1. From the Second International to the Fight Against the Threat of War

Obviously, we begin from the premise that Lenin addresses this question within the general framework established by Marx and Engels’ reflections on the matter, as well as the animated debates that developed in the Second International and, in particular, statements that became references of principle, such as those by Engels in 1847 (“a nation cannot conquer its liberty if it continues to oppress others”[^2]) and, especially, in 1882 when he maintained that “the triumphant proletariat cannot force any happiness upon another people without undermining its own victory in this act” (Marx and Engels, 1981 [1882]: 508). Their approach was initially an evolutionist view of history—which trusted in the progressive overcoming of national antagonisms as progress was made towards socialism, as they maintain in the Communist Manifesto—accompanied by an open defence of the right to independence for Poland and Ireland, and which gradually opened towards a multilinear conception of history as they showed an increasing interest in the study of non-Western societies[^3].

Their position on conflicts such as those in Poland and Ireland would influence the debates in the Second International and would be reflected in the consensus reached at the London Congress in 1896, which declared that the International “is in favour of the complete right to self-determination of all nations and expresses its sympathies to the workers of every country that currently suffers under the yoke of military, national or other forms of absolutism”. However, it is a resolution that was approved “amidst total incomprehension and indifference” (Löwy and Haupt, 1980: 58)[^4].

This was also the position maintained within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) at its Second Congress in 1903 (which in Article 9 defends the “right to self-determination of all nations, including those within the borders of the State”). Lenin clearly assumes this orientation, as can be seen in his article “The National Question in Our Programme”, published on 15 July 1903 (Lenin, 1975: 284-293). In it, he defends the right to self-determination, understood as the right to separation, without thereby favouring his party’s defence of this option and specifying, in controversy with leaders of the Polish Socialist Party, that “only in isolated cases and as an exception” should separation be supported. He was also not in favour of federation, except again in isolated cases, unlike Kautsky, since he was in favour of a “non-imperialist” centralised state. Likewise, he was in favour of democratic centralism within the party against the federal proposals of Social Democrats from the periphery of the Tsarist Empire (Eric Blanc, 2014) or of autonomy by the Bund.

  2. From the Great War to the Russian Revolution of 1917

It is especially from 1913 when Lenin addresses this question more deeply, considering that it is evident that a different historical phase had been entered from that which Marx and Engels had known, and that therefore the distinction between nations “with history” and “without history” no longer made sense. He argues that equality of rights for nations must be defended and, therefore, the rights of national minorities also within existing states, refusing to take their borders as something natural.

Thus, in “The Working Class and the National Question”, in May 1913, Lenin (1984a: 157-158) maintains that:

“In our days, only the proletariat defends the true freedom of nations and the unity of workers of all nations. For different nations to coexist or separate (when it suits them best) freely and peacefully, forming different states, full democracy is necessary, defended by the working class. Not a single privilege for any nation, for any language! Not the slightest vexation, not the slightest injustice to any national minority! Such are the principles of working-class democracy.”

These reflections appear more systematically in his article “Critical Notes on the National Question”, written between October and December 1913 (Lenin, 1976a). In it, he presents Switzerland as an example of respect and practice of multilingualism, whilst reaffirming his defence of the right to self-determination, understood as the right to separation and not to federalism or decentralisation, as he reaffirms the need for a state based on democratic centralism. Also, in that article, he polemicises with the Bund, rejecting the idea of a Jewish “national culture” and, against Otto Bauer[^5], of “national-cultural autonomy” as an option to claim, although he does come to recognise that “the Hebrew nation” is “the most oppressed and persecuted”[^6].

Also that same year, he demonstrates the growing interest he had shown from the impact of the Russian revolution of 1905 on the peoples of the East, as shown in his article “The Awakening of Asia” (Lenin, 1984b: 154). In it, he maintains that: “After the Russian movement of 1905, the democratic revolution has spread throughout Asia, to Turkey, Persia and China. Agitation increases in English India (...) and Dutch India”.

Later, in his article “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, from February-May 1914 (Lenin, 1976b), he argues with Rosa Luxemburg, insisting on the defence of the right to self-determination as the right to separation and to “the formation of an independent national state”, although he makes it clear that the proletariat subordinates national demands to the interests of class struggle. This implies the need for a differentiated tactic towards the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation:

“Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights against the oppressor, we are in all cases and more decisively than anyone in favour, because we are the most fearless and consistent enemies of oppression. Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its bourgeois nationalism, we are against. Struggle against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation and no tolerance with the pursuit of privileges by the oppressed nation” (ibid.: 115; emphasis in the original).

Also, against the opinion of the Polish revolutionary, Lenin considers legitimate the support of the Swedish workers’ movement for the independence of Norway, achieved through a referendum in 1905, drawing on Marx’s position on the questions of Poland and Ireland, while continuing to advocate for “the fusion of workers of all nations”.

These considerations are reflected within the Tsarist Empire and, specifically, in the crisis that begins in the context of the Great Imperialist War. In this framework, we can observe Lenin’s interest in the relations between Russia and Ukraine, as reflected in his speech in Zurich on 27 October 1914. In it, he maintains that “what Ireland has been for England, Ukraine has become for Russia, exploited to the extreme, receiving nothing in return. Thus, both the interests of the international proletariat in general and those of the Russian proletariat in particular demand that Ukraine reconquer its own state independence which, only it, will allow it to achieve the cultural development indispensable to the proletariat” (Serbyn, 1981; emphasis mine).

Therefore, assuming the denunciation of the Russian Empire as a “prison of peoples” (Lenin, 1976c: 215), in “Socialism and War”, written in July and August 1915 (Lenin, 1976d), he characterises tsarism as a “military and feudal imperialism”, going so far as to maintain that: “Nowhere in the world is the majority of the population as oppressed as in Russia”. For this reason, the defence of the right to self-determination, or to separation, appears as an inevitable task for the social democratic parties of the oppressor countries, albeit inserting it on the path towards “the freest, boldest and, therefore, widest and most extensive formation of large states and federations of states, more beneficial to the masses and more in line with economic development”.

Also in his article “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”, from January-February 1916 (Lenin, 1976e), again against Rosa Luxemburg, he considers that Norway is an example that the right to self-determination is “achievable” under capitalism without having to wait for the conquest of socialism. In addition, he presents that same experience of defending “the full freedom of agitation in favour of separation and that this be decided by means of a referendum of the nation that wishes to separate”, even when being against that option, since:

“The closer the democratic regime of the state approaches full freedom of separation, the weaker will be in practice the aspirations for separatism, since the advantages of large states are undoubted, both from the point of view of economic progress and from the point of view of the interests of the masses, with the particularity that these advantages grow without ceasing at the same time as capitalism” (ibid.: 352).

Likewise, in that same article, he does not rule out the defence of the right to self-determination even when this claim may be exploited by another “great” power:

“The circumstance that the struggle for national freedom against one imperialist power may be used, under certain conditions, by another ’great’ power to achieve equally imperialist aims cannot oblige social democracy to renounce recognising the right of nations to self-determination, in the same way that the repeated cases of utilisation of republican slogans by the bourgeoisie for purposes of political fraud and financial plunder (for example, in Latin countries) cannot oblige social democrats to renounce their republicanism” (ibid.: 355).

It is also in this article where he develops the distinction between three large groups of states and countries: 1, the advanced ones of Western Europe and the United States (where each of “these ’great’ nations oppresses other nations in the colonies and within the country”); 2, Eastern Europe (where these legitimate national movements are forming in contexts of imperial decline); and 3, the semi-colonies and all the colonies (where anti-colonial movements will progressively be forged, which must be supported) (357-358). A differentiation that he reaffirms, again in polemic primarily with Rosa Luxemburg, in “On the Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism”, written between August and October 1916 (Lenin, 1976f).

Rosa Luxemburg, on the contrary, maintains in “The National Question and Autonomy”, written in 1908 (1977: 109) that the entry into the imperialist phase implies “the development towards the Great State”, thus condemning the whole of mini and micro-nationalities to political weakness. Therefore, according to her, it is illusory to ask for their self-determination, since they have no possibility of exercising it against the imperialist states. A thesis that is shared by Karl Radek, Bukharin, Görter and other radical Marxists (including Trotsky, who maintains an ambiguous position). This position finds its reply in Lenin, who criticises the confusion they show of “the problem of the political self-determination of nations in bourgeois society, of their state independence, with that of their economic self-determination and independence” (Lenin, 1976b: 101-102). The Polish revolutionary considers, on the contrary, that the central task is to put in the foreground class struggles and anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles. Starting from this position and from the critical analysis she makes of the Polish nationalist movement, Rosa Luxemburg shows her firm rejection not only of the defence of the right to self-determination of Poland, but also of the position that the Russian Social Democrats maintain in their 1903 resolution.

Despite her reservations, the Polish Social Democrat does not deny the need for workers to defend “the democratic and cultural objectives of the national movement, that is, the establishment of political institutions that guarantee, by peaceful means, the free development of the culture of all nationalities living in the same state” (ibid.: 134). However, later she gives her support to the Balkan peoples against the Turkish Empire, which she considers unviable, and in 1915 she comes to defend the right to self-determination, although she does not consider it viable in the framework of the capitalist state. In summary, it could be concluded that the Polish revolutionary falls into an economistic conception of the national problem, not understanding that “the national liberation of oppressed peoples was also a demand of all the popular masses, including the proletariat” (Löwy, 1980: 98)[^7].

On the contrary, we have seen that Lenin reaffirms in his successive articles the defence of the right to self-determination, or to separation. For this, he establishes a clear distinction between oppressor nations and oppressed nations, as well as between the different tasks that correspond to social democrats in both: while in the former the accent should be placed on the right to separation, in the latter it should be on the commitment to free union, although each concrete case would always have to be analysed.

Always debating with the majority of those who have even broken with the Second International, as Kevin B. Anderson (2010: 130) recalls, Lenin would insist on the strategic importance of anti-imperialist national movements. The classification that Lenin establishes of the three groups of countries stems, precisely, from the broader and deeper analysis that he develops in “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, written between January and June 1916 (Lenin, 1976g); which leads him, against positions such as that of Kautsky (which obviates the denunciation of the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine by Germany), to highlight the relevance of the national and colonial question, as can be seen when he maintains that:

"Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which bring everywhere the tendency to domination, and not to freedom. The result of this tendency is reaction on all fronts, whatever the political regime, and the extreme exacerbation of contradictions in this sphere as well. National oppression and the tendency towards annexations, that is, the violation of national independence, are particularly intensified (for annexation is nothing but the violation of the right of nations to self-determination (ibid.: 493; emphasis mine).

Another important subsequent step can be found in his article “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”, written in July 1916 (Lenin, 1976h). In it, as announced by the title itself, he takes stock of the debates held in previous years, insists on the cases of Norway and Alsace (against its annexation) and refutes the arguments of those who limit themselves to defending the right of self-determination only for the colonies. In addition, he places special emphasis on his firm support for the Irish Easter uprising in 1916 against those within his own ranks, such as Karl Radek, who criticise it as a mere “putsch” of a “purely urban, petty-bourgeois nationalist movement”. In contrast, for Lenin, this popular uprising becomes a clear example of what he had already pointed out in his work on the consequences of the imperialist crisis in the framework of the Great War, since it “proves that the flames of national insurrections on the occasion of the crisis of imperialism have been lit both in the colonies and in Europe, that national sympathies and antipathies have manifested themselves, despite the draconian threats and repressive measures” (ibid.: 53; emphasis in the original)[^8].

Also in July 1916, the Bolshevik leader wrote “The Junius Pamphlet” (Lenin, 1976i), referring to the text published by Rosa Luxemburg that same year “The Crisis of Social Democracy” (1978), which she signed with the pseudonym Junius. In his commentary, one can observe again different visions of the future of national liberation wars. Thus, after praising that work as “an excellent Marxist work, and it is very possible that its defects are, to a certain extent, accidental”, he then points out that “the main defect (...) is its silence on the link between social-chauvinism (...) and opportunism”. He considers that “transplanting the appreciation of the present war [referring to the Great War begun in 1914] to all possible wars under imperialism” would mean “forgetting the national movements against imperialism” (ibid.: 5; emphasis in the original). Therefore, against this position, he defends that “not only are national wars probable, but inevitable on the part of the colonies and semi-colonies”, but that “not even in Europe can national liberation wars be considered impossible in the era of imperialism”. The latter, he insists, are not only inevitable, but also “progressive, revolutionary”, although their success will depend on different factors, among them “the especially favourable conjunction of the factors that characterise the international situation” (ibid: 6-9; emphasis in the original).

Again, behind this controversy, we can see different conceptions about the consequences derived from the entry into the new imperialist stage and into the Great War, which imply differences on the national question and the place of the claim for the right to self-determination, as well as on the tactics that can be derived from it, not so much in the colonies, whose struggles the Polish revolutionary supports, as Lenin recognises, but also in Europe. Future development would, in our opinion, prove the Bolshevik leader right.

 3. From the Russian Revolution to the Foundation of the USSR

The line of argument developed by Lenin contributes to laying the groundwork for the position that the Bolshevik party Congress comes to approve in the middle of the revolutionary process in May 1917, when mobilisations for their national rights were also developing among the different peoples of the Russian Empire:

“The right to freely separate and form independent states must be recognised for all nations comprising Russia. The denial of this right and the failure to take measures aimed at guaranteeing its exercise are equivalent to supporting a policy of conquests or annexations” (Lenin, 1976j: 419).

Prior to its approval, in his “Speech on the National Question” (Lenin, 1976k), arguing with comrades from his own party, the Bolshevik leader declared before that Congress:

“If Finland, Poland or Ukraine separate from Russia, there is nothing wrong with that. What harm can there be? Whoever affirms it is a chauvinist. One must have lost one’s mind to continue the policy of Tsar Nicholas. Hasn’t Norway separated from Sweden?”

Specifically, in the case of Ukraine, in June of that same year, he wonders if it would not be better for the workers of Ukraine to opt for the separation of their country to then join Russia in the framework of a socialist federation (Lenin, 1985: 365-366). A position that he will reiterate later, in March 1922, showing himself in favour of accepting the option of an independent Ukraine if the Congress of Soviets of that country so decides[^9] (Kowalewski, 2022).

All this does not prevent Lenin from remaining very critical of all types of nationalisms and even of concepts such as national culture, but at the same time manifesting himself against the assimilationist policies of Great Russian nationalism in matters such as language, again using Switzerland as an example of a democratic solution. He thus postulates a rejection of the privileges of any nation to the detriment of others, while always fighting to insert these democratic demands within a socialist project hegemonised by the working class.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia of November 1917 thus establishes the search for an alliance with national liberation movements, establishing very clear principles on this issue:

1. Equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia; 2. Right of the peoples of Russia to free self-determination, not excluding separation and constitution as an independent state; 3. Abolition of all kinds of national and national-religious privileges and limitations; 4. Free development of national minorities and ethnic groups that populate the territory of Russia.

A position that, once again, will be the object of harsh criticism by Rosa Luxemburg (1978), who considers that instead of that claim, which would contribute to “the state disintegration of Russia”, what they should have done was to recognise the Constituent Assembly, while showing her disagreement with the agrarian policy adopted by the Bolsheviks. This reflects her profound divergences not only around the national question, but also regarding her ideas about democracy and the policy of alliances with national liberation movements and the peasantry that she considers the Russian Bolsheviks should practice.

The debate on the right to self-determination also continues within Bolshevism. This is demonstrated on the occasion of the party Congress in 1919, where Lenin (1977a) openly argues with Bukharin, who opposes that right to that of the “self-determination of workers”. Lenin responds to him in these terms:

“Our programme should not speak of self-determination of workers, because that is wrong. It must say things as they are. Since nations are at different stages of the path from the medieval regime to bourgeois democracy, and from bourgeois democracy to proletarian democracy, this thesis of our programme is absolutely exact. On this path, we have had numerous zigzags. Each nation must have the right to self-determination, and this contributes to the self-determination of workers” (ibid.: 323).

It is known that in those years of imperialist siege against Russia, the interest of Bolshevism was centred on the hope for the extension of the revolution to other European countries, and in particular to Germany. But they did not forget the new wave of mobilisations that was announcing itself in the very eastern periphery of Russia. This is manifested by Lenin in his “Report to the Congress of Communist Organisations of the Peoples of the East”, held in November and December 1919 (Renault, 2017: 95-98), not without insisting on the need to “extirpate all vestiges of Great Russian imperialism to fight unreservedly against world imperialism”, as he did in November 1919 addressing the communists of Turkestan (Renault, 2017: 80-88).

This orientation is also reflected both in his “Preliminary Draft Theses on the National and Colonial Questions”, from July 1920 (1977b)) and in the Theses of the Second Congress of the Communist International, also from July 1920. However, in them Lenin defends federation as the desirable path towards the unity of the different peoples who have liberated themselves from the Tsarist Empire.

In his “Report of the Commission on the National and Colonial Questions” for the Second Congress of the Communist International, held in September 1920 (Lenin, 1977c), the Bolshevik leader reaffirms the importance that liberation movements are acquiring in “backward” countries, albeit from the preservation of the political independence of the communists and openly betting on the hypothesis that the peoples of those countries do not necessarily have to go through the capitalist stage (ibid.: 196).

It would be precisely in September 1920 when the First Congress of the Peoples of the East meets in Baku. There, very animated debates take place between leaders of the Communist International and others from the communist organisations of the East around, among other issues, the role of the struggle of those peoples within a world revolutionary strategy, as well as relations with Pan-Islamism. These discussions would continue at successive congresses, especially at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International (November 1922), around the Anti-Imperialist United Front and relations with the bourgeoisies of the colonial countries, as well as on the “Negro question” in America and, also, its role in the struggle for the emancipation of the peoples of Africa. A specific treatment of these debates is beyond the objectives of this work[^10].

Nevertheless, the application of the principles established under the new regime is very soon affected by different conflicts – highlighting those of Georgia and Poland – which bring to light, already in a violent form, the weight of Great Russian nationalism within the new regime – and of “the Party” –. Thus, from 1920, the tendency to substitute the “right to separation” with the “right to unite” will be imposed (Carr, 1972: 383).

Indeed, internal tensions within Bolshevism would worsen, as occurs, for example, when in September 1922 Georgian communists oppose the artificial creation of a Soviet Socialist Republic of Transcaucasia, formed by the union of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, and defend the independence of their country. It is these whom Lenin supports, having been kept in the dark about the information until the end of 1922, and it is then that Stalin, deeply upset, goes so far as to describe Lenin’s position as “national liberalism” (Lewin, 1970: 75)[^11], while Lenin in turn declares “war to the death” against the “Great Russian chauvinism” that he sees represented by Stalin.

This confrontation between both positions is clearly reflected in “On the Question of Nationalities or ’Autonomisation’”[^12], written by Lenin on 30 and 31 December 1922 (Lenin, 1977d). In it, he criticises the “exasperation” [of Stalin] against the “vaunted socio-nationalism”, accusing him precisely of that and maintaining that the role of the internationalism of the so-called “great” nation must be to compensate for real inequality. Lenin then takes a new step forward towards an almost confederal commitment:

“The internationalism of the oppressor nation, or of the so-called great nation (although it is only great for its violence, great like a thug), must consist not only in observing the formal equality of nations, but also that inequality which, on the part of the oppressor nation, the great nation, compensates for the inequality that exists in life (...). Fourth, the most severe norms on the use of the national language in the republics of non-Russian population that form part of the Union must be implemented and their compliance checked with particular zeal (...). In this respect, we must in no way be obstinate beforehand that as a result of all this work we will not retreat at the next Congress of Soviets, that is, that we maintain the union of Soviet socialist republics only in the military and diplomatic aspect, restoring in all other aspects the complete autonomy of the different People’s Commissariats” (ibid.: 369; emphasis mine).

A proposal that, in that same article, is accompanied by a renewed hope in the struggle of the peoples oppressed by imperialism that is spreading in the East[^13], but expressing his fear that “the prestige we have in it” will be diminished “even if only with the slightest harshness and injustice to our own non-Russian nations”. He thus concluded with a new call to alert his comrades to avoid “imperialist attitudes towards oppressed nations” (ibid.: 370).

As is known, Lenin’s health worsened in the following months, but even so, he did not cease to show his discomfort with the policy regarding nationalities maintained by Stalin, seeking to rely on Trotsky, as Moshe Lewin recalls:

“Meanwhile, as he [Lenin] had requested, Trotsky drafted a forceful memorandum on 6 March 1923 for the Politburo, where he declared the need to decisively and implacably dismiss ultra-state tendencies and criticised Stalin’s theses on the national question. He insisted that an important part of the central Soviet bureaucracy saw the creation of the USSR as a way to begin eliminating all national and autonomous political entities (states, organisations, regions...), and this had to be fought against as if it were the expression of an imperialist and anti-proletarian attitude. The party should be warned that, under the umbrella of the so-called ’unified commissariats’, the economic and cultural interests of the national republics were being neglected” (Lewin, 2005: 23)[^14].

However, Trotsky let the opportunity pass to present his critical memorandum to the twelfth Party Congress in April, although, as Lewin also recalls, “we know that he soon launched into fierce opposition against Stalin (...). Did illness or extreme fatigue affect this resounding failure of Trotsky’s political perception, which would be repeated later? It’s a possibility” (ibid.: 25). Critical voices were heard at that Congress, such as those of Skrypnik, Rakovsky and Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev.

Then, the Constitution approved in 1924, in Chapter 4, Article 5, would formally recognise the Republics of the Union “the right to freely separate from the Union”, but the subsequent development would be different. Stalin would end up denying the right to separation and implementing in the USSR a project based on the hegemony of Great Russian nationalism under state bureaucratic centralism. A project that will reach its peak during the Great Patriotic War against Nazism, but which, nevertheless, will not achieve the objective of forming a new homo sovieticus that would overcome the national differences between the different peoples of the USSR.

 4. Some Conclusions

Throughout the study conducted on the evolution of Lenin’s political thinking, I consider that different stages can be distinguished. In the first, he starts from the frame of reference established by Marx and Engels, as well as the debates that were developing within the Second International, to assume that the working class must also address the task of seeking a democratic solution to the national question through the recognition of the right to self-determination of oppressed nations. He understands this right as the right to separation or secession from the state of which the oppressed nations are a part, rejecting alternative formulas such as federation or national-cultural autonomy, and defending that Marxists should be, except in cases that are the result of a concrete analysis of each concrete situation, against separation. He inserts this orientation within a strategy based on the strategic centrality of the working class, on proletarian internationalism and, therefore, on the rejection of nationalisms, but at the same time knowing how to distinguish between those of the oppressor nations and those of the oppressed nations, and proposing different tasks that correspond to Marxists in both.

From 1913 and in the midst of discussions within the Second International on the characterisation of the imperialist phase and the attitude to maintain towards the Great War, Lenin considers that imperialism will increasingly exacerbate national contradictions, distinguishes three different groups of countries in which the national and colonial question arises, and addresses some concrete cases in Western Europe and under the Russian Tsarist Empire, openly debating with other positions, especially with Rosa Luxemburg. The cases of the separation of Norway from Sweden in 1905 and the Irish uprising of 1916, as well as those already manifesting in Russia, such as in Poland, Finland, Ukraine and Georgia, are the most significant in these debates. Regarding them, he reaffirms his defence of the right to self-determination and to secession if these peoples so desire, although he considers that the most desirable framework from the point of view of the working classes of the oppressed and oppressor nations would be that of a federalism that we could call of free adhesion.

Finally, after the triumph of the Russian Revolution in October 1917, the implementation of this ideology is promoted, as reflected in the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, but soon the new regime is confronted with a civil war and the outbreak of different national and colonial conflicts within its borders. It would then be when he would increasingly openly confront the Great Russian nationalism that manifests itself within his own party, led by Stalin. Against this tendency towards the strengthening of the central state, Lenin would pronounce in his last writings in favour of a confederal project that includes the right to separation. The recognition of this right by the Constitution of the USSR could not, however, hide its denial in practice by an increasingly centralised and bureaucratised regime. It is also in this period, although he had already pointed it out after the Russian revolution of 1905, when Lenin highlights, already in the framework of the Third International and given the early frustration of revolutionary expectations in Europe, the increasingly relevant role that the national liberation movements of the peoples of the East will have; nevertheless, there persists a certain ambiguity in his use of terms such as “civilised countries” and “backward countries”, although he already points to the hypothesis that the latter would not necessarily have to go through the capitalist phase.

After this journey, succinctly presented, it is not difficult to understand the radical rejection shown by the current leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, towards the legacy of the theses defended by Lenin on the national question (and the deformation of them that he makes, including that it was he who “invented” the Ukrainian nation, as Etienne Balibar recalled in the session we shared in the Leninist Days) and, on the other hand, his vindication of the old Great Russian nationalism, in which tradition Stalin continued.

---

Jaime Pastor is a political scientist and member of the editorial board of viento sur