True Proletarian Internationalism.
AS Lenin with the agrarian problem, so also with the national problem, has given us a new conception of its significance. The international Social-Democracy attempted the solution of this problem in a purely rationalistic manner. The Social-Democracy protested formally against the colonial policy of the bourgeoisie. It became apparent, however, right at the beginning of the last war, that international reformism is putting the so-called national interests above the class interests, and is accepting the point of view of the bourgeoisie in the matter of colonial policy. Long before the revolution Lenin had been studying the national problem. During the war he had been writing against the Great Russian chauvinists, exposing the false position of even many of the left-wing elements of the labor movement.
When Lenin came to power he commenced to put into effect his own policies. In doing so, it must be admitted, he found resistance even in the ranks of his own party. Lenin had fought with particular energy against the attempt to carry on a nationalistic and Russifying policy under the cover of internationalism. It is known that Lenin was the spiritual father of the international policies of Soviet Russia. But it is not so well known that he had been following with particular attention Soviet Russia's Eastern policies. From the workers of those countries which hold in subjection other nations, he used to demand not only platonic sympathies for the oppressed, but practical political and technical measures of support to the revolutionary masses which are struggling against the yoke of imperialism.
For Lenin the demand for "self-determination of nations up to the point of separation" was no mere demagogic phrase, but a real law of practical policy. If we follow the line of policy pursued by Soviet Russia since its existence we find that this was the actual policy of Lenin put into effect. He was never satisfied with general principles alone. He carried out his ideas in all details.
Lenin took part in the debate on the national question which took place in_December of 1922. He wrote: "I have already mentioned in my writings on the national question that there is no use in considering this problem abstractly. It is necessary to distinguish between the nationalism of a people which oppresses, and the nationalism of a people which is itself oppressed, that is, between the nationalism of big nations and the nationalism of small nations. We, as representatives of a big nation, are
25
