What were Stalin and Lenin's positions on the right to secession?

[Woland]

If my memory serves me, didn't the "Stalinist" Communist Party of the Russian Federation come second in the (pretty)recent Presidential election?

I don't know if you're even serious here, but CPRF is by no means Communist. Their website has absolutely no mention of any current strikes, worker struggles, etc, quite prominent on the other hand is 'defending Russian culture' and other shit. They are social-democrats and nationalists.

This explains it better:


My translation from the RCYL(b) website:

On April 4, in Chita, there was a protest in one of the city squares, organized by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF). Speakers from this party said many beautiful things about "unity of left forces". However, when the secretary of the local branch of RCWP-RPC, A.V. Bukhvalov asked to be allowed to speak, he was rudely dismissed. The KPRF bosses called the Communist an ''extremist'' and stated that his party ''doesn't exist''. When comrade Bukhvalov told them just what he thinks of them, these "champions for people's happiness'' called for help from some police officers. Already after the protest, comrade Bukhvalov was arrested by the police. He and two other comrades were driven to the police department, while Comrade Bukhvalov has got a broken eyebrow. He was then charged with "disturbance of the order of the organization of a protest" and "resistance to the legal claims of police officers". A court proceeding will start on April 9.
…This is not the first case when functionaries of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, tightly united with the government by common interest, shamelessly help to neutralize Communists. In spite of the presence in the party of the sincere Communists (together with nationalists, anti-semites and the like), Communist Party of the Russian Federation has never been a Communist Party. But in many regions, its departments, by the efforts of party bosses, were converted into departments of the local administration for the suppression of the people. It is time for everyone who still have illusions to understand this.

Yes, they say that they are 'pro-Stalin', but, the same way, religious ultranationalists are 'pro-Stalin' because they think (just like ''Eco-Marxist'') that he was a secret Okhrana agent and the son of a Russian officer (i.e. not a Georgian). Other nationalists hate Lenin for ending the Russian empire and then they hate Gorbachev for ending the Soviet Union. CPRF is 'pro-Stalin' probably because they know that he is very popular among WW2 veterans and those who lived during that time.


Also, note that Lenin and Stalin's first dispute took place over parliamentary action. Lenin was very much in favor of it, whereas Stalin opposed it. I've seen this mentioned in just about everything I've ever read on Stalin and Lenin's theoretical contributions.

Their biggest dispute was, however, that Lenin was for a union of republics, which every republic had the right to leave. Most of the party was for Stalin's plan for a single republic with autonomous regions, without the right to leave. It was exactly because of this disagreement that Lenin suggested to remove Stalin as General Secretary- Stalin's plan was becoming even more popular and as GS he was independent enough to pursue it. The thing is, Lenin's views on this kept on changing through the years, but in the Autumn of 1922 he made sure that this union of republics was approved. This was never changed. Ultimately, of course, in 1991 this lead to nationalists taking control of the republics (Yeltsin, Turkmenbashi, etc.) leading to the dissolution of the USSR.

Btw, PSL seems to be a really good party. If I was American I'd sure join them- shame there aren't any good ones in Germany.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Their biggest dispute was, however, that Lenin was for a union of republics, which every republic had the right to leave. Most of the party was for Stalin's plan for a single republic with autonomous regions, without the right to leave. It was exactly because of this disagreement that Lenin suggested to remove Stalin as General Secretary- Stalin's plan was becoming even more popular and as GS he was independent enough to pursue it. The thing is, Lenin's views on this kept on changing through the years, but in the Autumn of 1922 he made sure that this union of republics was approved. This was never changed. Ultimately, of course, in 1991 this lead to nationalists taking control of the republics (Yeltsin, Turkmenbashi, etc.) leading to the dissolution of the USSR.

I've stated before on this website that, regarding this specific dispute, I'm with Stalin and not Lenin, despite Trotskyist howlings of "Great Russian chauvinism."

[Led Zeppelin]

Their biggest dispute was, however, that Lenin was for a union of republics, which every republic had the right to leave. Most of the party was for Stalin's plan for a single republic with autonomous regions, without the right to leave.

Actually that's not true at all.

Both Lenin and Stalin were for a "Union of Autonomous Republics" with the right of secession afforded to every republic (as was most of the Bolshevik party). The problem was that Stalin, even though officially he was in favor of this policy, he wasn't so much in favor of it in his function as People's Commissar for Nationalities (see the Georgian incident for example).

The right of secession were inscribed in all Soviet constitutions, including Stalin's 1936 constitution.


It was exactly because of this disagreement that Lenin suggested to remove Stalin as General Secretary-

Yes, partly because of his activities as Commissar of Nationalities, but also due to some other stuff he did (being rude to his wife, being against a monopoly on foreign trade, etc.).


Stalin's plan was becoming even more popular and as GS he was independent enough to pursue it.

Stalin's "plan" was never the one you described; he was never formally for the abolishment of the right of secession.

Also, could you perhaps point to a source saying that most of the Bolshevik party was ever in favor of officially abolishing the right of secession?


The thing is, Lenin's views on this kept on changing through the years, but in the Autumn of 1922 he made sure that this union of republics was approved. This was never changed.

His view didn't really change at all from the time he wrote Right of Nations to Self-Determination in 1914 up to (and past) 1922, when the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR was signed by the first Soviet republics, establishing the Soviet Union with right of secession for each autonomous republic. And as I said, that right was never officially revoked.


I've stated before on this website that, regarding this specific dispute, I'm with Stalin and not Lenin, despite Trotskyist howlings of "Great Russian chauvinism."

Congratulations, you've just taken a side in a dispute that never existed.

Also, Lenin was the one who mentioned "great Russian chauvinism" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm), perhaps you are referring to the "howling" of that "Trotskyist"?

You really have no clue what you're talking about, and I really shouldn't be bothering responding to you. Most likely I won't in the future.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually that's not true at all.

Both Lenin and Stalin were for a "Union of Autonomous Republics" with the right of secession afforded to every republic (as was most of the Bolshevik party). The problem was that Stalin, even though officially he was in favor of this policy, he wasn't so much in favor of it in his function as People's Commissar for Nationalities (see the Georgian incident for example).

[...]

Congratulations, you've just taken a side in a dispute that never existed.

Also, Lenin was the one who mentioned "great Russian chauvinism" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm), perhaps you are referring to the "howling" of that "Trotskyist"?

You really have no clue what you're talking about, and I really shouldn't be bothering responding to you. Most likely I won't in the future.

I don't think that Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335881/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin/60994/Illness-and-death), in spite of its bourgeois editorialism, would go so far as to mention a peripheral "dispute that never existed" in its bio of Lenin. :rolleyes:

[KC]

I don't think that Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/335881/Vladimir-Ilich-Lenin/60994/Illness-and-death), in spite of its bourgeois editorialism, would go so far as to mention a peripheral "dispute that never existed" in its bio of Lenin. :rolleyes:

First, I am going to assume that by that article you are referring to this measly little excerpt:

"In June he made a partial recovery and threw himself into the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the federal system of reorganization he favoured against Stalin’s unitary scheme."

This is not only comical that you are quoting an Encyclopedia Britannica as opposed to primary sources, but pitiful as you - and this article - are completely wrong. Let me go on to show you how completely wrong you are, and then you can proceed to sad face me back and ask an unrelated question as an attempt to change the subject.

First, let us look at the 1936 Constitution of the USSR (also known as the "Stalin" constitution):


ARTICLE 13. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a federal state, formed on the basis of the voluntary association of Soviet Socialist Republics having equal rights

ARTICLE 17. To every Union Republic is reserved the right freely to secede from the U.S.S.R.

Source (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html)Now let us quote Stalin directly refuting your nonsense:


In 1912, when we Russian Marxists were outlining the first draft of the national programme, no serious movement for independence yet existed in any of the border regions of the Russian Empire. Nevertheless, we deemed it necessary to include in our programme the point on the right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the right of every nationality to secede and exist as an independent state. Why? Because we based ourselves not only on what existed then, but also on what was developing and impending in the general system of international relations; that is, we took into account not only the present, but also the future. We knew that if any nationality were to demand secession, the Russian Marxists would fight to ensure the right to secede for every such nationality. In the course of his speech Semich repeatedly referred to Stalin's pamphlet on the national question. But here is what Stalin's pamphlet says about self-determination and independence:
"The growth of imperialism in Europe is not fortuitous. In Europe, capital is beginning to feel cramped, and it is reaching out towards foreign countries in search of new markets, cheap labour and new fields of investment But this leads to external complications and to war. . . . It is quite possible that a combination of internal and external conditions may arise in which one or another nationality in Russia may find it necessary to raise and settle the question of its independence. And, of course, it is not for Marxists to create obstacles in such cases."
That was written as far back as 1912. You know that subsequently this view was fully confirmed both during the war and afterwards, and especially after the victory of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.


All the more reason, therefore, why we must reckon with such possibilities in Europe in general, and in Yugoslavia in particular, especially now, when the national revolutionary movement in the oppressed countries has become more profound, and after the victory of the revolution in Russia. It must also be borne in mind that Yugoslavia is not a fully independent country, that she is tied up with certain imperialist groups, and that, consequently, she cannot escape the great play of forces that is going on outside Yugoslavia. If you are drawing up a national programme for the Yugoslav Party — and that is precisely what we are dealing with now — you must remember that this programme must proceed not only from what exists at present, but also from what is developing and what will inevitably occur by virtue of international relations. That is why I think that the question of the right of nations to self-determination must be regarded as an immediate and vital question.


Now about the national programme. The starting point of the national programme must be the thesis of a Soviet revolution in Yugoslavia, the thesis that the national question cannot be solved at all satisfactorily unless the bourgeoisie is overthrown and the revolution is victorious. Of course, there may be exceptions; there was such an exception, for instance, before the war, when Norway separated from Sweden — of which Lenin treats in detail in one of his articles. 2 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/03/30.htm#2) But that was before the war, and under an exceptional combination of favourable circumstances. Since the war, and especially since the victory of the Soviet revolution in Russia, such cases are hardly possible. At any rate, the chances of their being possible are now so slight that they can be put as nil. But if that is so, it is obvious that we cannot construct our programme from elements whose significance is nil. That is why the thesis of a revolution must be the starting point of the national programme.

Further, it is imperatively necessary to include in the national programme a special point on the right of nations to self-determination, including the right to secede. I have already said why such a point cannot be omitted under present internal and international conditions.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/03/30.htm)Let us also note that this quote was from 1925, so in the 11 years between this quote and the 1936 constitution it's quite clear what Stalin's position was on this matter.

Here's another quote from Stalin, from 1922 where this supposed "dispute" about the right to secession took place:


What, in your opinion, should be the character and form of the union of the republics into a single Union?


—The character of the union should be voluntary, exclusively voluntary, and every national republic should retain the right to secede from the Union. Thus, the voluntary principle must be made the basis of the Treaty on the Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1922/11/18.htm)As you can see, Stalin officially supported the right of secession, though in practice he didn't seem that keen on it, and that is what the dispute between him and Lenin was about; see his actions in Georgia, for example, which Lenin harshly criticized and referred to as great Russian-Chauvinism, another thing you were hilariously wrong about.

Now please proceed with the sad faces and the unrelated questions, or just don't post at all.

[Led Zeppelin]

Split the posts on this issue to History since it was derailing the other thread.

By the way, excellent post KC. :)

[Woland]

I've been very busy lately, sorry for taking so long.

Now, first of all, I do not understand this issue of ''officially'' being in favour of secession, when in fact it has little to do with the actual question of the dispute between Lenin and Stalin on the form of the Soviet state, which was the original topic. ''Officially'', the right of secession was promised to all minorities by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. It was a formality and a powerful propaganda weapon, especially against imperialism and colonialism. To show themselves as defenders of ''suppressed'' nations, they would allow them to become completely independent- knowing that they will eventually get them back. Most realistically, however, no one was really enthusiastic about giving them independence, as the civil war situation in the Caucasus perfectly shows- anti-Communist governments formed with the Dashnaks in Armenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashnaks), the Musavatists in Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musavat) and the Mensheviks in Georgia.

Initially, in the summer of 1920, when Turkey attacked Armenia, the Bolsheviks did not respond. Only in the most decisive moment did the Soviet 11th Red Army invade, as Armenia was in danger of being completely defeated by Turkey- they already lost most major cities and agreed to cede over 50% of the pre-war territory to Turkey.

After the Communist uprising/invasion of Azerbaijan, the Bolsheviks focused on invading Georgia, the government of which tried to somehow help Armenia against Turkey and the Bolsheviks. What is important here, is that during this time, Soviet Russia recognized Georgia's independence, even though this independence was, realistically, almost nonexistant and rather laughable- so I can't condemn the Bolsheviks in any way here.

What I am trying to say here, is that no one was ever ''officially'' against the right of secession, neither Lenin nor Stalin, but in most realistic terms, these things were not exactly wanted or supported, or even possible most of the time.


You want to secede? Well, go to the devil if you can bring yourself to sever economic ties, or, rather, if the burden and friction of ‘cohabitation' are such that they poison and corrode economic ties. You don't want to secede? Good, but then don't decide for me, and don't think you have the ‘right' to federation"

The issue here is the dispute between Lenin and Stalin on the form of the new Soviet state, which should have been the thread title. What I meant in the first post was that, most realistically, Stalin's plan would have simply made it harder to secede. Compared to Lenin's federation of equal republics, it means less independence, less self-governance, hence a lower status, not to mention likely more autonomous regions in general. Saying that, I never doubted Stalin's ''official'' views on secession, nor do I think he was completely against it.

After the war everything was set for the creation of a single socialist state with autonomous regions for those who wanted them, but this was prevented by Lenin.


Actually that's not true at all.

Both Lenin and Stalin were for a "Union of Autonomous Republics"...

Stalin's "plan" was never the one you described[...]

When was this? Anyway,


1) The right of secession for the nations inhabiting certain regions of Russia who cannot remain, or who do not desire to remain, within the integral framework;

2) Political autonomy within the framework of the single (integral) state, with uniform constitutional provisions, for the regions which have a specific nationalcomposition and which remain within the integral framework.

The 1922 proposal made by Stalin, which said that all Soviet republics (Primarily Ukraine, Belarus, and TSFSR, a federation of its own), and other regions with special ethnic compositions would join RSFSR as autonomous entities. Supporters of this idea were Dzerzhinsky, Ordzhonikidze, then, more importantly, Chicherin, the Narkom of Foreign Affairs and Zinoviev, the chief of Comintern, and others.

Lenin, on the other hand, was for a federation of equal national republics, so he rejected the proposal. Stalin did not openly go against Lenin here, since, of course, owning to Lenin's prestige and authority in the party, he would have most certainly lost, and then, he wouldn't exactly have won much anyway. A note given to Stalin by Kamenev in the politburo session said: ''I think, since Vl. Ilyich, insists, it will be worse to resist''. Hence, Stalin relucantly agreed with the creation of the federation.

Also interesting to note, is that earlier that year, in January, Stalin postponed discussion on this after the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs suggested to count the republics together with RSFSR in international conferences.


His view didn't really change at all from the time he wrote Right of Nations to Self-Determination in 1914 up to (and past) 1922, when the Treaty on the Creation of the USSR was signed by the first Soviet republics, establishing the Soviet Union with right of secession for each autonomous republic. And as I said, that right was never officially revoked.

Of course, I meant that his views on state structure changed, and not his views on secession. The exact issue of Lenin's changing views on federalism, together with the views of Marx and Engels on it, are all perfectly described by Stalin:




This article reflects the attitude of disapproval towards a federal form of state which prevailed in our Party at that time. The objection to constitutional federalism was most distinctly expressed in Lenin's letter to Shaumyan of November 1913. "We," Lenin said in that letter, "stand for democratic centralism, unreservedly. We are opposed to federation. . . . We are opposed to federation in principle—it weakens economic ties, and is unsuitable for what is one state. You want to secede? Well, go to the devil if you can bring yourself to sever economic ties, or, rather, if the burden and friction of ‘cohabitation' are such that they poison and corrode economic ties. You don't want to secede? Good, but then don't decide for me, and don't think you have the ‘right' to federation" (see Vol. XVII, p. 90).

It is noteworthy that in the resolution on the national question adopted by the April Conference of the Party in 1917, the question of a federal structure was not even mentioned. The resolution spoke of the right of nations to secession, of autonomy for national regions within the framework of the integral (unitary) state, and, lastly, of the enactment of a fundamental law prohibiting all national privileges whatsoever, but not a word was said about the permissibility of a federal structure of the state.

In Lenin's book, The State and Revolution (August 1917), the Party, in the person of Lenin, made the first serious step towards recognition of the permissibility of federation, as a transitional form "to a centralized republic," this recognition, however, being accompanied by a number of substantial reservations.

"Approaching the matter from the point of view of the proletariat and the proletarian revolution," Lenin says in this book, "Engels, like Marx, upheld democratic centralism, the republic — one and indivisible. He regarded the federal republic either as an exception and a hindrance to development, or as a transitional form from a monarchy to a centralized republic, as a ‘step forward' under certain special conditions. And, as one of these special conditions, he mentions the national question. . . . Even in regard to England, where geographical conditions, a common language and the history of many centuries would seem to have ‘put an end' to the national question in the separate small divisions of England—even in regard to that country, Engels reckoned with the patent fact that the national question was not yet a thing of the past, and recognized in consequence that the establishment of a federal republic would be a ‘step forward.' Of course, there is not the slightest hint here of Engels abandoning the criticism of the shortcomings of a federal republic or that he abandoned the most determined propaganda and struggle for a unified and centralized democratic republic" (see Vol. XXI, p. 419).

Only after the October Revolution did the Party firmly and definitely adopt the position of state federation, advancing it as its own plan for the constitution of the Soviet Republics in the transitional period. This position was expressed for the first time in January 1918, in the "Declaration of Rights of the Toiling and Exploited People," written by Lenin and approved by the Central Committee of the Party. This declaration said: "The Russian Soviet Republic is established on the principle of a free union of free nations, as a federation of Soviet national republics" (see Vol. XXII, p. 174).

Officially, this position was affirmed by the Party at its Eighth Congress (1919) It was at this congress, as we know, that the program of the Russian Communist Party was adopted. The program says: "As one of the transitional forms towards complete unity, the Party recommends a federal amalgamation of states organized on the Soviet pattern" (see Program of the R.C.P.).

Thus the Party traversed the path from denial of federation to recognition of federation as "a transitional form to the complete unity of the working people of the various nations" (see "Theses on the National Question" adopted by the Second Congress of the Comintern).

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1917/03/28.htm

As has been said, in January 1918, the Russian Socialist Soviet Republic was declared to be a federation, however, not much was said about how would the other new states join it. The 1918 RSFSR Constitution only stated that:


11. The soviets of those regions which differentiate themselves by a special form of existence and national character may unite in autonomous regional unions, ruled by the local congress of the soviets and their executive organs.

These autonomous regional unions participate in the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic upon a Federal basis.

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr...8/article2.htm

Stalin raises the most important question:


Is it not clear that in Russia federalism would not, and cannot, solve the national problem, that it would only confuse and complicate it by quixotic attempts to turn back the wheel of history?

Also:


By the way, it is not difficult to see why, from a Social-Democratic point of view, the right to “self-determination” means neither federation nor autonomy (a though, speaking in the abstract, both come under the category of “self-determination”). The right to federation is simply meaningless, since federation implies a bilateral contract. It goes without saying that Marxists cannot include the defence of federalism in general in their programme. As far as autonomy is concerned, Marxists defend, not the “right” to autonomy, but autonomy itself, as a general universal principle of a democratic state with a mixed national composition, and a great variety of geographical and other conditions. Consequently, the recognition of the “right of nations to autonomy” is as absurd as that of the “right of nations to federation”. —Lenin

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo...m#bkV20P441F01

About the 1936 constitution:

It is indeed possible that Stalin eventually came to terms with the whole concept of the Union and/or he simply did not want to go against Lenin's work.

However, the Constitution actually helped to make this Union stronger, as


before the 1936 Constitution, the Soviet Federation was based on agreement, but now it became constitutional, and the former documents on this from the 1924 Constitution were no longer included.

Furthermore, instead of the Congress of Soviets, the bicameral Central Executive Committee, new basic law foresaw the creation of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. If before this the highest organs were formed by a system of delegation, they would now be elected by a universal, equal, secret and direct vote. This way the highest organs of power would not be full of local elites and could now concentrate on general national interests. Also in a new way was authority distributed between the national center and the republics.

Well, atleast that was the plan, as you can read all about the ''universal, equal, secret and direct vote'' in ''Stalin and the struggle for democratic reform'' http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

Stalin also got rid of ''national raions'' and ''national selsoviets'', as in the Constitution of 1936 they were not even mentioned. Before that, every tenth raion and selsovet counted as ''national'' which really was a huge amount.

About Trotsky:



Already on March 6 Trotsky sent to Stalin observations to his theses “National Factors in Party and State Affairs” - In these observations Trotsky proposed to Stalin to speak about the presence in the party of a great-power [or great-state] incline and the incline to the side of ''nationals”, emphasizing in this case, what the second - historically, and politically- is a reaction to the first. Trotsky also suggested to remove from Stalin's theses the categorical assertion that the correct resolution of the national question in the USSR was achieved. Stalin accepted these corrections. In the corrected version of Stalin's report to the XII congress, taking into account the observations of Trotsky, published on March 24 in “Pravda”, to the first place was advanced the “special danger” of great-power incline”

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1923/03/24.htm - Stalin's theses (corrected version):


3. Condemning both these deviations as harmful and dangerous to the cause of communism, and drawing the attention of the Party members to the exceptional harmfulness and exceptional danger of the deviation towards Great-Russian chauvinism, the congress calls upon the Party speedily to eliminate these survivals of the past from our Party work.

So Trotsky most certainly mentioned the chauvinism, even though I admit that he got this idea from Lenin, so to say.

BTW, the above mentioned historian is a Trotskyist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadim_Rogovin

[KC]

INow, first of all, I do not understand this issue of ''officially'' being in favour of secession, when in fact it has little to do with the actual question of the dispute between Lenin and Stalin on the form of the
Soviet state, which was the original topic.

You are the one who brought up the issue of being in favor or opposed to secession, so I have no idea why you do not understand it. You said that "Lenin was for a union of republics, which every republic had the right to leave" and "most of the party was for Stalin's plan for a single republic with autonomous regions, without the right to leave".

I quoted Stalin above and bolded the parts where he says that he was in fact never opposed to the right of secession and praises that right, here they are once more:


In 1912, when we Russian Marxists were outlining the first draft of the national programme, no serious movement for independence yet existed in any of the border regions of the Russian Empire. Nevertheless, we deemed it necessary to include in our programme the point on the right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the right of every nationality to secede and exist as an independent state.

...

We knew that if any nationality were to demand secession, the Russian Marxists would fight to ensure the right to secede for every such nationality.

...

It is quite possible that a combination of internal and external conditions may arise in which one or another nationality in Russia may find it necessary to raise and settle the question of its independence. And, of course, it is not for Marxists to create obstacles in such cases.

...

Further, it is imperatively necessary to include in the national programme a special point on the right of nations to self-determination, including the right to secede.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/03/30.htm)

As you can see, Stalin in 1925 said that he always believed in the right to secession. I was aware that he made a bit of a blunder in 1917 with his article Against Federalism (in which he quotes Lenin out of context and distorts his views on the matter), but given the fact that he himself at a later date was too embarrassed to even mention it says enough about it, doesn't it?


''Officially'', the right of secession was promised to all minorities by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. It was a formality and a powerful propaganda weapon, especially against imperialism and colonialism.It was just a formality huh? So Stalin lied when he said this:


It is quite possible that a combination of internal and external conditions may arise in which one or another nationality in Russia may find it necessary to raise and settle the question of its independence. And, of course, it is not for Marxists to create obstacles in such cases.

Source (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1925/03/30.htm)

Are you calling Stalin a liar? Or an opportunist?


What I am trying to say here, is that no one was ever ''officially'' against the right of secession, neither Lenin nor Stalin, but in most realistic terms, these things were not exactly wanted or supported, or even possible most of the time.Exactly, Stalin was never "officially" against secession. So you were wrong when in your first post you said this:


Their biggest dispute was, however, that Lenin was for a union of republics, which every republic had the right to leave. Most of the party was for Stalin's plan for a single republic with autonomous regions, without the right to leave.

Do you admit you were wrong about "Stalin's plan"? Because that's basically what this whole discussion is about.


The issue here is the dispute between Lenin and Stalin on the form of the new Soviet state, which should have been the thread title. What I meant in the first post was that, most realistically, Stalin's plan would have simply made it harder to secede. Compared to Lenin's federation of equal republics, it means less independence, less self-governance, hence a lower status, not to mention likely more autonomous regions in general. Saying that, I never doubted Stalin's ''official'' views on secession, nor do I think he was completely against it.Ok then, so you're basically admitting that Stalin, even though officially in favor of Lenin's point of view on the matter (Union of Soviet Republics with the right to secession) diluted that right and made sure it was circumvented.

I agree with that entirely.


After the war everything was set for the creation of a single socialist state with autonomous regions for those who wanted them, but this was prevented by Lenin.Actually it wasn't. The republics that wanted independence were granted independence, their Soviets entered into the Soviet Union through their local Soviets. How else did you think those autonomous regions came into being?

Of course very quickly these rights started being taken away, especially by Stalin in his position as Commissar of Nationalities.


When was this?At any point beyond and before 1917 when Stalin made a blunder which he quickly corrected afterwards?

You then go on to quote Stalin's Authors notes to his Against Federalism article which he wrote in 1917. As I said before Stalin distorted Lenin's view on the matter there, which you have admitted as well (you have said too that Lenin was in favor of the right of secession, which makes it odd that you quote Stalin saying that he didn't...).

Anyway, here's the context of that Lenin quote, which Stalin cuts off
at the point I'll mark:


"We," Lenin said in that letter, "stand for democratic centralism, unreservedly. We are opposed to federation. . . . We are opposed to federation in principle—it weakens economic ties, and is unsuitable for what is one state. You want to secede? Well, go to the devil if you can bring yourself to sever economic ties, or, rather, if the burden and friction of ‘cohabitation' are such that they poison and corrode economic ties. You don't want to secede? Good, but then don't decide for me, and don't think you have the ‘right' to federation" (see Vol. XVII, p. 90).

At this point Stalin cuts off the quote, this is what Lenin says in context:

We are certainly in favour of democratic centralism. We are opposed to federation. We support the Jacobins as against the Girondists. But to be afraid of autonomy in Russia of all places—that is simply ridiculous! It is reactionary. Give me an example, imagine a case in which autonomy can be harmful. You cannot. But in Russia (and in Prussia), this narrow interpretation—only local self-government—plays into the hands of the rotten police regime.

3. “The right to self-determination does not imply only the right to secede. It also implies the right to federal association, the right to autonomy,” you write. I disagree entirely. It does not imply the right to federation. Federation means the association of equals, an association that demands common agreement. How can one side have a right to demand that the other side should agree with it? That is absurd. We are opposed to federation in principle, it loosens economic ties, and is unsuitable for a single state. You want to secede? All right, go to the devil, if you can break economic bonds, or rather, if the oppression and friction of “coexistence” disrupt and ruin economic bonds. You don’t want to secede? In that case, excuse me, but don’t decide for me; don’t think that you have a “right” to federation.

As you can see here when Lenin was attacking secession in this sense, he was referring to it in relation to a federation! He wasn't at all talking about it in relation to a autonomous Union of socialist republics. Stalin conveniently left this out. Again, was he a liar or opportunist when he quoted Lenin saying this on secession? Here's what Lenin says right after the above about secession, not in relation to federation but as a right in a autonomous union of socialist republics:

“Right to autonomy?” Wrong again. We are in favour of autonomy for all parts; we are in favour of the right to secession (and not in favour of everyone’s seceding!). Autonomy is our plan for organising a democratic state. Secession is not what we plan at all. We do not advocate secession. In general, we are opposed to secession. But we stand for the right to secede owing to reactionary, Great-Russian nationalism, which has so besmirched the idea of national coexistence that sometimes closer ties will be established after free secession!

Source (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/nov/23.htm)

I'm sorry but Stalin deliberately quoted Lenin out of context even though he didn't understand the difference between the right of secession in relation to an unequal federation (which they are by default) and in relation to an equal autonomous union of socialist republics.


The 1922 proposal made by Stalin, which said that all Soviet republics (Primarily Ukraine, Belarus, and TSFSR, a federation of its own), and other regions with special ethnic compositions would join RSFSR as autonomous entities. Supporters of this idea were Dzerzhinsky, Ordzhonikidze, then, more importantly, Chicherin, the Narkom of Foreign Affairs and Zinoviev, the chief of Comintern, and others. Lenin, on the other hand, was for a federation of equal national republics, so he rejected the proposal. Stalin did not openly go against Lenin here, since, of course, owning to Lenin's prestige and authority in the party, he would have most certainly lost, and then, he wouldn't exactly have won much anyway. A note given to Stalin by Kamenev in the politburo session said: ''I think, since Vl. Ilyich, insists, it will be worse to resist''. Hence, Stalin relucantly agreed with the creation of the federation.So basically you are saying that Stalin was an extreme opportunist who didn't even care about expressing his views on matters out of fear of being opposed. Strange then that he did later oppose Lenin on the monopoly on foreign trade? I guess he was a calculating political hack.


Of course, I meant that his views on state structure changed, and not
his views on secession. The exact issue of Lenin's changing views on federalism, together with the views of Marx and Engels on it, are all perfectly described by Stalin:I proved above how that Authors Note is a historical falsification.


As has been said, in January 1918, the Russian Socialist Soviet Republic was declared to be a federation, however, not much was said about how would the other new states join it. The 1918 RSFSR Constitution only stated that:Other states didn't "join it", a treaty was signed by several autonomous republics creating the Union in 1922.


It is indeed possible that Stalin eventually came to terms with the whole concept of the Union and/or he simply did not want to go against Lenin's work.You just accepted the fact that he didn't really care about formalities like "right to secession" since they didn't mean anything in practice anyway. I'm not sure why you are going back into the realm of possibilities now.


So Trotsky most certainly mentioned the chauvinism, even though
I admit that he got this idea from Lenin, so to say.Of course he mentioned it but I'm pretty sure LZ was referring to the fact that Lenin first used it against Stalin in 1922 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm), which proves how pathetic JR's claim was of that evil Trotsky using it unjustifiably (I'm sure now it's justified since Lenin said it too :rolleyes:).

[Die Neue Zeit]

It is indeed possible that Stalin eventually came to terms with the whole concept of the Union and/or he simply did not want to go against Lenin's work.

Methinks it's the latter. Although I must say that, by this time, Stalin was a few years away from expressing Great Russian chauvinism, he wanted to maintain some sort of Lenin cult even as his stooges wanted a more "living" cult around their boss. Part of this cult means not going against Lenin's work officially.

[The Author]

The question at hand is not what Stalin and Lenin's positions on the right to secession were: they were the same. States should have a right to secede, but that does not mean they should secede. The current-day sorry state of affairs in the former Yugoslavia and U.S.S.R. offer concrete evidence as to why secession is a bad thing.

The question relates to federalism vs. a unitary state and what was the correct direction to take. In Stalin's "Against Federalism," he talks about whether Russia was to become a federal system as had existed in the United States and Switzerland in their early histories, but goes on to demonstrate that as capitalism advanced, the federal forms of administration gave way to a more centralized, unitary form of state with political autonomy granted on certain political arenas. Federation was seen as a transitional form from independent states to confederation, then federation, and finally the unitary state. Breaking up Russia into a federal system was considered a step backward.


...in America, as well as in Canada and
Switzerland, the development was from independent
regions, through their federation, to a unitary state;
that the trend of development i s not in favour of
federation, but against it. Federation is a transitional
form.

This is not fortuitous, because the development
of capitalism in its higher forms, with the concomitant
expansion of the economic territory, and its trend towards
centralization, demands not a federal, but a unitary
form of state.

We cannot ignore this trend, unless, of course, we
try to turn back the wheel of history.

But it follows from this that in Russia it would be
unwise to work for a federation, which is doomed by the
very realities of life to disappear.

Lenin's Letter to Stepan Shaumyan, he stated the same thing: that federalism was not the path to take, that a central unitary-state with autonomous regions was the appropriate direction to take,


We are opposed to federation in principle, it loosens economic ties, and is unsuitable for a single state.

Over time, Lenin changed his stance towards the course of which Russia was to take, after studying Engels and coming to the conclusion that Russia did need to go through a federalist transitional phase before becoming a unitary state. The Party adopted this stance officially after the October Revolution, but the question was how to successfully implement such a system in the light of the fact that Civil War had broken out and that the association of Soviet republics had nearly disintegrated. Obviously as a result of such conditions, party members such as Stalin believed that a more centralized system as opposed to a federal one should be adopted in 1922, because too many concessions had been made to nationalities and the entire association of republics had almost crumbled. While others such as Lenin became more keen to the idea that more concessions should be made on putting the nationalities on a more equal footing in a federation rather than bringing more trouble and driving the nations to turn against each other and start up another civil war, with the imperialist countries stepping in and finishing off the survivors. In either case, everybody made mistakes, and through trial and error, the U.S.S.R. was formed. The problem remained for how was the U.S.S.R. to go from a federalist to a unitary system, which was never really solved.