a term which arose in connection with the work of a commission created by a decision of the Central Committee of the RCP (Bolshevik) in August 1922 to work out a proposal for uniting the independent Soviet republics—including the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Trans-caucasian SFSR, and Byelorussian SSR—into a single state. J. V. Stalin (chairman, People’s Commissariat of Nationalities), G. I. Petrovskii, A. F. Miasnikov, S. M. Kirov, G. K. Ordzhonikidze, V. M. Molotov, A. G. Cher-viakov, and others took part in the commission’s work. The plan for autonomization, which was presented by Stalin and accepted by the commission, proposed that the RSFSR be declared a state which would include the Ukrainian SSR, Transcaucasian SFSR, and Byelorussian SSR with the rights of autonomous republics. Accordingly, the organs of supreme power and administration would be the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Council of People’s Commissars, and the Council of Labor and Defense of the RSFSR.

The interrelations which had formed by that time among the independent republics were established on the basis of equitable treaties concerning military, political, and economic alliances. The tasks of strengthening defense, restoring and further developing the national economy on the path to socialism, and promoting the political, economic, and cultural development of all nationalities required closer unity among Soviet republics in a single multinational state. The principal problem of the Communist Party Central Committee commission concerned the political form of the multinational Soviet socialist state. Plan A was discussed by the plenums of the central committees of each of the republic communist parties and was not supported by a majority of them. Nevertheless, the commissions, at the meetings of Sept. 23 and 24, 1922, approved Stalin’s theses on the autonomization plan. This decision was a mistake. The theses of the plan took into account the need for strict unity and centralization of the efforts of the Soviet republics; but in so doing, it violated the sovereign rights of the republics. It was, in essence, a step backward in comparison with the forms of national-state construction already in existence.

V. I. Lenin, who at that time was ill, acquainted himself with the materials of the commission and discussed them with a number of comrades. On Sept. 26, 1922, he sent a letter to members of the Politburo of the Central Committee in which he presented a fundamental critique of the plan and proposed and supported the idea of forming a united state based on full equality of all independent Soviet republics. He wrote: “We recognize ourselves as having equal rights with the Ukrainian SSR and other republics, and together, on an equal basis, we will enter into a new union, a new federation” (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 45, p. 211). Lenin stressed that the independence of the republics must not be impaired, but “a new stage, a federation of equal republics” must be created (ibid., p. 212). On Oct. 6, 1922, Lenin sent a memo to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Party in which he categorically insisted on the equal representation of all union republics in the leadership of the all-federal Central Executive Committee (see ibid., p. 214). On the basis of Lenin’s plan for the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the commission prepared a draft that was reported by Stalin to the Plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP (Bolshevik) and approved by it on Oct. 6, 1922.

Lenin returned to his critique of the autonomization plan in one of his last letters, “On the Question of Nationalities, or On ‘Autonomization.’ “ Lenin wrote that “this entire venture of ‘autonomization’ was fundamentally wrong and untimely” (ibid., p. 356) and that it could bring only harm, distorting the ideas of unification of Soviet republics in the spirit of great power chauvinism. The draft violated the principle of the self-determination of nations, giving the independent republics only a right of autonomous existence within the RSFSR. Lenin spoke against excessive centralization in matters of unification and demanded maximum at-tentiveness and caution in resolving matters of national policy.

Unification of republics should be carried out in a way that would truly guarantee equal rights for nations and strengthen the sovereignty of each union republic. “It is necessary to preserve and strengthen the union of socialist republics,” wrote Lenin. “About this measure there can be no doubt. We need it, as does the world Communist proletariat, for the struggle with the world bourgeoisie and for defense against its intrigues” (ibid., p. 360). Lenin’s letter was made public at a meeting of leaders of delegations of the Twelfth Congress of the RCP (Bolshevik) in April 1923, and his directions became the basis for the resolution of the congress, “On the Nationality Question.”

The creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, completed by the first All-Union Congress of Soviets on Dec. 30, 1922, was a triumph of Lenin’s ideas of proletarian internationalism, fraternal friendship, and unity of equal and sovereign people.


Lenin, V. I. “Ob obrazovanii SSSR.” Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 45.
Lenin, V. I. “K voprosu o natsional’nostiakh ili ob ‘avtonomizatsii.’” Ibid.
Istoriia natsional’no-gosudarstvennogo stroitel’stva v SSSR. Moscow, 1968. Pages 355–369.


References in periodicals archive ?
This autonomization of dignity in relation to public morals is not without dangers, because it may lead to the ruling of a new moral order which is not dependent of the public opinion.
A system that will address the many inequalities of the current system, which unfortunately have been revealed due to the financial crisis", he said, adding they discussed the issue of autonomization, reform and restructuring of hospitals, giving them the financial, legal and scientific autonomy to provide better medical services to the people of Cyprus.
associations and other groups for capacity building and autonomization of communities around key actions .
In his book on the history of the privatization of reading, Matthias Bickenbach reminds us that prior to the autonomization of literature (i.
In this context of autonomization, responsibilization and professionalization, the community sector's logics of emancipation increasingly turns to conformity and conventional service delivery (Germain and Boudreau, 2010; Ilcan and Basok, 2004; White, 1997), especially in a climate of competition for limited governmental funding.
He forwarded the proposition that "the leading actors in sub-Saharan societies have tended to compensate for their difficulties in the autonomization of their power and in intensifying the exploitation of their dependents by deliberate recourse to the strategies of extraversion, mobilizing resources derived from their (possibly unequal) relationship with the external environment" whereby the external environment "turned into a major resource in the process of political centralization and economic accumulation" as well as the conduct of social struggles of subaltern actors.
Support was given in the mid-1990s to the initiative by the minister of state for Greater Montreal, Serge Menard, for the creation of a Commission de developpement de la metropole, which was to fight for the political autonomization of the city-region, as well as for an opening towards the direct participation of civil society in the production of new metropolitan public policies.
Indeed, the logic of hegemony clashes with the current phenomena of fragmentation and autonomization - think of Pakistan, for example, or Italy - which create imbalances and asymmetries that are not always favorable to the powerful.
In April 2008, as part of SNPTC's overall strategic plan to meet the needs of nuclear power autonomization and enable the building of a complete platform for the professional development of nuclear power, SDEPCI was restructured and integrated with other resources to establish SNPDRI, a subsidiary of SNPTC.
The tendency toward political autonomization of intelligence structures has as a catalyst "the non-democratic ontological characteristic of intelligence", as Alessandro Pizzorno describes the manifestations of "Cesar's power nucleus": "and in a pluralist regime there is a decisional sphere where the imperial systems equilibriums are being decided".
As Rose (2000) might suggest, this kind of activity involves "the double movement of autonomization and responsibilization" (p.
As Jameson suggests, Chandler's "self-cannibalizing" reliance upon episodic reiteration, from iris early pulp stories to the novels, "participates in the logic of modernism generally, which tends towards the autonomization of ever smaller segments" (33-34).