Russian great-power chauvinism and the Russian Orthodox Church. About the national pride of the Great Russians

As is known, the first, most critical 15 years of the Soviet regime present a picture of a fierce struggle aimed at uprooting Russian culture and the annihilation of Russian nationality, as well as the destruction of Russian national identity, while simultaneously supporting other nationalisms.

Important definition: chauvinism is an ideology, the essence of which
is to preach national superiority
in order to justify the right to discrimination and oppression of other peoples

Zinoviev: Third, the national question, which is closely related to the peasant question. Of course, it is not of great importance for Great Russia, but it is of enormous importance for the peasant population in Ukraine and in a number of other union republics. Comrades, we must firmly say in this regard that not the slightest concession to the “great power” point of viewand we cannot and will not allow the slightest deviation from Lenin’s school on the national question. We must remember that this is how the question stands. I cannot agree with those comrades who said at the Ukrainian conference: “two cultures are fighting in Ukraine”; which one wins, we don’t care. So, comrades, you can’t talk about it. The school of Comrade Lenin teaches us in the national question that we must actively to helpto those nations that have hitherto been oppressed and driven.

Chairman: Comrade Lisovsky has the floor.

Lisovsky: I propose the following amendment. At the end of the second page, third line from the bottom, where it says: “the party is obliged to wage a decisive struggle,” I propose to add “and with the chauvinism of the dominant nationalities in relation to their national minorities in the autonomous and independent republics.”<...>It is clear that we need at this congress focus on Great Russian chauvinism. It is absolutely clear that the greatest emphasis must be placed on Great Russian chauvinism. This goal is achieved by saying it twice. But the resolution is a program for the next year of work, and the day after the congress, practical workers on the ground will have to proceed from it, and this will give ground to some comrades and cut the ground from under the feet of others who, on the one hand, are fighting against the Great Russian chauvinism, they want to protect national minorities from the suppression of dominant nationalities in independent and autonomous republics, and this is a relevant issue for Ukraine and especially for the Caucasus. I consider it necessary that this be noted in the resolution.

Chairman: Comrade Bukharin has the floor.

Bukharin: Comrades, detailed theses on the national question have been brought to the attention of the congress. These theses provide a mathematically precise formulation, and take into account the element that Comrade Lisovsky spoke about. In such a resolution on the report of the Central Committee, which must be absolutely shocking in nature, where maximum energy is required from the party, this shock and this energy must be expressed accordingly. I think the vast majority of the congress understands perfectly well what a huge danger threatens us - namely, Great Russian chauvinism. Chauvinism among other nations is incommensurable, and therefore need to hit here. That's why cannot be deposited <...>softening element <...>

Chairman: Who supports Comrade Lisovsky's amendment? The amendment is no longer valid.

Let me vote on the resolution as a whole. Those who are in favor of this resolution, please raise your cards. Who's against it? There are none. Who abstained? There are none. Adopted unanimously. ( The members of the congress all stand up and sing “Internationale”.)

The congress delegates decided to fight
only against Russian nationalism
nationalism of other peoples was supposed to be supported

Chairman: So, we proceed to the report on the national question. Comrade Stalin has the floor on the report. ( Prolonged applause.)

Stalin: Comrades! Since the October Revolution, we are discussing the national question for the third time: the first time - at the VIII Congress, the second - at the X and the third - at the XII. Isn't this a sign that something has changed fundamentally in our views on the national question? No, the fundamental view on the national question remained the same as before and after October. But since the Tenth Congress, the international situation has changed in the sense of strengthening the share of those heavy reserves of the revolution that are now represented by the countries of the East. This is the first thing. Secondly, since the Tenth Congress, our party has also had some changes in its internal situation in connection with the NEP. All these new factors must be taken into account and summed up. In this sense, we can talk about a new formulation of the national question at the XII Congress.

The national question is also important for us from the point of view of the internal situation, not only because in numerical terms the former sovereign nation represents about 75 million, and the remaining nations - 65 (this is still a lot), and not only because previously oppressed nationalities occupy the areas most necessary for economic development and the most important points from the point of view of military strategy, not only for this reason, but primarily because during these two years we introduced the so-called NEP, and in connection with this Russian nationalism began to grow, intensify, the idea of change of leadership was born, desires wander to arrange in a peaceful manner what Denikin failed to arrange, that is, create the so-called “single and indivisible”.

And thus, in connection with the NEP in our inner life a new force is emerging - Great Russian chauvinism nesting in our institutions, penetrating not only Soviet, but also party institutions, roaming all corners of our federation and leading to the fact that if we do not give a decisive rebuff to this new force, if we do not let's cut at the root, - and the NEP conditions are cultivating it - we risk finding ourselves faced with a picture of a gap between the proletariat of the former sovereign nation and the peasants of previously oppressed nations, which amounts to undermining the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Local chauvinisms do not pose the same danger in their strength as
which Great Russian chauvinism represents

But NEP not only fosters Russian chauvinism, it also fosters local chauvinism, especially in those republics that have several nationalities. I mean Georgia, Azerbaijan, Bukhara, and in part we can take into account Turkestan, where we have several nationalities, the advanced elements of which may soon begin to compete with each other for primacy. These local chauvinisms, Certainly, don't represent according to its strength the danger posed by Great Russian chauvinism. <...>

The main force hindering the unification of the republics into a single union is the force that is growing in our country, as I already said, under the conditions of NEP: this is Great Russian chauvinism. It is not at all an accident, comrades, that the Smenovekhites gained a lot of supporters among Soviet officials. This is not an accident at all. It is no coincidence that the gentlemen of Smenovekhov praise the communist-Bolsheviks, as if saying: you talk about Bolshevism as much as you want, talk about your internationalist tendencies as much as you like, but we know that what Denikin failed to arrange, you will arrange it that you, the Bolsheviks, have restored the great idea of a great Russia, or you, in any case, will restore it. None of this is an accident. It is no accident that this idea has even penetrated into some of our party institutions. I witnessed how at the February Plenum, where the question of a second chamber was raised for the first time, speeches were heard within the Central Committee that were incompatible with communism, speeches that had nothing to do with internationalism. All this is a sign of the times, a fad. The main danger arising from this is the danger arising from the fact that in connection with the NEP, great-power chauvinism is growing by leaps and bounds, the most callous nationalism, trying to erase everything non-Russian, gather all the threads of control around the Russian principle and suppress the non-Russian .<...>

The trust that we acquired then, we can lose to the last vestiges, if we do not all arm ourselves against this new, I repeat, Great Russian chauvinism, which creeps formlessly, without a face, drop by drop absorbing into the ears and eyes, drop by drop changing the spirit , the whole soul of our workers, so that you risk not recognizing these workers at all. This danger, comrades, we must at all costs put the blame on both shoulder blades, otherwise we face the prospect of losing the trust of the workers and peasants of previously oppressed peoples, we face the prospect of breaking the connection between these nationalities and the Russian proletariat, and by this we are in danger of allowing some kind of crack in the system of our dictatorship. Do not forget, comrades, that if we marched against Kerensky with unfurled banners and overthrew the Provisional Government, it was, among other things, because behind us we had the trust of those oppressed peoples who expected liberation from the Russian proletarians.<...>Do not forget that if we, in the rear of Kolchak, Denikin, Wrangel and Yudenich, did not have the so-called “foreigners”, did not have previously oppressed peoples who undermined the rear of these generals with their silent sympathy for the Russian proletarians - comrades, this is a special factor in our development: silent sympathy, no one sees or hears it, but it decides everything - if not for this sympathy, we would not have knocked off any of these generals. While we were advancing on them, collapse began in their rear. Why? Because these generals relied on the colonialist element of the Cossacks, they painted before the oppressed peoples the prospect of their further oppression, and the oppressed peoples were forced to come into our arms, while we unfurled the banner of the liberation of these oppressed peoples. This is what decided the fate of these generals, this is the sum of factors that were overshadowed by the successes of our troops, but which ultimately decided everything. This must not be forgotten. That is why we are obliged to make a sharp turn in the sense of fighting new chauvinistic sentiments and to pillory those officials of our institutions and those party comrades who forget about our conquest in October, namely the trust of previously oppressed peoples, which we must value.

The Russians must artificially position themselves
to a position lower than others
to atone for his guilt before the oppressed peoples

That's how the first and most dangerous factor, slowing down the unification of peoples and republics into a single union. It is necessary to understand that if such a force as Great Russian chauvinism blossoms in full bloom and goes for a walk, there will be no trust on the part of previously oppressed peoples, we will not build any cooperation in a single union, and we will not have any Union of Republics.

The second factor, comrades, also preventing the unification of previously oppressed peoples around the Russian proletariat, is the actual inequality of nations that we inherited from the period of tsarism.<...>

It is necessary that, in addition to schools and language, the Russian proletariat take all measures to ensure that in the outskirts, in the culturally lagging republics - and they lagged behind not through their own fault, but because they were previously considered as sources of raw materials - it is necessary to achieve in order for centers of industry to be established in these republics.<...>These republics, economically backward and without a proletariat, must, with the help of the Russian proletariat, establish centers of industry.<...>We will have to work seriously in this area, and schools and language alone will not be the answer.

But there is a third factor hindering the unification of the republics into one union - nationalism in individual republics. NEP affects not only the Russian population, but also the non-Russian population. NEP develops private trade and industry not only in the center of Russia, but also in individual republics. It is this very NEP and the private capital associated with it that feeds and nurtures Georgian, Azerbaijani, Uzbek, etc. nationalism. Of course, if there were no Great Russian chauvinism, which is offensive because it is strong, because it was strong before, and he still had the skills to oppress and belittle - if Great Russian chauvinism had not existed, then perhaps local chauvinism, How response to Great Russian chauvinism, would exist, so to speak, in a minimal, miniature form, because in the end anti-Russian nationalism is a defensive form, some ugly form of defense against Russian nationalism, against Russian chauvinism. If this nationalism were only defensive, there would be no need to make a fuss about it. It would be possible concentrate all the strength of your actions and all the strength of your struggle on Great Russian chauvinism, hoping that if soon this strong enemy will be felled, then, at the same time, it will be knocked down and anti-Russian nationalism, because this nationalism, I repeat, ultimately is a reaction to Great Russian nationalism, the answer to it, known defense. Yes, this would be so if local anti-Russian nationalism did not go beyond the reaction to Russian nationalism.<...>

From the point of view of the internal situation, the conditions of the NEP, the growing Great Russian chauvinism and local chauvinism also oblige us to emphasize the special importance of the national question.<...>

I spoke further about the factors contributing to such a rapprochement of peoples; I spoke about the factors inhibiting such a unification. I stopped specifically at Great Russian chauvinism, like a strengthening force. That power there is a major danger, which could undermine the trust of previously oppressed peoples in the Russian proletariat. This - our most dangerous enemy, whom we must bring down, because if we dump it, then we will dump 9/10 of that nationalism that has been preserved and that is developing in individual republics.<...>

Only by following this path will we achieve a correct resolution of the national question, will we achieve the fact that we will widely unfurl the banner of the proletarian revolution and gather around it the sympathy and trust of the countries of the East, which represents the heavy reserves of our revolution and can play a decisive role in future struggles of the proletariat with imperialism. ( Applause.) [page 479-81, 484-7, 494-5]

Grinko: I turn to the national-cultural issue. The pessimism at the All-Ukrainian Party Conference that I spoke about relates to a greater extent to national and cultural issues. How quickly can we draw the line that is being outlined here? Let me reveal some psychology that is extremely widespread in our environment, which, as a rule, is currently silent on the national issue.<...>The national moment was important for us in 1919 - 1920, when it became a weapon of the peasantry marching against us. We got rid of it and eliminated it.<...>

I have traveled all over Ukraine up and down,
I talked to the peasants, and I got the impression
that they don’t want the Ukrainian language

A harmful substitution is taking place: instead of interpreting the topic of what role the national moment plays and how to practically solve it, they brush off this problem with pseudo-Marxist arrogance and reasoning about the significance of economic circumstances in connecting the city with the countryside. Then, quite often, they want to mix in the analysis of social facts with personal impressions. The most responsible comrades from Ukraine say this: I traveled all over Ukraine, I talked with the peasants, and I got the impression that they do not want the Ukrainian language. Instead of analyzing the largest social movements, the era of the Central Rada, Petliurism, national uprisings, etc., they are content with uncritical methods of personal impressions and build a policy on the national question on this. Further, this psychology or ideology, if you like, in extreme cases allows for a free struggle of cultures, etc. and finally comes to the conclusion that our entire approach to the national question in the current period is different an excessive note of activism. Here is a chain of reasoning that is, in full or in part, characteristic of a huge layer of party comrades. And it is precisely this psychology that is the main and largest obstacle to the implementation of a new course of national policy. But we will have to actively pursue this policy<...>I believe that the main task of this congress is to break down this dense, inert psychology, which is widespread in the ranks of our party, so that there is no such stupid indifference in the national question, so that an active character is immediately given to the implementation of our national policy .

We have recently coined a new term: “nationals”. And there is an idea that we will adapt these nationalities to the implementation of our national policy. I believe that we cannot and should not allow passivity, loss of momentum, we cannot allow this national policy to be taken up by forces outside of us. But it would also be a mistake if within the party we entrusted this matter to a group of sorts of specialists on the national question, the so-called nationals. The success of our national policy depends on the fact that our party, its main working core, takes the initiative and the activity of pursuing national policy into their own hands. [page 504-5]

Skrypnik: What does it mean? Where does this contradiction between theory and practice come from? Not only at our congresses, but also at the Second Congress of the Comintern, we adopted a resolution on the national question.<...>It said that the proletariat [i.e. Russians] in the field of national issues must be prepared for the greatest self-sacrifice in order to form an alliance with the colonial peoples and with the peasants of the oppressed peoples. This is the question that must be posed to us.

Russians must be prepared for the greatest self-sacrifice
in order to form an alliance with the colonial peoples

So, is this readiness for self-sacrifice demonstrated? No, not manifested. There are only theoretical recognitions from the majority, but when it comes to the whole, we have neither strength nor will. Great-power prejudices, sucked in with mother's milk, became an instinct among many, many comrades. Remember how many, many of our comrades were shocked when our Union of Republics took the name not of the RSFSR, but of the USSR. Remember what bewildered conversations were heard among comrades about the renaming of the Russian Communist Party into the Communist Party of the USSR, how many considered it fundamentally unacceptable to even raise the question of this, something offensive, a rejection of tradition, etc., as if we had not already refused one once from the old well-deserved name and as if in this defense of the name of the party not by territory, but precisely by Russian nationality, there is no peculiar great power. Yes, comrades, this readiness for self-sacrifice stands before us as a necessity, and we still have to work a lot on ourselves in order to be able to demonstrate it.

I mentioned regarding the work among the Ukrainians, which should conducted specifically in Ukrainian. But we do not have a sufficient number of workers; we still need to create workers who can work in Ukrainian.<...>In Ukraine there is not a sufficient number of workers who speak Ukrainian<...>

Comrades, what is the reason for this attitude, what is the reason that our line, outlined long ago, is so distorted in its implementation? Is anything new proposed in Comrade Stalin's theses? Nothing. The line was outlined long ago, back in 1913-1914. it was outlined by Lenin and carried out in the articles of Lenin and his co-worker Stalin in our magazine “Prosveshchenie”

So why do we practically hover in place on the national question and, with the correct fundamental resolution of it, remain in fact powerless? The fact is that we are constantly balancing in the area of the national issue. Some people are always trying to find the middle line. Every indication of great power chauvinism They always consider it necessary to compensate by pointing out the opposite to the chauvinism of non-power nationalities, and double-entry bookkeeping always results. They always try to disqualify every mention of Great Russian chauvinism by presenting a counterclaim: they say, “first overcome your own nationalism.” So, in reality, we did not wage any struggle against great-power chauvinism. This must end. We need to draw some line here!

<...>when last year at the XI Congress I made provisions that were actually completely carried out in Stalin’s theses at this congress<...>I already then foresaw that “single-indivisible” Smenovekhov aspiration of our Soviet apparatuses, which Comrade Stalin is now establishing. We need to draw a line in the area of the national question, wage a sharp struggle and finally carry out practical work in accordance with the theses we accept!

Of course, the comparison of two nationalisms carried out in Comrade Stalin’s theses is theoretically correct: great-power, dominant nationalism and the nationalism of former oppressed nationalities. (I'm not talking about the great power tendencies of former oppressed peoples).

But isn’t this too emphasized by Comrade Stalin? Will not this opposition of two nationalisms be a reason for many, many in practice to justify their inactivity in the field of the national question by such a opposition? I'm very, very afraid of this.

In theory, we resolved this issue a long time ago; we do not need to create new theories. Our party, in the person of Comrade Lenin and his comrade-in-arms Comrade Stalin, resolved this issue theoretically long ago. The resolutions of our congresses theoretically resolve this issue. On the national question there were different points of view in our party: the point of view of Rosa Luxemburg and the point of view of Comrade Lenin. Alas, comrades, there is also a third point of view, behind which stands the largest number of supporters: this is the point of view of the party swamp, the point of view of people who are afraid to come out with a definite line here. Are there opponents of Comrade Stalin’s theses or are there none? Are there comrades in our party who are principled? great powers, ruses? So why don’t they speak out here, but only distort the party line in practice? It is not important to pass the resolution, but to carry it through.<...>This contradiction between theory and practice, this swamp line is necessary burn with a hot iron, it is necessary that our theory, our principled line, is actually implemented in practice. [page 571-3]

Chairman: Comrade Yakovlev has the floor.

Yakovlev [Ya.A. Epstein]: Comrade Stalin gave such a fundamental formulation of the question, which in essence did not meet with objections. But I think that the general impression of every delegate to the congress is that this advantage of Stalin’s speech, that is, the extremely correct fundamental formulation of the question, is turning into a major drawback. Why? Because the point now is not at all to give the correct fundamental formulation of the question for the tenth or any other time. This has already been said a hundred times. The point is to give the correct practical slogan, which will at least change something in our practice. I think this is the root of the extremely great optimism that Stalin showed in his report. Perhaps not only this. Remember, Comrade Stalin listed individual factors that contribute to the correct resolution of the national question, and factors that impede its correct resolution. Among the factors contributing to the correct solution of the national question was this: “the economic rapprochement of peoples, established even before Soviet power and strengthened by Soviet power.” And the factor that is hindering, “slowing down the unification of the republics into a single union, is the force that is growing in our country under the NEP, Great Russian chauvinism.” And Stalin’s idea was that we would destroy the inhibitory factors and at the same time promote the development of positive factors. But what is the essence of the problem? The point is that these factors cannot be separated in this way. The point is that positive factors, factors of economic unity in our specific conditions act in such a way that they give rise to Great Russian nationalism. Who is carrying out this economic unity among us? By what mechanism is this carried out under NEP? Here's the main question. If you put this question specifically, you will see that the merchant, the agent of the state trust, a fragment of the old Great Russian bourgeoisie - our state apparatus[*], already sufficiently characterized, this is the basic mechanism that first of all restores the connection between individual areas severed in the first period of the revolution. The contradiction of this mechanism to the basic principles of our national policy is the main difficulty in resolving the national question.

[*] Of course, the Bolshevik apparatus was not any “splinter of the bourgeoisie”, but - both through direct violence and the threat of starvation - the Bolsheviks mobilized “specialists” into it, i.e. people brought up in Russian culture and associated themselves with it, and who could not easily look at the struggle against “damned Russia.”

Whether by chance or not, it turned out that when listing those cases of discussion of the national question that occurred, they forgot that the national question was discussed by the party not three times, but four. It was listed here that the national question was discussed at the VIII Congress, at the X Congress and now at the XII Congress. Both the speaker and Comrade Rakovsky, who should have remembered this more than others, forgot that the national question was discussed at the December conference in 1919, where Comrade Lenin made a speech on the national question<...>I think the one basic guarantee is that<...>and there will be a series of practical steps, the widest dissemination in the party of those ideas and thoughts that are developed in the letters of Comrade Lenin. Because these are documents that will make every party member wonder how his apparatus penetrates vile great power Russian chauvinism.

Now look, Comrade Stalin quite correctly in his theses raises the question of the great difference between formal equality and actual equality. One illustration: in Russia there are now approximately 2 million - 1800 thousand-plus copies of Russian newspapers. The rest of the population of Soviet Russia has approximately 70 thousand newspapers. What's this? This is a manifestation of actual inequality. Is it possible to eliminate this actual inequality in two or three days? No. Is it possible to destroy it in a year? No. It's a matter of years. And that is why it is necessary here to outline appropriate practical work for the coming years, and not just pose the question correctly theoretically.<...>I would ask Comrade Rakovsky: in your independent commissariats<...>Isn’t it the same spirit of Great Russian chauvinism and nationalism, isn’t it the same composition of the bureaucracy of Russians and Russified Jews, who are the most consistent guides Great Russian national oppression, the purest fragment from the old bourgeoisie?

They are actually pursuing the same line of national oppression. What language is spoken in the county offices? In what language are documents written to the village, what language do your commissariats speak? The point is not only in building relations between the commissariats of the independent republics and the united ones, but the point is in the work of the commissariats themselves. I know what enormous resistance - unconscious on the part of the party, overwhelmingly Great Russian, conscious on the part of the bureaucratic apparatus of the commissariats - is encountered by such a simple thing as the obligation to switch to office work in the corresponding language, the obligation to learn such and such a language of the corresponding republic. But, I think, the congress should say that it is better to force 10 Great Russian chauvinists and nationalists to learn the language of the country in which they live, than to force one man in the appropriate institution to distort his native language<...>

In this regard, let us pose another question. Comrade Skrypnik touched upon this issue. This is a question about the army. But he didn’t dot the “i’s”. After all, we must not forget that the Red Army is objectively not only an apparatus for educating the peasantry in the proletarian spirit - it is an apparatus for Russification. We are transferring tens of thousands of Ukrainian peasants to Tula and forcing them to understand everything in Russian. Is this right or wrong? Of course not. Why the proletariat needs this, no one will say. There is the inertia of the Great Russian command apparatus here - the vast majority of our command staff is Russian. After all, it is possible even for Ukrainian peasants transferred to Tula under the Russian command to be educated politically and culturally in the Ukrainian language.<...>[page 595-7]

Lukashin: Comrade Stalin said here: the national moment consists of three-quarters of the question of great-power Russian chauvinism and a quarter of the question of chauvinism of local nationalities. [page 598]

Zinoviev [Apfelbaum]: Do we have a national question, do we have major national tensions now? So far, fortunately, there are no such frictions. We don’t have the kind of friction that we have in Georgia anywhere and, I hope, we won’t have.. But that’s why we are Marxists, to look forward, to reason dialectically and foresee what will be and what should be. We will defeat the NEP because from the very beginning we, as Marxists, foresaw its dangers and took the measures necessary to overcome these dangers. Also with the danger of friction on the national issue. We are Marxists and that is why we hear the grass growing. “We see two arshins underground.” And so, if you ask what is growing here now and what is happening two arshins underground, then, as Comrade Lenin correctly emphasized, we must say: Great power Russian chauvinism is growing, raises his head and comes from the circles that Comrade Stalin and other speakers outlined here. And it cannot help but grow in the current state of things. We see the beginnings of local chauvinism in the outskirts as well. Wherever it grows, this thistle, it remains a thistle. But we have Great Russian chauvinism, which has the most dangerous meaning, which has 300 years of monarchy and imperialist policies behind it, tsarist policy, all that foreign policy of tsarism, about which Engels wrote in 1890 that everyone. who will do in this regard even the slightest concession to chauvinism will inevitably give a hand to tsarism. That is why we must bear in mind that we, as an all-Russian party, face exactly the question aboutGreat Russianchauvinism.

Now Great Russian chauvinism is raising its head. When you are showered with pleasant compliments from the Smenovekhite camp, who say: “Yes, we are for the Comintern, because the Comintern is in the service of the Kremlin and implements the idea of a single indivisible Russia,” when you hear such dubious compliments, when you see that the bourgeoisie It's just waiting for us to fight in this place, it's dangerous. And here we must say that Comrade Lenin raised the national question at the right time. That is why I cannot join the mood that is noticeable in the ranks of some Russian comrades who believe that the entire national question is invented, sucked out of thin air, that someone here is buzzing like an annoying fly in your ear, while this question is completely No.

Comrades, it would be very surprising if in a country like Russia, with such a huge number of nationalities, this issue did not exist. And if we don't start now cut the head our Russian chauvinism, then maybe in 2-3 years we will find ourselves in a much more difficult situation. Comrade Rakovsky spoke here, perhaps somewhat exaggeratedly. Some notes in his overly passionate speech were a little reminiscent of the Austrian formulation of the question. This, perhaps, is also partly caused by pressure from the “great powers” and is a reaction. But it must be said that at the Plenum of the Central Committee we recently heard facts that make our hair stand on end - we heard rants like in our Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (near the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and not its members, of course), in some commissariats the national question is being raised "We must under no circumstances forget what Comrade Lenin said. He said that our task, the task of the communists of those countries that belong to the former great power nation, is different from the task of the communists of those countries that formerly belonged to the countries oppressed.<...>we will<...>remind everyone who forgets that the question of Russian chauvinism is alpha and omega our entire national policy. <...>

We must certainly raise the question of Great Russian chauvinism. We must do this now, at this congress. And it must be said that in this regard, Comrade Lenin’s letter, which you know, raised the question quite decisively. We must first of all reject the “theory” of neutralism.

We cannot stand on the point of view of neutrality, on the point of view of the fact that, let there be two cultures fighting there, in Ukraine or somewhere else, and we will wait and see what comes of it. This point of view is not ours, especially now that our party is in power. We have to play in this matter active role; we must make sure that the Azerbaijani peasant sees that if he has a school in his native language, it is thanks to the communists, and precisely thanks to the Russian Communist Party. He cannot make his own way, and we, as the ruling party, must help him create his own school, they should help him create his own administration in his native language. The same applies to Ukraine and to the peasants of any other country.<...>It should be immediately associated in their minds that they received their schools, their administration, in their language from our hands, thanks to our active and fraternal support.

This is why the theory of neutrality is no good. It is absolutely unsuitable for Soviet Russia, where a situation must be created in which every shepherd in Azerbaijan will know that if national schools exist in him, it is not because the communists stood on the sidelines and invented the tricky word “neutrality”, but because the communists actively helped him get what he needed, and thus introduced them to communism.

But this is not enough. The comrades put forward the second task absolutely correctly.

The issue here is not only about language and school, although it cannot be said that things are going well with language and school. But, in any case, I think there is no need to dwell on this topic now. The second task is material help. The rapporteur of the Central Committee, Comrade Stalin, spoke about it. We have to, despitebecause we are poor, despitethat our resources are scarce, we must now, with a meager budget, with poor resources, provide all possible material assistance to the peasants and, above all, to the peasants of the outskirts, who speak other languages, to all peoples who were previously oppressed. This should be put on the queue and<...>done.<...>

We must remain hegemons not only in Ivanovo-Voznesensk and Kostroma, but remain hegemons in the Union of Soviet Republics and set an example for all the peoples of the East and the whole world. Let's<...>Let's create an atmosphere of contempt and boycott towards everyone who does not understand the importance of the national problem, who allows themselves to joke about this, who does not rebuff everyone who even in a joke shows a hint of chauvinism, because not only the future depends on this our country, but the future of the East depends to a large extent.<...>

I must agree with Comrade Stalin that the question of great-power chauvinism constitutes at least 3/4 of the entire national question.<...>

I must<...>to say that no second chamber will help if this chamber of ours - the congress of our party - does not finally decide the issue for itself. It's not about two chambers, it's about our party who decides, who runs our state, so that she burned with red-hot fire everywhere where there is even a hint of great-power chauvinism. This does not mean that we will spare local national chauvinism, but proportion requires that we first of all cauterize Great Russian chauvinism - this is where the greatest danger lies. If we don’t cauterize this in time, then, despite the Soviet character of our state, we may find ourselves in a situation that threatens with extreme dangers.<...>

If we allow notes of Great Russian chauvinism, which Comrade Lenin called the Black Hundreds, if we do not fight mercilessly against it, as they fight against anti-Semitism, against strikebreaking, using the highest registers, which Vladimir Ilyich has at his disposal - if we do not do this, then we will really lose everything that we have. It's about the hegemony of the proletariat. This hegemony cannot be implemented correctly unless we resolve the national question. No more and no less, this is exactly the question facing us. Don't be afraid to say a decisive word. You are faced with not an imaginary, not a boring problem, but a question that is a matter of life and death for our party, for the entire future and for the Communist International. ( Stormy applause.) [page 602-8]

Chairman: Comrade Bukharin has the floor.

Bukharin: Comrades, first of all, a few words about how acute the national question has become in our country.<...>In our country, the national question is already very acute, and that it will be on the agenda tomorrow, that it will be in ten, if not more, republics, depends primarily on the simple reason that we are constantly raising new layers of nationalities, creating a new intelligentsia, which is only now becoming familiar with culture, which is only now establishing itself, which is only now gaining power in the sense of penetrating our state apparatus.<...>

If we make a mistake on the national question in Georgia, then we are helping the Mensheviks; if we make a mistake on the national question in Ukraine, then by doing so we are directly helping the Petliurists; if we make a mistake on the national question in Turkestan, we thereby provide assistance to the conscious ideologists of the Basmachi movement [*]. Comrades, is this really unclear after all the lessons we have learned?

[*] But in relation to the Great Russians, “making mistakes,” according to Bukharin, is not only possible, but also necessary.

The national question is especially difficult where we do not have a sufficiently national core. In Ukraine, for example, where Russian-Jewish party composition, our main task lies in working among the Ukrainians, and that is why very often in Ukraine some of our comrades fight with such energy, with such fury against Ukrainian nationalism. For correct policies, they would need to retrain. And if we want to be responsible for the fate of the country, we must understand what is going on here, and we must make every effort to oppose such trends as sharply and sharply as possible.

The essence of Leninism on the national question in our country was primarily in the fight against main chauvinism that we have, with Great Russian chauvinism. Comrade Stalin said absolutely correctly here that nine-tenths of the issue lies in Great Russian chauvinism, and the rest lies in local chauvinism. And here, comrades, we need to be clear about this.<...>

If we let's hitfirstlink of nationalism, by itselfthe main thingand by itselfmain, thereby we will strike at these intermediate links down to the lowest “local” chauvinisms. And that's the whole question. One cannot even approach here from the point of viewequalitynations, etc. Lenin repeatedly proved this. Vice versa, we must say that we, as a former great power nation must go against nationalist aspirations and put yourself at a disadvantage In terms of even greater concessions to national trends. Only with such a policy, going against the grain, only with such a policy, when we will artificially put ourselves in a lower position compared to others, only at this price can we buy ourselves the real trust of previously oppressed nations.

Bukharin's main idea:
Only when we, Russians, artificially put ourselves in a position
lower compared to other nations, only at this price
we can buy ourselves the real trust of previously oppressed nations

The same is an economic issue. Here many comrades said: after all, economic expediency requires this, that, and that, and from the point of view of economic expediency they defend the position that, say, the draft dodgers defend in an exaggerated form. And to this, comrades, I will say: cutting down telegraph poles into barricades is a very wrong economic policy; taking away the large estates of landowners and transferring them to the peasants from the point of view of economic expediency and from the point of view of labor productivity is a wrong policy. But we still do it. And the same thing applies to the national question. It is absolutely clear that, perhaps, from a purely apparatus point of view or from a purely economic point of view, this or that measure, if we completely throw out all political and all other considerations, may be completely economically expedient. But if we take into account the national demands that exist, the political difficulties that may stand in this way, then we must very often give up economic expediency in order to lay a solid foundation for our power, uniting nationalities into a union.<...>Case<...>in the general formulation of the national question and in those Great Russian deviations that were revealed here. If we became here at the congress to examine the issue of local chauvinism, we would conductwrongpolitics. After all, why did Comrade Lenin begin to sound the alarm on the Georgian issue with such frantic energy? And why Comrade Lenin didn't say a word in his letter about the mistakes of the [Georgian] draft dodgers and, on the contrary, he said all the words, and said four-arshin words, against the policy that was being pursued against draft dodgers? Why did he do this? Because he didn’t know that local chauvinism existed? Or because he couldn’t list a dozen counties with separatist tendencies? Why did he do this? But because Comrade Lenin is a brilliant strategist. He knows that you need to beat the main enemy, and not eclectically string shades upon shades. For example, at this congress nothing to say about local chauvinism. This is the second phase of our struggle. And if we talk for the purposes of “objective justice” about Great Russian chauvinism and at the same time argue that there is also Georgian chauvinism, Ukrainian chauvinism, Akhaltsykh, Gomel-Gomel chauvinism and any kind of chauvinism, we will drown main question. And therefore it is absolutely clear that Comrade Lenin, in his letters and in the well-known document mentioned here, did not at all take the point of view of this wonderful “objective justice”, but took someone by the hair and let's pull it left and right. And he did absolutely the right thing, precisely because this is the only way to turn the public opinion of the party along the path that Comrade Lenin considers correct. ( Applause.) Here it is still necessary to observe some kind of proportion... You will note what happened to Comrade Zinoviev when he spoke against local chauvinism - thunder of applause rained down from everywhere. What wonderful solidarity! But what does this mean?.. This means that in those parts of the speeches where local chauvinism is discussed, everyone is against it, even the Great Russians who oppose Georgian chauvinism. But when it comes to Russian chauvinism, only the tip sticks out ( applause, laughter), and this is the most dangerous thing. I understand when our dear friend, Comrade Koba Stalin, does not so sharply oppose Russian chauvinism, and that he, as a Georgian, opposes Georgian chauvinism. But allow me, although I am not a Georgian - it is true that some people tease me as an “honorary Georgian” - to speak against Russian chauvinism. It's there our most important political task, and this problem must be solved in such a way that the crux of the issue lies not in compiling a catalog on the subject of travel through local chauvinism, but the question is about the elimination of Russian chauvinism.

Great Russian chauvinism is of enormous importance in the international sense

Comrades, there is one more consideration: what significance does, say, some kind of Uzbek chauvinism have on an international scale? None. And Great Russian chauvinism is of enormous importance in the international sense. If, for example, Comrade Mdivani makes some mistakes in relation to the Armenians, then this has almost no impact on international politics... ( noise, voices:“no”), it will have no response; but the circumstance when the Russians, who now act as bearers of the Russian state idea in Soviet form, when they infringe on other nationalities, then the matter is different; It is quite natural that this is the most dangerous thing, and we must protest against this. If we do this central we will not understand our task if we do not set primarily the fight against Russian chauvinism At our congress, if we do not mobilize all the main forces of our party against Great Russian chauvinism and strike against it, we will not fulfill our duty. If t. Lenin if he were here he would gave such a bath to Russian chauvinists[*] that they would remember for ten years.

[*] He asked - a bloody one.

<...>the congress must instruct the new composition of the Central Committee to ensure that the excellent theses of the Central Committee and Comrade Stalin remain not on paper, but in reality were implemented <...>[page 611-5]

Chairman: On the report on the work of the section on the national question, Comrade Stalin has the floor.<...> (Applause.)

Stalin: Comrades, before moving on to the report on the work of the section on the national question, allow me to make an objection to the speakers who spoke on my report on two main points. This will only take about 20 minutes, no more.

The first question is the question that one group of comrades, led by Bukharin and Rakovsky, inflated the importance of the national question too much, exaggerated it and, because of the national question, overlooked the social question - the question of the power of the working class.

The social issue is more important than the national issue

Meanwhile, it is clear to us, as communists, that the basis of all our work is the work to strengthen the power of the workers, and after that only another question arises before us, a very important question, but subordinate to the first - the national question. They tell us that we should not offend the nationals. This is absolutely correct, I agree with this - there is no need to offend them. But to create from this a new theory that it is necessary to place the Great Russian proletariat in a position of unequal rights in relation to the oppressed nations is to say inconsistency. What Comrade Lenin used as a figure of speech in his article, Comrade Bukharin turned into a whole slogan. Meanwhile, it is clear that the political basis of the proletarian dictatorship is first and foremost the central industrial regions, and not the outskirts, which represent peasant countries. If we go too far towards the peasant outskirts, to the detriment of the proletarian areas, then a crack may appear in the system of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is dangerous, comrades. You can’t over-salt in politics just as you can’t under-salt.

It should be remembered that, in addition to the right of peoples to self-determination, there is also the right of the working class to strengthen its power, and the right to self-determination is subordinated to this last right. There are cases when the right to self-determination comes into conflict with another, higher right - the right of the working class, which has come to power, to strengthen its power. In such cases, - this must be said frankly - the right to self-determination cannot and should not serve as an obstacle to the exercise of the right of the working class to its dictatorship. The first must give way to the second. This was the case, for example, in 1920, when we were forced, in the interests of defending the power of the working class, to march on Warsaw.

Therefore, we should not forget that, making all sorts of promises to nationalities, bowing before representatives of nationalities, as some comrades did at this congress, we should remember that the scope of the national question and the limits, so to speak, of its competence are limited, under our external and internal conditions, to the sphere actions and competence of the “working issue” as the main one of all issues.

The labor question is primary, the national question is secondary

Here, many people referred to the notes and articles of Vladimir Ilyich. I would not like to quote my teacher, Comrade Lenin, since he is not here, and I am afraid that, perhaps, I will refer to him incorrectly and out of place. Nevertheless, I am forced to quote one axiomatic passage that does not cause any misunderstandings, so that my comrades have no doubts about the relative importance of the national question. Analyzing Marx’s letter on the national question in the article on self-determination, Comrade Lenin draws the following conclusion: “Compared with the “labor question,” the subordinate importance of the national question is beyond doubt for Marx.” There are only two lines, but they decide everything. This is something that some unreasonably zealous comrades need to point out to themselves.

Compared to the “work question” the subordinate meaning
the national question is beyond doubt for Marx

The second question is about Great Russian chauvinism and local chauvinism. Comrade Rakovsky and especially Comrade Bukharin, who proposed to delete the paragraph talking about the dangers of local chauvinism. They say there is no need to bother with such a worm as local chauvinism when we have such a “Goliath” as Great Russian chauvinism. In general, Comrade Bukharin was in a repentant mood. This is understandable: for years he has sinned against nationalities, denying the right to self-determination; it is time, finally, to repent. But, repenting, he went to the other extreme. It is curious that Comrade Bukharin calls on the party to follow his example and also repent, although the whole world knows that the party has nothing to do with it, because from the very beginning of its existence (1898) it recognized the right of self-determination, and, therefore, it should repent nothing. The fact is that Comrade Bukharin did not understand the essence of the national question. When they say that it is necessary to put the fight against Great Russian chauvinism at the forefront of the national question, they want to point out the duties of a Russian communist, they want to say that the duty of a Russian communist to lead the fight against Russian chauvinism himself. If not the Russians, but the Turkestan or Georgian communists took up the fight against Russian chauvinism, then their such struggle would be regarded as anti-Russian chauvinism. This would confuse the whole matter and strengthen Great Russian chauvinism. Only Russian communists can take upon themselves the fight against Great Russian chauvinism and bring it to the end.

If it were not for the Russians, but for the Turkestan or Georgian communists
took up the fight against Russian chauvinism, then their such a fight
would be regarded as anti-Russian chauvinism

What do they want to say when they propose a fight against local anti-Russian chauvinism? By this they want to note the responsibility of local communists, the duty of non-Russian communists to fight their chauvinism. Is it possible to deny that there are deviations towards anti-Russian chauvinism? After all, the entire congress saw with their own eyes that local, Georgian, Bashkir, etc. chauvinism exists, and that it must be fought.

Russian communists cannot fight Tatar, Georgian, Bashkir chauvinism, because if a Russian communist takes upon himself the difficult task of fighting Tatar or Georgian chauvinism, then this struggle will be regarded as the struggle of a Great Russian chauvinist against the Tatars or Georgians. This would confuse the whole matter. Only Tatar, Georgian, etc. communists can fight against Tatar, Georgian, etc. chauvinism, only Georgian communists can successfully fight their Georgian nationalism or chauvinism. In that duty of non-Russian communists. That is why it is necessary to note in the theses this two-sided task of Russian communists (I mean the fight against Great Russian chauvinism) and non-Russian communists (I mean their fight against anti-Armenian, anti-Tatar, anti-Russian chauvinism). Without this, the theses will come out one-sided; without this, no internationalism can be created either in state or party building.

Every nation must fight against its own chauvinism
and don’t get involved in the problems of other people’s chauvinism

If we fight only against Great Russian chauvinism, then this fight will overshadow the struggle of the Tatar and other chauvinists, which is developing locally and which is especially dangerous now, under the conditions of the NEP. We cannot help but fight on two fronts, because only if we fight on two fronts - against Great Russian chauvinism, on the one hand, which is the main danger in our construction work, and local chauvinism, on the other - will it be possible to achieve success, for without this two-sided struggle, no union of Russian and foreign workers and peasants will be possible. Otherwise, there may be encouragement of local chauvinism, a policy of rewarding local chauvinism, which we cannot allow.

Let me here also refer to Comrade Lenin. I would not do this, but since at our congress there are many comrades who quote Comrade Lenin at random, distorting him, allow me to read a few words from one well-known article by Comrade Lenin:

“The proletariat must demand freedom of political secession for colonies and nations oppressed by “its” nation. Otherwise, the internationalism of the proletariat will remain empty and verbal; neither trust nor class solidarity is possible between the workers of the oppressed and the oppressor nations.”

These are, so to speak, the duties of the proletarians of the dominant or former dominant nation. Then he speaks about the duties of proletarians or communists of previously oppressed nations:

“On the other hand, socialists of oppressed nations must especially defend and implement the complete and unconditional, including organizational, unity of the workers of the oppressed nation with the workers of the oppressor nation. Without this, it is impossible to defend the independent policy of the proletariat and its class solidarity with the proletariat of other countries in the face of all kinds of tricks, betrayals and frauds of the bourgeoisie. For the bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations constantly turns the slogans of national liberation into a deception of the workers.”

The bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations constantly turns slogans
national liberation to deceive its workers

As you can see, if we are to follow in the footsteps of Comrade Lenin - and here some comrades swore by his name - then it is necessary to leave both theses, both on the fight against Great Russian chauvinism and on the fight against local chauvinism, in the resolution, as two sides of one phenomena, as theses about the fight against chauvinism in general.

With this I end my objections to those speakers who spoke here.

Next, allow me to report on the work of the section on the national question. The section adopted the theses of the Central Committee as its basis.<...>To paragraph 7, second paragraph, third line before the words: “Therefore, with decisive struggles, insert the following:

“The situation in a number of national republics (Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Turkestan) is complicated by the fact that a significant part of the working class, which is the main support of Soviet power, belongs to the Great Russian nationality. In these areas, the bond between city and countryside, the working class and the peasantry encounters the strongest obstacle in the remnants of Great Russian chauvinism in both party and Soviet bodies. Under these conditions, talking about the advantages of Russian culture and putting forward the position of the inevitability of the victory of a higher Russian culture over the cultures of more backward peoples (Ukrainian, Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, etc.) are nothing more than an attempt to consolidate the dominance of the Great Russian nationality.” I accepted this amendment because it improves the theses.<...>

Resolution on the national question

<...>The collapse of old Russia, Austria-Hungary and Turkey<...>All these and similar facts clearly speak of the instability and fragility of multinational bourgeois states.<...>

Our party took these circumstances into account, basing its policy on the national question on the right of nations to self-determination, the right of peoples to independent state existence.<...>

The meaning of these decisions is:

in resolute denial of all and all forms of coercion in relation to nationalities;
in recognition equality and sovereignty of peoples in the matter of arranging one’s destiny;
in recognizing the position that a lasting unification of peoples can only be achieved on the basis of cooperation and voluntariness;
in proclaiming the truth that the implementation of such a unification is possible only as a result overthrow the power of capital.

Our party never tired of contrasting this national liberation program in its work with both the openly oppressive policy of tsarism and the half-hearted, semi-imperialist policy of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. If the Russification policy of tsarism created a gulf between tsarism and the nationalities of old Russia, and the semi-imperialist policy of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries led to the departure of the best elements of these nationalities from Kerenskyism, then the liberation policy of our party won it the sympathy and support of the broad masses of these nationalities in their struggle against tsarism and imperialist Russian bourgeoisie. There can hardly be any doubt that this sympathy and this support served as one of the decisive moments that determined the victory of our party in the October days.<...>

National enmity and national clashes are inevitable, inevitable, as long as capital is in power, as long as the petty bourgeoisie and, above all, the peasantry of the former “sovereign” nation, full of nationalist prejudices, follow the capitalists<...>

National enmity and national clashes are inevitable,
inevitable as long as capital remains in power

In order to correctly implement the national program put forward by the October Revolution, it is still necessary to overcome those obstacles that were inherited by us from the past period of national oppression and which cannot be overcome in a short time with one blow.

This legacy consists, firstly, of the remnants of great-power chauvinism, which is a reflection of the former privileged position of the Great Russians. These remnants still live in the minds of our Soviet workers, central and local, they nest in our state institutions, central and local, they are reinforced in the form of “new” Smenovekhov Great Russian-chauvinist trends, increasingly intensified in connection with the NEP.<...>The Soviet state can become truly strong, and the cooperation of the peoples in it truly fraternal, only if these remnants are eradicated from the practice of our state institutions decisively and irrevocably. The situation in a number of national republics (Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Turkestan) is complicated by the fact that a significant part of the working class, which is the main support of Soviet power, belongs to the Great Russian nationality. In these areas, the bond between city and countryside, the working class and the peasantry encounters the strongest obstacle in the remnants of Great Russian chauvinism in both party and Soviet bodies. Under these conditions, talking about the advantages of Russian culture and putting forward the position of the inevitability of the victory of a higher Russian culture over the cultures of more backward peoples (Ukrainian, Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Kyrgyz, etc.) are nothing more than an attempt to consolidate the dominance of the Great Russian nationality. Therefore, a decisive struggle against the remnants of Velkorussian chauvinism is the first immediate task of our party.

This inheritance consists, secondly, in the actual, i.e. economic and cultural, inequality of nationalities of the Union of Republics.<...>The reasons for this actual inequality lie not only in the history of these peoples, but also in the policies of tsarism and the Russian bourgeoisie, who sought to turn the outskirts into exclusively raw material areas exploited by the industrially developed central regions.<...>The 10th Congress of our Party noted that “the destruction of actual national inequality is a long process that requires a stubborn and persistent struggle against all the remnants of national oppression and colonial slavery.” But it is necessary to overcome it. And it can be overcome only through real and long-term assistance of the Russian proletariat to the backward peoples of the Union in the matter of their economic and cultural prosperity.<...>Therefore, the struggle to eliminate the actual inequality of nationalities, the struggle to raise the cultural and economic level of backward peoples is the second priority task of our party.

This legacy consists, finally, in the remnants of nationalism among a number of peoples who went through the heavy yoke of national oppression<...>

Since the remnants of nationalism are a unique form of defense against Great Russian chauvinism, a decisive struggle against Great Russian chauvinism represents the surest means of overcoming nationalist remnants.<...>

One of the brightest expressions of the legacy of the old should be considered the fact that the Union of Republics is regarded by a significant part of Soviet officials in the center and locally not as a union of equal state units designed to ensure the free development of national republics, but as a step towards the liquidation of these republics, as the beginning of the formation called “one-indivisible”.<...>

Condemning such an understanding as anti-proletarian and reactionary, and proclaiming the absolute necessity of the existence and further development of national republics, the congress calls on party members to vigilantly ensure that the unification of republics and the merger of commissariats is not used by chauvinist-minded Soviet officials as a cover for their attempts to ignore economic and cultural the needs of the national republics. The merger of commissariats is a test for the Soviet apparatus: if this experience had received a great-power direction in practice, then the party would have been forced to take the most decisive measures against such a perversion, even raising the question of revising the merger of some commissariats until the proper re-education of the Soviet apparatus in the spirit of a truly proletarian and truly fraternal attention to the needs and requirements of small and backward nationalities.<...>

Drawing the attention of party members to the special harm and special danger of a deviation towards Great Russian chauvinism, the congress calls on the party to quickly eliminate these remnants of the old in our party building. [page 691-7]

Task: destruction of Russian national identity
Place: 12th Congress of the Russian Communist Bolshevik Party in Moscow
Date of: April 17 - 25, 1923

Plan
Introduction
1 History of the use of the term
1.1 Early 20th century - 1930s
1.2 Perestroika
1.3 Modern usage

Bibliography

Introduction

Great-power chauvinism is an expression used primarily in socialist, communist and liberal literature to denote the dominant attitude of the imperialist powers and their state power towards other peoples [for example, Great Britain, France towards the peoples of the colonies], and then [USSR] (German chauvinism). In some cases it is also applied to other nations.

1. History of the use of the term

1.1. Early 20th century - 1930s

It first came into use at the beginning of the 20th century in a liberal and revolutionary environment; Let's say, during the First World War, Zinaida Gippius fiercely protested against “Russian chauvinism,” for example, against the renaming of St. Petersburg to Petrograd.

With the Bolsheviks coming to power, the term came into use and became one of the most negatively colored ideological clichés; great-power chauvinism was opposed to internationalism. Lenin, criticizing Stalin's autonomization plan, wrote about the future central government of the USSR, in which "an insignificant percentage of Soviet and Sovietized workers will drown in a sea of Great Russian chauvinistic trash." Lenin proclaimed the slogan: “Fight against great-power chauvinism!” Zinoviev called for “cutting off the head of our Russian chauvinism”, “burning with a hot iron wherever there is even a hint of great-power chauvinism...”. Bukharin explained to his compatriots: “We, as a former great-power nation, must put ourselves in an unequal position in the sense of even greater concessions to national trends” and demanded that the Russians be placed “in a lower position compared to others.” People's Commissar of Agriculture Yakovlev complained that “the vile great-power Russian chauvinism penetrates through the apparatus.” In all of Stalin's speeches on the national question at the party congresses from the 10th to the 16th, he was declared the main danger to the state. Stalin declared: " A decisive struggle against the remnants of Great Russian chauvinism is the first immediate task of our party. ».

Subsequently, this term was not used publicly, remaining only in Soviet officialdom; Here, for example, is the definition of TSB:

Marxist parties oppose the V.S., like other forms of bourgeois nationalism, to consistent proletarian internationalism. The socialist revolution eliminates the social causes of Western society and nationalism. In the course of socialist construction, equality, friendship, and fraternal mutual assistance arise and develop between peoples. When resolving the national question in the USSR during the transition period to socialism, there were manifestations of a bias towards Westernism. Its social base was the remnants of the exploiting classes, some revival of capitalist elements during the NEP period. Expressed by V. sh. in ignoring national characteristics, non-recognition in practice of the principle of national equality, etc. At the 10th (1921), 12th (1923), 16th (1930) party congresses, this deviation was exposed and overcome. Ideology and politics of V. sh. alien to Soviet society. According to the Constitution of the USSR (Article 123), any direct or indirect manifestation of them is punishable by law. Communist and workers' parties, acting under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, are waging a determined, uncompromising struggle against all manifestations of the Western Socialist movement and educating working people in the spirit of proletarian internationalism and socialist patriotism.

1.2. Perestroika

The term was used in the liberal press of the perestroika era (as well as, earlier, in samizdat works of a liberal nature). The meaning remained close to the same (albeit without the Marxist component). According to I. R. Shafarevich in the book “Russophobia”, ““Great Power Chauvinism” as the main danger is literally preserved, as if borrowed by the literature of the “Little People” from the reports of Stalin and Zinoviev.”

1.3. Modern usage

Nowadays the expression is used much less frequently than in the 20s, but it has not disappeared anywhere. Russian President V.V. Putin, speaking on June 18, 2004 at the international conference “Eurasian integration: trends in modern development and challenges of globalization,” said about the problems hindering integration: “If I were allowed to take part in the work of this section, I would said that these problems can be formulated very simply. This is great-power chauvinism, this is nationalism, this is the personal ambitions of those on whom political decisions depend, and, finally, this is just stupidity - ordinary caveman stupidity.” On July 24, 2007, at a meeting with members of youth movements in Zavidovo, V.V. Putin said in response to a remark regarding the problem of migration: “ This, of course, is the basis for inciting nationalism within the country. But in any development of events, great-power chauvinism is unacceptable" The executive director of the extremist Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, banned by the court, Stanislav Dmitrievsky (sentenced to two years probation for extremist activities) believes that “as long as there is propaganda of great-power chauvinism, all recipes for preventing the events in Kondopoga are meaningless.”

The expression is also used in the farce comedy “Shirley Myrli” (1995) by one of the characters, a gypsy by nationality:

I refuse any negotiations until you stop discriminating against Roma citizens.
- Who the hell needs them, your gypsies.
- Here it is, great-power chauvinism in action. Have you forgotten who won the Battle of Kulikovo for you?

Bibliography:

1. See the article “Great Power Chauvinism” in TSB.

2. http://lib.chistopol.ru/read.php?id=913 Brachev V. S. Masons in Russia: from Peter I to the present day

3. “Nezavisimaya Gazeta”, 12/18/1997.

4. WHY DID THE SOVIET UNION FALL UP?

5. National moments in party and state construction // Pravda No. 65, March 24, 1923

6. RUSOPHOBIA

7. http://www.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=46438

8. Putin declared the inadmissibility of great-power chauvinism (RIA Novosti, 07/24/2007)

9. The Supreme Court finally liquidated the “Russian-Chechen Friendship Society” (Lenta.ru, 01/23/2007

10. Stanislav Dmitrievsky was sentenced to two years of suspended imprisonment (“Caucasian Knot”, 02/03/2006

11. Stanislav Dmitrievsky: As long as there is propaganda of great-power chauvinism, it is impossible to prevent the events in Kondopoga

Our contemporaries often use “chauvinism” as a synonym for the words “nationalism” and “patriotism”. Are they wrong? We will answer this question by telling where this term comes from and what it means.

Chauvinism: definition and concept

Chauvinism is a worldview based on the identification of an exclusive, that is, the main, nation, whose interests are placed above other ethnic groups. Chauvinism underlies the idea of colonization, when the dominant nation enslaved and exploited other peoples, opposing itself to them and putting its interests above others.

Let us recall the colonial policy of England, as a result of which the largest state in the history of mankind was formed - the British Empire, which had colonies on all continents. The subjugation of peoples whom the British considered to be at a lower stage of development - Hindus, Algerians, Indians, etc. - is a manifestation of chauvinism. Moreover, in this case, there was great-power chauvinism, as a result of which one nation deprived other peoples of the right to state sovereignty.

At the end of the 19th century, the ambitions of the British to dominate the continent caused a resurgence of chauvinistic sentiments. Extreme English chauvinism, present since then in British politics and society, was called jingoism, from the word “jingo” - this is the nickname people gave to ardent champions of the idea of the superiority of the British nation.

History of the term

The concept of chauvinism came to us from the French language. Researching the origins of the word, scientists came to the conclusion that the term was based on the surname of the 19th century vaudeville hero, Bonaparte army soldier Nicolas Chauvin. Historians cannot find documentary evidence of the existence of this person; he is known only from literary works. Writers of that time claimed that their character was based on a real person who was devoted to Napoleon to the point of fanaticism and zealously supported the idea of imperial nationalism.

Being a volunteer and joining the French army at the age of 18, Chauvin received seventeen wounds and only a 200-franc pension, which, however, did not shake the soldier’s devotion to his emperor. Chauvin's blind admiration for Napoleon began to be called chauvinism. Later, the semantics of the term underwent changes, acquiring a modern meaning: today this is the name for national swagger and superiority.

Nationalism and chauvinism: what is the difference?

Chauvinism is an example of extreme nationalism. Let's look at the differences between these concepts in practice. Residents of Scotland, part of the United Kingdom, have been fighting for sovereignty for centuries, defending their nation's right to self-determination. Here is an example of the manifestation of nationalism. But the actions of the British, who considered themselves the dominant nation and asserted themselves through discrimination against the rights of the peoples of Scotland and Ireland, can be regarded as chauvinism.

In other words, nationalism presupposes the desire of a nation to protect its sovereignty, cultural and spiritual heritage. Chauvinism is aggressive national dominance achieved by infringing on the rights and freedoms of other peoples.

Great Russian chauvinism

Great Russian chauvinism, also called great-power chauvinism, existed in both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, and its manifestations remained in the Russian Federation. During the monarchical rule in Russia, the leading role was played by the Russian nation: the main financial flows flowed into Central Russia; the countries that were part of the empire were, in fact, its appendages that did not have the right to vote.

In the Soviet Union, Russian chauvinism was opposed to internationalism. However, only in words. In fact, the ideologists of socialism elevated the Russian people to the rank of “big brother,” thereby assigning them a leading role in the life of the state and leaving other nationalities to stand a step lower.

Russian chauvinism still exists today. Nowadays, many public organizations and political parties have adopted this ideology. Among them are skinheads, the Order of Great Russia, the Russian National Patriotic Movement, the National Socialist Initiative, the Russian National Unity, and the People's National Party.

Gender chauvinism

Gender chauvinism, also called sexism, is a worldview built on the principle of discrimination based on gender. This type of chauvinism has nothing to do with politics, but is no less relevant than national chauvinism.

Machismo

A chauvinist man emphasizes his superiority over a woman through his actions and behavior.

A woman is assigned the role of a housewife, whose responsibilities include serving her husband and raising children. The rule applies: “A woman’s word is not given.”
Adultery is the norm for a man, but having lovers for a woman is condemned.
A man must dominate in everything: occupy leadership positions, determine the fate of the state, have the final say in the family. A woman is content with the role of a subordinate, she is paid less, even if she occupies a position equivalent to a man, and in government bodies there are only a few representatives of the weak half of humanity.

In contrast to male chauvinism, feminism arose - a movement for equal rights for women and men. However, besides it, there is another phenomenon of sexism - female chauvinism.

Female chauvinism

Men claim that their rights are also infringed, and women in some cases are in a more advantageous position compared to the stronger sex. The descendants of Adam see discrimination of their rights in:

different retirement ages. Women have the right to retire earlier, and men want the same;

the need to serve in the conscript army. Why should the defense of the Motherland be only our responsibility, the great-great-great-grandchildren of Russian heroes ask;

the right of women to individually decide whether to have an abortion or not;

established lower standards of physical activity for women, especially pregnant women. Why shouldn't an expectant mother work on equal terms with a male colleague? Or maybe men with beer bellies weighing 15 kg should be switched to shorter working hours?

the need to remove hats when women remain in scarves and hats. For example, in church, theater, during the performance of the anthem.

Chauvinism, regardless of the sphere of manifestation, is a negative phenomenon, generated by the eternal desire of man to suppress and dominate, but this can lead to a third world war. Therefore, you need to be wiser, not following your desires and ambitions, but making decisions that your descendants will not have to pay for.

Does Russian chauvinism exist today? Watch the Russian President’s opinion in the video:

Take it for yourself and tell your friends!