TheGodlessUtopian
21st December 2012, 16:40
The following study guide is to Joseph Stalin’s Marxism and the National Question (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03.htm). This guide is of my own creation with the questions and answers being provided from myself. If while reading comrades should encounter any mistakes please comment below. This guide is for the common use and may be reproduced free of charge.
~ ~ ~
I: The Nation
Q1: What is a nation as defined by Stalin?
A1: To quote word by word: “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.” Under this definition it must be stressed that if a nation lacks any of the above mentioned characteristics than it ceases to be a nation.
Q2: Why does a nation cease being a nation if even a single defining trait is missing?
A2: This is an important question and must not be overlooked, as such, it is vital to know that each of the defining traits, as previously mentioned, are indisputably important factors in determination because each have a role in defining the nation in question to its neighbors.
To elaborate, the reason that a stable community must be included is because:
“…it is unquestionable that the great empires of Cyrus and Alexander could not be called nations, although they came to be constituted historically and were formed out of different tribes and races. They were not nations, but casual and loosely-connected conglomerations of groups, which fell apart or joined together according to the victories or defeats of this or that conqueror.”
A nation must be united in the community’s belief that they are a nation and not bound together by force of a conqueror’s armies.
The reason that a common language is necessary is because:
“There is no nation which at one and the same time speaks several languages, but this does not mean that there cannot be two nations speaking the same language! Englishmen and Americans speak one language, but they do not constitute one nation. The same is true of the Norwegians and the Danes, the English and the Irish.”
However, it is important to know that…
“This, of course, does not mean that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages, or that all who speak one language necessarily constitute one nation. A common language for every nation, but not necessarily different languages for different nations!”
Under the pretext of a common people united in a single community these people have chosen a specific language to speak.
The reason that a shared territory and economic life must be requirements is because:
“Firstly, because they do not live together, but inhabit different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation.
But people cannot live together, for lengthy periods unless they have a common territory. Englishmen and Americans originally inhabited the same territory, England, and constituted one nation. Later, one section of the English emigrated from England to a new territory, America, and there, in the new territory, in the course of time, came to form the new American nation. Difference of. territory led to the formation of different nations.”
Which will eventually lead to…
“…a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
But this is not all. Common territory does not by itself create a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic bond to weld the various parts of the nation into a single whole. There is no such bond between England and America, and so they constitute two different nations. But the Americans themselves would not deserve to be called a nation were not the different parts of America bound together into an economic whole, as a result of division of labour between them, the development of means of communication, and so forth.”
From here the distinction must be made that the economic life of a nation must be peaceful. Meaning, that if a stable community of people who share a language, and territory rely on violent raids to keep each community’s stockpiles of goods plentiful than they do not constitute a nation.
And finally a distinct psychological make-up found in a common culture must be shared…
“...Nations differ not only in their conditions of life, but also in spiritual complexion, which manifests itself in peculiarities of national culture. If England, America and Ireland, which speak one language, nevertheless constitute three distinct nations, it is in no small measure due to the peculiar psychological make-up which they developed from generation to generation as a result of dissimilar conditions of existence.”
This final condition must be realized otherwise there is no method of separating what people are divided into whom. It would be easy to believe that if a several stable communities of people who shared a common language, territory, and economic trade existed without a unique way of living, than there is no reason why such two groups of people could be considered one nation; hence, this final cultural trait is greatly important.
II: The National Movement
Q3: Stalin says that a nation “…is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch,” what is this epoch?
A3: Stalin believed that the epoch of the nation was the era of rising capitalism.
“The process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations. Such, for instance, was the case in Western Europe. The British, French, Germans, Italians and others were formed into nations at the time of the victorious advance of capitalism and its triumph over feudal disunity.”
The rise of the nation coincided with the decline of feudalism.
Q4: As capitalism develops and some nationalities gain the edge over others the ruling bourgeoisie suppresses the bourgeoisie of another, weaker, nation. How does the oppressed nation free itself and who leads this struggle?
A4: The circumstances for freedom of development in each nation are varied and can range from petty advertising conflicts to full-blown armed conflicts. The leading force of this struggle is the bourgeoisie as…
“The chief problem for the young bourgeoisie is the problem of the market. Its aim is to sell its goods and to emerge victorious from competition with the bourgeoisie of a different nationality. Hence its desire to secure its 'own,' its 'home' market. The market is the first school in which the bourgeoisie learns its nationalism.”
From here we see that all nationalism is stemmed directly from conflicting market interests.
Q5: What measures can inflame the oppressed nation into taking action and why?
A5: Often times the oppressing bourgeoisie will impose “Restriction[s] [on] freedom of movement, repression of language, restriction of franchise, closing of schools, religious restrictions…” yet in doing this they are denying the oppressed nation their right to determination and development thereby inflaming the situation and contributing towards a liberation struggle.
Q6: When the national bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation begin a liberation struggle what factors determine the strength of their movement?
A6: Simply spoken: “The strength of the national movement is determined by the degree to which the wide strata of the nation, the proletariat and peasantry, participate in it.”
To this end…
“Whether the proletariat rallies to the banner of bourgeois nationalism depends on the degree of development of class antagonisms, on the class consciousness and degree of organization of the proletariat. The class-conscious proletariat has its own tried banner, and has no need to rally to the banner of the bourgeoisie.”
Meaning that is the proletariat has no banner to rally under and the class conflict and consciousness is weak, the working class is more likely to follow the bourgeoisie’s pursuit of national liberation.
Q7: How is the policy of national determination dangerous to the worker?
A7: Undertaking this path is lethal for the working class because it enables the ruling class to “gloss over” the conflicting class interests and lay down the ground work which will eventually enslave the proletariat.
Q8: What does it mean when Stalin says that each nation has the right to self-determination?
A8: To quote comrade Stalin at length:
“The right of self-determination means that only the nation itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has the right forcibly to interfere in the life of the nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights.
This, of course, does not mean that Social-Democracy will support every custom and institution of a nation. While combating the coercion of any nation, it will uphold only the right of the nation itself to determine its own destiny, at the same time agitating against harmful customs and institutions of that nation in order to enable the toiling strata of the nation to emancipate themselves from them.
The right of self-determination means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it wishes. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations have equal rights.”
Such, however, does not mean revolutionaries will unconditionally support every demand of a nation but rather only those demands which coincide with the working class.
Q9: What is the ultimate goal when revolutionaries support national self-determination?
A9: The end-goal is: “In fighting for the right of nations to self-determination, the aim of [socialists] 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.” This is the difference between the class conscious bourgeois and proletariat; the former aims to inflame the tensions while the latter aims to reduce the tensions. It is for this reason that the class conscious working class find it impossible to rally under the banner of the ruling class.
Q10: When is the “final disappearance of the national movement”?
A10: According to Stalin: “The fate of a national movement, which is essentially a bourgeois movement, is naturally bound up with the fate of the bourgeoisie. The -final disappearance of a national movement is possible only with the downfall of the bourgeoisie.” Only under socialism can war be eliminated. While under a thorough democratization it is possible to render it nearly harmless to the proletariat this still does not completely eliminate the antagonisms.
III: Presentation of the Question
Q11: How is the solution of the national question possible?
A11: As said by comrade Stalin, “The solution of the national question is possible only in connection with the historical conditions taken in their development.” Meaning that one must examine what material and social conditions a nation finds itself in when the question arises. “To repeat: the concrete historical conditions as the starting point, and the dialectical presentation of the question as the only correct way of presenting it – such is the key to solving the national question.” What works for one nation may not work for another.
IV: Cultural-National Autonomy
Q12: What is Cultural-National Autonomy?
A12: “This means, firstly, that autonomy would be granted [to minority nationalities], irrespective of territory, no matter what part of [the nation] they inhabit.” This translates to individuals being organized into autonomous nations which have power over each nationality’s cultural history and needs.
Q13: This concept was first theorized by the social-democrats Bauer and Springer where they suggested that this kind of autonomy was a form of national self-determination. Is this a valid observation?
A13: No, it is not. As said by comrade Stalin…
“Bauer failed to understand the meaning of self-determination, or he did understand it but for some reason or other deliberately narrowed its meaning. For there is no doubt a) that cultural-national autonomy presupposes the integrity of the multi-national state, whereas self-determination goes outside the framework of this integrity, and b) that self-determination endows a nation with complete rights, whereas national autonomy endows it only with 'cultural' rights. That in the first place.”
Such ideas run contrary to Marxist theory.
Q14: What would be the results if such a theory as Cultural National Autonomy imbedded itself into the working class?
A14: In short:
“It prepares the ground not only for the segregation of nations, but also for breaking up the united labour movement. The idea of national autonomy creates the psychological conditions for the division of the united workers' party into separate parties built on national lines. The breakup of the party is followed by the breakup of the trade unions, and complete segregation is the result. In this way the united class movement is broken up into separate national rivulets.”
Such theories have their origins rooted in bourgeois thinking and would only serve to hinder the working class movement; when nations are organized along such cultural lines the result is invariably separatism, which in turn, pits worker against worker.
[Note: No questions are given for "The Bund, Its Nationalism, Its Separatism"]
VI: The Caucasians, The Conference of the Liquidators
Q15: In relation to Caucasian autonomy why would such be detrimental?
A15: Because…
“Cultural-national autonomy presumes more or less developed nationalities, with a developed culture and literature. Failing these conditions, autonomy loses all sense and becomes an absurdity. But in the Caucasus there are a number of nationalities each possessing a primitive culture, a separate language, but without its own literature; nationalities, moreover, which are in a state of transition, partly becoming assimilated and partly continuing to develop. How is cultural-national autonomy to be applied to them? What is to be done with such nationalities? How are they to be "organized" into separate cultural-national unions, as is undoubtedly implied by cultural-national autonomy?”
Development and lack of unity in inhabitants thus becomes a cumbersome obstacle to the emancipation of the Caucasian working class.
Q16: What would be a more correct solution to the national question in the Caucuses?
A16: As Stalin says…
“The national question in the Caucasus can be solved only by drawing the belated nations and nationalities into the common stream of a higher culture. It is the only progressive solution and the only solution acceptable to Social-Democracy. Regional autonomy in the Caucasus is acceptable because it would draw the belated nations into the common cultural development; it would help them to cast off the shell of small nation insularity; it would impel them forward and facilitate access to the benefits of higher culture. Cultural-national autonomy, however, acts in a diametrically opposite direction, because it shuts up the nations within their old shells, binds them to the lower stages of cultural development and prevents them from rising to the higher stages of culture.”
Any fusion of national-cultural autonomy and regional autonomy is doomed to failure and serves to only cause set-backs.
Q17: In what way is religious practice affected by a nation’s rights?
A17: In regards to how to ensure that a nation’s religious worship is not affected by its right of determination…
“For example. The programme of the Social-Democrats contains a clause on freedom of religion. According to this clause any group of persons have the right to profess any religion they please: Catholicism, the religion of the Orthodox Church, etc. Social-Democrats will combat all forms of religious persecution, be it of members of the Orthodox Church, Catholics or Protestants. Does this mean that Catholicism, Protestantism, etc., "do not contradict the precise meaning" of the programme? No, it does not. Social-Democrats will always protest against persecution of Catholicism or Protestantism; they will always defend the right of nations to profess any religion they please; but at the same time, on the basis of a correct understanding of the interests of the proletariat, they will carry on agitation against Catholicism, Protestantism and the religion of the Orthodox Church in order to achieve the triumph of the socialist world outlook.”
Revolutionaries undertake this task because it is understood that all religious beliefs ultimately go against the interests of the proletariat.
VII: The National Question in Russia
Q18: What is the basis for the solution of the national question?
A18: As Stalin says the base is the complete democratization of the country, the right of a nation to self-determination, the equal rights of nations in all forms, and regional autonomy.
Q19: How should the workers struggle against the menaces which arise from nationalism?
A19: The most effective solution would be for the working class to unite into collective bodies and from these bodies then unite into a single workers party. As Stalin speaks:
“The worker lives the life of his organization, which stimulates his intellectual growth and educates him. And thus, acting within his organization and continually meeting there comrades from other nationalities, and side by side with them waging a common struggle under the leadership of a common collective body, he becomes deeply imbued with the idea that workers are primarily members of one class family, members of the united army of socialism.”
This encourages the growth of internationalism as comrades meet, exchange information, and update on their home struggles.
Q20: Why is this type of organization not suited for nationality causes?
A20: Because “When the workers are organized according to nationality they isolate themselves within their national shells, fenced off from each other by organizational barriers. The stress is laid not on what is common to the workers but on what distinguishes them from each other. In this type of organization the worker is primarily a member of his nation…” Such is the antithesis of revolutionary goals.
~ ~ ~
I: The Nation
Q1: What is a nation as defined by Stalin?
A1: To quote word by word: “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.” Under this definition it must be stressed that if a nation lacks any of the above mentioned characteristics than it ceases to be a nation.
Q2: Why does a nation cease being a nation if even a single defining trait is missing?
A2: This is an important question and must not be overlooked, as such, it is vital to know that each of the defining traits, as previously mentioned, are indisputably important factors in determination because each have a role in defining the nation in question to its neighbors.
To elaborate, the reason that a stable community must be included is because:
“…it is unquestionable that the great empires of Cyrus and Alexander could not be called nations, although they came to be constituted historically and were formed out of different tribes and races. They were not nations, but casual and loosely-connected conglomerations of groups, which fell apart or joined together according to the victories or defeats of this or that conqueror.”
A nation must be united in the community’s belief that they are a nation and not bound together by force of a conqueror’s armies.
The reason that a common language is necessary is because:
“There is no nation which at one and the same time speaks several languages, but this does not mean that there cannot be two nations speaking the same language! Englishmen and Americans speak one language, but they do not constitute one nation. The same is true of the Norwegians and the Danes, the English and the Irish.”
However, it is important to know that…
“This, of course, does not mean that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages, or that all who speak one language necessarily constitute one nation. A common language for every nation, but not necessarily different languages for different nations!”
Under the pretext of a common people united in a single community these people have chosen a specific language to speak.
The reason that a shared territory and economic life must be requirements is because:
“Firstly, because they do not live together, but inhabit different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation.
But people cannot live together, for lengthy periods unless they have a common territory. Englishmen and Americans originally inhabited the same territory, England, and constituted one nation. Later, one section of the English emigrated from England to a new territory, America, and there, in the new territory, in the course of time, came to form the new American nation. Difference of. territory led to the formation of different nations.”
Which will eventually lead to…
“…a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation.
But this is not all. Common territory does not by itself create a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic bond to weld the various parts of the nation into a single whole. There is no such bond between England and America, and so they constitute two different nations. But the Americans themselves would not deserve to be called a nation were not the different parts of America bound together into an economic whole, as a result of division of labour between them, the development of means of communication, and so forth.”
From here the distinction must be made that the economic life of a nation must be peaceful. Meaning, that if a stable community of people who share a language, and territory rely on violent raids to keep each community’s stockpiles of goods plentiful than they do not constitute a nation.
And finally a distinct psychological make-up found in a common culture must be shared…
“...Nations differ not only in their conditions of life, but also in spiritual complexion, which manifests itself in peculiarities of national culture. If England, America and Ireland, which speak one language, nevertheless constitute three distinct nations, it is in no small measure due to the peculiar psychological make-up which they developed from generation to generation as a result of dissimilar conditions of existence.”
This final condition must be realized otherwise there is no method of separating what people are divided into whom. It would be easy to believe that if a several stable communities of people who shared a common language, territory, and economic trade existed without a unique way of living, than there is no reason why such two groups of people could be considered one nation; hence, this final cultural trait is greatly important.
II: The National Movement
Q3: Stalin says that a nation “…is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch,” what is this epoch?
A3: Stalin believed that the epoch of the nation was the era of rising capitalism.
“The process of elimination of feudalism and development of capitalism is at the same time a process of the constitution of people into nations. Such, for instance, was the case in Western Europe. The British, French, Germans, Italians and others were formed into nations at the time of the victorious advance of capitalism and its triumph over feudal disunity.”
The rise of the nation coincided with the decline of feudalism.
Q4: As capitalism develops and some nationalities gain the edge over others the ruling bourgeoisie suppresses the bourgeoisie of another, weaker, nation. How does the oppressed nation free itself and who leads this struggle?
A4: The circumstances for freedom of development in each nation are varied and can range from petty advertising conflicts to full-blown armed conflicts. The leading force of this struggle is the bourgeoisie as…
“The chief problem for the young bourgeoisie is the problem of the market. Its aim is to sell its goods and to emerge victorious from competition with the bourgeoisie of a different nationality. Hence its desire to secure its 'own,' its 'home' market. The market is the first school in which the bourgeoisie learns its nationalism.”
From here we see that all nationalism is stemmed directly from conflicting market interests.
Q5: What measures can inflame the oppressed nation into taking action and why?
A5: Often times the oppressing bourgeoisie will impose “Restriction[s] [on] freedom of movement, repression of language, restriction of franchise, closing of schools, religious restrictions…” yet in doing this they are denying the oppressed nation their right to determination and development thereby inflaming the situation and contributing towards a liberation struggle.
Q6: When the national bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation begin a liberation struggle what factors determine the strength of their movement?
A6: Simply spoken: “The strength of the national movement is determined by the degree to which the wide strata of the nation, the proletariat and peasantry, participate in it.”
To this end…
“Whether the proletariat rallies to the banner of bourgeois nationalism depends on the degree of development of class antagonisms, on the class consciousness and degree of organization of the proletariat. The class-conscious proletariat has its own tried banner, and has no need to rally to the banner of the bourgeoisie.”
Meaning that is the proletariat has no banner to rally under and the class conflict and consciousness is weak, the working class is more likely to follow the bourgeoisie’s pursuit of national liberation.
Q7: How is the policy of national determination dangerous to the worker?
A7: Undertaking this path is lethal for the working class because it enables the ruling class to “gloss over” the conflicting class interests and lay down the ground work which will eventually enslave the proletariat.
Q8: What does it mean when Stalin says that each nation has the right to self-determination?
A8: To quote comrade Stalin at length:
“The right of self-determination means that only the nation itself has the right to determine its destiny, that no one has the right forcibly to interfere in the life of the nation, to destroy its schools and other institutions, to violate its habits and customs, to repress its language, or curtail its rights.
This, of course, does not mean that Social-Democracy will support every custom and institution of a nation. While combating the coercion of any nation, it will uphold only the right of the nation itself to determine its own destiny, at the same time agitating against harmful customs and institutions of that nation in order to enable the toiling strata of the nation to emancipate themselves from them.
The right of self-determination means that a nation may arrange its life in the way it wishes. It has the right to arrange its life on the basis of autonomy. It has the right to enter into federal relations with other nations. It has the right to complete secession. Nations are sovereign, and all nations have equal rights.”
Such, however, does not mean revolutionaries will unconditionally support every demand of a nation but rather only those demands which coincide with the working class.
Q9: What is the ultimate goal when revolutionaries support national self-determination?
A9: The end-goal is: “In fighting for the right of nations to self-determination, the aim of [socialists] 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.” This is the difference between the class conscious bourgeois and proletariat; the former aims to inflame the tensions while the latter aims to reduce the tensions. It is for this reason that the class conscious working class find it impossible to rally under the banner of the ruling class.
Q10: When is the “final disappearance of the national movement”?
A10: According to Stalin: “The fate of a national movement, which is essentially a bourgeois movement, is naturally bound up with the fate of the bourgeoisie. The -final disappearance of a national movement is possible only with the downfall of the bourgeoisie.” Only under socialism can war be eliminated. While under a thorough democratization it is possible to render it nearly harmless to the proletariat this still does not completely eliminate the antagonisms.
III: Presentation of the Question
Q11: How is the solution of the national question possible?
A11: As said by comrade Stalin, “The solution of the national question is possible only in connection with the historical conditions taken in their development.” Meaning that one must examine what material and social conditions a nation finds itself in when the question arises. “To repeat: the concrete historical conditions as the starting point, and the dialectical presentation of the question as the only correct way of presenting it – such is the key to solving the national question.” What works for one nation may not work for another.
IV: Cultural-National Autonomy
Q12: What is Cultural-National Autonomy?
A12: “This means, firstly, that autonomy would be granted [to minority nationalities], irrespective of territory, no matter what part of [the nation] they inhabit.” This translates to individuals being organized into autonomous nations which have power over each nationality’s cultural history and needs.
Q13: This concept was first theorized by the social-democrats Bauer and Springer where they suggested that this kind of autonomy was a form of national self-determination. Is this a valid observation?
A13: No, it is not. As said by comrade Stalin…
“Bauer failed to understand the meaning of self-determination, or he did understand it but for some reason or other deliberately narrowed its meaning. For there is no doubt a) that cultural-national autonomy presupposes the integrity of the multi-national state, whereas self-determination goes outside the framework of this integrity, and b) that self-determination endows a nation with complete rights, whereas national autonomy endows it only with 'cultural' rights. That in the first place.”
Such ideas run contrary to Marxist theory.
Q14: What would be the results if such a theory as Cultural National Autonomy imbedded itself into the working class?
A14: In short:
“It prepares the ground not only for the segregation of nations, but also for breaking up the united labour movement. The idea of national autonomy creates the psychological conditions for the division of the united workers' party into separate parties built on national lines. The breakup of the party is followed by the breakup of the trade unions, and complete segregation is the result. In this way the united class movement is broken up into separate national rivulets.”
Such theories have their origins rooted in bourgeois thinking and would only serve to hinder the working class movement; when nations are organized along such cultural lines the result is invariably separatism, which in turn, pits worker against worker.
[Note: No questions are given for "The Bund, Its Nationalism, Its Separatism"]
VI: The Caucasians, The Conference of the Liquidators
Q15: In relation to Caucasian autonomy why would such be detrimental?
A15: Because…
“Cultural-national autonomy presumes more or less developed nationalities, with a developed culture and literature. Failing these conditions, autonomy loses all sense and becomes an absurdity. But in the Caucasus there are a number of nationalities each possessing a primitive culture, a separate language, but without its own literature; nationalities, moreover, which are in a state of transition, partly becoming assimilated and partly continuing to develop. How is cultural-national autonomy to be applied to them? What is to be done with such nationalities? How are they to be "organized" into separate cultural-national unions, as is undoubtedly implied by cultural-national autonomy?”
Development and lack of unity in inhabitants thus becomes a cumbersome obstacle to the emancipation of the Caucasian working class.
Q16: What would be a more correct solution to the national question in the Caucuses?
A16: As Stalin says…
“The national question in the Caucasus can be solved only by drawing the belated nations and nationalities into the common stream of a higher culture. It is the only progressive solution and the only solution acceptable to Social-Democracy. Regional autonomy in the Caucasus is acceptable because it would draw the belated nations into the common cultural development; it would help them to cast off the shell of small nation insularity; it would impel them forward and facilitate access to the benefits of higher culture. Cultural-national autonomy, however, acts in a diametrically opposite direction, because it shuts up the nations within their old shells, binds them to the lower stages of cultural development and prevents them from rising to the higher stages of culture.”
Any fusion of national-cultural autonomy and regional autonomy is doomed to failure and serves to only cause set-backs.
Q17: In what way is religious practice affected by a nation’s rights?
A17: In regards to how to ensure that a nation’s religious worship is not affected by its right of determination…
“For example. The programme of the Social-Democrats contains a clause on freedom of religion. According to this clause any group of persons have the right to profess any religion they please: Catholicism, the religion of the Orthodox Church, etc. Social-Democrats will combat all forms of religious persecution, be it of members of the Orthodox Church, Catholics or Protestants. Does this mean that Catholicism, Protestantism, etc., "do not contradict the precise meaning" of the programme? No, it does not. Social-Democrats will always protest against persecution of Catholicism or Protestantism; they will always defend the right of nations to profess any religion they please; but at the same time, on the basis of a correct understanding of the interests of the proletariat, they will carry on agitation against Catholicism, Protestantism and the religion of the Orthodox Church in order to achieve the triumph of the socialist world outlook.”
Revolutionaries undertake this task because it is understood that all religious beliefs ultimately go against the interests of the proletariat.
VII: The National Question in Russia
Q18: What is the basis for the solution of the national question?
A18: As Stalin says the base is the complete democratization of the country, the right of a nation to self-determination, the equal rights of nations in all forms, and regional autonomy.
Q19: How should the workers struggle against the menaces which arise from nationalism?
A19: The most effective solution would be for the working class to unite into collective bodies and from these bodies then unite into a single workers party. As Stalin speaks:
“The worker lives the life of his organization, which stimulates his intellectual growth and educates him. And thus, acting within his organization and continually meeting there comrades from other nationalities, and side by side with them waging a common struggle under the leadership of a common collective body, he becomes deeply imbued with the idea that workers are primarily members of one class family, members of the united army of socialism.”
This encourages the growth of internationalism as comrades meet, exchange information, and update on their home struggles.
Q20: Why is this type of organization not suited for nationality causes?
A20: Because “When the workers are organized according to nationality they isolate themselves within their national shells, fenced off from each other by organizational barriers. The stress is laid not on what is common to the workers but on what distinguishes them from each other. In this type of organization the worker is primarily a member of his nation…” Such is the antithesis of revolutionary goals.