Letter to AA Joffe¶
Core Argument¶
In this letter of 13 September 1921 to Adolph Joffe, Lenin intervenes directly in the factional dispute between Mikhail Tomsky and Georgii Safarov in Turkestan, a conflict that prefigured the later struggle over the national question within the Bolshevik leadership. The core of Lenin’s argument is an emphatic warning against Great-Russian chauvinism, which he identifies as the principal danger in the periphery of the former empire. While the immediate context is the implementation of the New Economic Policy—specifically the introduction of tax in kind and the question of land distribution to poor peasants—Lenin elevates the dispute to a matter of world-historical importance. He insists that the Muslim poor peasants must be treated “with care and prudence” and that concessions are necessary to consolidate a line of wisdom, because the outcome in Turkestan will directly affect Bolshevik credibility “throughout the East,” including India.
Lenin’s key claim is that Tomsky’s line—which he suspects of being a cover for Great-Russian colonialist attitudes—threatens to undermine the entire project of winning native confidence. He explicitly links Tomsky’s position to “Peter’s line” and “Pravdin’s line,” both shorthand for tsarist-style chauvinism and the refusal to recognise national aspirations. Against this, Lenin demands facts: the attitude of natives toward Safarov, the composition and strength of the “Union of the Poor,” the impact of the conflict on cotton production, and the precise decisions of the Turkestan CEC regarding the Basmachi insurgency. He wants to know whether Safarov’s supporters can stand up to Tomsky, whom he describes as “subtle and firm and stubborn.”
The letter draws on the theoretical context of Lenin’s earlier writings on the national question, particularly the imperative to distinguish revolutionary anti-colonial nationalism from Great-Russian oppression. The polemic is directed not only at Tomsky but at any Bolshevik who would allow colonialist habits to persist under revolutionary guise. Lenin’s insistence that “we are not imperialists” and that “we shall not tolerate any deviation in that direction” is a direct rebuke to those who would prioritise Russian settler interests over the strategic necessity of winning over the oppressed nationalities. The Basmachi rebellion serves as a concrete warning: mishandling native grievances fuels armed resistance. For Lenin, the Turkestan question is no local squabble but a test of whether the Soviet state can break decisively with the imperial past.