The Right of Nations to Self Determination

The work where Lenin expounded the standpoint of Marxism and proletarian parties on national self-determination and criticized Rosa Luxemburg’s erroneous views. This article was written from February to May in 1914 and signed with the name V. İlyin which was published in the Prosveshcheniye magazine in its issues of No.4-6 in April-June 1914. The Chinese translation is included in Vol. 25 of the second revised edition of Complete Works of Lenin.

This long article was divided into nine chapters and a conclusion part.

Lenin expounded his position and viewpoint on national self-determination and criticized Rosa Luxemburg’s mistaken thoughts on this question. On the question of the definition of the connotation of “national self-determination”, against Rosa Luxemburg who always talked about “national self-determination” in general and abstract terms, Lenin advocated to look at the “self-determination” from a Marxist perspective.

Lenin wrote: if we want to grasp the meaning of self-determination of nations, not by juggling with legal definitions, or “inventing” abstract definitions, but by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach the conclusion that the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state. The tendency of every national movement is towards the formation of national states, under which these requirements of modern capitalism are best satisfied. The most profound economic factors drive towards this goal, and, therefore… For the entire civilised world, the national state is typical and normal for the capitalist period.

Lenin also criticized Rosa Luxemburg for confusing political national self-determination or national independence with economic independence in the bourgeois society. He pointed out that Marxists should not ignore the powerful economic factors that facilitate and push the establishment of nation-states.

However, the “national self-determination” principle of Marxism cannot have any other meaning apart from political separation of self-determination, namely the national independence and the establishment of a national state.

Lenin discussed the historically concrete presentation of any national question as in the following:

Firstly, Lenin introduced the methodology of analyzing social problems. Lenin pointed out that when analyzing any social problem, the analysis of a social question should be treated within its definite historical circumstances. It was necessary to evaluate the specific features of the country in question different from other countries in the same era. This principle should also be followed when discussing the question of “national self-determination”.

Secondly, Lenin distinguished the features of the national movements in two different periods of capitalism: which differ radically from each other as far as the national movement is concerned. On the one hand, there is the period of the collapse of feudalism and absolutism, the period of the formation of the bourgeois-democratic society and state; secondly, the period of fully formed capitalist states with a long-established constitutional regime and a highly developed antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—a period that may be called the eve of capitalism’s downfall. The former required the struggle for political liberty in general and for the rights of nation in particular, with peasants as its main force. Typical features of the second period, is that developed capitalism, brings closer together nations that have already been fully drawn into commercial intercourse, and pushes them to intermingle to an increasing degree, brings the antagonism between internationally united capital and the international working-class movement into the forefront.

Thirdly, Lenin criticized Rosa Luxemburg’s absurd talk on the question of national self-determination.

She did not consider what historical stage Russia was in at the beginning of the 20th century when capitalism was developing rapidly and she could not grasp the unique features of the national questions in Russia. Lenin pointed out that national question in Russia was unique, such as Great Russian chauvinism and that the “bourgeois democratic reformation” in Russia was not yet been completed. Therefore, it was urgent for Russia to recognize the self-determination of nations.

On the concrete features of the Russian national question and the question of bourgeois democratic reform in Russia. Lenin criticized Rosa Luxemburg for ignoring the differences between countries that have already completed their bourgeois democratic reforms and those that have not. The national question that had long been solved in Western Europe just appears in Eastern Europe and Asia since 1905.

Lenin analyzed the features of the Russian nation. Russia is a country centered on a nation, namely, the Great Russian Nation. The ethnic group was a minority and was under suppression. Ethnic minorities in border areas enjoyed more national independence on the other side of the border. The capitalist development and general cultural level in the border areas of other nationalities were often higher than those in the central part of this country. Bourgeois revolutions and national movements in these neighboring Asian countries influenced ethnic groups of the same origin in Russia. In light of these specific features, it was urgent question to recognize self-determination. Discussion on the question of “practicality” in the national question. Lenin pointed out that there were three connotations in applying “practicality” to any national question: It means one of three things: support for all national aspirations; the answer “yes” or “no” to the question of secession by any nation; or that national demands are in general immediately “practicable”.

Lenin expounded the standpoint and the policies of the proletariat as follows: Firstly, Lenin stressed the confrontation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. He pointed out that at the beginning of all national movements, the bourgeoisie thought it practical to support all national demands. But for the proletariat, to pursue such mistaken “practicality” was to give in to the liberal bourgeoisie and fall into opportunism.

Secondly, Lenin emphasized that one should view national self-determination from the perspective of class struggle and winning allies to the proletarian revolution. Lenin argued that the demand for a “yes” or “no” reply to the question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very “practical” one. In reality it is absurd; it is metaphysical in theory, while in practice it leads to subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie’s policy. The proletariat is opposed to such “practicality”. While recognising equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle.

Thirdly, Lenin refuted the erroneous views of Luxembourg and others, who argued that “to support the right to national secession is to support the bourgeois nationalism of the suppressed nations”. Lenin rejected this view and argued that the bourgeoisie of the suppressed nations should oppose national suppression at any time and on any occasion. When the bourgeoisie of the suppressed nation strongly propagates its own bourgeois nationalism, they are bound to be opposed.

In other words, while opposing the privileges and violence of oppressed nations, the suppressed nations could not be allowed to seek privileges. Specifically, the bourgeoisie could fight for liberation and the proletariat should help them reach this goal, but the bourgeoisie must not be allowed to seek its own privileges. Lenin pointed out that Luxembourg and others’ denial of the right of secession in Russia’s Marxist principles actually helped the big Russian mafia and actually fostered opportunism and tolerated the privileges of the big Russians.

On the question of the attitude of the liberal bourgeoisie and the opportunist wing of the socialists to the national question. Lenin pointed out that Marxists must start from objective conditions and must examine the attitudes of different classes towards ethnic issues, whereas R. Luxembourg did not. Lenin concluded that liberals are hostile to the principle of national political self-determination. This is in fact national liberalism, which is to safeguard the privileges of the great Russian bourgeoisie. However, opportunists among Russian Marxists, such as Semkovsky, who strongly opposed the right of national self-determination, were actually loyal to national liberalism, which was an extremely corrosive idea to the working class.

On the question of whether it is necessary for the Social Democrats in a multi-ethnic state to have a program that recognizes the right to self-determination or the right to secession. Rosa Luxemburg’s using Norway as an example to demonstrate that federalism and the resulting separation of countries were by no means progress or democracy. In response to this, Lenin used Marxism to analyze Rosa Luxemburg’s view and the specific features of Norway’s separation from Sweden and the tasks of the proletariat in the two countries when such separation occurred. Lenin pointed out that the alliance between Norway and Sweden was not voluntary, so Rosa Luxemburg’s argument favoring “federalism” was unreasonable. As for the position of Norwegian proletariat and the Swedish proletariat, Lenin concluded that the cross-ethnic Social-Democratic Party advocated the right of national self-determination.

On the question of awareness of the resolutions of the International Congress in London in 1896.

First of all, Lenin summarized the main points of this Resolution, which advocated that all nations have full right to self-determination and declares sympathy to the workers of all countries who are oppressed by military, ethnic or other autocratic systems. In this conference, workers from all these countries were called on to be more conscious in order to overthrow capitalism and set up a Social-Democratic Party at a global scale. Secondly, Lenin criticized Rosa Luxemburg for trampling on the international resolution on this important issue. Thirdly, Lenin summarized the most important and basic content of the international resolution: On the one hand, it fully and directly recognized, without any distortion, the right of self-determination of all nations. On the other hand, it also unambiguously called on workers to unify their class struggle internationally. The two parts must be integrated in order to correctly guide the proletariat on its class policy of national issues.

Lenin pointed out in his concluding remarks that it was not difficult to ensure self-determination. All ethnic groups were completely equal and should enjoy the right of national self-determination. Workers of all ethnic groups should unite. This was the national guiding principle to workers by Marxism and by the experience of the world and Russia. Russia’s reality required it to formulate a guiding principle on self-determination. Based on Russia’s specific national conditions, the proletariat in Russia had dual tasks:

Firstly, they should fight all nationalism especially nationalism of Great Russia. They should demand not only for general recognition of complete equality of all ethnic groups, but also for recognition of the equality in the establishment of a country, namely the national self-determination; secondly, to effectively fight against all kinds of nationalism of all nationalities, they must adhere to the unity of the proletarian struggle and the proletarian organizations. All proletarian organizations should unite to form a cross-ethnic community.

Lenin paid close attention to question of national self-determination during this period. In addition to this long article, Lenin also wrote a series of other works in 1915 to 1916, such as “Lecture Materials on ‘Imperialism and National Self-determination’”, “Revolutionary Proletariat and National Self-determination”, “German Social-Democratic Party and the Rights of Nations to Self-determination”, “Socialist Revolution and National Self-determination” , “The Discussion on Self-determination Summed Up”, and others. Through these articles, Lenin comprehensively expounded correct views on this question and formed a complete theoretical system, which enriched the Marxist theory on the self-determination of nations.