ISSN: 2158-7051 ==================== INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES ==================== ISSUE NO. 6 ( 2017/2 ) |
THINKING ABOUT NATIONAL DELIMITATION POLICY OF THE USSR: THE COMPARISON OF WEBER’S THEORY AND THAT OF MARX
KEISUKE WAKIZAKA*
Summary
This article compares Marxist theory with that of Max
Weber, analyzing the process of national delimitation policy of the Soviet
Union. Bolshevik defined the USSR as a step before the communist society and
needed to create the condition of modern capitalist society so that communist
revolution would occur. Therefore the Soviet Communist Party directed to
fostering “national identity and national culture” of every groups on the basis
of the right of self-determination. However, this policy caused the differences of political and economic
structure among each Soviet Republics and enlarged them. Namely, it did not
cause the unification of proletariat and situation suitable for communist
revolution, but caused the disintegration of the USSR and the different process
of development of each Republic after that. In conclusion, it can be said that the
Soviet national delimitation policy departed from Marxist theory, but followed and
ended in practice as Max Weber emphasized
Key Words: The
Soviet Union, National Delimitation Policy, Korenizatsiya, Marx, Revolution, Communism,
Weber, Social Action, Differences between Each Soviet Republics,
Disintegration.
Introduction
Today, the
reasons of disintegration of the Soviet Union and the social, economic and
political developments in post-Soviet area are very often discussed all over
the world and this agenda brought critical discussion also to the area of
sociological theories. In the process of this discussion, the Soviet Union’s
national delimitation policy is one of the important topics as well as economic
policy. In fact, as a result of national delimitation policy, many non-Russian
people obtained national identity and developed national culture. But this
policy brought about ethnic conflicts in many areas of the Soviet Union and led
the USSR to chaos. Therefore, the analysis of the reason why national
delimitation policy was applied how this policy lead the USSR to collapse is
worth researching.
In
this paper, we focus on national delimitation policy of the Soviet Union in the
process of analyzing why the USSR was disintegrated and why the states in the
post-Soviet area followed different process of development after this
disintegration, comparing Weber’s theory with Marx’s.
To begin with, I
explain briefly what the Soviet Union’s national delimitation policy is and why
Lenin and Bolshevik realized this policy for non-Russian population, connecting
with social, economic and political situation at that time.
At the second,
Marx’s elaboration about identity and culture will be explained and what
meaning the national delimitation policy of the Soviet Union has according to
Marxist theory is discussed. In this chapter, the concepts of “class struggle”
and “production system” are very important and national delimitation policy is
also discussed over these concepts.
At the third,
Weber’s theory about the relations between social action and superstructure
will be referred and How Weber elaborates the USSR’s national delimitation
policy. In this chapter I give criticism to Marx’s elaboration about this
policy, focusing on the conceptions “social act”.
Finally, I give summaries of each chapter and
emphasize that national delimitation policy did not create appropriate
situation for revolution and communism and that it lead the Soviet Union to disintegration
and different development of states in post-Soviet area, combining the result
of these chapters with each other.
What is National Delimitation Policy?: Definition and Reason
During
the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin and Bolshevik defined Tsarist Russia as
“the Prison of Nations” and declared the right of national self-determination.
In Tsarist Russia, Russian area was regarded as “civilized” area while
non-Russian regions are defined as “backwards.”
According to Bolshevik, all nation
have right to manage their lives autonomously. They have the right whether they
remain in the other state inside federal structure or exist as a completely
independent state. That is, all nations can be exist as an independent state
and each nation is regarded equal existence, although there are large
differences and gaps in power, population, area and speed of development.[1]
Inside the territory of Russian empire, some nation, especially Russian society
had modern-capitalist structure and national identity, non-Russian groups’
economic structure was that in ancient ages or middle ages. The identity of non-Russian nations were mainly based on tribe, clan,
localism and kinships. The members of Bolshevik such as Lenin, Trotsky and
Stalin thought that the reason of this situation and gap was derived from
oppression and exploitation by Russian Empire.[2] They defined Russians as "oppressor nations" and non-Russian
nations as “oppressed nations”. However, Bolshevik wanted all nations to be
equal even if certain nations are "backward because all nations have same
rights as an independent nations according to Bolshevik’s thought.[3]
So Bolshevik insisted that all
“oppressed” non-Russian nations should be liberated from “oppressor” Russians’ exploitation
and dominance and that they should have national identity and nation-state.
This is the basis of the right of national self-determination and national
delimitation of the Soviet Union.
After Tsarist regime was broke down,
the civil war continued inside the Soviet Union and Bolshevik had to deal with
this issue. Bolshevik was forced to suppress not only White Army lead by
Denikin and Kolchak, Menshevik and the intervention forces but also non-Russian
peoples’ national movements such as Basmachi movement in Central Asia and
socialist movements in Transcaucasia. In order to suppress them, it was not
enough to fight against them with military powers.[4]
At the same time Bolshevik needed supports of non-Russian people and had to
convince them to take part in the revolution in order to win the Russian civil
war. Bolshevik emphasized the right of national self-determination, the
liberation from the “peoples’ prison” and the chains of “Russian exploitation”.[5]
The reason why Bolshevik applied national delimitation policy is mainly derived
from the Russian civil war and necessity of supports from non-Russian peoples.
After the revolution ended, many of non-Russian peoples decided to join the
Soviet Union voluntarily.
After the Soviet Union was established, Bolshevik
focused on fostering industrial workers in non-Russian regions.[6]
They made efforts also to form non-Russian titular political elites[7]
and made use of them as “the bridge between Moscow and local population and the
soviet organs on the Republic and Raion levels are nationalized. These are
called korenizatsiya and this policy was applied so as to ensure the legitimacy
of Soviet regime and integrate non-Russian population into the Soviet system.
As for languages, Soviet regime made
efforts to develop the languages of non-Russian peoples in all areas such as
education, publishing and literatures.[8]
New alphabet was determined for languages which had not originally had original
letters. The languages originally written in Arabic letter, such as Uzbek,
Azeri, Tajik and Uyghur began to be written in Cyrillic letters (in the
beginning, languages such as Turkmen, Tatar and Azeri were written in Latin
alphabet).[9]
In
this way, national delimitation policy and korenizatsiya advanced and Soviet
Union had rare political structure of ethno-federalism, in which republics and
their borders under central government were determined according to ethnic
groups while Soviet Union itself was not defined as nation-state.[10]
National Delimitation Policy and Marxist Theory
The Condition for Realization of Communism and Class Struggle
Marx emphasized in “German Ideology” that
understanding superstructure such as history, religion culture, identity and
politics is based on economic structure, types of production[11]and
that the changes of means of production determined the ways of ownership and
economic actions.[12]The
development of society depends on material condition which the society has or the development of productive power and the
change of productive power is independent from the intension of each person.[13]For these reasons, the relations of production are the most important
social relationship for society.
When the type of production and the power of production developed at
a certain level, contradictions between productive power and traditional
relations of production arise and the power generated by this contradiction
changes the relations of production.[14]
In Marx and Engel’s opinion, this is the power which generates class struggles
and stimulates history. When this contradiction reaches at the highest level
and existing relations of production comes to prevent productive power from
growing, a revolution happens and superstructure transforms.[15]
In fact, according to Marxist theory, history
continues to develop through class struggle and transformation of mode of
productions. Marx says that there are 5 historical steps of development of the
relations of production: Primitive times, Ancient ages, middle ages and modern
era. Ancient Ages are specified as the struggle between slaves and freemen, middle
ages are specified as the struggle between feudal and peasants and modern ages
are specified as the struggle between bourgeois and proletarians. Identity also
develops from kinship to religious and local identity such as “mahalle” and
from religious and local identity to national identity. Marx emphasized that communist society and
revolution could be realized from the modern capitalist system, where struggle
between bourgeois and proletarians exists.[16]
When I explain the separation
between economic power and political power, the economic power was the same as
the politic power in Primitive times, because people sustained life through
handing and collecting together and people who obtained the most things was
regarded as the post politically powerful. In middle ages, the political power
of kings and aristocracy depended on the economic power of villages where peasants
lived. Peasants were strongly tied with their lands and were dominated by
economic and political power, which was not fully divided. So peasants were not
free.[17]
In modern era, economic power and political power were completely divided and
came to have limited relations through government and state.
In the modern capitalist era,
peasants in rural area became proletariat, deprived from lands.[18]
Capitalism is a type of economy which products market or meta, in which there
are only ties of paying cash or pure benefit among people.[19]
Here proletariat also becomes meta and sells themselves.[20]
In capitalist system proletariat-bourgeoisie relations are unstable while
peasant-feudal relations are stable in middle ages. Marx explains that the
development of capitalism and competition among labors develop the union of
revolutionary derived from collective labor.[21]
In this way, contradiction of capitalist grows and this leads society to
socialist / communist revolution.[22]At
the same time, he said that the development of capitalism increased the demand
of more labors and that the development of traffic networks united proletariat
and directed them to collective works.
In socialist revolution, old
relations of production are removed as a result of these movements of labors.
In the process of revolution, the first target of struggle between proletariat
and bourgeoisie has to be the struggle against the bourgeoisie in the country
of certain proletariat and have to be national struggle at first.[23]From this step, many kinds of national
revolution are strengthened and grow to universal revolution, united with each
other.[24]
In this way, superstructure dominant in capitalist system like nation-state
system is removed and the new relations of production will be formed.
According to Marx, the most
important feature of communist world after capitalist system is the abolishment
of property which belongs to bourgeois class.[25]
Because in communist world there are no class distinctions and all production
is owned by united whole nation, the political and public power used in order
to oppress proletariat will lose characters and become meaningless.[26]
When we evaluate nationalism
and national delimitation policy, Marx emphasized that nationalism and national
identity grew in the process of transformation from feudalism to capitalism
through the change of relations of production. Richard Terrell described the
relation between national identity / nationalism and Marxist theory like this:[27]
“Nationalism assists the
destruction of the feudal system and helps usher in and strengthen the
capitalist phase of societal development. Up to this point, nationalism is a
progressive force because it assists what Marx considered an inevitable
progression of societal evolution.”
Because of the appearance of bourgeois class and transformation from manufacture
to large-scale production in factories, the contradiction between capitalist
economic system and traditional politic feudalism became larger and larger. As
a result of revolution, political system transformed feudalism to the system
which is more appropriate to modern capitalist economy. This new superstructure
is nation-state system, national identity and nationalism. This superstructure
contributed to the development of capitalist system.
But as for the latter
situation of capitalist system, he explained like this:[28]
“During the latter stages of
capitalism, however, nationalism becomes a device of the bourgeoisie used to
divide workers along national lines and to prevent them from realizing their
unity as an economic class.”
In other words, after the
capitalist system grew at the highest level, superstructure such as national
identity and nation-state system was used in order to oppress and exploit
proletariat and prevent labors from unifying.
And Marx emphasizes that as a new economic structure and mode of production
develops, the contradiction between existing nation-state system and new
relations of production gets larger and larger. Here the proletariat class
begins to struggle against bourgeoisie. In this process national identity and
national borders become meaningless because of the unification of proletariat
and disappearance of class.[29]
As a result, revolution for communist society without class happens and
international proletarian unity becomes dominant without nation-state system.
That is to say, nation-state system, national identity and nationalism were
automatically generated and developed by the change of economic system and
struggle between feudal and peasants, and were not determined by the power of
state. However, these new structures also become the reason of proletariat’s
struggle against bourgeoisie and will be removed in the process of communist
revolution and unity of proletariat. Therefore, “national delimitation policy”
applied by the Soviet Union does not originally exist in Marx’s theory[30] and the nationality policy was not discussed among Marxists.
National Delimitation Policy According to Marxists
While Marx and Engels expected that communist revolution
should be realized in Western Europe, in which modern capitalist system
developed at high level, communist / socialist revolution occurred in Russia,
where industrial revolution and the development of modern capitalism began
later than Western Europe. Developed capitalist economy and proletariat class
had existed only in cities such as Moscow, Petersburg and Baku and class
struggles between bourgeoisie and proletariat had grown in those cities before Bolshevik
revolution.[31]
On the other hand, inside
most of Russian territory many people were peasants and the economic and
political system was based on feudalism. Especially in Central Asia and
Siberia, the lives of people were based on the mode of production in primitive
times or middle ages. Turkmens, Kazakhs and Kyrgyzs lived a nomadic life. The
life of people in Siberia was based on hunting and collecting. Therefore
large-scale industry in factories which is the most important feature of
capitalist economic system had not existed and neither had the consciousness of
proletariat. The life of sedentary population in Central Asia was also based on
feudal system, agriculture and manufacture. Of course, nation-state system and
national identity were not dominant in these regions and their identity was
based on tribe, clan, kinships or localism rather than ethnicity. So among most
of population in Russian Empire capitalist system had not settled and “national
identity” in Marxist terms had not existed.[32]
The Soviet Union defined itself
as “the step before realizing of communist society” and had to create the
situation in which communist revolution can be realized. That is to say, in
order to develop proletariat class inside all over the Soviet Union, the development
of national identity and nationalism among the Soviet population was necessary.
The goal of national delimitation policy of the Soviet Union was based on the
assumption that people would be unified in Communist world society.[33]It is estimated here that the development of proletariat class and
national identity causes the class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie
and the change of the relation of production and that communist world without
class will realized through these trends. Thus, Lenin declared the right of
national self-determination and applied national delimitation policy. At the
same time, he attributed this situation to “Russian exploitation” and
emphasized the unification of “oppressed people” against Russian.[34]
The
national delimitation policy and korenizatsiya were strongly related with
fostering of proletariat class. About this topic, Slezkine discusses like this:[35]
“They needed native languages,
native subjects and native teachers ("even for a single Georgian
child") in order to “polemicize with 'their own' bourgeoisie, to spread
anticlerical and anti- bourgeois ideas among 'their own' peasantry and
burghers” and to banish the virus of nationalism from their proletarian disciples
and their own minds.’ This was a missionary project analogous to the so- called
“Ilminskii system” formulated in the Kazan of Lenin’s youth.’ “Only the mother tongue,” claimed Ilminskii, can
truly, rather than only superficially, set the people on the path of
Christianity.” 18 Only the mother tongue, wrote Stalin in 1913, can make
possible “a full development of the intellectual faculties of the Tatar or of
the Jewish worker.”
In
other words, Bolshevik says that the consciousness of proletariat can grow
through native languages, cultures and nationalism against bourgeois among
non-Russian peoples. Besides, Bolshevik emphasized that the mission of
communist party is to make non-Russian peoples catch up with the economic,
cultural and political level of Russians, especially the part of cities.[36] In fact, Bolshevik thought that
homogenization of economic structure of the Soviet Union would make it easy to
the society near the communist world through national delimitation and
korenizatsiya. Up to this point, the Soviet Union fostered local proletariat
and local political elites as well as determined national identity and borders
for non-Russian population and developed their languages. When we discuss the
national delimitation policy and korenizatsiya, these policies are based on the
expectation that the development of national identity and proletariat class
cause the class struggle and the transformation of the mode of production.
The Criticism of Weberian Theory to Marx
The Evaluation of Social Development by Max Weber
When we evaluate nationalism and national identity according to Max Weber’s
theory, the conception of “social action” is very important. Weber emphasizes
that it is important to analyze meaning loaded in human being’s social action.
Weber explains the concept social action like this:[37] Social action is related to the past, present or future behavior of the
other human being. Not every kind of action is regarded as social action. The
condition is that one’s behavior is related in this behavior’s meaning to the
other’s one. Besides, when only several people acts in the similar way together
or one acts under effect of the others’ action, this action is not social.
Social action is related with objective possibilities.
At the same time, He explains
the definition and elements of social action like this:[38]
“(1)Behavior
which is traditional in a strong sense lies, like purely reactive action […],
directly on, and often beyond, the boundary making out the area of what can in
general be called ‘meaningful’ action. […] (2) Behavior which is strongly
affective lies likewise on, and often beyond, the boundary marking out the area
of consciously ‘meaningful’ behavior: it may be simply be a spontaneous
response to an unusual stimulus. […] (3) The difference between affectively
determined action and action which is intended to realize an absolute value is
that, in the latter type, the agent consciously decides on the ultimate goal of
his action and in consequence systematically organized his action to achieve
his goal.[…] the meaning of the action does not lie in
the consequences which result from it but is inherent in the specific nature of
the action itself. […]”
In other words, Weber says that superstructure such as religion, culture
and identity as ‘meaning ’has an important effect on and determines human
beings’ social action. Up to this point, the worldwide communist revolution to
which Marx and Engels refer never occurs and the type of development of
politics and economy is different by nations and states.
Max Weber discussed this trend
in detail in “The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism”, referring to the example
of the economic development in Western Europe. According to him, modern capitalist economy seen like universal system
in the world today was not historically universal and was unique structure in
certain cultural area. Weber thought that there
were relationship between the spirits of capitalism (the ethos which supports
economic movements) and Puritanism. Here is its summary and the process of
development of capitalism:[39]
According to Calvinist
theory, God’s providence is prepared in advance and cannot be changed by human
being’s efforts, intention and whether one did beneficence or not. No one can know this providence in advance. Therefore the world has to be accepted as it was
and the providential purpose of the division of labor is to be known by its
fruits. This structure leads specialization of occupies and
the ethos of ascetic labor was created.
Therefore, people came to have the conviction that one
is able to go to heaven by contribution to society through coping with faith
and labor ascetically and by realizing “God’s glory” in this world. In Calvinism,
gaining money without labor has to be looked down on and is one of sins.
But at the same time, Puritanism allowed people to
gain money. Working ascetically
and gain profit as a result of work is defined as the result of realizing “love
of neighbors” by way of provision of economic and high-quality service or
things, as an evidence of labor’s being suitable for God’s providence and of
one’s being able to go to heaven. In this way, Calvinist asceticism created the
acceptance of gaining money and modern capitalism.
As a result, people began to pursue profit as “result
of labor”. The amount of profit is the evidence of realizing the love of neighbors
and of salvation. So people have to work diligently and
ascetically in order to gain more profit. People began to use watch and
control the labor of themselves with the term oh “hour”.
In this way, Protestantism and Puritanism brought
people the power of production and the way of more efficient production based
on scientifically rational spirit was introduced. At the same time, money
(capital) gained by means of ascetic labor was not spent, but was stocked and
reinvested in order to pursue profit. This process enabled people to raise
large-scale industry up. So the most important factor of the development of
capitalist system is Protestant spirit.
As we can understand from this book, modern capitalist
system which is universal today was not originally universal and was unique
structure in Protestantism and Puritanism. Superstructure such as culture and
identity determines economic action with important degree. Up to this point,
national identity and culture differentiate each nation’s economic and social
actions and never create the circumstance which is suitable for transformation
to communist society, change of mode of production and the unification of
proletariat, while Marx and Engels emphasized that capitalist system produced
national identity and nation-state system.
National Delimitation Policy According to Weberian Theory
When we evaluate national delimitation policy and korenizatsiya of the
Soviet Union according to Weber’s theory, these policy
differentiate each nation’s economic and social actions and do not contribute
to “unification of peoples” and final homogenization and transformation of
economic, political and cultural structure which Marx and Bolshevik expected.
On the contrary, each nation begins to behave apart and these policies may
cause not the basis for revolution, but the disintegration of framework as a
united state. In fact, Stalin was also anxious about this topic and chose a
restrictive course and criticized Lenin as the promoter of “national
liberalist”. He considered historical structure of nations that could not be
removed and determines the feature of nations.[40]
After Stalin became the first secretary of Soviet communist party, many ethnic
schools and institutes were closed, the Latin was replaced to Cyril as standard
letter of nations in the USSR and Russian became a compulsory language in all
non-Russian schools and lingua-franca.[41]
However, in the Soviet period, the influence of sub-national identity and
religion which should be swept out in the way to the development of capitalism
remained while the Soviet Union determined new national identity and culture
for non-Russian population and fostered local proletariat and elites. As a
result of this situation, the large differences of political and economic
structure began to appear in each Soviet Socialist republic.
As for the differences of political structure, the Europeanized universal
rational system was dominant in Baltic area and European Russia, because the
influence of Christianity, especially Protestantism, which Weber defined as the
condition of the development of capitalism, and modern capitalist economy were
dominant in Pre-Soviet era. Thus, particularly in Baltic countries
comparatively European rational system continued to settle solidly and people
had solid national identity in comparison with Central Asia and Siberia. About
the topic of economic structure, this region had advanced economic system and
military industry and Heavy and chemical industry grew in this area. Therefore
the economic level of this region was more advanced and higher than the other
regions of the USSR.
On the other hand, in Central
Asia, solid clan identity such as tribal identity and localism, which should be
removed in the process of development to capitalism, remained even after the
USSR was established. Because korenizatsiya and nationality policy were applied
under this situation, traditional domination system since pre-Soviet era, whose
stability is kept the balance, cooperation of power of
clans, continued even during the soviet era. For example, Khodjand (Leninabad)
clan had occupied the post of political elite by 1992 in Tajikistan[42]and political structure of Soviet Uzbekistan was formed over the balance
of power of clans from Tashkent, Samarkand and Fergana.[43]In this way, the political structure of Soviet Central Asia was very
different from that of Baltic region and Russia. As for economic structure, the
economy of Soviet Central Asia was mainly based on agriculture, which had been
dominant in pre-Soviet era, and industry related with it.[44]
Therefore high-technology industry and the level of life were lower than in
Baltic region and Russia.
When we analyze this situation, national delimitation
policy and korenizatsiya by the Soviet Union did not bring about the situation
which is suitable for the unification of proletariat and the revolution for
communist world. These policies brought about the differences of political and
economic structure among each Soviet republic and enlarged them. This trend became
the reason of corruption of the structure of the Soviet Union and finally,
Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991 and each Republic followed the different way
of development after independence.
Conclusion
The Soviet Union applied national delimitation policy and korenizatsiya
in order to obtain supports of non-Russian people for suppression of the
Russian civil war. In this process, Bolshevik emphasized the liberation of
Russian oppression and the right of national self-determination. After the
Soviet Union was established Bolshevik began to determine new national identity
and borders and foster local workers and elites.
According to Marxism, national
identity is formed in modern-capitalist economic system and contributed to
development of capitalism. But this identity will be removes in the process of
the unification of proletariat and struggle between bourgeois and proletariat.
However, the Soviet Union (former Russian empire) did not have developed capitalist
system and had to create the situation which revolution for communism and
communist world without class could be realized. Therefore Bolshevik determined
national identity and applied korenizatsiya.
On the other hand, Max Weber
emphasized that social action of human being is determined by meaning /
superstructure such as identity, culture and religion. Therefore, modern
capitalist system which is the prerequisite for communist revolution and class
struggle is originally specific in Protestant countries and is not universal.
Of course worldwide communist revolution and class struggle are impossible
according to Weber. When we criticize korenizatsiya and nationality policy,
these policies causes the differences of political and economic structure among
each Soviet Republics and enlarged them. As a result, these policies did not
caused the unification of proletariat, creation of “homo-sovietics” and
situation suitable for communist revolution, but caused the corruption and
disintegration of the USSR and the different process of development of each
Republic after that.
Finally,
when we compare with Marx’s theory and Weber’s theory about national
delimitation policy and korenizatsiya, it can be said that these policies
departed from Marxist theory, but followed and ended in practice as Max Weber
emphasized.
[1]
Joseph Stalin, J. Marksizm ve Ulusal Sorun [Marxism and National Question], Trans.by Muzaffer Ardos, Ankara, 1976, 65-66.
[2]Yuri Slezkine, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist
State Promoted Ethnic Particularism”, Slavic Review, Vol. 53,
No. 2, 1994, 416.
[3]Ibid., 416-417.
[4]Gerhard
Simon, Nationalism and Policy toward the Nationalities in the Soviet Union:
From Totalitarian Dictatorship to Post-Stalinist Society, Trans. by. Keren Foster
and Oswald Foster, Boulder, 1991, 21. Besides in order to research the
process of national delimination in each area, cf. Edward.
H. Carr, Bolshevik Devrimi [Bolshevik Revolution], Vol. 1, Trans. by Orhan
Suda, Istanbul, 1989, 264-332.
[5]Ibid., 20.
[6]Ibid., 25-27.
[7]Cf. Ibid., 30-42.
[8]Ibid., 45-46.
[9]Ibid., 42-45.
[10]Rogers Brubaker, “Nationhood and the National Question in the Soviet Union and
Post-Soviet Eurasia: An Institutional Account”, Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No.
1, 1994, 54-57.
[11]Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels, Alman İdeolojisi [German Ideology], Trans. by Sevim Belli, Ankara, 1976, 68.
[12]Ibid., 80-94.
[13]Marx and Engels, “Wage Labour and Capital”, R.C. Tucker (Eds.), The Marx-Engels Reader, New York, 1978, 207-208.
[14]Marx and Engels, Alman İdeolojisi, 95.
[15]Ibid., 65-66.
[16]Cf. Marx and Engels, “Komünist Parti Manifestosu”, Trans. by Nail Satılgan, Komünist
Manifesto ve Hakkında Yazılar [Communist Manifesto and Articles about it],
Istanbul, 2010,
22-24.
[17]Ibid., 40-44.
[18]Marx and Engels, Kapital 1.
Cilt [Capital Vol. 1], Trans. by Nail Satlıgan and Mehmet Selik, Istanbul,
2013, 689-703.
[19]Paul Sweezy,
“Manifesto’nun Tarihsel Önemi” [The Historical Importance of Manifesto], Trans. by Olcay
Göçmen, Komünist Manifesto ve Hakkında Yazılar [Communist Manifesto and
Articles about it], Istanbul, 2010, 121.
[20]Ibid., 121.
[21]Ibid., 123.
[22]
Ibid., 122-123.
[23]Ibid., 124.
[24]Ibid., 124.
[25]Marx and Engels, “Komünist Parti Manifestosu”, 33.
[26]Ibid., 40-41.
[27]Richard Terrell, “Soviet Nationality Policy and National Identity in the Transcaucasian Republics: Drawing Together or Tearing Apart?”, Air Force Institute of Technology MA Paper, Ohio, 1993, 4.
[28]Ibid., 4.
[29]Ibid., 4-5.
[30]Masaru
Sato, Yomigaeru Kaibutsu: Watashino Marx Roshia-hen [Monster that Revives: I
and Marx in Russia], Tokyo,
2009, 340.
[31]Gerhard, op. cit., 25.
[32]Slezkine, op. cit., 417.
[33]Gerhard, op.cit., 22.
[34]Slezkine, op. cit., 416.
[35]Ibid., 418.
[36]Ibid., 423.
[37]Max Weber, Toplumsal ve Ekonomic Örgütlenme Kuramı [The Theory of
Social and Economic Organization], Trans.
by Özer Ozankaya, Istanbul, 2009, 42-45.
[38]Ibid., 46-50.
[39]Weber,
Protestan Ahlakı ve Kapitalizmin Ruhu [The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism], Trans. by Milay Köktürk, Ankara,
2011, 142-166.
[40]Gerhart, op. cit., 22.
[41]Slezkine, op. cit., 443; 445.
[42]Kathleen Collins, Clan Politics and Regime Transition in Central Asia, Cambridge, 2006, 110.
[43]Ibid., 109.
[44]Cf. Michael Rywkin, Moscow’s Muslim Challenge, New York, 1990, 44-57.
Bibliography
Brubaker, R. “Nationhood and the National Question in the Soviet Union
and Post-Soviet Eurasia: An Institutional Account”, Theory and Society, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994, pp. 47-78.
Carr, Edward. H. Bolshevik Devrimi [Bolshevik
Revolution], Trans. by Orhan Suda, Istanbul: Metis Yayınları, 1989.
Collins, K. Clan Politics and Regime Transition in Central Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. Alman
İdeolojisi [German Ideology], Trans. by Sevim Belli, Ankara, Ankara: Sol Yayınları, 1976.
_______. Kapital 1. Cilt
[Capital Vol. 1], Trans. by Nail Satlıgan and Mehmet Selik, Istanbul: Yordam
Kitap, 2013.
_______.“Komünist Parti Manifestosu”, Trans. by Nail Satılgan, Komünist
Manifesto ve Hakkında Yazılar [Communist Manifesto and Articles about it], Istanbul: Yordam Kitap, 2010, pp.
19-51.
_______. “Wage Labour and
Capital”, R.C. Tucker (Eds.), The Marx-Engels
Reader, New York, Norton &
Company, 1978: pp. 203-217.
Rywkin,
Michael, Moskow’s Muslim Challenge, New
York: M. E. Sharpe, 1990.
Sato, M. Yomigaeru Kaibutsu: Watashino Marx Roshia-hen
[Monster that Revives: I and Marx in Russia], Tokyo:
Bungei-shunjuu, 2009.
Simon, G. Nationalism
and Policy toward the Nationalities in the Soviet Union: From Totalitarian
Dictatorship to Post-Stalinist Society, Trans.
by Keren Foster and Oswald Foster, Boulder: Westview Press, 1991.
Slezkine, Y. “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How
a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism”, Slavic Review, Vol. 53, No.
2, 1994, pp. 414-452.
Stalin, J. Marksizm ve Ulusal Sorun [Marxism and National Question], Trans. by Muzaffer Ardos, Ankara: Sol
Yayınları, 1976.
Sweezy, P. “Manifesto’nun Tarihsel Önemi” [The
Historical Importance of Manifesto], Trans. by Olcay Göçmen, Komünist Manifesto
ve Hakkında Yazılar [Communist Manifesto and Articles about it], Istanbul:
Yordam Kitap, 2010: pp.117-135.
Terrell, R. “Soviet Nationality
Policy and National Identity in the Transcaucasian Republics: Drawing Together
or Tearing Apart?”, Air Force Institute of Technology MA Paper, Ohio, 1993.
Weber, M, Protestan Ahlakı ve Kapitalizmin Ruhu [The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit
of Capitalism], Trans. by Milay
Köktürk, Ankara: Bilgesu Yayıncılık,
2011.
________, Toplumsal ve Ekonomic Örgütlenme Kuramı [The Theory of Social and Economic
Organization], Trans. by Özer
Ozankaya, İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi, 2009.
*Keisuke Wakizaka - Ph.D. Student, Area Studies, Middle East Technical University. e-mail: kafkaslikeisuke85@gmail.com
© 2010, IJORS - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES