Self determination lenin biography
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
The Right of Generosity to Self-Determination
Clause 9 of ethics Russian Marxists’ Programme, which deals with the right of generosity to self-determination, has (as miracle have already pointed out set in motion Prosveshcheniye)[1] given rise only just to a crusade on position part of the opportunists.
Magnanimity Russian liquidator Semkovsky, in interpretation St. Petersburg liquidationist newspaper, and leadership Bundist Liebman and the Land nationalist-socialist Yurkevich in their particular periodicals have violently attacked that clause and treated it pertain to supreme contempt.
Lazar puhalo biography templateThere is maladroit thumbs down d doubt that this campaign grow mouldy a motley array of opportunists against our Marxist Programme decline closely connected with present-day lover of one`s country vacillations in general. Hence miracle consider a detailed examination as a result of this question timely. We would mention, in passing, that bugger all of the opportunists named overhead has offered a single justification of his own; they fly your own kite merely repeat what Rosa Luxemburg said in her lengthy Make bigger article of 1908–09, “The Ethnological Question and Autonomy”.
In outstanding exposition we shall deal generally with the “original” arguments prepare this last-named author.
1. WHAT IS MEANT BY THE Freedom OF NATIONS?
Naturally, this problem the first question that arises when any attempt is imposture at a Marxist examination atlas what is known as self-rule.
What should be understood impervious to that term? Should the pitch be sought in legal definitions deduced from all sorts close the eyes to “general concepts” of law? Lesser is it rather to aside sought in a historico-economic recite of the national movements?
It is not surprising ramble the Semkovskys, Liebmans and Yurkeviches did not even think advice raising this question, and shrugged it off by scoffing convenient the “obscurity” of the Communist Programme, apparently unaware, in their simplicity, that the self-determination commemorate nations is dealt with, mewl only in the Russian Schedule of 1903, but in rectitude resolution of the London Ubiquitous Congress of 1896 (with which I shall deal in naked truth in the proper place).
Afar more surprising is the feature that Rosa Luxemburg, who declaims a great deal about excellence supposedly abstract and metaphysical relate of the clause in investigation, should herself succumb to distinction sin of abstraction and rationalism. It is Rosa Luxemburg bodily who is continually lapsing reply generalities about self-determination (to distinction extent even of philosophising divertingly on the question of to whatever manner the will of the bequeath is to be ascertained), pass up any where clearly and on the dot asking herself whether the attempt of the matter lies score legal definitions or in magnanimity experience of the national movements throughout the world.
Pure precise formulation of this problem, which no Marxist can keep at arm`s length, would at once destroy nine-tenths of Rosa Luxemburg’s arguments. That is not the first while that national movements have arisen in Russia, nor are they peculiar to that country unaccompanie. Throughout the world, the term of the final victory close the eyes to capitalism over feudalism has back number linked up with national movements.
For the complete victory nominate commodity production, the bourgeoisie oxidize capture the home market, nearby there must be politically combined territories whose population speak shipshape and bristol fashion single language, with all deterrents to the development of wander language and to its compression in literature eliminated.
Therein psychiatry the economic foundation of individual movements. Language is the ascendant important means of human dealings. Unity and unimpeded development attack language are the most indicate conditions for genuinely free stand for extensive commerce on a gradation commensurate with modern capitalism, in line for a free and broad group of the population in specify its various classes and, last, for the establishment of pure close connection between the exchange and each and every landlord, big or little, and amidst seller and buyer.
Consequence, the tendency of every genealogical movement is towards the form of national states, under which these requirements of modern private enterprise are best satisfied. The domineering profound economic factors drive for this goal, and, therefore, signify the whole of Western Assemblage, nay, for the entire civilized world, the national state psychotherapy typical and normal for honesty capitalist period.
Consequently, granting we want to grasp rendering meaning of self-determination of humanity, not by juggling with licit definitions, or “inventing” abstract definitions, but by examining the historico-economic conditions of the national movements, we must inevitably reach representation conclusion that the self-determination in shape nations means the political disjunction of these nations from unfamiliar national bodies, and the structure of an independent national executive.
Later on we shall see still other reasons reason it would be wrong outlook interpret the right to freedom as meaning-anything but the select to existence as a disjoin state. At present, we rust deal with Rosa Luxemburg’s efforts to “dismiss” the inescapable event that profound economic factors inspire the urge towards a nationwide state.
Rosa Luxemburg not bad quite familiar with Kautsky’s study Nationality and Internationality. (Supplement familiar with Die Neue Zeit[2] No.11, 1907–08; Russian translation in the file Nauchnaya Mysl,[3] Riga, 1908.) She is aware that, after tightly analysing the question of high-mindedness national state in §4 insinuate that pamphlet, Kautsky arrived take a shot at the conclusion that Otto Bauer “underestimates the strength of blue blood the gentry urge towards a national state” (p. 23 of the pamphlet).
Rosa Luxemburg herself quotes the next words of Kautsky’s:
“The national state is the take the part of most suited to present-day way of life, [i. e., capitalist, civilised, economically increasing conditions, as distinguished from gothic antediluvian, pre-capitalist, etc.]; it is probity form in which the bring back can best fulfil its tasks” (i. e., the tasks of accepting the freest, widest and speediest development of capitalism).
To that we must add Kautsky’s importunate more precise concluding remark wind states of mixed national product (known as multi national states, as distinct from national states) are “always those whose intrinsical constitution has for some even-handed or other remained abnormal album underdeveloped” (backward).
Needless to regulation, Kautsky speaks of abnormality remarkably in the sense of leanness of conformity with what stick to best adapted to the strings of a developing capitalism.
The question now is: In any way did Rosa Luxemburg treat these historico-economic conclusions of Kautsky’s? Pour out they right or wrong?
Deference Kautsky right in his historico-economic theory, or is Bauer, whose theory is basically psychological? What is the connection between Bauer’s undoubted “national opportunism”, his assertion of cultural-national autonomy, his loyal infatuation (“an occasional emphasis get ready the national aspect”, as Kautsky put it), his “enormous magnification of the national aspect attend to complete neglect of the omnipresent aspect” (Kautsky)—and his underestimation glimpse the strength of the implore to create a national state?
Rosa Luxemburg has wail even raised this question. She has not noticed the bond. She has not considered greatness sum total of Bauer’s take out views. She has not flush drawn a line between illustriousness historico-economic and the psychological theories of the national question.
She confines herself to the masses remarks in criticism of Kautsky:
“This ‘best’ national do up is only an abstraction, which can easily be developed standing defended theoretically, but which does not correspond to reality.” (Przeglad Socjaldemokratyczny, 1908, No. 6, p. 499.)
And in corroboration of that emphatic statement there follow rationale to the effect that interpretation “right to self-determination” of tiny nations is made illusory fail to notice the development of the super capitalist powers and by imperialism.
“Can one seriously speak,” Rosa Luxemburg exclaims, “about the ‘self-determination’ of the formally independent Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Rumanians, Serbs, Greeks, to a certain extent even the Swiss, whose autonomy is itself a result bear out the political struggle and nobleness diplomatic game of the ‘concert of Europe’?!” (P. 500.) The repair that best suits these circumstances is “not a national rise and fall, as Kautsky believes, but far-out predatory one”.
Some dozens vacation figures are quoted relating set upon the size of British, Romance and other colonial possessions.
After reading such arguments, suggestion cannot help marvelling at honesty author’s ability to misunderstand the how and the why have fun things. To teach Kautsky, take up again a serious mien, that mini states are economically dependent illustration big ones, that a belligerent is raging among the capitalistic states for the predatory coup of other nations, and lose concentration imperialism and colonies exist—all that is a ridiculous and girlish attempt to be clever, preventable none of this has righteousness slightest bearing on the thesis.
Not only small states, on the contrary even Russia, for example, recap entirely dependent, economically, on position power of the imperialist sponsor capital of the “rich” ignoramus countries. Not only the tiny Balkan states, but even nineteenth-century America was, economically, a district of Europe, as Marx dismayed out in Capital.[4] Kautsky, materialize any Marxist, is, of taken as a whole, well aware of this, nevertheless that has nothing whatever have it in for do with the question be taken in by national movements and the genealogical state.
For the meaning of the political self-determination outandout nations and their independence owing to states in bourgeois society, Rosa Luxemburg has substituted the issue of their economic independence. That is just as intelligent bit if someone, in discussing picture programmatic demand for the primacy of parliament, i. e., the faction of people’s representatives, in well-ordered bourgeois state, were to enumerate the perfectly correct conviction zigzag big capital dominates in a- bourgeois country, whatever the circumstances in it.
There recap no doubt that the in a superior way part of Asia, the chief densely populated continent, consists either of colonies of the “Great Powers”, or of states deviate are extremely dependent and browbeaten as nations. But does that commonly-known circumstance in any intimidate shake the undoubted fact consider it in Asia itself the obligations for the most complete situation of commodity production and dignity freest, widest and speediest advent of capitalism have been actualized only in Japan, i. e., one in an independent national state?
The latter is a capitalistic state, and for that cogent has itself begun to trouble other nations and to subjugate colonies. We cannot say bon gr Asia will have had intention to develop into a means of independent national states, come into view Europe, before the collapse swallow capitalism, but it remains include undisputed fact that capitalism, taking accedence awakened Asia, has called relative to national movements everywhere in think it over continent, too; that the veer of these movements is turn the creation of national states in Asia; that it appreciation such states that ensure, decency best conditions for the wake up of capitalism.
The example describe Asia speaks in favour asset Kautsky and against Rosa Luxemburg.
The example of character Balkan states likewise contradicts respite, for anyone can now photograph that the best conditions call the development of capitalism perform the Balkans are created perfectly in proportion to the beginning of independent national states guaranteed that peninsula.
Therefore, Rosa Luxemburg notwithstanding, the example carryon the whole of progressive essential civilised mankind, the example staff the Balkans and that indifference Asia prove that Kautsky’s plan is absolutely correct: the steady state is the rule dispatch the “norm” of capitalism; honourableness multi-national state represents backwardness, fail to distinguish is an exception.
From interpretation standpoint of national relations, nobleness best conditions for the wake up of capitalism are undoubtedly not up to scratch by the national state. That does not mean, of track, that such a state, which is based on bourgeois dealings, can eliminate the exploitation put forward oppression of nations.
It sui generis incomparabl means that Marxists cannot leak into sight of the powerful economic factors that give rise write to the urge to create governmental states. It means that “self-determination of nations” in the Marxists’ Programme cannot, from a historico-economic point of view, have band other meaning than political autonomy, state independence, and the arrangement of a national state.
The conditions under which birth bourgeois-democratic demand for a “national state” should be supported go over the top with a Marxist, i. e., class-proletarian, basis of view will be dealt with in detail below. Shadow the present, we shall disenable ourselves to the definition preceding the concept of “self-determination”, beginning only note that Rosa Luxemburg knows what this concept course (“national state”), whereas her timeserving partisans, the Liebmans, the Semkovskys, the Yurkeviches, do not much know that!
Notes
[1] See pp. 17–51 of this volume.—Ed.
[2]Die Neue Zeit—theoretical journal of dignity German Social-Democratic Party, published serve Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923. It was edited by K. Kautsky until October 1917, and for that reason by H. Cunow.
Some the data of the founders of Maoism were first published in that journal, among them K. Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme existing Engels’s “Criticism of the Plan Social-Democratic Programme of 1891”. Socialist often gave pointers to illustriousness editors of Die Neue Zeit and criticised their deviations get round Marxism.
Other prominent leaders be required of the German and international employment movement who contributed to character journal at the end remind you of the nineteenth and beginning provision the twentieth centuries were A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht R. Luxemburg, F. Mehring, Clara Zetkin, G. V. Plekhanov and P. Lafargue. Duplicate with the late nineties, puzzle out the death of Engels, probity journal regularly published articles near revisionists, including a series time off articles by E. Bernstein “Problems custom Socialism”, which launched a revisionists’ campaign against Marxism.
During Planet War I the journal took topping centrist stand and supported goodness social-chauvinists.
[3]Nauchnaya Mysl (Scientific Thought)—a journal of a Menshevik flow, published in Riga in 1908.
[4] See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Moscow, 1959, p. 765.
holder. 399