Why Lenin declared war on ‘Great Russian chauvinism’
https://themilitant.com/2021/02/13/why-lenin-declared-war-on-great-russian-chauvinism/
Vol. 85/No. 7
February 22, 2021
V.I. Lenin, leader of 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, front left, during
Second Congress of Communist International, July 19, 1920, led fight for
right of oppressed nationalities to self-determination.
COMMUNIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN ARCHIVES
V.I. Lenin, leader of 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, front left, during
Second Congress of Communist International, July 19, 1920, led fight for
right of oppressed nationalities to self-determination.
The Spanish edition of Lenin’s Final Fight: Speeches and Writings
1922-23 is one of Pathfinder’s Books of the Month for February. In the
final months of his active life, Vladimir Lenin, the central leader of
the world’s first socialist revolution, led a political battle within
the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. At stake was
the continuation of the internationalist proletarian course that brought
the Bolshevik-led workers and peasants to power in October 1917. This
was threatened by a rising bureaucracy within the state and party led by
Joseph Stalin that resulted in a political counterrevolution after
Lenin’s death. Part of this fight was over integration as equals into
the Soviet Union of former oppressed peoples of the “prison house of
nations” under the regime of the czar. The excerpts are from a letter to
the party congress and an earlier memo to the political bureau.
Copyright © 1995 by Pathfinder Press. Reprinted by permission.
BY V.I. LENIN
December 30, 1922
I suppose I have been very remiss with respect to the workers of Russia
for not having intervened energetically and decisively enough in the
notorious question of autonomization, which, it appears, is officially
called the question of the union of Soviet socialist republics.
When this question arose last summer, I was ill; and then in the autumn
I placed too much hope on my recovery … giving me an opportunity of
intervening in this question. However, I did not manage to attend the
October plenary meeting (when this question came up) or the one in
December, and so the question passed me by almost completely. …
It is said that a united apparatus was needed. Where did that assurance
come from? Did it not come from that same Russian apparatus which, as I
pointed out in one of the preceding sections of my diary, we took over
from tsarism and slightly anointed with Soviet oil?
There is no doubt that that measure should have been delayed somewhat
until we could say that we vouched for our apparatus as our own. But now
we must, in all conscience, admit the contrary; the apparatus we call
ours is, in fact, still quite alien to us. It is a bourgeois and tsarist
hodgepodge. There has been no possibility of getting rid of it in the
course of the past five years, given the lack of help of other countries
and given that we have been “busy” most of the time with military
engagements and the fight against famine.
It is quite natural that in such circumstances the “freedom to secede
from the union” by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of
paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that
really Russian man, the Great Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal
and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is. There is no
doubt that the infinitesimal percentage of Soviet and sovietized workers
will drown in that tide of chauvinistic Great Russian riffraff like a
fly in milk.
❖
December 31, 1922
In my writings on the national question I have already said that an
abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no
use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the
nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the
nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation.
In respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big
nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an
infinite number of cases of violence; furthermore, we commit violence
and insult an infinite number of times without noticing it. It is
sufficient to recall my Volga reminiscences of how non-Russians are
treated; how the Poles are not called by any other name than
Polyachishka, how the Tatar is nicknamed Prince, how the Ukrainians are
always Khokhols and the Georgians and other Caucasian nationals always
Kapkasians. …
That is why internationalism on the part of oppressors or “great”
nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their
violence, only great as Derzhimordas1), must consist not only in the
observance of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality,
through which the oppressor nation, the great nation, would compensate
for the inequality which obtains in real life. Anybody who does not
understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the
national question; he is still essentially petty bourgeois in his point
of view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of view.
What is important for the proletarian? For the proletarian it is not
only important, it is absolutely essential that he should be assured
that the non-Russians place the greatest possible trust in the
proletarian class struggle. What is needed to ensure this? Not merely
formal equality. In one way or another, by one’s attitude or by
concessions, it is necessary to compensate the non-Russians for the lack
of trust, for the suspicion and the insults to which the government of
the “dominant” nation subjected them in the past. …
[N]othing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian
class solidarity so much as national injustice. “Offended” nationals are
not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the
violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest to the
violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in
this case it is better to overdo rather than underdo the concessions and
leniency towards the national minorities. That is [in] the fundamental
interest of proletarian solidarity and consequently of the proletarian
class struggle.
❖
Memo to the political bureau
October 6, 1922
I declare war to the death on Great Russian chauvinism. I shall eat it
with all my healthy teeth as soon as I get rid of this accursed bad
tooth. It must be absolutely insisted that the union Central Executive
Committee should be presided over in turn by a Russian, Ukrainian,
Georgian, etc.
Absolutely!
Yours,
Lenin
Derzhimorda, a policeman in the play The Government Inspector by Russian
writer Nikolay Gogol, personified the rude, arrogant state functionary.
Front Page Articles
As bosses go after workers, gov’t attacks political rights
Workers need to organize to defend wages, conditions
Workers must build our own party, a labor party
SWP files for Dallas ballot, looks to file in Nebraska
Tens of thousands defy military, protest against coup in Myanmar
Montreal meeting celebrates 62nd anniversary of the Cuban Revolution
News update: Victory over prison ban in Pennsylvania!
Feature Articles
GameStop, stock market frenzy shows crisis of capitalism
Also In This Issue
India farmers broaden fight against Modi gov’t attacks
‘Stimulus’ fund for ‘Militant’ goes over $71,000!
Socialist Workers Party files for ballot in Dallas
‘The ‘Militant’ lets me know what workers are doing’
New Zealand rally: ‘No to military takeover in Myanmar’
Ohio cop charged with murder of Andre Hill
Montreal cops brutalize Mamadi Camara
On the Picket Line
Minn. Marathon oil workers fight for safety, no subcontracting
Ohio auto-parts workers fight for union, against bosses’ disdain
Books of the Month
Why Lenin declared war on ‘Great Russian chauvinism’
25, 50 and 75 years ago
Corrections
© Copyright 2021 The Militant - 306 W. 37th Street, 13th floor - New
York, NY 10018 - themilitant@xxxxxxx
Cookies
This site uses cookies to improve your experience. Learn more.
Okay, thanks
--
Emmett F. Fields “ Atheism is more than just the knowledge that gods do
not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is
an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively,
fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature.
” ― Emmett F. Fields