The Proletarian Revolution in Russia/Part 6/Chapter 4
IV
RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION.
(Trotzky)
We saw above, that Socialism, in the solution of concrete questions in the field of national state-groups and organizations of a new kind, can make no step without the principle of national self-determination, which latter in its last instance appears as the recognition of the right of every national group to decide its national fate, hence as the right of peoples to sever themselves from a given state (as for instance Russia or Austria). The only democratic way of getting to know the "will" of a nation is the referendum. This democratic-obligatory reply will, however, in the manner described, remain quite formal. It does not enlighten us with regard to the real possibilities, ways and means of national self-determination under the present conditions of capitalistic management: And yet the crux of the matter lies in all this.
For many, if not for the majority of the oppressed nations, national groups and factions, the meaning of self-determination is the cancellation of the existing borders and the dismemberment of present states. In particular, this democratic principle leads to the deliverance of the colonies. Yet the whole policy of Imperialism aims at the extension of state borders regardless of the national principle of the compulsory incorporation of weak states within the customs border, and the acquisition of new colonies. Imperialism is by its very nature both expansive and offensive, and it is this qualification that characterizes Imperialism, and not the changeable manuevers of diplomancy.
Whence the perennial conflict between the principle of national self-determination which in many cases leads to state and economic decentralization, and the powerful efforts at centralization on the part of Imperialism which has at its disposal the State organization and the military power. True, the national-separatistic movement very often finds support in the Imperialistic intrigue of The Neighboring State. This support, however, becomes decisive only in the application of war-might. As soon as there is an armed conflict between two imperialistic organizations, the new state boundaries will not be decided on the ground of the national principle, but on the basis of the relative military forces. To compel a victorious State to refrain from annexing newly-occupied lands is as difficult as to force it to grant the freedom of self-determination to provinces previously acquired. Lastly, even 1f by a miracle Europe was divided by force of arms into fixed national states and small states, the national question would not thereby be 1n the least decided, and the very next day after the righteous national redistributions, capitalistic expansion would resume its work. Conflicts would arise, wars and new acquisitions, in complete disregard of the national principle in all such cases where its assertion can not be maintained by a sufficient number of bayonets. It would all give the impression of gamblers being forced to divide the gold justly among themselves in the middle of the game, in order to start the same game all over again with double rage.
From the might of the centralistic tendency of Imperialism it does not at all follow that we are obliged passively to submit to it. National unity is a living hearth of culture, as the national language is its living organ, and these will still retain their meaning through indefinitely long historical periods. Socialism will and must warrant to the national unity its freedom of development (or dissolution) in the interest of material and spiritual culture. It is in this sense that it took over from the revolutionary bourgeoisie the democratic principle of national self-determination as a political obligation.
The right of national self-determination can not be excluded from the proletarian peace-program. Neither can it claim absolute importance. On the contrary, it is, in our view, limited by deep, progressive, antagonistic tendencies of historical evolution. If this "right" is by means of revolutionary power, set over against the imperialistic methods of centralization, which places weak and backward peoples under the yoke and crushes out national culture, then on the other hand the proletariat cannot allow the "national principle" to get in the way of the inevitable and deeply progressive tendencies of the present industrial order towards an orderly organization throughout our continent, and further, all over the globe.
Imperialism is the capitalistic-thievish expression of this tendency of modern industry to tear itself completely away from the stupidity of national narrowness, as it did on former occasions with regard to local and provincial confinement while fighting against the imperialistic form of economic centralization. Socialism does not at all take a stand against the particular tendency as such, but rather on the contrary, makes the tendency its guiding principle.
From the standpoint of historical development as well as from the point of view of the problems of Socialism, the centralistic tendency of modern industry is fundamental, and it must be guaranteed the amplest possibility of executing its real historical deliverance mission, to construct the united world industry, independent of national frames, state and tariff barriers, subject only to the peculiarities of the soil and its interior, to climate and the requirements of division of labor. Poles, Alsatians, Dalmatians, Belgians, Serbians and other small weak European nations not yet subjugated, may be re-instated or set up in the national borders towards which they strive, only inasmuch as they, remaining in these boundaries and able to freely develop their cultural existence as national groups, will cease to be economic groupings, will not be bound by state borders, will not be separated from or opposed to one another economically. In other words, in order that Poland, Serbia, Roumania and others be able actually to form national units, it is necessary that the state boundaries now splitting them up into parts be cancelled, that the frames of the state be enlarged as an economic but not as a national organization, until it envelop the whole of capitalistic Europe, which is now divided by tariffs and borders and torn by war. The state unification of Europe is clearly a pre-requisite of self-determination of great and small nations. A national culture existence, free of national economic antagonism and based on real self-determination, is possible only under the roof of a democratically united Europe freed from state and tariff barriers.
This direct and immediate independence of national self-determination of weak States from the collective European règime, excludes the possibility of the proletariat's placing questions like the independence of Poland or the uniting of all Serbs outside the European revolution. On the other hand, this signifies that the right of self-determination, as a part of the proletariat peace-program, possesses not a "utopian" but rather a revolutionary character.