Briefly, the national question. national question

Already at the dawn of human history, people were characterized by the desire to unite in communities, first by consanguinity, and then by territoriality. Tribes arose, then tribal unions, which, with the advent of state power, began to transform into large state formations. But they, despite all their external power and sometimes high level of culture, were rather fragile. Trade ties between their individual territories were practically absent or were very weak. Numerous groups of the population of such states, often forcibly included in them, differed from each other in language, culture, level of economic development and other characteristics, which did not allow them to consider themselves as something united and whole. For some time, they held on only by the force of arms and the need to rally in the face of the threat of attack from external enemies. History shows that all the empires of antiquity and the Middle Ages, created by conquering peoples, did not have a historical perspective, although they sometimes existed for a very long time. Such was the fate of the Roman Empire, which was not helped even by the spread of Roman and Latin citizenship to the conquered territories, the empires of the Franks of Charlemagne, the Golden Horde, etc.

Conquest tendencies were less inherent in the ancient Russian state than in other states, but nevertheless, the weakness of internal economic ties led it to disintegrate into separate territories and further to dependence on the Golden Horde (see Mongol invasion, Horde yoke and its overthrow).

At that time, in the Russian principalities, in the absence of state unity, the bulk of the population had to somehow distinguish themselves from others according to the principle: "our" - "alien". This has found its expression in religion, which has become a powerful ideological force. The idea of ​​rallying for the struggle for the Christian faith supported the Russians in the revival of the Russian state. It is no coincidence that in the fight against Mamai, which ended with the Battle of Kulikovo in 1380, the Moscow prince Dmitry Ivanovich turned for help to the most authoritative rector and abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery Sergius of Radonezh, whose support to a large extent ensured the success of the unification of almost all Russian princes under Moscow flag. This is already a manifestation of the national question in a religious form, the first milestones of national self-consciousness.

But religion could not become the long-term basis of the state policy of any country. Ivan Kalita calmly took part in the punitive campaign of the Horde troops, without thinking about issues of faith. In the XV century. Grand Duke Ivan III of Moscow entered into an alliance with the Crimean Khan Mengli Giray against the Christian, albeit Catholic, Polish-Lithuanian King Casimir, without feeling the slightest remorse. During the Great Embassy of Peter I to Europe with the aim of creating an anti-Ottoman coalition, European diplomats quickly explained to the Russian Tsar that the union of Christian peoples against the infidel Turks was, of course, a good thing, but less important than the problems that had arisen in the struggle for the Spanish inheritance. Already in the XIX century. The Ottoman Empire repeatedly participated in European coalitions, taking the side of some Christian states against others. Thus, the national question acquired not so much a religious as a state character.

The process of development of capitalism with the formation of a single intrastate market, an intensive exchange of goods between individual territories, on the one hand, contributed to the breaking of internal borders, the disappearance or weakening of linguistic dialects and the consolidation of the population into a single nation; on the other hand, it came into conflict with the natural desire of peoples to preserve their national identity, culture, lifestyle, etc. Different countries tried to cope with this problem in their own way, but it was not possible to achieve a universal solution.

Over time, due to the colonial policy of the leading European powers, the national question entered a new phase, as the colonial empires became multinational states, where the nation of the metropolitan country acted as an oppressor in relation to the peoples of the colonies, which in turn led to an intensification of the national liberation struggle from their side. By the beginning of the 20th century, when the world was already practically divided, the national question increasingly began to acquire an interstate character, since the clashes of large states over the redivision of the world were explained by their national interests.

In Russia, the national question had a special specificity. The process of development of capitalist relations was slower here than in most European countries, and the territory of the state continued to expand, adding to itself the areas where peoples lived, sometimes even at the pre-feudal level of development. At the same time, the state tried not just to exploit the new territories roughly, but to include them in its economic system. This led to the fact that Russia became a more stable multinational state than, for example, Austria-Hungary, and interethnic contradictions in it were somewhat less acute than in a number of other countries, although they were a serious problem.

From the 16th to the 19th century the Russian state included Siberia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Poland, the Baltic States, Finland and a number of other territories, completely different in economic, cultural, religious and other levels (see the Caucasus joining Russia, Siberia and the Far East, development, Middle Asia accession to Russia, Partitions of Poland). By the beginning of the XX century. the actual Russian population in Russia was less than 50%. About 200 peoples lived in the country, each of which represented an original social system.

Russia was a unitary state with a rigidly centralized system of government, where the possibility of self-government of any of its individual territories was not supposed. True, a number of exceptions were allowed in practice: Finland had some elements of autonomy; the constitutional system in Poland did not last long; in Central Asia there were formally independent Bukhara and Khiva khanates, but in reality they were completely dependent on the Russian government.

In an attempt to resolve national contradictions, Russia was characterized by a certain flexibility. Thus, the wealthy ruling elite of the annexed peoples was included in the elite and received the rights of the Russian nobility. Non-Russian peoples gave Russia many outstanding military and statesmen, scientists, artists, composers, writers (Shafirov, Bagration, Kruzenshtern, Loris-Melikov, Levitan, etc.). The government tried to pay attention to local national traditions and customs. Thus, V. I. Lenin's well-known statement about Russia as a "prison of peoples" was a significant exaggeration that pursued specific political goals. In the same way, any multinational state of that time could be called a “prison of peoples”.

And yet, national relations in the Russian Empire cannot be presented as an idyll. Interethnic conflicts periodically flared up in it, often developing into open clashes with considerable human casualties. The Jewish population was subjected to severe discrimination. It was limited in the right of residence and free movement; the only exceptions were merchants of the first guild and persons with a university education (see Merchants). At the beginning of the XX century. bloody Jewish pogroms took place in a number of Russian cities. The Polish population was also in an unequal position. Numerous legal restrictions were placed on Poles in the civil service and in the army. In 1898, an uprising broke out among the Uzbeks of the then Fergana region, dissatisfied with the policy of the tsarist administration towards the Muslim population. It was headed by the very popular local religious leader Dukchi Ishan. The uprising was brutally suppressed - all the villages where the leaders of the uprising lived were razed to the ground. In 1916, an uprising took place under the leadership of A. Imanov in Central Asia.

Interethnic conflicts took place in Russia not only between Russians and the national population. At the end of XIX - beginning of XX century. the Armenian-Tatar relations escalated sharply, resulting in a real massacre.

Various options were proposed to solve the national question. According to one of them, it was necessary to provide national minorities with cultural and national autonomy without the right of state secession. Such a decision put them in an unequal relationship with other peoples. In another way - to recognize the right of the nation to self-determination up to secession and formation of an independent state. This, however, contradicted the global trend of internationalization of the economy and the formation of large states. The theory of socialist doctrines recognized the national question as insoluble within the framework of the existence of capitalist social relations. Only with their elimination will the basis for interethnic conflicts disappear, and, consequently, the national question will be resolved.

After the October Revolution of 1917, an attempt to implement these provisions was made during the formation of the USSR. The USSR was a federation of national states, i.e., a country where, in the presence of a single central authority, its individual state formations (in this case, national ones) were given greater independence in resolving internal issues. It was assumed that the unification of workers would eliminate the reasons that prompted the peoples to separate them from Russia, although such a right was recorded in the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia” in November 1917. In the USSR formed in 1922, this right was enshrined in the Constitution (see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). It was believed that joint defense against capitalist encirclement, socialist construction, and the voluntary unification of the union republics would help bring the peoples of the USSR closer and unite them into one union multinational state. At a certain stage, this was indeed the case, which allowed the USSR to build a powerful economy and win the difficult Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

This is what served as the initial thesis of the assertion that in the USSR the national question has been completely and finally resolved. To some extent, interethnic contradictions were smoothed out, but they were not completely eliminated, since the ideas of socialism were implemented in the USSR in a distorted form and their practical implementation far from coincided with theory. The independence of the union republics was largely formal. The right to withdraw from the USSR practically could not be used (and it was not supposed to be). In addition, in the 30's and 40's many peoples (Germans, Balkars, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, etc.) were forcibly deported from the places where they lived (see Mass political repressions in the USSR in the 30s - early 50s). The economic policy of the central government often led to the one-sided development of the union and autonomous republics. National and cultural traditions of peoples were often not taken into account, etc. As a result, interethnic problems were driven deep. With the collapse of the USSR, they flared up with renewed vigor. At present, the national question in the Russian Federation and the countries of the former USSR is one of the most important state problems. Historical experience shows that forceful attempts to solve it are unpromising. Life demands a search for new forms of solving the national question.

Above, we discussed the theoretical and methodological problems relating to some concepts of ethnic sociology, interethnic relations, their types and main development trends, as well as the problems of the interaction of national interests, their awareness and consideration in national politics. We have come close to the so-called national question, the theoretical and practical aspects of its solution in modern conditions.

national question is a system of interrelated problems of the development of nations (peoples, ethnic groups) and national relations. It integrates the main problems of the practical implementation and regulation of these processes, including territorial, environmental, economic, political, legal, linguistic, spiritual and psychological. The national question does not remain unchanged, its content changes depending on the nature of the historical epoch and the content of the actual interethnic relations. It seems that in modern conditions the main content of the national question lies in the free and comprehensive development of all peoples, the expansion of their cooperation and the harmonious combination of their national interests.

A striking feature of the modern era is national-ethnic revival many peoples and their desire to independently solve the problems of their lives. This is happening in virtually all regions of the world, and primarily in the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This happened very actively in the USSR, and today in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) - among the main reasons for the ethnic revival of peoples and the increase in their political activity are the following: 1) the desire of peoples to eliminate all elements of social injustice, leading to restrictions on their rights and opportunities for development within the framework of former colonial empires and some modern federal states; 2) the reaction of many ethnic groups to the processes associated with the spread of modern technological civilization, urbanization and the so-called mass culture, leveling the living conditions of all peoples and leading to the loss of their national identity. In response to this, the peoples come out even more actively for the revival of their national culture; 3) the desire of peoples to independently use the natural resources located on their territories and playing an important role in meeting their vital needs.

To one degree or another, these reasons manifest themselves in the process of the modern ethnic revival of the peoples of the Russian Federation. These include reasons of a socio-political nature related to the desire of peoples to strengthen and develop their national statehood, their reaction to the destructive actions of modern technical civilization and mass culture, as well as the determination of peoples to independently manage their natural resources. They believe that the struggle for economic and political independence will help them more successfully solve all life's problems. Practice, however, has shown that, firstly, all peoples need to exercise their political rights very carefully, because each of them must take into account the same rights of other peoples, and secondly, one should always remember that the national revival of any people is possible only with its close cooperation and real (and not imaginary) commonwealth with other nations with which it has historically developed economic, political and cultural ties.

Mutually beneficial cooperation between peoples can be developed only on the basis of mutual recognition and respect for their fundamental rights. These rights are enshrined in many documents of international organizations, including the United Nations (UN). It is about the following the rights of all peoples:

The right to exist, prohibiting the so-called genocide and ethnocide, i.e. destruction in any form of any people and their culture;

The right to self-identification, i.e. determination by the citizens of their nationality;

The right to sovereignty, self-determination and self-government;

The right to preserve cultural identity, including the areas of language and education, cultural heritage and folk traditions;

The right of peoples to control the use of natural resources and resources of the territories of their residence, the relevance of which has especially increased in connection with the intensive economic development of new territories and the aggravation of environmental problems;

The right of every nation to have access to the achievements of world civilization and their use.

The practical implementation of the above-mentioned rights of all peoples means a significant step towards the optimal solution of the national question for each of them and all together. This requires a deep and subtle consideration of all the objective and subjective factors connected with this, the overcoming of many contradictions and difficulties of an economic, political and purely ethnic nature.

Many of these contradictions and difficulties were encountered by the reform of the political system in the USSR and its former republics, including Russia. Thus, the natural and quite understandable desire of peoples for independence in its practical implementation gave rise to strong and largely unpredictable centrifugal tendencies that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was unexpected for many (not only citizens, but entire republics). Today they cannot successfully exist and develop without preserving, as they say now, a single economic, environmental, cultural and information space. The fleeting collapse of what took shape over the centuries and on which the existence of peoples was based, could not but be reflected in their current situation.

Many negative consequences are currently unpredictable. But some are already visible and alarming. That is why a number of republics that were part of the USSR, and now members of the CIS, are raising the question of creating structures that would regulate interstate relations between them in the field of economy, ecology, cultural exchange, and so on. Such is the objective necessity, which finds its understanding in Russia as well. It is clear, however, that the establishment of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between the CIS states will require the solution of many issues, including psychological and ideological ones, related, in particular, to overcoming nationalism and chauvinism in the minds and behavior of people, including many politicians acting at different levels of the legislative and the executive branch of these states. The national question in the Russian Federation is acute in its own way. There are achievements and still unresolved problems here. In fact, all the former autonomous republics have changed their national-state status by their decisions. The word "autonomous" has disappeared from their names, and today they are simply referred to as republics within the Russian Federation). The range of their competencies has expanded, and the state-legal status within the Federation has increased. A number of autonomous regions also proclaimed themselves independent independent republics within Russia. All this simultaneously raises and equalizes their state-legal status with all the republics within the Russian Federation.

However, along with these generally positive developments, there are also negative. First of all, increasing the state autonomy and independence of the subjects

The Russian Federation sometimes coexists with manifestations of nationalism and separatism both in ideology and in real politics. Some of the separatists seek to disrupt the unity and integrity of the Russian state, trying to organize a confrontation between their republic in relation to the central legislative and executive bodies of Russia, pursuing a course towards secession of their republic from the Russian Federation. Such actions are carried out exclusively in the selfish interests of individual politicians and narrow groups of nationalists, because most of the population will only suffer from this. As experience shows, the nationalist and separatist policies of individual leaders, political groups and parties cause great damage to the republics, primarily their economic development, as well as the material, political and spiritual interests of the peoples of these republics and all of Russia. The peoples are interconnected not only by economic ties, but also in many respects by a common fate, and even by blood relationship, if we keep in mind the significant proportion of interethnic marriages in virtually all parts of Russia.

Nationalist and separatist policies, as well as great-power chauvinism, no matter who they come from, lead to national conflicts, since they are initially aimed at opposing one nation to another, the collapse of their cooperation, and the creation of mistrust and enmity. Interethnic conflicts this is an extreme aggravation of contradictions between nations (peoples) that arise in the course of solving political, territorial, economic, linguistic, cultural, and religious problems.

We are talking about conflicts between entire ethnic groups and their individual representatives. They can arise and operate at the socio-psychological and ideological levels of the national-ethnic consciousness of peoples, as well as at the level of activity of national-state institutions of legislative and executive power.

National conflicts reach their greatest severity precisely when they occur at the interstate level, where some politicians lead them in pursuit of their goals. Without understanding these goals, peoples allow themselves to be drawn into these conflicts and, as a result, become victims themselves.

Of course, interethnic conflicts have their own objective causes, often rooted in the historically established conditions of peoples' lives. Sometimes they are associated with a fair fight for their rights. Be that as it may, one must always proceed from the interests of the entire nation, the entire people, and not from the interests of self-serving nationalist or chauvinist groups and individuals. In addition, it is necessary to strive to resolve ethnic conflicts in a democratic way. Ethnic sociology can also play its role here if it helps to discover the causes and prevent the development of certain interethnic conflicts by suggesting rational ways to resolve them.

The ability of a multinational society to foresee and resolve interethnic conflicts in a civilized way is an important indicator of its civic maturity and democracy. This is facilitated by the legal regulation of interethnic relations, which is the most important sphere of activity of the rule of law. The comprehensive development of civil society, the democratization of the political system and the creation of a rule of law state are the most important social prerequisites for a civilized solution of the national question in modern conditions.

The NATIONAL question refers to the eternal, "damned" questions of Russian history. At the same time, paradoxically, over a millennium, having united hundreds of peoples, our ancestors created a great state, an entire universe, organically integrating Tatars, Jews, Germans, Armenians, Georgians, Poles and many others into Russian culture, created a great Russian culture. Almost every representative of a non-Russian ethnic group can proudly name dozens of worthy representatives of their people who occupied prominent places among Russian statesmen, military leaders or cultural figures either in the former Tsarist Russia, or in the Soviet Union, or in today's Russia. The periods of the greatest state power and cultural flourishing of the Russian state have always coincided with the periods of the greatest openness of Russia and the indigenous Russian people to other peoples inhabiting the empire, the greatest tolerance and readiness to integrate these nations and peoples who speak other languages ​​and profess other religions into a single Russian language. , cultural environment, thereby enriching both these peoples and the multinational Russian culture itself. During these periods, Russia, like the current United States, directed the talents and energy of many peoples to the cause of serving their state, and not to sorting out who was more important or older. This was facilitated by the following circumstance - the Russian people, being indigenous, were scattered across the vast expanses of Russia. It did not have a strongly pronounced ethnic self-identification, and it was the state that initially organized it for joint economic activities and to repel external threats. Thus, the state principle has traditionally played a dominant role in organizing the life of society. This, on the one hand, solved many problems of economic, military and political mobilization in the face of internal, external and climatic challenges, but on the other hand it fettered the creative, spontaneous self-expression of individual individuals. But, be that as it may, the traditional dominance of the state in the life of the Russian people contributed to the formation of its rather than an ethnic identity, but a state one. The feeling of belonging to a state was much stronger than to an ethnic group. It is no coincidence that, having found themselves without the support and care of the state, millions of Russians outside the Russian Federation experience great difficulties in adapting to new conditions. They no longer feel belonging to the state where they live, moving into the category of "non-indigenous". And the reason for this is that for centuries they cared little about self-organization on an ethnic basis.

This identity of Russians (rather state than ethnic) was fertile ground for other ethnic groups, nations and nationalities that inhabited the Russian Empire to also acquire a sovereign-state identity and not experience any moral, psychological, ethnic or religious barriers to ways of serving the Russian state. It turned out that the question of "indigenous or non-indigenous people, culture and language" was largely removed by the fact of sovereign-statist identification of themselves by both Russian and non-Russian peoples of the empire.

This dimension was even more strengthened during the Soviet period of the development of our country, when instead of ethnic or state-state identity, our peoples were offered class and ideological identification.

However, with all this, it should be noted that it was not possible to finally remove interethnic problems within the framework of either the Russian Empire or the Soviet ideological empire.

The ethnic principle, no, no, and even manifested itself among the Russians and the so-called nationalists. Although in fairness it must be said that it manifested itself not so much in the people as in the state-bureaucratic environment due to the limitations of these people. The imperial supranational dimension, which ensured interethnic and interreligious peace in Russia, and then in the USSR, was replaced by outbreaks of Russian nationalism, expressed in various campaigns for the Russification of national outskirts, in limiting opportunities to develop a national language and culture in the territories native to these ethnic groups, in limiting or eliminating all opportunities for national-cultural self-organization of national diasporas in large cities of Russia. Alas, such actions led to an increase in interethnic tension, distrust between different ethnic groups. And the introduction of the concept of "elder brother" and "younger brother" into such a sensitive area twice in the 20th century contributed to the destruction of our historical homeland.

Unfortunately, the communists, who believed that the national question was part of the social question, failed to overcome conflicts and contradictions in interethnic relations, either vertically (Moscow - national republics) or horizontally (relations between representatives of various nations and nationalities).

The presence of such phenomena as denial of employment on the basis of national origin, and instructions on personnel issues that restrict the access of representatives of non-Slavic nationalities to the central bodies of party and state power, discredited the formally proclaimed principles of communist internationalism and contributed to the further growth of tension and distrust between representatives of different nationalities.

The perestroika policy initiated by Gorbachev and the reformist wing of the CPSU proved doomed from the start. Wanting to change everything at once, Gorbachev and his associates embarked on unsupported radical reforms simultaneously in the economic, political spheres and in the sphere of the national-state structure of the country.

I won’t talk now about the reasons for the collapse of the country, although one thing is obvious: the reformers from the Central Committee of the CPSU started all the changes and reforms to make it better, but it turned out, in the words of a modern classic, as always. As a result, an attempt to radically change the former system of national-state structure, which did not ensure the organic integration of the nations and peoples of the USSR into a single Soviet people, turned into a catalyst for the process of first sovereignization, and then the collapse of the country.

In order to realize what changes are needed both in the sphere of nation-building and in inter-ethnic relations in the Russian regions and national republics, one should take into account the already existing tragic experience of reforming the USSR.

Today, as in the years of perestroika, the leadership of the country is faced with the task of improving the national-state system in order to finally build an effectively functioning federal system of power with real equality between the subjects of the Federation and provide conditions for painless integration into a single Russian linguistic and cultural environment of representatives of national diasporas, numbering in the millions. The tragic experience of restructuring the national-state structure should be a constant reminder to us that in this subtle and delicate sphere it is categorically impossible to cut across the shoulder, as many hotheads demand. Following the USSR, Russia can also be ruined.

It is important to keep in mind the following. Talk about territorial redistribution and reforming the status of subjects of a single state did not begin today, as many believe, but in 1990. Then, under pressure from Gorbachev, the congress of people's deputies adopted a law that actually equalized the rights of the union republics with the autonomies in their composition. This provoked the separatism of the autonomies and union republics. The Novoogarevsky process aggravated the situation. It was assumed that the updated Union Treaty was to be signed on an equal footing by the leaders of both the union republics and autonomies.

Now, speaking about the national-state reorganization, it is necessary to take into account the relevance of bringing the legislation of the territories and national republics in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

In a word, the principle of gradualness and caution should be put at the forefront while respecting the supremacy of the Constitution (before that, of course, its changes are necessary - the elimination of internal contradictions). The second stage is the revision from the point of view of the constitutionality of certain laws and other legal norms. The third stage is the rejection of the practice of concluding actually unconstitutional bilateral treaties "the Center - the subject of the Federation" and a simultaneous return to the idea of ​​concluding a new, improved federal treaty as an integral part of the Constitution.

In connection with the reform of the national-state structure, one cannot fail to dwell on another important issue discussed in recent years by both governors and representatives of the federal Center. We are talking about the need to restore the power vertical, destroyed during the radical reforms of the era of perestroika and still not completely restored.

Considering the limited leverage of federal power over governors and recognizing the need to consolidate power vertically in order to more effectively mobilize resources and implement targeted policies, many people, both in Moscow and in the regions, are demanding the abolition of elections for governors and other heads of subjects of the Federation, replacing them with presidential appointees with /or without the consent of the Legislative Assembly of the subject of the Federation. Some refer to the Russian historical tradition of state building. Territories on the periphery like Poland, Finland, and the Emirate of Bukhara were allowed to have special statuses, but the asymmetry on the periphery was balanced by rigid centralization in Russia itself. Under the current conditions, it would hardly be justified to go for a radical demolition of the existing system of national-state structure.

However, the discussion that has begun on this issue makes it possible to determine the main vector of the reform of the state system in this part. To all appearances, a transition to a system of appointed governors in Russian regions and territories is also possible under the current conditions. At the same time, the possibility of consolidation and formation of lands from several regions is not ruled out. However, at this stage it would hardly be expedient to completely abandon the principle of electivity in national-territorial formations, especially in large ones. True, apparently, it will be necessary to change the names of the positions of the leaders of the national republics and eliminate the institution of presidents. After all, in the end we want to have a real federal system. Acting in this way, it would be possible to avoid extremes in proposals for the reform of the national-state structure: complete equalization of the rights of all subjects, consolidation of the subjects of the Federation with the elimination of the current division of the country into regions, territories and national-territorial formations, the abolition of elections of heads of subjects of the Federation, on the one hand on the other hand, and on the other hand, the complete transformation of our country into a confederation within the Union of sovereign states with a very weak center of this confederation.

In addition to the problem of national-territorial formations, on the correct determination of the place of which in our Federation depends both the fate of the Russian state and the way to solve the national question in the country, we are currently facing, in completely new conditions, the problem of national diasporas living in Russian regions. and national-territorial formations.

Fundamentally different than before, the situation with representatives of non-indigenous peoples in Russia today is due to the fact that millions of people who considered themselves indigenous in the USSR - Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs, Ukrainians and others - after the collapse of the USSR instantly from a formal point of view in Russia they became non-indigenous, since independent independent states were formed in their historical homeland. In addition, it must be said that the Soviet ideological empire in the person of its leaders, in order to preserve the integrity of the country, where the percentage of the Russian population was constantly declining, on the one hand, emphasized the special role and importance of Russians in the USSR, on the other hand, to an even greater extent contributed to obscuring the features history, culture, psychology of the Russian people, trying, at the cost of denationalization of the main ethnic group of the empire, to create a kind of average Soviet people devoid of national specifics. At the same time, it was taken into account that the number of non-Russians by the beginning of perestroika was actually equal to the number of Russians, and that the principles of socialist internationalism and solidarity on which the country rested, along with the presence of the Chamber of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, at least from a formal point of view, both in the ideological and institutional spheres, they created certain protective mechanisms against the manifestation of chauvinism or nationalism, against discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds in hiring and career advancement, and in other spheres of society. Although at certain periods of our history there were instructions and unspoken orders on personnel and other issues that created tension in interethnic relations, up to the collapse of the USSR and the ban on the CPSU, the party and the Soviet government not only declaratively (albeit with the noted reservations), but actually stood up for defense principles of internationalism. Every citizen could apply to the relevant party and Soviet institutions in case of violation of his rights on a national basis and, according to the law, had to receive protection from arbitrariness.

It should be noted that millions of people who became non-indigenous in Russia after the collapse of the USSR are psychologically still considered as part of the Russian people. After all, their ancestors lived in Russia over the past few centuries and participated in the formation of both Russian culture and the Russian state.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that if we want to preserve interethnic peace and organically integrate all ethnic groups into a single Russian people, it is necessary to clearly understand the prevailing realities.

First, in the new Russia over the past few decades, for the first time, Russians were the dominant majority.

Secondly, with the removal of the CPSU from power and the abolition of Marxism-Leninism as the dominant and only ideology in the public mind, the idea of ​​socialist internationalism, class and national solidarity faded into the background.

Thirdly, unfortunately, the formation of new states in the former Soviet Union did not follow the path of development of civil society and democratic values ​​and institutions, but rather, on the contrary, the national dimension of the formation of these states replaced the civil, democratic dimension. As a result, in many countries the mood of national intolerance began to take over, problems and difficulties were created for the non-indigenous population on national and religious grounds. In a number of cases, these tendencies led to open inter-ethnic clashes with a bloody outcome.

Fourthly, the Russian people, to a greater extent than any other of the peoples of the former USSR, turned out to be not subject to nationalist hysteria, manifestations of national or religious intolerance. This was confirmed during the years of the formation of independent Russia, when, like other peoples, they went through the path of ethnic self-identification, which in previous periods of Russian history was in its infancy and was almost completely replaced by state identity.

Fifthly, after the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation with its Council of Nationalities in 1993, the last institution of power that could express the specific interests of not only national-territorial entities was actually liquidated, which is to some extent compensated by the presence of their leaders in the Federation Council, but also the interests of all in the aggregate of national groups of the multinational Russian people.

It follows from this that in today's Russia, the problems of interethnic relations and the integration of national diasporas into the existing Russian cultural and linguistic environment, due to objective and subjective reasons, are largely relegated to the periphery of political, ideological and social life. As a result, in megacities and places of compact residence of "non-indigenous" peoples, tension periodically arises on an interethnic basis.

It seems that we are moving from one extreme - the complete denationalization of Russians in the interests of preserving the ideological empire - to completely ignoring the fact of the presence of a multi-million population of the country, representing the national diasporas in Russia, the issues of integration of which into Russian society, linguistic and cultural environment are largely put on hold. gravity. Such key problems for them as the preservation of their own language, culture, representation in government bodies, in law enforcement structures, in business, have become their personal business and depend largely on the goodwill or mercy of local authorities. Hence such ugly phenomena as intolerance and hostility towards the so-called people of Caucasian nationality, which are actually cultivated in the media and in some political and administrative circles, gross violations of their rights during registration and employment, and a whole bunch of problems associated with the neglect of the rights and needs of these people. diasporas.

I will not give a detailed list of measures necessary to protect the rights of national diasporas, to preserve their language and culture, to propose measures designed to organically integrate these national groups into a single Russian culture, to ensure their adequate and worthy representation in all spheres of society. But let me note that if the resolution of these problems is left to chance in the hope that the process of the formation of elements of civil society will itself lead to the triumph of liberal values, personal freedom and human rights, equality of all before the law, and that on this basis there will be organic development and the formation of national diasporas in as subcultures within the dominant Russian culture, then, I am afraid, we will face a serious increase in interethnic conflicts and contradictions.

The task of the new, democratic Russia is to provide conditions for every individual, every ethnic group to feel belonging to the Russian state and to feel themselves at home in Russia, and for every individual and every ethnic group to feel part of Russian culture and linguistic space. The task of the state is to provide the necessary conditions for this.

I am convinced that Russia's path to the revival of both sovereign power and culture runs, as in the best times of tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union, through the use of the creative energy of the peoples inhabiting our country, so that they use their forces not for conflicts with each other, disastrous for countries, but for creation. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the development of interethnic relations follows this path.

For Russia - with its diversity of languages, traditions, ethnic groups and cultures - the national question, without any exaggeration, is of a fundamental nature. Any responsible politician, public figure should be aware that one of the main conditions for the very existence of our country is civil and interethnic harmony.

We see what is happening in the world, what serious risks are accumulating here. The reality of today is the growth of inter-ethnic and inter-confessional tension. Nationalism, religious intolerance become the ideological basis for the most radical groups and movements. They destroy, undermine states and divide societies.

Colossal migration flows - and there is every reason to believe that they will increase - are already being called the new "great migration of peoples", capable of changing the habitual way and appearance of entire continents. Millions of people are fleeing regions plagued by hunger and chronic conflict, poverty and social dislocation in search of a better life.

The most developed and prosperous countries, which used to be proud of their tolerance, came face to face with the "aggravation of the national question". And today, one after another, they announce the failure of attempts to integrate a foreign cultural element into society, to ensure non-conflict, harmonious interaction between different cultures, religions, ethnic groups.

The "melting pot" of assimilation junks and smokes - and is not able to "digest" the ever-increasing large-scale migration flow. This was reflected in politics by "multiculturalism", which denies integration through assimilation. It elevates "the right of a minority to be different" to an absolute and at the same time does not sufficiently balance this right with civic, behavioral and cultural obligations towards the indigenous population and society as a whole.

In many countries, closed national-religious communities are emerging, which not only refuse to assimilate, but even refuse to adapt. Quarters and entire cities are known where generations of newcomers live on social benefits and do not speak the language of the host country. The response to such a model of behavior is the growth of xenophobia among the local indigenous population, an attempt to rigidly protect their interests, jobs, social benefits - from "foreign competitors". People are shocked by the aggressive pressure on their traditions, habitual way of life and are seriously afraid of the threat of losing their national-state identity.

Quite respectable European politicians are beginning to talk about the failure of the "multicultural project". In order to maintain their positions, they are exploiting the "national card" - they are moving to the field of those whom they themselves previously considered outcasts and radicals. The extreme forces, in turn, are rapidly gaining weight, seriously laying claim to state power. In fact, it is proposed to talk about coercion to assimilate against the backdrop of "closedness" and a sharp tightening of migration regimes. The bearers of a different culture must either "dissolve into the majority" or remain an isolated national minority, even if it is provided with various rights and guarantees. And in fact - to be excommunicated from the possibility of a successful career. Frankly speaking, it is difficult to expect loyalty to one's country from a citizen placed in such conditions.

Behind the "failure of the multicultural project" is the crisis of the very model of the "nation state" - a state historically built solely on the basis of ethnic identity. And this is a serious challenge that Europe and many other regions of the world will have to face.

Russia as a "historical state"

With all the outward similarity, our situation is fundamentally different. Our national and migration problems are directly related to the destruction of the USSR, and in fact, historically, great Russia, which was basically formed back in the 18th century. With the inevitable degradation of state, social and economic institutions that followed. With a huge gap in development in the post-Soviet space.

Having declared sovereignty 20 years ago, the then deputies of the RSFSR, in the heat of the fight against the "union center", launched the process of building "national states", even within the Russian Federation itself. The "Union Centre", in turn, trying to put pressure on opponents, began to play behind the scenes with the Russian autonomies, promising them an increase in "national-state status". Now the participants in these processes are shifting the blame on each other. But one thing is clear - their actions equally and inevitably led to collapse and separatism. And they had neither the courage, nor the responsibility, nor the political will to consistently and persistently defend the territorial integrity of the Motherland.

What the initiators of the “sovereignty ploys” might not have been aware of—everyone else, including those outside the borders of our state—understood very clearly and quickly. And the consequences were not long in coming.

With the disintegration of the country, we found ourselves on the verge, and in certain well-known regions, even beyond the brink of civil war, moreover, precisely on ethnic grounds. By enormous exertion of forces, by great sacrifices, we succeeded in extinguishing these fires. But this, of course, does not mean that the problem has been solved.

However, even at the moment when the state as an institution was critically weakened, Russia did not disappear. What happened was what Vasily Klyuchevsky spoke about in relation to the first Russian Troubles: "When the political bonds of social order were broken, the country was saved by the moral will of the people."

And, by the way, our holiday on November 4 is the Day of National Unity, which some superficially call "the day of victory over the Poles", in fact, it is "the day of victory over oneself", over internal enmity and strife, when estates, nationalities recognized themselves as a single community - one people. We can rightfully consider this holiday the birthday of our civil nation.

Historical Russia is not an ethnic state and not an American "melting pot", where, in general, everyone is one way or another - migrants. Russia arose and developed for centuries as a multinational state. A state in which there was a constant process of mutual adaptation, mutual penetration, mixing of peoples at the family, friendly, service level. Hundreds of ethnic groups living on their own land together and next to the Russians. The development of vast territories, which filled the entire history of Russia, was a joint affair of many peoples. Suffice it to say that ethnic Ukrainians live in the area from the Carpathians to Kamchatka. As well as ethnic Tatars, Jews, Belarusians.

In one of the earliest Russian philosophical and religious works, "The Word of Law and Grace," the very theory of the "chosen people" is rejected and the idea of ​​equality before God is preached. And in The Tale of Bygone Years, the multinational character of the ancient Russian state is described in this way: “Here’s just who speaks Slavonic in Russia: the Polans, the Drevlyans, the Novgorodians, the Polochans, the Dregovichi, the northerners, the Buzhans ... But other peoples: Chud, Merya, all, Muroma, Cheremis, Mordovians, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Lithuania, Kors, Narova, Livs - these speak their own languages.

It was about this special character of Russian statehood that Ivan Ilyin wrote: "Do not eradicate, do not suppress, do not enslave other people's blood, do not strangle a foreign and heterodox life, but give everyone a breath and a great Motherland, observe everyone, reconcile everyone, let everyone pray in their own way to work in one's own way, and to involve the best from everywhere in state and cultural construction."

The core that holds together the fabric of this unique civilization is the Russian people, Russian culture. It is precisely this core that various provocateurs and our opponents will try with all their might to wrest from Russia - under the false talk about the right of Russians to self-determination, about "racial purity", about the need to "complete the work of 1991 and finally destroy the empire sitting on its neck by the Russian people." In order to ultimately force people to destroy their own Motherland with their own hands.

I am deeply convinced that attempts to preach the idea of ​​building a Russian "national", mono-ethnic state contradict our entire thousand-year history. Moreover, this is the shortest path to the destruction of the Russian people and Russian statehood. Yes, and any capable, sovereign statehood on our land.

When they start shouting: “Stop feeding the Caucasus,” wait, tomorrow the call will inevitably follow: “Stop feeding Siberia, the Far East, the Urals, the Volga region, the Moscow region.” Those who led to the collapse of the Soviet Union acted exactly according to such recipes. As for the notorious national self-determination, which, fighting for power and geopolitical dividends, has been repeatedly speculated by politicians of various directions - from Vladimir Lenin to Woodrow Wilson - the Russian people have long been self-determined. The self-determination of the Russian people is a multi-ethnic civilization, held together by a Russian cultural core. And the Russian people confirmed this choice over and over again - and not at plebiscites and referendums, but with blood. Throughout its thousand-year history.

Single cultural code

The Russian experience of state development is unique. We are a multinational society, but we are one people. This makes our country complex and multidimensional. It provides tremendous opportunities for development in many areas. However, if a multi-ethnic society is infected with the bacilli of nationalism, it loses its strength and stability. And we must understand what far-reaching consequences connivance with attempts to kindle national enmity and hatred towards people of a different culture and other faith can cause.

Civil peace and interethnic harmony is not a picture created once and frozen for centuries. On the contrary, it is a constant dynamic, a dialogue. This is the painstaking work of the state and society, requiring very subtle decisions, a balanced and wise policy capable of ensuring "unity in diversity." It is necessary not only to observe mutual obligations, but also to find common values ​​for all. You can't force them to be together. And you cannot force them to live together by calculation, on the basis of weighing the benefits and costs. Such "calculations" work until the moment of the crisis. And at the time of the crisis, they begin to act in the opposite direction.

The confidence that we can ensure the harmonious development of a multicultural community is based on our culture, history, and type of identity.

It can be recalled that many citizens of the USSR who found themselves abroad called themselves Russians. Moreover, they themselves considered themselves as such, regardless of ethnicity. It is also interesting that ethnic Russians never, anywhere, in any emigration constituted stable national diasporas, although both numerically and qualitatively they were represented very significantly. Because our identity has a different cultural code.

The Russian people are state-forming - in fact, the existence of Russia. The great mission of the Russians is to unite and strengthen civilization. By language, culture, "worldwide responsiveness", as Fyodor Dostoevsky defined it, to hold together Russian Armenians, Russian Azerbaijanis, Russian Germans, Russian Tatars. To consolidate into a type of state-civilization where there are no "nationals", and the principle of recognition of "friend or foe" is determined by a common culture and common values.

Such a civilizational identity is based on the preservation of the Russian cultural dominant, the bearer of which is not only ethnic Russians, but all carriers of such an identity, regardless of nationality. This is the cultural code that has undergone serious tests in recent years, which they have tried and are trying to break. And yet, he certainly survived. However, it must be nourished, strengthened and protected.

Education plays a huge role here. The choice of an educational program, the diversity of education is our undoubted achievement. But variability should be based on unshakable values, basic knowledge and ideas about the world. The civic task of education, the enlightenment system is to give everyone that absolutely obligatory volume of humanitarian knowledge, which forms the basis of the self-identity of the people. And first of all, we should talk about increasing the role of such subjects as the Russian language, Russian literature, Russian history in the educational process - naturally, in the context of the entire wealth of national traditions and cultures.

A movement to study the Western cultural canon developed in some of the leading American universities in the 1920s. Every self-respecting student had to read 100 books according to a specially formed list. In some US universities, this tradition has been preserved to this day. Our nation has always been a reading nation. Let's conduct a survey of our cultural authorities and form a list of 100 books that every graduate of the Russian school will have to read. Do not memorize at school, but read on your own. And let's make the final exam essay on the topics read. Or at least we will give young people the opportunity to show their knowledge and their worldview at olympiads and competitions.

The relevant requirements should be set by the state policy in the field of culture. This refers to such tools as television, cinema, the Internet, mass culture in general, which form the public consciousness, set behavioral patterns and norms.

Let us recall how Americans, with the help of Hollywood, shaped the consciousness of several generations. Moreover, introducing values ​​that are not the worst - both from the point of view of national interests and from the point of view of public morality. There is a lot to learn here.

Let me emphasize: no one encroaches on the freedom of creativity - this is not about censorship, not about "official ideology", but about the fact that the state is obliged and has the right to direct both its efforts and its resources to solving conscious social, public tasks. Including the formation of a worldview that holds the nation together.

In our country, where the civil war has not yet ended in the minds of many, where the past is extremely politicized and “torn apart” into ideological quotations (often understood by different people with exactly the opposite), subtle cultural therapy is needed. A cultural policy that at all levels - from school allowances to historical documentaries - would form such an understanding of the unity of the historical process, in which the representative of each ethnic group, as well as the descendant of the "red commissar" or "white officer", would see his place. I would feel like the heir to "one for all" - the controversial, tragic, but great history of Russia.

We need a national policy strategy based on civic patriotism. Any person living in our country should not forget about his faith and ethnicity. But he must first of all be a citizen of Russia and be proud of it. No one has the right to put national and religious peculiarities above the laws of the state. However, the laws of the state themselves must take into account national and religious characteristics.

And, of course, we are counting on the active participation of Russia's traditional religions in such a dialogue. At the heart of Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism - with all the differences and peculiarities - there are basic, common moral, moral, spiritual values: mercy, mutual assistance, truth, justice, respect for elders, ideals of family and work. These value orientations cannot be replaced by anything, and we need to strengthen them.

I am convinced that the state and society should welcome and support the work of Russia's traditional religions in the system of education and enlightenment, in the social sphere, and in the Armed Forces. At the same time, the secular character of our state must, of course, be preserved.

National Policies and the Role of Strong Institutions

The systemic problems of society very often find a way out precisely in the form of interethnic tension. It must always be remembered that there is a direct relationship between unresolved socio-economic problems, the vices of the law enforcement system, the inefficiency of power, corruption and ethnic conflicts.

It is necessary to be aware of what risks and threats lie in situations that are fraught with the transition to the stage of national conflict. And accordingly, in the most severe way, without regard to ranks and titles, to evaluate the actions or inactions of law enforcement agencies, authorities that led to interethnic tension.

There are not many recipes for such situations. Do not build anything into a principle, do not make hasty generalizations. It is necessary to carefully clarify the essence of the problem, the circumstances, the settlement of mutual claims in each specific case where the "national question" is involved. This process, where there are no specific circumstances, should be public, because the lack of operational information gives rise to rumors that aggravate the situation. And here the professionalism and responsibility of the mass media are extremely important.

But there can be no dialogue in a situation of unrest and violence. No one should have the slightest temptation to "push the authorities" into certain decisions with the help of pogroms. Our law enforcement agencies have proven that they cope with the suppression of such attempts quickly and accurately.

And one more fundamental point - we, of course, must develop our democratic, multi-party system. And now decisions are being prepared aimed at simplifying and liberalizing the procedure for registering and operating political parties, and proposals are being implemented to establish the election of heads of regions. All of these are necessary and correct steps. But one thing cannot be allowed - the possibility of creating regional parties, including in the national republics. This is a direct path to separatism. Such a requirement, of course, should also apply to the elections of heads of regions - anyone who tries to rely on nationalist, separatist and similar forces and circles should be immediately, within the framework of democratic and judicial procedures, excluded from the electoral process.

The problem of migration and our integration project

Today, citizens are seriously worried, and, frankly, irritated, by the many costs associated with mass migration, both external and domestic. There is also the question whether the creation of the Eurasian Union will lead to an increase in migration flows, and hence to an increase in the problems existing here. I think we need to clearly define our position.

First, it is obvious that we need to improve the quality of the state's migration policy by an order of magnitude. And we will solve this problem.

Illegal immigration can never and nowhere be completely eliminated, but it must and can certainly be minimized. And in this regard, clear police functions and the powers of the migration services need to be strengthened.

However, a simple mechanical tightening of migration policy will not work. In many countries, such tightening only leads to an increase in the share of illegal migration. The criterion of migration policy is not its rigidity, but its effectiveness.

In this regard, the policy regarding legal migration, both permanent and temporary, should be very clearly differentiated. Which, in turn, implies obvious priorities and favorable conditions in migration policy in favor of qualifications, competence, competitiveness, cultural and behavioral compatibility. Such "positive selection" and competition for the quality of migration exist all over the world. Needless to say, such migrants integrate into the host society much better and easier.

Second. We are actively developing internal migration, people go to study, live, work in other regions of the Federation, in large cities. Moreover, these are full-fledged citizens of Russia.

At the same time, those who come to regions with other cultural and historical traditions should respect local customs. To the customs of the Russian and all other peoples of Russia. Any other - inadequate, aggressive, defiant, disrespectful - behavior must meet with an appropriate legal, but tough response, and first of all from the authorities, which today are often simply inactive. It is necessary to see whether all the norms necessary to control such behavior of people are contained in the Administrative and Criminal Codes, in the regulations of the internal affairs bodies. We are talking about tightening the law, introducing criminal liability for violation of migration rules and registration standards. Sometimes a warning is enough. But if the warning is based on a specific legal norm, it will be more effective. It will be correctly understood - not as the opinion of an individual policeman or official, but precisely as a demand for a law that is the same for everyone.

In internal migration, a civilized framework is also important. This is also necessary for the harmonious development of social infrastructure, medicine, education, and the labor market. In many "migration-attractive" regions and megacities, these systems are already working to the limit, which creates a rather difficult situation for both "indigenous" and "newcomers."

I think that we should go for tougher registration rules and sanctions for their violation. Naturally, without infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens to choose their place of residence.

The third is the strengthening of the judiciary and the construction of effective law enforcement agencies. This is fundamentally important not only for external immigration, but, in our case, for internal, in particular, migration from the regions of the North Caucasus. Without this, an objective arbitration of the interests of various communities (both the host majority and migrants) and the perception of the migration situation as safe and fair can never be ensured.

Moreover, the incapacity or corruption of the court and the police will always lead not only to discontent and radicalization of the society receiving migrants, but also to the rooting of "showdowns on concepts" and the shadow criminalized economy in the very environment of migrants.

Closed, isolated national enclaves should not be allowed to arise in our country, in which not laws often operate, but various kinds of "concepts". And first of all, the rights of the migrants themselves are violated - both by their own criminal authorities and corrupt officials from the authorities.

It is on corruption that ethnic crime flourishes. From a legal point of view, criminal gangs built on a national, clan principle are no better than ordinary gangs. But in our conditions, ethnic crime is not only a criminal problem, but also a problem of state security. And it must be treated accordingly.

The fourth is the problem of civilized integration and socialization of migrants. And here again it is necessary to return to the problems of education. It should be not so much about the focus of the educational system on solving issues of migration policy (this is far from the main task of the school), but first of all about the high standards of domestic education as such.

The attractiveness of education and its value is a powerful lever, a motivator of integration behavior for migrants in terms of integration into society. Whereas the low quality of education always provokes even greater isolation and closeness of migration communities, only now for a long-term, at the generational level.

It is important for us that migrants can adapt normally in society. Yes, in fact, an elementary requirement for people wishing to live and work in Russia is their readiness to master our culture and language. Starting next year, it is necessary to make it mandatory for acquiring or renewing migration status to take an exam in the Russian language, in the history of Russia and Russian literature, in the basics of our state and law. Our state, like other civilized countries, is ready to form and provide appropriate educational programs to migrants. In some cases, mandatory additional vocational training is required at the expense of employers.

And, finally, the fifth is close integration in the post-Soviet space as a real alternative to uncontrolled migration flows.

The objective reasons for mass migration, and this has already been mentioned above, are the colossal inequality in development and living conditions. It is clear that the logical way, if not to eliminate, then at least to minimize migration flows, would be to reduce such inequality. A huge number of various kinds of humanitarian, left-wing activists in the West advocate for this. But, unfortunately, on a global scale, this beautiful, ethically irreproachable position suffers from obvious utopianism.

However, there are no objective obstacles to implement this logic here, in our historical space. And one of the most important tasks of Eurasian integration is to create an opportunity for peoples, millions of people in this space to live and develop with dignity.

We understand that it is not because of a good life that people go to distant lands and often earn the possibility of human existence for themselves and their families in far from civilized conditions.

From this point of view, the tasks that we set within the country as well (the creation of a new economy with efficient employment, the re-establishment of professional communities, the uniform development of productive forces and social infrastructure throughout the country), and the tasks of Eurasian integration are a key tool through which it is possible to introduce migration flows back to normal. In fact, on the one hand, send migrants to where they will least cause social tension. And on the other hand, so that people in their native places, in their small homeland, can feel normal and comfortable. We just need to give people the opportunity to work and live normally at home, in their native land, an opportunity that they are now largely deprived of. There are no and cannot be simple solutions in national politics. Its elements are scattered in all spheres of the life of the state and society - in the economy, social sphere, education, political system and foreign policy. We need to build such a model of the state, a civilizational community with such a structure that would be absolutely equally attractive and harmonious for everyone who considers Russia their homeland.

We see areas for future work. We understand that we have a historical experience that no one else has. We have a powerful support in mentality, in culture, in identity, which others do not have.

We will strengthen our "historical state" inherited from our ancestors. A state-civilization that is able to organically solve the problem of integrating various ethnic groups and confessions.

We have lived together for centuries. Together we won the most terrible war. And we will continue to live together. And for those who want or are trying to divide us, I can say one thing - do not wait.

(Excerpts from one of Vladimir Putin's keynote articles published in the Russian press during the Russian presidential election campaign in 2012)

a set of political, economic, legal, ideological. and cultural relations between nations, nationalities, nat. (ethnic.) groups in various societies.-economic. formations. N. in. arises in an exploiting society in the course of the struggle of nations and peoples for nat. liberation and the most favorable conditions for their social development. After the victory of the socialist revolution and socialist In society, it covers the problems of relations between nations and peoples in the process of establishing their voluntary union and friendship, strengthening unity and all-round rapprochement on the basis of complete equality. Marxism-Leninism considers N. century. as subordinate to the general question of the socio-political. progress of society and proceeds from the fact that the main thing in N. century. is an association of workers, regardless of nat. belongings in the struggle against all kinds of oppression, for the advanced societies. system, for social progress.

The oppression and exploitation of some peoples by others will liberate. the struggle began with the slave owner. system and continued into the era of feudalism. To the full extent N. century. arose during the period of the destruction of feudalism and the establishment of capitalism, when the formation of nations took place, and continues to exist in modern times. era, manifesting itself in the course of the struggle against the nat. enslavement of peoples by imperialism, as well as in the internal state. relations between nations and peoples. N. in. will completely die out with the merger, the disappearance of nations in the conditions of the victory of communism throughout the world.

The ideologists of the bourgeoisie, which headed the national liberation movement in Europe and Amer. colonies in the 16th-19th centuries, considered the basis for the solution of N. century. “the principle of nationality” (“the right of the nation”), according to which it is necessary to create, under any circumstances, “one’s own” state: “one nation - one state”. During the period of the bourgeois revolutions and the formation of a national bourgeois state-in the "principle of nationality" played a positive. role in the fight against the remnants of feud. fragmentation and nat. oppression. As capitalism develops into imperialism, the bourgeoisie of the largest countries goes over to broader colonies. conquests, completes the division of the world and discards the "principle of nationality". N. in. from a domestic state to an international one. the question of the liberation of all peoples from the imperialist. enslavement.

K. Marx and F. Engels developed the main. principles of true science. the theory of solution of N. v. They showed that the relations are concrete-historical. character and are determined by societies. and Mrs. system, the balance of class forces within the country and internationally. arena, national the policies of the ruling classes. At the same time, the relations of nations and peoples have an impact on societies. relations and class struggle. At the same time, on various historical stages different sides of N. century can come to the fore. (struggle for political or economic independence, problems of culture, language, etc.). Revealing the social essence of nat. movements, Marx and Engels stressed that the interests of the proletariat demanded the liberation of the oppressed nations and peoples. Marx and Engels put forward the principle of internationalism - "Proletarians of all countries, unite!" (See Works, vol. 4, p. 459). They also own the famous formula: “A people that oppresses other peoples cannot be free” (Engel with F., ibid., vol. 18, p. 509). Marx and Engels spread the demand for the provision of nat. independence on the colon. peoples, to-rye they considered the natural allies of the proletariat in the revolution. fight.

Theory of N. century. was further developed in the works of V. I. Lenin. In his “Program of the Ross. social democratic. Workers' Party" (1902) as the basis for the decision of N. v. the right of nations to self-determination was put forward. The main provisions of the Leninist theory of N. century. were the basis for practical activities and program documents of the Communist. International and communist parties.

Under capitalism, for the development of innovation in characterized by two historical trends: the first is the awakening of the nat. life and national movements, the struggle against any nat. oppression, the creation of a national state-in, and the second - the development and increase in all kinds of relations between nations, breaking nat. partitions, the creation of international unity of capital, economic. life, politics, science, the world market, etc. The first trend is more pronounced in the era of rising capitalism, the second - in the era of imperialism (see V. I. Lenpn, PSS, vol. 24, p. 124). Recognition in the Marxist-Leninist theory of N. century. the right of nations to self-determination, upholding the principles of voluntary association of nations, span. internationalism, the solidarity of the working people of all countries in the struggle against imperialism reflects both the first and second tendencies. On the bourgeois-democratic. stage of development N. century. is part of the general question of the bourgeois-democratic. revolution and its solution is subordinate to the tasks of this revolution (liquidation of the remnants of feudalism, etc.). When conditions arise for a socialist transformations, N. century. is part of the general question of the socialist. revolution and building socialism. This in no way means an underestimation of N. century.

The right of nations (peoples) to self-determination means the free establishment by each of them of various forms of relations with other peoples (voluntary association in a single state, autonomy, federation, etc., up to secession and the formation of an independent state), as well as independent. solution of all internal issues. devices (social system, form of government, etc.). At the same time, in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist theory of N. century. Marxist-Leninists, in defending this right, proceed from the need to implement it in a form that promotes to the maximum extent the interests of the struggle for social progress, for world peace. It should be borne in mind that the number of only large nations and peoples living in modern. 170 state wahs, is approx. 2 thousand. Since the future means. an increase in the number of states is unlikely, then, obviously, for the majority of nations and nationalities of N. century. can only be resolved in multinational. gos-wah.

A striking example of this is the decision of N. v. in the USSR. Relations between owls. socialist. republics are built on the basis of the principle of socialism. federation, in accordance with the Crimea, each union republic is a sovereign state-tion. This ensures the unity of the union and nat. statehood of the republics on the basis of democratic principles. centralism, socialist federalism and socialism. democracy. If a nation or nationality cannot form a union republic (if it is too small in number, does not constitute a majority in the territory it occupies, etc.), the principle of socialism is applied. autonomy: nations and nationalities form auth. republic, region or district. Thus, all peoples are provided with state. self-government and protection of their nat. interests (development of national culture, schools, respect for national customs, religion, etc.).

N.'s decision in the USSR is one of the most important achievements of socialism and has a huge international. meaning. Under the influence of powerful will unite. economic, political, ideological and other factors in the USSR, a new historical. community of people - the Soviet people. Existence within a single socialist. state-va of many nations and nationalities gives rise to new problems, to-rye are not antagonistic. character and are successfully solved on the basis of the Leninist nat. politicians. Further rapprochement of nations is an objective historical. process, to-ry it is harmful to force artificially and it is absolutely inadmissible to restrain since in both cases it would lead to slowdown of this progressive process and would contradict a gene. direction of development of owls. society, the interests of building communism.

Marx K. and Engels F., Communist Manifesto. parties, Works, vol. 4; M a p k s K., Report Gen. Council IV annual congress of the Intern. Associations of Workers, ibid., vol. 16; him, Gen. Council - Federal Council of Romanesque Switzerland, ibid.; his, [Letter] 3. Meyer and A. Vogt, 9 April. 1870, ibid., vol. 32; F. Engels, What does the working class care about Poland?, ibid., vol. 16; his same e, On the decomposition of feudalism and the emergence of nat. state-in, ibid., v. 21; Lenin V.I., About nat. and national colon. question, [Sb.], M., 1956; his own, Report of the commission on nat. and colon. issues, PSS, t 41; CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences of plenums of the Central Committee, vol. 1-2, M., 1970”;

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

NATIONAL QUESTION

the question of relationships - economic, territorial, political, state-legal, cultural and linguistic - between nations, nat. groups and nationalities in various socio-economic. formations, different countries and state-wahs. Although the oppression and exploitation of peoples begins already in the era of slave owners. system, continue in the era of feudalism, but they reach their highest sharpening under capitalism, and especially in the era of imperialism. National relationships are determined primarily by this mode of production, the nature of societies. and Mrs. system, the ratio of classes within nations, nat. the policy of the ruling classes (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 19–20). In turn, the national relationships have an inverse effect on various aspects of societies. development, incl. to the class struggle. At different stages of consolidation and development of peoples and nations, and depending on the forms of nat. different aspects of N. century also come out as oppression. (the struggle for political independence, for economic independence, for the unification of their territory, the protection of their language and culture, etc.). National oppression is intertwined with class, racial, and religious oppression, which further complicates the new century, hindering the development of the class consciousness of the working people, which is obscured by the ideology of nationalism, chauvinism, racism, and religion. enmity, etc. So it was in Tsarist Russia, in the colonial empires of England, France, Germany, in Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The nature and setting of N. century. depend on the specifics. historical epoch and special conditions and stages of societies. development of each nation (see V. I. Lenin, Soch., vol. 23, p. 58). Capitalism inevitably gives rise to a tendency towards the consolidation of nationalities in the nation, towards the creation of a national. state-in. But this tendency cannot always be realized, for it encounters opposition in the tendency towards capitalism. internationalization x-va, science, culture of the peoples of different countries, expressed in a specifically bourgeois. the policy of assimilation of weak nationalities by more developed and strong bourgeois. nations and in the policy of subjugation, enslavement and seizure of the territories of foreign countries, colonies. Lenin noted that the first trend is characteristic of the ascending stage of capitalism, the second - prevails in the period of imperialism, ch. feature to-rogo in the development of nat. relations is the division of the whole world into a handful of dominant nations and the majority of the oppressed, the forcible unification and suppression of the peoples of dependent countries and colonies. Imperialism suppresses the aspirations of the economically backward in their development and small nationalities to nat. consolidation and the creation of nat. state-va. Violence. The character of capitalism's attempts to "unify" nations found its clearest expression in the colonial system of imperialism. In modern conditions of capitalist tendencies. integrations are manifested in the policy of neo-colonialism, in the creation of the so-called. "European community", "common European market" and other international. monopoly associations. capital, to-rye serve as a tool for the joint exploitation of economically underdeveloped countries and the fight against socialism. N. in. retains a sharp character and within a number of capitalist. countries (USA, Belgium, Canada). Marx and Engels developed the flight principles. solutions N. v .: internat. the unification of the proletarians of all countries, nations and races for a common struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the complete liberation of all peoples; the right of nations to self-determination, free development; equality of all citizens, regardless of their nat. and race or origin; submission to N. century. the working question as the main one; support for national movements, to-rye directed against reaction. forces and classes, based on the principle "a people that oppresses other peoples cannot be free." Lenin developed these propositions of Marxism in relation to the era of imperialism and span. revolutions, to the transitional period from capitalism to socialism. He criticized the theories and programs of the opportunists and reformists, who obscured the profound contradictions of capitalism in modern times. Defending the integrity of Austria-Hungary. empires, Bauer and Renner came to deny the right of nations to self-determination, reducing it only to "national-cultural autonomy". Their theory and program, adopted by the Bund and other nationalistic. parties and groups in Russia, led to the destruction of the international. unity of the labor movement. The centrists Kautsky, Trotsky and other Lefts (R. Luxemburg and others) also slid into this program, fighting against social-chauvinism and bourgeois-nationalist. understanding of the right to self-determination of nations, at the same time they believed that in the era of imperialism this right was allegedly "unrealizable", and under socialism it was superfluous. Hence the nihilistic. relation to N. century. in many parties of the 2nd International. Reformists in Europe Social Democracy was limited by the scope of the N. century. ch. arr. relations between the peoples of Europe and, in essence, bypassed the problem of the peoples of Asia, Africa, Lat. America, which was under colonial and semi-colonial oppression. Lenin substantiated the span line. internationalism in N. century, emphasizing the need for free self-determination of nations up to their complete separation from the oppressive state-va, voluntary rallying of the proletarians and workers of all nations in a common revolution. org-tions for the struggle for democracy and socialism. During the bourgeois-democratic. revolution N. century. is part of a more general question about indigenous democracies. transformations. During the socialist period revolution N. century. becomes part of the question of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the socialist. transformations. The character and strength of the national-liberate. movements depend on the degree of participation in them of the broad masses of the working class and the peasantry, on the strength of their alliance, and also on which class is at the head of the movement: revolutionary. proletariat, advanced democratic forces or liberal or revolutionary. nat. bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. The conquest of hegemony by the working class and its party in the national liberation. movement creates the most consistent. anti-imperialist the orientation of the movement and its development along the lines of democracy and socialism. In the era of imperialism and socialist. revolutions nat.-liberate. movements became part of the world socialist. and democratic. movements and N. century. merged with the colonial, with the struggle for the liberation of the peoples of the colonies from the yoke of imperialism. In the modern era, N. century. became an inseparable part of the peoples' struggle for freedom, independence, peace, democracy and socialism. The goal of socialism is not only the destruction "... of any isolation of nations, not only the rapprochement of nations, but also their merging" (ibid., vol. 22, p. 135). But from violence. "unification" of nations by imperialism cannot be a transition to their voluntary merger without freedom of secession. Therefore, socialists are obliged to demand the freedom of self-determination of nations up to and including their secession and formation of their own. state-in. For metaphysicians and nationalists, this seems logical. contradiction between the theory and politics of Marxism. In fact, this is a contradiction of reality itself. "If we demand freedom of secession for the Mongols, Persians, Egyptians and all oppressed and deprived nations without exception, it is not at all because we are for separating them, but only because we are for a free, voluntary rapprochement and merger, and not for a forced one. That's the only reason!" (ibid., vol. 23, p. 56). Hence Lenin's conclusion "...humanity can come to the inevitable merging of nations only through a transitional period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their freedom to secede" (ibid., vol. 22, p. 136). The beginning of the period of liberation of the oppressed nations was laid on Oct. socialist. revolution of 1917. This process unfolded completely after the 2nd World War and the formation of the world socialist system, which created the conditions for the victory of the national liberation. movements around the world. This led to the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism, to the emergence of dozens of new nat. state-in in Asia, Africa and Lat. America. But tens of millions of people still remain under the yoke of colonialism, and imperialism retains its meaning. economical positions in a number of political conquerors. state independence. N. in. remains one of the most important issues of our time. Socialist revolution creates socio-economic. the basis for the destruction of any national. and racial oppression, to achieve full fact. equality of all nations and races, for complete and complete. N.'s decisions in. “Under capitalism,” Lenin wrote, “it is impossible to destroy national (and political in general) oppression. To do this, it is necessary to destroy classes, i.e. introduce socialism. But, based on the economy, socialism is not at all To eliminate national oppression, a foundation is needed—socialist production—but on this foundation, a democratic organization of the state, a democratic army, etc., is also necessary. the validity of "only" - "only"! - with the full implementation of democracy in all areas, up to the definition of the borders of the state in accordance with the "sympathies" of the population, up to complete freedom of secession. On this basis , in turn, the almost absolute elimination of the slightest national friction, the slightest national distrust develops, an accelerated rapprochement and merging of nations is created, which will end in peace a n e m of the state" (ibid., p. 311). Lenin National the program and policy are put into practice in the USSR, where all nations are granted freedom of self-determination, nat. privileges and peoples have an equal opportunity to freely build and develop nat. statehood, industry, culture. Organization of the federation of owls. republics, the implementation of broad autonomy, the creation of the USSR was a practical. implementation of the socialist democracy in N. century. The peoples of the USSR rallied into a fraternal family, their mutual distrust and enmity, generated by centuries of oppression and the policy of tsarism and the exploiting classes, were eliminated. Following the instructions of Lenin, the CPSU exposed the perversions of the nat. policies allowed under the conditions of Stalin's personality cult both within the country and in relations with certain socialist countries. systems. The Party has restored Leninist principles in the field of modern politics, has expanded the rights of the Union republics, and is consistently carrying out the all-round development of socialist democracy. Relations with the socialist countries are built on the principles of equality, sovereignty, fraternal friendship, and mutual assistance. The period of building communism in the USSR represents a new stage in the development of socialism. nations and their relations with each other. The most important task in the multinational socialist. countries is to strengthen the friendship of peoples, the full implementation of their de facto. equality, the struggle against the remnants of nationalism. Socialist countries by all means support nat.-liberate. struggle of the peoples, provide economic, political, and cultural assistance to the liberated peoples with the aim of accelerating their development along the path of social progress. Dangerous are the attempts of the nationalists, national deviationists, and revisionists on the right and on the left to undermine the unity of the socialist countries, the unity of the international. communist and revolutionary. labor movement, undermine its alliance and united front with the nat.-liberate. movement and thereby weaken the struggle against imperialism. The fight against great-power chauvinism, nationalist. deviations and racial prejudices, internationalist. The education of the working people of all nations is a necessary condition for the successful solution of the New Age, the victory of socialism and communism. See also articles National Liberation Revolution, Nation, Nationalism and lit. with these articles. M. Kammari. Moscow.