Marxism and the National Question

What is a nation?

　　A nation is first and foremost a community, a community of certainty made up of people.

　　This community is not racial or tribal. The present-day Italian nation is made up of Romans, Germans, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, and so on. The French nation consisted of Gauls, Romans, Britons, Germans, and so on. The same is true of the English, German, etc., all of which are made up of people of different races and tribes.

　　In short, nations are not a community of races, nor a community of tribes, but a community of people formed in history.

　　On the other hand, the Cyrus Empire or Alexander Empire, although historically formed and composed of different tribes and races, cannot undoubtedly be called a nation. This is not a nation, but a mixture of consensual, internally unconnected groups, divided by the victory or defeat of a conqueror.

　　In short, nations are not accidental, short-lived mixtures, but stable communities of people.

　　However, not every stable community is a nation. Austria and Russia are also stable communities, but neither of them calls them nations. What is the difference between a community of nations and a community of nations? One of the differences is that the community of nations must have a common language, but the state does not have to have a common language. The Czech nation in Austria and the Polish nation in Russia cannot be without the common language of each of these peoples, and the fact that there are many languages within Russia and Austria does not hinder the integrity of these two countries. Of course, this refers to the spoken language of the people, not the literary language of the bureaucracy.

　　In short, a common language is one of the characteristics of a nation.

　　Of course, it does not mean that different peoples speak different languages at all times and in all places, nor does it mean that people who speak the same language must be a nation. Every ethnic group has a common language, but different peoples don't have to have different languages! No one nation speaks a different language at the same time, but that doesn't mean that two peoples can't speak the same language! The English and The North Americans speak the same language, but they are not a people after all. The same goes for Norwegians and Danes, English and Irish.

　　But what is the truth that the English and North American Likians, though they share a common language, are not a people? First of all, because they don't live together, they live in different regions. Only through long-term and continuous exchanges, through the common life of people from generation to generation, can a nation be formed. And long-term cohabitation must have a common region. Once upon a time, the English and Americans lived in one territory, that is, in England, so it was a people at that time. Later, some Of the English migrated from England to new territories and to the Americas, and gradually formed new peoples in this new region, namely the North American Lijian peoples. Because there are different regions, different peoples are formed as a result.

　　In short, the common region is one of the characteristics of the nation.

　　But that's not enough. A common territory alone cannot form a nation. In order to form a nation, in addition to this, there are internal economic ties which unite the various parts of the nation into a whole. There is no such connection between the British and the North American Liknito, so they are two different peoples. But if the various parts of the North American Lijian are not united into an economic whole by virtue of their division of labor, developed transportation, and so on, then the North American Liknis themselves are not worthy of being called peoples.

　　Take the Georgians, for example. Pre-Reform Period (Note: Refers to the period before the peasant reform in Georgia that abolished serfdom. The timing of the abolition of serfdom varies throughout Georgia: Tivolis Province in 1864, Emmeletiia and Guria in 1865, Mingleria and Richehum counties in 1866, Abkhazia in 1870, and Svannedia in 1871. Although the Georgians lived in a common territory and spoke the same language, they were not strictly speaking a people at that time, because they were divided into many isolated principalities, failed to live a common economic life, fought each other for a long time, destroyed each other, and often killed each other under the guise of the hands of the Persians and Turks. Although sometimes a lucky emperor reluctantly unified the principalities, this fleeting and accidental unification, at best superficial administrative unification, was soon torn apart by the indifference of the princes and peasants. And in the context of the fragmentation of the Georgian economy, it is impossible not to do so ... Georgia did not appear as a nation until the second half of the nineteenth century, when the collapse of serfdom and the development of domestic economic life, the development of communication and the emergence of capitalism led to the division of labour between the various regions of Georgia, completely breaking the economic isolation of the principalities and uniting them into a whole.

　　The same is true of all other nations that have passed through the stage of feudalism and developed capitalism.

　　In short, common economic life and economic ties are one of the characteristics of the nation.

But that's not enough. In addition to all that has been said above, attention must also be paid to the characteristics of the spiritual outlook of people who are united into one nation. The differences between peoples lie not only in their living conditions, but also in their different spiritual outlooks in terms of their cultural characteristics. English, North American Lijian and Ireland, though speaking the same language, are ultimately three different peoples, and the special psychological qualities they have developed over the generations due to their different living conditions have played a considerable role in this regard.

　　Of course, the psychological quality itself, or the "national character" itself, as is called, is an elusive thing to the beholder, but since it is expressed in the characteristics of a nation's common culture, it is something that can be elusive and should not be ignored.

　　Needless to say, the "national character" is not immutable, but changes with the living conditions, but since it exists in every certain period of time, it must bear its own brand on the national face.

　　In short, the common psychological quality expressed in the common culture is one of the characteristics of the nation.

　　In this way we have spoken of all the characteristics of the nation.

　　A nation is a stable community of common language, common geography, common economic life, and common psychological qualities that people have formed in history.

　　At the same time, it goes without saying that the nation, like any historical phenomenon, is governed by the law of change, has its own history, has its own beginning and end.

　　It is important to stress that it is not sufficient to take any of these characteristics as a separate definition of a nation. Moreover, as long as one of these characteristics is missing, a nation cannot become a nation.

　　Suppose that there are people who share a common "national character", but who are economically isolated from each other, live in different regions, speak different languages, and so on, then it cannot be said that they are a people. This was the case, for example, of the Russian, Galician, American, Georgian and Caucasian Jews, who, in our view, were not a unified people.

　　Suppose there are people who share a common territory and a common economic life, but who do not share a common language and a common "national character," then they are still not a people. This was the case, for example, of the Germans and Latvians in the Baltic Coastal Territory.

　　Finally, Norwegians and Danes speak the same language, but because of the lack of other characteristics, they are not a people.

　　It is a nation only if all the characteristics are present.

In the period of capitalist rise, the national struggle was a struggle between the bourgeoisie. Sometimes the bourgeoisie can also draw the proletariat into the national movement, when the national struggle takes on the surface a "national" character, but this is only on the surface. In essence this struggle has always been bourgeois, mainly in favour of and suitable for the bourgeoisie.

　　But this must not in any way mean that the proletariat should not oppose the policy of national oppression.

　　Restrictions on freedom of movement, deprivation of the right to vote, restrictions on the use of language, reduction of schools and other repressive policies have caused workers no less, if not more, than the bourgeoisie. This situation can only hinder the free development of the spiritual power of the proletariat within the oppressed nations. When Tatar or Jewish workers were forbidden to speak in their own languages for meetings and lectures, and their schools were closed, it was natural that there was no talk of the full development of their spiritual faculties.

　　However, the repressive policy of nationalism is also dangerous to the cause of the proletariat. It shifts the attention of the broad strata from the question of society and the question of class struggle to the question of nationality, to the "common" question of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This will lay a favourable basis for the fraudulent propaganda of the so-called "coordination of interests", for the obliterating of the class interests of the proletariat, for the mental bondage of the workers, and thus seriously hinder the cause of unity of the workers of all nationalities. If a large part of the Polish workers are still bound by the spirit of the bourgeois nationalists, if they are still sidelined by the international workers' movement, this is mainly because the historical anti-Polish policy of the "people in power" has laid the foundation for this bondage and has made it more difficult for the workers to break free from it.

　　But high-pressure policies do not limit themselves. It often shifts from the "system" of oppression to the "system" of provoking the killing of peoples, to the "system" of slaughter and devastation. Of course, the latter is not possible at any time, anywhere, but where it is possible, i.e., in the absence of a minimum of freedom, it tends to reach appalling proportions, putting the cause of workers' solidarity in danger of drowning in blood and tears. There have been many examples in the Caucasus and southern Russia. "Divide and rule" ,—— which is the purpose of the provocative policy. If such a policy succeeds, it will bring great calamity to the proletariat and greatly hinder the cause of unity of the workers of all nationalities in the country.

　　But what the workers are concerned with is the complete integration of all their comrades into a unified cross-national army, the rapid and complete emancipation of them from the spiritual fetters of the bourgeoisie, and the full and free development of the spiritual strength of their brothers of any nation.

　　The workers, therefore, oppose now and will in the future oppose all kinds of national oppressive policies, from the most ingenious to the most brutal, and equally against all kinds of provocative policies.

　　Therefore, the Social Democratic Parties of various countries advocate the right of peoples to self-determination.

　　The right to self-determination is that only the nation itself has the right to determine its own destiny, and no one has the right to intervene violently in the life of the nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to destroy its customs and habits, to limit its language and to reduce its rights.