Revolução e Democracia
Introduction
This article by Joaquim P. Marques de Sa which is published in the blog Revolução e Democracia is of interest for a number of reasons.
First, the last writings of Lenin have been a source of controversy for nearly a century. The Russian historian Valentin Sakharov in his doctoral thesis submitted to Moscow State University and his book published by the university press, based on the archival sources, has convincingly challenged the authenticity of these texts including the so-called “Testament” of Lenin.1 It is instructive to note that the US historian Prof. Stephen Kotkin of the University of Princeton, who is by no means sympathetic to Stalin, in his biography of the Soviet leader accepts many of the arguments advanced by Sakharov2. Moreover, Kotkin asserts that the ‘Notes on the Question of Nationalities or ‘Autonomisation,’” which are discussed below and which were presented as being those of Lenin by L.A. Fotieva of the Lenin secretariat and Krupskaya, was a “blatant forgery”.3
It is stated in Volume 36 of the ‘Collected Works’ in English that the ‘Notes’ were published in 1956 - after the 20th Congress of the CPSU we may observe - in issue number 9 of the journal Kommunist.4
These ‘Notes’ were issued by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU in 1966 and published by Progress Publishers in English in the ‘Collected Works’ of Lenin in volume 36. They were translated from the Russian to English by Andrew Rothstein of the CPGB and edited by Yuri Sdobnikov.
Second. Aside from the fact that “Notes on the Question of Nationalities or ‘Autonomisation’” are now claimed by responsible historians to be ‘forgeries’ this was compounded by the translation of Andrew Rothstein and further aggravated by the tendentious interpolations by the MIA headed by the Trotskyist David Walters.Joaquim P. Marques de Sa takes as his starting point a letter, published in Revolutionary Democracy to the CPI ML Liberation, pointing out that there were errors in an article by Istvan Meszaros which had been circulated by them.5 Joaquim Marques de Sa confirms below that the Marxist Internet Archive in its English version, in contrast to the versions of MIA in other languages, without any basis whatsoever tendentiously interpolates the name of Stalin in “The Question of Nationalities or ‘Autonomisation’”.
Joaquim P. Marques de Sa further argues that a portion of “Notes on the Question of Nationalities” represent a tendentious mistranslation into English by the Marxist Internet Archive from the Russian version of the 5th edition of the Collected Works in Russian.
However, it must be stated that whatever the multitudinous sins of the MIA in this instance they are not responsible for the problematic translation.
The English translation by Andrew Rothstein is actually to be located in the 36th volume of the ‘Collected Works’ which was published from Moscow in 1966:
‘I think that Stalin’s haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious “nationalist-socialism” played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles’.6
The original Russian text of this may be found in the 45th volume of the ‘Complete Works’ is as follows:
«Я думаю, что тут сыграли роковую роль торопливость и администраторское увлечение Сталина, а также его озлобление против пресловутого «социал-национализма». Озлобление вообще играетв политике обычно самую худую роль.”7
This is more correctly translated by Joaquim P. Marques de Sa into English as follows:
“I think that the haste and the administrative enthusiasm of Stalin, as well as his bitterness against the notorious “social-nationalism”, played a fatal role here. Bitterness generally plays in politics the worst role.” Joaquim P. Marques de Sa, with regard to what is actually the translation by Andrew Rothstein, correctly indicates:
‘Thus, no “infatuation with pure administration” but “administrative enthusiasm” (administratorskoyeuvlecheniye); no “spite” but “bitterness” (ozlobleniye); no “nationalist-socialism” but “social-nationalism” (sotsial-natsionalizma)’.
It may further be said that the translation given by Andrew Rothstein as “infatuation with pure administration” with regard to Stalin is strikingly similar to Lenin’s characterisation of Trotsky in his supposed ‘Letter to the Congress’ where it was said that Trotsky had shown ‘excessive preoccupation with the purely administrative side of the work’.8
It is instructive to see how as Lenin lay dying the ‘last writings’ were developed by the Lenin secretariat, the opposition in the Russian Communist Party and later circulated by Max Eastman, the US supporter of Trotsky. In the post Stalin period the ‘texts’ of Lenin were revived by a former supporter of the Trotskyist opposition, Nikita Khrushchev,9 and thereafter promoted by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, the theoretical journal Kommunist, the ‘Collected Works’ of Lenin and circulated the world over in millions of copies. The Marxist Internet Archive furnished its own underhand contribution.
The inclusion of inauthentic writings in the ‘Collected Works’ of Lenin, and the occlusion of his texts which were antithetical to the market to is in consonance with the termination of the publication of the ‘Works’ of Stalin after the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. It accorded also with the wholesale expurgation of the works of Georgi Dimitrov in Russian, Bulgarian, English and other languages after 1953 to divest them of their revolutionary content.10 We are reminded of the argument of Moni Guha that ‘Capital’ itself was subjected to substantial editorial revision after the 20th Congress of the CPSU. The precise relationship of the re- dactive changes in Marxist literature with the expansion of commodity-money relationships in the Soviet Union requires further analysis.
Vijay Singh
(1) 'Valentin A. Sakharov, Politicheskoe zaveshchanie Lenina: real’nost’ istorii i mify politiki. Moskovskii universitet, Moscow, 2003; The Forgery of the ‘Lenin Testament’, Revolutionary Democracy, Vol. VII, No. 1, April 2001, https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv12n1/critique.htm Sakharov discusses the intrigues around the production of the supposed article of Lenin entitled ‘The Question of Nationalities or ‘Autonomisation’” on pages 322-330 of his book.***
The following two passages from “The Question of Nationalities or 'Autonomization'”, A letter written by Lenin in December 1922 - January 1923 (Letters to Congress, Complete Works, Volume 36), are published by MIA with square brackets:
‘I think that Stalin’s haste and his infatuation with pure administration, together with his spite against the notorious “nationalist-so- cialism” [Stalin critised (sic – Editor, RD) the minority nations for not being “internationalist” because they did want to unite with Russia], played a fatal role here. In politics spite generally plays the basest of roles’.
Additionally, “I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of “nationalist-socialism” (whereas he himself is a real and true “nationalist-socialist”, and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; “offended” nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest – to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than under-do the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation.”
It has been verified by the internet blog Revolugao e Democracia (Revolution and Democracy) that such interpolations do not appear on the French, Italian, and Portuguese-Galician versions of the Marxist Internet Archive. Most importantly, checking the source is, of course, more important.
The Russian section of MIA is poor and does not have volume 36. But it is possible to consult the original in Russian sites, namely in le- ninism.su (the mentioned text is here in volume 45). To make it possible, checking our assertions, we insert these passages in the Appendix.
The MIA interpolations in the text are not authenticated responsibility for them can only be assigned to the MIA editor. In this case, to the responsible of the respective “Transcription/Mark-up”, Brian Baggins, a prominent figure of MIA as stated in the “About”.
MIA has become an important international repository for Marxist research. It should, therefore, sustain an attitude of honesty and seriousness. The insertion of such interpolations in original texts is unacceptable.
In this concrete case, the interpolations serve to slander Stalin as exposed in the article A Critique of Hegelian-Trotskyism by Vijay Singh (posted June 4, 2016 [in the blog Revolugao e Democracia - editor RD]). The “Hegelian-Trotskyist” is the Hungarian Istvan Meszaros who wrote the article “National and International Aspects of Emancipation” where he states (we follow the Vijay Singh presentation):
“The contrast between Lenin’s and Stalin’s approach to these problems could not have been greater. Lenin always advocated the right of the various national minorities to full autonomy, ‘to the point of secession’, whereas Stalin degraded them to nothing more than ‘border regions’, to be retained at all cost, in strictest subordination to the interests of Russia. This is why Lenin condemned him in no uncertain terms, insisting that if the views advocated by Stalin prevailed, in that case, “the ‘freedom to secede from the union’ by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist”
This statement by Meszaros is based on the following passage of the mentioned Lenin’s letter:
“It is quite natural that in such circumstances the “freedom to secede from the union” by which we justify ourselves will be a mere scrap of paper, unable to defend the non-Russians from the onslaught of that really Russian man, the Great-Russian chauvinist, in substance a rascal and a tyrant, such as the typical Russian bureaucrat is.”
Meszaros’ thesis is that Lenin is referring here to Stalin. However, Lenin’s statement does not vouch for such an interpretation. Lenin is referring to “the typical Russian bureaucrat” not to Stalin. But, as Vijay Singh says, “For the Trotskyists, of course, the term bureaucrat by way of Pavlovian reflex, equals Stalin”.
Meszaros then goes on supporting his thesis, by citing the second passage above:
“The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question...”
The interpolation in this passage serves Meszaros well in his slandering of Stalin. But is the interpolation justified?
No, it is not. The translation of the Russian original is:
“The Georgian, who disdainfully treats this aspect of the question, who disdainfully hurls accusations of ‘social-nationalism’ (when he is not only a real, a true “social-national”, but also a vulgar Great-Russian bully), that Georgian, in essence, violates the interests of proletarian class solidarity,...”
We see that the interpolation is abusive. The original sentence is referring to any Georgian who is disdainful of this aspect of the question, etc.:
“The Georgian, who... that Georgian... violates... ” Lenin is analyzing the so-called “Georgian Affair” of 1921 and comments on any Georgian in the said conditions. The French, Italian, and Portuguese-Galician versions of MIA precisely agree with the Russian original (see Appendix).
As to the first interpolation, it does not make sense at all. Stalin (and no one for that matter) would not criticise minority nations for not being “internationalist” because they did want to unite with Russia.
The quality of the MIA translation is also quite questionable. For instance, the translation of the first passage that we deem correct, taking into account the Russian words being used, is:
“I think that the haste and the administrative enthusiasm of Stalin, as well as his bitterness against the notorious “social-nationalism”, played a fatal role here. Bitterness generally plays in politics the worst role.”
Thus, no “infatuation with pure administration” but “administrative enthusiasm” (administratorskoyeuvlecheniye); no “spite” but “bitterness” (ozlobleniye); no “nationalist-socialism” but “social-nation- alism” (sotsial-natsionalizma).The MIA translation does all it can to debase Stalin.
Meszaros’ thesis has no grounds whatsoever. It is well-known that Stalin was aligned with Lenin’s views on the “nationalities” topic. Stalin wrote ‘Marxism and the National Question’ in 1913, a work praised by Lenin. After the October Revolution Stalin became People’s Commissar of Nationalities, precisely due to his knowledge and correct positions on the issue. It is also well-known that the USSR 1936 Constitution, commonly called the Stalin Constitution (prepared by a commission chaired by Stalin), recognized the right to secession of every USSR nation. Stalin, of course, never defended “social-nationalism”. Contrary to what Meszaros states, Lenin’s letter nowhere sustains that Stalin denied the right of secession to national minorities and degraded them to “border regions”. We agree with Vijay Singh that this is “a pure fabrication by our Hegelian”.
We thus see that Istvan Meszaros makes use of the MIA deformations (interpolations and incorrect translations), on top of his intentional deformations of Lenin’s text, to slander Stalin. Vijay Singh’s article provides further evidence of this.
Appendix
Parts of interest of the second passage in other languages (MIA)
French:
« Le Georgien qui considere avec dedain ce cote de l’affaire, qui lance dedaigneusement des accusations de «social-nationalisme», (alors qu’il est lui-meme non seulement un vrai, un authentique asocial-national », mais encore un brutal argousin grand-russe), ce Georgien-la porte en realite atteinte a la solidarite proletarienne de classe, ... »
“Il Georgian oche considera con disprezzo questo aspetto della questione, che facilmente si lascia andare all’accusa di “socialnazionalismo” (quandoeglistesso e non solo un vero e proprio “socialnazionale”, ma anche un rozzo Diergimorda grande-russo) quel georgiano in sostan- za viola gli interessi della solidarieta proletaria di classe,...”
Galego-portugues | Galician-portuguese:
“O georgiano que desdenha este aspecto do problema, que langa desdenhosamente acusagons de “social-nacionalismo” (quando ele proprio e nom apenas um “social-nacional”, autentico e verdadeiro, senom um basto esbirro russo), esse georgico magoa, em essencia, os inter- esses da solidariedade proletaria de classe,...”
Я думаю, что тут сыграли роковую роль торопливость и администраторское увлечение Сталина, а также его озлобление против пресловутого «социал-национализма». Озлобление вообщеиграет в политике обычно самую худую роль
The second passage in Russian:
Я думаю, что для большевиков, для коммунистов разъяснять это дальше и подробно не приходится. И я думаю, что в данном случае, по отношению к грузинской нации, мы имеем типичный пример того, где сугубая осторожность, предупредительность и уступчивость требуются с нашей стороны поистине пролетарским отношением к делу. Тот грузин, который пренебрежительно относится к этой стороне дела, пренебрежительно швыряется обвинением в «социал-национализме» (тогда как он сам является настоящим и истинным
Translations of the second passage
Julgo ser desnecessario explicar isto em grande detalhe a bol- cheviques, a comunistas. Julgo ainda que, no caso presente, e quanto a nagao georgiana, temos um caso t^pico em que uma atitude genuina- mente proletaria torna necessario ter o maximo cuidado, uma atengao e disponibilidade para compromissos. O georgiano que trate com desdem este aspecto da questao, que desdenhosamente atire acusagoes de “so- cial-nacionalismo” (quando ele proprio e, de facto, um real e verdadeiro nao so “social-nacionalista” mas mesmo um vulgar brigao panrusso), esse georgiano, em essencia, viola os interesses da solidariedade de classe proletaria, porque nada atrasa tanto o desenvolvimento e forta- lecimento da solidariedade de classe proletaria como uma injustiga na- cional, e nada sensibiliza tanto os cidadaos “ofendidos” quanto o sen- timento de igualdade e a violagao dessa igualdade, mesmo que apenas por negligencia, mesmo sob a forma de uma zombaria, violagao desta igualdade pelos seus colegas proletarios. E por isso que, neste caso, e melhor exagerar a flexibilidade e a indulgencia das minorias nacionais, do que faze-lo insuficientemente.
I think that for the Bolsheviks, for the Communists, there is no need to clarify this any further and in detail. And I think that in this case, as regards the Georgian nation, we have a typical example of where utmost caution, precaution and flexibility are required on our part by a truly proletarian attitude. The Georgian, who disdainfully treats this aspect of the question, who disdainfully hurls accusations of ‘social-nationalism’ (when he himself is not only a real, a true “social-national”, but also a vulgar Great-Russian bully), that Georgian, in essence, violates the interests of proletarian class solidarity, because nothing delays so much the development and consolidation of proletarian class solidarity as a national injustice, and the “offended” nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to a sense of equality and to the violation of this equality, even if only through negligence or jest, to the violation of this equality by their proletarian fellows. That is why in this case it is better to overdo flexibility and leniency towards national minorities, rather than doing it insufficiently.
Translated into English from European Portuguese by John Gabriel
Original article available in Portuguese at Revolução e Democracia blog:
https://revolucaoedemocracia.blogspot.com/2017/12/deformacoes-inaceit-aveis-num-texto-de.html
Sources used in this article: The Question of Nationalities or "Autonomisation"
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm
Seen on 8th December, 2019.
A Critique of Hegelian-Trotskyism – Vijay Singh, https://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv12n1/critique.htm
Click here to return to the April 2020 index.