What do you think?
Rate this book
Marxism and the National and Colonial Question
Originally published 1934, a collection of articles and speeches on the nationalities question in the Soviet Union. Before the 1917 revolution, Stalin was the Communist Party's expert on the "nationalities problem"; after the revolution he became Commissar for the Nationalities in the early years of the Soviet Union. The nationalities problem was a debate over which national groups of the old Russian Empire were to remain a part of the new Soviet Union and which should form independent nations. The material in this book covers Finland, Georgia, Poland, and Ukraine; the national question in Yugoslavia; and many related topics.
316 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1912
26 people are currently reading
1446 people want to read
About the author
Joseph Stalin
585 books438 followersJoseph 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.
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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
May 28, 2020
It was a great pleasure reading this book during the quarantine
March 12, 2024
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.
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.
January 30, 2026
stalin so wise
June 8, 2024
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)
did not finish this, it was pure intellectual torture (but not in a good philosophical way)
July 18, 2025
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.
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.
December 13, 2025
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!
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!
to-keep-reference
October 18, 2016De 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
Imperio Pág.89
September 15, 2023
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.
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.
September 16, 2015
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 )
January 30, 2017
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 .
April 4, 2021
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.
Stalin, además de su brillante y sencillo análisis sobre la lingüística, continúa la tradición marxista-leninista proponiendo teoría y práctica única, enriquecedora y original.
January 1, 2024
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.
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.
May 30, 2023
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.
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.
October 22, 2021
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.
January 4, 2025
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
Sei lá, durma com essa. Ok
November 18, 2019
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.
May 4, 2021
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.
April 28, 2018
Only useful for the (short) critique of Bauer, maybe some historical perspective re: what guided Stalin's policies. Nothing particularly compelling or useful on its own right.
May 2, 2018
Too many refutations, not enough solutions nor anything that is better than what is criticized.
November 21, 2020
Interesting view on the definition / characterizing of nationhood though is pretty limited to a specific period of development of capitalism in a narrowly defined area (Europe)
April 3, 2022
Wuh Woh!!!!! Stalin is advocating oppressing the minorities!! and that is what he did. It's so bad, I want to give it a 0, but that's not possible, so I give it a 1.
July 25, 2023
Stalin was a great great man
December 16, 2023
Changed my perception of reality. Changed the way i understood the world and the problems that worried me so much. A pure genius.
January 5, 2024
A thorough and well-reasoned examination of the misguided approach of cultural-national autonomy, which derives its thought from nationalism and ultimately becomes antagonistic to worker solidarity
March 26, 2025
A sad excuse for „socialism in one country”
Read
January 26, 2026édition filles de la commune
December 30, 2024
I read this many years ago, so I can’t provide as detailed a review. However, I will say this. I believe that Stalin has the most penetrating understanding, both of nationhood and how to “tackle” the national question from a Marxist framework. His definition of a nation I think is one of the more coherent ones, and further I always thought his analysis of the national question was solid, despite other qualms one may have with his philosophy.
I think that leftists who claim this text is “reactionary” or justifying bourgeois nationalism either don’t understand it, or are simply claiming this to distance themselves from Stalinism (which is understandable in some sense) or else because the language *seems* like it’s following in the philosophical trends of 20th century Europe (which it really doesn’t, it reads far more like Fanon or Lenin than it does a Renan or a Mussolini).
I think that leftists who claim this text is “reactionary” or justifying bourgeois nationalism either don’t understand it, or are simply claiming this to distance themselves from Stalinism (which is understandable in some sense) or else because the language *seems* like it’s following in the philosophical trends of 20th century Europe (which it really doesn’t, it reads far more like Fanon or Lenin than it does a Renan or a Mussolini).
May 19, 2014
The star rating given reflects my opinion within ‘the official goodreads rating system’.
1 star: Didn’t Like it
2 stars: It’s Okay
3 stars: Liked it
4 stars: Really Liked it
5 stars: It Was Amazing
I don’t really give a rat-fuck that there are some who think I ‘owe’ an explanation for my opinion. Nope, nada, and not sorry about it.
Sometimes I may add notes to explain what my opinions are based on, and sometimes I don’t. I do this for me, on my books, in my library and I don’t ‘owe’ any special snowflakes a thing. Fuck off if you don’t like it and stop reading my shit.
Particularly given the ‘modifications’ to reader’s personal content going on (and outright censorship), unless particularly motivated I will not comment in detail.
It would help if GR was forthcoming in the new ‘appropriate’ and would make a site-wide announcement delineating the new focus from a reader-centric site to one that is now for authors and selling.
November 28, 2019
Went back to this upon reading Cedric Robinson's comments in his "Black Marxism." It is amazing that this piece of hack work has any standing at all. Its "history" is pretend. Anyone wanting to place this in context should look at the history of Ukraine, Tajikistan, Chechnya and the other non-Russian Soviet nations.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews