"The Affirmative Action
Empire" is a book about the early Soviet Union, dealing with Communist
policy towards the non-Russian ethnic groups. The author, Terry Martin, is a
history professor at Harvard University.
During the Civil War, the mostly Russian Bolsheviks had a tendency towards
narrow "internationalism" and anti-nationalism, which often led to
conflicts with non-Russian nationalities (despite Lenin's insistence on the
right of oppressed nations to self-determination). In the Ukraine, this was
known as "the grim lessons of 1919", when the mostly non-Russian
peasants supported the anti-Bolshevik forces against the Red Army. On Lenin's
and Stalin's insistence, the Bolsheviks decisively changed course after the
Civil War, officially proclaiming the policy of "korenizatsiia"
(indigenization) at the Bolshevik party congress of 1923. Over the next ten
years, this led to the creation of a virtual "affirmative action empire"
(Terry Martin's own term), during which the Bolsheviks systematically attempted
to promote non-Russians to leading posts in the non-Russian regions, and
support non-Russian national culture in general. The Soviet Union, rather than
India, invented affirmative action.
Indigenization proved to be both surprisingly radical and obviously
contradictory. The Bolsheviks rejected both involuntary and voluntary
assimilation of non-Russian nations into the dominant Russian nation. Every
non-Russian nationality, no matter how small or insignificant, was to have its
own national soviets, its own primary schools, and (if possible) its own
autonomous regions or republics. Non-Russian nationalities deemed
"backward" were also entitled to federal funding from Moscow. The thoroughness
of korenizatziia was rather impressive, as when the only Swedish village in the
Soviet Union, Gammalsvenskby in the Ukraine, got its own national soviet, or
when Norwegians and Saami at the Kola Peninsula got their own kolkhozes! In
many Soviet republics, non-Bolshevik nationalists (including recently returned
émigrés) were promoted to high-ranking positions in institutions dealing with
science or culture. In the Ukraine, indigenization was particularly radical,
being heavily promoted by Communist leader Mykola Skrypnyk. Attempts were made
to de-Russify assimilated Ukrainian workers, force the largely Russian
bureaucracy to learn Ukrainian, and give the Ukrainian soviet republic
influence over Ukrainian regions in the RSFSR (the Russian soviet republic). Even
largely non-Ukrainian cities, such as Odessa, were expected to Ukrainize, for
instance by replacing Russian road signs with Ukrainian ones. (Not a trivial
issue in a region were national feelings were very strong on both sides.)
Indigenization was also used as part of Soviet foreign policy. Thus,
Ukrainization was used to mobilize support for the Bolshevik revolution among
the Ukrainian population abroad, most notably in Poland, an enemy nation the
Soviet Union wanted to destabilize. The indigenization of Byelorussia was used
for similar purposes.
At the same time, indigenization was highly contradictory. The Bolsheviks, of
course, were *opposed* to nationalism. Indigenization was viewed by most
Bolshevik cadre as a clever tactic to undermine support for local nationalists
(who had often fought the Bolsheviks in the Civil War). Stalin said that the
culture of the non-Russian ethnic groups should be "national in form,
socialist in content". This created a tension within the indigenization
policy, since supporters of national culture wanted more than mere
"form". In Central Asia, the indigenous peoples demanded the literal
expulsion of all Russians from their republics, seeing them as arrogant
settlers. In many areas, there were also clashes between different non-Russian
groups. Nationalists and pro-nationalist Communists (such as Sultan-Galiev in
Tatarstan or the Borotbists in the Ukraine) attempted to use indigenization to
further *their* respective agendas. By contrast, Russians, including many
members and supporters of the Communist Party, were generally opposed to
indigenization. The policy was sometimes unpopular even among non-Russians, who
wanted their children to learn the Russian language and hence resented
compulsory non-Russian schools. Local branches of all-Union ministries and
companies also resented using the local language rather than Russian, while the
Red Army was exempted from the policy and allowed to use Russian exclusively.
The ten-year long history of korenizatsiia is therefore a story of false
starts, temporary retreats and various inconsistencies overall.
Korenizatsiia was officially abandoned in 1933, when Stalin decided that
promotion of the dominant Russian nationality and its traditional culture would
give the Soviet Union more political stability than the indigenization of 100+
quasi-autonomous regions. In the Ukraine, Ukrainization was cancelled when the
Ukrainian Communists in Poland defected from the Communist International for
seemingly nationalist reasons, the nationalist intelligentsia and the
Borotbists became too vociferous, and the Ukrainian peasantry resisted forced
collectivization. The usual purges and show trials followed. Mykola Skrypnyk
committed suicide (Stalin called it "the Biblical fall of Skrypnyk").
National minorities such as Finns, Poles and Latvians were seen as potentially
disloyal, and were deported en masse in virtual acts of ethnic cleansing. In
Central Asia, by contrast, indigenization continued even during forced
collectivization and the First Five Year Plan, the reason being the
"cultural revolution" accompanying them. While the "cultural
revolution" was opposed to national culture, it was even more contrary to
traditional Russian culture, and therefore promoted non-Russians through affirmative
action. Around 1933, however, korenizatsiia came to a halt everywhere in the
Soviet Union. Wholesale terror on an ethnic basis became rule rather than
exception, the expulsions of the Chechens and the Crimean Tatars to Central
Asia being two notorious examples.
How honest was Communist indigenization? The author believes that it was honest
enough in the sense that the leaders of the Bolshevik party (including Stalin)
really wanted to implement the policy during its halcyon days. The author even
suggests that Stalin wasn't a Greater Russian chauvinist during the 1920's
(despite accusations from Lenin on that score) and that some of his early
proposals have been misunderstood by later Trotskyist polemicists! The problem
was that indigenization was seen as a "soft core" Communist policy,
while industrialization and collectivization were "hard core",
central and non-negotiable. In a conflict between policy objectives, the
"soft core" couldn't hold. Many Soviet citizens were arrested or even
executed for (non-Russian) nationalism, while nobody was treated that harshly
for Great Russian chauvinism (ostensibly the greater danger). But the main
reason why the policy failed was that it led to increased ethnic tension and
strife, including violence, and an opportunity for "counter-revolutionaries"
to use the "national forms" in order to promote an anti-Bolshevik
political perspective. By strengthening the "national forms", the
Bolsheviks also strengthened nationalism, while their theory suggested the opposite.
Since Soviet power had conceded the "national forms", the non-Russian
minorities were supposed to more readily accept the "socialist
content". They apparently didn't. During the crises of the 1930's, Stalin
and the Communist leadership therefore decided that promotion of the Russian
majority was the surest way to ensure the stability of the Soviet Union and (of
course) its bureaucratic class. Yet, even afterwards, the Soviet Union
nominally remained a multi-ethnic state based on "Friendship of the
Peoples", albeit with the Russian nationality as a kind of primus inter
pares. (Even Putin's Russia pretends to be multi-ethnic after a fashion, as
when Putin graciously granted national rights to the Crimean Tatars after the
Russian annexation of Crimea, when Chechens are made leaders in
Russian-occupied Chechnya, etc. Clearly, a "Soviet" trait!)
"The Affirmative Action Empire" is a sturdy scholarly tome, with the
usual excessive details and impossibly many reference notes, and thus not
really suitable for the general reader. However, it's already a landmark work
within Russian studies and should be consulted by everyone seriously interested
in Soviet history, Communist history and the survival of nationalism.