Marxism And The National Question

by Joseph Stalin

A reprint of Stalin's work on the national question oroginally published in 1913.this booklet describes the nation in relation to class contradiction and material conditions. It also refutes the arguments of several authors of the time.

Genres: Politics, Theory, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History, Russia, Soviet Union

80 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1912

About the author

Joseph Stalin, originally Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, was a Soviet revolutionary, politician and statesman who became the leader of the Soviet Union from 1924 until his death in 1953. He held power as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1922–1952) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union (1941–1953).

Initially governing the country as part of a collective leadership, he consolidated power to become an informal dictator by the 1930s. Ideologically adhering to the Leninist interpretation of Marxism, he formalised these ideas as Marxism–Leninism, while his own policies are called Stalinism.

Reviews

[Adrian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best Marxist theory books I’ve ever read. Stalin explains the national question so well and writes this polemic against his then political opponents so well that I was able to easily understand the issues of the time and the national question. I take away from this the ability to understand what a nation is, as well as what discontents minorities, as well as a plethora of other information, such as how to solve the national question. This book is packed full of information. A great read everyone should embark on

[Tiarnán · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the many discursive quirks of Stalinism was the dilemma it found itself in - as state-endorsed cult of personality of a personality possessed of such little, well, personality - to invent out of whole cloth a theoretical grandeur and pedigree for its namesake, a rather piddling middle-ranking activist figure amongst the intellectual giants of Bolshevism and wider Russian and European Social Democracy during its prewar pomp: Lenin (obviously), Kautsky, Luxemburg, Plekhanov, Trotsky (yes, it's true), Bukharin, Martov; even the conciliators amongst the Austro-Marxists and the arch-revisionist Bernstein himself were possessed of a much firmer claim to Marxist prominence, rigour, and originality than The Big Man himself.

Thus, this short essay, in itself unobjectionable, but in all practicality an extremely specific and local intervention into the prewar factional party debates of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) as it grappled with the question of "what was to be done" with linguistic minorities within the massive and diverse Russian Empire at its prewar territorial apogee, was plucked from obscurity, retitled, and promoted as *the* definitive Marxist and "Leninist" text on nationalism and "the national question" via the Stalinised Cominform of the 30s onwards.

Bizarrely, this means that probably millions of committed official (and unofficial) Communists around the globe, trying to situate their own national liberation struggles and cultural dilemmas in a Marxist context, were introduced to abstruse Second International and intra-Russian social democratic factional debates around constitutional and organisational niceties.

These can be summarised in brief: the Austrians favour a form of "cultural autonomy" for juridically constituted national groups within a single integral state, the centrist Bund and "Liquidator" factions of the RSDLP agree; Stalin (writing from Vienna in fact) disagrees, for a variety of good and not-so-good reasons which he outlines cogently (if at times mechanically). A text worth reading then, but hardly a textbook.

[Verba Non Res · Rating 2 out of 5]

Este texto de 1913 es considerado el mayor, o el único, aporte de Iósif Stalin al pensamiento teórico marxista. Según se dice, el propio Lenin le dio el visto bueno en el momento de su publicación (aunque, al revés de lo que se cree, no mostró ninguna clase de entusiasmo, ni siquiera de signo negativo, por sus contenidos). Trotsky, por su parte, diría que el texto no había sido escrito por Stalin, sino por algunos de sus camaradas del período vienés, lo que da a entender que veía en el trabajo un valor teórico que no quería atribuirle a su archienemigo.



¿De qué se trata el texto? En algún momento lo supe, o sea cuando lo leí, y casi enseguida me olvidé. Todos sabemos, y creo que Stalin lo supo mejor que nadie, que estos textos se escriben para la gilada, y que la política se hace por caminos muy distintos, soterrados, mientras los exégetas leen la letra chica de la teoría. Fue un dictador siniestro, por supuesto; la cuestión es cómo llegó a serlo. Lenin fue a la vez un teórico y un político sagaz; parece que sus dos principales discípulos heredaron, cada uno, una de esas facetas. A Stalin, probablemente le tocó elegir primero. Trotsky creía que ganar batallas políticas era ser el más capo, escribir y pensar mejor que los demás, y refutarlos con elegancia. Mientras él se dedicaba a eso, Stalin aceptó un puestito en el partido, uno que nadie quería, y construyó desde ahí la recursiva nomenklatura, la terrible maquinaria del estado soviético.

[Dylan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every nation has the right to self-determination, and the socialist party must protect that; however, the socialist party must also agitate the nations and oppose cultural-national autonomy, nationalism, and separatist movements within a nation, for that destroys the proletarian unity and movement. Cultural-national autonomy creates nationalism and separatism and is a tool of the bourgeoise to unite people based on national identity, distracting from class differences. Under democracy, all nations are guaranteed full rights (both cultural and political) and thus there is no need for national separatism or cultural-national autonomy. Regional autonomy is the functional solution to national autonomy; international solidarity of the workers is the ultimate solution to the national question.

[celestine · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very solid and straightforward clarification of the national question as it relates to socialism. It is a specific retort to decisions on the national question made by a couple social democratic parties around the time, and a series of articles at that, and so is a little too specific to be a really great work.

[Abnoos · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was a great pleasure reading this book during the quarantine

[Patrick Gendron · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stalin really does a great job of answering “The National Question” that is so important not only for understanding the history of the Soviet Union and their ability to understand the Right to Self Determination that they provided to nations in post-Tsarist Russia but also to this moment we are in now where many nations are still fighting for their rights and freedoms from national oppression.

Stalin first explains what the definition of a nation is because this is the true starting point for the question. The definition he provides is: A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

He reminds us that none of the above characteristics taken separately is sufficient to define a nation.

He also warns of the dangers of not providing nations with full self-determination and only offering cultural-national autonomy. He shows how this leads to extreme nationalism and separatism. How it breaks workers away from their class interests and instead focuses them on bourgeois nationalism that is against their interests.

We can see how China made the mistake of not allowing Tibet to have self-determination and instead opted for regional autonomy and how that allowed for the flood of Han Chinese into the area and the destruction of the Tibetan culture and national character. On the contrary, Mongolia was supported by the Soviet Union with full self-determination and therefore enjoys much more freedom and national rights.

Stalin shows that allowing self-determination creates an opportunity for a united working class instead of the separatism of bourgeois nationalism that only benefits the capitalist class. He shows how internationalism and unity create more peaceful and prosperous regions as exemplified by the Soviet Union’s recognition of Finland, Ukraine, Georgia and other nations as having the right to self-determination.

Once again, Stalin and Marx prove that only through unity and internationalism can real freedom and self-determination be attained.

This is a short and easy read for anyone who is interested how we should look at the rights of nations and how we should support their journey to self-determination.

[Big Chungus · Rating 4 out of 5]

The ACP hates to hear this one coming…

[Émilie · Rating 1 out of 5]

for a communist, stalin took all the bullshit he could find for himself and put it in these essays

did not finish this, it was pure intellectual torture (but not in a good philosophical way)

[Nimaël 南泰阳 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Couldn't help but find myself laughing at the hypocrisy of Stalin considering his actions later in life. Like much of Mao—it seems—some of Stalin's early work follows a generally more genuinely communist line, before his hilarious and blatant betrayal.

The writing is a bit of a snooze-fest, but what is contained within it, does not appear to be wrong. At least at a surface level & first time read.

[Voyager · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not without reason was Stalin, himself coming from a nation oppressed under the tsar, considered by the peoples of the world “the Father of Nations”, for it was he, armed with the Marxist method of scientific analysis and Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, that outlined the fundamental principles of the national question, paving the way for real national liberation. Toward this end, Stalin contributed an immense amount of writings to the treasury of Marxism on the national question, most of which (with the exception of a couple notable later works) are compiled in this volume.

In his work Marxism and the National Question which opens this volume and constitutes the seminal Marxist-Leninist work on the topic, Stalin, in the first place, gives the classic Leninist definition of a nation as “a historically evolved, stable community of language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a community of culture” (p. 8). Even today we find this definition extremely important when, for example, zionism and the American bourgeois press run wild with all sorts of concoctions to deny the existence of the Palestinian, Black Belt, and other nationalities. Stalin’s definition here smashes these legends and it is from this definition that the Leninist-Stalinist solution of the national question, i.e. the right of all nations to self-determination, follows.

The fundamental demand is for the right of nations to self-determination on this topic, and throughout this work a striking blow is dealt to the assertions — often presented in different ways but always the same in their essential content — of Kautsky, the Bundists, etc. which are widely repeated today by social-democrats, anarchists, and the like to the effect that self-determination is unnecessary (or even harmful!), and that all we need instead is “cultural unions”. Defending the principle of the Bolshevik Party for the right of nations to self-determination, Stalin proves that the proposals of Kautsky, the Bund, Austro-Marxists, etc. cannot but lead to a strengthening of the positions of imperialism and exacerbation of national contradictions within multi-national states like Austria-Hungary.

In his defence of national self-determination, Stalin gives to the Communists of imperialised nations like Ireland and Palestine a vital weapon. Proceeding from Lenin’s concrete analysis of imperialism, Stalin explains how the working people of imperialised nations suffer a double-slavery, slavery from the national bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie of their imperialist masters. Naturally, final liberation from this yoke can come only in socialism, but, particularly in his talks with Communists from outside the Soviet Union contained here (and particularly with respect to China, contributions sadly ignored by the bourgeois-democrat Mao), Stalin demonstrates how the positions of the national bourgeoisie ought to be judged in relation to the bourgeoisie of the imperialist masters and how contradictions, as took hold in Egypt and Afghanistan in the past, may be utilised to weaken imperialism and strengthen the revolutionary movement in oppressed countries, while also showing that dogmatically tailing behind every national movement would be erroneous as later became the case in China. Irish revolutionaries will no doubt remember that it was the national bourgeoisie who always deserted the revolution to the side of British imperialism at the final moment, costing the Irish revolutionaries greatly in their history. Among oppressed nations, Stalin has given the key national liberation, writing “the main essence of the Bolshevik approach to the national question is that the Bolsheviks always examined the national question in inseparable connection with the revolutionary perspective” (p. 200), proving in the course of his writings that one cannot expect national liberation as a gift and that it must be actively seized through the course of revolutionary struggle and, owing to the inevitable capitulation of the national bourgeoisie to the imperialists, that this struggle today must be inseparably linked up with the struggle for socialism, even if the establishment of a socialist republic need not necessarily follow independence. In a word, Stalin has totally refuted the tired weapon of reformism and national liberalism often employed by imperialist powers to keep their subjects servile.

What’s more, having served for some time as People’s Commissar for Nationalities and being one of the foremost personalities in carrying out the Leninist cultural revolution in the Soviet Union, Stalin gives an invaluable contribution to understanding the role of national culture. Lenin rightly noted that under capitalism, the demand of national culture could not but strengthen the bourgeoisie and bourgeois nationalism, a poison that fuels class collaboration and social-chauvinism, paving the way for new predatory wars. However, taken into hand by the Communist Party under the dictatorship of the proletariat, has happened in the Soviet Union, national culture of a progressive character flourishes, it translates into socialist patriotism (quite different, as seen in this book, from the “socialist patriotism” often promoted by political degenerates like the ACP in America today) and becomes a weapon of resistance against capitalist intervention and means of enriching the lives of the working class. Pointing to the experience of nations that had been the most backward in the tsarist prisonhouse of nations like Turkestan, Uzbekistan, and Buryatia, Stalin demonstrates how under socialism, and only under socialism for national culture is taken into hand by the only living, growing class (the proletariat), a real renaissance of culture in the modern day is possible, a rebirth and genesis for nations that the bourgeoisie had already declared dead long ago.

We now live in the period of “the blackest reaction” of which Stalin forewarned in 1926. Today the world is once again made up entirely of oppressed and imperialist nations, retaining the vital importance of Stalin’s writings on the national and colonial question, writings which led to the victory of the Leninist solution of the national question in the Soviet Union. The division of the world into imperialist and imperialised nations makes the careful study of this book an absolute necessity for Communists of all countries. For Communists of imperialist countries, it demonstrates the importance of fighting for national liberation, of overcoming great-nation chauvinism, and forms a guide to linking the revolutionary struggle at home with the struggle for national liberation in the colonies, which Lenin time and again stressed the importance of. And for those of the imperialised countries, Stalin’s writings show the way to national liberation.

For nations like Ireland, where defeat has followed every revolutionary upsurge so far, where the bourgeoisie, frightened by Jacobinism, always deserted to the camp of the British invader, where we have lost our language and so much of our cultural identity, Stalin’s works truly constitute a lodestar. In them is found an explanation of our earlier defeats, righteous though the cause of Tone and Emmet were, and in place of outdated and now impotent methods of national struggle, Stalin gives us a new, sharp weapon — Bolshevism. The fictions of the bourgeoisie, supported by the Hitler-inspired ministers in the EU, are shattered. In the example of nationalities like the Uzbeks and Buryats we are shown that Gaeilge, the culture of the Irish people, are not dead, we are shown how they, along with the numerous languages and cultures of countless other nations, can be saved and reborn in socialism. And Stalin, the history of the Bolshevik Party of Lenin and Stalin, has shown us the way to socialism. The importance of Stalin’s writings on the national and colonial question for us cannot be stressed enough!

[Leonardo]

De acuerdo con Stalin, las naciones son inmediatamente revolucionarias, y revolución significa modernización: el nacionalismo es una etapa ineludible del desarrollo. En la interpretación de Stalin, sin embargo, como el nacionalismo se vuelve socialismo, el socialismo se vuelve Rusia, e Iván el Terrible debe yacer en la tumba junto a Lenin. La Internacional Comunista se transformó en una asamblea de las “quintas columnas” de los intereses nacionales rusos. La noción de revolución comunista–el espectro deterritorializador que recorrió Europa y el mundo, y que desde la Comuna de París hasta 1917 en San Petersburgo y hasta la Larga Marcha de Mao pretendió agrupar a desertores, partisanos internacionalistas, obreros huelguistas e intelectuales cosmopolitas–se transformó finalmente en un régimen reterritorializante de soberanía nacional. Es una trágica ironía que el socialismo nacionalista en Europa viniera a tomar la forma del nacional-socialismo. Y esto no se debe a que “los extremos se unen”, como gustan pensar algunos liberales, sino a que la máquina abstracta de la soberanía nacional está en el corazón de ambos.

Imperio Pág.89

[Rob M · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is widely considered to be Stalin's main contribution to the canon of Marxist theoretical literature, so important reading from a historical perspective. The opening sections on how a nation can be conceived of and defined are coherent and illuminating even today.

Like many historical political tracts, much space is taken up with refutations of contemporary theorists which which will be so-much-arcana to the modern reader, although the grappling with the demands of the Bund for national cultural autonomy is an interesting precursor to later positions that would be adopted by the communist movement in relation to zionism.

[Ikhaled · Rating 4 out of 5]

ما يميّز ستالين فعلاً هو قدرته على التلخيص واقتباس ما يؤيد نظريته من أقوال ماركس وإنجلز بسلاسة وانسيابية مذهلة .. على عكس لينين الذي يورد أفكار غيره المخالفة ثم ينقضها باستطرادات طويلة .. في هذه المطوية - إن صحت التسمية- يتحدث ستالين عن قضايا الوطنية والقومية ونشأتها وكيفية التعامل معها .. أهم مافي هذه السطور ( تعريف ستالين للأمة و حديثه عن هل يجب أن تكون الثورة برولتارية كي ندعمها ؟ وماالذي يجب علينا فعله وما موقفنا من ثورة عرابي البورجوازية في مصر أنموذجاً )

[El · Rating 5 out of 5]

بسلاسة تامة ، يعرض ستالين وجهة النظر الماركسية بخصوص مسألة القوميات . ويضع تعريفا علميا للأمة مبينا محدداتها . الكتاب احدي صفعات ستالين المميتة لكل من حاول التقليل من امكانياته النظرية . ستالين لم يكتب كثيرا ، لكنه حين كتب وفي أي موضع أظهر عقلا ماركسيا ثوريا فذا . يعد هذا الكتاب أساسا متينا للماركسيين في تناولهم لمسألة القوميات . وهو مهم جدا للماركسيين العرب في تناولهم لدعاوي القومية العربية ، وبالأخص للماركسيين المصريين في لتفنيد وجهات نظر تقول بأن مصر جزء من قومية عربية .

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 5 out of 5]

El marxismo no es dogma ni recetario: sigue en constante construcción y se adecúa, tras un intensivo análisis dialéctico y materialista, así como praxis, al contexto histórico y geográfico particular.

Stalin, además de su brillante y sencillo análisis sobre la lingüística, continúa la tradición marxista-leninista proponiendo teoría y práctica única, enriquecedora y original.

[Kizza · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting read that details party divisions at the tine and their approaches to the national question. Stalin offers a response to other parties approaches drawing on historical examples and asvocates an internationalist not nationalist approach.

[Michael E Motto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting insight. Not quite how he ultimately treated the National Question when he became dictator.

[الوصيف خالد · Rating 4 out of 5]

التقييم يخص حجم التناول ضمن كراس صغير. والمسألة التي يطرحها لا زالت حالة رغم مرور قرن وستة أعوام، خاصة بمنطقتنا التعيسة بالطوائف والوحي المتعدد!

[Caris · Rating 4 out of 5]

“A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup, manifested in a common culture… it is only when all these characteristics are present together that we have a nation.”

Surprisingly lucent and meticulous, Stalin wrote this work before the Revolution at the encouragement of Lenin. It represents a fascinating glimpse at what became the origins of his tenure as People’s Commissar for Nationalities before rising in the USSR’s government.

Still, this work poses so many questions about how the figure of Stalin as General Secretary and Chairman (and according to many, as dictator) could have come about. So many of the later Stalin’s nationalistic speech and actions are difficult to reconcile with the nuanced and dialectical theory of the younger man who sought pan-national and ethnic solidarity, regional governance, and self-expression. Some call Stalin’s divergences opportunistic, some call them dialectical and pragmatic; in any case, they were ruthless and influenced the global geopolitical climate that exists today. This is a work worth reading, especially if you’re looking to break through the anti-communist propaganda that we’ve been steeped in for nearly a century and form your own ideas about Stalin’s thought.

[Ari Partrich · Rating 4 out of 5]

Concise and simple without being bogged down in being too simple. Stalin puts together a fantastic overview of the materialist perspective of nationalism and not a word feels wasted. It’s very satisfying in that sense albeit a little dry? But that’s not really relevant criticism when you look into the history of the work and exactly why it was made. Either way, this is some top-tier Marxist analysis with obvious everlasting relevance... where “a-ha” moments are instead “of course” moments. You read it and, if previously uninitiated to this perspective, your mind has instantly been rewired.

Stalin does, however, note that social-democracy will be a structure that regulates self-determination… well how do we regulate it in lieu of widespread socialism? This is a very minimal critique of an otherwise holistic work (and frankly he somewhat addresses this in reference to American and Austrian democracy which aims to prevent the tyranny of a nation, but with hindsight such a perspective is slightly dubious ie tyranny of the majority Christian nation in America). Even more dubious around that one line about how German democracy doesn’t take the form of Pogroms (shivers down my spine reading that as a Jew). Great stuff though, particularly his groundwork, the foundation he builds in this work such as the notion that nationalism is a conception of the bourgeoisie and serves only the bourgeoisie. This work is incredibly necessary nowadays, particularly for all the radical Jews of the world shoutout to us.

[Parker · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great examination of the inadequacies of social democratic theory in relation to the rights of nations. Stalin teaches the correct definition of the concept "Right of Nations to Self-Determination" and criticizes the incomplete and class-collaborative "Right of Nations to National Cultural Autonomy," a program policy which leads to divisions among the proletariat along the basis of nationalistic segregation. Included also is a better definition of the idea of the nation itself and how socialists must interact with and organize among nations and their cultural practices to agitate for the removal of reactionary elements and practices.

Should note as well that when Stalin refers to "Russian Social Democracy" that he is agitating for, it is not the modern usage of the term. The Bundists that he criticizes in the text would more fit that designation. Stalin is expounding actual communist theory during a time when the communist party was illegal and so they had to agitate within the legal Russian Social Democratic Party.

[Nacho · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me fascina la claridad y sencillez con la que escribe Stalin.

Sin embargo, algunos conceptos que utiliza no parece que estén suficientemente bien definidos:
Debatiendo sobre la "comunidad económica" de una nación, basándonos en los mismos argumentos del libro, podemos llegar a conclusiones opuestas. Por ejemplo: ¿Cataluña cumple con el requisito de formar una "comunidad económica"para ser considerada nación? Ya que tienen una burguesía diferenciada y organizada en su propio partido político nacional, el PDeCAT, así como cierta autonomía en el manejo de sus presupuestos, yo diría que claramente sí; sin embargo hay compañeras afirman que ni de coña.

Aun así, una lectura muy esclarecedora que aborda sin miedo un tema bien complejo. Escrito hace más de 100 años y sigue de plena actualidad, aunque los ejemplos que utiliza nos queden un poco lejos.

[Marcos Montero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Libro de una actualidad enorme, ofrece una definición de nación concreta excepto en el cuarto punto de espíritu nacional que tan solo esboza, a mi parecer habría que purgar a ese concepto de sus connotaciones más metafísicas para hacerlo realmente potente.

Explica muy bien la forma en la que un marxista debe de alinearse frente a los nacionalismos, sus políticas e ideas, haciendo ver la imposibilidad de migrar ideas de un pais y tiempo a otro distinto.

Lo peor del libro es la asunción sin prácticamente desarrollo del derecho de autodeterminación, me parece una cuestión de suma importancia, supongo que hablará de ello en otros textos, pero la reseña es sobre este. De todas formas si alguien me orientase en este sentido me sería de gran utilidad.

[dormarch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great if you're looking to understand what a "Nation" is in respects to socialism and dialectical materialism, however there isn't any consideration for what is lost when a territory of multiple peoples becomes a nation of a people of a single nationality, and what the implications of that might be on those regional community identities - something I think should be kept in mind when reading this and should be asked and considered by the reader.

[Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely a must-read. Most of this work is actually spent criticizing and pointing out the mistakes committed by other socialists (especially the bundists) when tackling the national question at their time, which may not seem immediately relevant to today's situation but can be quite helpful in discerning the essence of what they got wrong and how they have committed fundamental errors which some of those on the left still commit to this day.

[Bernardo Zilli · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vamos lá, o principal é não se prender na ortodoxia besta, natural do tempo em que foi escrito (1913). Apesar de tentar romper com paradigmas de Otto Bauer, Stalin não se da conta da totalidade do processo histórico que o marxismo tem como princípio: o movimento não voluntário das questões totalizantes da sociedade, ou seja, não existe o "ser e estar" por querer, mas porque se é.

Sei lá, durma com essa. Ok

[Khazziro · Rating 5 out of 5]

IMO this is the best Stalin book I’ve read so far.

Nationalism is not the solution, nationalism is the tool of the rich to divide us, the proletarian army should be international and Stalin gives a great answer to the national answer, my book was short, around 64 pages and was read in a few hours, not such a hard read.

[Derek · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating, if dry, look into the rapidly evolving world of the early twentieth century. The discussion of defining what nationality is, and the problematic pairing of nationalism with socialism are explored exhaustively.

[London Storm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stalin never missed and that's more than apparent in these writings, which every decent socialist should have read or should be reading. Fifteen years after my first read, Marxism and the National and Colonial Question remains as relevant and, quite honestly, has only grown in relevancy.