Given shortly after his return to the April, 1917 conference of the Bolsheviks, Lenin debates Pyatakov and Dzerzhinsky over self-determination for Finland, Poland, and Ukraine as the Russian Empire collapsed.

‘Speech on the National Question’ (1917) by V.I. Lenin. Selected Works, Vol. 5. International Publishers, New York. 1937.

Ever since 1903, when our party adopted its programme, we have been encountering the desperate opposition of the Poles. A study of the minutes of the Second Congress reveals that even then the Poles advanced the same argument that they are advancing now, and that the Polish Social-Democrats left the congress because our recognition of the right of nations to self-determination was unacceptable to them. And we have been confronted with this question ever since. Though imperialism was already in existence in 1903, no mention was made of it in the arguments that were then advanced. Both then and now, the position of Polish Social-Democracy is a strange and monstrous error. These people wish to reduce the position of our party to that of the chauvinists.

Owing to Russia’s age-long oppression of Poland the policy of Poland is thoroughly nationalistic, and the entire Polish people are thoroughly imbued with but one idea—revenge on the Muscovites. No one has oppressed the Poles so much as have the Russian people. In the hands of the tsars the Russian people have served as the executioner of Polish freedom. No one dislikes Russia so intensely as do the Poles, and this has brought about a peculiar situation. Owing to the Polish bourgeoisie, Poland has become an obstacle in the path of the socialist movement. Let the whole world burn, as long as Poland is free. Of course, to put the question in this way is to mock at internationalism. Of course, violence now reigns in Poland, but for the Polish nationalists to count on Russia liberating Poland is treason to the International. The Polish nationalists have so imbued the Polish people with their spirit, however, that this view prevails.

The great historical merit of our comrades, the Polish Social Democrats, is that they have advanced the slogan of internationalism, that they have said: we treasure the fraternal alliance of the proletariat of all countries more than anything else and we shall never go to war for the liberation of Poland. This is their great merit, and. this is why we have always regarded only these Social-Democratic comrades in Poland as Socialists. The others are patriots, Polish Plekhanovs. But this unique situation, in which, in order to safeguard socialism, it was found necessary to fight against rabid, morbid nationalism, has been productive of a strange phenomenon: comrades come to us and say that we must renounce the freedom of Poland, its right to secession.

Why should we, Great Russians, who have been oppressing a greater number of nations than any other people, why should we repudiate the right of secession for Poland, the Ukraine, Finland? We are asked to become chauvinists, because by doing so we would ease the position of the Social-Democrats in Poland. We do not claim the liberation of Poland because the Polish people dwell between two states which are capable of fighting—they say. But instead of saying that the Polish workers should argue in this way, viz., only those Social-Democrats remain democrats who consider that the Polish people ought to be free, for there is no place for chauvinists in the ranks of the Socialist Party—the Polish Social-Democrats argue that precisely because they find the union with the Russian workers advantageous, they are opposed to Poland’s secession. They have a perfect right to do so. But these people do not wish to understand that in order to strengthen internationalism there is no need to reiterate the same words; what we in Russia do is to stress the right of secession for the subject nations, while in Poland we must stress the right of such nations to unite. The right to unite implies the right to secede. We Russians must emphasise the right to secede, while the Poles must emphasise the right to unite.

We notice here a number of sophisms leading to the complete renunciation of Marxism. Comrade Pyatakov’s standpoint is a repetition of Rosa Luxemburg’s standpoint….¹ (Holland is an example.) This is how Comrade Pyatakov argues, and this is also how he confutes himself. Theoretically he is opposed to the right of secession, but to the people he declares that he who is opposed to the right of secession is no Socialist. What Comrade Pyatakov said here was evidence of incredible confusion. In Western Europe most of the countries settled their national question long ago. When people say that the national question has been settled, they mean Western Europe. Comrade Pyatakov applies this where it does not belong, to Eastern Europe, and we find ourselves in a ridiculous position.

Think of the terrible mess that results! Finland is right at our side. Comrade Pyatakov gives no definite answer as to Finland; he is in utter confusion. In yesterday’s Rabochaya Gazeta we read that separatism is growing in Finland. Finns arriving here inform us that separatism is maturing in their country, because the Cadets have refused to grant it complete autonomy. There, a crisis is maturing; dissatisfaction with Governor-General Rodichev is rife, but Rabochaya Gazeta insists that the Finns ought to wait for the constituent assembly, that then an agreement will be concluded between Finland and Russia. An agreement; what about? The Finns must maintain that they are entitled to determine their own destiny in their own way, and any Great Russian who denies this right is a chauvinist. It would be another thing entirely if we said to the Finnish worker: decide as you think fit…¹

Comrade Pyatakov simply rejects our slogan when he says that this means giving no slogan for the socialist revolution, but he himself has not offered any slogan. The method of accomplishing a socialist revolution under the slogan, “down with frontiers,” is utterly absurd. We were not able to publish the article in which I described this view as “imperialist economism.” What does the “method” of socialist revolution under the slogan, “down with frontiers,” mean? We maintain that the state is necessary, and the existence of a state presupposes frontiers. The state may, of course, be ruled by a bourgeois government, while we want Soviets. But even Soviets are confronted with the question of frontiers. What does “down with frontiers” mean? This is the beginning of anarchy…The “method” of socialist revolution under the slogan, “down with frontiers,” is a hodge-podge. When the time is ripe for a socialist revolution, when the revolution finally occurs, it will sweep across into other countries, and we shall help it to do so, but how, we do not know. “The method of socialist revolution” is a mere phrase, devoid of content. In so far as the bourgeois revolution has left some problems unsolved, we stand for their solution. As regards the separatist movement, we are indifferent, neutral. [f Finland, if Poland, if the Ukraine break away from Russia, there is nothing bad about that. What is there bad about it? Anyone who says there is, is a chauvinist. It would be madness to continue the policy of Tsar Nicholas. Norway separated from Sweden…Once upon a time Alexander I and Napoleon traded peoples, once upon a time tsars traded portions of Poland. Are we to continue these tactics of the tsars? This is the repudiation of the tactics of internationalism, this is chauvinism of the worst brand. Suppose Finland does secede, what is there bad about that? Among both peoples, among the proletariat of Norway and that of Sweden, mutual confidence increased after separation. The Swedish landlords wanted to wage war, but the Swedish workers resisted this and said: we shall not go to such a war.

All that the Finns want now is autonomy. We stand for giving Finland complete liberty; that will increase their confidence in Russian democracy, and when they are given the right to secede they will not do so. While Mr. Rodichev goes to Finland to haggle over autonomy, our Finnish comrades come here and say: we must have autonomy. But fire is opened on them from the whole battery and they are told: “Wait for the constituent assembly.” We, however, say: “Any Russian Socialist who denies freedom to Finland is a chauvinist.”

We say that frontiers are determined by the will of the population. Russia, don’t dare fight over Courland! Germany, withdraw your armies from Courland! This is our solution of the problem of secession. The proletariat cannot resort to violence, for it must not interfere with the freedom of peoples. The slogan, “down with frontiers,” will become a true slogan only when the socialist revolution has become a reality, and not a method. Then we shall say: comrades, come to us…

Now war is an entirely different matter. When necessary, we shall not refuse to wage a revolutionary war. We are not pacifists…But while we have Milyukov, and while he sends Rodichev to Finland, where he shamefully haggles with the Finnish people, we say to the Russian people: don’t dare rape Finland; no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations. In our resolution concerning Borgbjerg, we state: withdraw your armies, and let the nation settle this question itself. But if the Soviet seizes power tomorrow, it will no longer be a “method of socialist revolution”; we shall then say: Germany, withdraw your armies from Poland; Russia, withdraw your armies from Armenia—otherwise, the whole thing will be a deception.

Regarding his oppressed Poland, Comrade Dzerzhinsky tells us that everybody is a chauvinist there. But why does not any Pole tell us what we ought to do with Finland, what we ought to do with the Ukraine? We have been arguing about this question so much, ever since 1903, that it is difficult to say much about it now. Go where you please…He who does not accept this point of view is an annexationist, a chauvinist. We are for the fraternal union of all nations. If there is a Ukrainian republic and a Russian republic, there will be closer contact, greater confidence between the two. If the Ukrainians see that we have a Soviet republic, they will not break away. But if we retain the Milyukov republic, they will break away. When Comrade Pyatakov, contradicting his own views, said that he is opposed to the forcible retention of nations within the frontiers, he really admitted the principle of self-determination. We do not in the least want the peasant in Khiva to live under the Khan of Khiva. By developing our revolution we shall influence the oppressed masses. Agitation among the oppressed masses should be carried on only in this manner.

But any Russian Socialist who does not recognise the freedom of Finland and the Ukraine is bound to degenerate into a chauvinist. And no sophisms, no references to his own “method” will help him to justify himself.

Note

1. An omission in the minutes. Ed.

International Publishers was formed in 1923 for the purpose of translating and disseminating international Marxist texts and headed by Alexander Trachtenberg. It quickly outgrew that mission to be the main book publisher, while Workers Library continued to be the pamphlet publisher of the Communist Party.

PDF of full book: https://archive.org/download/selected-works-vol.-5/Selected%20Works%20-%20Vol.%205.pdf