
The centennial of Vladimir Lenin’s death passed relatively unnoticed in Armenia. Over thirty years ago, a statue of Lenin towered in the center of what is now Republic Square (formerly Lenin Square). The remnants of the statue rest behind a not-so-inaccessible door in the National Gallery, where pop star Cher once held an iconic photoshoot. Around the world, various reactions to Lenin’s legacy indicate the significant impact he had on the world. Socialists of all stripes continue to passionately debate the merits of the Leninist model of political organizing. Meanwhile, conservatives carefully check under their beds lest the red menace rests beneath, while revolutionaries from the Mekong Delta to the streets of Oakland, California, study his writings, meticulously devising their own plans for revolution.
To his detractors, Lenin was a shrewd authoritarian whose leadership of the Bolsheviks precipitated the rise of Stalinism and the violent repression of millions throughout the former Soviet Union. For his supporters, he was a pivotal figure in the sweeping revolution that ended nearly 400 years of despotic Tsarist rule. Then there are those who attempt to strike a balance, avoiding both condemnation and romanticization, hoping to paint a full picture of a person whose legacy continues to reverberate a century after his death.
Focusing on Lenin’s strategies to secure stability and territory following the disastrous losses from Russia’s exit from the First World War, it’s clear the Bolsheviks’ call for self-determination was crucial. This rallying cry was not only a major point of contention in Russia’s revolutionary centers, which won support from oppressed nationalities scattered in the former Empire. It also had implications for the farthest reaches of the former empire, including Armenia and Karabakh.
What Is Meant by the Self-determination of Nations?[1]
Self-determination is one of the most contentious principles of international law that influences global politics. It has served as a unifying cause against imperialist domination, sparked violent conflicts from southern Mexico to the mountains of Karabakh, and for over a century various international bodies and non-state actors have attempted to expound their position on the subject. Its at-times nebulous definition has fueled debates over who has the right to practice self-determination and in what form. A century ago, the issue of self-determination emerged amid the cacophony of demands from minorities in the collapsing Ottoman and Russian empires, as well as the revolutionary movements led by workers throughout Europe.
Within the socialist movement of Eastern Europe leading up to the First World War, the Marxist position was questioned amid growing militaristic, expansionist nationalism. Lenin, in a polemical response to his contemporaries including Rosa Luxemburg, asserts that “the right of the self-determination of nations means the political separation of these nations from alien national bodies, and the formation of an independent national state.” He argues that nation-states are pivotal in the development of capitalism from the ashes of feudalism, regarded by the national bourgeoisie as the most fertile grounds for capitalism’s growth. However, the bourgeoisie recognize that capitalism by necessity cannot limit itself to its borders and must expand by conquering other markets. Lenin’s endorsement of self-determination, therefore, opposes this bourgeois nationalism that necessitates an expansion of capitalism, a crucial aspect of Lenin’s theories of imperialism. Two decades later, the United Nations charter would enshrine the right to self-determination as a key principle in its founding charter.
Between Nationalism and Internationalism
Early Soviet diplomacy was complicated by the strife Russian society faced, including a catastrophic civil war, the near complete halt of industry, and an active, revolutionary mass of peasants, soldiers, and workers weary of one-party rule and unwilling to return to Tsarist autocracy. Meanwhile, in the south, the nascent Republic of Turkey was at war with European forces and their allies, while also carrying out the extermination of Christian minorities indigenous to Anatolia.
To the Soviets, having a friendly government in Turkey was invaluable, even if that government was ambivalent or even openly hostile to socialist internationalism. As a result, self-determination became little more than an afterthought, as indicated by Lenin’s statement: “We are temporarily compelled to sacrifice the interests of the Armenian labor classes to those of the World Revolution. Remember Comrades that we are not going to fight anybody over Armenia, especially Kemal.”[2]
After their victory against the short-lived First Republic of Armenia, the Kemalist government was in a strong position to impose its will on the Soviets regarding territories that had belonged to the former Russian Empire, such as the Kars Oblast and a portion of the Erivan Governorate, including Ararat.
Turkey’s denial of Armenian participation in the treaties of Moscow and Kars, its demand for the disarmament of Armenian forces, and its support for Azerbaijani management of Nakhchivan effectively sealed the fate of Armenian self-determination, as defined by Lenin. The shared anti-imperialist sentiment became a common ground for the Bolshevik government, emerging from a civil war against loyalist forces, and the Kemalists who were attempting to resist European attempts to divide Anatolia as they pleased. The Soviet government provided significant aid to the Ataturk-led government in expelling occupying forces from Anatolia. Armenian appeals to the British and French for aid and military support were fruitless, and European presence in the region eroded completely.
Conclusion
Lenin famously proclaimed, “All power to the Soviets!” in opposition to the impotent Provisional Government. The Soviets, popularly formed assemblies with a model of self-organization that cultivated the creative revolutionary action of Russian workers and peasants, were subsequently monopolized by Bolshevik functionaries. The writing may have been on the wall when the Bolsheviks dissolved the Constituent Assembly, establishing an increasingly repressive environment targeting socialists, and in particular, anarchists. After all, if the sailors of Kronstadt, known for their extraordinary legacy of rebellion, were ignored when they ardently demanded free elections, what could the Armenians expect from the Bolsheviks?
The Russian Revolution, like all revolutions, was brought about through the dedicated action of masses of people, energized by self-activity and agitation by dedicated revolutionaries. Lenin did not create the movement; he was a product of it. The way in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks managed to reconcile the contradiction of denying self-determination to the Armenians while instrumentalizing the concept as a rallying point for the non-Russian peoples of the Soviet Union is a topic worthy of deeper examination.
A century after Lenin’s death, Turkey has become a major bulwark against both socialism and self-determination, denying Kurdish autonomy and supporting Azerbaijan’s conquest of Nagorno-Karabakh. As a member of NATO, which originated from militant anti-communism, Turkey stands in opposition to these principles. Russian President Vladimir Putin famously rejected Lenin’s model of self-determination for Ukraine days before launching a full-scale invasion of the country. However, focusing solely on the actions of one individual risks ignoring the broader historical and political context. Assigning the current state of affairs in Armenia and Ukraine to Lenin grants him too much credit. Conversely, absolving Lenin of any responsibility suggests that criticism is unwarranted.
Statues wouldn’t need toppling if they were never built in the first place
Footnotes: