Nations and the national question. Russia: a national question

Interethnic contradictions arise in many nation states ah, as a rule, due to the clash of interests of the wealthy upper strata of the ethnic groups inhabiting a given state, and the broadest strata of the population are directly interested in a consistently democratic solution to the national question. This is explained by the fact that the masses primarily feel the brunt of any form of ethno-national discrimination. And they, first of all, become victims, bear the brunt of interethnic conflicts and clashes. Saak A.E., Tagaev A.V. Demography: Textbook. / A.E. Saak, A.V. Tagaev. Taganrog: TRTU Publishing House, 2003. - 99 p.

The only path that leads to the establishment of peace in such states is a consistent democratic solution to the national question. For this it is necessary: ​​- ensuring complete and unconditional equality of all nations inhabiting the state and all languages. Why is it necessary to adopt a law enshrined in the Constitution;

eradication and prohibition of any discrimination or, conversely, any privileges on racial, ethno-national, religious or linguistic grounds;

absence state language and ensuring that local languages ​​are taught in schools;

republican, legal, secular, democratic structure of the state; local autonomy on a national (ethnic) basis and democratic local self-government.

In this regard, I would like to note one very important circumstance: never in the last 300 years has Russia’s international position been as difficult and complex as it is now. At the same time (October 27 - November 1, 1991), by order of D. Dudayev, elections of the President and Parliament of Chechnya were held and his decree was promulgated: “On declaring the sovereignty of Chechnya.” Is it a coincidence that these events coincide in time? The number of such examples, unfortunately, can be increased.

In the current situation, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of the media, the role they have played, are playing and will be able to play in the future in solving problems related to the national question and national movements in Russian Federation.

Many specific examples could be given showing how the media contribute to the formation of negative ethnic, racial and religious stereotypes.

In our opinion, propaganda in the media should be most strongly condemned: demands and calls to provide privileges or carry out any discrimination against citizens (in the economic, social, cultural and political spheres of activity) based on their racial, national or religious affiliation;

ideas about the original (natural) superiority or inferiority of any race, nation, people (large or small), any religious denomination;

negative characteristics of individual representatives of any race, nation or denomination (in connection with their commission of serious illegal acts) with the aim of spreading them to the entire racial, ethnic community or religious denomination to which they belong;

demands for collective responsibility of all members of a racial, ethnic or religious community for unlawful acts committed by individual members Bagdasaryan V. Is demography controllable? // Power. - 2006. - No. 10. - P. 25-31;

It seems appropriate that systematic violation of these moral and ethical provisions should entail termination of registration and prohibition of the activities of any mass media body.

As for the political and other circles of any multinational state interested in the prosperity and strengthening of its independence and unity, they, first of all, must carry out the daily and painstaking work of Esin A.B. Demography: Textbook. M.: Academy, 2003 - 216 p. :

to establish real (and not formal) equality in all spheres of life of representatives of large and small nations inhabiting a given state;

to overcome ideas about national (ethnic) exclusivity, as well as national egoism, inertia, and limitations;

to eliminate the mistrust that has accumulated for centuries among small nations towards their more numerous neighbors.

Only such tireless work (supported by broad, consistent democratic transformations in all spheres of economic, social, cultural and political life) can ensure international peace in multinational states, strengthen their unity, and make it impossible for the emergence and spread of separatist sentiments and tendencies.

When carrying out legal, administrative and other reforms in the Russian Federation that affect the interests of any of its peoples, it is necessary to abandon the mechanical, standard bureaucratic approach to their planning and implementation. A careful, strictly individual account of the peculiarities of the territorial distribution of any nation - large or small - is necessary; its historical heritage; economic and cultural traditions; features of the environmental situation in the places of his residence; the consequences that a particular reform can have on the standard of living of a given people, its spiritual and material culture.

Above we discussed theoretical and methodological problems relating to certain concepts of ethnic sociology, interethnic relations, their types and main development trends, as well as problems of 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 practical implementation and regulation of these processes, including territorial, environmental, economic, political, legal, linguistic, moral and psychological. The national question does not remain unchanged; its content changes depending on the character historical era and the content of actually existing 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 happens 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 development opportunities 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 so-called mass culture, leveling the living conditions of all peoples and leading to the loss of their national identity. In response to this, peoples are even more actively advocating for the revival of their national culture; 3) the desire of peoples to independently use the natural resources located on their territories and playing important role in meeting their vital needs.

To one degree or another, these reasons manifest themselves in the process of 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 use their political rights very carefully, for 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 peoples with whom it has historically developed economic, political and cultural ties.

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

The right to exist, prohibiting 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 citizens themselves of their nationality;

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

The right to preserve cultural identity, including in 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 people to access and use the achievements of world civilization.

The practical implementation of the above-mentioned rights of all peoples means a significant step towards an optimal solution to the national question for each of them and all together. This requires a deep and subtle consideration of all related objective and subjective factors, overcoming 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 understandable desire of peoples for independence, when implemented in practice, gave rise to strong and largely unpredictable centrifugal tendencies, which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was unexpected for many (not only citizens, but entire republics). Today they cannot exist and develop safely without preserving, as they now say, a single economic, environmental, cultural and information space. The fleeting collapse of what had developed over centuries and on which the existence of peoples was based could not but affect their current situation.

Many negative consequences are currently unpredictable. But some are already visible and causing concern. 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 economics, ecology, cultural exchange, etc. This is an objective necessity that finds its understanding in Russia. It is clear, however, that establishing equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between the CIS states will require resolving many issues, including psychological and ideological, related, in particular, to overcoming nationalism and chauvinism in the minds and behavior of people, including many politicians acting on different levels legislative and executive power these states. The national issue in the Russian Federation is acute in its own way. There are achievements and as yet unresolved problems. In fact, all the former autonomous republics changed their national-state status by their decisions. The word “autonomous” has disappeared from their names, and today they are simply called republics within the Russian Federation). The range of their competencies has expanded, and their state-legal status within the Federation has increased. A number of autonomous regions also declared themselves independent republics within Russia. All this simultaneously increases and equalizes their state-legal status with all the republics within the Russian Federation.

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

The Russian Federation sometimes coexists with manifestations of nationalism and separatism, both in ideology and in real politics. Some of the separatists are seeking to disrupt the unity and integrity of the Russian state, trying to organize a confrontation between their republic and the central legislative and executive bodies of Russia, pursuing a policy of 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, since the majority 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, especially their economic development, as well as the material, political and spiritual interests of the peoples of these republics and all of Russia. Peoples are connected among themselves not only by economic ties, but also in many ways by a common destiny, and even by blood kinship, if we bear 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 pitting some nations against others, the collapse of their cooperation, and the creation of distrust 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 bring them forward in pursuit of their goals. Without understanding these goals, peoples allow themselves to be drawn into these conflicts and ultimately become victims themselves.

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

The ability of a multinational society to timely anticipate and resolve interethnic conflicts in a civilized manner - important indicator his civic maturity and democracy. This is also facilitated by the legal regulation of interethnic relations, which constitutes the most important area of ​​activity of the rule of law state. Comprehensive development civil society, democratization of the political system and the creation of the rule of law are the most important social prerequisites civilized solution to the national question in modern conditions.

The NATIONAL question refers to the eternal, “damned” issues 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, they created a great Russian culture. Almost every representative of the 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, either in the Soviet Union, or in present-day Russia. The periods of greatest state power and cultural flourishing of the Russian state have always coincided with periods of greatest openness of Russia and the indigenous Russian people to other peoples inhabiting the empire, greatest tolerance and readiness to integrate these nations and nationalities, speaking other languages ​​and professing other religions, into a single Russian linguistic system. , cultural environment, thereby enriching both these peoples and the multinational Russian culture itself. During these periods, Russia, like the present-day United States, directed the talents and energy of many peoples to serving their state, and not to sorting out relationships about who is more important or older. This was also facilitated by the following circumstance - the Russian people, being indigenous, found themselves scattered across the vast expanses of Russia. It did not have a strong 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 had 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 individuals. But, be that as it may, the traditional dominant position of the state in the life of the Russian people contributed to the formation of a state identity rather than an ethnic one. The sense of belonging to a state was much stronger than to an ethnic group. It is no coincidence that, finding themselves without the support and care of the state, millions of Russians outside the Russian Federation are experiencing great difficulties in adapting to new conditions. They ceased to feel that they belonged to the state where they live, moving into the category of “non-indigenous”. And the reason here is that for centuries they cared little about self-organization on an ethnic basis.

Such an identity of Russians (rather state than ethnic) was fertile ground so that other ethnic groups, nations and nationalities inhabiting the Russian Empire could also acquire a sovereign-statist 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 resolved by the fact of the state-power identification of themselves by both Russian and non-Russian peoples of the empire.

This dimension was further strengthened in Soviet period 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 resolve interethnic problems within the framework of any Russian Empire, nor the Soviet ideological empire.

The ethnic principle, no, no, yes, was manifested both among the Russians and the so-called national people. Although in fairness it must be said that it manifested itself not so much among 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 borderlands, in limiting the opportunities to develop the national language and culture in the territories ancestral to these ethnic groups, in limiting or eliminating all opportunities for national-cultural self-organization of national diasporas in large cities of Russia. Unfortunately, such actions led to increased interethnic tension and mistrust between different ethnic groups. And the introduction of the concept of “big brother” and “little brother” into such a sensitive area contributed twice in the 20th century to the destruction of our historical homeland.

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

The presence of such phenomena as refusal to hire on the basis of national origin, and instructions on personnel matters, limiting 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 a further increase in tension and mistrust between representatives of different nationalities.

The policy of perestroika, initiated by Gorbachev and the reformist wing of the CPSU, initially turned out to be doomed. Wanting to change everything at once, Gorbachev and his comrades went for radical reforms that were not supported by anything simultaneously in the economic, political spheres and in the sphere of the national-state structure of the country.

I will not talk now about the reasons for the collapse of the country, although one thing is obvious: the reformers from the CPSU Central Committee started all the changes and reforms so that it would be better, but it turned out, in the words of a modern classic, as always. As a result, an attempt to radically change the previous system of national government, which did not ensure the organic integration of the nations and nationalities 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 understand what changes are necessary both in the field of nation-state building and in interethnic relations in Russian regions and national republics, we should take into account the already existing tragic experience of reforming the USSR.

Today, as during the years of perestroika, the country’s leadership is faced with the task of improving the national-state structure 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 millions. The tragic experience of restructuring the national-state structure should be a constant reminder for us that in this subtle and delicate area it is absolutely impossible to cut from the shoulder, as many hotheads demand. Following the USSR, Russia can also be ruined.

It is important to keep the following in mind. Conversations about territorial redistribution and reforming the statuses of subjects single state began not 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 within them. This provoked separatism of autonomies and union republics. The Novoogaryovsky process worsened the situation. It was assumed that the updated Union Treaty should have been signed on equal terms by the leaders of both the Union republics and the autonomies.

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

In a word, the principle of gradualism and caution should be put at the forefront while respecting the primacy of the Constitution (before this, of course, its changes are necessary - the elimination of internal contradictions). The second stage is a review from the point of view of the constitutionality of individual laws and other legal norms. The third stage is the abandonment of the practice of concluding virtually unconstitutional bilateral agreements "Center - 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 help but dwell on one more important issue discussed in last years 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 perestroika era and has not yet been fully restored.

Many, both in Moscow and in the regions, taking into account the limited leverage of federal power over governors and recognizing the need to consolidate power vertically for more effective mobilization of resources and implementation of targeted policies, demand the abolition of elections of governors and other heads of subjects of the Federation, their replacement by 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, such as Poland, Finland and the Emirate of Bukhara, were allowed to have special statuses, but the asymmetry on the periphery was balanced by strict centralization in Russia itself. In the current conditions, it would hardly be justified to radically dismantle 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 government reform in this part. Apparently, even in the current conditions, a transition to a system of appointed governors in Russian regions and territories is possible. At the same time, the possibility of consolidation and formation of lands from several regions cannot be ruled out. However, at this stage it would hardly be advisable to completely abandon the principle of election in national-territorial entities, especially large ones. True, it will apparently be necessary to change the names of the positions of the leaders of national republics and eliminate the institution of presidents. Because ultimately we want to have a real federal system. By acting in this way, it would be possible to avoid extremes in proposals for 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 entities, abolition of elections of heads of subjects of the Federation, on the one hand hand, and on the other - complete transformation our country into a confederation within a Union of sovereign states with a very weak Center of this confederation.

In addition to the problem of national-territorial entities, on the correct determination of whose place in our Federation both the fate of the Russian state and the way of solving the national question in the country depend, we are currently faced, in completely new conditions, with the problem of national diasporas living in Russian regions and national-territorial entities.

The situation with representatives of non-indigenous peoples in Russia today is fundamentally different than before due to the fact that millions of people who considered themselves indigenous in the USSR - Armenians, Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs, Ukrainians and others - immediately after the collapse of the USSR, from a formal point of view in Russia became non-indigenous, since independent communities were formed in their historical homeland independent states. In addition, it must be said that the Soviet ideological empire, represented by 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 special role and the importance of Russians in the USSR, on the other hand, further contributed to obscuring the peculiarities of the 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 specificity. 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 defense mechanisms against manifestations of chauvinism or nationalism, against discrimination on national or religious grounds in hiring and career advancement, and in other spheres of society. Although in certain periods of our history there were instructions and secret orders on personnel and other issues that created tension in interethnic relations, right up to the collapse of the USSR and the ban on the CPSU, the party and the Soviet government not only declaratively (albeit with noted reservations), but actually stood in defense principles of internationalism. Every citizen could appeal to the relevant party and Soviet institutions in case of violation of his rights on a national basis and, by 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 still psychologically considered as part of the Russian people. After all, their ancestors lived in Russia over the past several centuries and participated in the formation of both Russian culture and the Russian state.

But it should still 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 current realities.

Firstly, in new Russia Over the past few decades, for the first time, Russians have emerged as 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 consciousness, the idea of ​​socialist internationalism, class and national solidarity faded into the background.

Thirdly, unfortunately, the formation of new states in the space of 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 supplanted the civil, democratic dimension. As a result, in many countries, sentiments of national intolerance began to prevail, and problems and difficulties were created for the non-indigenous population on national and religious grounds. In a number of cases, these trends led to open interethnic clashes with a bloody outcome.

Fourthly, the Russian people, to a greater extent than any other people of the former USSR, turned out to be not subject to nationalist hysteria, manifestations of national or religious intolerance. This was confirmed during the formative years independent Russia, when he, like other peoples, 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 Council 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 eliminated, which is to some extent compensated by the presence of their leaders in the Federation Council, but also the interests of all 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, have been largely relegated to the periphery of political, ideological and social life. As a result, in megacities and places where “non-indigenous” people live densely, 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 that the country has a multi-million population, representing national diasporas in Russia, the issues of integration of which are in Russian society, linguistic and cultural environment are largely left to chance. Such key problems for them as preserving their own language, culture, representation in government bodies, in law enforcement agencies, in business, have become their personal matter and depend largely on the goodwill or mercy of local authorities. Hence such ugly phenomena as intolerance and hostility towards so-called people of Caucasian nationality 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 neglect of the rights and needs of these diaspora

I will not give a detailed list of measures necessary to protect the rights of national diasporas, to preserve their language and culture, or 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 I will note that if we leave the resolution of these problems to chance in the hope that the process of formation of elements of civil society will by itself lead to the triumph of liberal values, personal freedom and human rights, equality of all before the law, and what will happen on this basis organic development and the formation of national diasporas as subcultures within the framework of the dominant Russian culture, then, I am afraid, we will be faced with a serious increase in interethnic conflicts and contradictions.

The task of a new, democratic Russia is to provide conditions for every individual, every ethnic group to feel like they belong to the Russian state and feel 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 do not use their strength in conflicts with each other, which are disastrous for country, but for creation. We must do everything in our power to ensure that the development of interethnic relations follows precisely this path.

Vladimir Putin: we need a state capable of organically solving the problem of integrating different ethnic groups and religions.
Photo by RIA Novosti

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 must 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. Reality today– growth of inter-ethnic and inter-religious tension. Nationalism and religious intolerance are becoming the ideological basis for the most radical groups and movements. They destroy, undermine states and divide societies.

Enormous migration flows - and there is every reason to believe that they will intensify - are already being called a new “great migration of peoples”, capable of changing the usual way of life and the appearance of entire continents. Millions of people are leaving regions suffering from hunger and chronic conflicts, poverty and social instability in search of a better life.

The most developed and prosperous countries, which previously prided themselves on their tolerance, came face to face with the “exacerbation 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 of different cultures, religions, and ethnic groups.

The “melting pot” of assimilation is acting up and fuming – and is not able to “digest” the ever-increasing large-scale migration flow. This was reflected in politics in the form of “multiculturalism,” which denies integration through assimilation. It elevates the “minority right to difference” to an absolute level, while insufficiently balancing this right with civic, behavioral and cultural responsibilities towards the indigenous population and society as a whole.

In many countries, closed national-religious communities are emerging that refuse not only to assimilate, but even to adapt. There are neighborhoods and entire cities where generations of newcomers have already lived on social benefits and do not speak the language of the host country. The response to this model of behavior is the growth of xenophobia among the local indigenous population, an attempt to strictly protect their interests, jobs, and social benefits from “alien competitors.” People are shocked by the aggressive pressure on their traditions, their usual 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 exploit the “national card” - they move to the field of those whom they themselves previously considered marginalized and radicals. Extreme forces, in turn, are sharply gaining weight, seriously laying claim to state power. In essence, it is proposed to talk about forced assimilation - against the backdrop of “closedness” and a sharp tightening of migration regimes. Bearers of another culture must either “dissolve into the majority” or remain an isolated national minority – even if provided with various rights and guarantees. In fact, it means being cut off from the possibility of a successful career. I’ll tell you straight: it’s difficult to expect loyalty to your country from a citizen placed in such conditions.

Behind the “failure of the multicultural project” is the crisis of the very model of the “national state” - a state that was historically built exclusively 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 " historical state»

Despite all the external similarities, our situation is fundamentally different. Our national and migration problems are directly related to the destruction of the USSR, and in fact, historically, of Greater Russia, which was formed at its core back in the 18th century. With the inevitable subsequent degradation of state, social and economic institutions. 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 Center,” in turn, trying to put pressure on opponents, began to play a behind-the-scenes game with the Russian autonomies, promising them an increase in “national-state status.” Now the participants in these processes are shifting the blame onto each other. But one thing is obvious - 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 territorial integrity Motherland.

What the initiators of the “sovereignty venture” may 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 collapse of the country, we found ourselves on the brink, and in some well-known regions, beyond the brink of civil war, and precisely on ethnic grounds. With enormous effort and great sacrifices, we managed to extinguish these outbreaks. But this, of course, does not mean that the problem has been resolved.

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 public order were broken, the country was saved by the moral will of the people.”

And, by the way, our holiday November 4th 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 hostility and strife, when classes and nationalities realized 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 a migrant. Russia emerged and developed over the 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, at the friendly, at the service level. Hundreds of ethnic groups living on their land together and next to the Russians. The development of vast territories, which filled the entire history of Russia, was a joint undertaking 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 as follows: “Just who speaks Slavic in Rus': the Polyans, the Drevlyans, the Novgorodians, the Polochans, the Dregovichs, the Northerners, the Buzhans... But here are the 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 the blood of others, do not strangle foreign and heterodox life, but give everyone breath and a great Motherland... preserve everyone, reconcile everyone, let everyone pray in their own way.” , to work in our own way and to involve the best from everywhere in state and cultural construction.”

The core that holds the fabric of this unique civilization together is the Russian people, Russian culture. This is exactly the rod various kinds provocateurs and our opponents will try with all their might to tear us out of Russia - under completely false talk about the Russians’ right to self-determination, about “racial purity”, about the need to “finish the work of 1991 and finally destroy the empire sitting on the neck of the Russian people.” In order to ultimately force people to destroy their own homeland with their own hands.

I am deeply convinced that attempts to preach the ideas 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. 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, Far East, Ural, Volga region, Moscow region┘.” These were the recipes followed by those who led to the collapse Soviet Union. As for the notorious national self-determination, which, while fighting for power and geopolitical dividends, was repeatedly speculated on by politicians of various directions - from Vladimir Lenin to Woodrow Wilson - the Russian people have long ago determined themselves. 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 in plebiscites and referendums, but with blood. With its entire thousand-year history.

Unified cultural code

The Russian experience of state development is unique. We are a multi-ethnic society, but we united people. This makes our country complex and multidimensional. Provides enormous opportunities for development in many areas. However, if a multinational society is infected with the bacillus of nationalism, it loses its strength and strength. And we must understand what far-reaching consequences can be caused by connivance in attempts to incite national enmity and hatred towards people of a different culture and faith.

Civil peace and interethnic harmony are a picture created more than once and frozen for centuries. On the contrary, it is a constant dynamic, a dialogue. This is a painstaking work of the state and society, requiring very subtle decisions, balanced and wise policies that can ensure “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 one cannot be forced to live together according to calculation, based on weighing benefits and costs. Such “calculations” work until the moment of crisis. And at the moment of 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.

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

The Russian people are state-forming people - by the fact of the existence of Russia. The great mission of the Russians is to unite and consolidate civilization. By language, culture, “worldwide responsiveness”, as defined by Fyodor Dostoevsky, to unite Russian Armenians, Russian Azerbaijanis, Russian Germans, Russian Tatars... To unite into a type of state-civilization where there are no “nationalities”, and the principle of recognizing “friend or foe” is determined 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 also all bearers of such identity, regardless of nationality. This is the cultural code that has undergone serious testing in recent years, which they have tried and are trying to crack. And yet it has certainly survived. At the same time, it must be nourished, strengthened and protected.

Education plays a huge role here. The choice of educational program and the diversity of education are our undoubted achievements. But variability must be based on unshakable values, basic knowledge and ideas about the world. The civic task of education and the educational 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, and national history in the educational process - naturally, in the context of the entire wealth of national traditions and cultures.

In some leading American universities in the 1920s, a movement for the study of the Western cultural canon developed. Every self-respecting student had to read 100 books according to a specially created list. In some US universities this tradition continues today. Our nation has always been a reading nation. Let's conduct a survey of our cultural authorities and create a list of 100 books that every Russian school graduate should read. Don’t memorize it at school, but read it yourself. And let's make the final exam an essay on the topics we read. Or at least we will give young people the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and their worldview at Olympiads and competitions.

State policy in the field of culture should also set the corresponding requirements. This refers to tools such as television, cinema, the Internet, and mass culture in general, which shape public consciousness and set behavioral patterns and norms.

Let us remember 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's a lot to learn here.

Let me emphasize: no one is encroaching on the freedom of creativity - we are not talking 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 and public problems. Including the formation of a worldview that holds the nation together.

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

National Unity Day is a day of victory over internal hostility and strife. Photo from the site www.vgoroden.ru

We need a national policy strategy based on civic patriotism. Any person living in our country should not forget about their 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 characteristics above the laws of the state. However, the laws of the state themselves must take into account national and religious characteristics.

I think that in the system federal bodies The authorities need to create a special structure responsible for issues of national development, interethnic well-being, and interaction between ethnic groups. Now these problems are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Regional Development and, behind the heap of current tasks, are being pushed into the background, or even the third, and this situation must be corrected.

This should not be a standard department. Rather, we should be talking about a collegial body that interacts directly with the president of the country, with the leadership of the government and has certain powers. National policies cannot be written and implemented solely in the offices of officials. National and public associations should directly participate in its discussion and formation.

And, of course, we count on the active participation of Russia’s traditional religions in such a dialogue. At the heart of Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism - with all their differences and features - are basic, common moral, ethical, spiritual values: mercy, mutual assistance, truth, justice, respect for elders, the ideals of family and work. These value guidelines 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 traditional religions of Russia in the education and enlightenment system, 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 Policy and the Role of Strong Institutions

Systemic problems of society very often find a way out in the form of interethnic tension. We must always remember that there is a direct relationship between unresolved socio-economic problems, the defects of the law enforcement system, the ineffectiveness of government, corruption and conflicts on ethnic grounds. If we look at the history of all recent interethnic excesses, we will find this “trigger” almost everywhere: Kondapoga, Manezhnaya Square, Sagra. Everywhere there is a heightened reaction to the lack of justice, to the irresponsibility and inaction of individual representatives of the state, disbelief in equality before the law and the inevitability of punishment for the criminal, the belief that everything is bought and there is no truth.

It is necessary to be aware of what risks and threats are involved in situations that are fraught with transition to the stage of national conflict. And accordingly, in the harshest way, without regard to ranks and titles, evaluate the actions or inactions of law enforcement agencies and 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, and resolve 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 exclusively important have professionalism and responsibility of the media.

But there can be no dialogue in a situation of unrest and violence. No one should have the slightest temptation to “press the authorities” on 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, proposals are being implemented to establish the election of regional heads. All these are necessary and correct steps. But one thing cannot be allowed - opportunities for the creation of regional parties, including in national republics. This is a direct path to separatism. Such a requirement, of course, should be made for the elections of regional heads - anyone who tries to rely on nationalist, separatist and similar forces and circles should be immediately excluded from the election process within the framework of democratic and judicial procedures.

The problem of migration and our integration project

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

Firstly, 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 be completely eliminated anywhere, but it should and can certainly be minimized. And in this regard, clear police functions and powers of migration services need to be strengthened.

However, a simple mechanical tightening of migration policy will not produce results. 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 - must be extremely clearly differentiated. Which, in turn, implies obvious priorities and favorable regimes in migration policy in favor of qualifications, competence, competitiveness, cultural and behavioral compatibility. Such “positive selection” and competition for the quality of migration exist throughout the world. Needless to say, such migrants integrate into the host society much better and easier.

Second. Internal migration is developing quite actively in our country; people go to study, live, and work in other regions of the Federation, in large cities. Moreover, these are full citizens of Russia.

At the same time, those who come to regions with other cultural and historical traditions must respect local customs. To the customs of the Russian and all other peoples of Russia. Any other behavior - inappropriate, aggressive, defiant, disrespectful - must meet with an appropriate legal, but tough response, and first of all from the authorities, who today are often simply inactive. We need to see whether all the norms necessary to control such behavior of people are contained in the Administrative and Criminal Codes, and in the regulations of 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 requirement of the law, the same for everyone.

Civilized frameworks are also important in internal migration. 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 believe that we should tighten the registration rules and sanctions for violating them. Naturally, without infringing on the constitutional rights of citizens to choose their place of residence.

Third is strengthening the judicial system and building effective law enforcement agencies. This is fundamentally important not only for external immigration, but, in our case, also for internal, in particular migration from the regions of the North Caucasus. Without this, 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 police will always lead not only to discontent and radicalization of the society receiving migrants, but also to the rooting of “disputes over concepts” and a shadow criminalized economy among migrants themselves.

We cannot allow closed, isolated national enclaves to arise, in which it is often not laws that 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 by corrupt officials in power.

It is corruption that fuels ethnic crime. From a legal point of view criminal groups, 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 state security problem. And it must be treated accordingly.

Fourth is the problem of civilized integration and socialization of migrants. And here again it is necessary to return to the problems of education. We should be talking 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 and motivator of integration behavior for migrants in terms of integration into society. Whereas the low quality of education always provokes even greater isolation and closedness of migration communities, only now long-term, at the generational level.

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

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

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

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

We understand that it is not because of a good life that people move far away and often earn the opportunity for human existence for themselves and their families far from being in civilized conditions.

From this point of view, the tasks that we set both within the country (creation of a new economy with effective employment, reconstruction of professional communities, uniform development of productive forces and social infrastructure throughout the country) and the tasks of Eurasian integration are a key tool through which we can introduce migration flows back to normal. Essentially, 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 life of the state and society - in the economy, social sphere, education, political system and foreign policy. We need to build a model of a state, a civilizational community with such a structure that would be absolutely equally attractive and harmonious for everyone who considers Russia their Motherland.

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

We will strengthen our “historical state”, inherited from our ancestors. A state-civilization that is capable of organically solving the problem of integrating different ethnic groups and faiths.

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

a set of political, economic, legal, ideological. and cultural relations between nations, nationalities, nationalities. (ethnic) groups in different societies and economics. formations. N.v. arises in an exploitative society during the struggle of nations and peoples for nationality. liberation and the most favorable conditions for their social development. After the victory, the socialist revolution and socialist society, it covers the problems of relations between nations and peoples in the process of establishing their voluntary union and friendship, strengthening unity and comprehensive rapprochement on the basis of complete equality. Marxism-Leninism considers modern history. as subordinate to the general question of socio-political. progress of society and proceeds from the fact that the main thing in N. century. is the union of workers, regardless of nationality. belonging in the fight against all types of oppression, for the forefront of societies. system, for social progress.

The oppression and exploitation of some peoples by others will liberate. the struggle began under the slave owners. system and continued into the era of feudalism. Fully 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 during the struggle against national. enslavement of peoples by imperialism, as well as in the internal state. relations between nations and peoples. N.v. will completely die out with the merger and disappearance of nations in the conditions of the victory of communism throughout the world.

The ideologists of the bourgeoisie, who led the national liberation movements in Europe and America. colonies in the 16th-19th centuries, was considered the basis of the decision of the N. century. “the principle of nationality” (“the right of the nation”), according to which it is necessary to create “your own” state under any circumstances: “one nation - one state.” During the bourgeois period. revolutions and the formation of national bourgeois The state played a positive role in the “principle of nationality.” role in the fight against the remnants of feudal fragmentation and nationalism. oppression. As capitalism develops into imperialism, the bourgeoisie of the largest countries moves to broader columns. conquests, completes the division of the world and discards the “principle of nationality.” N.v. turned from domestic to international. the question of the liberation of all peoples from imperialism. enslavement.

K. Marx and F. Engels developed the basic. principles are truly scientific. theory of solution N. century. They showed that the national relations are concrete and historical. character and are determined by societies. and state system, the relationship of class forces within the country and internationally. arena, national the politics of the ruling classes. At the same time, the relations of nations and peoples influence societies. relations and class struggle. At the same time, on various historical stages, different aspects of N. century may come to the fore. (struggle for political or economic independence, problems of culture, language, etc.). Having revealed the social essence of the national movement, Marx and Engels emphasized that the interests of the proletariat required the liberation of oppressed nations and peoples. Marx and Engels brought to the fore the principle of internationalism - “Workers of all countries, unite!” (See Soch., vol. 4, p. 459). They also own the famous formula: “A people that oppresses other peoples cannot be free” (Engel s F., ibid., vol. 18, p. 509). Marx and Engels extended the demand for the provision of national independence per colon. peoples whom they considered natural allies of the proletariat in the revolution. struggle.

The theory of N. century. received further development in the works of V.I. Lenin. In the “Draft of the Ross program” he wrote. social democratic workers' party"(1902) as the basis for N.'s decision. the right of nations to self-determination was put forward. The main provisions of Lenin’s theory of N. century. were the basis for practical activities and program documents of the Communist. International and communist. parties.

Under the conditions of capitalism, for the development of modern technology. characterized by two historical trends: first - the awakening of the national. life and national movements, the fight against any national. oppression, creation of national state, and the second is the development and intensification of all kinds of relations between nations, the breakdown of national. partitions, creation of international unity of capital, economic life, politics, science, the world market, etc. The first tendency is more pronounced in the era of rising capitalism, the second - in the era of imperialism (see V.I. Lenn, PSS, vol. 24, p. 124). Recognition in the Marxist-Leninist theory of N. century. the rights of nations to self-determination, upholding the principles of the voluntary unification of nations, overflight. internationalism, the solidarity of workers of all countries in the struggle against imperialism reflects both the first and second trends. In bourgeois-democratic stage of development of N. century. is part of the general question of bourgeois-democratic. revolution and its solution is subordinate to the tasks of this revolution (elimination of the remnants of feudalism, etc.). When conditions arise for socialism. transformations, N. century. is part of the general question of socialism. revolution and construction of socialism. This in no way means an underestimation of N. century.

The right of nations (peoples) to self-determination means the free establishment of each of them 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 independence. solving all internal issues. device (social system, form of government, etc.). Moreover, in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist theory of N. century. Marxist-Leninists, defending this right, proceed from the need for its implementation in the form that contributes to the maximum extent to the interests of the struggle for social progress, for universal peace. It should be borne in mind that the number of only large nations and peoples living in modern times. 170 state-wah, is approx. 2 thousand. Because further means. An increase in the number of states is unlikely, then, obviously, for the majority of nations and nationalities of the N. century. can only be resolved in a multinational manner. state-wah.

A striking example of this is N.’s decision. in 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. This ensures the unity of the union and national. statehood of the republics based on democratic principles. centralism, socialist federalism and socialism. democracy. If a nation or nationality cannot form a union republic (if it is too small, does not constitute a majority in the territory it occupies, etc.), the socialist principle is applied. autonomy: nations and nationalities form the author. republic, region or district. Thus, all peoples are provided with the state. self-government and protection of their national. 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 the powerful will unite. economic., political., ideological. and other factors, a new historical arose in the USSR. a community of people - the Soviet people. Existence within a single socialist. the state of many nations and nationalities gives rise to new problems, which are not antagonistic. character and are successfully resolved on the basis of Leninist national. politicians. The further rapprochement of nations is an objective historical fact. a process that is harmful to artificially force and completely unacceptable to restrain, because in both cases this would lead to a slowdown of this progressive process and would contradict the gene. direction of development of owls. society, the interests of building communism.

Marx K. and Engels F., Communist Manifesto. Parties, Soch., vol. 4; M a p k s K., Report of the Gen. Council of the IV Annual Congress of the International. Workers' Associations, ibid., vol. 16; him, Gen. Advice - Federal Council Romanesque Switzerland, ibid.; his, [Letter] 3. Meyer and A. Vogt, April 9. 1870, ibid., vol. 32; Engels F., What does the working class care about Poland?, ibid., vol. 16; his, On the decomposition of feudalism and the emergence of nationalism. state-v, ibid., t. 21; Lenin V.I., About the national. and national-colon. question, [Sb.], M., 1956; his, Report of the commission on national. and column issues, PSS, t 41; CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences of plenums of the Central Committee, vol. 1-2, M., 1970";

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

NATIONAL QUESTION

the question of relationships - economic, territorial, political, state legal, cultural and linguistic - between nations, national. groups and nationalities in various socio-economic. formations, different countries ah and gos-wah. Although the oppression and exploitation of peoples began already in the era of slave owners. building, continue in the era of feudalism, but they reach their highest aggravation under capitalism and especially in the era of imperialism. National relationships are determined primarily by a given method of production, the nature of societies. and state building, the ratio of classes within nations, national. the politics of the ruling classes (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, 2nd ed., vol. 3, pp. 19–20). In turn, the national relationships have a reverse impact on various aspects of societies. development, incl. to the class struggle. At different stages of the consolidation and development of nationalities and nations and depending on the forms of national. Oppression is also represented by different sides of the N. century. (struggle for political independence, for economic independence, for the unification of one’s territory, protection of one’s language and culture, etc.). National oppression is intertwined with class, racial, and religious oppression, which further complicates the modern century, complicating the development of the class consciousness of workers, obscured by the ideology of nationalism, chauvinism, racism, and religion. enmity, etc. This was the case in Tsarist Russia, in the colonial empires of England, France, Germany, in Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire . Character and setting of N.V. depend on the characteristics of the definition. historical era 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 into nations, towards the creation of national. state-in. But this tendency cannot always be realized, because it encounters opposition in the tendency towards capitalism. internationalization of agriculture, science, culture of the peoples of different countries, expressed in 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 territories of foreign countries and colonies. Lenin noted that the first tendency is characteristic of the ascending stage of capitalism, the second predominates during the period of imperialism, ch. feature of which in the development of national relations is the division of the whole world into a handful of dominant nations and the majority of the oppressed, the forced unification and suppression of the peoples of dependent countries and colonies. Imperialism suppresses the aspirations of economically backward and small nationalities towards nationalism. consolidation and the creation of a national state Violent the nature of attempts to “unite” nations by capitalism found its clearest expression in the colonial system of imperialism. In modern conditions of the capitalist trend. integration is manifested in the policy of neocolonialism, in the creation of the so-called. "European community", "common European market" and other international. monopoly associations capital, which serve as a weapon for the joint exploitation of economically underdeveloped countries and the fight against socialism. N.v. retains its acute character within a number of capitalist. countries (USA, Belgium, Canada). Marx and Engels developed the basic. span principles. solutions N.V.: international. the unification of 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 nationality. and race or origin; subordination to N. century the work issue as the main one; support for national movements, which are directed against the reaction. forces and classes, based on the principle “a people who oppress other peoples cannot be free.” Lenin developed these tenets of Marxism in relation to the era of imperialism and the passage. revolutions, to the transition period from capitalism to socialism. He criticized the theories and programs of opportunists and reformists who obscured the deep contradictions of capitalism in the modern century. Defending the integrity of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. empire, 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 nationalists. parties and groups in Russia, led to the destruction of the international. unity of the labor movement. The centrists Kautsky, Trotsky and other leftists (R. Luxemburg and others) also slipped towards this program, fighting against social chauvinism and bourgeois nationalism. understanding the right to self-determination of nations, at the same time they believed that in the era of imperialism this right was supposedly “impossible”, and under socialism it was unnecessary. This resulted in nihilism. attitude towards N. century in many parties of the 2nd International. Reformist figures in Europe. Social democracies limited 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, under colonial and semi-colonial oppression. Lenin justified the span line. internationalism in the modern century, emphasizing the need for free self-determination of nations up to their complete separation from the oppressive state, the voluntary unification of proletarians and workers of all nations in common revolutionaries. organizations to fight for democracy and socialism. During the period of 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 socialist. transformations. The character and strength of the national will liberate. movements depend on the degree of participation in them by the broad masses of the working class and peasantry, on the strength of their alliance, as well as on which class is at the head of the movement: the revolutionary. proletariat, advanced democrats. forces either liberal or revolutionary. national 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 direction of the movement and its development along the lines of democracy and socialism. In the era of imperialism and socialism. revolutions national-liberate. movements became part of the world socialist. and democratic movement 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 of N. century. became an inextricable part of the people’s struggle for freedom, independence, peace, democracy and socialism. The goal of socialism is not only the destruction of “...all isolation of nations, not only the rapprochement of nations, but also their fusion” (ibid., vol. 22, p. 135). But from violence. The “unification” of nations by imperialism cannot lead to a voluntary merger without freedom of secession. Therefore, socialists are obliged to demand the freedom of self-determination of nations, up to their separation and formation of independence. state-in. For metaphysicians and nationalists this seems logical. contradiction of 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 disadvantaged nations without exception, it is not at all because we are secessionizing them, but only because because we are for free, voluntary rapprochement and fusion, and not for force. That’s the only reason!” (ibid., vol. 23, p. 56). Hence Lenin’s conclusion “...humanity can come to the inevitable merger 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 period of liberation of oppressed nations began on Oct. socialist revolution of 1917. This process fully developed after World War II and the formation of the world system of socialism, which created the conditions for the victory of the national liberation movement. movements around the world. This led to the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism and the emergence of dozens of new nationalities. states in Asia, Africa and Latvia. America. But tens of millions of people still remain under the yoke of colonialism, and that means imperialism remains. economical positions in a number of won political. independence of the state N.v. remains one of the important issues of our time. Socialist revolution creates socio-economic. basis for the destruction of any national and racial oppression, to achieve full factual. equality of all nations and races, to complete and complete. decisions N.v. “Under capitalism,” wrote Lenin, “it is impossible to destroy national (and political in general) oppression. To do this, it is necessary to destroy classes, that is, introduce socialism. But, based on economics, socialism is not at all everything comes down to it. To eliminate national oppression, a foundation is needed - socialist production, but on this foundation there is also a need for a democratic organization of the state, a democratic army, etc. Having reconstructed capitalism into socialism, the proletariat creates the possibility of completely eliminating national oppression; this opportunity will turn into action S t i t e n t y “only” – “only”! – with the full implementation of democracy in all areas, up to the definition of the boundaries 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 mistrust is developing, an accelerated rapprochement and fusion of nations is being created, which will end with the extinction of the state" (ibid., p. 311). Lenin National program and policy are being implemented in the USSR, where all nations are granted freedom of self-determination, national laws are abolished. privileges and peoples have an equal opportunity to freely build and develop national. statehood, industry, culture. Organization of the Federation of Sov. republics, the implementation of broad autonomy, the creation of the USSR was practical. implementation of socialist democracy in N. century. The peoples of the USSR united into a fraternal family, their mutual distrust and enmity generated by centuries of oppression and the policies of tsarism and the exploiting classes were eliminated. Following Lenin's instructions, the CPSU exposed the perversions of the national. policies allowed under the conditions of the personality cult of Stalin both within the country and in relations with certain socialist countries. systems. The party has restored Leninist principles in the field of modern history, expanded the rights of the union republics and is consistently implementing the comprehensive development of socialist democracy; relations with socialist countries are built on the basis of 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 relationships with each other. The most important task in a multinational socialist countries is to strengthen the friendship of peoples, the full implementation of their actual. equality, the fight against the remnants of nationalism. Socialist countries support national liberation by all means. the struggle of peoples, provide economic, political, and cultural assistance to liberated peoples in order to accelerate their development along the path of social progress. Dangerous are the attempts of nationalists, national deviationists, revisionists on the right and left to undermine the unity of the socialist countries, the unity of international. communist and revolutionary labor movement, to undermine its alliance and united front with the national liberation movement. movement and thereby weaken the struggle against imperialism. The fight against great-power chauvinism, nationalist. biases 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 the articles National Liberation Revolution, Nation, Nationalism, etc. with these articles. M. Kammari. Moscow.