National Question: How Did Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin Treat the National Question

Author Prof. Wei Junxiong is from the School of Marxism attached to China West Normal University, May 2020

Marx and Engels and the Gradual Maturation of the Classical Marxist Theory of the Nation

Using the ideological weapons of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, Marx and Engels, on the basis of critically absorbing the reasonable kernel of equality of nationalities put forward by bourgeois ideologues and carrying out a proletarian transformation of it, examined in detail the basic laws governing the emergence, development and demise of the nation as a socio-historical phenomenon, put forward their basic views and views, and formulated the basic policies and strategies of the proletariat for dealing with national relations and solving the national question, thus forming the proletarian view of the nation, the Marxist view of the nation.”

In his practice of leading the Russian Revolution and establishing the world’s first socialist state, and in the process of dealing with and solving the complex national problems at home and abroad affecting the international communist movement, Lenin added a number of new elements to the Marxist theory of the nation, which made the ideological system of the Marxist theory of the nation more complete and more practical. Stalin, who directly led the half-century-long practice of national work in the first socialist countries and guided the national liberation movements of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples of the world to a considerable extent, also made an outstanding contribution to the Marxist theory of the nation on the basis of the practice of revolutionary construction and, in particular, did more than his share in the basic construction of the Marxist theory of the nation by. “For the first time, he consciously made a systematic generalization and development of the Marxist theory of the nation” . Of course, the serious blunders Stalin later made in his deviation from and development of Marxist theory of the nation cannot be ignored.

(i) The emergence of Marxist theory of the nation and its basic threads

“In the 1840s, Marx and Engels began their exploration of the national question in support of national liberation movements in various European countries while creating their doctrine of proletarian revolution.”

In works such as On the Jewish Question and The German Ideology, Marx and Engels set out their preliminary views on the question of equality of peoples, the question of the formation of peoples, and the relation of peoples to the productive forces.

Subsequently, in a series of works such as On Poland, The Communist Manifesto and The Origin of the Family, Private Ownership and the State, they further profoundly discussed such major issues as the relationship of the national question to human society, the root causes of national oppression and exploitation, the necessary conditions for national emancipation, the sequence of the formation and development of the nation, and the international solidarity of the proletariat.

Their research and exploration laid the theoretical foundation of Marxist ethnic theory and established the basic views and fundamental principles of Marxist nation theory.

The primary and fundamental point of view of Marx and Engels’ theory of the nation is that the nation is regarded as a historical process with inherent laws of emergence, development and extinction, and they believed that the driving force of national development is the change in the mode of production, and that the degree of development of the productive forces, the division of labour, and internal interactions of each nation determines the interrelationships between the nations.

Marx and Engels’ “discourse on the question of the formation of nations can be divided into two cases: one is the formation of early nations or proto-nations, or what may be called the origin of nations; and the other is the formation of the nation, which is the origin of the nation.

One is the formation of modern nations, including capitalist and socialist nations. About the formation of early peoples, which is really the formation of ethnic or racial communities as we generally understand them. Such ‘peoples’ are mainly distributed in the writings of Marx and Engels, but they do not have special articles and writings on the subject, but deal with it extensively in their treatises on the history of the development of pre-state societies or primitive societies.”

In contrast, Marx and Engels focused on the formation of the capitalist nation. They point out that “day by day the bourgeoisie is eliminating the dispersion of the means of production, property and population”. It densifies the population, concentrates the means of production and gathers property in the hands of a few. The inevitable result of this is political centralization. Separate, almost exclusively allied regions with different interests, different laws, different governments, and different tariffs have now been united into a single nation with a single government, a single law, a single national class interest, and a single tariff.”

It can be seen that, according to Marx and Engels, it is precisely because the rapid development of the great capitalist industries demanded a unified economic and political system as well as a unified market, that the bourgeoisie was bound to rise up against the system of feudalism, and it was in the revolutionary struggle of the bourgeoisie against the feudal system and for the establishment of the bourgeois regime, that the establishment of the capitalist nation state and the formation of the bourgeois nation. In the view of Marx and Engels, the establishment of the capitalist nation-state and the formation of the capitalist nation, as opposed to feudal society, was a progressive historical trend, because it achieves national unity, objectively promotes mutual contacts, exchanges and the development of all nationalities, and facilitates the transition of backward nationalities to a modern industrial civilisation. Marx and Engels put it this way: “The bourgeoisie, thanks to the rapid improvement of all the means of production, thanks to the extreme ease of transport, has swept all peoples, even the most barbarous, into civilization. Low prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it destroys everything for miles and conquers the most inveterate xenophobia of the savage. It forces all peoples – if they do not want to perish – to adopt bourgeois modes of production. It forces them to promote so-called civilisation in themselves, i.e. to become assets. In a word, it creates a world for itself according to its own face.“

Here Marx and Engels simultaneously revealed the law that the capitalist mode of production inevitably leads to the trend of globalization. It is generally recognized that the phenomenon of globalization was first stated by the classic Marxist writers.

In 1845, Marx and Engels, in their essay “The German Ideology”, had said: “The more the sphere of activity of the various mutual influences expands in this process of development, and the more completely the primitive closed state of the peoples is eliminated as a result of the increasing perfection of the modes of production, of intercourse, and of the division of labour between the different peoples which naturally develops as a result of that intercourse, the more history becomes world History.”

In the Communist Manifesto, their vivid portrayal of the emergence and impact of capitalism gives us a typical picture of the characteristics and nature of the early stages of globalisation.

As to the basic content of globalization, Marx and Engels “used four main analytical concepts: capitalist expansion, world interaction, world history and world revolution. Marx and Engels each encapsulate different dimensions, contents, dynamics, and fundamental implications of globalisation from different perspectives” . These four concepts can reveal the essence of globalisation or certain important features and important contents, and have important reference values. Of these, the concept of “world engagement/interaction” overlaps most closely with the concept of “globalization” and is more appropriate to encapsulate the historical phenomenon of globalisation. While affirming the progressiveness of modern capitalist nation formation, Marx and Engels also noted that “modern bourgeois society has not eliminated class antagonisms. Modern bourgeois society simply replaces the old with new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle.”

This is because the bourgeoisie, which boasts that “it is the strongest class representing the nation”, in fact only describes its own special interests as the real national interests, and in order to safeguard its own private property, it establishes capitalist private ownership, and practices “false democracy” in politics and brutally exploited the working class, which is the overwhelming majority of the people, economically, in total contradiction to the slogans of democracy and equality that they advocated when they led the masses in the bourgeois revolution and the establishment of the national State. Not only that, but the large-scale industrial production of capitalist society has simplified class antagonisms, and society as a whole is increasingly split into two hostile camps, into two directly opposed classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The proletariat “has the same interests in all nationalities, in which national uniqueness has been eliminated, and is a class that is truly detached from, and at the same time opposed to, the whole old world”. Big industry has made not only the relation of the worker to the capitalist, but labor itself, intolerable to the worker”. In the face of capitalist national oppression, Marx and Engels pinpointed that class antagonism is the root cause of national antagonism. “When the exploitation of man by man is eliminated, the exploitation of the nation by the nation will be eliminated with it. As soon as class antagonisms within the nation are eliminated, hostile relations between the nations will disappear.” “The proletariat must first of all acquire political domination, rise to the rank of a national class, organise itself as a nation, and so remain itself for the time being national, though not at all in the sense in which the bourgeoisie understands it.”

In short, Marx and Engels believed that the elimination of national exploitation and the elimination of national antagonisms could only be completely achieved by the proletariat, through socialist revolution. They further state that “the action of union, at least of the civilised nations, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.”

Therefore, they issued the revolutionary slogan “Proletarians of the whole world, unite” to the proletariat of all nationalities, calling on communists of all countries to adhere to the principle that “class interests are superior to national interests”, and to emphasize and adhere to the common interests of the proletariat as a whole, irrespective of nationalities. The common interests of the entire proletariat, irrespective of nationality, were emphasised and upheld. Marx and Engels also saw that the main obstacle to the realization of the Great Union was the “narrow nationalist feeling” and “egoistic nationalist sentiment” of the working class. Referring to the Irish question, they pointed out that “the national antagonism between the British and Irish workers is to this day in Britain one of the main obstacles in the way of all movements for the emancipation of the working class, and consequently one of the main pillars of class domination in both Britain and Ireland.”

For this reason, Marx and Engels talked about the problem of patriotism and internationalism, pointing out that the bourgeoisie used “empty and self-interested patriotism” to sow discord between nationalities and hinder the unity and solidarity of the working class, so the working class must deal with the problem of the relationship between “patriotism” and the class. Therefore, the working class must deal with the question of the relationship between “patriotism” and class.

Marx and Engels were also concerned with nationalism for more than that: In their view, nationalism is a trend of thought and practice centred on the independence of the nation-state that accompanied the political struggle of the modern bourgeoisie against feudal despotism. The bourgeois attributes of nationalism and the negative side and conservatism it displayed in the social revolution determined that it was the antithesis of the proletarian view of the nation from the beginning and should be the object of Marxist criticism. However, the proletarian revolution that Marx and Engels guided and participated in was still in its infancy, and at that time most of the countries in Europe, including Germany and Italy, had not yet completed their bourgeois democratic revolutions, with the exception of a few countries in Western Europe.

Marx and Engels believed that the conduct of a bourgeois democratic revolution and the establishment of the capitalist system were the prerequisites for the proletariat to carry out a socialist revolution, so the main task of the proletarian revolution in this period should be to assist and promote the bourgeoisie in completing the democratic revolution.” Democracy, however, cannot be realised and function if it is not based on the nation, if it is not within the nation-state. ”  That is why the democratic revolution of the bourgeoisie has always been linked to the nationalist movement, and the support of the proletariat for the democratic revolution of the bourgeoisie must inevitably be merged with the support for the nationalist movement, which is centered on the establishment of the nation-state. Therefore, Marx and Engels paid great attention to national movements worldwide and explicitly supported the 1848 revolutions in Europe, the national liberation movements in Poland and Ireland, the national unification movements in Germany and Italy, as well as the national liberation movements of colonial and semi-colonial peoples in Asia, including China and India. It was in this process that Marx and Engels’ theories of nationalism were gradually enriched.

The 1848 revolution triggered Marx and Engels’ thinking about the nature of national movements, and they distinguished between revolutionary and national movements and counter-revolutionary ones on the basis of whether or not they were opposed to the feudal autocracy in their countries. Poland was situated in the geopolitical center of Europe, and it is the front line of the struggle between the great powers for supremacy as well as the two major forces of revolution and counter-revolution in the continent of Europe, so Marx and Engels always paid great attention to the Polish national movement and made a very large number of discourses on it.

The significance of national independence and unity is clearly stated therein: “Only after Poland has regained its independence, only when it has regained control of its own destiny as an independent people, will the process of its internal development begin anew, and it will be able to contribute to the social transformation of Europe as an independent force.”….”National independence is, in fact, the basis of all international co-operation. It is only when it is truly a national people that it becomes more international.” On the German question, Engels, in his article “Notes on Germany”, made a profound analysis of the reasons for Germany’s failure to achieve national unity at that time, in terms of its economy, national development and contacts: ” The development of feudalism was later in Germany than in those countries which had gone through conquest. Germany includes areas with some French and Slavs, and as it regards Italy as its property and Rome as its centre, it is not a national complex. For, and this is the main thing, the provinces, as well as one part and another, are completely isolated from each other: there is no intercourse between them, etc.”

Marx and Engels paid great attention to the Irish question, not only did they make an in-depth exploration of the history of Ireland, its cultural identity, and the strategic goal of Irish national independence, but also through the concrete argumentation of the Irish national movement “provided the greatest example of how the proletariat of the oppressor nations should deal with the national movement”. the greatest example of how the proletariat of the oppressor nations should deal with national movements”.

In the face of the anti-colonial and anti-feudal national liberation movement in Asia in the middle of the 19th century, Marx and Engels strongly condemned the aggression and atrocities of British colonialism, scientifically analysed the relationship between colonialism and the problem of national revolution, and formed the basic points of view of the theory of the problem of national colonialism, which include the “Roots of the emergence and development of modern colonialism and its elimination These include “the roots of the emergence and development of modern colonialism and the ways of its elimination”, “the nature, tasks and significance of the national liberation movement”, and “the basic views of proletarian internationalism in the national liberation movement”.

 In The Rule of Britain in India, and in the article The Future Results of the Rule of Britain in India, Marx made the classic assertion that British colonial rule “acted as an unconscious instrument of history” and that “barbarous conquerors” would always be “subjugated by the higher civilization of the subjects they conquered” as “an eternal law”. “conquered by the higher civilisation of the subjects they have conquered” is “an eternal law of history”. Moreover, the preservation and establishment of a united nation-State inevitably involves the question of how to understand the rights of the different peoples within a multi-ethnic State.The question of how to define the subject of “self-determination of peoples” has been a matter of debate in the European “civilised world” since the beginning of the nineteenth century, and Engels expressed his views on it.

Engels, wrote in “what has the working class to do with Poland?” The liberal “nationality principle” was criticized in the article “The National Principle”, where Engels said: “It is no longer Nations that are spoken of, but Nationalities”, and that at that time “There is not a single country in Europe where different nationalities are not under the same government. In addition, none of the national dividing lines coincide with the natural dividing line of the nation, i.e., the language. The natural result of the complex and slow historical development that Europe has undergone in the last thousand years is that almost every large nation has separated from some remote part of itself, which has detached itself from the national life of its own people, and in most cases has taken part in the national life of one or other of the other peoples to the extent that it has no desire to merge with the main body of its own people. The main body of the nation has not wanted to merge with it any longer. Thus it is after all a great thing that most of the various politically formed nations have within them some foreign elements, which form the connecting links with their neighbours, and thus enrich the otherwise too homogeneous and stagnant national character”.

 It can be seen that Engels at that time did not notice the tendency of small nations struggling against national oppression and for independence, or even for their equal rights. Engels thought mainly around the main task of the proletarian revolution, arguing that since the European working class wanted to push for the completion of the bourgeois revolution, it had to firmly support the national independence of the countries, and the creation and defense of a united nation state. Moreover, at that time, Tsarist Russia and Louis Napoleon advocated the “nationality principle” only as an opportunity to incorporate the “small peoples” and “remnants of nations” into the Tsarist-dominated “Pan-Slavist” state system. Engels’ rejection of Pan-Slavism necessarily entailed the rejection of the national movements of these “small peoples” and, naturally, and the rejection the recognition of their so-called rights.

In Engels’ later years, his understanding of the “national principle” changed, and Engels began to agree that “every nation must gain independence and be master in its own house”, extending the scope of the “national principle to include all peoples, including those of the East.Also of interest was Marx and Engels’ critique of pan-nationalism and national chauvinism. Their critique of pan-nationalism had centred on the critique of pan-Slavism.  Engels pointed out that Pan-Slavism represented the old relations of production, a deception of the Russian-dominated European powers for world hegemony, and a counter-revolutionary, anti-democratic national movement. “The wave of Pan-Slavism, which in the Slavic regions of Germany and Hungary everywhere masks the attempts of all these innumerable small peoples to seek the restoration of their independence, everywhere clashes with the revolutionary movements of Europe, while the Slavs, though claiming to be fighting for freedom, always (with the exception of a section of the democrats of Poland) take the side of the forces of despotism and reaction.“

 Here Engels set up a criterion for judging the nature of a national movement: whether it represents the new relations of production and the progressive civilizing tendencies of a new era. With regard to chauvinism, Marx had pointed out that “bourgeois chauvinism is nothing but a false adornment which gives a national veneer to all the unreasonable demands of the bourgeoisie.” Thus, the chauvinism mentioned by Marx can be seen as a type of nationalism. Marx and Engels’ critique of chauvinism had centered on France and Tsarist Russia during the Franco-Prussian War. Soon after the Franco-Prussian War began, Engels traced the roots of the war to French chauvinism. Marx also made a profound exposure of the nature and manifestations of French chauvinism: bourgeois chauvinism “is the means of subduing the producers of one country by provoking them against their brethren in another country, and of preventing the international co-operation of the working class which is the first condition of its emancipation”.

In advocating class solidarity and union from the principles of internationalism, Marx and Engels emphasized the need to uphold the equality of nationalities and wrote that “international co-operation is possible only between equals.” “Generally speaking, ‘equality of nations’ was first proposed by the bourgeoisie, but accurately derives from the theory of nationalism.” Thus, Marx and Engels formed the Marxist idea of national equality by absorbing and transforming the bourgeois view of national equality. At the beginning of the formation of their theory of the nation, “in response to the nationalist thesis of Arendt and others, who preached that the German nation was a superior nation, Engels pointed out that there was no superiority or inferiority between nations at all, and that although all nations had their own national characteristics and differed in their state of historical development, all nations were equal to one another and all contributed to the advancement of social development “.They used materialistic dialectics to argue the issue of national superiority and inferiority from both the temporal and spatial dimensions.

Firstly, spatially, “every nation has some advantage over another”, and different nations have different advantages. And in time, nations are constantly changing and developing, thus making it possible for advanced nations to become backward and backward nations to become advanced. No nation is always superior to others, and the time when one nation presumed to lead all others is gone; national prejudice and national superiority are extremely harmful. In addition, Engels noted that the concept of equality is a product of history and that ethnic equality is epochal. From “the primitive conception of relative equality, the conclusion of equal rights in the State and in society, that this conclusion can even become something natural and self-evident, must necessarily pass, and indeed has passed, for thousands of years”.

Thus, “the idea of equality, whether in its bourgeois form or in its proletarian form, is itself a historical product, and the formation of this idea requires certain historical conditions, which themselves presuppose a long past history. Therefore, such a conception of equality cannot be said to be an eternal truth by saying that it is anything”. The bourgeoisie proclaimed freedom and equality as “natural human rights”, but “the specific bourgeois nature of these human rights is typified by the Constitution of the United States, which was the first to recognise human rights and at the same time confirmed the existence of slavery of the coloured people in the United States: class privileges were not protected by the law, and racial privileges were sacralised”. They pointed out that the bourgeoisie’s insistence on equality remains incomplete.

The fundamental difference between the proletarian conception of national equality and the bourgeois conception of national equality is that the proletariat demands that national equality “should not be merely superficial, that it should not be practised only in the sphere of the State, but that it should be practised practically, that it should be practised also in the social and economic sphere”, and that “the actual content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the elimination of classes”. While revealing the national problem of capitalism and studying the goals and strategies of the socialist revolution, Marx and Engels also scientifically predicted the future prospects of national intermingling and extinction.

They pointed out that “the bourgeoisie, by opening up the world market, has made the production and consumption of all countries cosmopolitan. To the great regret of the reactionaries, the bourgeoisie has dug up the national foundations at the feet of industry” and “with the development of the bourgeoisie, with the realization of freedom of trade and the establishment of the world market, with the convergence of industrial production and the conditions of life that go with it, national divisions and antagonisms between peoples are increasingly disappearing”.  (Communist Manifest)

In 1847, in response to the question “Will nationalities continue to exist under communism?”, Engels clearly stated: “The national characteristics of the various nationalities united according to the principle of communal ownership will necessarily merge together as a result of such a union, and thus disappear of their own accord, just as the differences of rank and class disappear as a result of the abolition of their basis, private ownership. “The national characteristics of the various nations united under the principle of public ownership necessarily merge together as a result of this union, and thus disappear of their own accord, just as the various differences of rank and class disappear as a result of the abolition of their basis, private ownership.”

It is worth mentioning that Marx and Engels were particularly concerned about the “Jewish question” in Germany at that time.Their concern for and study of the “Jewish Question” was a trigger for their ideological change towards historical materialism, and the “Jewish Question” also provided an opportunity for Marx and Engels to explore human emancipation and proletarian revolution.The process of deepening Marx and Engels’ understanding of the racial question is also reflected in this process, and their specific analysis of the Jewish question provides us with examples of the use of dialectical and historical materialism to analyse the national and racial question.In the 1840s, German Jews were also confronted with the question of how to free themselves from the oppression of privilege and gain equal political rights, a question also known as the “emancipation of the Jews”.

At the end of 1841, King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Germany issued the Edict of the Cabinet, proposing new legislation prohibiting Jews from participating in public affairs and installing Jewish trade guilds, thus confining Jews once again from mainstream society. This regressive decree has given rise to heated debates among scholars on the “Jewish Question”.

Marx and Engels were then involved in a polemic against Bruno Bauer, a polemic that went through three rounds from the winter of 1842, when Bruno Bauer published The Jewish Question, to the summer of 1846, when Marx and Engels wrote The German Ideology. In the course of this critique, Marx and Engels not only creatively proposed a way to solve the Jewish problem, but also ultimately developed a materialist conception of history that eliminated private property and realised communism. In the discussion, Bruno Bauer’s main point was to argue that the crux of the Jewish problem was one of religious belief.

Bruno Bauer stated that the Jews believe in a religion that “is their essence, their whole being, and their recognition of human rights presupposes recognition of, and adherence to, religion ” and that they are punished because of “their mitzvahs (Gesetz), their way of life, and their nationality (Nationalität) “, and “they are oppressed because they adhere to their precepts, their language and their whole essence”. Therefore, “the fate of the Jews in a Christian state is self-inflicted, and what they encounter in a Christian state is the result of themselves and therefore they should have no complaint”.

Both Jews and Christians, he argued, could “see themselves as human beings and treat each other as human beings” only if they eliminated the particular nature of their religious beliefs and “recognised the universal nature of the human being and regarded it as their true nature”. Marx pertinently summarised Bruno Bauer’s view that the Jews should be politically emancipated, although the precondition for this was that Christian countries no longer had Christianity as their state religion, and that Jews and Christians no longer had their own religion as their faith.In his essay “On the Jewish Question,” Marx offers the following rebuttal to Bruno Bauer’s argument. For one thing, Bruno Bauer dealt with the Jewish question as a theological problem, without making a concrete analysis of the problem in relation to reality, and without recognizing that, as in the United States, “the state no longer treats religion from a theological point of view” but “from a political point of view, and the critique of this relationship is no longer a critique of theology. is no longer a critique of theology. In this way, the critique became a critique of the political state.”

Secondly, Bruno Bauer reversed the causal relationship between secular and religious limitations by seeing religious ideas as the cause of the misery of Jewish life and privileged ideas as the cause of the system of privileges. Marx pointed out that the roots of religious existence “can only be found in the nature of the state itself”, that “religion is no longer the cause of secular limitations, but only its phenomenon”, and that “the secular bondage of free citizens should be used as an explanation of their religious bondage”, and that “theological questions should be turned into secular questions”. The secular constraints of free citizens should be used “to explain their religious constraints” and “to transform theological problems into secular problems”.

Thirdly, Bruno Bauer “criticizes only the ‘Christian state’, not the ‘state itself’, he does not explore the relationship of political emancipation to human emancipation, and thus he offers conditions that only show that he uncritically critical conflation of political emancipation with universal human emancipation”.

Marx distinguished between “political emancipation” and “human emancipation” and analyzed the progress and limitations of “political emancipation” and the prospects for achieving “human emancipation” were analysed. Marx believed that “political emancipation” meant only “the emancipation of a nation from religion”, i.e., emancipation from the state religion and freedom from religion, but did not require that the individual be free from religion as well. For Marx, political emancipation cleared the relationship between human political life and religious beliefs, so that religious beliefs were no longer a prerequisite for the acquisition of political rights, and genuine equality of political rights for believers was achieved.

Marx also pointed out that “political emancipation” confines “the emancipation of man” to the political sphere only, “where the political state is really formed, man lives a double life – a heavenly life and an earthly life – not only in his thought, in his consciousness, but also in reality, in life. ” The former is life in a political community, in which man sees himself as a social being; the latter is life in civil society, in which man operates as a private person, sees others as instruments, reduces himself to an instrument, and becomes the plaything of dissident forces”.

For Marx, civil society was a prerequisite for the existence of the political state, but people in civil society are “individuals closed in on themselves, closed in on their own private interests and their own private arbitrary behavior, separated from the community”, and “the only bond which connects them is natural necessity, need and private interests, the protection of their property and their self-interested persons”. The political state and civil society are in opposition to each other, the egoism of civil life constrains the universality of political life, and the man who is “regarded as a class of beings” in the state is only a “fictitious member of an imagined sovereignty”, “deprived of his real personal life and filled with unreality and universality”. In the case of the Jewish question, Marx argued that it too “boils down to a secular split between the political state and civil society”.

“The practice of religion by the members of the political state is due to the duality between personal and class life, between the life of civil society and political life. They are religious because man takes the life of the state on the other side of his real personality as his real life. They practice religion because it was here the spirit of civil society, the expression of the separation and alienation of man from man.”

Therefore, “the question of the Jew’s ability to achieve emancipation becomes the question of what particular social elements must be overcome in order to abolish Judaism”, and therefore it is to the real Jew that the secrets of his religion should be sought.Marx pointed out that the secular basis of Judaism is practical necessity, selfishness, and that the secular worship of the Jews is to do business for profit, and their secular god is money. So, the modern self-liberation of the Jews is the liberation from business for profit and money, and the liberation from practical, tangible Judaism. Marx’s above criticism of the Jews was based on his observation that Jewish usurers and merchants in Western European societies valued commercial interests above all else, and developed habits of selfishness and profit-seeking, which are the essential characteristics of the bourgeoisie. In this way, Marx combined a critique of the inferiority of the Jewish people with a critique of the nature of the capitalist system.

Thus, Marx turned Bruno Bauer’s critique of religion into a critique of civil society and began to understand and solve the Jewish problem in terms of economic relations, but at this point this view that the task of eliminating religion was to be achieved by eliminating the alienating elements of civic life, i.e. by eliminating the monetary system, was still relatively abstract. In the face of Marx’s critique, Bruno Bauer revised his views, suggesting that the Jewish question was “as much a religious, theological question as a political one.”

The political problem involved was that the Enlightenment did not endow the people with the scientific critical faculties which was needed to abolish religion, instead “the revolution brought about the development of nationalism during the Enlightenment period” and “the masses are the sluggish remnants of a national egoism that has been exhausted in the Revolutionary wars”. The masses are “lazy, superficial and complacent”, “the real enemies of the spirit should be sought in the masses”, “they are the greatest enemies of progress”. Therefore, the masses are the object of critique “which must be studied first”.

In this way, Bruno Bauer directed his critique at the masses, arguing that only through spiritual criticism could the masses be raised to universal self-consciousness and thus abolish religion and realize human freedom. As can be seen, Bruno Bauer regarded the freedom achieved by the universality of self-consciousness as the “ultimate end” of history. In response to Bruno Bauer’s ideological ‘tinkering’, Marx and Engels pointed out that the problem with Bruno Bauer’s discursive idealism was that it “replaced the real individual human being with ‘self-consciousness’, i.e., ‘spirit'” but that “thought in itself can achieve nothing at all”. ‘ in place of the reality of the individual human being”, but “thought itself can achieve nothing at all. For ideas to be realized, it is necessary to have people who use the power of practice”.

They went on to criticise Bruno Bauer’s discursive idealism from the perspective of “realistic humanism”, which “understands history as the self-generating action of man, rather than as the journey of truth to “self-consciousness”.  Considering the masses as the subjects of history, they proposed that it is not ‘criticism’ within the realm of pure thought that drives history, but the struggle for the reality of the masses”. Marx and Engels once again criticised Bruno Bauer’s ideology of discursive idealism in The German Ideology (Marx-Engels). They pointed out that Bruno Bauer’s idea that man is created by the act of criticism pitted the spirit against the masses in the sharpest possible terms, and that such “high-flown, boastful peddlers of ideas, who think they are infinitely above any national prejudice, are in fact more nationally prejudiced than the beer-shop quacks dreaming of German unity.They simply do not recognise the performance of other peoples as historic.”

Marx and Engels had already stood on the foundation of “historical materialism” in their critique of Bruno Bauer. They analysed the real power of the production of ideas through economic relations, and proposed that the power of ideas is determined by the social relations that give birth to them, especially the economic relations among them, and that “the production of ideas, concepts, and consciousness is at first directly connected with the material activity of men, with their material intercourse, and with the language of real life”. and the production of consciousness are initially directly intertwined with the material activities of people, with their material interactions, with the language of real life. People’s imaginations, thinking, and mental interactions are still here the direct product of people’s material actions. The same is true of the spiritual production that manifests itself in the language of the politics, laws, morals, religion, metaphysics, etc. of a given people”.

Marx and Engels described the change in the form of ownership caused by the evolution of the division of labour, and proposed that communism is “a realistic movement to annihilate the existing condition”, and that “for the practical materialist, i.e., the communist, the whole problem lies in revolutionizing the existing world, in actually opposing and changing the existing things and change what exists”.

As can be seen from the above analysis, the Marxist theory of the nation, founded by Marx and Engels, reveals the process of the formation and development of the nation and the nation-state, and predicts the prospect of the nation’s demise. Marx and Engels linked the national question to the class question and the question of social revolution, subordinated the national liberation movement to the proletarian revolution, and “provided a guiding clue to the solution of the national question, enabling us to discover regularities in what appeared to be a confusing and chaotic state of affairs”. This thread is the theory of class struggle. “

Taking the tasks and goals of the proletarian revolution as their fundamental starting point, they put their understanding of nationalism into the “broader perspective of the proletarian revolution”, focusing on the “broader goal of the international union of the proletariat”, and “made a rich exposition of issues relating to the phenomenon, nature and role of nationalism in the proletarian revolution”, and so on. They scorned and criticized the negativity and reactionary nature of nationalism, and drew on and absorbed its positive and progressive elements, not only recognizing “the inevitable connection between the bourgeois national movement and the proletarian revolution”, but also scientifically analyzing “the inevitable connection between the bourgeois national movement and the proletarian revolution”, and “the need for nationalism to be a part of the proletarian revolution”. They not only recognised “the inevitable connection between the bourgeois national movement and the proletarian revolution”, but also scientifically analysed “the correct attitude of the proletariat towards the nationalist movement”, and “established the basic position of Marxism on the question of nationalism”. Marx and Engels established the core principle of national equality for the Marxist theory of the nation, and more importantly, by advocating a socialist revolution to abolish private ownership and eliminate the root causes of national exploitation and oppression, they “transformed the ‘equality of the nations’ from bourgeois rhetoric into a firmly grounded social goal”, pointing out a clear direction for the realization of genuine and complete national equality.

They have established a basic viewpoint and methodology on the issue of globalization, thinking beyond the local interests of the nation, the region and the state to the mission of theory and the ultimate goal of the revolutionary struggle. The above basic viewpoints and methods have laid a solid foundation and clarified the fundamental direction for the development of Marxist national theory.

Lenin’s development and refinement of the Marxist theory of the nation

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin used the national theories of Marx and Engels to make an in-depth study of the intricate national problems and the laws of their development facing the world and Russia in the age of imperialism. Because the real national problems that arose at the stage of imperialist development were more numerous and complex than in the time of Marx and Engels, Lenin discussed the national problem more than Marx and Engels did, “thus making the ideological system of the Marxist theory of the nation more complete and more adapted to the needs of the new era.”

Lenin’s development and refinement of the Marxist theory of the nation is mainly reflected in the following aspects.

Firstly, the deepening of Lenin’s understanding of the law of national development and the national question.

Lenin made it clear that “the example of a ‘nation without history’ is not to be found anywhere (except in Utopia), but only among historical nations” and that “the motherland, the nation -this is the category of history.” It is just that, unlike Marx and Engels’ “phenomenon that the nation is or will be on the way to extinction” in the era of capitalist ascendancy, Lenin’s “extinction of the nation in the era of imperialism is more concrete, phased, and tied to the social changes of the capitalist era”. “It was for this reason that, in the course of leading the international communist movement and the Russian Revolution, Lenin carefully examined the objective law of the formation and development of the bourgeois nation and put forward the famous “two trends”. Lenin recognised that “the nation-state is the general rule and the ‘rule’ of capitalism, while the national complex is a backward state or an exception. In terms of national relations, the nation-state is undoubtedly the best condition to ensure the development of capitalism”, however, for the advanced countries of the West, entering the stage of imperialist development at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, “the bourgeoisie has been transformed from a rising, advanced class into a declining, decadent, intrinsically dead and reactionary class”, “the struggle of rising, nationally liberated capital against the feudal system has been replaced by the struggle of the most reactionary, decadent, obsolete, downhill, tending to fall, financial capital against the new forces”, and the old nation-state has fettered the the development of capitalism. In this light, Lenin focused on the second trend that “marks the maturity of capitalism and its transformation into a socialist society”, which is accompanied by the process of “the growing disappearance of national divisions and antagonisms among peoples”, and the process of continuous national integration. This is a process of continuous national integration.

Lenin made it clear that assimilation means that a people “loses its national characteristics and becomes another people” when it is not “obligatory” or “dependent on privileges”. Lenin gave great credit to the national assimilation which the capitalist mode of production objectively promotes: “The capitalist tendency of world-historical significance to remove the national divisions, to annihilate the national differences, to assimilate the nationalities and so on, is a tendency which becomes stronger with every decade and is one of the greatest impulses for the transformation of capitalism into socialism.” Lenin specifically addressed the issue of mass emigration caused by capitalism, using it as an example of the progressive significance of capitalist assimilation for the proletarian revolution. He wrote: “Capitalism has created a particular type of migration. In this way, tens of thousands of workers run to places hundreds and thousands of Russian miles away. Advanced capitalism has forced them into its own orbit of development, made them leave their poor countryside to take part in the historic movement throughout the world, and brought them face to face with a powerful united international class of industrial masters. “There is no doubt that capitalists exploit migrant workers to the fullest extent of the law. But only a reactionary would ignore the progressive significance of this current migration. Without the further development of capitalism and the class struggle on its base, there is no talk or possibility of escaping from the oppression of capital. It is also capitalism that draws the working masses of the world into this struggle, constantly breaking down the silence and conservatism of local life, bridging the divisions and prejudices between peoples, and uniting the workers of all nations who come to the largest factories and mines in the United States, Germany and other countries.”

Lenin at the same time emphasized that national and state differences between peoples and between states would persist for a long time, even after the dictatorship of the proletariat had been realized on a world scale. Therefore, in formulating its national strategy and policy, the Communist Party “must identify, clarify, locate, surmise and grasp the characteristics and traits of the nation” in order to make them “adaptable to the differences of the nation and the nation-state” and apply them correctly, rather than rush to “eliminate diversity” and “eradicate national differences”. “Eliminate diversity and eradicate national differences”.

Because ethnicity and ethnic differences will persist for a long time, the ethnic problem will also be of a permanent nature. Moreover, the political domination of imperialism has made the national question more and more complex, more and more prominent, and therefore more and more important. Under socialism, despite the elimination of the root causes of ethnic exploitation and oppression, the different specific interests of the various ethnic groups persist, and the remnants of ethnic divisions, discrimination, suspicion and mistrust inherited from history will persist to varying degrees. It is for this reason that Lenin issued many warnings about the importance of the long-term nature and significance of the national question.

At the same time, Lenin examined the question of ways to solve the national problem: “The two fundamental principles which all Social Democrats in Russia should follow on the national question are, firstly, the demand for political freedom, civil liberties and full equality; Secondly, the right to self-determination is demanded of every people in the country.”

At the level of the political system, Lenin pointed out that the fundamental way to solve the national problem was to achieve democracy, and that “the more thoroughly democracy is developed, the weaker and more harmless the national struggle will become”. “Under the capitalist system, that very close approximation to national peace is possible only under conditions of maximum democracy in the whole system of the State and in the institutions of State administration”.

For Russia, Lenin believed in a combination of democratic centralism and regional national autonomy: Lenin pointed out that “a large country with a complex ethnic composition can achieve a truly democratic centralised system only through regional autonomy” and that “all regions of the country where the inhabitants differ in the characteristics of their habits of life or in their ethnic composition should enjoy extensive self-governance and autonomy “.

In addition, Lenin made special mention of the need for historical and specific analyses of national problems and for exploring specific solutions to national problems for each nation on the basis of respect for its own characteristics.Lenin puts it this way: “It is inevitable that all peoples will move towards socialism, but the way in which all peoples will move will not be exactly the same, and each will have its own peculiarities in this or that form of democracy, in this or that form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in the speed with which socialist transformations will be carried out in all aspects of social life.”

The most prominent problem of Lenin’s time was undoubtedly the problem of nationalism, to which Lenin paid great attention, and in the process of opposing all kinds of nationalist ideas, Lenin further developed the ideas of Marx and Engels on nationalism.

Secondly, Lenin enriched and developed the ideas of Marx and Engels on nationalism.

In this regard, Lenin clarified the nature of bourgeois nationalism and its characteristics, the fundamental difference between bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism, and also critically and abstractly opposed nationalism, distinguishing between the nationalism of oppressor nations and that of the oppressed, between the nationalism of the large nations and that of the small, and clearly stating the limits of the proletariat’s support for nationalism. Lenin pointed out that “bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism – these are two irreconcilable and hostile slogans, two slogans which correspond to the two main class camps of the entire capitalist world and which represent two policies (and two world-views) on the national question.”

“The nationalism of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois-democrats recognizes the equality of the nations in word, but in deed defends (often secretly, behind the backs of the people) certain privileges of one nation and always seeks to obtain greater benefits for ‘its’ nation (i.e., for its own bourgeoisie), seeks to separate the nationalities, to draw the lines between them, to develop national particularities, and so on. Bourgeois nationalism loves to talk about ‘national culture’ and emphasize the differences between one nation and another, thus separating workers of different nationalities and fooling them with ‘national slogans’.”

 Proletarian internationalism does not support “any consolidation of nationalism”, “it favours all measures which help to annihilate national differences, to remove national divisions”, insisting on “the unification of the workers of all nationalities under conditions of the fullest equality of all nationalities and the most complete democracy in the country”.

Lenin emphasized the supremacy of class interests over national interests, stating that “when any really serious and deep political problem occurs, people are grouped according to class, not according to nation” and that only after complete liberation from class oppression and economic emancipation, the full freedom of national liberation and self-determination of nations will inevitably come. Thus, “to be a Marxist internationalist, one should not think only of one’s own nation, but should place the interests of all nations, the universal freedom and equality of all nations, above one’s own”.

Lenin further noted that the capitalist states, in the interests of the ruling class, often cultivate nationalist prejudices in order to “induce the proletarian masses to abandon their own class tasks, to make them forget the duty of international class solidarity.”

Therefore, “socialists have to fight against the various manifestations of bourgeois nationalism”, “even if it is the most ‘just,’ ‘pure ‘, refined and civilized nationalism”, “refined nationalism is under the prettiest and most melodious pretexts, e.g., in the protection of ‘national culture’ ‘ interests, the protection of ‘national autonomy or independence’ and so on, under the pretense of advocating the division and disintegration of the proletariat”.

Of course, Lenin also rejected abstract references to nationalism, and he drew a very fine line between Marxists’ support for nationalism: Marxists uphold the most resolute and thoroughgoing democratism in all aspects of the national question, unconditionally support the general democratism of every oppressed nation’s bourgeois nationalist opposition to oppression, and insist on the overthrow of all national oppressions, and on the abolition of a nation’s or a language’s all privileges.

To assist bourgeois nationalism beyond these strictly limited boundaries of a certain historical scope is to betray the proletariat to the side of the bourgeoisie.

At the same time, Lenin cautioned that “the Social-Democratic Party should do its utmost to remind the proletariat and the working class of all nationalities that they should not be directly deceived by the nationalist slogans of the ‘own’ bourgeoisie, which is seeking to divide the proletariat with flowery words about the ‘fatherland’ ‘ rhetoric about the ‘motherland’ to divide the proletariat and to keep them from paying attention to the tricks of the bourgeoisie in forming alliances economically and politically with the bourgeoisie of other nationalities and with the government of the Tsarist monarchs.”

In order to expose and criticise this phenomenon, Lenin made a historical examination of the concept of “fatherland”, pointed out the meaning of proletarian patriotism and the correct method of “defense of the fatherland” in order to clarify the difference between “defense of the fatherland” and “workers have no fatherland”. Lenin pointed out the meaning of proletarian patriotism and the correct method of “defense of the fatherland” in order to clarify the difference between “defense of the fatherland” and “the workers have no fatherland”. Lenin pointed out that the “defense of the fatherland” put forward by the imperialist Powers in imperialist wars is a deceptive argument and a justification for war, and that only wars fought by the oppressed (e.g., colonial peoples) against the imperialist Powers, i.e., the big Powers that practise oppression, are genuine national wars and “defense of the fatherland”. It is an act of “defense of the motherland”. Lenin distinguished not only between the nationalism of the oppressor peoples and the nationalism of the oppressed peoples, but also between the nationalism of large peoples and the nationalism of small peoples. Lenin rejected both the chauvinistic nationalism of the large nations and the national “separatism” of the small nations, because “other things being equal, the large nations can fulfil the task of promoting economic progress, of the struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, much more efficiently than the small nations”.

Third, Lenin began to specify the substantive content of national equality.

In the practice of the proletarian revolution and the building of the socialist Soviet Republic, Lenin made equality of nationalities the basic programme and practical goal of the proletarian party, giving it a rich connotation. Firstly, Lenin made the realisation of genuine national equality the basic aim of the proletarian party, pointing out the fundamental content and guarantee of the realisation of the proletarian concept of national equality. Lenin made the adherence to the equality of all peoples one of the marks of distinction between true and false Marxists, stating, “Whoever does not recognize and uphold the equality of peoples and languages, and does not fight against all national oppressions or inequalities, is not a Marxist, nor is he even a democrat.”

 In Lenin’s view, the bourgeois slogan of national equality is abstract, and for the bourgeoisie: “The demand for national equality is in fact often tantamount to the advocacy of national particularity and chauvinism, and it often goes hand in hand with the advocacy of national division and alienation.” Lenin made it clear that the difference between the proletarian concept of national equality and the abstract and formal bourgeois concept of national equality lies in “firstly, in the accurate estimation of the concrete historical situation, and above all of the economic situation; Secondly, to make a clear distinction between the interests of the oppressed classes, the exploited laborers, and the general concept of the national interest, which implies the interests of the ruling class. Thirdly, a clear distinction is also made between oppressed, subordinate peoples without equal rights and oppressive, exploitative peoples with full rights.”

Lenin also emphasized that the real realization of national equality is guaranteed by improving the state’s legal system: “The problem of guaranteeing the rights of national minorities can be solved only by enacting national laws in a thoroughly democratic state which does not depart from the principle of equality.” “The Social Democratic Party demands the enactment of a national law to protect the rights of any minority anywhere in the country”.

“Provides that any measure (of local self-government bodies, of municipalities, of village communities, etc.) which confers any privilege on a national group, undermines the equality of national groups or violates the rights of national minorities, is illegal and invalid, and that every citizen of the State has the right to demand that such unconstitutional measures be cancelled and that those who have taken them be subjected to penal sanctions.” “A fundamental legal provision shall also be added to the Constitution declaring that no ethnic group shall be privileged, and the rights of minorities shall not be violated.”

Secondly, Lenin began to orient the practice of “national equality” towards the guarantee of the rights of national minorities, stating explicitly that “the guarantee of the rights of national minorities is inseparable from the principle of full equality “98 and that “we demand absolute equality of all nationalities in the country and the unconditional protection of the rights of all national minorities” “We demand absolute equality of all nationalities in the country and the unconditional protection of the rights of all national minorities”. Lenin spoke of rights that included all aspects of culture, language and writing, in addition to political and economic rights.

Lenin  pointed out that the Party “should take care of the cultural and life characteristics of the nationalities” and “should convene special meetings of representatives of social democrats of the nationalities” and that “there should be representatives of the national minorities in the local, provincial and central Party organs, and special groups for literature, literature, publishing and agitation” and there should be representatives of the national minorities, and special groups should be set up for literature, art, publishing and agitation”. “Do your best to help each ethnic group to develop independently and freely and help them to publish and distribute more books and newspapers in their own language”.

Lenin also singled out the more controversial issue of the time regarding the use of the Russian language or not, and he explicitly opposed the mandatory use of the Russian language. Lenin recognised that the use of the Russian language had a progressive effect on many weak and backward peoples, but argued that forcing ethnic minorities to use the Russian language would create psychological resistance among them, deepen hostility, and create countless new frictions. “The economic is more important than the psychological factor,” Lenin said, and “Russia already has a capitalist economy, which is making the Russian language essential.” Allowing ethnic minorities to acquire the Russian language voluntarily, in accordance with their living and working conditions, makes it easier to promote mutual understanding and the formation of united ethnic relations. In order to achieve full national equality, Lenin also proposed “concessions” to the national minorities and the elimination of de facto inequalities among them.

Lenin stated: “The internationalism of the oppressor peoples or of the so-called ‘great’ peoples should be expressed not only in the observance of formal national equality, but also in the fact that the oppressor peoples, i.e., the great peoples, are to be placed in a position of inequality in order to compensate for the inequality that has in fact developed in their lives. “It is not only important but also extremely necessary to ensure that the maximum confidence of the alien is gained in the class struggle of the proletariat. What’s needed for that? Not only formal equality is needed for this purpose. For this reason it is necessary, at any rate, to offset the kind of distrust, the kind of suspicion, the kind of insult that the governments of the ‘great’ nations have inflicted on them in their previous history by their own attitudes or concessions towards the aliens.”

In the Ten Great Resolutions of the RCP in 1921, Lenin presented the elimination of de facto inequality between peoples as an urgent task of the RCP to the whole party.In addition, Lenin linked “equality of peoples” with “self-determination of peoples”, making it an ideological weapon of oppressed peoples against imperialist rule and national oppression.According to Lenin’s thinking, the realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination, which gives all peoples the right to secede from alien oppression and to establish independent States, is the highest political expression of national equality.In the age of capitalism, the only way in which the national question can be resolved is through the establishment of a democratic State system premised on the self-determination of peoples.

Fourthly, Lenin’s idea of national self-determination was an innovation in the Marxist theory of national liberation.

Self-determination of peoples was the slogan of the democratic revolution put forward by the bourgeoisie, and it was the basic proposition of nationalism. By standing for historical materialism and supporting the democratic revolution of the bourgeoisie, Marx and Engels necessarily also supported the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. In addressing the Polish question, they clearly stated that “through the realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination and the restoration of Poland on democratic and social bases”, “the inhabitants concerned should decide for themselves their own destiny”.

Lenin, in the light of the actual situation facing the Russian socialist revolution and the characteristics of the national and colonial problems of the imperialist era, and from the point of view of the needs of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in the world, made a complete exposition of the Marxist theory of self-determination of the nation, clarifying the meaning of “self-determination of the nation”, and directly linking the self-determination of the nation to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. He clarified the meaning of “national self-determination” and linked it directly to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.

Lenin pointed out that “By self-determination of nations is meant the separation of nations from the state of alien aggregates, the formation of independent nation-states.”He interpreted the right of peoples to self-determination as “the right of the oppressed peoples of the dependent countries and colonies to complete secession, and the right of each people to form an independent State”.

It can be seen that Lenin, like Marx and Engels, extended the scope of application of “self-determination of peoples” to “all peoples”, but this was not in terms of the qualifications of “peoples”, but only in terms of the “right” of the oppressed peoples to be free from national oppression and slavery. However, this was not in terms of the qualifications of “nations”, but only in terms of the “right” of oppressed peoples to free themselves from national oppression and slavery, which was regarded as the embodiment of the proletarian concept of national equality, in which all nationalities, regardless of their size, were equal.

Lenin’s theory of the right of peoples to self-determination is applied in two main contexts: one is the self-determination of the oppressed peoples of the world, i.e., the peoples of colonial and dependent countries, against imperialist oppression.

The other was the self-determination of peoples within the Tsarist Russian Empire.

Both seek to achieve the ultimate goal of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat throughout the world and represent the ultimate interests of the proletariat. On the question of the oppressed peoples of the world, Lenin pointed out “the basic, most essential and inevitable phenomenon of the age of imperialism: the division of peoples into oppressor and oppressed peoples”.

Lenin divided the countries of the imperialist era into three categories: the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States, the semi-colonial countries of eastern Europe and elsewhere, and thirdly all the colonies.

In the advanced capitalist countries “the national question has long since been solved, the national community has long since become obsolete, and objectively there is no longer a ‘task for the whole nation’. thus it is now only in these countries that the national community can be ‘blown up’ and the class community established”. However, throughout Eastern Europe, and indeed in all underdeveloped countries such as colonial and semi-colonial countries, “the peoples here are usually still oppressed, capitalist underdeveloped peoples.Among these peoples there is also objectively the task of the whole nation, the task of democracy, the task of overthrowing alien oppression”.

The governments and ruling classes of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria and Russia, among others, have for decades pursued a politics of colonial plunder, oppression of other peoples and suppression of the workers’ movement, evoking the politics of millions of people fighting for the survival of their nation and freedom from the oppression of the reactionary “big” countries. National struggles are particularly acute in Eastern Europe, where bourgeois democratic national movements have developed.

The national liberation movements of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples, who make up about 70 per cent of the world’s population, are also “either already strong or are developing and maturing”, a force that, since the beginning of the twentieth century, has continued to evolve into an independent and active revolutionary factor.”In the decisive battle of the future world revolution, the majority of the world’s population, originally campaigning for national liberation, will certainly oppose capitalism and imperialism.It may have played a much more revolutionary role than we expected.”

Thus, Lenin pointed out that “for Eastern Europe and Asia, in an age when the bourgeois democratic revolution has begun, when national movements are rising and intensifying, and when independent proletarian parties are arising, the task of these parties in national policy should be twofold: on the one hand, to recognise the right of all peoples to right to self-determination to defend national equality thoroughly, conscientiously and in good faith; on the other hand, it is in favour of the closest and indivisible alliance of the proletarians of the various nationalities of the country in the class struggle”.

Lenin thus combined the right of peoples to self-determination with the liberation movements of the proletariat and the colonial peoples against imperialism by uniting all oppressed peoples.

This idea has indeed fuelled the upsurge of national liberation movements worldwide and dealt a severe blow to imperialism.

At the same time, Lenin also regarded national self-determination as the central issue of the proletarian party’s leadership of the Russian Revolution in overthrowing tsarist rule and building a new socialist state.

By propagating the idea of the right of nations to self-determination, the Russian proletariat mobilised the overwhelming majority of the oppressed nations of Russia, combined the struggle of the nations against tsarist imperialism with the struggle of the Russian proletariat and peasantry against the bourgeoisie and landlords, and achieved the victory of the October Revolution.

After the victory of the October Revolution, Lenin declared in his Message to the Ukrainian People: “All peoples formerly oppressed by the tsarist government and the Great Russian bourgeoisie have the right to self-determination, right up to the point of separation of these peoples from Russia.

He stated that “in accordance with the principle of the right of every people to self-determination, Soviet Russia grants autonomy to the peoples within its borders and supports them in the establishment of local republics”.

Only the application of this principle will make it possible to establish fraternal relations based on mutual understanding and trust among the peoples of Soviet Russia.

Only such a policy can make the peoples of Russia strong and united into a strong family capable of struggling against the innumerable enemies that surround us”.

In summary, it can be seen that Lenin further enriched and perfected the Marxist theory of the nation in terms of the right of self-determination of the nation, the liberation movement of the national colonies, the equality and unity of the nationalities and the national program and policy of the proletarian political parties, and preliminarily argued for the position of the national question in the proletarian dictatorship and its development trend, and provided the scientific basis for the formulation of the proletarian national program and national policy.

Stalin’s outstanding contribution to the Marxist theory of the nation and Stalin’s serious mistakes

Stalin directly led the half-century-long practice of national work in the first socialist countries and, to a considerable extent, guided the national liberation movements of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples of the world, so, like Lenin, he also made an outstanding contribution to the Marxist theory of the nation in dealing with and solving the complex problems of nationalities at home and abroad. In such treatises as Marxism and the National Question, The National Question and Leninism, Report on the Current Tasks of the Party in Relation to the National Question, The National Question in the Construction of the Party and the State, and The October Revolution and the National Question, Stalin concentrated on the expression of his ideas on nationalities.

The article “Marxism and the National Question”, written between the end of 1912 and the beginning of 1913, was praised by Lenin as one of the leading articles in the Marxist theoretical literature at that time for its exposition of the principles of the national program of the Russian Party. It comprehensively expounds Marxist theory, program and policy on the national question, theoretically discusses the formation of the bourgeois nation and its characteristics, profoundly criticizes the program of bourgeois nationalism and its theoretical foundations, and specifies the basic principles for the solution of the national question in Russia”, and is regarded as an important milestone in the history of the development of Marxist-Leninist theory of the nation.

Before the 1930s, Stalin basically adhered to and developed Lenin’s ideas on the theoretical question of the law of development of the national question.

Stalin put forward the classical Marxist definition of the nation, scientifically predicted the future path of prosperity and integration of national economies in the socialist period, correctly explained the long-term nature of the national problem in the socialist period and the domestic and foreign causes of its existence, and emphasised that “the national problem must not be regarded as an independent, unchanging problem. The national question is only a part of the general problem of transforming the existing system, which is determined exclusively by the conditions of the social environment, by the nature of the State power and, in general, by the whole process of social development.”

On the basis of an in-depth and detailed discussion of the law of development of the national question, he “revealed the forms of existence, the trend of development, and the characteristics of the national question, and put forward the ways, conditions, and keys to the solution of the national question, as well as the basic tasks that the Communist Party should undertake in order to solve the national question”.

Firstly, Stalin developed a new understanding of the Marxist view on the law in respect the development of nations and ethnicities. 

Stalin, like other classic Marxist writers, regarded the nation as a historical category, stating clearly: “The nation, like any historical phenomenon, is governed by the law of change; it has its own history, its own beginning and end.”

“The nation is the historical category of the era of the rise of capitalism”, and “the process of the elimination of feudalism and the development of capitalism is at the same time the process of the formation of people into nations”. In response to the formation of nations during the period of capitalist ascendancy, Stalin defined the concept of a nation: “A nation is a stable community of people formed throughout history with a common language, a common territory, a common economic life, and common psychological qualities expressed in a common culture.“  This definition became the classic Marxist definition of the nation and is significant in the history of Marxist national thought.

In addition, Stalin divided the three periods of national development according to the historical characteristics of the emergence and development of the nation and explained the main national problems that existed in each period.

The first period was the period of the demise of feudalism and the triumph of capitalism in the West, and the beginning of the formation of the capitalist nation.

During this period, since the formation and development of the peoples of Western Europe coincided with their establishment of independent nation-states, these peoples are said to have taken the form of states.

These countries are more ethnically homogeneous and do not have large ethnic groups, and therefore there is less ethnic oppression within their countries.

In Eastern Europe, on the other hand, the process of nation formation and the demise of feudalistic divisions did not coincide in time with the establishment of a centralised state.

Prior to the development of capitalism, these countries established multi-ethnic centralised states in order to defend themselves against foreign invasions.

In these multi-ethnic countries, one of the more developed ethnic groups tends to dominate, while the rest of the underdeveloped ethnic groups are in a position of domination, thus creating ethnic oppression, which in turn gives rise to ethnic problems such as ethnic conflicts, ethnic movements and various ways of resolving ethnic problems.

The second period was the period of the emergence of Western imperialism, during which the national question had developed into a worldwide national-colonial question, the main manifestation of which was the struggle for national independence and national liberation of the vast masses of oppressed peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies under the colonial subjugation of imperialism.

The third period was the Soviet period, the period when capitalism was eliminated and national oppression was eradicated.

Under the socialist system, with the elimination of class exploitation and class oppression, the root causes of ethnic oppression no longer existed, and relations among ethnic groups were transformed from the antagonistic relations of the past to a new type of ethnic relations based on equality, solidarity and mutual assistance.

This has laid the foundation for the revival of the oppressed peoples of the past and the equal and free development of all nationalities, and provided favorable conditions for the resolution of the national question.

In discussing this issue, Stalin creatively put forward the scientific judgement that “the first period of socialism is a period of prosperous national development”.

According to him, the intermingling of nations can only be gradually achieved after the triumph of socialism throughout the world, because only then can “imperialism in all countries be eliminated, ambitions for the subjugation of foreign nations and the fear of the threat of national slavery be eliminated, national suspicion and national enmity be eliminated at all, and nations be united within the united system of world socialist economy, thus creating the practical conditions necessary for the gradual integration of all nations into a single whole”. and to unite them within a unified world socialist economic system, thus creating the practical conditions necessary for the gradual integration of all nations into a single whole”.

Stalin emphasized that “nationalities and national languages are characterized by extraordinary stability and great resistance to assimilation policies”, and that therefore the intermingling of nationalities could not be achieved by coercion.

Stalin demanded that the proletarian parties should follow the objective law, that there should be no haste in the question of national integration, and that “the cavalry-like attacks to ‘instantly communistise’ the backward masses of the people must be abandoned in favour of a cautious and deliberate policy of gradually introducing these masses into the general orbit of Soviet development “.

So when do nations die out? Stalin’s “The National Question and Leninism”, published in 1929, used the development and change of language as a basic clue to outline a broad picture of the three stages of national development and intermingling of nationalities: the first stage of the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat all over the world will be the stage of the development and prosperity of the previously oppressed nationalities and their languages; it will be the stage of the establishment of equal rights for all nationalities; it will be the stage of the elimination of mutual suspicion among the nationalities; and it will be the stage of the establishment and consolidation of international ties between the nationalities.

 In the second stage of the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat throughout the world, with the gradual formation of a unified world socialist economy to replace the world capitalist economy, something like a common language will begin to be formed for the sake of ease of communication and for the sake of cooperation in economic, cultural and political matters, and at this stage national languages and languages common to the peoples within the economic centres of the regions will exist in parallel. In the last stage of the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat throughout the world, when the world socialist economic system has been fully consolidated, when socialism has penetrated into the daily life of all peoples, and when all peoples have become convinced in practice of the superiority of the common language over the national language, national differences and national languages begin to die out and give way to the world language common to all people.

Secondly, the deepening of Stalin’s study of the national question.

Stalin’s deepening of the national question should be expressed, first of all, in his clear exposition of the correct Marxist attitude and scientific methodology for the study of the national question on the basis of his summary of the methodology of the classical Marxist study of the national question. Stalin made it clear: “The national question cannot be regarded as some separate, self-sustaining, unchanging problem. The national question is only part of the general problem of transforming the existing system, which is determined solely by the conditions of the social environment, the nature of the State power and, in general, by the whole process of social development.“

Moreover, different countries, because of their different national conditions and the different national problems they face, have “different prospects and methods of struggle, and different tasks at hand” taking the specific historical conditions as a starting point, and taking the dialectical formulation of the problem as the only correct method of formulating it, this is the key to solving the national problem”. Stalin’s materialist dialectical attitude of considering the national question as part of the general problems of society and stressing specific analyses of concrete problems is still relevant and instructive even today.

Confronted with the Soviet national question, Stalin focused on the fight against de facto inequality and against Great Russian chauvinism and local nationalism.

Stalin elaborated on the basic meaning of Lenin’s “de facto inequality between peoples”, the historical reasons for its emergence, and the importance and longevity of its task.

Stalin stated: “The essence of national inequality is that, as a result of historical development, we have inherited from the past a legacy in which one nation, the Great Russian nation, is politically and industrially more advanced than the others. Thus a de facto inequality arises.” “De facto inequality remains the source of all discontent and friction.”126 The historical source of de facto inequality is the policy of national oppression and exploitation pursued by the ruling class of the old society.

And after the victory of the socialist revolution, due to their cultural and economic backwardness, the working masses of these nationalities have not yet had the power to make full use of the rights they have acquired to change their backward status.

Therefore, in order to achieve real equality of nationalities, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic must “eliminate the de facto backwardness (economic, political, cultural) of certain nationalities inherited from the past, and make it possible for the backward nationalities to catch up with central Russia politically, culturally, and economically”, and to this end. “it is necessary to move from ‘equality of rights of nationalities’ to the adoption of methods of making nationalities de facto equal, to the development and implementation of the following practical measures:

(i) study of the economic situation, habits and culture of the backward nationalities and tribes.

(ii) Developing their culture.

(iii) To educate them politically.

(iv) To lead them gradually and painlessly to higher forms of economy.

(v) Establishment of economic cooperation between the labourers of backward and advanced nationalities”.

Stalin also proposed a number of specific measures to assist the development and progress of ethnic minorities: every effort was made to raise the cultural level of backward peoples, and schools and educational institutions were widely established.

(a) It is necessary to open a large number of training courses and schools in the border areas to train local instructors for all administrations.

(b) To develop and consolidate in them the system of the Soviet State, which is appropriate to their national character.

 (c) The establishment in their territory of courts, administrative, economic and political authorities composed of natives who speak their own language and who are familiar with the habits and mentality of the local population.

The development of newspapers, schools, theatres, recreational establishments and general cultural and educational institutions in their native languages.

On the question of nationalism, Stalin focused on the problems of Great Russian chauvinism and local nationalism, pointing out their substance, root causes, concrete manifestations, and dangers, respectively.

Stalin stated: “The essence of the Great Russian chauvinist tendency is the attempt to obliterate national differences in language, culture and habits of life.

Attempts to prepare for the abolition of national republics and national districts.

Attempts were made to undermine the principle of equal rights for nationalities and the Party’s policy on the nationalization of organs and the nationalization of the press, schools and other State and social organizations.

This tendency on the national question, especially because it is disguised in the mask of internationalism and in the name of Lenin, is a most refined and therefore dangerous form of Great Russian nationalism.” “The essence of the local nationalist tendencies is that they seek to stand alone and close themselves within the narrow confines of their own nation, to obliterate the class contradictions within their own nation, to defend themselves against Great Russian chauvinism by means of methods that are divorced from the general stream of socialist construction, and to disregard that which brings the working masses of all the nationalities of the USSR close together and unite them, and see only that which alienates them from each other.” see that which alienates them from each other. The danger of this tendency is that it fosters bourgeois nationalism, weakens the unity of the working people of all nationalities in the USSR and helps the interlopers.” “The roots of the two tendencies of nationalism are common. The root of this is the departure from Lenin’s internationalism.”

Of these, Great Russian chauvinism is a growing force, the most dangerous enemy, and the main danger is the danger of losing the confidence of the formerly oppressed peoples in the Russian proletarians, which, if defeated, would be the defeat of nine-tenths of the nationalism which has been preserved in the past in certain republics, and which is now developing.

Instead, anti-Russian local nationalism and chauvinism were merely “a reaction to Greater Russian nationalism, an answer to it, a defense”.

Stalin pointed out that local chauvinism was less serious than Greater Russian chauvinism, which accounted for three-quarters of the total system of national problems, but that it was of paramount importance for the peaceful development of local endeavours, local populations and the national republics themselves.

Both of these nationally prejudiced ideas have had some influence on communists and have caused serious harm.

From the above discussion we can see that “unlike Lenin who paid more attention to the real national question and combined it more with the revolutionary question, Stalin did more work on the basic construction of the Marxist theory of the nation. Stalin’s definition of the nation characterised by the ‘four commonalities’, his theories on national assimilation and national intermingling, and his ideas on the formation of the nation in the period of rising capitalism have not only become some of the representative points of Marxist theory of the nation, but have also been influencing the discussion of the question of the nation on a world scale.”

Thus, Stalin did much to enrich and develop the Marxist theory of national policy in his study of the practice of solving the national problems of the Soviet Union. Although Stalin made an important contribution to the development of Marxist national theory, unfortunately, from the mid- to late 1930s onwards, he began to gradually deviate from, and ultimately violated, the correct theoretical approach to nationalism and the scientific national policy measures that he had previously adhered to, and made serious mistakes in national policy and practice, which included the following: a long-lasting Russophobic sentiment.

The form of the structure of the State, which is called federalism, is in fact a unitary system.

Expanding the class struggle by expanding the national question, which is an internal contradiction among the people, to be treated as a class contradiction.  Individual arbitrariness and trampling on democracy and the rule of law. The most important reason for Stalin’s mistake was his failure to maintain a clear understanding of the complexity, importance and long-term nature of the national question.

“Just after Lenin’s death in January 1924, the Russian Communist Party (BSP), in its political report to the Thirteenth Congress held in May, considered itself to have basically solved the problem of the rights of the nationalities and their economic and cultural equality.”

 In 1936, in his Draft on the Constitution of the USSR, Stalin stated: “The main force creating national disputes, the exploiting class, no longer exists, and the exploitative system which fostered national mistrust and fuelled nationalist fervour no longer exists. Thus the establishment of genuine relations of brotherhood and co-operation between the peoples in a united system of the Union State”.”

By 1952, the political report of the 19th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union declared that the peoples of the USSR had been bound together on the basis of complete equality and friendship, and that the USSR “has become an example and model of true national equality and cooperation throughout the world”. These misjudgments made Stalin gradually depart from the principle of equality of nationalities, and in practice the neglect of national characteristics and the suppression of national demands became more and more prominent, and Stalin even pursued a policy of indulgence in Greater Russian nationalism, which led to dissatisfaction and resentment on the part of non-Russian nationalities, and to the intensification of ethnic conflicts within the USSR.

Stalin also violated the principles of Lenin’s thoughts in the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Not only did Stalin adopt an overly hasty attitude towards the mutual relations of the independent Soviet republics with the Russian Soviet Federative Republic, but Stalin also showed a clear tendency towards chauvinism in dealing with the national question. Especially after the 1930s, the tendency towards internal Great Russianism and external chauvinism became more pronounced. “Not only did this create a dualistic structure of conflict between nation-states of various ethnic groups without a ‘state’ and the Union without a ‘nation’, but it also led to the return of the Soviet Union to the Tsarist empire in the struggle against nationalism, resulting in the separation of the national identity from the separation of national identity.”

The autonomy of the republics in their economic and social development and the rights granted by the Union Constitution under the system of highly centralized leadership was severely curtailed, and the demands of the republics for their autonomy not only went unheeded, but were often harshly purged during the purges, which were regarded as endemic nationalism. During the Second World War the USSR even wrongly introduced the methods of class struggle in wartime into the problem of nationalities, equated conflicts between nationalities with class struggle, and forced “unreliable” nationalities into “exile” in Siberia on the grounds of “betrayal of the motherland and collaboration with German fascism”. “exile” to Siberia. Whereas Stalin’s mistakes in ethnic policy after the Second World War were reflected, on the one hand, in the extreme punitive measures taken against some ethnic groups, such as the cleansing and persecution of the Jews. On the other hand, the dominant role of the Russian nation in the USSR was overemphasized, with the Russian nation being described as “the best of all the nationalities that made up the USSR”, “the Russian people have always been called ‘the leading people'”, “the first among equals”, “the big brother nation”, etc. ‘”, “the first among equals”, “the big brother nation” and so on.