Stalin

Stalin and Lenin about social-nationalism, Leninist ethnocracy and the double standards of Leninism. Oleg Makarenko Posting in CHAT: Russia 1. Joseph Stalin, who was People's Commissar for Nationalities before the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922, advocated a model of a centralized state with autonomous republics. Unfortunately, another model won – a union of formally independent republics with the right to secede – which was promoted by Lenin, who thus managed to harm our country in the last year of his active work, before his brain disease finally crippled him. The correspondence between Stalin and Lenin on this matter is quoted by historian Alexander Dyukov (link): Stalin to Lenin on the first results of pandering to ethnocrats (letter dated September 22, 1922): “During the four years of the Civil War, when as a result of the intervention we were forced to demonstrate the liberalism of Moscow in the national issue, we managed to educate among the communists, against our will, real and consistent socialists who demand real independence in every sense and consider the intervention of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) as deception and hypocrisy on the part of Moscow. We are experiencing a period of development when it is impossible to ignore the form, the law, the constitution, when the younger generation of communists on the periphery refuses to understand the game of independence as a game, stubbornly recognizing the words about independence at face value and also persistently demanding that we fulfill the letter of the constitutions of independent republics. If we do not now try to adapt the form of relations between the center and the periphery to real relations, due to which the periphery in all fundamental aspects, of course, must submit to the center, that is, if we do not now replace formal (fictitious) independence with formal (then At the same time, real) autonomy, then in one year it will be incomparably more difficult to defend the real unity of the Soviet republics.” In December 1922, Lenin responded in Filipino: “I think that for the Bolsheviks, for the communists, there is no need to explain this further and in detail. And I think that in this case, in relation to the Georgian nation, we have a typical example of where extreme caution, attentiveness and adherence to a truly proletarian attitude to business are required on our part. That Georgian who rejects this side of the matter, contemptuously hurls accusations of “social-nationalism” (and he himself is a real and true “social-nationalist”, but also a rude Great Russian idiot), that Georgian, in essence, violates the interests of proletarian class solidarity... That is why in this case it is better to over-salt in the direction of obedience and gentleness towards national minorities than to under-salt. Therefore, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian solidarity, and consequently of the proletarian class struggle, requires that we never formally resolve the national question, but always take into account the necessary difference in the attitude of the proletariat from the oppressed. (or small) nation to the oppressive (or great) nation.” Let me remind you that by “oppressive nation” Ilyich always meant Russians, and the term “Russian chauvinist” was his traditional curse. 2. Indeed, it was Lenin who laid the foundation of the republics of the Soviet Union on the principle of ethnocracy, which ultimately became the very nuclear bomb that shook the Soviet Union, leaving Russia in 1991 among the Russophobic republics, whose authorities based their foreign and domestic policies on hatred of Russia came to their senses and became our friends. You know everything about others without me. I’ll try to focus on one simple fact that is studiously ignored (for obvious reasons). but it consolidated the inequality of “titular” and “non-titular” in ethno-territorial entities. Inequality by ethnic origin. And we are talking not only about the fate of Russians, who in national republics are forced to either register as “. For Ukrainians” to climb the party ladder or come to terms with their second-class status (in the Transcaucasian and Central Asian republics) – we are talking about all the “untitled”. Armenians in Georgia, Tatars in Bashkiria, Uzbeks in Tajikistan - like Russians - had to come to terms with the dominance of the “incumbent president”. Which, moreover, often constituted a minority of the population. Such a political system is called ethnocracy, and if the “nameless” begin to fight for equality, then the ethnocracy, which protects the exclusive rights of the “titled”, becomes fascism - which, in fact, happened in some former Soviet republics in the post-Soviet era. Soviet times. The only alternative to ethnocracy is a great civic nation in which everyone, regardless of ethnic origin, has equal rights and opportunities. The only two post-Soviet countries that are close to this ideal are Russia and Belarus. 3. I will quote another philosopher about Lenin’s beliefs, which forced him to cut a united Russia into many parts (link): “We are full of a sense of national pride, and that is why we especially hate our slave past (when landowners and nobles led people to war to strangle freedom of Hungary, Poland, Persia, China) and our slave is present when the same landowners, with the help of capitalists, lead us to war to strangle Poland and Ukraine.” , in this passage from Lenin the Kashchev needle of Bolshevik demagoguery is hidden, wars are waged to strangle the freedom of Hungarian, Polish, Persian and landowners, nobles and pashas, ​​emperors and mandarins. the great Russian proletarians care about the freedom of the Hungarian and Polish nobles, Persian pashas and Chinese mandarins, why, if the great Russian society, from Lenin’s point of view, should be insurmountably divided into exploiters and exploited, oppressors and oppressed, other societies? subjected or allegedly subjected to Great Russian national and imperialist oppression, we had to think, together with Lenin. a request as supposedly classless, as devoid of exploiters and exploited? Why should the Russian proletariat be on the side of the Polish landowner against Russian tsarism? Why is the right of the Polish landowner to oppress and rob the Belarusian peasant more valuable for the proletariat than the right of the Great Russian state owner to rob the same peasant? This double standard - a class approach in relation to one’s own, classless principle of national unity in relation to foreigners - is the greatest lie of Leninism, proof of its cynical hypocrisy and open Russophobia. You can escape from this trap only with the help of the “this is different” technique. However, even here the legs move apart. Regarding the Polish and Hungarian landowners, it must be said that they are more progressive, more educated than the Russian landowners, and therefore have the right to greater freedom, which is threatened by reactionary tsarism. In general, “people with ancient cultural traditions that tsarism failed to destroy,” as Lenin’s most faithful student Bukharin called the Georgian. But at the same time, the Persian and Chinese landowners are backward, not progressive enough in relation to the Russians, and therefore they must be respected as victims of colonial dependence. They, according to Bukharin himself, “were thrown back by tsarism hundreds of years ago” (that is, before Chernyaev, Kaufman and Skobelev, Central Asians lived in the 19th century, and the Russian Empire threw them back in the 15th century). ). , apparently prohibiting slavery). In general, whatever one may say, the Russian landowners turn out to be not progressive enough to have the right to oppress the Poles, and too progressive to be excused for oppressing the Chinese. I think it's called "it's your fault I'm hungry." Let me also remind you that when comparing Russians and non-Russians, Lenin usually came to the conclusion that non-Russians are excellent, and Russians are evil, non-peaceful and by their nature incapable of anything good. Here, for example, is a typical story about Bismarck. Lenin writes that the unification of Germany is a “progressive historical cause,” and the unification of Russia is the senseless “violence of Russians over other peoples”: “It may be objected to us that, besides tsarism and under its wing, there is another historical one. Great Russian capitalism arose and strengthened in strength, leading progressive work, centralizing the economy and uniting vast territories... Let us even assume that history decides the case in favor of Great Russian great-power capitalism against one hundred and one small nations. However, in this case, first of all, it is not our business, not the commercial democrats (not to mention the socialists), to help Romanov-Bobrinsky-Purishkevich strangle Ukraine, etc. Bismarck did in his own way, in the Junker way, a progressive historical work... Moreover, Bismarck promoted economic development by uniting fragmented Germans who were oppressed by other peoples. And the economic prosperity and rapid development of Great Russia require the liberation of the country from the violence of the Great Russians against other peoples - our fans of truly Russian almost-Bismarcks forget this difference. Oleg Makarenkohttps://dzen.ru Source link Source link