Subscribe to Spartacist Canada

View archives

	Spartacist Canada No. 189	Summer 2016

Marxism and Language Rights

quote of the issue

We print below an excerpt from V.I. Lenin’s 1913 article, “Critical Remarks on the National Question.” In building the Bolshevik party which led the multinational working class of the tsarist empire in the October 1917 socialist revolution, Lenin emphasized that the proletarian vanguard must act as a tribune of all the oppressed. The Bolsheviks upheld the right of nations to self-determination and opposed all discriminatory language legislation, including that which privileged any language as “official.” As Lenin emphasized, that meant opposing not only the dominant Great Russian chauvinism, but also the nationalism promoted by petty-bourgeois leaders of oppressed nationalities like the Jewish Labour Bund (Bundists). In fighting to forge the nucleus of a revolutionary workers party in Canada today, Marxists advocate independence for Quebec and call for equal language rights for all including a single, secular school system with bilingual (or multilingual) instruction as needed.

It is obvious that the national question has now become prominent among the problems of Russian public life. The aggressive nationalism of the reactionaries, the transition of counter-revolutionary bourgeois liberalism to nationalism (particularly Great-Russian, but also Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, etc.), and lastly, the increase of nationalist vacillations among the different “national” (i.e., non-Great-Russian) Social-Democrats, who have gone to the length of violating the Party Programme—all these make it incumbent on us to give more attention to the national question than we have done so far….

The national programme of working-class democracy is: absolutely no privileges for any one nation or any one language; the solution of the problem of the political self-determination of nations, that is, their separation as states by completely free, democratic methods; the promulgation of a law for the whole state by virtue of which any measure (rural, urban or communal, etc., etc.) introducing any privilege of any kind for one of the nations and militating against the equality of nations or the rights of a national minority, shall be declared illegal and ineffective, and any citizen of the state shall have the right to demand that such a measure be annulled as unconstitutional, and that those who attempt to put it into effect be punished.

Working-class democracy contraposes to the nationalist wrangling of the various bourgeois parties over questions of language, etc., the demand for the unconditional unity and complete amalgamation of workers of all nationalities in all working-class organisations—trade union, co-operative, consumers’, educational and all others—in contradistinction to any kind of bourgeois nationalism. Only this type of unity and amalgamation can uphold democracy and defend the interests of the workers against capital—which is already international and is becoming more so—and promote the development of mankind towards a new way of life that is alien to all privileges and all exploitation….

In advancing the slogan of “the international culture of democracy and of the world working-class movement,” we take from each national culture only its democratic and socialist elements; we take them only and absolutely in opposition to the bourgeois culture and the bourgeois nationalism of each nation. No democrat, and certainly no Marxist, denies that all languages should have equal status, or that it is necessary to polemise with one’s “native” bourgeoisie in one’s native language and to advocate anti-clerical or anti-bourgeois ideas among one’s “native” bourgeoisie in one’s native language and to advocate anti-clerical or anti-bourgeois ideas among one’s “native” peasantry and petty bourgeoisie. That goes without saying, but the Bundist uses these indisputable truths to obscure the point in dispute, i.e., the real issue.

The question is whether it is permissible for a Marxist, directly or indirectly, to advance the slogan of national culture, or whether he should oppose it by advocating, in all languages, the slogan of workers’ internationalism while “adapting” himself to all local and national features….

Bourgeois nationalism and proletarian internationalism—these are the two irreconcilably hostile slogans that correspond to the two great class camps throughout the capitalist world, and express the two policies (nay, the two world outlooks) in the national question.

—V.I. Lenin, “Critical Remarks on the National Question” (October-December 1913)