S&S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

Lenin and Nationalism: The Redirection of the Marxist Theory of Nationalism, 1903-1917
Author(s): Horace B. Davis
Source: Science & Society, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Spring, 1967), pp. 164-185
Published by: Guilford Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40401274 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 01:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM:

THE REDIRECTION OF THE MARXIST
THEORY OF NATIONALISM, 1903-19175*
B. DAVIS

HORACE

nationalitytheoryat the turn of the twentieth

in a state of disarray.Liberal democratic
was
century
was
opinion
generallyfavorableto the principleof selfdetermination;but Marx and Engels had not been much interested
in thisidea, and theirsuccessorswere divided on the subject,with
Rosa Luxemburgactuallyopposed.At a timewhenwar clouds were
gatheringand nationalistpleadings were affectingwider sections
of the population, including increasinglythe workingclass, the
Second Internationalremainedofficially
committedon paper to a
programof internationalism;but this termwas not defined,and
the several constituentorganizationsblocked concretesteps that
wereproposedto head offwar,such as the generalstrike.
Lenin performedtwo major servicesfor Marxist nationality
into
theory.First,he, togetherwithothers,succeededin integrating
Marxisttheorya formalrecognitionof the principleof self-determination,even thoughhis reservationsunder this head remained
much the same as those Marx and Engels had made. And in the
secondplace, he showedhow in the existingstageof capitalistdevelopment, both nationalismand war flowed ineluctablyfrom the
currenttrends.The way for this fundamentalanalysishad been
paved by Marxistwriterssuchas Otto Bauer and RudolfHilferding.
But thesehad stoppedshortof drawingLenin's conclusionson the
fullcausesand consequencesof theimperialistdrive,and thefutility
of the talk of "internationalism"
under twentieth-century
capitalist
conditions.Thus, while Lenin drewcloserto the liberal-democratic
The material in the
present article is taken from a book, Nationalism and Socialism: Marxist and Labor Theories of the Nation to 1917, to be published shortlyby
Monthly Review Press.
164

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

165

in thefieldof self-determination,
theorists
he brokecompletelywith
themand withthe Marxistrevisionists
and centrists;he showedthat
revisionismled to the abandonmentof all attemptsat a revolutionary,independentline for Marxism,and that centrismas preached
by Kautskyled straightto revisionism.It was especiallyin the field
of nationalitytheorythatLenin's polemicswere most effective.

The Period1903 to 19U

Down almost to the First World War, Lenin attacked many
questionsof politicsand philosophybut gave the national problem
only peripheralattention."Class antagonism,"he wrote in 1903,
"has now undoubtedlyrelegatednational questions into the background/1(With admirable balance, he added that in the future
in the
"some particularnationalquestionmightappear temporarily
foregroundof the political drama.") He shared the view of Marx
and
and Engels that the workingclass was international-minded
he
that
nationalist
tendedto becomemore so. The
"estrangement"
notedamongthe proletarianshe consideredto be partof the legacy
of autocracy.1
Lenin participatedin the formulationof the Russian SocialDemocraticParty'spositionon nationalityproblemsin 1903, and
for a number of years the statementthen adopted continued to
commandthe approval of all factionsin the party;Plekhanovand
the Menshevikssupportedit no less vigorouslythan did Lenin and
the Bolsheviks.The Party'spositionwas one of unqualifiedsupport
as applied to the nationalities
fortheprincipleof self-determination
of TsaristRussia,of equalityforall the nationalitiesin the Empire,
and of unconditionalguaranteesforthe protectionof the rightsof
nationalminorities.
Lenin was opposed on principleto having"nationalitysections"
of the Party,but showed his statesmanshipby suggestingthat a
certainnumberof seatsbe reservedin the nationalcongressto those
areas wheresuch separateorganizationswere actuallyin existence.2
1 Lenin,"The NationalQuestionin Our Program,"1903,in CollectedWorks,Vol. VI
(Moscow,1961)),pp. 454-63,esp. p. 462.
2 Note to resolutionsat Unity Conferenceof SDAPR, 1906,in Lenin, ber die
Nationaleund die KolonialeNationaleFrage: Eine Sammlungausgewhlter
Aufcited as Nat. & Kol. Nat. Frage.
stzeund Reden (Berlin,1960),p. 31, hereafter

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

He also believed thatcentralizationin the Partywas needed in the

interestsof the national struggleitself.
During this period Lenin followedwith great interestthe debates on colonialism,and hailed the developmentof India and
semi-colonialChina into strong independentnations. Consistent
withhis idea thatall nationshave the same road to travel,Lenin
consideredthe Asian countriesto be just enteringthe phase in
which the bourgeoisieis a progressiveclass, with which the proletariat could suitably be allied. Specifically,he said, in China
"therealready [1912] existsa liberal bourgeoisie,"which in alliance with "peasant democracy"has won some gains, though the
proletariatis either non-existentor quite impotent.Incidentally
in Lenin's remarkson China thereis no trace of any patronizing
attitude; in speakingof Sun Yat-sen'sideas he wrote: "What we
have beforeus is a reallygreatideologyof a reallygreatpeople."3
Before the Russian Revolution it was generallybelieved that
capitalismhad to run its course-that is, reach its higheststage of
development-before it turned into socialism.Thus one question
in the period under discussionwas: Will colonial anti-imperialist
withit? Revimovementshastencapitalistdevelopmentor interfere
with
sioniststended to argue thatsince such movementsinterfered
capitalism'sfull development,they actually might postpone the
arrivalof socialism,in which the revisionistsstill pretendedto believe. Lenin contendedthaton the contrary"the oppositionagainst
the colonial policy and the internationalthieverythroughthe organizationof the proletariat,throughthe defenseof freedomfor
the proletarianstruggledoes not limit the developmentof capitalism,but hastensit, since it compelscapitalismto use more civilized
and technicallydeveloped methods."4
Rosa Luxemburg had argued that imperialismspeeded the
developmentof capitalism,since the formof statemost conducive
to capitalistdevelopmentwas the predatorystate.Lenin challenged
this whole approach, and used Asia to illustratehis refutation.
Japan, he said, was a countrywhich had managed to escape the
3 "Democracy and Narodism in, China" and "Regenerated China," both written in
1912; see Selected Works,Vol. IV, pp. 305-11 and 312-13.
4 Letter to A. M. Gorki, Jan. 3, 1911 (firstpublished in 1924); see Nat, & Kol. Nat.
Frage, p. 60.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

167

dominationof the imperialistpirates;and the developmentof early

capitalistJapan was not only more rapid than that of the Asian
colonies and semi-colonies;it was more rapid than that of the
capitalist-imperialist
predatorsthemselves.5
consideredthatforEurope nationalismwas
Lenin
At thistime,
a side issue, and he deplored its growthin the proletariatas distractingthe workersfrom the internationalstruggle.In 1913 he
drewup forthe CentralCommitteeof the Partya directive,to be
addressedto the workersof all nationalitiesin Russia, calling for
the "mostdeterminedoppositionagainstthe aggressivenationalism
of reaction,forstruggleagainstany and everyappearanceof nationalism among the workingmasses/'In his discussionof Marx's ideas
on the Irish question,writtenin the same year,he remarkedthat
the workingclass should not "make a fetishof the national question/'In his "Critical Remarkson the National Question" (1914)
he even describedMarxismas being "incompatiblewith nationalism/'And in 1914 he wrote: "We Social-Democratsare enemiesot
all nationalism/'and remindedthe proletariatof its task "to fight
againstall nationalism,and above all againstGreat Russian nationalism/'6
National-CulturalAutonomyand the Emergence of Stalin
Nationalismwas by no means a side issue in Eastern Europe,
wherenot onlyreactionary
bourgeoisespeciallyin Austria-Hungary,
dominated elementsbut progressivegroups in the Slav working
class had been affectedby the separatistmovement.The GermanspeakingSocial-Democratsof Austria,led by Otto Bauer and Karl
Renner,had been workingon the problemforyears;Bauer's book
whichappeared in 1907 was the most ambitious Marxistwork on
nationalismto appear beforethe FirstWorld War.7
Bauer's position,shared by Renner, was that the constituent
partsof the dual empirewould lose more than theywould gain by
separation.The solution,in theirview, was to reorganizethe dual
Feb. 1914,in Selected
5 Lenin, "On the Right of Nationsto Self-Determination,"
Works,Vol. IV, p. 253.
6 Nat. & Kol. Nat. Frage,pp. 79, 153,192; SelectedWorks,Vol. IV, p. 292.
und die Sozialdemokratie(Vienna 1907;
7 Otto Bauer, Die Nationalittenfrage
2d. ed. 1924).

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

168

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

empireinto a federationwhichwould preservethe benefitsof economic integrationwhile according to the constituentnational

groupswide powersof autonomyin culturalmatters.But the empire could not be dividedin such a waythatall the Germanswould
be located in one area, all the Czechs in another,and Hungarians,
Italians,and the various South Slavic groupseach in its respective
territory.Members of the respectivenationalitieswere scattered
and intermingled.Bauer and Renner thereforeproposed that for
of schools
culturalmatters,such forexample as the administration
if
lines
national
would
be
desired), memsegregatedalong
(which
in
the
bers of each nationalitywould vote together
countryas a
whole. Each would thus constitutea nation withina nation,with
full rightsbut not exercisingthe rightof secession.This plan was
called national-cultural
autonomy.It began to make headwayalso
among the Russian Social-Democrats,
especiallyin Menshevikcircles. When a group of Mensheviksin 1912 called a conference
whichendorsednational-cultural
autonomy,the Bolshevikintellectuals were obliged to take notice of the trend.
Stalin,who was thenlittleknownoutsideof his nativeGeorgia,
published the resultsof his studiesin 1913. His Marxismand the
National Question is so well known that it will be unnecessaryto
do more than summarizeit here.
was a strongopponent
Stalin,whileacceptingself-determination,
of national-cultural
autonomy.He thoughtit was both unworkable
Stalinwrote,withreference
and undesirable.As foritspracticability,
to Russia: "Is it conceivablethat the Germansof the Baltic Provincesand theGermansof Transcaucasiacan be 'welded into a single
nation?"
Stalin found that national-culturalautonomywas undesirable
forseveralreasons:
First,national-culturalgroups are inter-classgroups,in which
proletariatand bourgeoisieare supposed to findmore in common
with each other than with the people of their respectivesocial
classesin the restof the population. Nationality,he declared,is a
bourgeoisprinciple."Implantedamong the workers,it poisons the
atmosphereand spreadsnoxious ideas of mutualmistrustand aloofnessamong the workersof the different
nationalities."
Stalin
found
that
national-cultural
Second,
autonomywas a half-

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

169

way house on the road to federalismand ultimatelyto separation,

whichhe deplored;he cited the Czechsas a horribleexample.Like
Bauer, he would have preferredto have the tribes and smaller
nationalitiesremainwithinthemulti-national
state;but themechanism thathe favored,supposingthatthe latterdid not exercisetheir
rightof secession,was regionalautonomy.
Stalin's work was writtenin January,1913, and published in
in March-May,1913. Lenin made his own refutaProsveshcheniye
tion of Bauer, in termsverysimilarto Stalin's,in March,May and
June,1913. He pointedout thateven Bauer had favoredthe unity
of Social-DemocraticParty organizationsat the local level, and
called the Bauer-Renneridea of national-culturalautonomy"an
opportunisticdream pictureof people who have lost the hope of
buildingconsistentdemocraticinstitutions/'8
Stalin'sotherconclusions,and indeed his essayas a whole,were
quite acceptable to Lenin; and this fact,and the related circumstancethatStalinbecametheacceptedtheoreticianof the Bolsheviks
on the subject of nationality,elevated Stalin's 1913 essay into the
role ofa textbookon nationalityproblemsfortheworldCommunist
movement.This was an honor thatit hardlydeserved.Both Bauer
than Stalin, and Lenin
and Lenin wrote more comprehensively
especiallywas more incisiveand at the same time more flexiblein
his approach.The later excessesof Stalin,who failed to followhis
own principlesin the fieldof national problemsas in otherfields,
have sent studentsback to the worksof Lenin, and the searchhas
provedmostrewarding.
Stalin's definitionof a nation (read: nationality)still survives
and givestrouble."A nation,"said Stalin,"is a historicallyevolved,
economic life, and psystable communityof language, territory,
in
manifested
a
communityof culture."9This
chologicalmakeup
schematic,extremelynarrowdefinitionhad relevanceto the problems of EasternEurope at the time it was writtenand is superior
but does not furnishmuch guidanceforlater
to Bauer's definition,
timesor even forotherlocalitiesbeforethe FirstWorld War. It is
thatwere thencurrentin Westfromthe definitions
quite different
8 Nat if KoL Nat Frage, p. 106.
9 Stalin, Marxism and the National Question (New York, n.d.), p. 12. Written in
January,1913.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

ernEurope. Specifically,
it leavesout of accountthecrucialquestion
whetherthe people in question wish to be considereda nation.
The problemof thestatesmanin decidingwhethera givengroup
of people should be considereda nation is analogous in certain
respectsto the problemof the National Labor Relations Board in
deciding whethera given group of workersshould be considered
as constitutinga bargainingunit. The law leaves the decision up
to the Board. Its policyat the start,and to a greatdegreesince,has
been to let theworkersdecide; if theworkersin a givenjurisdiction
expresseda desireto be recognizedas a union,the Board ascertained
by an electionthattheyreallyhad a majorityin thatarea and then
forpurposes
certifiedtheirorganizationas theirlegal representative
of collectivebargaining.If anotherunion challengedthe demarcation of the unit, the Board found some way of lettingthe workers
decide, as in the celebratedGlobe doctrine.If it had not solved
the problem in this way, the Board would have been in constant
difficulties.
It had enough difficulties
anyway.It would not have
lead
if
it
the
of the workerson matters
followed
lastedlong
had not
of jurisdictionas well as on the key question of union representation. If it had attemptedto imposeunionismon groupsof workers
who had not asked for it, the resultwould have been a luxuriant
growthof companyunionism.
The analogyto the national problemis evident.Well-meaning
assumedthat
groups,includingCommunistparties,have frequently
nationalitiesexisted because some group seemed to correspondto
Stalin's definition;or theyhave attemptedto create nationalities
wherenone existed.We have not seen any writingsof Lenin that
advocated this approach. The whole burden of his teachingswas
in the oppositedirection.If he did not workout his own definition
of a nation,or a nationality,this factshould not be taken as indicatingcompleteagreementwith Stalin's approach.
It was already true in 1913 that nationalitieswere developing
or history;and
whichdid not have unityof language,or territory,
manyothernationalitieswith similarlydisparatecompositionwere
to develop later. John H. Kautskywrites: "Speaking of underdevelopedcountriesin general,therewould seem to be no positive
factor[in nationalism]at all, but ratherthe dislike of a common

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

171

In thisrespect,
is like
thenationality
thecolonialpower."10
enemy,
thesocialclass.Marxhad pointedout: "The separateindividuals
forma classonlyinsofaras theyhaveto carry
[in theproletariat]
on a commonbattleagainstanotherclass; otherwise
theyare on
hostiletermswitheachotheras competitors/'11
should
ForLenin,it seemedaxiomaticthatnationalboundaries
of thepopulation.This was one demoaccordwiththesympathies
in hearty
craticdemandamongmanywithwhichhe was,in general,
agreement.12
Concerningsomeof the problemswith which the AustroLenin offered
the following:The
Marxistshad been concerned,
local populationdetermines
the boundariesof the autonomous
them.Generalschool
confirms
units,and the stategovernment
The local organsof
elected.13
councilsshouldbe democratically
and the autonomouslegislaturesdeterminethe
administration
languagein whichthe businessof all stateand socialinstitutions
has a right
In legalproceedings
will be conducted.
everyminority
to an answerin thelanguagein whicha requestwasmade.14
Leninon Patriotism
also
The depthofnationalist
feelingwhichhad becomeevident,
rein theworking
class,by 1913,led Lenin to begina thorough
nationalism
and
self-determinaof
of
the
whole
examination
subject
downto thetime
whichcontinuedpractically
tion,an examination
and
of the RussianRevolution.In a seriesof essays,resolutions
Lenin statedhis position,whichhe was laterto have a
directives
he seemsneverto have
chanceto put intopractice.Unfortunately
of a nation.But he did
himself
fromStalin'sdefinition
dissociated
at thesame
forthenationalismdiscoveran economicexplanation
whichhe deplored.
and restrictivetimeaggressive
PoliticalChangein Underdeveloped
Countries:Nationalismand
10 JohnH. Kautsky,
38.
Communism
York,
(New
1962),p.
11 Marx and Engels,The GermanIdeology,pp. 6^-60.
SummedUp," October,1916,in
12 Lenin, "The Discussionon Self-Determination
CollectedWorks,Vol. XIX, pp. 270-71.
13 Letterto S. G. Shaumyanin Baku, May 19, 1914; in Lettersof Lenin (New York
1937),p. 328; also in Nat & Kol. Nat. Frage,pp. 199-200.
14 Draftbill on the equalityof rightsof nationsand on the defenseof the rights
of nationalminorities;
written1914,See Nat. <rKol, Nat. Frage,p. 202.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

Lenin admittedto feelinglove of country,thoughnot of the

kinddescribedas "collectiveegoism."Discussingthe nationalpride
of the Great Russians in 1914, Lenin wrote:
Whatwe witnessis a broadand verydeep ideologicalcurrentwhose
and
of the landowners
withthe interests
originsare closelyinterwoven
of thegreatnations.. . .
capitalists
to thefeelArewe enlightened
Great-Russian
impervious
proletarians
ing of nationalpride?Certainlynot! We love our languageand our
we
motherland.
. . . We are filledwithnationalpride,and therefore
our
slavish
hate
our
slavish
.
.
and
.
particularly
present.15
past
Lenin, like Marx, was suspiciousof patriotism,which Bakunin
and quite oftensimply
had called "a narrow,exclusive,anti-human,
" Lenin
and again that the
time
out
a cruel sentiment.
pointed
social and economic conditionsengenderingthe pettyproprietor
impartespecial stabilityto one of "the most deep-seatedof pettybourgeois prejudices, namely: prejudices of national egoism, of
national narrow-mindedness."16
The ChangingNature of the Bourgeoisie
Lenin discussedthe problem of nationalismdialectically,emphasizingits historicaldevelopment.Of the threeepochs whichhe
the first,from1789 to 1871, representedthe ascenddistinguished,
movementsin
ing line of the burgeoisie,of bourgeois-democratic
movementsin particular;thiswas
generaland of bourgeois-national
an epoch of the rapid breakdownof obsolete feudal absolutistinstitutions.The second epoch, 1871-1914,is thatof the full dominafrom
tion and decline of the bourgeoisie,and of its transformation
a progressiveclass to a reactionary,even rabidlyreactionaryclass,
under the leadershipof financecapital. Some historians,including
some Marxists,would call thisthe epoch of imperialism,and Lenin
occasionallywroteas if imperialismreachedits apogee around 1900;
but in his formalclassification
the epoch of imperialismbegan only
in 1914 with the outbreakof the FirstWorld War, which he ex15 Lenin,"On the NationalPride of the GreatRussians,"1914; in CollectedWorks,
Vol. XVIII (New York,1930),pp. 9-102.Emphasisin original.
16 M. A. Suslov,"Struggleof the CPSU for the Unityof the World Communist
in SovietDocuments,Vol. II, No. 16 (April20, 1964),p. 74, quoting
Movement,"
Lenin,CollectedWorks,Russianed., Vol. XXXI, p. 128.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

173

to usherin a period of convulsionsending in the

pected,correctly,
overthrowof capitalismin one countryafteranother.17
Lenin thoughtthat in the firstof the epochs he listed (17891871), nationalismwas a progressiveforce,as it is whereverthe
risingcapitalistclass seeks to throwoffthe chains of feudalism;it
thenmakesuse of the formof the national state.He assumedthat
all nationswould go throughthe same development,and thatIndia
and China would followthe "nationalroad," and be organizedinto
nationalstates,althoughthishad not yet happened.18With regard
to EasternEurope, nationalismmightstill be a progressiveforce;
he wrote:
As far as the Ukrainiansor White Russiansare concerned,the
. . . the awakening
has not yetbeen consummated;
nationalmovement
native
their
to
the
masses
a
desire
of
tongueand napossess
among
"deIn
countries
these
there.
is
still
in
...
...
tiveliterature
progress
naof
the
defense
of
still
be
fenseof the fatherland"
democracy,
may
tive tongue,of politicalfreedomagainstoppressingnations,against
&c.19
medievalism,
Lenin pointed out that to achieve complete victoryfor commodityproductionthe bourgeoisiemustcapturethe home market,
and must have a politicallyunited territorywith a population
speakingthe same language,while all obstaclesto the development
of thatlanguageand to its consolidationin literatureare removed.
"The formationof nationalstatesis ... the tendencyof everynational movement.... A heterogeneousnational state represents
or is an exception."20
backwardness
Marx had emphasizedthe role of the bourgeoisiein creating
the national state,but he had also stressedverystronglythat the
bourgeoisiewas creatinga world market,which involvedbreaking
down national barriers.He had looked on this developmentas
presagingeventualconflictbetweenthe bourgeoisieand the working class on an internationalscale. Free trade was for Marx a step
17 Lenin,"Undera StolenFlag," in CollectedWorks,Vol. XVIII, pp. 126-27;written in February1915.
18 Lenin, "The Proletariatand the War," lecturedeliveredOctober 14, 1914; in
CollectedWorks,Vol. XVIII, p. 69.
SummedUp," 1916; in Collected
19 Lenin, "The Discussionon Self-Determination
in
Vol.
225-26.
XIX,
original.
Works,
Emphasis
pp.
20 Lenin,SelectedWorks,Vol. IV, pp. 251,254. Emphasisin original.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

in advance, because tariffs

had become out of date. Universalfree
tradewould resultin enrichingthe bourgeoisie,but the proletariat
would not be enriched;on the contrary,its conditionwould continue to deteriorate (law of increasingmisery). Thus universal
freetradewould demonstratein time that the only escape for the
proletariat from its degraded condition was through world
revolution.
Lenin agreed with Marx's main conclusion,that the growthoi
worldtradewould not save the bourgeoisiefromsocial revolution.
But his mannerof developingthe argumentwas somewhatdifferent
fromthe beginning,and became more so. Engels had in the end
specificallyrepudiatedthe idea that the conditionof the workers
tendsto deteriorateabsolutelyunder capitalism.In advisingabout
the ErfurtProgram (1890) Engels had deleted a passage referring
to the absolute worseningof the workers'living conditions,and
had substitutedsome remarksabout the increasinginsecurityof
modern life. Lenin followed Engels in carefullyrefrainingfrom
endorsingthe law of increasing (absolute) misery;he was even
preparedto admit thatforat least a part of the workingclass imperialismhad broughthigherwages. It is all the more remarkable
that he should have been able to forecastthe dissolutionof the
capitalistworld order.
This forecastdependedforitsvaliditylargelyon Lenin's analysis
of thechangedsocial role of the bourgeoisie.From beinga progressive class, the bourgeoisie of Western Europe- England, France,
Germany,etc.-had ceased to be a constructiveforce; it could not
"produce anythingprogressive,anythingcapable of rousing new
massesof people to new economicand political life."21"Now the
bourgeoisietears the worker,seeks alliance with . . . reaction,betraysdemocracy,favorsthe suppressionof nationsor opposes their
equality,and demoralizesthe workerswith nationalisticslogans/'22
The bourgeoisiehad become a "sinking,decaying,internallydead,
frameworkof states
reactionaryclass," and the bourgeois-national
had becomea hindranceto the freedevelopmentof the productive
forces.23
This was true,said Lenin, in spiteof thefactthatimperialism was progressive
as comparedwithpremonopolycapitalism.
21 CollectedWorks,Vol. XIX, p. 225.
22 Nat. & Kol. Nat. Frage,p. 95; emphasisin original.Writtenin 1913.
23 CollectedWorks,Vol. XVIII, p. 129.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

175

Is a DemocraticRight
Self-Determination
Lenin had no doubts.By the
On therightof self-determination,
turnof thecentury,it had becomeclear thatthiswas a major democraticdemand,and Lenin was alwayscarefulto fall in with such
demandsexcept where theyseemed to constitutea bar to the advance of the proletarianrevolution.To be sure, Lenin, following
Marx, contended that none of these demands was absolute; 4ia
democraticdemand must be considerednot in isolation but on a
worldscale." "Everydemocraticdemand (includingself-determination) is, forthe class consciousworkers,subordinatedto the higher
interests
of socialism."He also contended:"The interestsof a number of big and verybig nations in Europe stand higherthan the
interestsof the movementfor liberationof small nations";and he
reprimandedthe Polish Social-Democratsfor adoptingnationalism
and secessionas part of theirprogram.24
It was in connectionwith the Polish question thatLenin sharpened up his positionon the rightof nations to self-determination,
a rightwhich Rosa Luxemburghad questioned. She had argued:
By supportingthe rightto secessionyou are supportingthe bourgeois nationalismof the oppressednations.Not so, said Lenin:
of theoppressednationstruggles
To theextentthatthebourgeoisie
we are always,in every
that
to
the
extent,
one,
oppressing
against
than
more
and
else,
for it, because we are
case,
anyone
resolutely
. . . The
of
enemies
most
consistent
and
the
thestaunchest
oppression.
has
nation
a
of
nationalism
generaldemoeveryoppressed
bourgeois
and
it
is thiscontent
craticcontentwhichis directedagainstoppression,
it
from
the tendency
thatwe absolutelysupport,strictly
distinguishing
towardone's own nationalexdusiveness,
againstthe tendency
fighting
of thePolishbourgeoisieto oppresstheJews,&c, &c.
The proletarians,said Lenin, are against special privilegesfor
any nation,hence also for the bourgeoisieof an oppressednation.
"The proletariat. . . evaluates everynational demand, everynationalseparationfromtheangle of theclassstruggleof theworkers."
But Lenin never questioned that the maintenanceof the rightof
SummedUp," 1916,in CollectedWorks,
24 "The Discussionon Self-Determination
Vol. XIX, pp. 285-87; "A Caricatureof Marxismand 'ImperialistEconomisai'/'
1916,in ibid.,pp. 243 and 285-87.Emphasisin original.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

176

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

secessionand the generalprincipleof self-determination

of nations,
correct:
"A
were
thousandfactorswhich cannot be foreseenwill
determinewhetherthe Ukraine,for example, is destinedto form
an independentstate. And withoutattemptingidle 'guesses/we
firmlyuphold what is beyond doubt: the rightof the Ukraine to
formsuch a state."25
The generalprinciple,the "absoluteright"forwhichLenin was
contending,was thusnot any "naturalright"of self-determination,
but the rightof resistanceto oppression,which always coincided
withthe interestsof the workersin theirstruggleforfreedomand
socialism.So, the "patriotic"Heinrich Cunow, who twittedLenin
sense is
forbelievingin "naturalrights"in the eighteenth-century
Lenin's
to
in
seen have missedLenin's main point.26Indeed,
view,
therewere certainlimitationson the "right"of self-determination.
In his "Theses on theNational Question,"writtenin June 1913,
Lenin had said that Social-Democrats(meaning the partyof the
largerunit, in this case Russia) must make a judgment in each
individual case whetherit is in the interestsof the international
proletarianmovementthatanygivennationalgroupshouldexercise
and withdrawfromthe largernation.
itsrightof self-determination
He had added that the Poles and the Finns were "the most
developedculturallyand the mostemancipated"of the nationalities
makingup the Russian Empire and could most easilyand "naturThis soundslike the argually" exercisetheirrightof separation.27
mentsof the conventionalapologistsfor colonialism,who usually
contendthat any given colony is "not ready" for self-government.
Indeed, this formulationseems inconsistentwith Lenin's strong
insistenceat othertimeson the rightof self-determinationthough,
as is well known,Lenin did insiston Finland being grantedindependenceimmediatelyafterthe October Revolution.
Lenin mentionedstill anotherlimitationon the rightof selfdetermination.Suppose, he said, that "a number of nations were
to starta socialistrevolution. . . while othernationsserveas the
chiefbulwarksof bourgeoisreaction-thenwe would have to be in
25 SelectedWorks,Vol. IV, pp. 265-68.Emphasisin original.
26 See K. Kautsky,"Die Befreiungder Nationen,"in Neue Zeit, 1916-17,Bd. II,
p. 36 and passim.
p. 146,quotingH. Cunow,Parteizusammenbruch,
27 Nat. & Kol. Nat. Frage,pp. 102-103.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

177

war againstthe latter,in favorof Crushing'

favorof a revolutionary
all theiroutposts,no matterwhatsmall
them,in favorof destroying
nationalmovementsarose there" [Georgia?].28
Lenin statedflatly,and repeated many times,that the SocialDemocratsof thelargecountrieshave a boundendutyto rightevery
formof national oppression,and to supportthe rightof everynaMarx and Engels had not gone
tionalityto self-determination.29
thisfar.
This insistencewas not necessarilyinconsistentwith Lenin's
emphasison the desirabilityof large national units. As explained
in a pamphletprintedduringthe war: "To defendthisright [viz.
does not mean to encourage in any way the
self-determination]
formationof small states;on the contrary,it leads to a freer,more
widerand moreuniversalformationof larger
fearlessand therefore
and unions of governments/'30
governments
The union of statesmust take place voluntarily,"on a truly
basis, which is unthinkablewithdemocratic,trulyinternationalist
"A socialistof a greatnation or a
out the freedomof separation/'31
nation possessingcolonies who does not defend this right is a
chauvinist/'32
Lenin of course believed with Marx that true internationalism
could come only with socialism; but he advocated the right of
separationalso in advance of the socialistrevolution.He wrote:
"Even for those colonial countrieswhere there are no workers,
and slaves,etc.,it is not only not
wherethereare onlyslave-owners
Marxist
to advance the slogan of
for
absurd but obligatory every
That such policies could be not only ad'self-determination'."33
vanced but put into practicehad been shown many years before
by Toussaint l'Ouverture,not to mentionthe escaped slaves who
had foundedin Brazil the independentstateof Palmares.
SummedUp," in CollectedWorks,Vol.
28 "The Discussionon Self-Determination
XIX, p. 287.
29 Nat. & KoL Nat. Frage,pp. 126,129.
30 Zinovievand Lenin, Socialismand War, 1915; in CollectedWorks,Vol. XVIII,
p. 235.
Proletariatand the Rightof Nationsto Self-Determination,"
31 "The Revolutionary
1915,ibid.,p. 373. Emphasisin original.
32 Socialismand War,ibid.,p. 235.
33 Lenin, "A Caricatureof Marxismand 'ImperialistEconomism',"1916; in CollectedWorks,Vol. XIX, p. 251. Emphasisin original.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

178

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

Wars of ResistanceagainstImperialism
When the bourgeoisieis a progressive
class,buildingthe nation,
destroyingfeudalism,and eitherfightingoffimperialismor trying
to get rid of it, Lenin did not questionthatit deservessupportboth
fromthe workingmassesin the countryin questionand fromthose
in the imperialistcountry.When, however,the resistanceto imperialismis offeredby a reactionaryclass,the case is not so simple.
The espousal of the principle of self-determination
creates a
in
favor
of
in
national
favorof
rebellion.
"We
are
presumption
nationalrebellion/*wroteLenin, but not in favorof all rebellionnot that of the Southernstatesof America in 1861.34
specifically,
Even rebellionsagainstimperialismmustbe trulynationalin order
to gain the rightto support.Lenin wrote: "It is not our duty to
support everystruggleagainst imperialism.We will not support
the struggleof the reactionaryclassesagainstimperialism;we will
not supportan uprisingof the reactionaryclassesagainstimperialism and capitalism/'35
Howeverin thesamearticleit developsthatwe cannot"withhold
supportfromany seriouspopular struggleagainstnational oppression/'36The implicationis clear that even if reactionaryclasses
initiatedan anti-imperialist
strugglein a colonial or semi-colonial
the
that
from
massesof the people suptime
considerable
country,
of
the
workers
in
both
the underdeveloped
the
ported it,
duty
countryand theimperialistcountrywould be to supportthestruggle
too.
Would Lenin have withheldsupportfromAbd-el-Kader,the reactionaryBedouin chief,in Algeriaat the timethe Frenchcaptured
him in 1848? (Engels withheldhis support.) Or would Lenin have
attackedthe French as imperialists,as Engels did ten yearslater?
Would Lenin have refrainedfromsupportingthe Indian uprising
of 1857-59,on thegroundthatit was led by the reactionary
classes?
R. P. Dutt, the contemporary
Indian-BritishMarxist,seemsto withhold his supportretrospectively,
as Marx himselfdid. Or would
34 Letter to N. D. Kiknadze, October 1916, in Collected Works, Vol. XIX, p. 266.
Emphasis in original.
35 "A Caricature of Marxism, etc.", in ibid., p. 250. Emphasis in original.
36 Ibid., p. 248. Emphasis added.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

179

and givenit symLeninhavehailedit as a warof independence

Instituteof Moscow
as the Marx-Engels-Lenin
pathetictreatment,
wasto do a hundredyearsaftertheevent?We are givenno specific
guidance,excepttheextentof thepopularsupportfortherespecin question.
tivemovements
nothavewishedto see theCommunists,
Leninwouldcertainly
underthe commandof some
ior whatever
reason,put themselves
and
them
latershoottheirleaders,as
disarm
would
who
potentate
But we cannot
in one Middle-Eastern
country.
happenedrecently
tends
in
thatMarxism thetwentieth
fromremarking
refrain
century
as such,as Lenin
and imperialist
to opposeimperialism
aggression
movement.
to the Polish independence
explainedwithreference
to imperialism
classesbutopposition
Notsupportofthereactionary
to such occasions.Lenin
shouldsurelybe the sloganappropriate
the
favorednationalwarsagainst
imperialist
powers;he
strongly
and revolutionary
consideredthat such wars were progressive
(Lenin'sitalics).37
was
Lenin,writingon behalfof the revolutionary
proletariat,
not opposedto all coalitions,but onlyto thosewithreactionary
classpartyenteredintoa unionwith
Wheretheworking
groupings.
it wasalwaysto be withtheperspective
theprogressive
bourgeoisie,
of leadingthe coalitionratherthanof followingthe lead of the
This latterpolicywouldbe an exampleof "tailism,"
bourgeoisie.
he proceeded
This partof his theory
whichhe alwayscondemned.
in
Russia
returned
to
he
1917,
to putintopracticewhen
February,
Lenin
the
result.
of the worldwas influenced
and thehistory
by
to the "nationalclass"
Marx'spassingreferences
did not interpret
its independence
to meanthattheworkers'
partyshouldsurrender
or itspowerofinitiative.
fitted
Lenin'sstrongadvocacyof therightof self-determination
in withsimilardemandsby variousnationalistgroupsand with
in
of theleft-bourgeois
thesentiment
liberals;it foundexpression
which
no punitiveindemnities"
theslogan"no forcible
annexations,
in thelaterstagesof theFirstWorldWar.
had widecurrency
37 Lenin,"The pamphletby Junius,"in CollectedWorks,Vol. XIX, p. 206.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

180

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

Lenin's"Imperialism"
and the Theoryof Nationalism
to those
ofthewarhad brought
a rudeawakening
The outbreak
oftheworkers
who,likeLenin,hadhopedthattheinternationalism
To discover
of the bourgeoisie.
wouldovercomethe nationalism
had takensucha hold,even on the
how it was thatnationalism
Lenin
restudied
thewholequestionof internationalclass,
working
thecausesof thewar.There was
for
himself
out
ism,and worked
relationsand ecoon international
alreadyan imposingliterature
was greatlyinnomicrivalriesbeforethe war,and thisliterature
creasedin 1914-15.
A
The non-Marxist
JohnA. Hobsonin hisclassicImperialism:
of
as
the
had
stressed
verystrongly export capital a
Study(1902)
of
cause imperialist
expansion.Bauer in his book on nationalism
in his excellentFinanzto,and RudolfHilferding
alreadyreferred
the
had
emphasized growthof monopolyand the
kapital (1910),
and tradingcapital.
finance
of
capitaloverindustrial
preeminence
of
theattention
cartelshad attracted
The growthof international
the
severalbourgeoiswriters.
Finally, expansionist
propagandaof
theGermanReichhad madefamiliartheidea thattheexpansion
theworldwasalready
ofcapitalism
intonewareaswascompleted;
could make
dividedup amongthe greatpowers,and newcomers
areasonlybyreplacing
someexisting
inroadsin thebackward
power
-presumably
byforceofarms.
Leninlistedall ofthesepointsas essential
partsofthedefinition
reached
in its development.
had
then
that
of thestage
capitalism
were
as somebourgeoiswriters
He calledthisstage"imperialism,"
and
Lenin
addedand
middle-class
writers
But
the
alreadydoing.
of
a
him
result
this
down
the
academicians
to
1930's
as
boycotted
and otherthingsthatimperialism
wasthefinalstageofcapitalism;
thatit wouldgivewayto socialismin one country
afteranother.
of
Lenin's
of
The elements
theory imperialismhad been
was his
developedbeforethe FirstWorldWar, but the synthesis
his
from
on
differed
some
he
and
own,
noticeably
important
points
Hobsonhad had a rathermechanistic
viewof therole
predecessors.
thatsomepeople
ofcapitalexport;he had stressed
it so exclusively
weregiventheidea thatcapitalexportwasa necessary
elementin
of
whereassome the imperialist
causingcapitalistrivalry,
powers,
like TsaristRussia,wereactuallydebtorcountries.
Lenin did not

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

181

fall into this trap; he merelystatedthat the exportof capital had

become veryimportant.Also, Hobson still thought,with Veblen,
and others,thatfreetraderepresentedthe wave of the
Schumpeter,
future,whereasLenin followedHilferdingin consigningfreetrade
to the limbo of lost causes.
Hilferdinghad also given a classic statementof the reasonsfor
the changedrole of the bourgeoisie,to which referencewas made
by Lenin in one of his 1913 essays.Hilferdingassociatedthischange
which
withthe decline of freetradeand the rise of protectionism,
state.
the
toward
caused the bourgeoisieto take a new attitude
Instead of its being an interfering
nuisance, the state becomes a
It assuresthem
manufacturers.
and
traders
benefit
to
the
positive
and
market
fightstheir battles
preferentialaccess to the internal
said Hilferding,is a victory
abroad. The victoryof protectionism,
are: quicker
for the employingclass. Accompanyingprotectionism
of
business
and strongercartelization,strengthening
organizations,
the sharpeningof nationalrivalries,the increaseof armaments,the
growthof the pressureof taxes,increasein the cost of living,the
the weakeningof demoenlargingof the powerof the government,
ideology.38
cracy,and theemergenceof an anti-labor,power-oriented
than
other
cannot
he
imperipursue any policy
Capitalism, added,
alism.39
The national idea, which found its natural boundary in the
into the idea that one's own
state's borders,is now transformed
The idea of equalityis transformed
nationis superiorto theothers.40
by thegrowthofmonopolyinto theidea of privilege;thesuperiority
of a nation economicallyis attributedto its racial qualities. "The
to a superiorsocial interest,which is the
dedicationof self-interest
conditionof everyviable social ideology,is won; the anti-popular
stateand thenationitselfare combinedin one unit and thenational
idea is put at the serviceof politicsas its drivingpower/'41
Lenin had a high opinion of Hilferding'sanalysis,which he
quoted approvinglyat severalpoints.
Das Finanzkapital(Vienna1910),p. 470.
38 RudolfHilferding,
to quote Hilferdingas sayingthat imperialismis a
accustomed
are
who
39 Those
are invitedto takenote of
than
an immanentnecessity
rather
of
policy capitalism
thispassage(p. 471).
heregivescreditto Bauer.
40 Hilferding
41 Hilferding,
pp. 423-29.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

182

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

Lenin's new emphasison the importanceof nationalismdistinguishedhis workfromthatof Hobson and Kautsky.If Imperialism
had not been based on a realisticappreciationof the importance
of nationalism,it could not have been, what it ultimatelybecame,
one of the mostinfluentialworksof the twentiethcentury.
Yet interestingly,
themostdistinctively
Leninistpartof thetheory,
theso-calledlaw of unevendevelopment,is not developedat length
in this essay,but is found-briefly,it is true-in anothercontribution writtenabout the same time. In his preface to Bukharin's
Imperialismand World Economy,a 1916 volume devoted largely
to tracingthe fortunesof the internationalcartels,Lenin explained
why continued peaceful stabilizationwas impossibleunder capitalism.The reasonwas thatthe severalcapitalistnation-states
were
at
different
of
rates
like
Some,
developing
England, had
speed.
reacheda kind of plateau and were developingonlyslowly,whereas
others,forexample,Germanyand Japan,were developingrapidly
and were bound sooner or later to challenge the position of the
old leaders.This, of course,was also the situationwithineach of
the internationaleconomic cartels,whose constituentcompanies
mightmakea treatyof peace to divide the worldmarketbut would
gladly abandon the treatyif an opportunityarose for them to
swallowup one or more of theircompetitors.
Basing himselfon this "law," whichhad been foreshadowedby
Hilferding,Lenin polemicizedagainst the centristsof the Second
International,especiallyKautsky,who were acceptingthe idea that
capitalismwas capable of stabilizingthe world.Lenin insistedthat,
on the contrary,capitalismwas due to collapse and be replaced
by socialism.
Nationalism under Socialism
Lenin was ratherimpatientwith thosewho questionedwhether
socialistgovernmentswould consult the wishes of the population
in drawingboundaries. His firstreaction was: "Of course!" His
secondreactionwas thatit did not especiallymatteranyway:
Socialismby organizing
productionwithoutclassoppressionand by
of all members
of the state,givesfullscope to
ensuringthewell-being
the "sympathies"
of the population,and preciselyby virtueof this

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

183

acceleratesthe establishment
of intimacy
facilitatesand enormously
and
nations.42
of
amalgamation
among
Lenin thoughtthat the attractionof a big state under socialism
would be so greatthatthe questionof secessionwould hardlyarise.
But, he added, with thatremarkablebalance which was characteristicof all his work: "The hatred-and perfectly
legitimatehatredof an oppressed nation for its oppressor will continue for a
"43
while

is signifiafterImperialism,
written
StateandRevolution,
shortly
cantforwhatit leavesout as wellas forwhatit includes.One can
statehardlythinkof Marx or Engelsproducinga programmatic
of the
a statement
mentof thiskindwithoutincludingsomewhere
such as was conactionby the proletariat,
case forinternational
Lenin was not at thistime
tainedin The Communist
Manifesto.
of such interwiththe prospects
disillusioned
(1917) completely
afterwards
to reachthe point
nationalaction,but he was shortly
was "in
ofnotconsidering
it absolutely
essential;theclassstruggle
as Marx and Engelshad put it, national.The
thefirstinstance/*
and
of
the
layinghold of the statemachinery
picture
proletariat
to
is
intended
it in orderto rebuildit on a new basis,
destroying
and indeedLenin neverexpectedthatthe
applyinternationally,
latterpart,the withering
awayof the state,would or could take
place wherethe socialiststatewas surroundedby hostilecapitaliststates.
Marxiststodaydo not endorsetheStaliniststateof the period
Nor do
as a properstageon the road to communism.
1933-1953
as theultimatestagein theevolulookon thenation-state
Marxists
If thereis anysuchultimatestage,it would
tionofpoliticalforms.
on a worldscale.
of exploitation
be foundafterthe elimination
of
SinceMarxand Lenin bothconsideredthatthechieffunction
of privatepropstateas suchwaspolicingthesystem
thebourgeois
of the stateas
theeventualdisappearance
erty,bothcontemplated
alienaa politicalform.With it wouldgo also nationalrivalries,
war
and
tion,
poverty.
for evil. The
Nationalismwould have lost its potentialities
SummedUp," 1916; in Collected
42 Lenin, "The Discussionon Self-Determination
Works,Vol. XIX, p. 271. Emphasisin original,
43 Ibid.,pp. 285,299.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

184

SCIENCE

AND SOCIETY

national cultureswould remain,and would be productiveof an

interesting
diversity.Lenin wrote:
acceleratethe
The overthrow
of the bourgeoisiewill tremendously
but on
of
kind
of
without
national
decreasing,
partition
collapse every
of huthe contrary
"differentiation"
millions
of
the
times,
increasing
if
we
of
are
to
understand
wealth
and
this
the
manity,
variety spiritual
by
life,trendsof ideas,tendencies,
shadings.44

Conclusion
This studyof thenewturnthatLenin gaveto Marxistnationforthe periodfrom
alitytheorymakesno claimto completeness
1917to Lenin'sdeathin 1924,and doesnotcovertheperiodsince
havebeen
1924at all. The gapswhichremainedin Lenin'stheory
in a kindofway,bythepracticeofhalfa century.
No theorist
filled,
Lenin's
of Lenin'sstaturehas arisento codifythe new practices.
have
Marxist
directives
been
so
that
not
followed,
policy
always
whichcan
as rathera patchwork
affair,
nationality
theory
emerges
be studiedby examiningthe historyof the socialiststates.It is
hasarisenregardtoadd thata wholeseriesofproblems
unnecessary
relationsof the socialiststates,and we can
ing the international
what
would
havebeen Lenin'sattitudeon these.
onlyguess
The big difference
betweenLenin and Stalinin thisfieldwas
notin theirrespective
theories
of thenationalquestion,sincethey
shared
the
theoretical
same
apparently
approach,but in theirconof
how
to
solve
such
in
cept
problems practice,
notablyafterthe
formation
of theSovietUnion.This difference
emergedalreadyin
thefamouscase of theGeorgianseparatists,
whichcameto a head
in 1922.It had beenknownformanyyearsthatLenindisapproved
of Stalin'sstrongactionin puttingdownthe incipientnationalist
revoltin his nativeGeorgia,and thatLenin warnedthe Partyat
thattimethatStalinwas too tough;but the full textof Lenin's
memorandum
on Stalin'sseveremethods,
withhis request
together
to Trotskythatthelattertakeup theaffair
withtheCentralCommitteeof theParty,werenot publishedin theSovietUnionuntil
1956,threeyearsafterStalin'sdeath.Lenin'sexcoriation
contains
thefollowing
revealingpassages:
44 Lenin in CollectedWorks,Vol. XVIII, p. 191; emphasisin original.WrittenMayJune1915;published1924.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LENIN AND NATIONALISM

185

DistincAn abstractconceptof nationalismis absolutelyworthless.

nation
tionshouldbe made betweenthe nationalismof an oppressing
and thenationalism
of an oppressednation,thenationalismof a large
nationand thenationalism
of a smallnation.
. . . We, thenationalsof a greatnation,showourselvesalmostalways
in historicalpracticeguiltyof untoldnumbersof outragesand, what
untoldnumis more-we do not evenobservethatwe are perpetrating
bersof actsof violenceand abuse.. . .
of the oppressing
nation,or of
For thisreasontheinternationalism
itsviolence,
theso-called"Great"nation(evenifit is greatonlythrough
not
should
can
be
an
overlord
as
only on
depend
"great")
greatonly
inof
such
also
but
of
observation
formal
nations,
the
equalityamong
comwould
the
nation,
the
which
nation, large
oppressing
equalityby
pensateforthatinequalitywhichactuallyexistsin life.He who does
the trueproletarian
thisdoes not understand
not understand
approach
thepetitbourgeoisoutlook
still
retains
to thenationalquestion,actually
and,forthatreason,cannotbut fall into thebourgeoisposition.
. . . The oppressednationalsare not as sensitivein regardto any
othermatteras in regardto theirequality.... It wouldbe preferable
to sin by too much ratherthan too littleconcessionand indulgence
towardnationalminorities.45
Brooklyn,New York
45 New YorkTimes,July1, 1956,quotingmemoby Lenin,December31, 1922.Also
in Nat. rKol. Nat. Frage,pp. 655-54.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.182 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:25:07 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions