From Marx to Mao Tse-tung - BANNEDTHOUGHT.NET

qeople, the Laotian people, the Palestinian people,the Arab people, or the people of other countries,who fear U.S. imperialism; it is U.S. imperialismwhich fears the people of the world. It becomespanic-stricken at the mere rustle of leaves in the wind.In.numerable facts prove that a just cause enjoysabundant support, while an unjust cause finds littiesupport. A weak nation can defeat a strong, a smallnation can defeat a big. The people of a smallcountry can certainly defeat oppression by a bigcountry, if only they dare to rise in struggle, dare totake up arnm, and grasp in their orvn hands thedestiny of their country. This is a law of history. (pR7o-22.)4. National uersus Regional AutonomyIn affirming the right of every nation to secede andform an independent state, Lenin did not mean thatthe party of the proletariat was committed in all casesto advocating the exercise of that right. On tlie contrary,he recognised that in some cases secession mightbe inexpedient :The right of nations to self-determination (that is,the constitutional guarantee of an absolutely freeand democratic method of deciding the question ofsecession) must under no circumstances be confusedwith the expediency of secession for a given nation.The Social-Democratic Party must decide thequestion, exclusively on its merits in each case inconformity with the interests of social developmentas a whole and with the interests of the prolelarianclass struggle for socialism. (LCW rg.42g.)Il T"I -alsohappen, of course, that secession is precludedby the objective situation. Some nationalitiesare too small or too scattered to form independent6zstates. IIow, then, is the national question to be solvedin cases where secession is judged to be inexpedient orimpracticable ?There are, as Lenin points out, two oppositesolutions of this problem-the bourgeois solution ofcultural-national autonomy and the proletariansolution of regional and local autonomy.According to the principle of cutrtural-national autonomy,the mernbers of each nationality form a 'nationalassociation', whioh controls their social and culturallife, including education. Thus, the schools aresegregated according to nationality. Lenin asks:Is suoh a division, be it asked, permissible fromthe standpoint of dernocracy in general and fromthe standpoint of the interests of the proletarianclass struggle in particular?A clear grasp of the essence of the 'culturalnational'autonomy programme is sufficient toenable one to reply without Lresitation : it isabsolutely impermissible. . . .If the various nations living in a single state arebound by economic ties, then any attempt to dividethem permanently in 'cultural' and particularlyeducational matters would be absurd and reactionary.On the contrary, efforts should be made tounite the nations in educational matters, so that theschools should be a preparation for what is actuallydone in real life. At the present time we see thatthe diflerent nations are unequal in the rights theypossess and in their level of development. (Jnderthese circumstances, to segregate the schools accordingto nationality would actually and inevitablyu)orsen the conditions of the more backwardnations. . . ,Segregating the schools according to nationality isnot only a harmful scheme but a downright swindle63