberal newspapers in Russia, points to this factand draws the correct conclusion that the hostility towardsthe Russian language in Russia stems exclusively fromthe artificial (it should have said forced) implantingof that language.

There is no reason to worry about the fate of the Russianlanguage. It will itself win recognition throughout Russia,says the newspaper. This is perfectly true, because therequirements of economic exchange will always compel thenationalities living in one state (as long as they wish tolive together) to study the language of the majority. Themore democratic the political system in Russia becomes,the more powerfully, rapidly and extensively capitalismwill develop, the more urgently will the requirements ofeconomic exchange impel various nationalities to study thelanguage most convenient for general commercial relations.

The liberal newspaper, however, hastens to slap itselfin the face and demonstrate its liberal inconsistency.

Even those who oppose Russification, it says, would hardlybe likely to deny that in a country as huge as Russia there mustbe one single official language, and that this language can be onlyRussian.

Logic turned inside out! Tiny Switzerland has not lostanything, but has gained from having not one single officiallanguage, but threeGerman, French and Italian. InSwitzerland 70 per cent of the population are Germans (inRussia 43 per cent are Great Russians), 22 per cent French(in Russia 17 per cent are Ukrainians) and 7 per cent Italians(in Russia 6 per cent are Poles and 4.5 per cent Byelorus-

21CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION

sians). If Italians in Switzerland often speak French intheir common parliament they do not do so because they aremenaced by some savage police law (there are none such inSwitzerland), but because the civilised citizens of a demo-cratic state themselves prefer a language that is understoodby a majority. The French language does not instil hatredin Italians because it is the language of a free civilisednation, a language that is not imposed by disgusting policemeasures.

Why should huge Russia, a much more varied and ter-ribly backward country, inhibit her development by theretention of any kind of privilege for any one language?Should not the contrary be true, liberal gentlemen? Shouldnot Russia, if she wants to overtake Europe, put an end toevery kind of privilege as quickly as possible, as completelyas possible and as vigorously as possible?

If all privileges disappear, if the imposition of any onelanguage ceases, all Slavs will easily and rapidly learn tounderstand each other and will not be frightened by thehorrible thought that speeches in different languageswill be heard in the common parliament. The requirementsof economic exchange will themselves decide which languageof the given country it is to the advantage of the majority toknow in the interests of commercial relations. This decisionwill be all the firmer because it is adopted voluntarily by apopulation of various nationalities, and its adoption willbe the more rapid and extensive the more consistent thedemocracy and, as a consequence of it, the more rapid thedevelopment of capitalism.

The liberals approach the language question in the sameway as they approach all political questionslike hypo-critical hucksters, holding out one hand (openly) to democ-racy and the other (behind their backs) to the feudalistsand police. We are against privileges, shout the liberals,and under cover they haggle with the feudalists for firstone, then another, privilege.

Such is the nature of all liberal-bourgeois nationalismnot only Great-Russian (it is the worst of them all becauseof its violent character and its kinship with the Purishke-viches7), but Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, Georgian and everyother nationalism. Under the slogan of national culture

V. I. LENIN22

the bourgeoisie of all nations, both in Austria and in Russia,are in fact pursuing the policy of splitting the workers,emasculating democracy and haggling with the feudalistsover the sale of the peoples rights and the peoples liberty.

The slogan of working-class democracy is not nationalculture but the international culture of democracy and theworld-wide working-class movement. Let the bourgeoisiedeceive the people with various positive national pro-grammes. The class-conscious worker will answer the bour-geoisiethere is only one solution to the national problem(insofar as it can, in general, be solved in the capitalistworld, the world of profit, squabbling and exploitation),and that solution is consistent democracy.

The proofSwitzerland in Western Europe, a countrywith an old culture and Finland in Eastern Europe, a coun-try with a young culture.

The national programme of working-class democracyis: absolutely no privileges for any one nation or any onelanguage; the solution of the problem of the political self-determination of nations, that is, their separation as statesby completely free, democratic methods; the promulgationof a law for the whole state by virtue of which any measure(rural, urban or communal, etc., etc.) introducing any priv-ilege of any kind for one of the nations and militatingagainst the equality of nations or the rights of a nationalminority, shall be declared illegal and ineffective, andany citizen of the state shall have the right to demandthat such a measure be annulled as unconstitutional, andthat those who attempt to put it into effect be punished.

Working-class democracy contraposes to the nationalistwrangling of the various bourgeois parties over questionsof language, etc., the demand for the unconditional unityand complete amalgamation of workers of all nationalitiesin all working-class organisationstrade union, co-opera-tive, consumers, educational and all othersin contra-distinction to any kind of bourgeois nationalism. Only thistype of unity and amalgamation can uphold democracy anddefend the interests of the workers against capitalwhichis already international and is becoming more soand pro-mote the development of mankind towards a new way oflife that is alien to all privileges and all exploitation.


2. NATIONAL CULTURE

As the reader will see, the article in Severnaya Pravda,made use of a particular example, i.e., the problem of theofficial language to illustrate the inconsistency and op-portunism of the liberal bourgeoisie, which, in the nationalquestion, extends a hand to the feudalists and the police.Everybody will understand that, apart from the problem ofan official language, the liberal bourgeoisie behaves justas treacherously, hypocritically and stupidly (even fromthe standpoint of the interests of liberalism) in a numberof other related issues.

The conclusion to be drawn from this? It is that allliberal-bourgeois nationalism sows the greatest corruptionamong the workers and does immense harm to the cause offreedom and the proletarian class struggle. This bourgeois(and bourgeois-feudalist) tendency is all the more dangerousfor its being concealed behind the slogan of national cul-ture. It is under the guise of national cultureGreatRussian, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, and so forththat theBlack-Hundreds and the clericals, and also the bourgeoisieof all nations, are doing their dirty and reactionarywork.

Such are the facts of the national life of today, if viewedfrom the Marxist angle, i.e., from the standpoint of theclass struggle, and if the slogans are compared with theinterests and policies of classes, and not with meaninglessgeneral principles, declamations and phrases.

The slogan of national culture is a bourgeois (and oftenalso a Black-Hundred and clerical) fraud. Our slogan is:the international culture of democracy and of the worldworking-class movement.

Here the Bundist8 Mr. Liebman rushes into the fray andannihilates me with the following deadly tirade:

Anyone in the least familiar with the national question knowsthat international culture is not non-national culture (culture withouta national form); non-national culture, which must not be Russian,Jewish, or Polish, but only pure culture, is nonsense, internationalideas can appeal to the working class only when they are adaptedto the language spoken by the worker, and to the concrete nationalconditions under which he lives; the worker should not be indifferentto the condition and development of his national culture, because

V. I. LENIN24

it is through it, and only through it, that he is able to participate inthe international culture of democracy and of the world working-class movement. This is well known, but V. I. turns a deaf ear toit all....

Ponder over this typically Bundist argument, designed,if you please, to demolish the Marxist thesis that I advanced.With the air of supreme self-confidence of one who isfamiliar with the national question, this Bundist passesoff ordinary bourgeois views as well-known axioms.

It is true, my dear Bundist, that international cultureis not non-national. Nobody said that it was. Nobody hasproclaimed a pure culture, either Polish, Jewish, orRussian, etc., and your jumble of empty words is simplyan attempt to distract the readers attention and to obscurethe issue with tinkling words.

The elements of democratic and socialist culture arepresent, if only in rudimentary form, in every nationalculture, since in every nation there are toiling and exploitedmasses, whose conditions of life inevitably give rise to theideology of democracy and socialism. But every nationalso possesses a bourgeois culture (and most nations a reac-tionary and clerical culture as well) in the form, not merelyof elements, but of the dominant culture. Therefore, thegeneral national culture is the culture of the landlords,the clergy and the bourgeoisie. This fundamental and, for aMarxist, elementary truth, was kept in the background bythe Bundist, who drowned it in his jumble of words, i.e.,instead of revealing and clarifying the class gulf to thereader, he in fact obscured it. In fact, the Bundist acted likea bourgeois, whose every interest requires the spreadingof a belief in a non-class national culture.

In advancing the slogan of the international cultureof democracy and of the world working-class movement,we take from each national culture only its democratic andsocialist elements; we take them only and absolutely inopposition to the bourgeois culture and the bourgeois na-tionalism of each nation. No democrat, and certainly noMarxist, denies that all languages should have equal status,or that it is necessary to polemise with ones native bour-geoisie in ones native language and to advocate anti-clericalor anti-bourgeois ideas among ones native peasantry and


petty bourgeoisie. That goes without saying, but the Bund-ist uses these indisputable truths to obscure the point indispute, i.e., the real issue.

The question is whether it is permissible for a Marxist,directly or indirectly, to advance the slogan of nationalculture, or whether he should oppose it by advocating,in all languages, the slogan of workers internationalismwhile adapting himself to all local and national fea-tures.

The significance of the national culture slogan is notdetermined by some petty intellectuals promise, or goodintention, to interpret it as meaning the developmentthrough it of an international culture. It would be puerilesubjectivism to look at it in that way. The significance ofthe slogan of national culture is determined by the objectivealignment of all classes in a given country, and in all coun-tries of the world. The national culture of the bourgeoisie isa fact (and, I repeat, the bourgeoisie everywhere enters intodeals with the landed proprietors and the clergy). Aggres-sive bourgeois nationalism, which drugs the minds of theworkers, stultifies and disunites them in order that thebourgeoisie may lead them by the haltersuch is the funda-mental fact of the times.

Those who seek to serve the proletariat must unite theworkers of all nations, and unswervingly fight bourgeoisnationalism, domestic and foreign. The place of those whoadvocate the slogan of national culture is among the nation-alist petty bourgeois, not among the Marxists.

Take a concrete example. Can a Great-Russian Marxistaccept the slogan of national, Great-Russian, culture? No,he cannot. Anyone who does that should stand in the ranksof the nationalists, not of the Marxists. Our task is to fightthe dominant, Black-Hundred and bourgeois nationalculture of the Great Russians, and to develop, exclusivelyin the internationalist spirit and in the closest alliancewith the workers of other countries, the rudiments alsoexisting in the history of our democratic and working-class movement. Fight your own Great-Russian landlordsand bourgeoisie, fight their culture in the name of interna-tionalism, and, in so fighting, adapt yourself to the specialfeatures of the Purishkeviches and Struvesthat is your

V. I. LENIN26

task, not preaching or tolerating the slogan of nationalculture.

The same applies to the most oppressed and persecutednationthe Jews. Jewish national culture is the slogan ofthe rabbis and the bourgeoisie, the slogan of our enemies.But there are other elements in Jewish culture and in Jew-ish history as a whole. Of the ten and a half million Jewsin the world, somewhat over a half live in Galicia andRussia, backward and semi-barbarous countries, where theJews are forcibly kept in the status of a caste. The otherhalf lives in the civilised world, and there the Jews do notlive as a segregated caste. There the great world-progressivefeatures of Jewish culture stand clearly revealed: its inter-nationalism, its identification with the advanced movementsof the epoch (the percentage of Jews in the democratic andproletarian movements is everywhere higher than the per-centage of Jews among the population).

Whoever, directly or indirectly, puts forward the sloganof Jewish national culture is (whatever his good intentionsmay be) an enemy of the proletariat, a supporter of all thatis outmoded and connected with caste among the Jewishpeople; he is an accomplice of the rabbis and the bourgeoi-sie. On the other hand, those Jewish Marxists who minglewith the Russian, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other work-ers in international Marxist organisations, and make theircontribution (both in Russian and in Yiddish) towardscreating the international culture of the working-classmovementthose Jews, despite the separatism of theBund, uphold the best traditions of Jewry by fighting theslogan of national culture.

Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalismthese are the two irreconcilably hostile slogans that cor-respond to the two great class camps throughout the capi-talist world, and express the two policies (nay, the two worldoutlooks) in the national question. In advocating the sloganof national culture and building up on it an entire planand practical programme of what they call cultural-nation-al autonomy, the Bundists are in effect instruments ofbourgeois nationalism among the workers.


3. THE NATIONALIST BOGEY OF ASSIMILATION

The question of assimilation, i.e., of the shedding ofnational features, and absorption by another nation, strik-ingly illustrates the consequences of the nationalist vacil-lations of the Bundists and their fellow-thinkers.

Mr. Liebman, who faithfully conveys and repeats thestock arguments, or rather, tricks, of the Bundists, hasqualified as the old assimilation story the demand for theunity and amalgamation of the workers of all nationalitiesin a given country in united workers organisations (seethe concluding part of the article in Severnaya Pravda).

Consequently, says Mr. F. Liebman, commenting onthe concluding part of the article in Severnaya Pravda,if asked what nationality he belongs to, the worker mustanswer: I am a Social-Democrat.

Our Bundist considers this the acme of wit. As a matterof fact, he gives himself away completely by such witti-cisms and outcries about assimilation, levelled againsta consistently democratic and Marxist slogan.

Developing capitalism knows two historical tendenciesin the national question. The first is the awakening ofnational life and national movements, the struggle againstall national oppression, and the creation of national states.The second is the development and growing frequency ofinternational intercourse in every form, the break-down ofnational barriers, the creation of the international unityof capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science,etc.

Both tendencies are a universal law of capitalism. Theformer predominates in the beginning of its development, thelatter characterises a mature capitalism that is movingtowards its transformation into socialist society. The Marx-ists national programme takes both tendencies into ac-count, and advocates, firstly, the equality of nations and lan-guages and the impermissibility of all privileges in thisrespect (and also the right of nations to self-determination,with which we shall deal separately later); secondly, theprinciple of internationalism and uncompromising struggleagainst contamination of the proletariat with bourgeoisnationalism, even of the most refined kind.

V. I. LENIN28

The question arises: what does our Bundist mean whenhe cries out to heaven against assimilation? He could nothave meant the oppression of nations, or the privilegesenjoyed by a particular nation, because the word assimila-tion here does not fit at all, because all Marxists, individ-ually, and as an official, united whole, have quite definite-ly and unambiguously condemned the slightest violenceagainst and oppression and inequality of nations, andfinally because this general Marxist idea, which the Bundisthas attacked, is expressed in the Severnaya Pravda articlein the most emphatic manner.

No, evasion is impossible here. In condemning assimi-lation Mr. Liebman had in mind, not violence, not inequal-ity, and not privileges. Is there anything real left in theconcept of assimilation, after all violence and all inequalityhave been eliminated?

Yes, there undoubtedly is. What is left is capitalismsworld-historical tendency to break down national barriers,obliterate national distinctions, and to assimilate nationsatendency which manifests itself more and more powerfullywith every passing decade, and is one of the greatest drivingforces transforming capitalism into socialism.

Whoever does not recognise and champion the equalityof nations and languages, and does not fight against allnational oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist; he isnot even a democrat. That is beyond doubt. But it is alsobeyond doubt that the pseudo-Marxist who heaps abuseupon a Marxist of another nation for being an assimilatoris simply a nationalist philistine. In this unhandsome cate-gory of people are all the Bundists and (as we shall shortlysee) Ukrainian nationalist-socialists such as L. Yurkevich,Dontsov and Co.

To show concretely how reactionary the views held bythese nationalist philistines are, we shall cite facts of threekinds.

It is the Jewish nationalists in Russia in general, andthe Bundists in particular, who vociferate most aboutRussian orthodox Marxists being assimilators. And yet,as the afore-mentioned figures show, out of the ten and ahalf million Jews all over the world, about half that numberlive in the civilised world, where conditions favouring


assimilation are strongest, whereas the unhappy, down-trodden, disfranchised Jews in Russia and Galicia, who arecrushed under the heel of the Purishkeviches (Russian andPolish), live where conditions for assimilation leastprevail, where there is most segregation, and even a Paleof Settlement,9 a numerus clausus10 and other charmingfeatures of the Purishkevich regime.

The Jews in the civilised world are not a nation, theyhave in the main become assimilated, say Karl Kautsky andOtto Bauer. The Jews in Galicia and in Russia are not anation; unfortunately (through no fault of their own butthrough that of the Purishkeviches), they are still a castehere. Such is the incontrovertible judgement of people whoare undoubtedly familiar with the history of Jewry and takethe above-cited facts into consideration.

What do these facts prove? It is that only Jewish reaction-ary philistines, who want to turn back the wheel of history,and make it proceed, not from the conditions prevailing inRussia and Galicia to those prevailing in Paris and NewYork, but in the reverse directiononly they can clamouragainst assimilation.

The best Jews, those who are celebrated in world history,and have given the world foremost leaders of democracyand socialism, have never clamoured against assimilation.It is only those who contemplate the rear aspect ofJewry with reverential awe that clamour against assim-ilation.

A rough idea of the scale which the general process ofassimilation of nations is assuming under the present con-ditions of advanced capitalism may be obtained, for example,from the immigration statistics of the United States ofAmerica. During the decade between 1891-1900, Europesent 3,700,000 people there, and during the nine years be-tween 1901 and 1909, 7,200,000. The 1900 census in theUnited States recorded over 10,000,000 foreigners. NewYork State, in which, according to the same census; therewere over 78,000 Austrians, 136,000 Englishmen, 20,000Frenchmen, 480,000 Germans, 37,000 Hungarians, 425,000Irish 182,000 Italians, 70,000 Poles, 166,000 people fromRussia (mostly Jews), 43,000 Swedes, etc., grinds downnational distinctions. And what is taking place on a grand,

V. I. LENIN30

international scale in New York is also to be seen in everybig city and industrial township.

No one unobsessed by nationalist prejudices can fail toperceive that this process of assimilation of nations bycapitalism means the greatest historical progress, the break-down of hidebound national conservatism in the variousbackwoods, especially in backward countries like Russia.

Take Russia and the attitude of Great Russians towardsthe Ukrainians. Naturally, every democrat, not to mentionMarxists, will strongly oppose the incredible humiliationof Ukrainians, and demand complete equality for them.But it would be a downright betrayal of socialism and asilly policy even from the standpoint of the bourgeois nation-al aims of the Ukrainians to weaken the ties and the alli-ance between the Ukrainian and Great-Russian proletariatthat now exist within the confines of a single state.

Mr. Lev Yurkevich, who calls himself a Marxist (poorMarx!), is an example of that silly policy. In 1906, Sokolov-sky (Basok) and Lukashevich (Tuchapsky) asserted, Mr.Yurkevich writes, that the Ukrainian proletariat had be-come completely Russified and needed no separate organisa-tion. Without quoting a single fact bearing on the directissue, Mr. Yurkevich falls upon both for saying this and criesout hystericallyquite in the spirit of the basest, moststupid and most reactionary nationalismthat this isnational passivity, national renunciation, that thesemen have split [!!] the Ukrainian Marxists, and so forth.Today, despite the growth of Ukrainian national conscious-ness among the workers, the minority of the workers arenationally conscious, while the majority, Mr. Yurkevichassures us, are still under the influence of Russian culture.And it is our duty, this nationalist philistine exclaims,not to follow the masses, but to lead them, to explain tothem their national aims (natsionalna sprava) (Dzvin,p. 89).

This argument of Mr. Yurkevichs is wholly bourgeois-nationalistic. But even from the point of view of the bour-geois nationalists, some of whom stand for complete equalityand autonomy for the Ukraine, while others stand for anindependent Ukrainian state, this argument will not wash.The Ukrainians striving for liberation is opposed by the


Great-Russian and Polish landlord class and by the bourgeoi-sie of these two nations. What social force is capable ofstanding up to these classes? The first decade of the twentiethcentury provided an actual reply to this question: thatforce is none other than the working class, which rallies thedemocratic peasantry behind it. By striving to divide, andthereby weaken, the genuinely democratic force, whosevictory would make national oppression impossible, Mr.Yurkevich is betraying, not only the interests of democracyin general, but also the interests of his own country, theUkraine. Given united action by the Great-Russian andUkrainian proletarians, a free Ukraine is possible; withoutsuch unity, it is out of the question.

But Marxists do not confine themselves to the bourgeois-national standpoint. For several decades a well-definedprocess of accelerated economic development has beengoing on in the South, i.e., the Ukraine, attracting hun-dreds of thousands of peasants and workers from Great Russiato the capitalist farms, mines, and cities. The assimila-tionwithin these limitsof the Great-Russian andUkrainian proletariat is an indisputable fact. And thisfact is undoubtedly progressive. Capitalism is replacing theignorant, conservative, settled muzhik of the Great-Russianor Ukrainian backwoods with a mobile proletarian whoseconditions of life break down specifically national narrow-mindedness, both Great-Russian and Ukrainian. Even ifwe assume that, in time, there will be a state frontier be-tween Great Russia and the Ukraine, the historically progres-sive nature of the assimilation of the Great-Russian andUkrainian workers will be as undoubted as the progressivenature of the grinding down of nations in America. Thefreer the Ukraine and Great Russia become, the moreextensive and more rapid will be the development of capital-ism, which will still more powerfully attract the workers,the working masses of all nations from all regions of thestate and from all the neighbouring states (should Russiabecome a neighbouring state in relation to the Ukraine) tothe cities, the mines, and the factories.

Mr. Lev Yurkevich acts like a real bourgeois, and ashort-sighted, narrow-minded, obtuse bourgeois at that,i.e., like a philistine, when he dismisses the benefits to be

V. I. LENIN32

gained from the intercourse, amalgamation and assimila-tion of the proletariat of the two nations, for the sake ofthe momentary success of the Ukrainian national cause(sprava). The national cause comes first and the proletariancause second, the bourgeois nationalists say, with the Yur-keviches, Dontsovs and similar would-be Marxists repeat-ing it after them. The proletarian cause must come first,we say, because it not only protects the lasting and funda-mental interests of labour and of humanity, but also thoseof democracy; and without democracy neither an autonomousnor an independent Ukraine is conceivable.

Another point to be noted in Mr. Yurkevichs argument,which is so extraordinarily rich in nationalist gems, is this: theminority of Ukrainian workers are nationally conscious, hesays; the majority are still under the influence of Russianculture (bilshist perebuvaye shche pid vplyvom rosiiskoikultury).

Contraposing Ukrainian culture as a whole to Great-Russian culture as a whole, when speaking of the proletar-iat, is a gross betrayal of the proletariats interests for thebenefit of bourgeois nationalism.

There are two nations in every modern nationwe sayto all nationalist-socialists. There are two national culturesin every national culture. There is the Great-Russian cul-ture of the Purishkeviches, Guchkovs and Struvesbutthere is also the Great-Russian culture typified in thenames of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov. There are thesame two cultures in the Ukraine as there are in Germany,in France, in England, among the Jews, and so forth. Ifthe majority of the Ukrainian workers are under the influ-ence of Great-Russian culture, we also know definitelythat the ideas of Great-Russian democracy and Social-Democracy operate parallel with the Great-Russian clericaland bourgeois culture. In fighting the latter kind of cul-ture, the Ukrainian Marxist will always bring the formerinto focus, and say to his workers: We must snatch at,make use of, and develop to the utmost every opportunityfor intercourse with the Great-Russian class-consciousworkers, with their literature and with their range of ideas;the fundamental interests of both the Ukrainian and theGreat-Russian working-class movements demand it.


If a Ukrainian Marxist allows himself to be swayedby his quite legitimate and natural hatred of the Great-Russian oppressors to such a degree that he transfers even aparticle of this hatred, even if it be only estrangement, tothe proletarian culture and proletarian cause of the Great-Russian workers, then such a Marxist will get bogged downin bourgeois nationalism. Similarly, the Great-RussianMarxists will be bogged down, not only in bourgeois, butalso in Black-Hundred nationalism, if he loses sight, evenfor a moment, of the demand for complete equality for theUkrainians, or of their right to form an independent state.

The Great-Russian and Ukrainian workers must worktogether, and, as long as they live in a single state, actin the closest organisational unity and concert, towards acommon or international culture of the proletarian move-ment, displaying absolute tolerance in the question of thelanguage in which propaganda is conducted, and in thepurely local or purely national details of that propaganda.This is the imperative demand of Marxism. All advocacy ofthe segregation of the workers of one nation from those ofanother, all attacks upon Marxist assimilation, or at-tempts, where the proletariat is concerned, to contraposeone national culture as a whole to another allegedly inte-gral national culture, and so forth, is bourgeois nationalism,against which it is essential to wage a ruthless struggle.

4. CULTURAL-NATIONAL AUTONOMY

The question of the national culture slogan is of enor-mous importance to Marxists, not only because it determinesthe ideological content of all our propaganda and agita-tion on the national question, as distinct from bourgeoispropaganda, but also because the entire programme of themuch-discussed cultural-national autonomy is based onthis slogan.

The main and fundamental law in this programme isthat it aims at introducing the most refined, most absoluteand most extreme nationalism. The gist of this programmeis that every citizen registers as belonging to a particularnation, and every nation constitutes a legal entity withthe right to impose compulsory taxation on its members,

V. I. LENIN34

with national parliaments (Diets) and national secretaries ofstate (ministers).

Such an idea, applied to the national question, resem-bles Proudhons idea, as applied to capitalism. Not ab-olishing capitalism and its basiscommodity productionbut purging that basis of abuses, of excrescences, and soforth; not abolishing exchange and exchange value, but,on the contrary, making it constitutional, universal,absolute, fair, and free of fluctuations, crises andabusessuch was Proudhons idea.

Just as Proudhon was petty-bourgeois, and his theoryconverted exchange and commodity production into anabsolute category and exalted them as the acme of perfec-tion, so is the theory and programme of cultural-nationalautonomy petty bourgeois, for it converts bourgeois nation-alism into an absolute category, exalts it as the acme ofperfection, and purges it of violence, injustice, etc.

Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be iteven of the most just, purest, most refined and civilisedbrand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism ad-vances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations inthe higher unity, a unity that is growing before our eyeswith every mile of railway line that is built, with everyinternational trust, and every workers association that isformed (an association that is international in its economicactivities as well as in its ideas and aims).

The principle of nationality is historically inevitable inbourgeois society and, taking this society into due account,the Marxist fully recognises the historical legitimacy ofnational movements. But to prevent this recognition frombecoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be strictlylimited to what is progressive in such movements, in orderthat this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideologyobscuring proletarian consciousness.

The awakening of the masses from feudal lethargy, andtheir struggle against all national oppression, for the sov-ereignty of the people, of the nation, are progressive. Hence,it is the Marxists bounden duty to stand for the most resoluteand consistent democratism on all aspects of the nationalquestion. This task is largely a negative one. But this isthe limit the proletariat can go to in supporting nationalism,


for beyond that begins the positive activity of the bour-geoisie striving to fortify nationalism.

To throw off the feudal yoke, all national oppression, andall privileges enjoyed by any particular nation or language,is the imperative duty of the proletariat as a democraticforce, and is certainly in the interests of the proletarianclass struggle, which is obscured and retarded by bickering onthe national question. But to go beyond these strictly limit-ed and definite historical limits in helping bourgeois nation-alism means betraying the proletariat and siding with thebourgeoisie. There is a border-line here, which is often veryslight and which the Bundists and Ukrainian nationalist-socialists completely lose sight of.

Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fightfor any kind of national development, for national culturein general?Of course not. The economic development ofcapitalist society presents us with examples of immaturenational movements all over the world, examples of theformation of big nations out of a number of small ones, orto the detriment of some of the small ones, and also exam-ples of the assimilation of nations. The development of nation-ality in general is the principle of bourgeois nationalism;hence the exclusiveness of bourgeois nationalism, hence theendless national bickering. The proletariat, however, farfrom undertaking to uphold the national development ofevery nation, on the contrary, warns the masses againstsuch illusions, stands for the fullest freedom of capitalistintercourse and welcomes every kind of assimilation ofnations, except that which is founded on force or privi-lege.

Consolidating nationalism within a certain justly deli-mited sphere, constitutionalising nationalism, and securingthe separation of all nations from one another by means of aspecial state institutionsuch is the ideological foundationand content of cultural-national autonomy. This idea isthoroughly bourgeois and thoroughly false. The proletariatcannot support any consecration of nationalism; on thecontrary, it supports everything that helps to obliteratenational distinctions and remove national barriers; itsupports everything that makes the ties between nation-alities closer and closer, or tends to merge nations. To

V. I. LENIN36

act differently means siding with reactionary nationalistphilistinism.

When, at their Congress in Brnn11 (in 1899), the Aus-trian Social-Democrats discussed the plan for cultural-national autonomy, practically no attention was paid to atheoretical appraisal of that plan. It is, however, note-worthy that the following two arguments were levelledagainst this programme: (1) it would tend to strengthen cler-icalism; (2) its result would be the perpetuation of chau-vinism, its introduction into every small community, intoevery small group (p. 92 of the official report of the BrnnCongress, in German. A Russian translation was publishedby the Jewish nationalist party, the J.S.L.P.12).

There can be no doubt that national culture, in theordinary sense of the term, i.e., schools, etc., is at presentunder the predominant influence of the clergy and thebourgeois chauvinists in all countries in the world. Whenthe Bundists, in advocating cultural-national autonomy,say that the constituting of nations will keep the class strug-gle within them clean of all extraneous considerations, thenthat is manifest and ridiculous sophistry. It is primarilyin the economic and political sphere that a serious classstruggle is waged in any capitalist society. To separate thesphere of education from this is, firstly, absurdly utopian,because schools (like national culture in general) cannot beseparated from economics and politics; secondly, it is theeconomic and political life of a capitalist country thatnecessitates at every step the smashing of the absurd andoutmoded national barriers and prejudices, whereas separa-tion of the school system and the like, would only perpetu-ate, intensify and strengthen pure clericalism and purebourgeois chauvinism.

On the boards of joint-stock companies we find capi-talists of different nations sitting together in completeharmony. At the factories workers of different nations workside by side. In any really serious and profound politicalissue sides are taken according to classes, not nations. With-drawing school education and the like from state controland placing it under the control of the nations is in effect anattempt to separate from economics, which unites the na-tions, the most highly, so to speak, ideological sphere of social


iife, the sphere in which pure national culture or the nation-al cultivation of clericalism and chauvinism has thefreest play.

In practice, the plan for extra-territorial or cultural-national autonomy could mean only one thing: the divisionof educational affairs according to nationality, i.e., theintroduction of national curias in school affairs. Sufficientthought to the real significance of the famous Bund planwill enable one to realise how utterly reactionary it is evenfrom the standpoint of democracy, let alone from that ofthe proletarian class struggle for socialism.

A single instance and a single scheme for the nation-alisation of the school system will make this point abun-dantly clear. In the United States of America the divisionof the States into Northern and Southern holds to this dayin all departments of life; the former possess the greatesttraditions of freedom and of struggle against the slave-own-ers; the latter possess the greatest traditions of slave-ownership, survivals of persecution of the Negroes, who areeconomically oppressed and culturally backward (44 percent of Negroes are illiterate, and 6 per cent of whites),and so forth. In the Northern States Negro children attendthe same schools as white children do. In the South thereare separate national, or racial, whichever you please,schools for Negro children. I think that this is the soleinstance of actual nationalisation of schools.

In Eastern Europe there exists a country where thingslike the Beilis case13 are still possible, and Jews are con-demned by the Purishkeviches to a condition worse than thatof the Negroes. In that country a scheme for nationalisingJewish schools was recently mooted in the Ministry. Happi-ly, this reactionary utopia is no more likely to be realisedthan the utopia of the Austrian petty bourgeoisie, who havedespaired of achieving consistent democracy or of puttingan end to national bickering, and have invented for thenations school-education compartments to keep them frombickering over the distribution of schools . . . but have consti-tuted themselves for an eternal bickering of one nationalculture with another.

In Austria, the idea of cultural-national autonomy has re-mained largely a flight of literary fancy, which the Austrian

V. I. LENIN38

Social-Democrats themselves have not taken seriously.In Russia, however, it has been incorporated in the pro-grammes of all the Jewish bourgeois parties, and of severalpetty-bourgeois, opportunist elements in the different na-tionsfor example, the Bundists, the liquidators in theCaucasus, and the conference of Russian national partiesof the Left-Narodnik trend. (This conference, we willmention parenthetically, took place in 1907, its decisionbeing adopted with abstention on the part of the RussianSocialist-Revolutionaries14 and the P.S.P.,15 the Polishsocial-patriots. Abstention from voting is a method sur-prisingly characteristic of the Socialist-Revolutionariesand P.S.P., when they want to show their attitude towardsa most important question of principle in the sphere of thenational programme!)

In Austria it was Otto Bauer, the principal theoreticianof cultural-national autonomy, who devoted a specialchapter of his book to prove that such a programme cannotpossibly be proposed for the Jews. In Russia, however, itis precisely among the Jews that all the bourgeois partiesand the Bund which echoes themhave adopted this pro-gramme.* What does this go to show? It goes to show thathistory, through the political practice of another state, hasexposed the absurdity of Bauers invention, in exactly thesame way as the Russian Bernsteinians (Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky, Berdayev and Co.), through their rapid evolu-

* That the Bundists often vehemently deny that all the Jewishbourgeois parties have accepted cultural-national autonomy isunderstandable. This fact only too glaringly exposes the actual rolebeing played by the Bund. When Mr. Manin, a Bundist, tried, in Luch,16to repeat his denial, he was fully exposed by N. Skop (see Prosve-shcheniye No. 317) But when Mr. Lev Yurkevich, in Dzvin (1913, Nos.7-8, p. 92), quotes from Prosveshcheniye (No. 3, p. 78) N. Sk.s state-ment that the Bundists together with all the Jewish bourgeois par-ties and groups have long been advocating cultural-national auton-omy and distorts this statement by dropping the word Bundistsand substituting the words national rights for the words cultural-national autonomy, one can only raise ones hands in amazement!Mr. Lev Yurkevich is not only a nationalist, not only an astonishingignoramus in matters concerning the history of the Social-Democratsand their programme, but a downright falsifier of quotations for thebenefit of the Bund. The affairs of the Bund and the Yurkevichesmust be in a bad way indeed!


tion from Marxism to liberalism, have exposed the realideological content of the German Bernsteinism.18

Neither the Austrian nor the Russian Social-Democratshave incorporated cultural-national autonomy in theirprogramme. However, the Jewish bourgeois parties in amost backward country, and a number of petty-bourgeois,so-called socialist groups have adopted it in order to spreadideas of bourgeois nationalism among the working classin a refined form. This fact speaks for itself.

Since we have had to touch upon the Austrian programmeon the national question, we must reassert a truth whichis often distorted by the Bundists. At the Brnn Congress apure programme of cultural-national autonomy was pre-sented. This was the programme of the South-Slav Social-Democrats, 2 of which reads: Every nation living inAustria, irrespective of the territory occupied by its mem-bers, constitutes an autonomous group which manages allits national (language and cultural) affairs quite independ-ently. This programme was supported, not only by Kristanbut by the influential Ellenbogen. But it was withdrawn;not a single vote was cast for it. A territorialist programmewas adopted, i.e., one that did not create any nationalgroups irrespective of the territory occupied by the mem-bers of the nation.

Clause 3 of the adopted programme reads: The self-govern-ing regions of one and the same nation shall jointly forma nationally united association, which shall manage itsnational affairs on an absolutely autonomous basis (cf.Prosveshcheniye, 1913, No. 4, p. 2819). Clearly, this compro-mise programme is wrong too. An example will illustratethis. The German colonists community in Saratov Guber-nia, plus the German working-class suburb of Riga orLodz, plus the German housing estate near St. Petersburg,etc., would constitute a nationally united associationof Germans in Russia. Obviously the Social-Democratscannot demand such a thing or enforce such an associa-tion, although of course they do not in the least deny free-dom of every kind of association, including associationsof any communities of any nationality in a given state. The

V. I. LENIN40

segregation, by a law of the state, of Germans, etc., indifferent localities and of different classes in Russia intoa single German-national association may be practised byanybodypriests, bourgeois or philistines, but not bySocial-Democrats.

5. THE EQUALITY OF NATIONSAND THE RIGHTS OF NATIONAL MINORITIES

When they discuss the national question, opportunistsin Russia are given to citing the example of Austria. Inmy article in Severnaya Pravda* (No. 10, Prosveshcheniye,pp. 96-98), which the opportunists have attacked (Mr.Semkovsky in Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta,20 and Mr. Lieb-man in Zeit), I asserted that, insofar as that is at all possi-ble under capitalism, there was only one solution of thenational question, viz., through consistent democracy. Inproof of this, I referred, among other things, to Switzer-land.

This has not been to the liking of the two opportunistsmentioned above, who are trying to refute it or belittle itssignificance. Kautsky, we are told, said that Switzerlandis an exception; Switzerland, if you please, has a specialkind of decentralisation, a special history, special geograph-ical conditions, unique distribution of a population thatspeak different languages, etc., etc.

All these are nothing more than attempts to evade theissue. To be sure, Switzerland is an exception in that sheis not a single-nation state. But Austria and Russia arealso exceptions (or are backward, as Kautsky adds). To besure, it was only her special, unique historical and socialconditions that ensured Switzerland greater democracy thanmost of her European neighbours.

But where does all this come in, if we are speaking of themodel to be adopted? In the whole world, under present-dayconditions, countries in which any particular institutionhas been founded on consistent democratic principles are theexception. Does this prevent us, in our programme, fromupholding consistent democracy in all institutions?

* See pp. 20-22 of this volume.Ed.


Switzerlands special features lie in her history, her geo-graphical and other conditions. Russias special featureslie in the strength of her proletariat, which has no precedentin the epoch of bourgeois revolutions, and in her shockinggeneral backwardness, which objectively necessitates anexceptionally rapid and resolute advance, under the threatof all sorts of drawbacks and reverses.

We are evolving a national programme from the prole-tarian standpoint; since when has it been recommended thatthe worst examples, rather than the best, be taken as amodel?

At all events, does it not remain an indisputable andundisputed fact that national peace under capitalism hasbeen achieved (insofar as it is achievable) exclusively incountries where consistent democracy prevails?

Since this is indisputable, the opportunists persistentreferences to Austria instead of Switzerland are nothing buta typical Cadet device, for the Cadets21 always copy theworst European constitutions rather than the best.

In Switzerland there are three official languages, butbills submitted to a referendum are printed in five lan-guages, that is to say, in two Romansh dialects, in additionto the three official languages. According to the 1900 census,these two dialects are spoken by 38,651 out of the 3,315,443inhabitants of Switzerland, i.e., by a little over one percent. In the army, commissioned and non-comissionedofficers are given the fullest freedom to speak to the menin their native language. In the cantons of Graubndenand Wallis (each with a population of a little over a hundredthousand) both dialects enjoy complete equality.*

The question is: should we advocate and support this,the living experience of an advanced country, or borrowfrom the Austrians inventions like extra-territorial auton-omy, which have not yet been tried out anywhere in theworld (and not yet been adopted by the Austrians them-selves)?

To advocate this invention is to advocate the division ofschool education according to nationality, and that is adownright harmful idea. The experience of Switzerland

* See Ren Henry: La Suisse et la question des langues, Berne, 1907.

V. I. LENIN42

proves, however, that the greatest (relative) degree ofnational peace can be, and has been, ensured in practicewhere you have a consistent (again relative) democracythroughout the state.

In Switzerland, say people who have studied this question,there is no national question in the East-European sense of the term.The very phrase (national question) is unknown there. . . . Switzer-land left the struggle between nationalities a long way behind, in1797-1803.*

This means that the epoch of the great French Revolu-tion, which provided the most democratic solution of thecurrent problems of the transition from feudalism to capital-ism, succeeded incidentally, en passant, in solving thenational question.

Let the Semkovskys, Liebmans, and other opportunistsnow try to assert that this exclusively Swiss solution isinapplicable to any uyezd or even part of an uyezd in Russia,where out of a population of only 200,000 forty thousandspeak two dialects and want to have complete equality oflanguage in their area!

Advocacy of complete equality of nations and languagesdistinguishes only the consistently democratic elements ineach nation (i.e., only the proletarians), and unites them,not according to nationality, but in a profound and earnestdesire to improve the entire system of state. On the contrary,advocacy of cultural-national autonomy, despite thepious wishes of individuals and groups, divides the nationsand in fact draws the workers and the bourgeoisie of anyone nation closer together (the adoption of this cultural-national autonomy by all the Jewish bourgeois parties).

Guaranteeing the rights of a national minority is insep-arably linked up with the principle of complete equality.In my article in Severnaya Pravda this principle was ex-pressed in almost the same terms as in the later, official andmore accurate decision of the conference of Marxists. Thatdecision demands the incorporation in the constitution ofa fundamental law which shall declare null and void allprivileges enjoyed by any one nation and all infringementsof the rights of a national minority.

* See Ed. Blocher: Die Nationalitten in der Schweiz, Berlin, 1910.


Mr. Liebman tries to ridicule this formula and asks:Who knows what the rights of a national minority are?Do these rights, he wants to know, include the right of theminority to have its own programme for the nationalschools? How large must the national minority be to havethe right to have its own judges, officials, and schoolswith instruction in his own language? Mr. Liebman wantsit to be inferred from these questions that a positive nationalprogramme is essential.

Actually, these questions clearly show what reactionaryideas our Bundist tries to smuggle through under cover of adispute on supposedly minor details and particulars.

Its own programme in its national schools! . . . Marxists,my dear nationalist-socialist, have a general school pro-gramme which demands, for example, an absolutely secularschool. As far as Marxists are concerned, no departure fromthis general programme is anywhere or at any time permis-sible in a democratic state (the question of introducing anylocal subjects, languages, and so forth into it being decidedby the local inhabitants). However, from the principle oftaking educational affairs out of the hands of the stateand placing them under the control of the nations, it ensuesthat we, the workers, must allow the nations in our demo-cratic state to spend the peoples money on clerical schools!Without being aware of the fact, Mr. Liebman has clearlydemonstrated the reactionary nature of cultural-nationalautonomy!

How large must a national minority be? This is notdefined even in the Austrian programme, of which theBundists are enamoured. It says (more briefly and lessclearly than our programme does): The rights of the nation-al minorities are protected by a special law to be passed bythe Imperial Parliament (4 of the Brnn programme).

Why has nobody asked the Austrian Social-Democratsthe question: what exactly is that law, and exactly whichrights and of which minority is it to protect?

That is because all sensible people understand that it isinappropriate and impossible to define particulars in a pro-gramme. A programme lays down only fundamental prin-ciples. In this case the fundamental principle is implied withthe Austrians, and directly expressed in the decision of the

V. I. LENIN44

latest conference of Russian Marxists. That principle is:no national privileges and no national inequality.

Let us take a concrete example to make the point clearto the Bundist. According to the schoal census of January18, 1911, St. Petersburg elementary schools under theMinistry of Public Education were attended by 48,076pupils. Of these, 396, i.e., less than one per cent, wereJews. The other figures are: Rumanian pupils2, Geor-gians1, Armenians3, etc.22 Is it possible to draw upa positive national programme that will cover this diver-sity of relationships and conditions? (And St. Petersburgis, of course, far from being the city with the most mixedpopulation in Russia.) Even such specialists in nationalsubtleties as the Bundists would hardly be able to drawup) such a programme.

And yet, if the constitution of the country contained afundamental law rendering null and void every measurethat infringed the rights of a minority, any citizen wouldbe able to demand the rescinding of orders prohibiting, forexample, the hiring, at state expense, of special teachersof Hebrew, Jewish history, and the like, or the provisionof state-owned premises for lectures for Jewish, Armenian,or Rumanian children, or even for the one Georgian child.At all events, it is by no means impossible to meet, on thebasis of equality, all the reasonable and just wishes of thenational minorities, and nobody will say that advocacy ofequality is harmful. On the other hand, it would certainlybe harmful to advocate division of schools according tonationality, to advocate, for example, special schoolsfor Jewish children in St. Petersburg, and it would be utterlyimpossible to set up national schools for every nationalminority, for one, two or three children.

Furthermore, it is impossible, in any country-wide law,to define how large a national minority must he to be en-titled to special schools, or to special teachers for supple-mentary subjects, etc.

On the other hand, a country-wide law establishingequality can be worked out in detail and developed throughspecial regulations and the decisions of regional Diets,and town, Zemstvo, village commune and other author-ities.


6. CENTRALISATION AND AUTONOMY

In his rejoinder, Mr. Liebman writes:Take our Lithuania, the Baltic province, Poland, Volhynia,

South Russia, etc.everywhere you will find a mixed population;there is not a single city that does not have a large national minority.However far decentralisation is carried out, different nationalitieswill always be found living together in different places (chiefly inurban communities), and it is democratism that surrenders a nationalminority to the national majority. But, as we know, V. I. is opposedto the federal state structure and the boundless decentralisation thatexist in the Swiss Federation. The question is: what was his pointin citing the example of Switzerland?

My object in citing the example of Switzerland has alreadybeen explained above. I have also explained that the prob-lem of protecting the rights of a national minority can besolved only by a country-wide law promulgated in a con-sistently democratic state that does not depart from theprinciple of equality. But in the passage quoted above,Mr. Liebman repeats still another of the most common (andmost fallacious) arguments (or sceptical remarks) which areusually made against the Marxist national programme, andwhich, therefore, deserve examination.

Marxists are, of course, opposed to federation and decen-tralisation, for the simple reason that capitalism requiresfor its development the largest and most centralised possiblestates. Other conditions being equal, the class-consciousproletariat will always stand for the larger state. It willalways fight against medieval particularism, and will al-ways welcome the closest possible economic amalgamationof large territories in which the proletariats struggle againstthe bourgeoisie can develop on a broad basis.

Capitalisms broad and rapid development of the pro-ductive forces calls for large, politically compact and unitedterritories, since only here can the bourgeois classtogetherwith its inevitable antipode, the proletarian classuniteand sweep away all the old, medieval, caste, parochial,petty-national, religious and other barriers.

The right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the rightto secede and form independent national states, will bedealt with elsewhere.* But while, and insofar as, different

* See pp. 393-454 of this volume.Ed.

V. I. LENIN46

nations constitute a single state, Marxists will never, underany circumstances, advocate either the federal principle ordecentralisation. The great centralised state is a tremendoushistorical step forward from medieval disunity to the futuresocialist unity of the whole world, and only via such a state(inseparably connected with capitalism), can there be anyroad to socialism.

It would, however, be inexcusable to forget that in advo-cating centralism we advocate exclusively democratic cen-tralism. On this point all the philistines in general, and thenationalist philistines in particular (including the lateDragomanov23), have so confused the issue that we areobliged again and again to spend time clarifying it.

Far from precluding local self-government, with auton-omy for regions having special economic and social condi-tions, a distinct national composition of the population,and so forth, democratic centralism necessarily demandsboth. In Russia centralism is constantly confused withtyranny and bureaucracy. This confusion has naturallyarisen from the history of Russia, but even so it is quiteinexcusable for a Marxist to yield to it.

This can best be explained by a concrete example.In her lengthy article The National Question and Auton-

omy,* Rosa Luxemburg, among many other curious errors(which we shall deal with below), commits the exceptionallycurious one of trying to restrict the demand for autonomyto Poland alone.

But first let us see how she defines autonomy.Rosa Luxemburg admitsand being a Marxist she is of

course bound to admitthat all the major and importanteconomic and political questions of capitalist society mustbe dealt with exclusively by the central parliament of thewhole country concerned, not by the autonomous Diets ofthe individual regions. These questions include tariff policy,laws governing commerce and industry, transport andmeans of communication (railways, post, telegraph, tele-phone, etc.), the army, the taxation system, civil** and crim-

* PrzeglZd Socjaldemokratyczny,24 Krakw, 1908 and 1909.** In elaborating her ideas Rosa Luxemburg goes into details,

mentioning, for exampleand quite rightlydivorce laws (No. 12,p. 162 of the above-mentioned journal).


inal law, the general principles of education (for example,the law on purely secular schools, on universal education,on the minimum programme, on democratic school manage-ment, etc.), the labour protection laws, and political liber-ties (right of association), etc., etc.

The autonomous Dietson the basis of the general lawsof the countryshould deal with questions of purely local,regional, or national significance. Amplifying this idea ingreatnot to say excessivedetail, Rosa Luxemburg men-tions, for example, the construction of local railways(No. 12, p. 149) and local highways (No. 14-15, p. 376),etc.

Obviously, one cannot conceive of a modern, truly demo-cratic state that did not grant such autonomy to every regionhaving any appreciably distinct economic and social fea-tures, populations of a specific national composition, etc. Theprinciple of centralism, which is essential for the develop-ment of capitalism, is not violated by this (local and region-al) autonomy, but on the contrary is applied by it demo-cratically, not bureaucratically. The broad, free and rapiddevelopment of capitalism would be impossible, or at leastgreatly impeded, by the absence of such autonomy, whichfacilitates the concentration of capital, the development ofthe productive forces, the unity of the bourgeoisie and theunity of the proletariat on a country-wide scale; for bureau-cratic interference in purely local (regional, national, andother) questions is one of the greatest obstacles to economicand political development in general, and an obstacle tocentralism in serious, important and fundamental mattersin particular.

One cannot help smiling, therefore, when reading howour magnificent Rosa Luxemburg tries to prove, with a veryserious air and purely Marxist phrases, that the demandfor autonomy is applicable only to Poland and only by wayof exception! Of course, there is not a grain of parochialpatriotism in this; we have here only practical considera-tions ... in the case of Lithuania, for example.

Rosa Luxemburg takes four guberniasVilna, Kovno,Grodno and Suvalkiassuring her readers (and herself)that these are inhabited mainly by Lithuanians; and byadding the inhabitants of these gubernias together she finds

V. I. LENIN48

that Lithuanians constitute 23 per cent of the total popula-tion, and if Zhmuds are added, they constitute 31 percentless than a third. The natural inference is that the ideaof autonomy for Lithuania is arbitrary and artificial(No. 10, p. 807).

The reader who is familiar with the commonly knowndefects of our Russian official statistics will quickly seeRosa Luxemburgs mistake. Why take Grodno Guberniawhere the Lithuanians constitute only 0.2 per cent, one-fifth of one per cent, of the population? Why take the wholeVilna Gubernia and not its Troki Uyezd alone, where theLithuanians constitute the majority of the population?Why take the whole Suvalki Gubernia and put the numberof Lithuanians at 52 per cent of the population, and not theLithuanian uyezds of that gubernia, i.e., five out of theseven, in which Lithuanians constitute 72 per cent of thepopulation?

It is ridiculous to talk about the conditions and demandsof modern capitalism while at the same time taking notthe modern, not the capitalist, but the medieval, feudaland official-bureaucratic administrative divisions of Russia,and in their crudest form at that (gubernias instead ofuyezds). Plainly, there can be no question of any seriouslocal reform in Russia until these divisions are abolished andsuperseded by a really modern division that really meetsthe requirements, not of the Treasury, not of the bureaucracy,not of routine, not of the landlords, not of the priests, but ofcapitalism; and one of the modern requirements of capi-talism is undoubtedly the greatest possible national uni-formity of the population, for nationality and languageidentity are an important factor making for the completeconquest of the home market and for complete freedom ofeconomic intercourse.

Oddly enough, this obvious mistake of Rosa Luxemburgsis repeated by the Bundist Medem, who sets out to prove, notthat Polands specific features are exceptional, but thatthe principle of national-territorial autonomy is unsuitable(the Bundists stand for national extra-territorial autonomy!).Our Bundists and liquidators collect from all over theworld all the errors and all the opportunist vacillationsof Social-Democrats of different countries and different


nations and appropriate to themselves the worst they canfind in world Social-Democracy. A scrap-book of Bundistand liquidator writings could, taken together, serve as amodel Social-Democratic museum of bad taste.

Regional autonomy, Medem tells us didactically, is goodfor a region or a territory, but not for Lettish, Estonianor other areas (okrugs), which have populations ranging fromhalf a million to two million and areas equal to a gubernia.That would not be autonomy, but simply a Zemstvo. . . . Overthis Zemstvo it would be necessary to establish real auton-omy . . . and the author goes on to condemn the break-upof the old gubernias and uyezds.*

As a matter of fact, the preservation of the medieval,feudal, official administrative divisions means the break-up and mutilation of the conditions of modern capitalism.Only people imbued with the spirit of these divisions can,with the learned air of the expert, speculate on the contra-position of Zemstvo and autonomy, calling for the ster-eotyped application of autonomy to large regions andof the Zemstvo to small ones. Modern capitalism does notdemand these bureaucratic stereotypes at all. Why nationalareas with populations, not only of half a million, but evenof 50,000, should not be able to enjoy autonomy; whysuch areas should not be able to unite in the most diverseways with neighbouring areas of different dimensions intoa single autonomous territory if that is convenient or neces-sary for economic intercoursethese things remain thesecret of the Bundist Medem.

We would mention that the Brnn Social-Democraticnational programme is based entirely on national-territo-rial autonomy; it proposes that Austria should be dividedinto nationally distinct areas instead of the historicalcrown lands (Clause 2 of the Brnn programme). We wouldnot go as far as that. A uniform national population isundoubtedly one of the most reliable factors making forfree, broad and really modern commercial intercourse. It isbeyond doubt that not a single Marxist, and not even a singlefirm democrat, will stand up for the Austrian crown lands

* V. Medem: A Contribution to the Presentation of the NationalQuestion in Russia, Vestnik Yevropy,25 1912, Nos. 8 and 9.

V. I. LENIN50

and the Russian gubernias and uyezds (the latter are not asbad as the Austrian crown lands, but they are very badnevertheless), or challenge the necessity of replacing theseobsolete divisions by others that will conform as far as pos-sible with the national composition of the population. Lastly,it is beyond doubt that in order to eliminate all nationaloppression it is very important to create autonomous areas,however small, with entirely homogeneous populations,towards which members of the respective nationalitiesscattered all over the country, or even all over the world,could gravitate, and with which they could enter into rela-tions and free associations of every kind. All this is indispu-table, and can be argued against only from the hidebound,bureaucratic point of view.

The national composition of the population, however,is one of the very important economic factors, but not thesole and not the most important factor. Towns, for example,play an extremely important economic role under capitalism,and everywhere, in Poland, in Lithuania, in the Ukraine,in Great Russia, and elsewhere, the towns are marked bymixed populations. To cut the towns off from the villagesand areas that economically gravitate towards them, forthe sake of the national factor, would be absurd and impos-sible. That is w

Lenin CW-Vol. 20.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Lenin CW-Vol. 20.pdf