To throw off the feudal yoke, all national oppression, end all privileges enjoyed by any particular nation or language, is the imperative duty of the proletariat as a democratic force, and is certainly in the interests of the proletarian class struggle, which is obscured and hampered by bickering on the national question. But to go beyond these strictly limited and definite historical limits in helping bourgeois nationalism means betraying the proletariat and siding with the bourgeoisie. There is a borderline here, which is often very slight and of which the Bundists and Ukrainian nationalist-socialists completely lose sight.
Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for “national culture” in general? Of course not.
The development of nationality in general is the principle of bourgeois nationalism. Hence the exclusiveness of bourgeois nationalism, hence the endless national bickering. [my emphasis] The proletariat, however, far from undertaking to uphold the national development of every nation, on the contrary, warns the masses against such illusions, stands for the fullest freedom of capitalist intercourse and welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations, except that which is founded on force or privilege. [my emphasis]
The… proletariat cannot support any consecration of nationalism on the contrary, it supports everything that helps to obliterate national distinctions and remove national barriers it supports everything that makes the ties between nationalities closer and closer, or tends to merge nations. To act differently means siding with reactionary nationalist philistinism.[45]
Comrade Lenin continues:
The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot say in advance whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given nation seceding from another nation, or in its equality with the latter in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development by pushing the aims of its “own” nation before those of the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation.
This may not be “practical,” but it is in effect the best guarantee for the achievement of the most democratic of all possible solutions. The proletariat needs only such guarantees, whereas the bourgeoisie of every nation requires guarantees for its own interest, regardless of the position of (or the possible disadvantages to) other nations.[46]
Comrade Lenin continues:
On the plea that its demands are “practical,” the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations will call upon the proletariat to support its aspirations unconditionally…
The proletariat is opposed to such practicality. While recognizing equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers’ class struggle.
To the workers the important thing is to distinguish the principles of the two trends. Insofar as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation fights the oppressor, we are always, in every case, and more strongly than anyone else, in favor, for we are the staunchest and the most consistent enemies of oppression. But inso far as the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nation stands for its own bourgeois nationalism, we stand against. We fight against the privileges and violence of the oppressor nation, and do not in any way condone strivings for privileges on the part of the oppressed nation.
If, in our political agitation, we fail to advance and advocate the slogan of the right to secession, we shall play into the hands, not only of the bourgeoisie but also of the feudal landlords and the absolutism of the oppressor nation…
The bourgeois nationalism of any oppressed nation has a general democratic content that is directed against oppression, and it is this content that we unconditionally support. At the same time we strictly distinguish it from the tendency towards national exclusiveness…
We are fighting on the ground of a definite state we unite the workers of all nations living in this state we cannot vouch for any particular path of national development, for we are marching to our class goal along all possible paths.
However, we cannot move towards that goal unless we combat all nationalism and uphold the equality of the various nations.
…Propaganda against all state and national privileges, and for the right, the equal right of all nations, to their national state. This (at present) is our principal task in the national question, for only in this way can we defend the interests of democracy and the alliance of all proletarians of all nations on an equal footing.
…The interests of the working class and of its struggle against capitalism demand complete solidarity and the closest unity of the workers of all nations they demand resistance to the nationalist policy of the bourgeoisie of every nationality. Hence, Social Democrats would be deviating from proletarian policy and subordinating the workers to the policy of the bourgeoisie if they were to repudiate the right of nations to self-determination, i.e., the right of an oppressed nation to secede, or if they were to support all the national demands of the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations. It makes no difference to the hired worker whether he is exploited chiefly by the Great Russian bourgeoisie rather than the non-Russian bourgeoisie, or by the Polish bourgeoisie rather than the Jewish bourgeoisie, etc. The hired worker who has come to understand his class interests is equally indifferent to the state privileges of the Great Russian capitalists and to the promises of the Polish or Ukrainian capitalists to set up an earthly paradise when they obtain state privileges.[47]
In any case the hired worker will be an object of exploitation. Successful struggle against exploitation requires that the proletariat be free of nationalism, and be absolutely neutral, so to speak, in the fight for supremacy that is going on among the bourgeoisie of the various nations. If the proletariat of any one nation gives the slightest support to the privileges of its “own” national bourgeoisie, that will inevitably muse distrust among the proletariat of another nation it will weaken the international class solidarity of the workers and divide them, to the delight of the bourgeoisie.[48]
Let us reiterate:
The Kurdish national movement, as the struggle of an oppressed nation against the ruling classes of a dominant nation is progressive and has a democratic content. We unconditionally support this democratic content. We struggle in a decisive and relentless way against all manner of privilege and inequality that benefits the Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords (including the privileged right to establish a state). We also unconditionally support the Kurdish national movement’s demands in this regard.
But we also struggle against the reactionary and nationalist ambitions of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landlords. While fighting against the inequalities and privileges that favor the Turkish ruling classes and the national oppression and persecution targeting national minorities, if a struggle is not waged with the nationalist ambitions of the bourgeoisie and landlords, in this case another nationalism – Kurdish nationalism – will be consolidated, and the class-consciousness of the Kurdish proletariat will be blunted by bourgeois nationalism.