The
Self-Determination of Nations: The Theory and Practice (Ukraine and
Georgia)
Annette Franz and Dave Hollis, Undated
Theoretical Approaches to the National Question According to Marx
and Engels
To understand the events that took place in the first years after
the Russian Revolution that were decisive for the national question,
it is necessary to look at the Marxist theories of the nineteenth
and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.
To start with, one will look in vain for a coherent theory of the
national question. This goes not only for Marx and Engels but also
for the Bolsheviks, Rosa Luxemburg and Kautsky. One exception is
certainly represented by Otto Bauer.
Already in 1848 Marx recognised that the productive forces would
deeply influence the national state. However, very early on, he claimed
that within the working class nationality was already dead, and that
it represented the disintegration of classes and nationalities.
The attitude of Marx and Engels can be subdivided into roughly
three aspects:
• There
was the difference between 'the large and well defined European
nations' (Italy, Poland, Germany and
Hungary were named), which were
to be supported by all European Democrats, and 'the numerous
small relics of peoples', which after they appeared for a shorter
or
longer time on the stage of history were to be finally
absorbed as an entirety
in one or other of these more powerful nations. Further
these smaller 'nationalities' were either inventions or tools
of Russian Pan-Slavism
and their demands and claims earned no support.
• Marx
and Engels supported demands whose realisation would push forward
World Revolution. The only exception to this was Poland.
Every other peasant nationalism was classified as reactionary.
• It
was an axiom of progressive nineteenth century thought that Russia
was by
definition reactionary.
This dividing
up of the world into progressive and reactionary nations was
linked to a fairly racist attitude to
the latter.
Rosdolsky quotes
in his book on Engels’ attitude to the 'historyless'
peoples his articles 'Hungary' and 'The Democratic Pan-Slavism'.
In the
final part of the second article he quotes among other things:
'At
that time the fate of the East European Revolution depended
where the Czechs and Southern Slavs stood; we will always
remember that
at the decisive moment they betrayed the revolution to
Petersburg and Olmütz for the sake of their petty national
hopes ... ! We will some day take bloody revenge on the Slavs for
their cowardly
and despicable betrayal of the revolution.'
And in the final
part of the article entitled 'Hungary':
'At the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat … the
Austro-Germans and Magyar will be freed and will take bloody
revenge on the Slavic
barbarians. The general war which will subsequently break
out will blow apart this Slavic special alliance, and will
exterminate all
these small stubborn nations right down to their names.
The next war will not only make reactionary classes and
dynasties disappear
from the face of the earth but also whole reactionary peoples.
And that is also progress.'
The attitude of Marx and Engels changed over time. Before
1850 they did not develop a recognisable theory of national
self-determination.
Through the Polish uprising of 1863 the right of self-determination
was taken up in the programme of the International. Engels
revised his attitude to the Danish claim of Schleswig
and Marx later
spoke in favour of Ireland’s separation from England.
The National Question from 1899 to 1917 in the Russian
Social Democracy
The right to self-determination was taken up in 1898
in the first manifesto of the Russian Social Democracy.
In
1903 this
right
was also to be found in the party programme. From this
time on the right
to self-determination was disputed. Above all by the
Polish SDKPiL and its most famous representative Rosa
Luxemburg.
As with Marx and Engels, Lenin’s attitude also went through
certain developments. His original attitude to the question was
of self-determination for the working class. On the position of
the
Armenian Social Democracy for Armenian self-determination he wrote:
'We on our part concern ourselves with the self-determination of
the proletariat in each nationality rather than for the self-determination
of peoples.'
Moreover Lenin was against the concept of the Austrian
Social Democracy, which was for a scheme of national
cultural autonomy.
These ideas
were taken up in Russia by the Bund, the oldest Social
Democratic organisation in Russia. They saw themselves
as the only representative
of the Jewish proletariat. At the foundation of the RSDLP
the Bund was admitted as an autonomous organisation in
all questions
concerning
the Jewish proletariat. At the second congress this unique
representation was denied and it drew back from the congress
and the party.
At the fourth congress of the RSDLP it was taken up again.
Lenin’s position on the national question can be found directly
in Stalin’s essay 'Marxism and the National Question', written
in 1913. It is generally accepted that this essay was inspired
by Lenin. This work can be considered as the standard work in the
party
literature on this topic. In it Stalin defines the nation thus:
'A nation is an historically constituted, stable community of people
formed on the basis of a common language, a common area, territory,
economic life and psychological make up manifested in a common
culture.
If one of these factors is missing it is not a nation.'
It is immediately noticeable that according to these
criteria Switzerland would not be a nation. Furthermore
the requirement
that the people
see themselves as a nation is missing. In the essay the
concepts nation and nationality are interchangeable.
The examples of
nationalism which Stalin names at the beginning of the
essay are problematical.
As examples he speaks of the spread of Zionism among
the Jews although they were not to be regarded as a nation;
the increase
in chauvinism
in Poland, certainly a disapproving use of the term 'nationalism';
Pan-Slavism among the Tartars; the spread of nationalism
among the Armenians, Georgians and Ukrainians, although
at the time
they were
nationalities; the general tendency of the average person
towards anti-Semitism.
The essay contains a polemic against the Austrian definition
of a nation. Stalin has a two-sided view. Firstly, a
nation is viewed
as a historically proven form of state organisation at
the time of the bourgeois revolution, and as such it
enjoys a right
to
self-determination
in the form of breaking away from an existing multinational
state and this right cannot be denied it. Secondly the
ultimate goal
of socialism would be to replace the division of the
world in 'national
bordered communities' by the principle of an 'international
solidarity of workers'.
In 1913 the basic principles of the Bolshevik Party written
by Lenin were adopted. They describe in a condensed
form the position
of the
Bolsheviks and Lenin:
• In capitalist
conditions the main desiderata are equality of rights for all nations
and languages;
the absence of an obligatory
state language, school instruction in the local language, and a wide
measure of provincial autonomy and local self-government.
• The principal
of cultural-national autonomy and of separate national school
administrations within a given state is rejected
as inimical to democracy in general and to the interests of the class struggle
in particular.
• The interests
of the working class demand the union of all workers of a given
state in proletarian
organisations not
divided on national lines.
• The party supports
'the rights of the oppressed nations of the Tsarist monarchy to
self-determination, i.e. to secession
and the formation of an independent state'.
• The
desirability of the exercise of this right in any particular
case will be judged
by the party
'from the
point of view of the whole social development and of the interests of
the class struggle of
the proletariat for socialism'.
In
the same year Lenin mentioned two stages which he saw in the
national
question:
Firstly the
awakening of
national
life
and
national movements;
the struggle against national oppression
and the creation of national states.
Secondly, the development
of relationships
between nations;
the dissolving of national barriers;
the creation
of the international
unity of capital, of economic life,
of politics, of science, etc. For him these two tendencies
were the universal
law of capitalism.
However, Lenin did not view the
demands for national self-determination
as something
absolute: 'The
worker who places the political
unity with the bourgeois of 'his
own' nation higher than full unity
with the proletarians of all nations,
acts
against his own interest and
against the interests of socialism
and the interests of democracy.'
With the start of the First World
War, Lenin maintained that the
contradictions
of the capitalist system
were so far advanced
that
the second stage, i.e. the social
revolution, was imminent. Accordingly
there was
a change in the
theory of self-determination
of nations.
In the theses of April 1916 the
world was divide into three parts:
• The
leading capitalist countries – Western
Europe, the USA, in which bourgeois-progressive national
movements were long since over.
• Eastern
Europe, and in particular Russia where particularly developed
bourgeois democratic movements
had developed.
• Semi-colonial
countries like China, Persia, Turkey, and all colonies where
bourgeois democratic
movements were just starting or were not completely developed.
From
a bourgeois struggle for national
freedom and against feudalism and autocracy
now grew
a struggle against bourgeois
imperialism. From this the concept
developed of an alliance between
the movements of the third category,
which had fought against imperialism,
and the working
class of the leading
capitalist countries
struggling
against capitalism.
Critical Comments
With this portrayal
we have not paid any
attention
to
the disagreement
between Lenin
and Rosa
Luxemburg. To
do so
here would be beyond
the scope of the article.
Due to the fact that
the Polish writings
in
Germany are only incompletely
published, it is generally
only Lenin’s
side of the argument is known. What stands out on reading the English
translation of Rosa Luxemburg’s
article on the National
Question is that Lenin
avoided several very
applicable criticisms.
A portrayal
of this disagreement
still awaits further
research.
As far as it is possible
to speak of a theory
of the National Question,
Lenin’s standpoint was problematic. If actions are based
on apparently 'objective'
interests of the working class, then almost anything goes. Because
the principle of national self-determination
is valued less than
'the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat',
any behaviour towards
other nations can always be justified. For example Lenin wrote
in the theses on Brest-Litovsk: 'No Marxist,
without renouncing
the principles of Marxism and of socialism generally, can deny
that the
interests of socialism are higher than the interests
of the right of nations
to self-determination.'
If one, however, follows
Rosa Luxemburg’s
arguments, the right
to self-determination
says nothing about
how it is to be
put into
practice. It 'gives
no practical guidelines
for the day to day
politics of the politics
of the proletariat,
nor any practical
solution of
nationality problems'.
Ukraine
The praxis of the Bolsheviks
in the Ukraine illustrates
how they
handled self-determination.
Although
the Bolsheviks already
in
1917 recognised the right
to self-determination,
this right practically
never existed.
What made the situation
in the Ukraine more complicated
was the
fact that the proletariat,
upon which
the Bolsheviks were
based,
was mainly
of Russian origin. The
proletarians
came predominantly from
the north as migrants.
For example Kharkov,
the largest industrial
and Russian
town in the Ukraine,
had
no indigenous proletariat.
Because of the cultivation
of wheat the Ukraine
was very important
for Russia before the
revolution and
also afterwards.
Already
at the beginning of
1918, when in Petrograd
and
Moscow hunger
set
in, Radek wrote in
Pravda: 'If you want
food, cry ’Death to the
Rada’.'
Not until the 26 January/8
February 1918 could the
Russian government
take firm hold
in the
Ukraine, as Rada was
overthrown by the
Soviet army and a soviet
government was installed.
However, this government
did not last long. The
Rada called Germany
to its aid. In March
1918 the Ukraine was
occupied
by
the
Germans.
In April the
Rada was once
again ousted, and an
amenable government installed.
The effects of these
occurrences were reflected
in the setting
up of the Communist Party
(Bolsheviks) of the
Ukraine in April
1918.
The conference decided
to form
an independent Communist
Party. This party was
split into
centralists who
were loyal to Moscow,
and autonomists,
who wanted an autonomous
party. Later when the
CP(B)U held its first
congress,
this resolution
was thrown out. In
its place
a motion was
passed in which the Ukrainian
party was subordinated
to the central
committee of the RCP.
There was active resistance
of the Bolsheviks in
the Ukraine to
the Hetmanat government,
which led
to the
left elements
of the Ukrainian
Social Democrats and
the Left Social Revolutionaries
supporting the
Bolsheviks. The latter
founded
a separate party, the
Borotbists. The Borotbists,
who later joined the
Bolsheviks, led
to the
Bolsheviks getting support
in the country.
After the November 1918
revolution in Germany
the power of the
Germans in the Ukraine
broke down.
In January
1919 Rakovsky
was
named by
Lenin as leader of the
temporary government.
In the spring
of 1919
the Bolsheviks controlled
the
whole
of East Ukraine.
Soon
afterwards
the same measures of
impounding wheat, etc.,
which had already
taken place in Russia
in 1918 started.
The consequences
were
catastrophic.
The rural population
became estranged from
the regime.
In March 1919 the third
party congress of the
CPU took
place in Kharkov.
At the elections
for a new
central
committee the
left won a majority.
In the same month the
eighth party congress
of the RCP
also took place.
The party congress
reacted
to
the elections
by
deciding:
'It is necessary to have
a unified communist party
with a unified
central
committee ... All decisions
of the RCP and its leading
organs
are absolutely binding
for
all
parts of the
party, independent
of their
national composition.
The central committees
of the
Ukrainian, Lettish
and Lithuanian
communists are
conferred the rights
of regional committees
of the party; they are
to be unreservedly subordinate
to the central committee
of the RCP.'
After the Russian Party
had without any consideration
disregarded the
national feelings, the
following
was decided on the
national question in
direct contradiction
to this:
'1. The cornerstone
is the policy of drawing
together
the proletarians
and semi-proletarians
of the various
nationalities
for the
purpose of waging
a joint revolutionary struggle
for the overthrow
of the landlords and bourgeoisie.
'2. In order to overcome
the distrust felt
by the toiling masses
of
oppressed
countries
towards
the
proletariat
of states which
oppress these countries,
it is
necessary to abolish
all privileges enjoyed
by any national group
whatsoever,
to establish complete
equality of rights
for all nationalities,
to recognise
the right of
colonies and non-sovereign
nations to secession.
'3. With the same
aim in view the party
proposes,
as one of the transitional
forms to complete
unity, a federal
union of
states
organised on the
Soviet model.
'4. On the question
who is to express
the nation’s will
to secede, the Russian
Communist Party adopts
the class-historical
viewpoint, taking into
consideration the stage
of historical development
of
the given nation: whether
it is evolving from
medievalism to bourgeois
democracy or from bourgeois
democracy to Soviet
or proletarian
democracy, etc.
'In any case, the
proletariat of the
nations which
have been oppressing
nations must exercise
special
caution
and pay special
attention to
the survivals of
national sentiment
among the toiling
masses of oppressed
or non-sovereign
nations. Only
by pursuing
such a policy will
it
be possible to create
conditions for really
lasting, voluntary
unity among nationally
differentiated
elements of the international
proletariat,
as has been shown
by the experience
of the
union
of a number of national
Soviet republics
around Soviet Russia.'
The
regime in the Ukraine
collapsed
when the White
troops with support
of the British
and
the French
carried out
a successful
offensive
in the middle of
1919. Thereupon
the CPU was
dissolved. Many
of the members
were transferred to party
positions
in Russia
and the CPU
brought under the
control of the
RCP.
It took until December
1919 before the
Ukraine could
again be brought
under Soviet-Russian
control. A
new provisional
government
of the
Ukraine was formed
consisting at the
top of Rakovsky,
Petrovsky and Manuilsky.
The
central
committee
of the RCP recognised
the Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist
Republic as an
independent state
linked federally
to the USSR.
At the fourth party
conference of the
CPU, March 1920,
the policy of the
former central
committee
was severely
attacked
by several
delegates. The
dissolution of
the
CP likewise. 'The
third All-Ukrainian
Party
Conference chose
it. It
was accountable
to it and no-one
else could send
it away.' Rakovsky
tried
to defend
the actions of
the
RCP when he said
that in
the face of the
weakness of the
Bolsheviks
in the Ukraine
a central
committee of
one’s own would
be a luxury. The animosity
towards the RCP and
the prominent party
leaders
in the Ukraine led
to Rakovsky as well
Manuilsky, Kossior
and Jakovlev
not being elected to
the central committee.
Rakovsky was defended
by Lenin at the
Ninth Party
Congress of
the RCP: 'The majority
with Sapronov
at the top have
spoken out
against
comrade Rakovsky
and started a hounding
which absolutely
cannot
be tolerated. We
state
that we will not
recognise this
decision of a
regional congress.
That is the decision
of the
central
committee … we
say that we will not
recognise this conference
of Comrade Sapronov.'
The central committee
chosen at the Fourth
Party Congress
in the
presence of Stalin
was dissolved
in April by the
RCP and
a 'temporary'
central committee
set up, to which
Rakovsky,
Manuilsky
and Kossior
belonged. The reason
given for this
was that the CPU
was internally
divided, and thereby
incapable of choosing
a central committee.
In the order from
Moscow was: 'Under
these circumstances
the central
committee of the
RCP considers it
necessary to create
a provisional
central committee
of
the CPU whose composition
reflects
the will of
the overwhelming
majority of the
RCP as was revealed
at the
last Party congress,
and which is capable
of taking
on the leadership
of all truly
communist
elements
of the
Ukrainian working
class
in
rebuilding the
Ukraine.'
And later: 'The
basic requirement
for a
healthy party and
Soviet
work in the Ukraine
is a strong
purging
of the Party ranks
of the
CPU. The CPU is
full of unprincipled
opportunists,
fellow-travellers … demagogic
elements, semi-Makhnoists
and splitters who must
be eliminated or punished.'
It was also instructed
to transfer those
responsible to
Greater Russia,
i.e. the CPU
was purged
with the aim of
carrying through
the 'will
of the RCP' as
the
guiding principle
for action.
The
result of this
purging could
be seen three
years later
when Rakovsky
led
an open
struggle against
the centralisation
from Moscow.
Stalin was easily
able to remove
him.
Georgia
On the 26 May 1918,
Georgia declared
its independence.
In the same month
Georgia sealed
a treaty with
Germany on the
recognition of
the borders of
Brest Litovsk.
At the same
time thereby
Georgia was
given recognition
by Germany
(first of
all only England
took this
step). In February
the
first elections
took place in Georgia
in which
the Mensheviks
were the clear
victors.
Although
the working class
in Georgia was
very
small it was very
active. Additionally,
the
Mensheviks had
managed to also
create a
firm
foundation in the
countryside.
The first measures
taken by the Menshevik
Government
were the creation
of a Georgian
school system;
the foundation
of a Georgian University
in Tiflis; a land
reform
and the creation
of a social legislature.
On the 7 May 1920,
a
friendship treaty
was sealed with
Soviet
Russia,
which contained
recognition of
the young
state and
a renunciation
of territorial
claims.
Less than a year
later, on the 11-12
February
1921 a
military
intervention by
Soviet Russia began
and the
month ended
with the seizure
of Tiflis. A Bolshevik
government
was installed by
Soviet Russia.
This intevention
was viewed quite
differently by
two contemporaries,
Karl Kautsky and
Leon Trotsky.
Kautsky, who had
visited Georgia
in September
1920 with a Social
Democratic delegation
wrote in a
report about
this visit, which
was subsequently
expanded with a
second foreword
and two more
chapters:
'Whatever may become
the fate of such
a kind and enthusiastic
people
at the hands of
the
Bolshevik terror,
the
one thing that
cannot be
extinguished is
the historical
importance
of the
methods of Georgian
socialism.' He
continues: 'Only
the
replacement of
Bolshevik
methods by Menshevik
methods, as were
so happily employed
in Georgia,
would be capable
of preventing the
flight
of the hitherto
revolutionary peasantry,
led by
the proletariat,
into the camp of
the enemies of
the proletariat.'
Leon Trotsky’s view of the situation and his understanding
of self-determination of other people differ completely at this point
in time: 'We do not only recognise, but we also give full support
to the principle of self-determination, wherever it is directed against
feudal, capitalist and imperialist states. But wherever the fiction
of self-determination, in the hands of the bourgeoisie, becomes a
weapon against the proletarian revolution, we have no occasion to
treat this fiction differently from other “principles” of
democracy perverted
by capitalism.'
Elsewhere he tries
to protest against
the criticisms
of
the leading Social
Democrats
among whom
Kautsky is mentioned
by
name. He
writes: 'We know
not only that the
Georgian
Mensheviks
participated
in
all intrigues against
the Soviet Republic,
but also
that independent
Georgia was established
to serve
as a weapon
in the imperialist
and
civil wars against
the Workers’ and Peasants’ Republic.'
The integration
of Georgia into
the
later USSR occurred
from 1921
in the following
steps:
In 1921 Lenin suggested
the federation
of the three Caucasian
Republics mainly
with
regard to economic
union
(particularly in
the areas of communication,
post, and
foreigntrade).
This was completed
through
the
founding
of the Trans-Caucasian
Socialist Federal
Soviet
Republic with Armenia
and Azerbaijan
in spring 1922.
A further decisive
point became apparent
in the
summer/autumn of
1922 when Stalin
(The
Peoples’ Commissar
for Nationalities)
submitted his draft
'On the mutual relationships
of RSFSR and the
independent republics'.
The Central Committee
of the Georgian Communist
Party refused its approval
of this autonomisation
project. In October,
after internal disputes,
Lenin authorised the
draft on the Union
of Socialist Soviet
Republics. In Georgia
this led to large demonstrations
for maintaining independence
in which also the Georgian
Communist
Party took part. The
central committee of
the Georgian Communist
Party was shortly thereafter
forced by Moscow to
resign. In the summer
of 1923 the communist
opposition was completely
crushed
and the Georgian
CP purged.
Conclusion
From the point
of view of the
theory,
what happened
in the Ukraine
and Georgia, for
all their differences,
was
understandable.
Lenin
was of the opinion
that it
was important not
to divide organisations
at a national
level,
whereby
the independent
development of
parties was not
accepted
in the non-Russian
areas.
The building
up of
the Communist International
was based on similar
considerations.
However, there
is in this construction
the
problem
that minorities,
be they nationalities,
nations
or political
factions, are dependent
on the 'goodwill'
of
the majority. The
degrading of
the Ukrainian
CP and the other
national parties
to a regional
party could
in the face of
earlier
Russian history
only do damage.
What
one later called
Stalinism already
had its origins
in the
first years of
the revolution.
The national
question
was thereby
in no
way solved
in the Soviet
Union. As we can
see today in the
former Soviet
Union,
more likely
it was only aggravated.
Translated by Kathryn
Pickford.
Workersrepublic.org Comments
We include this
as a concise
run-down of revolutionary
attitudes to
the national question
as it has
evolved. However,
we would
have to disagree
with the (unoriginal)
conclusion
of
the writers that
the seeds of
Stalinism were planted 'in
the first few
years of the
revolution'.
In our
opinion,
Stalinism was
a complete
break
with
the past which
utilised the
political isolation
and economic
backwardness
of Russia.
Back to National
Question
|
|
