LIVIO MAITAN
Introducing this
issue IN THIS ISSUE we publish documents and articles on the national question in the Soviet Union and also an article on the national question in Yugoslavia. The subject is all the more topical in that the national question is also becoming central to developments in other bureaucratized transitional societies such as Romania and China.
Our aim in this issue has been to show firstly: how the national question has been posed in the Soviet Union since 1917, secondly, what positions the main protagonists of the debates of the 1920s and 30s took towards it, and thirdly to give some idea of the main trends which are developing now, and the debates which are currently taking place, including in the official press. The situation in and problems of the Soviet Union today will be discussed at the forthcoming world congress of the Fourth International, which will also be the proper place for our movement to take a definite position on these matters. The articles published in this issue only represent the opinions of their authors.
In general the present crisis is the result of decades of bureaucratic domination under different forms according to the period and the country, but always to the detriment of the interests and aspirations of the great majority of the populations affected. In the Soviet Union, in particular, the crisis exists
4 International Marxist Review because of the stifling centralism imposed by the Stalinist regime. This centralism has devastated every area of Soviet society and has been an essential means by which the bureaucracy has expropriated the revolutionary conquests of the working masses. As far as relations between nations are concerned, it has been the instrument for the denationalization of the non-Russian peoples and the establishment of forms of Great Russian hegemony. It is thus inevitable that in the eyes of the non-Russian nationalities the domination of the bureaucratic caste appears as national oppression. This is the reason why, as soon as the political and ideological apparatus of the bureaucracy begins to weaken, there is an explosion of national movements. In fact, without wishing to minimize the importance of events such as the massive support shown to Boris Yeltsin in the March 1989 elections or the development of an important wave of workers' strikes, such as that of the Siberian miners, it remains beyond dispute that the biggest mass mobilizations have been those inspired by national demands. These mobilizations have developed side by side with the growing criticism of the Stalinist regime and its ideology. Whether from conviction or tactical convenience, the authors of these critiques have frequently referred to Lenin's ideas and to the approach to the national question of the first post-revolutionary period. At the same time, however, an increasing number of historical studies and political appraisals have begun to appear which call into question both the regime of those early years and the ideas and methods of Lenin himself. This is not an altogether new approach and in the 1920s it inspired various social democratic and bourgeois campaigns as well as the efforts of numerous "heretics and renegades" ", as Isaac Deutscher described them in the title of one of his books. This does not, however, make these ideas any less dangerous at a time when it is essential to have clear ideas on the nature of Stalinism and its birth.
Revolutionary Marxists have never argued that everything was fine in the early years of the revolution and that there were no problems before the death of Lenin. On the contrary, they have drawn the lessons of successive experiences and have explained that decisions were taken at that time without due regard for the dangers they contained (for example the notorious decision limiting the right of tendency). It is significant moreover that in the 1930s Leon Trotsky, the only Bolshevik leader who systematically analysed the first post-revolutionary period and the 1920s, put forward positions which were quite different from those that he had defended in the preceding decade on crucial problems such as the plurality of parties and the role of the trade unions. It is worth pointing this out because we are witnessing, in the epoch
Introducing this issue 5 of glasnost, a new semi-official attempt to falsify the record. It is being made to appear as if the positions which Trotsky took in particular contexts ( such as when he wrote "In Defence of Terrorism" or in the trade union debate) represent his basic position. The object of the exercise is to show that the alternative which Trotsky put forward is, in essence, no different from Stalinism.
We do not pretend that there was not a serious lack of understanding of the national question, or that measures were not taken that ignored the specificities of particular republics and regions — not to mention straightforward mistakes. Even so, there was a qualitative difference between the conceptions and practices of the period of Lenin and those which prevailed under Stalin. The historical survey by Antonio Moscato and some of the texts which we publish here are enough to confirm this, showing that in the last period of his active life Lenin launched a battle against the signs of bureaucratization of the revolutionary regime and in particular against the bureaucratic and chauvinist tendencies which were encroaching on the rights of national minorities.
All those who confuse, in good or bad faith, Leninism with Stalinism, as well as those who, sixty years after the event, prescribe what the Bolsheviks should have done in this or that situation, should not overlook one fundamental fact. The right of peoples to self-determination was not a dead letter for the Bolsheviks. On the contrary it became a reality for a number of the nationalities of the old Tsarist empire. This is a concrete example, almost without precedent in history, of revolutionary principle and far-sightedness.
It would in any case be absurd to forget that in 1917 and in the following years outside interference made it impossible for national problems, including whether or not to remain within the Soviet Union, to be freely raised and resolved by the peoples themselves. National struggles could not be separated from socio-political struggles, and the imperialist forces, as well as the local counter-revolutionaries, were intent on restoring the power of the old ruling classes by violence and without concern for national rights. In such a situation it is not possible to separate out one or another national question or believe that a mere statement of principle is enough to resolve concrete problems. Nothing is further removed from Lenin's method than to present the national question — and not only the national question — in absolute terms, in abstraction from circumstances. Let us take a little known example, that of Belgium during the First World War. Lenin had no time for the ideological mystifications of the social democrats who justified their support for the policies of "their own" imperialism by reference to the need to defend the inde-
6 International Marxist Review pendence of "little" Belgium. Even so, he made it clear that his position was determined by the fact that the question of Belgium was inseparable from the question of the imperialist war. His attitude would have been different if the Belgian question had been raised in a different context. Revolutionary Marxists adhere firmly to the basic principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. The precise forms which can ensure the exercise of this right may differ and it would be wrong to give universal validity to specific formulations used by Lenin or Trotsky in particular circumstances. The fundamental thing is that this basic right should be guaranteed in reality. It is the duty of revolutionaries to fight for this, at the same time as respecting the popular will, whatever it might be.
It is also the elementary duty of revolutionaries to always put themselves in the place of the oppressed nationality, and reject every sort of spurious "balance" . Recent events have shown once again that it is often very difficult to precisely define the context of a national question. For example, as a result of a colonization programme or for some other reason, a particular national territory can have within it a minority of predominantly proletarian composition which is of the same nationality as forms the majority of the whole state. Clearly a solution whose aim is to avoid fratricidal conflicts and future explosions must take account of the complexities of such situations. Nonetheless it is the rights of the minority within the whole state which must take priority, and it is this minority which must first of all have the right to self-determination. One of the texts that we are reprinting deals with the way in which such problems are posed today in the Baltic countries.
Two further points need clarification.
Firstly, defence of the right to self-determination does not necessarily mean to be in favour of secession or of independence in the form of the creation of a new state. Revolutionaries fight for each nationality to have an effective choice. A concrete analysis may lead to the conclusion that independence is the best solution. This was Trotsky's attitude towards the Ukraine at the end of the 1930s. But other circumstances suggest other solutions, such as regional autonomy, or a republic integrated into a multinational state, whether in the form of a federation or a confederation.
In any case a number of different questions need to be addressed, notably: what is the best way to guarantee the right to self-determination, while creating at the same time the best conditions for the struggle of the proletariat and other exploited layers? What is the best solution from the point of view of the struggle of other nationalities and the proletariat of other countries? What is the solution which will be most favourable for the evolution of the balance of
Introducing this issue 7 forces on a world scale? Nor is there any good reason why revolutionaries should hide the truth in a situation where, far from guaranteeing real independence, the formation of a new state will lead to replacing the oppression of the hegemonic bureaucratic caste with that of imperialism. On the contrary, they should dissociate themselves from those who deny the danger and from those who present secession and 'independence' as the panacea for all the evils which afflict oppressed nations.
To put it another way, revolutionary Marxists must not allow the defence of the right to self-determination to become confused with the fight waged by nationalist movements. Contrary to what the nationalists believe, the economic, social and other problems which are at the root of the mass mobilizations in the oppressed nationalities will not in any way be solved by the creation of independent states. Even when independence is the necessary solution, it can only be a point of departure for a more profound dynamic, that is to say one which is not only anti-centralist, but also anti-bureaucratic (or, in the capitalist world not only anti-imperialist, but also anti-capitalist). In this sense the conception of the national question is connected to the conception of the permanent revolution.
We cannot share the ideas which were formulated 70 years ago by a current within Ukrainian communism, the so-called Ukapist, which are presented in an article on the independence of the Ukraine included in this number of the review. According to this current, the tendency to the internationalization of the productive forces was counteracted by an opposing tendency, that of the nationalization of the productive forces. There was thus an objective basis for demanding the creation of new independent national states and the struggle for such independent states would be a progressive one. I do not want here to go into the question of what overall assessment should be made of this current. But their theories regarding the tendencies of the productive forces were already dubious at the end of the First World War. Today, at a time when the globalization of the economy has reached huge and irreversible dimensions they are simply wrong. It is completely illusory to think that a non-capitalist, collectivist economy can develop harmoniously and efficiently in a national framework. The crisis which is currently hitting the bureaucratized transitional societies is eloquent in this respect In fact, from now on it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a way out of the economic and social contradictions which are tearing the world apart not merely on the national level, but even on a continental or sub-continental basis, while the nation state provides an ever less viable economic framework. The significance of the struggle for self-determination, and, if the case arises, for the
8 International Marxist Review formation of new independent states is political, and, in the last analysis conjunctural. As for the situation in the Soviet Union, it goes without saying that revolutionary Marxists defend the right to self-determination, which implies the right to secession. But it would be wrong to automatically adopt the positions developed by Trotsky in the 1930s and by the Fourth International in the following years. Our position needs to be developed on the basis of an analysis of the real tendencies at work and the interests and aspirations which they express. The development of such an analysis requires dialogue with the militants on the spot. This is perfectly possible because anti-bureaucratic groups and tendencies of significant size exist and are showing a willingness to address the difficult problems posed by the crisis of the system of bureaucratic rule. The debate which we are opening will deal with urgent questions which cannot be answered by statements of abstract principle. Would newly reformed Baltic states be effectively independent or would there be the risk that they would fall into the grip of imperialism, thus replacing one oppression by another? Is it possible to imagine a solution to social problems, including the ecological problems which have led to the formation of movements, in a national framework? Would the integration of these countries into the world capitalist market be advantageous to the peoples of these countries? Should we, furthermore, exclude federal or confederal solutions in the framework of which the different republics would have real democratic rights in all areas, as has been demanded so far by the national movements in the Baltic countries and even adopted by the Estonian Supreme Soviet in November 1988? The fact that these arguments are advanced by the so-called "internationalists" as a means of defending the status quo does not destroy their intrinsic value, in the same way as the imperialist propaganda about the Stalinist terror was never in our eyes a reason for not ourselves denouncing the Stalinist crimes. Finally, in the case of Yugoslavia, is it not clear that the destruction of the Federation created by the revolution of 1943-45 would be a serious step backwards both from the Yugoslav and international point of view?
A serious discussion of such problems is all the more necessary insofar as tendencies to which revolutionary Marxists must make no concession are developing as much within the oppressed nations as among those who adhere in a general way to Gorbachev's reformism. These tendencies, whether represented by social layers (weak for the moment) or by groups and individuals reacting against Stalinism, idealize the past and spread illusions about the
Introducing this issue 9 capitalist economy, the bourgeois political institutions of Western Europe and North America, and the culture and ideology of the old ruling classes.