305

p By V. Y. ZEVIN

p The national question is one of the most important and complicated questions of social development.

p A great amount of literature is devoted to the national question. Bourgeois ideologists have always paid a great deal of attention to it. But even those who have made serious attempts to understand it have been unable to give it a correct interpretation, since their outlook was that of the exploiting classes and their approach was an idealist one. In fact the overwhelming majority of bourgeois scholars have distorted the national question by deliberately confusing the issues involved and preaching chauvinism to justify the colonial and neo-colonial policies of the imperialist powers. Marxism-Leninism alone has given the correct scientific interpretation of the national and colonial questions.

p Karl Marx and Frederick Engels laid the foundations of the theory of the national question as a component part of the theory of historical materialism and scientific communism. Their works contain important ideas on the essence of the concepts “nation” and "national movement”. Marx and Engels considered the emergence of nations to be a result of developing capitalist relations. They also showed that capitalism increasingly broke down national barriers, eliminating national isolation. Marx and Engels defined the main lines of the proletarian party’s programme and policy on the national question: proletarian internationalism, the declaration of the right of nations to self-determination and the struggle to achieve this, the exposure of the colonial oppression of nations by the exploiting classes, support for the national liberation movements and the linking of these movements with the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Marx and Engels 306 resolutely opposed ignoring the national question, while at the same time stressing the fact that the national question was of secondary importance compared with the general and basic question of the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

p The thoughts of Marx and Engcls on the national question are thus of key importance. But under pre-monopoly capitalism, when Marx and Engcls were working, the national question was neither so topical nor so vast a question as it has become in the age of imperialism and socialist revolutions.

p The transition of capitalism to imperialism, the growing export of capital from the metropolitan countries to the colonies and dependent countries, the extension of spheres of influence and colonial possessions and the division of all nations into two camps —a handful of imperialist powers exploiting and oppressing colonies and semi-colonies and, on the other hand, the oppressed peoples of these colonies and dependent countries (constituting the majority of the world’s population)—all this, together with the powerful upsurge of the national liberation movements, drawing hundreds of millions of fighters against imperialism in Asia, Africa and Latin America into the world revolutionary process, gave special significance to the national question and presented it in a new light.

p The new age of imperialism, of socialist, national and colonial revolutions, the age of transition from capitalism to socialism, required Marxists to make a profound and all-round theoretical analysis of the national question. This is what Vladimir Ilyich Lenin did.

p Of course, Lenin’s interest in the national and colonial questions is explained first of all by the specific situation of Russia as a multi-national state where non-Russians, constituting over 50 per cent of her entire population, were oppressed by tsarism, and the Bolshevik Party was faced with the need to define its policy and tasks on the national question. At the same time Lenin in the course of his analysis of the question was guided by the interests and aims of the entire world liberation movement of the working people.

p It was the Russian Marxists who had to take up the study of this question, and who had to elaborate revolutionary theory as a whole (adjusting it to the new historical conditions), because the centre of the world revolutionary movement had moved to Russia. This task facing the Russian Marxists was all the more vital because the leaders of the Second International, who were 307 rolling ever further downhill to opportunism and social- chauvinism, not only failed to pay proper attention to the national and colonial questions but began revising Marxist theory in this field, too.

p Lenin’s great historic achievement was to create a complete and harmonious theory of the national and colonial questions, and to develop the programme and policy of the Communist Party on it. Lenin based his teachings on the foundations laid by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels and on a profound analysis of the laws of social progress.

p It should be stressed that the national question occupies an important place in Lenin’s literary legacy. There are some people in the international communist movement who argue that Marx, Engels and Lenin analysed only the problems connected with the liberation movement of the working people of the developed capitalist countries, and that, being Europeans, they did not deal specifically with the problems of the national liberation movements of Asia, Africa and Latin America. These problems are alleged to have been almost unknown to them. But such suggestions are erroneous and arc not supported by the facts.

p Without dwelling in detail on the letters and works of Marx and Engels analysing the problems of the national liberation movements in Ireland, China and India, for example, let us only note that Lenin devoted a number of large works to the national-= colonial question: for instance, Critical Remarks on the National Question, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self- Determination (Theses), The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up, The Junius Pamphlet. Many pages are devoted to the national and colonial questions in such works of Lenin’s as Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, A Caricature of Marxism and "Imperialist Economism". Lenin devoted a number of articles specifically to the national liberation and revolutionary movements in the East: "Events in the Balkans and in Persia”, "Democracy and Narodism in China”, "Regenerated China”, "The Struggle of the Parties in China" (this article was first published under Lenin’s name in 1959), "Civilised Europeans and Savage Asians”, "The Awakening of Asia”, "Backward Europe and Advanced Asia" and other articles. Of great significance is his report to the Second All-Russia Congress of the Communist Organisations of the Peoples of the East, or his "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions" (for the Second Congress of the Comintern) and his report to this 308 congress on behalf of the commission on the national and colonial questions.

p To these and many others of Lenin’s works and speeches one ought to acid hundreds of pages of preparatory materials— extracts from books, notes and plans published in "Notebooks on Imperialism”, in Lenin Miscellanies XXX and XVII. These materials illustrate particularly well that Lenin was a serious research worker in the field of the national and colonial questions. They show that Lenin studied dozens of books in many languages on the national question and made critical evaluations of them. He compared them and presented a deep analysis of the data given in them, drawing up statistical and other tables, etc. In fact, in his works on the national question, as in all his works, Lenin appears as a Marxist thinker of genius and a great proletarian revolutionary. He was guided in his analysis of this most complex and many-sided question by historical materialism and the dialectical method, by the principles of scientific communism and by the class approach.

p "The categorical requirement of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits, and, if it refers to a particular country (e.g., the national programme for a given country), that account be taken of the specific features distinguishing that country from others in the same historical epoch."  [308•1 

p In addition Lenin pointed out that Marxism approaches the national question not only historically but also politically, associating it with the tasks of the class struggle.

p What does this mean?

p In the first place it means understanding correctly the dialectics of class and national relations, recognising the determining role of classes and class struggle in the development of nations. Lenin stressed that one cannot think of a nation as some sort of extra-class or supra-class phenomenon. One cannot base the concept “nation” on the artificial exclusion of the antagonisms between the classes which constitute this “nation”.  [308•2  The Marxist-Leninist idea of the class character of the nation is all the more important now that the ideologists of the bourgeoisie and all species of opportunists often launch their attacks on socialism under the banner of "the unity of the nation”, seeking to replace class struggle by national “harmony” and struggle between nations.

309

p Secondly, Marxism-Leninism settles the national question from the point of view of the working class and its revolutionary struggle for socialism. Lenin taught the proletariat to regard all aspects of the national question and to assess all national demands first and foremost "from the angle of the workers’ class struggle".  [309•1 

p Proletarian, socialist internationalism was regarded by Lenin as the essential starting-point from which to approach the national question. It was proletarian internationalism that he characterised as the essence of the Marxist outlook and of Marxist policy on the national question.  [309•2 

p The Communist Parties’ ”. . . entire policy on the national and the colonial questions should rest primarily on a closer union of the proletarians and the working masses of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landowners and the bourgeoisie".  [309•3 

p Lenin’s theory on the national question was developed hand in hand with revolutionary practice, constantly being enriched by new experience and new ideas and formulations corresponding to new historical conditions. It represents a deep and comprehensive summing-up of the enormous experience of the Bolshevik Party, the proletarian party of a new type—which has become a model for revolutionary Marxists of all countries—and of that of the entire world revolutionary movement.

p Lenin worked out the correct theory and Party policy on the national question in the course of an uncompromising struggle against bourgeois ideology, opportunism and revisionism both Right and “Left”, and especially against nationalists of all kinds, and indeed against even the smallest deviation from proletarian internationalism. We should recall Lenin’s battles with the Bundists, the Mensheviks, the social-chauvinists and the Kaurskyites, and his polemics with the Polish Social-Democrats and the so-= called "imperialist Economists”. We should also mention the discussion on the national question at the Seventh (April) Party Conference and the Eighth Congress of the RCP(B), and the conflict with Left opportunist elements in the debates on the theses on the national and colonial questions at the Second Congress of the Comintern, and in later discussions on the way to form the USSR.

310

p A single article cannot of course give even a brief outline of Lenin’s theory of the national and colonial questions in all its aspects. This article is an attempt to give a general description of Lenin’s main ideas on the national and colonial questions and clarify certain topical problems in the light of the documents adopted by the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties.

p Let us consider the following points dealt with by Lenin’s theory of the national question.

p 1. The rise of the colonial system and the sharpening of the contradictions between the metropolitan countries and the colonies.

p 2. The motive forces and the significance of the national liberation movement.

p 3. The national question after the victory of the socialist revolution.

p Lenin demonstrated, especially in his Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, that imperialism’s colonial system is rooted in the very nature of monopoly capitalism. Colonialism, aggression and annexation, he wrote, existed before the modern stage of capitalism and even in pre-capitalist times. But colonies mean different things in different social and economic formations. ”. . . Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital."  [310•1  What is this difference?

p First, the colonial policy of imperialism is closely connected with monopoly domination in the countries possessing colonies and semi-colonies.

p Second, the colonial policy of imperialism is closely connected with the division of the world’s territory by the imperialist powers, completed early in the 2Oth century, and with their further struggle for its redivision.

p Lenin showed that alongside basic economic factors there exist social and political factors which also point to the special meaning of colonialism under monopoly capitalism. This is the striving of the imperialists to alleviate the class contradictions within the metropolitan countries by bribing the upper sections of the proletariat with part of the superprofits obtained from colonial exploitation, by creating a so-called "labour aristocracy”, and by corrupting the class consciousness of the working class with imperialist, chauvinist and racialist ideas. Lenin’s works 311 thus bring out the organic connection between imperialism and the growth of opportunism in the working-class movement. He writes: "The non-economic superstructure which grows up on the basis of finance capital, its politics and its ideology stimulate the striving for colonial conquest."  [311•1 

p Of great significance, especially in the light of the modern imperialist policy of neo-colonialism, is Lenin’s conclusion that under imperialism, when an acute struggle is going on between the Great Powers for the economic and political division and redivision of the world, there exist a number of transitional forms of state dependence. There arc not only two major groups of countries in the modern world—the metropolitan countries and the colonies—but also various types of dependent countries which have an independent status, but in fact are caught in a net of financial and diplomatic dependence. These are the true semi-= colonies and the formally independent countries enslaved economically by the imperialist powers.

p On the basis of his analysis of an enormous quantity of factual material, Lenin convincingly proved that the transition of capitalism to imperialism was associated with a sharpening of the struggle for the division and redivision of the world, and with an intensification of the policy of national and colonial oppression.

p "Capitalism,” Lenin wrote, "has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries."  [311•2 

p In putting forward the thesis that imperialism signifies "the extension and sharpening of national oppression under new historical conditions" Lenin revealed the essence of this process. With the advent of monopoly capitalism, national oppression, from being a domestic matter within one state containing a few or many nationalities, assumed international proportions. It became the imperialist powers’ policy to enslave weaker nations and peoples by all possible means, including those of armed force and war. The national question became the national and colonial questions. Their chief content now is the struggle to liberate the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries from imperialist oppression.

p Lenin indefatigably exposed national and colonial oppression 312 in all its forms, lie pointed out that imperialists camouflage their gangster policies with false phrases about spreading “civilisation”, “culture”, “democracy” and “Christianity”. "Do we not constantly see the diplomacy of all the imperialist powers flaunting magnanimous ’general’ phrases and "democratic’ declarations in order to conceal their robbery, violation and strangulation of small nations?"  [312•1 

p Vast changes have taken place in the world in the post-war years. Socialist revolutions have triumphed in a number of countries. The colonial system of imperialism has collapsed under the blows of the powerful national liberation movement. But over 35  million people are still languishing under the yoke of colonialism. Imperialism persistently defends the remnants of colonialism on the one hand, and implants neo-colonialism on the other, trying to continue its exploitation of the peoples of the former colonies, using refined methods of plunder, and hindering thereby the economic and social progress of the newly free nations.

p This explains why Lenin’s call to wage a determined struggle against national and colonial oppression retains its validity today. The Main Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties strongly emphasised the following task: "The demand of our epoch is to rid our planet completely of the curse of colonialism, destroy its last centres anil prevent its revival in new, camouflaged forms."

p Lenin shows that national and colonial oppression inevitably results in irreconcilable antagonism between the enslaved peoples of colonies and dependent countries and monopoly capital in the colonial powers, and that this gives rise to the struggle of the oppressed nations against imperialism.

p Regardless of the wishes of the colonialists and despite their imperialist policies, the colonies and dependent nations have been gradually developing capitalism themselves, with their own national bourgeoisie and national proletariat, this in turn resulting in a growing national awareness of their oppressed condition. All this forms the basis for the national liberation movements in the colonies and semi-colonies.

p During the First World War and after Lenin noted further socio-economic changes in the colonies and dependent countries— capitalism gained in strength, the proletariat grew, democratic forces became more united, broader sections of people rose in struggle against imperialism. This was stimulated partly by the 313 fact that during the war the imperialists had been compelled to arm the colonial peoples and use them for their military purposes. These peoples thus became acquainted with advanced military equipment and machinery, and Lenin forecast that they would turn this know-how against "Messrs. Capitalists”. Communist groups, organisations and parties began to appear in the countries of the East. Of tremendous, one may say decisive, importance for the outcome of the national liberation movement was the October Socialist Revolution and the setting up of the Soviet Republic, which became an inspiring example to working people all over the world and the bulwark of the world revolutionary movement.

p The national liberation movements in Asia, Latin America and Africa thus received a powerful impetus. It was after the victory of the October Revolution and the end of the First World War that the crisis of the colonial system set in as part of the general crisis of capitalism, and its disintegration began. Lenin wrote in 1919: "The period of the awakening of the East in the contemporary revolution is being succeeded by a period in which all the Eastern peoples will participate in deciding the destiny of the whole world, so as not to be simply objects of the enrichment of others. The peoples of the East arc becoming alive to the need for practical action, the need for every nation to take part in shaping the destiny of all mankind."  [313•1 

p Lenin brought out the complete theoretical untenability and political fallacy of the ideas of the so-called "imperialist Economists”. The Bukharin-Pyatakov group, as well as a number of the “Lefts” in the international working-class movement—Karl Radck, Hermann Goiter and others—tried to deny or underestimate the significance of the national question in the era of monopoly capitalism and the possibility and inevitability of national liberation movements and wars. They were opposed to demanding the right of nations to self-determination, though, at the same time, they condemned annexations and every kind of violence in international relations. Zinoviev was inclined to take this view too, and was severely criticised by Lenin.

p In defence of their views, the “Lefts” and the "imperialist Economists" argued that since capital in the age of imperialism had outgrown the framework of national states, it was not possible to turn the wheel of history back to the outdated ideal of national states, and that any war—though it would start as a 314 national one—would inevitably turn into an imperialist one involving the interests of at least one of the imperialist states or a coalition of them. They said that the struggle for the right to self-determination was illusory, and set it in opposition to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against capitalism. Lenin refuted these arguments.

p First, he said, it was "the Lefts" and the "imperialist Economists" who looked backward and not forward when, in opposing working-class acceptance of the "ideal of the national state”, they look "towards Britain, France, Italy, Germany, i.e., countries where the movement for national liberation is a thing of the past, and not towards the East, towards Asia, Africa, and the colonies, where this movement is a thing of the present and the future. Mention of India, China, Persia, and Egypt will be sufficient."  [314•1 

p Second, the fact that a national war may turn into an imperialist war, or vice versa, does not necessarily mean that national liberation movements and wars arc impossible in the period of monopoly capitalism. "National wars waged by colonies and semi-colonies . . . are not only probable but inevitable. About 1,000 million people, or over half of the world’s population, live in the colonies and semi-colonies (China, Turkey, Persia). The national liberation movements there are either already very strong, or are growing and maturing. Every war is the continuation of politics by other means. The continuation of national liberation politics in the colonies will inevitably take the form of national wars against imperialism. Such wars might lead to an imperialist war of the present ’great’ imperialist powers, but on the other hand they might not. It will depend on many factors."  [314•2 

p Finally, said Lenin, it is wrong to suppose that the right of nations to self-determination is not realisable in the age of imperialism. This was confirmed by the secession of Norway from Sweden in 1905. No doubt in the case of colonies it is a more difficult matter, but quite possible. "National wars against the imperialist powers are not only possible and probable; they are inevitable, progressive and revolutionary though, of course, to be successful, they require either the concerted effort of huge numbers of people in the oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in our example of India and China), or a particularly favourable conjuncture of international conditions (e.g., the fact 315 that the imperialist powers cannot interfere, being paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their antagonism, etc.), or the simultaneous uprising of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in one of the big powers (this latter eventuality holds first place as the most desirable and favourable for the victory of the proletariat)."  [315•1 

p Even before the October Revolution Lenin foresaw—and this is very important to note—that the victory of the socialist revolution in a few or even in one capitalist country will bring about new favourable conditions for the progress and victory of national liberation movements. And after the October Revolution he continued to speak about it with every certainty (the role of the Soviet Republic and of the socialist system in the disintegration of colonialism will be dealt with in detail later).

p In his report to the Second All-Russia Congress of the Communist Organisations of the Peoples of the East in November 1919, Lenin, proceeding from the experience of the Soviet state in successfully repulsing the military invasion of powerful imperialist countries, expressed deep confidence in the success of the difficult struggle of the peoples of colonial and dependent countries for their liberation. No matter how weak these peoples may be, he said, and no matter how invincible seems the power of the imperialist aggressors—who make use of all the wonders of modern engineering and the art of war—the revolutionary war of the oppressed nations is able to awaken millions of exploited toilers and the liberation of the nations of the East becomes now a practical possibility.

p In the light of these points of Lenin’s, we must consider the way he presented the right of nations to self-determination, certainly one of the most important aspects of the national-colonial question. Lenin brought out the special importance of the demand for the right of nations to self-determination in the epoch of imperialism and socialist revolutions.

p "Developing capitalism,” Lenin wrote, "knows two historical tendencies in the national question. The first is the awakening of national life and national movements, the struggle against all national oppression, and the creation of national states. The second is the development and growing frequency of international intercourse in every form, the breakdown of national barriers, the creation of the international unity of capital, of economic life in general, of politics, science, etc."  [315•2  Both tendencies represent 316 objective laws of capitalism. The first tendency is dominant in the early stages of capitalist development (both generally and in individual countries) while the second is typical of mature capitalism, i.e., imperialism, the highest and last stage of capitalism on the eve of the socialist revolution. The Marxists’ national programme takes both tendencies into account, and advocates, first, the equality of nations, their right to self- determination, and, second, the principle of internationalism and uncompromising struggle against contamination of the proletariat with bourgeois nationalism, even of the most refined kind.  [316•1 

p Lenin reiterated time and again that the right to national self-= determination should include the right of nations to independence, to free political secession from the respective oppressing nation. In explaining this theoretical proposition he pointed out that the answer to the question understood by this term should be sought not in legal definitions deduced from "general concepts" of law but in a historical-economic study of national movements.

p According to Lenin, the right of nations to self-determination means the right of the people concerned freely to decide its destiny up to the formation of an independent national state, the right to national sovereignty.

p It is important to note that while speaking about the right to national self-determination Lenin referred not only to nations but also to nationalities, or peoples standing at lower stages of socio-economic development. On the question of who expresses the will of the nation in the matter of secession, Lenin added, the Marxists, the Communists, should uphold "the historical class view" and take into consideration "the level of historical development of the nation concerned—all the way from the Middle Ages to bourgeois democracy, or from bourgeois to Soviet or proletarian democracy, etc."  [316•2 

p What is the meaning of the demand for the right of nations to self-determination? Above all, it is a protest against national oppression and an expression of the struggle to remove it. Its fulfilment means the liberation of nations from shameful oppression and the realisation of one of the basic principles of democracy.

p Besides, and this is the main point, the demand for the right to self-determination (and the consistent struggle to achieve it) is in the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat for the 317 victory of socialism, since it facilitates the differentiation of the classes in a given country, raising the class consciousness of the proletariat and promoting the international solidarity and unity of all workers and working people of different nations in the fight against both "their own" and their foreign exploiters.  [317•1 

p Lenin also constantly stressed and explained the thesis of Marx and Engels that a nation that oppresses other nations cannot itself be free. Those whose minds are corrupted by imperialist, chauvinist and racialist propaganda are not able to carry on a consistent struggle for democracy and socialism. This is what makes the internationalist education of the working class and all working people so vital. And one of the most important ways of doing this is to struggle for national self-determination.

p One must not (as was done by the "imperialist Economists”) contrast the struggle for the right to national self-determination and the revolutionary struggle of the working class for socialism. The very fact that imperialism spills over the boundaries of national states and extends and intensifies national oppression on a new historical basis leads us to the conclusion that we must link the revolutionary struggle for socialism with the revolutionary programme on the national question. This is what Lenin pointed out.

p It would be a serious mistake to believe that the struggle for democracy can divert the working class from the struggle for socialism. On the contrary, just as the victory of socialism is impossible without the realisation of complete democracy, so the working class cannot prepare for victory over the bourgeoisie and the creation of a democratic socialist state without waging a consistent revolutionary struggle for democracy and for the right of all nations to self-determination.

p In his resolute defence of the right of nations to self- determination to the point of secession, Lenin severely criticised the demand for “national-cultural autonomy”. He showed that the latter means preserving the domination of oppressor nations. Imperialism enslaves people, artificially divides the workers of different nationalities, and subjects them to bourgeois influences.

p The ideas of “national-cultural autonomy" and of "a single national culture" (alleged to be possible even in a class-divided society), and other bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas, were characterised by Lenin as refined nationalism. " ‘National- cultural autonomy’ is a manifestation precisely of this type—it joins 318 the proletarians and bourgeoisie of one nation and keeps the proletarians of different nations apart."  [318•1  The theoretical basis of the demand for "national-cultural autonomy”, he wrote, was "an idealist theory of the nation" of O. Bauer that "a nation is formed by common cultural values".

p Lenin indicated the fallacy of this theory, and the political damage it did, by showing that it did the following four things:

p (1) it gave an idealist basis to national character;

p (2) it put forward the slogan of "national culture" while ignoring its bourgeois content;

p (3) it injected nationalism into socialism;

p (4) it abandoned internationalism.  [318•2 

p The demand for national self-determination is based on the Marxist materialist theory of the nation. Lenin condemned not only overt opportunists and chauvinists who directly opposed the right of nations to self-determination and who openly defended annexations. lie also exposed the covert opportunists (the Kautskyitcs) who hypocritically defended the right to self-= determination in words while denouncing the demand for freedom of political secession as "too extravagant”. In Russia it was Martov and Trotsky who maintained this position.

p "Take Trotsky’s articles ‘The Nation and the Economy’ in Nasbe Slovo, and you will find his usual eclecticism: on the one hand, the economy unites nations and, on the other, national oppression divides them. The conclusion? The conclusion is that the prevailing hypocrisy remains unexposcd, agitation is dull and does not touch upon what is most important, basic, significant and closely connected with practice—one’s attitude to the nation that is oppressed by ’one’s own’ nation.” Martov took the same viewpoint as Trotsky. "Their evasiveness objectively supports Russian social-imperialism,” wrote Lenin.  [318•3 

p Lenin emphasised that a Marxist cannot limit himself only to declarations and propaganda concerning the demand of nations for self-determination. An intense revolutionary struggle is necessary to realise this right, a struggle against "one’s own" national exploiting classes, involving support in every possible way for the oppressed nations struggling against imperialism. Here is how Lenin defined the essence of the programme and policy of revolutionary Marxists on the national and colonial questions: “ Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate 319 liberation of the colonies without compcnsation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing else than the recognition of the right to self-determination; they must also render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their uprising—or revolutionary war, in the event of one—against the imperialist powers that oppress them."  [319•1 

p It is truly revolutionary and genuine national liberation movements that arc meant here. In his note "On the Declaration of the Polish Social-Democrats at the Zimmerwald Conference”, Lenin wrote that not every national movement is worth supporting, and continued: "This is undoubtedly true both because every democratic demand is governed by the general interests of the class struggle of the proletariat and is not absolute and because, in the age of imperialist competition for domination over nations, overt and covert alliances are possible between the bourgeoisie of an oppressed country and that of one of the oppressing countries."  [319•2 

p One point which Lenin makes is very important: that the recognition by Marxists of the right of all nations to self- determination does not mean that Marxists need not make an assessment of the desirability of the secession of a nation in each individual case. On the contrary, Marxists, Communists, must settle this question guided by the interests of social progress as a whole and those of the class struggle of the proletariat.

p "It is this that makes all the difference between our approach to the national question and the bourgeois-democratic approach. The bourgeois democrat (and the present-day socialist opportunist who follows in his footsteps) imagines that democracy eliminates the class struggle, and that is why he presents all his political demands in an abstract way, lumped together, ’without reservations’, from the standpoint of the interests of the ’whole people’, or even from that of an eternal and absolute moral principle.” Always and everywhere the Marxist "ruthlessly exposes this bourgeois illusion, whether it finds expression in abstract idealist philosophy or in an absolute demand for national independence".

p ”. . .Our unreserved recognition of the struggle for freedom of self-determination does not in any way commit us to support every demand for national self-determination. . . . We must 320 always and unreservedly work to secure the very closest unity of the proletariat of all nationalities, and it is only in isolated and exceptional cases that we can advance and actively support demands conducive to the establishment of a new class state or to the substitution of a looser federal unity, etc., for the complete political unity of a state."  [320•1 

p "The several demands of democracy, including self- determination,” Lenin wrote in 1916, "are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected."  [320•2 

p One more vital point of Lenin’s is closely linked with those mentioned above—the necessity of distinguishing between the concrete tasks of Marxists in an oppressor nation and those of Marxists living in oppressed nations. The internationalist education of the working class and other working people in the big oppressing nations and that of working people in small oppressed nations, cannot, as Lenin pointed out, take the same forms in their different practical, concrete situations. The path to the complete equality of nations, to the drawing together and to the final merging of all nations is different in each case.

p "In the internationalist education of the workers of the oppressor countries, emphasis must necessarily be laid on their advocating freedom for the oppressed countries to secede and their fighting for it. Without this there can be no internationalism. It is our right and duty to treat every Social-Democrat of an oppressor nation who jails to conduct such propaganda as a scoundrel and an imperialist."  [320•3  Thus the Marxists of a large country must carry on the most resolute struggle against Great-= Power chauvinism in their own nation, including Great-Power chauvinist trends in their own ranks. "On the other hand, a Social-Democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation the second, word of our general formula: ’voluntary integration of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, be in favour of both the political independence of his nation and its integration with the neighbouring state of X, Y, Z, etc. But in all cases he must fight against small-= nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the 321 whole and the general, subordinate the particular to the general interest."  [321•1  In short, the Marxists of a small nation arc obliged to light against local nationalism.

p Lenin analysed in detail the essence, content and the motive forces of the national liberation movement. "It is beyond doubt that any national movement can only be a bourgeois- democratic movement, since the overwhelming mass of the population in the backward countries consist of peasants who represent bourgeois-capitalist relationships."  [321•2  The liberation movements of the colonies and dependent countries that have arisen in this century are of this type—anti-feudal and bourgeois-democratic. At the same time they are anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist in character and each is aimed at "forming a nationally independent and nationally united state".  [321•3 

p Imperialist oppression and colonialism run counter to the interests of all or almost all the strata of society of colonial and dependent countries. But the positions of these different strata are not the same—hence the differences in their aims and the methods they use in their struggle against foreign oppression.

p The working class is the most consistent champion of the struggle for national liberation. Out of the 1,000 million population of the colonies and dependent countries, Lenin wrote in 1916, "more than 700 million (China, India, Persia, Egypt) live in countries where there are workers".  [321•4  Lemn clearly saw, of course, that the proletariat in these countries was relatively small and poorly organised, and that in many colonies and semi- colonies there were only the rudiments of a working class. Nevertheless, Lenin, on the basis of the first actions of the emerging Asian proletariat, wisely predicted that it would be the working class, the most revolutionary class of modern society, that would play the greatest role in the struggle for the complete abolition of colonialism and for the consistent revolutionary solution of the cardinal problems of national liberation and social progress.

p The peasantry, which, as Lenin emphasised, comprises the overwhelming majority of the population of colonies and dependent countries, is also a powerful motive force in the national liberation, democratic movement. He called the attention of Communists to the fact that "the majority of the Eastern peoples are 322 typical representatives of the working people—not workers who have passed through the school of capitalist factories, but typical representatives of the working and exploited peasant masses who are victims of medieval oppression".  [322•1 

p The bourgeoisie, which, as Lenin pointed out, "naturally assumes the leadership at the start of every national movement”,  [322•2  takes a contradictory stand. Interested in creating the most favourable conditions for accumulating capital, for getting the control of the national market and protecting itself from robbery by foreign monopolies, a national bourgeoisie, in opposition to a regime of colonial oppression, strives to establish its own national state and free itself from foreign dependence. That is why it takes part in the anti-imperialist national-democratic movement. But at the same time the national big bourgeoisie (and middle bourgeoisie, too) is unstable and apt to compromise with imperialism and feudalism. The bourgeoisie of the colonies and dependent countries tries to lead all liberation movements under the banner of nationalism. Lenin explained that this nationalism combines a healthy protest against imperialism and adherence to democracy with the striving of the bourgeoisie to get special privileges and benefits for its own nation, often at other nations’ expense, i.e., its wish to blur over the differences of class interests inside the nation, and to restrain or weaken the class struggle of the masses against the exploiters.

p Stressing the difference between the nationalism of an oppressing nation and that of an oppressed one, Lenin wrote: "The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support."  [322•3  Lenin kept to this idea after the October Revolution, too. He said to the Communists of the Eastern countries: "You will have to base yourselves on the bourgeois nationalism which is awakening, and must awaken, among those peoples, and which has its historical justification."  [322•4  In their struggle against imperialism and feudalism, the Communists of the Eastern countries should support bourgeois democracy, enter into a temporary agreement or an alliance with it, upholding at the same time the independence of the proletarian movement.  [322•5  Lenin warned that while supporting the progressive 323 content of the bourgeois nationalism of an oppressed country, one shouldn’t forget about its social essence, its limitations. One should see clearly and expose the contradictory character and inconsistency of the position of the bourgeoisie of colonial and dependent countries, and its tendency to conclude agreements with the forces of imperialism and local reaction.

p Lenin, therefore, advanced, as an essential condition for winning national independence, the idea of building up in the colonial and dependent countries a broad front to include the working class, the peasantry and the national bourgeoisie to fight against colonial oppression. The main thing was to get the active participation in this front of the broad masses. There was "the need, in backward countries, to give special support to the peasant movement against the landowners, against landed proprietorship, and against all manifestations or survivals of feudalism, and to strive to lend the peasant movement the most revolutionary character”. In his objections to Chicherin who at first misunderstood Lenin’s ideas on support for the national liberation movements and on the question of coming to agreement with the national bourgeoisie and failed to take account of the difference between the bourgeoisie and the peasantry, Lenin wrote: "I lay stronger emphasis on alliance with the peasantry (and the peasantry is not quite the same thing as the bourgeoisie)."  [323•1 

p Lenin pointed out that the winning by the colonies of their political independence does not of itself mean their liberation from economic enslavement by foreign monopolies, that achieving political independence is only the first step in the fight for the complete elimination of colonial oppression. He wrote that it was necessary to keep on explaining to the masses of all countries, particularly backward countries, the deception which the imperialist powers systematically practise: "Under the guise of politically independent states, (they) set up states that are wholly dependent upon them economically, financially and militarily."  [323•2 

p The correctness of Lenin’s conclusions is clearly confirmed today by the development of a number of young independent nations in Asia and Africa.

p The materials of the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties expose the forms and methods practised by neo-= colonialism.

p The resistance offered by the newly liberated countries to this 324 policy constitutes an important front of the anti-imperialist struggle. The Main Document of this Meeting and delegates’ speeches provide a deep analysis of the relationship of classes in the newly independent countries and of the prospects opening up before them. The process of social divarication in these countries is ever deepening. Their vital task is to secure their newly won independence, to build an independent national economy, to overcome the backwardness inherited from the past and to improve the people’s welfare. These problems can be solved only by carrying through radical democratic changes in their socio-economic structure.

p The surest way of solving the tasks of national and social progress is to activate the masses, to enhance the role played by the working class and the peasantry, to rally the working youth, students, intellectuals, the urban middle classes, democratic sections of the military, all patriots and progressives around the nucleus of an alliance between the working class and the peasantry.

p It is an alliance of this sort that will make it possible to bring the national liberation revolutions to fruition, to completely abolish the legacy of colonialism, and make the movement towards socialism more confident and purposeful.

p Lenin’s "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions" underscored the necessity of communist support for the bourgeois-democratic movement of the backward countries. In the final text of the Theses submitted for the approval of the Comintern’s Second Congress by the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions headed by Lenin, the term “bourgeois-democratic” was replaced by “national- revolutionary".

p There is no contradiction in this. To begin with, Lenin pointed out that any national movement, or any national-revolutionary movement, since it must be largely a peasant movement, is bourgeois-democratic in its social content. And secondly, Lenin did not rule out—in the interests of the anti-colonial struggle— temporary agreements with liberal bourgeois groups that opposed colonialism. He reminded the Commission of the experience of the Bolshevik Party which had supported the liberation movement of the liberal bourgeoisie against tsarism.

p When he was developing the idea of creating the broadest possible united anti-imperialist front in the colonies and dependent countries, Lenin considered it correct to make the above- mentioned change in the formulation of the Theses on the national and colonial questions. This stress on the need to give the main 325 support to the national-revolutionary movement was of great importance in principle. It outlined the strategy of Communists and took into account the prospects and tendencies of the national liberation movements—the development of the struggle against colonialism and imperialist oppression into a social revolution. Lenin devoted much attention to the question of building communist organisations and Parties in the colonial countries and in backward countries in general—the countries with pre-capitalist, or mainly pre-capitalist, social relations. He believed that Marxist, communist elements could and should take shape in all such countries. The essential condition for the support by Communists of the national liberation movements in the colonies and backward countries was that "the elements of future proletarian parties, which will be communist not only in name, are brought together and trained to understand their special tasks. . .".  [325•1 

p When considering the question of the birth and growth of the Communist Parties in the colonies and backward countries one had to take into account the special conditions in these countries. It was necessary, Lenin pointed out, to find ways of adjusting "the Communist Party (its membership, special tasks) to the level of the peasant countries of the colonial East".  [325•2 

p Lenin set the Communists of the colonies and backward countries the task of “translating” communist theory into words that were clear to everybody, so as to rouse to revolutionary activity even the most backward countries, and to unite them with the proletarians of other countries in the common struggle.

p Communists should be in the front ranks of the fighters against colonial oppression, uniting all anti-imperialist forces. But because they represent the interests of all working people, Communists cannot and must not limit themselves simply to solving national tasks. They must struggle for a radical settlement of the agrarian question, too, so that their country can make social progress and its working people are liberated from social oppression. Lenin pointed out that the struggle of the working people of colonial and dependent countries, initially directed towards national liberation, will, after winning national independence, turn against capitalism.

p In this connection, Communists must expose petty-bourgeois illusions about the possibility of making the transition to socialism without class struggle. It is necessary to carry on "a determined 326 struggle against attempts to give a communist colouring to bourgeois-democratic liberation trends in the backward countries" and to unite the people under the banner of scientific communism.

p The October Socialist Revolution, which blazed the trail to mankind’s transition from capitalism to socialism, ushered in a new era in the development of the national liberation movement. New and important problems arose requiring solution, and Lenin’s works proved to be of decisive importance in this.

p Lenin showed that, after the October victory, one had to approach the solution of the national and colonial questions by proceeding from the fact that the world was split into two opposing systems, socialism and capitalism. Reciprocal relations between peoples and the entire world system of states arc determined by the struggle between these two systems. "Unless we bear that in mind, we shall not be able to pose a single national or colonial problem correctly, even if it concerns a most outlying part of the world. The Communist Parties, in civilised and backward countries alike, can pose and solve political problems correctly only if they make this postulate their starting point."  [326•1 

p The international working class, in particular the world socialist system, stands at the centre of the modern age. At the time when the socialist system was represented only by the Soviet Republic, Lenin wrote that Soviet Russia inevitably grouped around herself, on the one hand, the Soviet movements of the advanced workers in all countries, and, on the other, all the national liberation movements in the colonies and among the oppressed nationalities.

p The establishment of the Soviet state—which has become the bulwark of the world revolutionary process, a powerful force revolutionising broad sections of the people in various countries— created an important prerequisite for the success of the national liberation movement. Lenin foresaw, with the vision of genius, that the further progress of history would result in the emergence of a world socialist system, "capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole".  [326•2 

p Lenin advanced the extremely important point that the emergence of the socialist system made it considerably easier for the colonial and semi-colonial peoples to win not only their political 327 freedom, but their economic independence, too. That is why he emphasised in the "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions": "Under present-day international conditions there is no salvation for dependent and weak nations except in a union of Soviet republics."  [327•1  Lenin went on to show that the victory of the socialist revolution in Russia and other countries and the help which they could give to backward countries which had embarked on the road of independent development made it possible for the latter to follow the non-capitalist path.  [327•2 

p Lenin called upon the oppressed peoples of the colonial and dependent countries and the young national states of the East to unite closer with the socialist country, with the Soviet Republic, and render it more active support. He expressed this wish in a talk he had with the Ambassador Extraordinary of Afghanistan on October 14, 1919,  [327•3  and his theses on the national and colonial questions: ”. . .One cannot at present confine oneself to a bare recognition or proclamation of the need for closer union between the working people of the various nations; a policy must be pursued that will achieve the closest alliance, with Soviet Russia, of all the national and colonial liberation movements. The form of this alliance should be determined by the degree of development of the communist movement in the proletariat of each country, or of the bourgeois-democratic liberation movement of the workers and peasants in backward countries or among backward nationalities."  [327•4 

p The correctness of these tenets of Lenin is being borne out by practical experience in the struggle. As the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties noted, the establishment of friendship and effective co-operation with the socialist countries is of great importance for the newly independent countries of Asia and Africa. Co-operation between the progressive young states and the socialist countries is a major condition for the non-= capitalist development of newly free nations. For this reason Communists regard assistance to and support for these young nations as one of the most important tasks of their international policy.

p Lenin brought out the great part played by the national liberation movement in the world revolutionary process that is undermining and destroying capitalism. He showed that it would 328 contribute greatly to the final victory of socialism throughout the world. He wrote in 1921: "The imperialist war of 1914-18 and the Soviet power in Russia arc completing the process of converting these masses into an active factor in world politics and in the revolutionary destruction of imperialism.” "It is perfectly clear that in the impending decisive battles in the world revolution, the movement of the majority of the population of the globe, initially directed towards national liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism and will, perhaps, play a much more revolutionary part than we expect."  [328•1  Developing these points in his last article "Better Fewer, but Better”, Lenin wrote that the countries of the East "have been drawn into a process of development that must lead to a crisis in the whole of world capitalism".  [328•2 

p The national liberation movement weakens the economic and political positions of imperialism, destroying its rear and depleting its reserves. The political and economic independence gained by the colonies and semi-colonies sharply reduces or even nullifies the possibilities the imperialists have of squeezing superprofits out of the robbed and enslaved people, superprofits they use to corrupt the upper section of the proletariat of the capitalist countries. This inevitably leads to the sharpening of class contradictions and the intensifying of working-class struggle for socialism.

p It must be said, however, that Lenin considered it incorrect to regard the national liberation, revolutionary movement in the East as the only, or as the decisive force in the struggle against world imperialism: ”. . . it would be ridiculous ... to exclude the proletariat of Europe and America from the revolutionary forces.” Lenin regarded the socialist system as the decisive factor in the world revolutionary process, including the disintegration of the colonial system. In his final speech summarising the discussion of the report on concessions at the RCP(B) section meeting of the Eighth Congress of Soviets, Lenin, replying to delegates’ questions, said that the existence of the Soviet Republic and its economic successes "arc a gigantic force and a factor of revolution”. "To strengthen Soviet Russia and make her invincible— that is what matters most as far as the struggle of the oppressed and colonial countries is concerned."  [328•3 

p The world socialist revolution, the replacement of capitalism by socialism on the world scale, is not a single battle, but the 329 epoch of many battles in which the revolutionary struggle of the international working class is combined with "a whole series of democratic and revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movements, in the undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations".  [329•1 

p That is why the unity of all the revolutionary forces of the modern age is so indispcnsable—the creation and strengthening of a united revolutionary front of the international working-class and the national liberation movement against the common enemy, imperialism.

p "We Communists,” said Lenin in 1920, "stand not only as representatives of the proletarians of all countries but as representatives of the oppressed peoples as well."  [329•2  He emphasised the overriding importance of the slogan issued by the Communist International: "Workers of all countries and all oppressed peoples, unite!"

p The world communist movement continues to be guided by these theses of Lenin’s to this day. The Main Document of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties states that the consolidation of the alliance between the socialist system, and the working-class and national liberation movements is of paramount importance for the future of the anti-imperialist struggle. In the light of this the Meeting made the following fervent call: " Peoples of socialist countries, workers, democratic forces in the capitalist countries, newly liberated peoples and those who are oppressed, unite in a common struggle against imperialism, for peace, national liberation, social progress, democracy and socialis nil"

p Only if the socialist system, the world revolutionary working-= class movement and the movement of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America fighting for their independence (or who have already gained it)—only if all these great forces of the modern day and age are united can socialism triumph the world over. The Leninist Bolshevik Party, having advanced the correct Marxist revolutionary programme on the national question, went on to set a remarkable example of its proper implementation. It steadily educated the Russian working class and all the working people of Russia in the spirit of internationalism, defended the right of nations to self-determination, and supported all national liberation movements. In 1917, led by Lenin, the Bolshevik Party 330 united into a single revolutionary stream the working-class struggle for socialism, the peasant struggle for land, the national liberation struggle of the peoples of Russia and the national movement for peace, and directed all these forces against capitalism in order to overthrow it.

p After the October Revolution, when the Communist Party came to power, it gave practical effect to the principles of the self-determination, equality and freedom of the peoples of Russia. In the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia published on November 3, 1917, the Council of People’s Commissars proclaimed all the peoples of Russia to be equal and sovereign with freedom of self-determination to the point of secession and the formation of independent states. It also cancelled all kinds of national and national-religious privileges and discrimination, allowing for the free development of national minorities and ethnographic groups living in Russia. The Soviet Republic declared its intention to make "a complete break with the barbarous policy of bourgeois civilisation, which has built the prosperity of the exploiters belonging to a few chosen nations on the enslavement of hundreds of millions of working people in Asia, in the colonies in general, and in the small countries".  [330•1  The Soviet Government gave independence to Finland, Poland and other national areas where the bourgeoisie had taken power and demanded secession from Russia, also annulled existing predatory agreements concerning a number of countries that had been concluded by tsarist Russia in league with other imperialist powers.

p From its first coming into existence the Soviet state has been a reliable friend and ally of the oppressed peoples of the East. "Our Soviet Republic must now muster all the awakening peoples of the East and, together with them, wage a struggle against international imperialism."  [330•2 

p Lenin devoted a great deal of attention to the national liberation struggle of the peoples of India. In his greetings addressed to the Indian Revolutionary Association Lenin urged the working people of the Eastern countries, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to unite in the common struggle against the oppressors. Equally he appraised the revolutionary movement in China and urged the Soviet Government to take steps to establish close contacts with the national-revolutionary Canton Government led by Sun 331 Yat-sen. Lenin also considered the awakening of Africa to be of great significance. He noted in connection with riots in South Africa that the continent of Africa had "reminded the world of its claim to human and not slavish existence”. As one of Lenin’s letters shows, he wanted to have as much information as possible on the revolutionary movement in Africa.  [331•1 

p The Soviet Government consistently defended the right of all oppressed peoples to self-determination in the international arena—for example at the Genoa Conference.

p “True!"—that was Lenin’s comment on the margin of a letter of Georgi Chicherin’s beside the words: "The novelty of our international scheme must be that the Negro and other colonial peoples participate on an equal looting with the European peoples in conferences and commissions and have the right to prevent interference in their internal affairs."  [331•2 

p The Soviet Government headed by Lenin also consistently followed a policy of friendship and co-operation with the peoples of the East who had already won their independence and established their own national states.

p In his talk with the Ambassador Extraordinary of Afghanistan, Mohammad Wali-Khan, on October 14, 1919, Lenin said: "I am very glad to see in the red capital of the worker and peasant government the representative of the friendly Afghan people, who are suffering and fighting against imperialist oppression.” Soviet power supports the striving of the East for liberation from imperialist oppression, Lenin used to say. For their part, the peoples of the East should help Soviet Russia in her great war of liberation.  [331•3 

p In January 1921, Lenin sent a telegram to the Chairman of the Great National Assembly of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal, in which he said that he was happy to learn that the nationalities policy of the Soviet Government met with the approval of Turkey. Lenin also sent his most sincere wishes to the Turkish people and Government in their struggle for "independence and prosperity of their country".  [331•4 

The Soviet state continued to render considerable support to Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey in their struggle against imperialism, and concluded treaties of peace and friendship with them in early 1921.

332 Even before the October Revolution Lenin said that the new socialist state would do its best to get into close touch with the backward, formerly oppressed peoples of Asia and Africa when they took the road of independent development, in order to help them to "pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to democracy, to socialism".  [332•1 

p Since the victory of October 1917, the Soviet Government has always supported and still supports the independence of the young national states of the East, and has always considered and still considers it its duty to contribute to their progress and prosperity. Tn this connection Lenin’s note to Stalin dated November 20, 1921 is worthy of notice. Lenin considered it essential that the Soviet state did not limit itself to political support of national liberation movements in the East, but that it should help young national states to develop their economy and train personnel.  [332•2 

p In present-day conditions, these instructions of Lenin have acquired particularly great significance. The Soviet Union, said L. I. Brezhnev in his speech at the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, renders firm political support and moral and material help to the peoples still fighting for liberation, gives all-round support to the peoples that have embarked on the path of independent development and closely co-operates with the young national states.

p After the October Socialist Revolution, the national question acquired new aspects. The Communist Party was faced in this field, both in theory and practice, with problems which by and large had not been analysed by the founders of scientific communism, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. These were the questions of national policy in the conditions of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist construction. On what principles should a multi-national proletarian state be based, and what form should it take? Here, as in other matters connected with the building of a new society, the party of Lenin had to break entirely new ground. By analysing these problems, Lenin enlarged and developed revolutionary theory and set an outstanding example of creative Marxism.

p Lenin observed, first of all, that after the victory of socialist revolution in one country, in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism, and under socialism too, there still remain 333 national distinctions and, hence, the national question still retains its significance. He wrote that just as mankind can eliminate classes only by going through a transitional period of dictatorship by the oppressed class, so it can arrive at the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through a transitional period of the complete liberation of oppressed nations. In his work “Left-Wing” Communism—an Infantile Disorder Lenin stressed that national and state distinctions between peoples and countries "will continue to exist for a very long time to come, even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has been established on a world-wide scale".  [333•1 

p He strongly protested against statements that it was necessary to give up the right to national self-determination in the period of transition from capitalism to socialism. Very important propositions on this matter were advanced by him in "The Discussion of Self-Determination Summed Up”. Lenin refuted the view that because socialism would create all the economic requisites for the elimination of national oppression, nations would no longer assume the character of economic and political communities but only that of cultural and linguistic units, and territorial divisions would be dictated solely by the needs of production.

p Imperialism leaves to socialism a legacy of undemocratic border divisions, including annexations. Hence, socialism cannot ignore the question of the democratic demarkation of frontiers. The latter are defined not so much by the requirements of production as by the wishes and “sympathies” of the populations.

p The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the building of socialism make this merging of nations possible. But it is a possibility which can be realised only through the implementation of complete democracy in defining national frontiers according to the “sympathies” of the people—up to and including full freedom of secession. This in turn eliminates in practice all national frictions and any national mistrust. By organising production in the absence of class oppression and by guaranteeing welfare to every member of every nation, socialism gives full freedom to the “sympathies” of people, and this results in their more speedy drawing together and merging. That is why Lenin wrote: "It would be a betrayal of socialism to refuse to implement the self-determination of nations under socialism."  [333•2 

334

p It is freedom of secession, as Lenin said many times, that will attract smaller nations to form alliances with big socialist states, so long as all-round equality is ensured them in state building, too. Under socialism the working people themselves would not agree to national seclusion, since they have common socio- economic and political interests. So, while in the pre-October period the Leninist Party advanced the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination primarily because of the economic tendency of bourgeois-democratic national liberation movements to set up independent states, after the October Revolution—when, with the abolition of capitalism, the basis for this tendency disappeared— the Party retained the right to self-determination for mainly political reasons.

p Lenin’s theoretical points laid the foundation for the section on the national question in the Party Programme adopted by the Eighth Congress of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks which set the Party concrete tasks in the building of socialism. Lenin repulsed Bukharin, who had rejected the right of nations to self-= determination. Every nation, said Lenin, must have the right to self-determination. This was the only way to guarantee the self-determination of the working people themselves, and the unity of workers and peasants of all nations in the struggle for socialism and the complete liquidation of all capitalist survivals, including national friction and mistrust. It was the only way to strengthen friendship between nations. As was shown by the way the Soviet Socialist Republics rallied round the young Soviet Russia, this policy makes possible really lasting voluntary unity— the union of all nations in one state.

p Having given the peoples of Russia the right to self- determination, the Bolsheviks explained that, in the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution, the unity of the working people of all nations was indispensable and that the principle of self- determination must therefore itself be subordinated to socialist principles. Lenin stated directly that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self- determination—“if the concrete situation is such that the existence of the socialist republic is being imperilled at the present moment on account of the violation of the right to self-determination of one or several nations . . . naturally the preservation of the socialist republic has the higher claim".  [334•1 

335

p After the October Socialist Revolution Lenin firmly opposed bourgeois-nationalist elements in national areas who tried to make use of the principle of self-determination for their own class purposes, i.e., for disuniting the workers and peasants of different nationalities, as a means of struggling against the power of the working people and the alliance between the then nascent Soviet Republics and Soviet Russia.

p Of exceptional theoretical and practical importance is Lenin’s "Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine apropos of the Victories over Denikin" (December 1919). In this letter Lenin emphasised that the questions of nation and state building, and of the frontiers and forms of alliance between the socialist republics, had to be solved in the interests of the working people if their struggle for complete liberation from the yoke of capital and for socialism was to be successful. This presupposed, first, the unity of the Communists of the different nations and socialist republics on such basic matters as recognition of the need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, for the leading role of the working class in relation to the peasantry and other non-proletarian strata of the working population and for their close alliance in the struggle against counterrevolution at home and against world imperialism. It also presupposed the consistent implementation of this policy in practice.

p Second, "the interests of labour demand the fullest confidence and the closest alliance among the working people of different countries and nations".  [335•1  Lenin wrote that no matter what the concrete solution of questions of state independence or state frontiers might be, the workers and peasants of all nations and nationalities taking the socialist road must enter into close military and economic alliance, otherwise the imperialists "will crush and strangle us separately".  [335•2  Those who broke this unity and alliance helped the capitalists and world imperialism.

p “What the bourgeoisie of all countries, and all manner of petty-bourgeois parties—i.e., ‘compromising’ parties which permit alliance with the bourgeoisie against the workers—try most of all to accomplish is to disunite the workers of different nationalities, to evoke distrust, and to disrupt a close international alliance and international brotherhood of the workers."  [335•3  It was thus necessary to fight irreconcilably against both the nationalism of 336 the bourgeoisie and its ideologists and against manifestations of nationalism in the ranks of Communists, and to give practical effect to the principles of internationalism.

p Third, "we want a voluntary union of nations—a union which precludes any coercion of one nation by another—a union founded on complete confidence, on a clear recognition of brotherly unity, on absolutely voluntary consent. Such a union cannot be effected at one stroke; we have to work towards it with the greatest patience and circumspection, so as not to spoil matters and not to arouse distrust, and so that the distrust inherited from centuries of landowner and capitalist oppression, centuries of private property and the enmity caused by its divisions and reclivisions may have a chance to wear off."  [336•1 

p Soon after the victory of the October armed uprising Lenin said that the new government must give all peoples the right to build their lives as they wished and must stretch out a brotherly hand to the working people of all countries in the joint struggle against the bourgeoisie. The Russian working class and the Red Army gave the working people of the national areas strong political and military support in their struggle to establish and strengthen Soviet power. At the same time the economic union of the Soviet Republics was just beginning to form. On this point the Party, guided by Lenin, displayed great caution, flexibility and patience in solving the problems of national relations, and it consistently put into practice the principle of equality between peoples.

p The Leninist national policy won the confidence of many millions of working people of the formerly oppressed nationalities, uniting the peoples of the Soviet land, and laying the foundations of a multi-national socialist state.

p Lenin studied and elaborated the question of federation as one of the most reasonable forms of uniting nations in a multi-= national country in the period of transition from capitalism to communism.

p The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was formed in January 1918. The Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People, written by Lenin and approved by the Third All-Russia Congress of Soviets, laid the basis for the first Soviet Constitution. It read as follows:

p "The Russian Soviet Republic is established on the principle 337 of a free union of free nations, as a federation of Soviet national republics."  [337•1 

p In the "Rough Outline of the Draft Programme”, also written by Lenin and handed around among delegates at the Extraordinary Seventh Party Congress, the task was set of consolidating and further developing "the Federative Republic of Soviets as an immeasurably higher and more progressive form of democracy than bourgeois parliamentarism, and as the sole type of state corresponding ... to the transitional period between capitalism and socialism, i.e., to the period of the dictatorship of the pro- letariat".  [337•2 

p And in the Programme adopted by the Eighth Party Congress a federation was characterised as a transitional form on the path to the complete unity of all proletarians and semi-proletarians of different nations, having the purpose of establishing closer links between them.

p The Russian Federation was built on the principle of autonomy, combining both political autonomy (autonomous national Soviet Republics) and administrative autonomy (autonomous national regions). Federative links also began to establish themselves between the RSFSR and the independent Soviet Republics formed in the course of the socialist revolution and the Civil War. These took the form of bilateral federative links and of a federative union of a number of independent Soviet Republics (this union was created on the basis of a decision of the All-= Union Central Executive Committee, taken with the participation of representatives of the Soviet Republics on July i, 1919, and entitled "On the Uniting of the Soviet Socialist Republics of Russia, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Byelorussia in the Struggle Against World Imperialism”).

p After studying and summing up this process of federation, Lenin, in his "Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and the Colonial Questions”, came to the important conclusion that federation was a transitional form leading to the complete unity of the working people of different nations. Federation proved its practicability both for the nationalities within the RSFSR, which in the past had neither state rights nor autonomy, and in the relations of the RSFSR with other Soviet Republics. The task of the Comintern was to develop further and to study and test by experience these new federations emerging on the basis of the Soviet system.

338

p Lenin gave great thought to the need to unite the independent Soviet Republies into a single united state. He wrote: "It is necessary to strive for ever closer federal unity, bearing in mind, first, that the Soviet Republics, surrounded as they are by the imperialist powers of the whole world—which from the military standpoint are immeasurably stronger—cannot possibly continue to exist without the closest alliance; second, that a close economic alliance between the Soviet Republics is necessary, otherwise the productive forces which have been ruined by imperialism cannot be restored and the well-being of the working people cannot be ensured; third, that there is a tendency towards the creation of a single world economy, regulated by the proletariat of all nations as an integral whole and according to a common plan. This tendency has already revealed itself quite clearly under capitalism and is bound to be further developed and consummated under socialism."  [338•1 

p After the Civil War ended the process of nation and state building got into its stride. Between 1919 and 1922 the following Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republics were formed within the RSFSR: the Bashkir, Tatar, Karelian (the Karelian Labour Commune), Kirghiz (and later the Kazakh), Gorskaya (Mountain Area), Daghestan, Turkestan (in April 1918) and Yakutian Republics. In addition a number of autonomous regions were set up: the Chuvash, the Votyak (the Udmurt), the Mari, the Komi (the Zyryan), the Kabardinian, the Kalmyk, the Buryat- Mongolian, the Oirotian, and the Cherkess (Adygei) Regions.

p In 1920-21, alongside the formerly established independent Soviet Socialist Republics of the Ukraine and Byelorussia, there emerged the Azerbaijan SSR, the Armenian SSR, the Georgian SSR, and the Bukhara and Khoresm People’s Soviet Republics. They all concluded Union treaties with the RSFSR guaranteeing national equality and preserving the independence of the signatories, while endorsing their military and economic alliance. All the Republics voluntarily agreed to the supreme state bodies of the RSFSR managing their armed forces, heavy industry, the financial systems and postal and telegraph communications. The Ukraine and Byelorussia also joined with the RSFSR in foreign trade.

p In March 1922, on Lenin’s initiative, a federation of Soviet Socialist Republics of Transcaucasia was formed, consisting of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. This federation was 339 transformed in December 1922 into the Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, a new type of Soviet socialist federation consisting of several independent republics with common federative state organs. Lenin undoubtedly took the experience of this federation into account when the USSR was being formed.

p Then, in the spring and summer of 1922—in accordance both with the objective demands of the historical progress made by the young Soviet lands and with the aspirations of their peoples—the central Party organs of the Ukraine, Byelorussia and the Trans-= Caucasian Federation raised the question of regulating relations between their own Republics and the RSFSR in order to promote and strengthen federative links among all Soviet Republics.

p A special Commission worked out the draft resolution "On the Relations of the RSFSR with Independent Republics" for the CC Party Plenary Meeting, envisaging the “autonomisation” of the independent non-Russian Republics—i.e., their inclusion into the Russian Federation as autonomous republics. However, this was a wrong view, as Lenin pointed out. Lenin considered that the “autonomisation” of sovereign non-Russian republics did not meet the aim of strengthening friendship between peoples and could only provoke nationalists to indulge in demagogic twaddle about “inequality”.

p Lenin proposed an essentially different way of uniting the Soviet Republics. On the basis of the principles of Soviet federalism and of his summing-up of the existing experience of state building in the Soviet lands, he advanced a plan to create a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a federation of equal and sovereign Soviet Republics. In a letter to the Politburo Members of the Central Committee dated September 26, 1922, Lenin proposed re-formulating the first point of the draft resolution to the effect that the independent Soviet Republics were not to be incorporated in the Russian Federation but were to be united together with the RSFSR in a new state structure. He explained: "We consider ourselves, the Ukrainian SSR and others, equal, and enter with them, on an equal basis, into a new union, a new federation, the Union of the Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia. . . .

p “The important thing is not to provide material for the ‘pro-= independence’ people, not to destroy their independence, but to create another new storey, a federation of equal = republics."  [339•1 

p Lenin also suggested changing the wording of other points of 340 the resolution so as to provide for the formation of an All-Union Central Executive Committee of the Soviets, and a number of All-Union People’s Commissariats, etc.

p Lenin thus substantially enriched the Marxist theory of the national question. He discovered a new type of federative proletarian state—a united multi-national socialist state, a voluntary union of equal and sovereign republics built on the principles of proletarian internationalism.

p The draft resolution "On the Relations of the RSFSR with Independent Republics" was revised in accordance with Lenin’s directions. The Plenum of the Party Central Committee held on October 5-6, 1922, fully approved Lenin’s proposals and adopted the revised resolution as a CC directive. It also instructed the commission that had prepared the draft resolution to work out the draft law on the formation of the USSR for submission to the All-Union Congress of Soviets. The Communists, the working people and the congresses of Soviets of the Ukraine, Byelorussia, the Transcaucasian Federation and the RSFSR, all warmly applauded Lenin’s idea of forming the USSR, and the First All-Union Congress of Soviets announced the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on December 30, 1922.

p In his letter "The Question of Nationalities or ‘ Autonomisation’ ”—which Lenin dictated on December 30-31, 1922, since he was prevented by illness from being present at the First All-Union Congress of Soviets—he emphasised the world historic significance of the formation of the USSR. It was essential to preserve and strengthen the union of socialist Republics. "Of this there can be no doubt.” The union of Soviet republics was necessary primarily for building socialism and for the defence of the gains of the Revolution against the imperialist intrigues of the West; it was likewise necessary for the world liberation movement.  [340•1 

p The idea of creating the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the concrete plan for doing so, were the final stages in Lenin’s work on the problems of federation. Lenin’s writings and speeches provide a detailed explanation of the principles of the federation of Soviet Socialist Republics and its radical difference from multi-national state structures under capitalism.

p What are the main features of this Soviet socialist federation of different nations? They are:

p First, the political set-up of the nations joining the federation: Soviet power as the power of the working class and all working 341 people, i.e., the Soviet Republic is characterised by the alliance of the proletariat and the peasantry, and by socialist democracy.

p Second, the socialist economic structure of the federation— public ownership of the basic means of production, socialist social relations, the abolition of exploiting classes and the exploitation of man by man.

p Third, its socialist ideology—the ideas of internationalism which "are awakening the working people’s class consciousness and are organising them into a solid alliance".  [341•1 

p And last but not least—the leading role of the proletarian Communist Party in the system of working-class dictatorship, in the creation of a new socialist society, and, in this case, in nation and state building.

p Lenin demonstrated that it was precisely these features, that made Soviet autonomy and federation quite compatible with the principle of democratic centralism. In the initial version of his work The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government, he wrote: "The opponents of centralism continually put forward autonomy and federation as a means of struggle against the uncertainties of centralism. As a matter of fact, democratic centralism in no way excludes autonomy, on the contrary, it presupposes the necessity of it. As a matter of fact, even federation, ff carried out within limits that are rational from an economic point of view, if it is based on important national distinctions that give rise to a real need for a certain degree of state separateness—even federation is in no way in contradiction to democratic cen- tralism."  [341•2 

p Let us take special note of Lenin’s point that the very nature of the socialist federation of Soviet Republics presupposes the leading role of a united Communist Party. The resolution of the Eighth Party Congress on organisation pointed out that the formation of independent Soviet Republics "does not mean that the RCP must, in its turn, be organised on the basis of a federation of independent Communist Parties”. "There has to be a single centralised Communist Party with a single CC in charge of all Party work in all areas of the RSFSR (here all Soviet Republics on Russian territory are meant—V. Z.). All the decisions of the RCP and its leading bodies are compulsory and binding on all sections of the Party, regardless of its national composition. The Central Committees of the Communist Parties of the national 342 Soviet Republics enjoy the rights of regional Party committees and are subordinate to the CC of the RCP(B)."  [342•1 

p "We must, however, know and remember,” said Lenin, "that, in law and in practice, the Constitution of the Soviet Republic is based on the tenet that the Party rectifies, prescribes and builds according to a single principle. . . ."  [342•2  Lenin said at the Eighth Party Congress, when stressing the need for the unity of Soviet Republics: "We must strive for it by means of propaganda, by Party influence, by forming united trade unions."  [342•3  This thought concerning the leading role of the Party, of "Party authority" in the federation of Soviet Republics, was developed by Lenin in his letter "The Question of Nationalities or ’Autonomisation’ ”. "It must be borne in mind that the decentralisation of the People’s Commissariats and the lack of co-ordination in their work as far as Moscow and other centres arc concerned can be compensated sufficiently by Party authority, if it is exercised with sufficient prudence and impartiality."  [342•4 

p Lenin also made the great contribution of defining the Party’s nationalities policy in the period of socialist construction. He underlined that important as the tasks of nation and state building may be, the maintenance and development of Soviet power and the transition to socialism were the most important questions in the national areas.  [342•5  He outlined the following tasks: to remove inequality among the formerly oppressed peoples, to draw them into socialist construction, to help the working masses of the non-= Russian peoples to create their own Soviet states and to ensure the progress of their economy and culture. A major condition for the fulfilment of these tasks was the fraternal co-operation and mutual aid between these peoples and the assistance given by the advanced republics and the Russian working class to backward peoples.

p As Lenin continuously pointed out the Party was duty bound to take into account the specific features of socialist construction in the national regions. The significance of his letter "To Communist Comrades of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Daghestan, and the Gorskaya Republic" extended far beyond the Caucasian 343 Republics themselves. In fact it contained advice and instructions to the Communists of all national republics and regions. In this letter, Lenin drew the attention of the Caucasian Communists to the fact that in endeavouring to solve the tasks of strengthening Soviet power and of making the transition to socialism they should make the effort to understand the specific situations in their own republics, which were different from conditions in the RSFSR. They should not try to copy the tactics of the Party organisations of Central Russia, but give thought to adapting them to the concrete local conditions of their regions. The republics of the Caucasus, Lenin wrote, were more strongly peasant in character than Russia. That was why a still more careful approach to socialism was essential there, i.e., more tact and flexibility had to be shown towards the petty bourgeoisie, the intellectuals and, in particular, to the peasants.

p As we know, Lenin, in the Report to the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions made at the Second Congress of the Comintern, came to the conclusion of really historic significance that backward countries where patriarchal, feudal and semi-feudal relations prevail, can, after their liberation from the imperialist yoke and the establishment of people’s rule, gradually make the transition to socialism with’ the help of the victorious proletariat of advanced countries, by-passing the capitalist stage of development.  [343•1 

p Lenin told a delegation from the Mongolian People’s Republic during talks held in November 1921 that he thought this applied in particular to the case of Mongolia.  [343•2 

p Also of interest in this connection arc Lenin’s "Remarks on the Report of Sultan-Zade Concerning the Prospects of a Social Revolution in the East" made for the Second Congress of the Comintern. Giving the characteristics of the situation in the backward countries of the East, Lenin wrote:

p "I) Disintegration of the propertied exploiter classes

p "2) a large part of the population are peasants under medieval exploitation

p "3) small artisans—in industry

p "4) deduction: adjust both Soviet institutions and the Communist Party (its membership, special tasks) to the level of the peasant countries of the colonial East.

344

p "This is the crux of the matter. This needs thinking about and seeking concrete = answers."  [344•1 

p The Party had to apply communist policy skilfully and flexibly to pre-capitalist conditions. Its first job was to educate and strengthen local Party organisations by adjusting "to these conditions the basic principles of the Soviet socialist system—the central idea of which is clear and close to the hearts of all the labouring masses, namely, that of setting up ’Working People’s Soviets’ ".  [344•2 

p When he spoke about the possibility of backward nations moving from patriarchal-feudal relations to socialism without passing through the capitalist stage of development, Lenin referred to the experience of Party work in Turkestan. In fact, Lenin’s documents relating to Turkestan contain important points of principle. We should mention first his remarks on the Draft Decision of the CC on the Tasks of the Party in Turkestan. He said that it was necessary, first, to ensure greater participation of the Turkestan Communist Party in government, and second, to take steps to see that more Turkestan peasants also participate in government and in all affairs. The Party must systematically consider, prepare and carry out "the transfer of power—gradually but steadily—to the local Soviets of working people, under the control of reliable Communists".  [344•3 

p And bearing in mind the top priority tasks in the period of non-= capitalist development of backward countries, Lenin emphasised: "The general task is not communism, but the overthrow of feudalism."  [344•4  Later, when the Party moved on to the New Economic Policy, Lenin indicated that it should be implemented in Turkestan and other backward national areas, too—but, again, their special characteristics should be taken into account.

p Lenin regarded the internationalism of the proletariat and its Party as one of the main conditions for the successful solution of the national question—as, of course, of the main task of the working class, the winning of power and the transformation of society along socialist lines—and he called for determined opposition to all species of nationalism, and any deviations from proletarian internationalism either in the direction of Great-Power chauvinism or local nationalism. Both these deviations were condemned, 345 as "harmful and dangerous for the communist cause”, by the Tenth Congress of the RCP(B) in its resolution “On the Immediate Tasks of the Party on the National Question" worked out under Lenin’s direction.

p In his last work on the national question, his letter "The Question of Nationalities or ’Autonomisation’ ”, Lenin made a strong appeal for the steady realisation of the principles of proletarian internationalism. Full equality, mutual respect, friendship, fraternal co-operation and mutual help—these should be at the basis of relations between nations united in a multi-national socialist state and engaged in building a new society.

p Lenin also laid great stress on the international significance of the experience of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government in solving the national question. He wrote in 1919: "The attitude of the Soviet Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic to the weak and hitherto oppressed nations is of very practical significance for the whole of Asia and for all the colonies of the world, for thousands and millions of people."  [345•1 

p When working out the theses on the national and colonial questions for the Second Congress of the Comintern, Lenin proceeded primarily from the Soviet experience. What were the main things to be emphasised here?

p First, the consistent struggle of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for the liberation of colonial and dependent countries from the imperialist yoke, for their right to national self-= determination, and its resolute support of all national liberation movements and revolutions.

p Second, the Party’s correct nationalities policy after the victory of the socialist revolution, and its principled and flexible solution of the problems that arose in the nation and state building—in particular, the use of various kinds of federative links; the uniting of the peoples in a single multi-national state, their friendship and mutual help, the abolition of the actual inequality of the formerly oppressed nations, and the transition to socialism of backward national areas where patriarchal, feudal and semi-= feudal relations had prevailed, by their by-passing the capitalist srage of development.

p Third, the internationalist principle of Party building, the proper combination of the national and international tasks of the working class, the education of working people in a spirit of internationalism, and the skilful solution of the complex problems 346 of building and strengthening Party organisations in the backward national areas with the help of Communists from the more advanced Soviet Republics.

p Finally, the experience of forming federative links between the Soviet Republics could be applied in relations between the countries of the world socialist system. Lenin referred in his theses on the national and colonial questions to the relations of friendship and mutual help which existed between Soviet Russia and the Hungarian Soviet Republic. We should also mention the fraternal relations between Soviet Russia and the Mongolian People’s Republic that were inaugurated in 1921. In his talk with the representatives of the Mongolian People’s Republic Lenin said that the only right way for its people was "to fight for state and economic independence in alliance with the workers and peasants of Soviet Russia".  [346•1 

p The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has shown a good example of consistent struggle against paying lip service to internationalism and against replacing it by nationalism in propaganda, agitation, and in all practical work.

p Lenin regarded the closest political, military and economic union of socialist countries as highly essential. His ideas on this matter warrant the following indisputable conclusion: the equal rights enjoyed by the socialist republics, their cohesion and mutual assistance in building and consolidating the new system, in upholding the gains of socialism from encroachment by foreign imperialists and internal counter-revolutionaries arc an earnest of the genuine sovereignty, national security and socialist orientation of the peoples of these republics, of a stronger world socialist system.

p Lenin’s theory of the national question has been further developed in CPSU Congress and Conference decisions, at CC plenary meetings, in Comintern documents and other materials issued by the world communist movement. Prominent among them arc the CPSU Programme adopted by the Twenty-Second Party Congress, the Twenty-Third CPSU Congress decisions, and the documents approved by the three Moscow Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties. Of great importance arc the materials of the 1969 Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, which thoroughly explore the vital aspects of the national question and the present stage of the national liberation movement.

p The whole course of history has confirmed and continues to 347 confirm the correctness, topicality and living force of Lenin’s teachings on the national and colonial questions. This is proved convincingly by one of the great achievements of socialism—the solution of the national question in the Soviet Union. Soviet society guarantees not only political equality to its nations and their legal position as Soviet states, but has also abolished the relics of the past, i.e., their economic and cultural inequality. Relying on fraternal mutual assistance, all Soviet non-Russian Republics have built their own modern industries, trained their own personnel (both workers and intellectuals), reorganised their agriculture along socialist lines, and developed their own culture— national in form and socialist in content. Many of the formerly backward peoples have now completed building socialism after by-passing capitalism. The drawing together of these nations with equal rights on a voluntary basis in one multi-national state—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—and their close co-operation in economic, state and cultural affairs, their fraternal friendship, and the blooming of their economy and culture—these are the most important results of Lenin’s nationalities policy.

p The solution of the national question in other socialist countries, the self-assertion and development of the world socialist movement have borne out the profound truth of Lenin’s ideas.

p The great international significance of Leninism may be seen in the collapse of imperialism’s colonial system, in the liberation of hundreds of millions of people from the colonial yoke, in the establishment and progress of the newly independent states, in the advent to power of working people, in the socialist construction in some former colonies and semi-colonies, and in the socialist orientation of a number of young states in Asia and Africa.

Leninism is the inexhaustible source of revolutionary thought, the lodestar for nations, for working people in their struggle for democracy, social progress, socialism and communism, for the complete solution of the national question, and for the triumph of socialist internationalism throughout the world.