257

p 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 redivisions may have a chance to wear off.

p V. I. Lenin

p Relations between socialist states occupy an exceedingly important place in modern international affairs.

p First of all, they are a fundamentally new type of international relations—between countries in which exploitation of man by man no longer exists because all exploiting classes —the natural bearers of expansion, aggression and national oppression—have been removed. They are a prototype of future w.orld relations which, as socialism gains ground, will spread wider and wider until they embrace the whole world; the relations will thereby be freed from elements of chance and the specific features engendered by the situation in which they initially developed.

p While capitalist development, as Lenin said, “substitutes class antagonisms for national antagonisms”,  [257•*  the establishment of socialism in several countries signifies an end to class antagonisms and the emergence of new relations between them based on a strong community of basic interests. Moreover, national and state differences between peoples and countries, as Lenin pointed out, “will continue to exist for a very long time to come, even after the dictatorship of the 258 proletariat has been established on a world-wide scale”.  [258•* 

p Second, while previously, alongside relations between countries belonging to the two opposing systems, an important role was played in world politics (and is still played) by relations between the imperialist countries, today, when the world socialist system is becoming a decisive factor of historical development, relations between the socialist states are occupying an ever greater place in world politics. The strengthening of socialist positions within individual countries and the effectiveness of socialism’s struggle against imperialist aggression, and its influence on international relations as a whole largely depend on the state and nature of these relations.

p Today, when Lenin’s forecast about the development of “the dictatorship of the proletariat from a national dictatorship (i. e., existing in a single country and incapable of determining world politics) into an international one (i. e., a dictatorship of the proletariat involving at least several advanced countries, and capable of exercising a decisive influence upon world politics as a whole)”  [258•**  is coming true, socialist influence on world affairs and its role in the struggle against imperialism greatly depend on the solidarity of socialist countries and on their comprehensive—and that includes foreign policy—co-operation. Here more than anywhere else there is a tangle of internal and external factors, economic, social and foreign policy problems of the socialist system and world development as a whole.

p Third, relations between the socialist countries is the youngest sphere of modern international relations. While relations between imperialist countries have a comparatively long history, with roots in other centuries, while relations between capitalist and less developed countries also in one way or another bear the imprint of the past, while the problem of relations between states of opposing systems dates from only 1917, relations between socialist countries arose only after the Second World War. Understandably, this question could not have been examined in detail in the works 259 of Lenin or had a direct reflection in Soviet foreign policy during his lifetime, with the exception, perhaps, of the extremely short-lived experience of relations with the Hungarian Soviet Republic.

p Nonetheless, Lenin’s heritage contains invaluable material for studying, understanding and influencing these relations. The fact is that the relations between the socialist countries are a direct consequence of the victories of the working class internationally, the embodiment of the international essence of the proletarian class struggle, the development and application in new historical conditions of the principles of proletarian internationalism. Lenin paid great attention both in his theoretical studies and in his practical activity to elaborating those principles proclaimed by Marx and Engels in the middle of the last century.

p In relations between the socialist countries as countries whose class interests coincide, relations between nationalities play an important part. Lenin’s writings on the national question and the Leninist practice of its resolution in the Soviet Union, therefore, have overriding importance for their study and understanding.

p Notwithstanding the clearly expressed ideas by the founders of scientific communism on the internationalist meaning of the workers’ class struggle, on proletarian internationalism and the need and importance for the proletarians of all countries to unite, the practical embodiment of these ideas has had a difficult path.

p The foundations of internationalist unity of the workers laid down by Marx and Engels during the time of the First International were further strengthened in the activity of the revolutionary proletarian parties. During the critical period of the First World War, however, the Second International collapsed as a result of betrayal of the principles of proletarian internationalism by its opportunist leaders and by their transfer to social-nationalism and social-chauvinism. The cause of international proletarian solidarity was dealt a severe blow. The situation was made even worse by the fact that the imperialist bourgeoisie, rightly fearing the international solidarity of all working men, launched a wide campaign of nationalist and chauvinistic propaganda. Since 260 this bourgeoisie was, as Lenin remarked, “more international than the small proprietors”,  [260•*  it was able to play on national feelings, prejudices and traditions so as to hamper the spreading of ideas of internationalist solidarity of the working classes, and utilised the whole force of its power so as to prevent international co-operation among workers’ parties and organisations.

p During the complex historical circumstances of the First World War and the rampant nationalism and chauvinism associated with it, Lenin consistently stood for the internationalist solidarity of the proletariat. In his theoretical and practical activity, he elaborated in an all-round way issues concerning the correlation of internationalist and national tasks of the working class, the ways and forms of proletarian international solidarity and of all working people in the new historical conditions. Lenin consistently attacked nationalism which the bourgeoisie was propagating widely to befuddle the working-class consciousness. He set an example of a specific dialectical approach to this phenomenon.

p Being an internationalist and a consistent fighter for a close alliance of all working people, irrespective of their nationality or country, Lenin was also a realist. Better than many of his fellow-thinkers he realised the force of national feelings, the tenacity of national differences and the whole complexity of the nationalities question. He considered it subordinate in relation to issues of the class struggle, yet at the same time warned against nihilism in the nationalities question, appealed to the Communists in different countries carefully to consider the nationality aspect in their revolutionary activity.

p Lenin’s views on the right of nations to self- determination are permeated with the spirit of revolutionary dialectics. While fighting for the internationalist unity of workers and against nationalistic separatism, he warned against underestimating the slogan of the right of nations to selfdetermination, especially in regard to small nations, seeing this as a necessary prerequisite for a successful struggle for firm internationalist unity, purposive and voluntary.

261

p Correspondingly, the internationalist education of the workers aimed at the voluntary unification of all nations could not be the same in all countries.

p “In the internationalist education of the workers of the oppressor countries,” Lenin underlined, “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.”  [261•* 

p Socialists of small nations must, Lenin said, emphasise in their agitation “the second word of our general formula: ’voluntary integration of nations”.  [261•** 

p Lenin’s ideas on the correlation of class and national interests and the correlation of the internationalist and national tasks of the working class were further developed and practically applied after the October Revolution and the formation of the world’s first socialist state. His theory of socialist revolution based on the possibility of the victory of socialism initially in a single country, and its implementation added several new aspects to the specific understanding of the principles of proletarian internationalism, to an understanding of the correlation of the internationalist and national tasks of the proletariat both in the only then existing country where it had come to power and in the countries remaining under capitalist rule.

p Under Lenin’s leadership, the Russian working class provided an excellent example of genuine internationalism, demonstrated in practice its readiness to make great sacrifice and to endure all difficulties for the sake of world socialist revolution. Lenin based himself on the fact that “the interests of socialism, of world socialism are higher than national interests, higher than the interests of the state”.  [261•*** 

p While the victory of the proletarian revolution and the establishment of Soviet power throughout the former Russian Empire created a firm basis for internationalist unity of the working people of all the numerous nationalities of Russia, Lenin realised that this unity could be achieved only 262 on a voluntary basis. “Nations must be won over to the idea of an alliance with the Great Russians not by force, but by a really voluntary and really free agreement....”  [262•* 

p The resolution of this task required lengthy and painstaking work in overcoming strife among nationalities that was a legacy of the age-old exploiting systems of the past, it required the consistent implementation of the principles of equality of nations and the rights of nations to self- determination up to and including secession and formation of independent states. Lenin was particularly intolerant in regard to manifestations of nationalism or chauvinism on the part of members of large nations. He wrote: “...We Great-Russian Communists must repress with the utmost severity the slightest manifestation in our midst of GreatRussian nationalism, for such manifestations, which are a betrayal of communism in general, cause the gravest harm.”  [262•** 

p The Leninist principles of relations between nations were consistently embodied both in the domestic and the foreign policy of the Soviet state. A few examples: recognition of the independence of Poland, Finland and other countries that had been part of the Russian Empire; proclamation of the principles of the federal structure of the statehood of the peoples in the Soviet country; consistent implementation of formal and factual equality of all nationalities.

p “The freer Russia is, and the more resolutely our republic recognises the right of non-Great-Russian nations to secede,” Lenin wrote, “the more strongly will other nations be attracted towards an alliance with us, the less friction will there be, ... and the closer and more enduring—in the long run—will the fraternal alliance be between the Russian proletarian and peasant republic and the republics of all other nations.”  [262•*** 

p An extremely instructive example of Lenin’s dialectical treatment of internationalism is his attitude to the question 263 of relations between the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. As internationalists, he said, “it is our duty, first, to combat very vigorously the survivals (sometimes unconscious) of Great-Russian imperialism and chauvinism among ’Russian’ Communists; and .secondly, it is our duty, precisely on the national question, which is a relatively minor one ... to make concessions. There are other questions—the fundamental interests of the proletarian dictatorship; the interests of the unity and discipline of the Red Army which is fighting Denikin; the leading role of the proletariat in relation to the peasantry—that are more important; the question whether the Ukraine will be a separate state is far less important. We must not be in the least surprised, or frightened, even by the prospect of the Ukrainian workers and peasants trying out different systems, and in the course of, say, several years, testing by practice union with the RSFSR, or seceding from the latter and forming an independent Ukrainian SSR, or various forms of their close alliance, and so on, and so forth.”  [263•* 

p Lenin repeatedly stressed the international importance of the October Revolution, he foresaw the inevitability of a repetition on an international scale of some of its basic features, he saw Bolshevism as a model of tactics for all, yet at the same time he noted the specificity of the ways the October Revolution developed and resolutely opposed a blind copying of Bolshevik tactics by Communists of other countries. Hence his advice to the leaders of the Hungarian Soviet Republic; in a telegram to Bela Kun he wrote: “It would be a mistake merely to imitate our Russian tactics in all details in the specific conditions of the Hungarian revolution.”  [263•**  He developed the same idea in an address to the Communists of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Daghestan and the Mountaineer Republic in 1921: "Do not copy our tactics, but analyse the reasons for their peculiar features, the conditions that gave rise to them, and their results; go 264 beyond the letter, and apply the spirit, the essence and the lessons of the 1917-21 experience.”  [264•* 

p Lenin recommended to foreign Communists—ardent and consistent internationalists—carefully to consider the national characteristics of their countries, and warned against underestimating the role of national aspects in the development of the revolutionary process. “The demarcation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is proceeding in different countries in their own specific ways,” he said. “Here we must act with utmost caution. We must be particularly cautious with regard to the various nations, for there is nothing worse than lack of confidence on the part of a nation.”  [264•** 

p Lenin’s ideas on the specificity of the revolutionary process in various countries refer not only to the period of struggle for power, but also to the resolution of tasks of building socialism after the proletariat has taken political power. In 1918, Lenin said that socialist society “can come into being only by passing through a series of varied, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state”.  [264•*** 

p Lenin believed that despite the common aim of the workers of all countries—socialism—and the common fundamental laws of class struggle and socialist revolution, each country would follow its own road to socialism; each road would not be a repetition of historical experience but its development, supplementation and enrichment. The following words of Lenin’s have become quite well known: “All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life.”  [264•**** 

p In a report on the Party Programme at the 8th Party Congress, in 1919, he again returned to this idea: “...No decree has yet been issued stating that all countries must 265 live according to the Bolshevik revolutionary calendar; and even if it were issued, it would not be observed.”  [265•* 

p The founder and leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was always very respectful towards the experience of other parties, of other countries and towards their desire to resolve the tasks of socialist revolution in their own way; he strongly opposed any attempt to impose readymade recipes on them. At the 8th Party Congress Lenin said: “They must be given the opportunity of fulfilling a modest wish—to create a better Soviet power than ours. We cannot help reckoning with the fact that things there are proceeding in rather a peculiar way...” And further: ”. . .While foreseeing every stage of development in other countries, we must decree nothing from Moscow.”  [265•** 

p Lenin’s understanding of the principles of proletarian internationalism in the new historical epoch beginning with the October Revolution found an expression in the activity of the Third Communist International. Communists of the whole world considered it their internationalist duty to maintain utter solidarity with the only country with a victorious proletariat—the Soviet Union, which paved the way to the victory of socialism in all countries. The attitude to the Soviet Union as the base of world revolution and its comprehensive support have always been a major criterion of the loyalty of foreign Communist Parties to the principle of proletarian internationalism.

p The distinctive intertwining of internationalist and national tasks in the activity of Communist and Workers’ Parties was especially apparent during the Second World War, when the struggle of European countries against the fatal menace of nazism demanded the unity of all forces of the nations to resist the fascist invaders. Class contradictions did not, of course, disappear, but the battle of working people for social emancipation was closely intertwined with the struggle for national liberation from the fascist invaders and became the prime historical task.

p The watershed, both internationally and within each 266 individual country, at that time, lay not only between the exploiters and the exploited, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but primarily between the fascist invaders and their collaborators, on the one hand, and the anti-nazi forces, on the other. This encouraged national patriotic feelings, especially in the occupied countries.

p At the same time, the settlement in each nazi-occupied territory of the national task—liberation from the invaders— largely depended on the outcome of the world struggle, on external forces, above all, on the Soviet Union, its victory over nazi Germany, the part it played in the anti-Hitler coalition, and its foreign policy. This encouraged an awareness among broad sections of European peoples ( especially in Eastern Europe) of the community of interests of their countries with the interests of the socialist Soviet Union and the growth of its international prestige.

All these circumstances affected the character and forms of the revolutionary processes which developed in Central and Southeastern Europe during the closing stages of the war, and also the forms of relations between the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies in the early postwar years.