Marxism and the National Question

by Joseph Stalin

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

66 pages, Paperback

Published February 6, 2015

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.

[pablo! · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stalin no era el lápiz más afilado del lapicero. Estilísticamente correcto aunque me sorprende que dejasen pasar algunos términos como el de fisionomía espiritual. En general, la precisión terminológica brilla por su ausencia.

Le sigo dando 3 estrellas por su brillante crítica a los socialdemócratas austriacos y su aclaración del significado de la autonomía cultural y la autodeterminación de los pueblos.

Edit: Aún así, entiendo que es un libro de juventud. Es el segundo texto teórico de Stalin y apenas había superado la treintena.

[Gonçalo · Rating 5 out of 5]

"There is no middle course: principles triumph, they do not << compromise >>".

[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.

[Nick Girvin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve been long overdue for this one. In what is arguably Josef Stalin’s most important work, Marxism And The National Question deals in the turmoil of nationalism in an age of empires falling, states being built, and socialist movements together to create worker states.

A nation is first assessed as not simply sharing one language, one land, or one culture, etc, but the role that each of those play within one region, and how they together form the start of a nation through the building of industry and capitalism. The shedding of feudalism sees tribal groups come together in an area that may one day be classified as a “state” for the sake of production. The point Stalin stresses is the need for a similar interest to make up a nation, one of the working class that will not replace class solidarity with nationalism, which feeds into the bourgeoise interest of disunity among workers.

Furthermore, it stresses that national cultural autonomy doesn’t fully grant a nation automatic clearance to separate from a social-democratic (read: communist) movement should nationalism of the region spark anti-proletariat conditions (whether it’s from religion, or something else). Thus this explains the future redrawing of borders in Russia that would become the USSR and their rights to elected representatives within the boundaries of the proletariat movement. I also like that this highlights the idea that not every single difference between people needs to form a nation. Muslims in the Georgian region of Turkic descent who speak Georgian would then create several different “nations,” which isn’t possible.

The ultimate conclusion then sits that a condition that deletes the need for nationalism is the answer to the national question. Where no Jew, Pole, Georgian, etc within a greater nation would need the formation of a smaller nation, as the working nation with the same class interests would allow for schools, language, and culture of minorities to exist in the nation that they are a part of. In other words, internationalism > nationalism.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was aight. Basically seeks to define a "nation" in a way which has mostly geopolitical or macrohistorical relevance as opposed to a more particularistic conception. Then seeks to argue that the particularistic conception, and the petty nationalisms of the interwar period, and the social democratic organizations which succumbed to them (with special attention paid to the transcaucasian and jewish groups) were consciously or unconsciously subverting socialism and aiding reactionary nationalism. And even that aside, it argues that minor nation states for these small nationalities would be bad for a host of pragmatic reasons and could be addressed within larger more meaningful and substantive nations, especially in the Russian case.

Is interesting insofar as Stalin is often portrayed as a nationalist in comparison to Trotsky's internationalism but really his position is sort of a compromise position between the social democratic petty nationalists and the full internationalists. It is also interesting insofar as one can see similar trends occurring in modern leftist circles, not necessarily in relation to nationalism (though this exists too) but in relation to other particularistic interests which serve as wedges between left factions. Also interesting insofar as it presages a conception which we now call the rural urban divide.

[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!

[Big Chungus · Rating 4 out of 5]

The ACP hates to hear this one coming…

[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.

[Carlos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stalin understands a nation as having a common territory, language, and economic life. This provides the basis for the principle of self-determination and development of schools, institutions, language, and independent economic development. Regional autonomy is relevant here since
a given region should be able to extract its own resources, develop, and increase production. Notably, Stalin rejects nationalism and 'cultural-national autonomy'. Nationalism interprets a nation as a common culture without recognition of different classes. Thus, nationalism serves the interest of the ruling classes, not the laboring masses. This could mean the Bund breaking strikes based on nationality or reactionary bourgeois nationalism in the term of Zionism.The freedom of religion is important as well, but should not contradict
the interests of the laboring masses. The Communist Party should struggle against any church that upholds the interests of the
ruling class. Stalin's writings are essential in understanding the development of a multi-nation state as well as the right to self-determination being added to U.N. international law. "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." (United Nations 1960).

[Lia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have a hard time rating this one, because out of the lens of the time this is still a progressive piece and his arguments against national autonomy resonate well. Also have not read much of his later work which might be necessary to put a lot of these ideas into more of a context. Having said that, most of his arguments do not really resonate with me at all. While he advocates for the right to national self determination and the rights of minorities he lacks an answer on how to protect the rights of minorities against the nationalism of the dominant cultures. No thought is left to the bridges burnt by a long lasting russian imperialism and how these antagonisms might be overcome, instead he focuses a lot on how bad traits of cultures must be opposed and how they need to be elevated by a higher culture, continuing existing antagonisms. The shortness of the Text also leaves no space to answer the countless questions and implications opened by his arguments, instead it seems like a social democratic argument for forming a more progressive empire instead of the radical change it sees itself advocating for.

[Marc Lichtman · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the one book by Stalin that you might want to read, although I much prefer the Lenin collection, National Liberation, Socialism and Imperialism. Stalin had the assistance of Lenin, and I believe also Zinoviev in writing the book. He was being groomed for and received the commissar of nationalities position after the revolution. Stalin when younger, had won an award for poetry in his native language Georgian, but the national question was one of the first things Stalin and the bureaucrats surrounding him broke with Lenin on, bending to Great Russian chauvinism (see Lenin's Final Fight).

[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.

[Emile Greenbank · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very accessible in it's style, short and to the point, although it is definitely a product of it's time. The examples it studies aren't really all that relevant to a modern audience.
Provides a nice objective framework to understand national movements as opposed to an analysis based on nebulous "national cultural specificities". The analysis of relations between class and national movements made sense, it's a shame he swayed away from his own critiques towards a russian chauvinist policy when he actually had the state apparatus in his control.
It remains overall a bit simplistic owing to it's short format, but that makes for a speedy reading that demands very little prerequired knowledge. Still a relevant read today.

[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.

[Iago · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesante obra de Stalin, una de sus más conocidas y de mayor influencia en el marxismo. Es especialmente célebre su definición de nación, aunque la mayor parte del libro habla de otras cuestiones, como la de la autonomía nacional-cultural, a la que critica de manera argumentada; o la cuestión de la autodeterminación de las naciones, también desarrollada por Lenin. El libro es rico en ejemplos que ilustran las explicaciones y refuerzan la argumentación: el Bund, los casos de Polonia o Austria, los pueblos del Cáucaso...

[Javier · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite decades and billions of dollars invested in anti-Soviet propaganda, even the west was not able to falsely paint the USSR as a racist nation that did not emphasize equity for oppressed nationalities.

In this pamphlet, Stalin defines a what a nation (i.e. a community of people) is and more importantly what self determination is to a nation. While the west remained backwards in racial justice, the Soviet Union championed anti-racism and internationalism which served as a beacon of hope for oppressed people around the world.

[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.

[Juhyundred · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good overview of considerations of the National Question among Bolsheviks in prerevolutionary Russia. I found supplementing this with “The National Question and Leninism” and “The Policy of the Soviet Government on the National Question in Russia” to be very helpful in understanding the scope of Leninist approach to the national question. These works were also written later, and therefore have the benefit of being informed by practice.

[Zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

A relatively easy read that gets a little bogged down in its historical reality for contemporary readers. The first few chapters and the last are vital for understanding the role of nationalism and internationalism, how to appease minority nationalities within a greater whole, and how complete cultural-national-autonomy is antithetical to internationalism.

[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.

[Aiden · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's a surprising amount of relevance in here around our own national question - I know right but seriously there is - would recommend and will defo be reading through this short book again in future.

[Cheeseonaplate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stalin explains why cultural federalization of workers' parties necessarily results in bourgeois nationalism and separatism. He suggests regional autonomy as the solution in dividing administration while building solidarity among proletarians. He's very repetitive on making his points.

[A L]

"In fighting for the right of nations to self-determination, the aim of Social-Democracy is to put an end to the policy of national oppression, to render it impossible, and thereby to remove the grounds of strife between nations, to take the edge off that strife and reduce it to a minimum."

[Juhyundred · Rating 4 out of 5]

I totally thought this was the entry for just “National Question.” I finally learned this is a special edition with a longer collection of writings. It’s a very helpful read for getting a sense of the development of thought on the national question over time