After the long struggle of the peoples of the Baltic States to end Soviet revisionist ethnic oppression and achieve independence for their nations, on August 23, 1989, the peoples of the Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) launched an enormous demonstration. About 2 million people from the Baltic States formed a human chain over 600 kilometers long, from Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, to Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, hand in hand. They demanded an immediate end to the ethnic oppression policies from Soviet revisionism, independence from the Soviet Union, and the establishment of their own independent states. This demonstration was unprecedented in scale and among the participation rates of the population—at that time, the total population of the Baltic States was only about 7.99 million, including approximately 1.77 million ethnic Russians living in these three countries. Because these Russians in the Baltic States were closely linked to the Soviet regime’s economic and political life and were not affected by any ethnic oppression policies (the official language of the Soviet Union was Russian), they generally opposed the Baltic States’ independence from the Soviet Union and largely did not participate in the independence demonstrations. This meant that the proportion of local ethnic populations participating in the movement was even higher—about 30% of Lithuanians who were non-Russian, about 63.6% of Estonians who were non-Russian, and about 40% of Latvians who were non-Russian participated in the “Baltic Way” (in 1989, Lithuania’s non-Russian population was about 3.36 million, Latvia’s about 1.76 million, and Estonia’s about 1.1 million).
Route of the “Baltic Way”
After the event, the Soviet officialdom immediately became furious, warning in severe terms that the “reactionary nationalist and extremist groups” engaged in “anti-socialist, anti-Soviet” illegal activities were growing day by day, calling the “Baltic Way” a “hysterical nationalism,” which would worsen into an “abyss” and a “disaster.” However, as the struggle for independence among various peoples under Soviet rule intensified, and with internal disputes among the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie, coupled with strong pressure from the international community, the Soviets ultimately failed to carry out any actual military suppression of the independence movement in the Baltic region. Attempts to incite armed rebellions by Russian populations within the Baltic States—mainly retired Russian officials enjoying privileges for a long time, and right-wing youth of the Russian minority—were also thwarted (for example, in 1990, the reactionary party “Patriotic Front,” composed of Russian minorities in Estonia, launched an uprising attacking the Estonian Parliament, demanding the resignation of the parliament and “defending national unity,” with one participant explicitly stating, “The government should support Russians, I am ashamed of Estonians, they are so cunning, they smile at you, but when you turn your back, they stab you in the back”). Ultimately, within six months after the Baltic Way, on March 11, 1990, Lithuania became the first republic to declare independence. On August 20 and 21, Estonia and Latvia also declared independence, and the Baltic States fully separated from the Soviet Union.
In terms of participation numbers and population ratios, the scale of the “Baltic Way” as a mass movement is rarely seen in history. However, regarding this movement, today’s pro-Soviet leftists and pink circles in China almost uniformly oppose it, mainly for the following reasons:
- The Baltic States are the “initiators” of the independence of the Soviet republics, the first to break away from the Soviet Union, and their independence dealt a heavy blow to the Soviet Union, making its disintegration an unstoppable trend. Now, the pro-Soviet left and pink circles mostly lament the disintegration of the Soviet Union, viewing it as a major blow to the “world communist movement.” They generally accept the view that the Soviet Union did not have a significant ethnic oppression policy against the Baltic States, and that the Baltic States still enjoyed many “preferential policies,” so their demand for independence is “ungrateful.” They also believe that China’s policies towards Xinjiang, Tibet, and Inner Mongolia are also “preferential,” and that the dissatisfaction of these minorities is mainly “terrorism” and “ungratefulness,” thus fiercely opposing the Baltic independence movement from a reactionary stance.
- The independence movements of the Baltic States are mainly organized by bourgeois liberals supported by Western imperialist countries. After independence, these countries are controlled by bourgeois liberals, who more or less pass “anti-communist laws,” prohibiting the formation of communist parties or propaganda of communism, and even frequently vandalize and destroy statues of Lenin and Soviet soldiers, as well as monuments commemorating the Soviet Red Army. Meanwhile, the “Baltic Way” is still used by Western imperialism to promote so-called “freedom and democracy.” Therefore, they consider the governments of the Baltic States reactionary, and the independence movements reactionary, thus the people of these countries are also reactionary.
- After independence, the economies of the Baltic States did not improve much; they are under the control of Western imperialist countries and are “puppets of U.S. imperialism.” Their current state is “deserved,” and all blame is placed on the Baltic peoples’ initial decision to break away from the Soviet Union.
Is this really the case? Part of these claims is indeed true. The independence movement of the Baltic States was mainly organized by bourgeois liberals supported by Western imperialist countries, and the masses involved were greatly deceived by them. The timing of the “Baltic Way” organization clearly proves this: August 23, 1989, marked the 50th anniversary of the signing of the “Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact,” and the bourgeois liberals of the Baltic States deliberately chose this day, interpreting the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union as a “result of secret agreements between the USSR and Nazi Germany,” coerced and linked communism and socialist Soviet Union with Soviet revisionism and Russian colonizers, spreading the idea that “Soviet ethnic oppression originated from the secret pact of 1939,” and that the struggle for independence was a “reactionary anti-communist” movement. After independence, bourgeois governments in these countries have long promoted anti-communist propaganda and banned communist propaganda. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Baltic States again face the threat of invasion by a new Tsarist Russia, and their bourgeois governments have further intensified linking “communism” and “the Soviet Union” with Russian invaders, attacking communism. To this day, the Baltic States have not even legalized communist parties, and there are virtually no communist activities.
But does this mean we should oppose the independence of the Baltic States and dismiss their independence movement entirely? In fact, Lenin’s article “On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” already refuted many such viewpoints. “The development of capitalist powers and imperialism has made the ‘right to self-determination’ of weak nations an illusion,” and “for those who formally gained independence—Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, Greeks—can they truly speak of ‘self-determination’? Their independence is nothing but a product of political struggles and diplomatic tricks at the ‘European Concert,’ right?” These views are very similar to the current pro-Soviet/leftist/pink circles’ stance. Unfortunately, this is not Lenin’s view but Rosa Luxemburg’s, which Lenin seriously criticized. Lenin correctly pointed out in this article: “Only a sovereign nation-state creates the conditions for the fullest development of commodity production and the most free, extensive, and rapid development of capitalism,” and “From the perspective of national relations, the nation-state is undoubtedly the best guarantee for the development of capitalism. Of course, this does not mean that such states can eliminate national exploitation and oppression on the bourgeoisie basis. It only means that Marxists cannot ignore the powerful economic factors that produce tendencies toward establishing nation-states. That is, from a historical and economic point of view, the Marxist program of ‘self-determination,’ beyond political independence and the formation of nation-states, has no other meaning.” Of course, by the late 1980s, the Soviet Union had largely eliminated feudal remnants, and the task of abolishing feudal autocracy to ensure the development of national capitalism was no longer relevant. But Lenin’s points still apply to the Baltic States at that time. The so-called “characteristics” that the domestic pro-left and pink circles often praise—namely that the Baltic States’ economy under Soviet rule was better than other republics or even Russia—actually cannot prove that the Soviet Union did not have a policy of ethnic oppression against the Baltic States. It only shows that: first, before joining the Soviet Union, the Baltic States had achieved some development of capitalism; second, under the labor struggles of various peoples within the Soviet Union, they also made some economic progress, so their economic base was relatively better. However, after the Soviet restoration of capitalism, due to their proximity to the Baltic Sea, the Baltic States received some investment from the Soviet Union in certain industries, giving the appearance of economic development. But this so-called “development” was entirely based on the distorted industrial structure of the Soviet Union’s internal colonies, and the internal industries of the Baltic States were similarly distorted, merely existing as colonies within the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union still used Russian as the official language in the Baltic States and supported a privileged Russian bureaucratic class as the basis of oppression. The proportion of their own national populations continued to decline, facing the danger of extinction. Without a genuine Marxist revolutionary organization capable of ending bureaucratic monopoly bourgeois rule within the Soviet Union, only the independence of the Baltic States from the Soviet Union could allow these countries to escape colonial oppression and partially develop their industries.
The independence movement of the Baltic States itself was controlled by bourgeois liberals, and many workers in these countries were influenced by anti-communist propaganda, turning them into “anti-communist vanguards.” This cannot be used as a reason to attack the working people of the Baltic States. In fact, such a situation can only be attributed to the fact that, at that time, the Soviet Union did not have a Marxist organization following the correct revolutionary path, capable of thoroughly criticizing the nationalist oppression policies of revisionist regimes and pointing out their fundamental differences from socialist policies of the Soviet Union. Only then could oppressed nations within the social imperialist countries realize that Marxism is the correct path to national liberation. This allowed bourgeois liberals to exploit the situation, blaming the loss of independence on the so-called “Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact,” and launching fierce attacks on socialist Soviet Union. Today, the rampant anti-communist propaganda in the Baltic States is undoubtedly a step backward in history. However, the independence of the Baltic States itself was a prerequisite for the proletariat of all nationalities under the former Soviet regime to reunite. Lenin also pointed out: “The proletariat considers national demands subordinate to the interests of class struggle. Whether the bourgeois democratic revolution ends in national separation or in achieving equality among nations, it cannot be theoretically guaranteed in advance; what the proletariat considers important is that in both cases, the development of their own class must be ensured.” During the late Soviet period, was national separation beneficial for the proletariat of Russia and the Baltic States? The answer is yes. Without a genuine Marxist revolutionary organization within the Soviet Union, maintaining national unity to “achieve equality among nations” was impossible; maintaining “unity” meant maintaining Soviet national oppression. “Oppressing other nations cannot lead to liberation,” and the independence of the Baltic States partly eliminated the ethnic oppression by privileged Russian colonizers within their borders, and also made Russians no longer oppress the Baltic peoples ethnically. In the context of Russia’s current invasion war, the struggle of the proletariat of Russia and the Baltic States against Russian aggression could potentially realize Lenin’s hope for “fraternal full class solidarity” based on the right to self-determination.
Indeed, the “Baltic Way” and the independence movements of the Baltic States contain a lot of anti-communist propaganda, and the masses were deceived and misled by bourgeois liberals, ultimately serving their rise to power. They did not achieve genuine national independence or meet the real demands of the working people of the three countries. But should we focus on the shortcomings of the mass movement and condemn its imperfections, or should we learn from its lessons to prepare for the next struggle? This question is self-evident. In the recent Jiangyou incident, a comrade believed that since it is no longer the era of bourgeois democratic revolution, the slogan “Restore My Democracy” proposed by the masses objectively benefits bourgeois liberals and ultimately confuses class lines. When writing about the “Baltic Way,” this view also came to mind, but the attitude toward mass movements should not be so simplistic. “Communists disdain to hide their views,” and today’s pro-Soviet China is also a social imperialist country. In the current intensification of mass struggles, what should be done is to stand more firmly with the oppressed peoples and oppressed nations, overthrow revisionism on national issues and other reactionary ideas, so that the people can fully recognize the fundamental difference between revisionism and socialism, and prevent bourgeois liberal viewpoints from deceiving anyone anymore.