This is just “zelensky is jewish so he could never facilitate nazism” type argumentation, this was addressed during the debates at the time as they were specifically centered around the invasion of Georgia
“I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of “nationalist-socialism” (whereas he himself is a real and true “nationalist-socialist”, and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; “offended” nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than under-do the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation.”
Stalin’s (and coincidentally Rosa Luxemburg’s) critique of this position was that it would strengthen nationalisms of national minorities and their nationalisms would be just as hostile to socialism as Russian nationalism. In fact, this difference of positions was driven by differing experiences - Lenin worked in predominantly Russian groups and mostly fought against Russian nationalism, while Stalin worked in Caucasian branch and fought local nationalisms there.
Actual Soviet policies were a compomise between positions of Lenin and Stalin, with great linguistic and political autonomy for national republics, but with military, educational and most economic questions being decided by central authorities,
TBH, accusing a Georgian of “Russian chauvinism” is galaxy brain.
This is just “zelensky is jewish so he could never facilitate nazism” type argumentation, this was addressed during the debates at the time as they were specifically centered around the invasion of Georgia
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/dec/testamnt/autonomy.htm
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/g/e.htm#georgian-incident
“I think it is unnecessary to explain this to Bolsheviks, to Communists, in greater detail. And I think that in the present instance, as far as the Georgian nation is concerned, we have a typical case in which a genuinely proletarian attitude makes profound caution, thoughtfulness and a readiness to compromise a matter of necessity for us. The Georgian [Stalin] who is neglectful of this aspect of the question, or who carelessly flings about accusations of “nationalist-socialism” (whereas he himself is a real and true “nationalist-socialist”, and even a vulgar Great-Russian bully), violates, in substance, the interests of proletarian class solidarity, for nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; “offended” nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality, if only through negligence or jest- to the violation of that equality by their proletarian comrades. That is why in this case it is better to over-do rather than under-do the concessions and leniency towards the national minorities. That is why, in this case, the fundamental interest of proletarian class struggle, requires that we never adopt a formal attitude to the national question, but always take into account the specific attitude of the proletarian of the oppressed (or small) nation towards the oppressor (or great) nation.”
Stalin’s (and coincidentally Rosa Luxemburg’s) critique of this position was that it would strengthen nationalisms of national minorities and their nationalisms would be just as hostile to socialism as Russian nationalism. In fact, this difference of positions was driven by differing experiences - Lenin worked in predominantly Russian groups and mostly fought against Russian nationalism, while Stalin worked in Caucasian branch and fought local nationalisms there.
Actual Soviet policies were a compomise between positions of Lenin and Stalin, with great linguistic and political autonomy for national republics, but with military, educational and most economic questions being decided by central authorities,
Agreed, nevertheless, dismissing it as “lmao Georgian” is 1-dimensional
About as much as calling Stalin “Russian chauvinist”, TBH.