Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)  

The day before

From the very beginning of his revolutionary activity, V. I. Lenin paid close attention to interethnic relations in Russia and the development of the revolutionary program of Russian Marxists on the national question. [one] This was already reflected in one of the early works of V. I. Lenin “What are the “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats?” V. I. Lenin not only defended the Marxist teaching on the national question, but also showed the place and role of this question at the end of the 19th century, substantiated the inevitability of the union of the proletariat of the capitalist countries and the oppressed peoples - participants in the national liberation struggle, put forward the most important proposition on actual equality peoples, enriched the principles of proletarian internationalism. Lenin also intended to devote a special place to the national question in the draft program of the Russian Social-Democratic Party being prepared at that time. In 1895, Lenin proposed the demand for "freedom of religion and equality of all nationalities" as a program provision. [2] Two years later, in a special article “The Tasks of the Russian Social Democrats,” Lenin emphasized that the Social Democrats support every oppressed nationality, persecuted religion and downtrodden estate and defend their desire for equality. [3]

Even on the eve of the Second Congress of the RSDLP, Lenin specifically dwells on the national question in several of his articles in the Iskra newspaper. In the article “On the Manifesto of the Union of Armenian Social Democrats”, he, supporting the slogan of self-determination of nations, categorically opposes federation and focuses on the rapprochement of peoples. [4] In his July 1903 article “The National Question in Our Program,” that is, in a programmatic work specially devoted to the national question, Lenin emphasized that the Russian Social Democrats “place in their program not only the complete equality of language, nationality, etc., but also the recognition of the right of each nation to determine its own destiny. If, recognizing this right, we submit our support for the demands of national independence in the interests of the proletarian struggle, then only a chauvinist can explain our position by the Russian’s distrust of the foreigner, for in fact this position must necessarily follow from the distrust of the class-conscious proletarian in the bourgeoisie.” [five]

At that time, Lenin was an opponent of the federation, considered it a bourgeois institution and recognized territorial-national autonomy only as an exception. At the Second Congress of the RSDLP, as is well known, a Bolshevik trend emerged and, in fact, the Bolshevik Party was founded. Lenin subsequently emphasized in this connection: "Bolshevism has existed, as a current of political thought and as a political party, since 1903." [6] From its very inception, Bolshevism was distinguished by clear principles on the national question. The program of the party proclaimed the equality of citizens regardless of gender, religion, race and nationality. The role and place of national languages ​​were specifically stipulated - the right to receive education in this language, use it in meetings, and even the right to introduce it along with the state language in all institutions. At the congress, it was declared the struggle that the Russian Social Democrats declare to any form of nationalism and, at the same time, a line was clearly drawn on the real right of nations to self-determination.

Already after the congress, the Bolsheviks and, above all, Lenin, had to fight against federalism in the Social Democratic Party and at the same time against the principle of cultural-national autonomy. The Bolsheviks not only uphold the principle of the right of nations to self-determination, but also supplement it with a provision on self-determination up to and including state secession. Actually, they were not the first Russian revolutionaries to allow the separation of nations, if they so desired. As noted, this separation was also envisaged by the Narodnaya Volya. Bolshevik ideologists reinforced this slogan with the principle of proletarian internationalism, considering it fundamental in the regulation of national relations. How much importance the Bolsheviks attached to the national question can be seen in the study of their heritage in the period from 1903 to 1917. Far from the center of industrial Baku, where interethnic clashes repeatedly broke out, among a number of proclamations issued by the Baku Committee of the RSDLP (b), the Gummet group in February 1905 issued a special proclamation “To the Muslims” in the Azerbaijani language, which contained the call: “Muslims! And you, just like other peoples, unite, rally... Down with the autocracy! Long live the republic! Long live the brotherhood of all nations! Long live popular government! Long live the brotherhood of all nations! Long live popular government! Long live the brotherhood of all nations! Long live popular government![7] I. V. Stalin, P. I. Stuchka, S. G. Shaumyan, A. G. Shlikhter and other prominent figures of the Bolshevik Party addressed the national question. But the role of V. I. Lenin in this matter was decisive.

In one of his most important works on the national question, “On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” while defending the principle of the right to secession, Lenin emphasized: “From the point of view of democracy, it is just the opposite in general: recognition of the right to secession reduces the danger of the “disintegration of the state.” [eight] At the same time, even ten years after the Second Congress, Lenin remained a principled opponent of the federal structure. In this regard, his letter to S. G. Shaumyan dated December 6, 1913, which has repeatedly attracted the attention of specialists in national relations, deserves attention. In this noteworthy letter, Lenin once again declared himself a centralist and recognized that "the right to self-determination is an exception to our general premise of centralism." In the same place, Lenin considered it necessary to write the following words: “We are for democratic centralism, of course. We are for the Jacobins against the Girondins... We are against the federation in principle - it weakens economic ties, it is an unsuitable type of one state. Do you want to separate? Go to hell if you can break the economic connection... Autonomy is our blueprint for a democratic state...”.[9] At the same time, what has long been noted in the research literature, in articles devoted to the Balkan wars of 1912-1913. Lenin emphasized that concrete historical conditions may dictate the need for a federation with the aim of a democratic solution of the national question. [10]

V. I. Lenin, as is known, constantly kept national problems in his field of vision and dealt with them on a daily basis, including at the most important party forums. He spoke at them with reports and was the author of draft resolutions. So it was at the Prague Party Conference in 1912, and at meetings in Krakow and Poronino in 1913. At the Sixth (Prague) Conference of 1912, it was emphasized that “despite all the fight together and hand in hand for the proletarian cause and against all the enemies of the working class. [11] The Krakow Conference of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in 1913, in its resolution "On 'National' Socialist–Democratic Organizations," spoke out against federalism in the ranks of the RSDLP and emphasized the need for a single international organization of the party. In the Theses on the National Question, also referring to 1913, Lenin emphasized: “Not a federation in the party system and not the formation of national socialist-democratic groups, but the unity of the proletarians of all nations of a given area with propaganda and agitation in all languages local proletariat, with the joint struggle of the workers of all nations for whatever national privileges, with the autonomy of local and regional party organizations. [12] At the Poronin meeting, a special resolution on the national question was adopted, on the one hand, demonstrating the Bolsheviks' firm adherence to the principle of the right of nations to self-determination up to state secession, on the other hand, calling not to confuse the issue of the right to secession with the expediency of secession of this or that people.

But this resolution of the Poronin Conference also contains a very remarkable provision on internal autonomy. Literally, the following was written there: “In particular, broad regional autonomy and completely democratic local self-government are necessary in determining the boundaries of self-governing and autonomous regions on the basis of the consideration by the local population of economic and living conditions, the national composition of the population, etc.” [13] In this resolution, the provision for autonomy, combined with consideration also of the national composition of the population, can be seen as a step towards the future recognition of a federation along national lines.

At the same time, this resolution of the Poronin Conference is also permeated with the idea of ​​democratic centralism, not only in building the Social Democratic Party, but also in building a truly democratic state. At the same time, it also provided for the right to secession and the formation of an independent state. The right to secession thus acquired a programmatic character. But this right, by no means, was supported by the statement about the expediency of secession. On the contrary, both Lenin and other prominent Bolsheviks constantly directed the working masses to unite their forces in the struggle against capitalism and to unite them in building a future state formation that is truly democratic in its essence. The line towards the rapprochement of nations has undoubtedly always been the dominant one. During World War I, Lenin wrote:not to separate from us, but to approach and merge with us as closely as possible. [14] During the First World War, at the end of 1915, Lenin wrote the article “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” where he emphasized: “It is absurd to oppose the socialist revolution and the revolutionary struggle against capitalism to one of the issues of democracy, in this case the national one” . [15] Lenin attributed the resolution of national contradictions to one of the most important issues of democratic reforms in general.

This idea was repeatedly confirmed by Lenin, for example, in the programmatic article “The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution”, dated April 10 (23), 1917, which recognizes the right of free separation from Russia of all nations and nationalities forcibly annexed by tsarism and, together with This emphasizes the desire of the proletarian party to create a large state and to draw closer and merge nations through a free, fraternal union of the working masses of all nations. [16] Around the same time, Lenin wrote: “The republic of the Russian people should attract other peoples or nationalities not by violence, but exclusively by voluntary agreement to create a common state. The unity and fraternal alliance of the workers of all countries cannot be reconciled with either direct or indirect violence against other nationalities.[17]

At the beginning of the XX century. the national question was one of the most important questions in Russia, urgently demanding its resolution, and in the literature, not without reason, it was written that it could only be resolved on the path of revolution. [18] Almost all the numerous political parties of the country created at that time were forced to reflect their attitude to this issue. One of the largest parties in Russia was the Socialist Revolutionaries, a party that was undoubtedly revolutionary. One of its leaders, V. M. Chernov, in the era of the revolution of 1905, emphasized the need for the Socialist-Revolutionaries to remain “the party of revolutionary socialism and the situation in the country does not give grounds for the conclusion that all problems are already becoming evolutionary and the revolution can be abandoned.” [nineteen] In their program, in 1905, the Socialist-Revolutionaries outlined a clear anti-autocratic attitude, stood up for the election of the Zemsky Sobor, that is, the Constituent Assembly, which would be the representative of the whole people without distinction of gender, estates, nationality and religion. [20]

In their national program, the Social Revolutionaries provided for a combination of the country's federal structure with cultural and national autonomy. Close to them, the Trudoviks and Popular Socialists were also on the national issues in approximately the same positions. The Enes had a special section in their program “On the National Question”, which contained the following requirements: “Recognition of the right of self-determination for all, without exception, nationalities ... For the nationalities that will remain part of the Russian state, the implementation of the federal principle in state building and ensuring the conditions for free national development within the framework of broad autonomy”. [21] The Mensheviks were mainly supporters of cultural and national autonomy. They also dealt with the national question in Russia, in particular, one of their leaders, Yu.O. [ 22]

The Cadets, the party that occupied positions “to the left of the center” after the revolution of 1905, proclaimed the principle of equal rights for all the peoples of Russia. They, recognizing the right of Poland and Finland to autonomy, were categorically opposed to the right to secession and, in fact, joined forces with those internal Russian forces that stood up for the formula of "one and indivisible Russia." Modern researchers emphasize the special role assigned by the Cadets to the national question, but even then only in the hope of a deep reorganization of the state foundations of the empire. “Their theoretical developments concerned a distant future and correlated much less with the realities of their contemporary era.” [23] In their program of 1905, the Cadets called for the inclusion in the future basic law of the Russian Empire of a provision guaranteeing “to all the peoples inhabiting the empire, in addition to full civil and political equality for all citizens, the right of free cultural self-determination, such as: complete freedom to use various languages ​​and dialects in public life, freedom to establish and maintain educational institutions and all kinds of meetings, unions and institutions aimed at preserving and developing the language, literature and culture of each nationality. [24]

In November 1905, an appeal was signed by the founding party on October 17, where the slogan “preserving the unity and indivisibility of the Russian State” was put forward on the border and national issues, and this slogan was presented as “preserving for its (Russia) state system the historically established unitary character ". Only a certain state structure was allowed for Finland. At the same time, however, the Octobrists advocated the broad development of local self-government and the recognition of the widest right for individual nationalities to satisfy and protect their cultural needs, but within the limits allowed by the idea of ​​statehood and the interests of other nationalities. The Octobrists rejected the idea of ​​federalism, while recognizing the unification of individual areas of the empire into regional unions. [25]

Numerous right-wing parties and organizations, as a rule, defended the principle of the status quo, that is, they supported the well-known formula "Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality" or called for an attack on the rights of nationals, or, as they often called them, foreigners. However, the realities after the revolution of 1905 forced some of them to show some flexibility in the national question. The Russian Monarchist Party in 1905 emphasized in its program: “The Monarchist Party stands for the preservation of the unity and integrity of the great Russian Empire, over which the unified unlimited autocratic power of the Russian monarch and the free and worthy living Russian Orthodox Church should reign, with a single Russian state language, unified Russian law and unified Russian public school.[26]

The rightists defended the preservation of a united and indivisible Russia, but, for example, the Union of Russian People on the eve of the elections to the First State Duma in its program materials allowed the right of non-Russian peoples to self-government and the possibility of self-development, “but on the condition that the national guiding principle will always be the benefit of the Russian kingdom” . [27] In their practical activities, right-wing parties fought against any manifestations of separatism, including in Finland, Poland, and Ukraine. Before the First World War, they were opponents of the autonomy of Poland, stood for a firm policy of uniting the Caucasus with Russia, and in every possible way insisted on such a management of Finland that would keep it within Russia. The rightists opposed the Kadet slogan of "freedom of national self-determination", the indulgence of the Cadets to the Ukrainian Mazepa movement. [28]

The “Russian Assembly”, an organization created back in 1900 and which influenced many subsequent right-wing parties, in its election program in November 1905, among other points, emphasized: “Tribal issues in Russia should be resolved in accordance with the degree of readiness of a separate nationality to serve Russia and the Russian people in achieving nationwide tasks... All attempts to dismember Russia, under any guise, should not be tolerated.” [29] And at the IV All-Russian Congress of the “Russian people”, which met in late April - early May 1907 in Moscow and was attended by about 800 people, the resolution on the border issue contained a demand that the border regions be ruled by “Orthodox Russian people in spirit” and so that there at school and in court, everywhere except for the family, literature and the church, there was a Russian language. [30]

The ideologists of the All-Russian National Union, apparently the largest Russian political party in the period of the June 3rd monarchy and one of the main political allies of P. A. Stolypin in the Third State Duma, built their programmatic guidelines on the national question on five main theses. First of all, they defended the unitary state structure of Russia and, at the same time, the exclusive right of strong peoples to an independent state existence. Further, they argued about foreign dominance and marginal parasitism and the need to combat them. Their next thesis boiled down to the need for Russian national emancipation, and the last, fifth thesis allowed for the right of foreigners to civil rights and national identity, but in the event that they did not contradict the motto "Russia is for Russians." [31] This party was characterized by internal inconsistency of attitudes on the national question. On the one hand, some of its members spoke about the benefits brought by certain foreigners to Russia, on the other hand, about the dominance of foreigners and the statement about the need for Russification of foreigners, side by side with the opposition of Russians to the same foreigners. [32]

A special conversation about the various national parties in Russia, the number of which was very significant, but in the vast majority of them did not differ, however, in the large number of their members. Supporters of secession from Russia were then in the minority, and such parties can be found primarily in Poland and Finland, and even there there were organizations that did not put forward secessionist slogans. As noted in the literature, "even the Georgian Mensheviks, national democrats, national federalists did not advocate the separation of Georgia from Russia, as was the case in Finland." [33]

Most of the national parties advocated either autonomy or federation within Russia. The mentioned Georgian National Democratic Party was formalized in 1917 and its program spoke of the immediate establishment of the political autonomy of Georgia as a democratic republic with its center in Tiflis. [34] Created much earlier than her, back in the late 90s. In the 19th century, the Socialist-Federalist Party of Georgia demanded the transformation of Russia into a federal democratic state and full autonomy for the territory inhabited by Georgians, with the guarantee of the rights of the Georgian people in those places where Georgians are in the minority. [35] The idea of ​​political national-territorial (regional) autonomy was defended by the Ukrainian Democratic-Radical Party, formed in 1905 and considered M. P. Drahomanov to be its ideological forerunner. In the political spectrum of Ukraine, this party occupied a place at the center of national and all-Russian parties. One part of its members gravitated towards the Cadets, the other towards the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Trudoviks and Popular Socialists. [36] Actually, at that time, most of the leaders of the Ukrainian social movement shared the ideas of autonomism or federalism. In this regard, the evolution of the views of the leaders of the Ukrainian People's Party is interesting, the main political postulate of which was the creation of an independent Ukrainian democratic state, but after the creation of the State Duma, it advocated granting autonomy to Ukraine. [37] However, a number of leaders of the Ukrainian national movement saw the autonomy as only a stage on the way to the subsequent independence of Ukraine. Thus, the autonomy of Ukraine in Russia transformed on a federal basis, M. S. Grushevsky, one of the ideologists of the Ukrainian national movement, considered only as a transitional step towards complete independence and independence. [38] Still, autonomism and federalism were dominant at the beginning of the 20th century. in the national programs of the national parties of Russia. This is also evidenced by the attitudes of the Moldavian National Democratic Party, which in 1917 became the basis of the Moldavian National Party, the Young Finnish Party, and the Lithuanian Democratic Party, although the latter saw in autonomy only the first step towards independence. [39]

These attitudes towards autonomy were also characteristic of those peoples who once had their own statehood - Poles, Lithuanians, Armenians, Georgians, Moldovans, Tatars, but also those who did not have their own statehood before. At the same time, the aspirations of the leaders of national movements came into serious conflict with the general policy of tsarism. It is not without reason that the literature notes that "one of the most important forms of national oppression was the desire of tsarism to strangle national statehood." [40] The policy of the ruling circles consisted, first of all, in assimilation and Russification, and even some indulgences in the development of national cultures after the revolution of 1905 were considered at the top as temporary and forced. Under these conditions, a new aggravation of relations between the national outskirts and the center was inevitable.



[1] See: V. I. Lenin on the national question and national policy. M... 1989.

[2] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.2, p. 85.

[3] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.2, p. 452–453.

[4] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.7, p. 102–106.

[5] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.7, p. 241.

[6] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 31, p. eight.

[7] Samedov V. Yu. Spread of Marxism-Leninism in Azerbaijan. Baku, 1966. 4.2, p. twenty.

[8] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.25, p. 285.

[9] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 48, p. 234–235.

[10] See: Mints I. I. Development of V. I. Lenin’s views on the creation of a new type of multinational state // Kommunist. 1972, no. 10.

[11] CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. T. 1. Ed. 8. M., 1970, p. 328.

[12] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.23, p. 320.

[13] CPSU in resolutions, decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. Part I. Ed. 7. M., 1954, p. 315.

[14] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 30, p. 120.

[15] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.27, p.62.

[16] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.31, p. 167.

[17] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 32, p. 142.

[18] Burmistrova T. Yu., Gusakova VS The national question in the programs and tactics of political parties in Russia 1905–1917. M., 1976, p.5.; See also: Slavinsky M.A. Russian intelligentsia and the national question // Milestones. Intelligentsia in Russia. Collections of articles 1909–1910. M., 1991, p. 406–418; Nation and empire in Russian thought at the beginning of the 20th century. M., 2004.

[19] Cited. Cited from: Gusev K. V. V. M. Chernov. Strokes to a political portrait. M., 1999, p.46.

[20] Program of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. Kyiv, 1905, p. 16.

[21] Burmistrova T. Yu., Gusakova BC Decree. Op., p. 24-30.

[22] Urilov I. Kh. Yu. O. Martov Politician and historian. M., 1997, pp. 200, 231.

[23] Gaida F. A. Liberal opposition on the way to power (1914-spring 1917). M., 2003, pp. 46, 135.

[24] Programs of political parties in Russia. The end of the 19th century - the beginning of the 20th century. M., 1995, p. 328.

[25] Dan F. and Cherevanin N. Soyuz on October 17 // Social movement in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. T. III. Book. 5. St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 176–177.

[26] Programs of political parties in Russia, p. 427.

[27] Op. by Kiryanov Yu. I. Right parties in Russia 1911–1917. M., 2001, p. 307.

[28] Ibid., p. 308–309.

[29] Op. by Levitsky V. Right parties // Social movement in Russia, p.360.

[30] Ibid., p. 424.

[31] Kotsiubinsky D. A. Russian nationalism at the beginning of the XX century. The birth and death of the ideology of the All-Russian National Union. M., 2001, p. 218-219, 233.

[32] Ibid., p. 243–247.

[33] Tservadze M. V. Correlation of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat with the national liberation struggle in Russia in the XX century // National question on the eve and during the Great October Socialist Revolution. Issue. P. M., 1964, p.33.

[34] Krivenkiy V. Georgian National Democratic Party // Political parties of Russia. The end of the XIX century - the first third of the XX century. Encyclopedia. M., 1996, p. 166–167.

[35] Zalevsky K. National parties in Russia // Public movement in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, p.317.

[36] Chmyr S. G. Ukrainian Democratic-Radical Party: Genesis, Program, Tactics (90s of the 19th century - 1909) // History of National Political Parties of Russia. M., 1997.

[37] Zalevsky K. Decree. op., p. 302–303.

[38] Mihutina I. V. The Ukrainian question in Russia (end of the 19th century - beginning of the 20th century). M., 2003, p.79.

[39] Postnikov N. Lithuanian Democratic Party // Political parties of Russia, p. 317–318.

[40] History of nation-state building in the USSR 1917–1978. Ed. Z-e. T. I. M., 1979, p.21.