Socialism and War

#PUBLICATION NOTE

This edition of Socialism and War has been prepared and revised for digital publication by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism under the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Switzerland on the basis of the edition published in the Collected Works of Lenin, Fourth English Edition, Vol. 21, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964.

#INTRODUCTION NOTE

This is a pamphlet written by Comrade Nikolaj Lenin with the assistance of G.E. Zinoviev in Sörenberg, Lucerne, Switzerland in July-August 1915. It was first published as a separate pamphlet in September 1915.

The pamphlet was written in connection with the preparations for the First International Socialist Conference in Zimmerwald, at which it was distributed among the delegates.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#PREFACE TO THE 1915 GERMAN EDITION

#Nikolaj Lenin

#September 1915

#★

The war has been in progress for already a year. At the very outset of the war, our Party's attitude toward it was defined in the Central Committee's manifesto drawn up in September 1914 and (after it had been sent to the members of the Central Committee and to our Party's responsible representatives in Russia, and had received their consent) published on the 1st of November, 1914, in No. 33 of the Sotsial-Demokrat [Social-Democrat], our Party's Central Organ. Later, in No. 40 (29th of March, 1915), the resolutions of the Berne Conference were published, in which our principles and tactics were put forward more precisely.

At present, there is an obvious growth of revolutionary temper among the masses. In other countries, symptoms of the same phenomenon are to be seen on all sides, despite the suppression of the revolutionary aspirations of the proletariat by most of the official Social-Democratic Parties, which have taken sides with their governments and their bourgeoisie. This state of affairs makes particularly urgent the publication of a pamphlet that sums up Social-Democratic tactics in relation to the war. In reprinting in full the above-mentioned Party documents, we have provided them with brief comment, endeavouring to take due stock of all the main arguments in favour of bourgeois and of proletarian tactics that have been expressed in the appropriate literature and at Party meetings.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#PREFACE TO THE 1918 RUSSIAN EDITION

#Nikolaj Lenin

#1918

#★

This pamphlet was written in the summer of 1915, just before the Zimmerwald Conference.¹ It also appeared in German and French, and was reprinted in full in Norwegian in the organ of the Norwegian Social-Democratic Youth League. The German edition of the pamphlet was secretly brought to Germany — Berlin, Leipzig, Bremen, and other cities — where it was secretly distributed by supporters of the Zimmerwald Left and by the Karl Liebknecht group. The French edition was secretly printed in Paris and distributed there by the French Zimmerwaldists. The Russian-language edition reached Russia in a very limited number of copies, and in Moscow was copied out in handwriting by workers.

We are now reprinting this pamphlet in full, as a document. The reader should all the time remember that the pamphlet was written in August 1915. This must be kept in view particularly in connection with those passages which refer to Russia: Russia at that time was still Tsarist, Romanov Russia.

#Workers and oppressed people of the world, unite!

#SOCIALISM AND WAR

#Nikolaj Lenin and G.E. Zinoviev

#July-August 1915

#★

#1. THE PRINCIPLES OF SOCIALISM AND THE WAR OF 1914-15

#1.1. THE ATTITUDE OF SOCIALISTS TOWARD WARS

Socialists have always condemned wars between nations as barbarous and brutal. Our attitude toward war, however, is fundamentally different from that of the bourgeois pacifists (supporters and advocates of peace) and of the Anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within a country; we understand that wars cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and socialism is created; we also differ in that we regard civil wars, that is, wars waged by an oppressed class against the oppressor class, by slaves against slave-owners, by serfs against land-owners, and by wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as fully legitimate, progressive, and necessary. We Marxists differ from both pacifists and Anarchists in that we deem it necessary to study each war historically (from the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) and separately. There have been in the past numerous wars which, despite all the horrors, atrocities, distress, and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, that is, benefited the development of humanity by helping to destroy most harmful and reactionary institutions (for example, an autocracy or serfdom) and the most barbarous despotisms in Europe (the Turkish and the Russian). That is why the features historically specific to the present war must come up for examination.

#1.2. THE HISTORICAL TYPES OF WARS IN MODERN TIMES

The Great French Revolution ushered in a new epoch in human history. From that time down to the Paris Commune, that is, between 1789 and 1871, one type of war was of a bourgeois-progressive character, waged for national liberation. In other words, the overthrow of absolutism and feudalism, the undermining of these institutions, and the overthrow of foreign oppression, formed the chief content and historical significance of such wars. These were therefore progressive wars; during such wars, all honest and revolutionary democrats, as well as all Socialists, always wished success to that country (that is, that bourgeoisie) which had helped to overthrow or undermine the most baneful foundations of feudalism, absolutism, and the oppression of other nations. For example, the revolutionary wars waged by France contained an element of plunder and the conquest of foreign territory by the French, but this does not in the least alter the fundamental historical significance of those wars, which destroyed and shattered feudalism and absolutism in the whole of old, serf-owning Europe. In the Franco-Prussian War, Germany plundered France, but this does not alter the fundamental historical significance of that war, which liberated tens of millions of German people from feudal disunity and from the oppression of two despots, the Russian Tsar and Napoleon the Third.

#1.3. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGGRESSIVE AND DEFENSIVE WARS

The period of 1789-1871 left behind it deep marks and revolutionary memories. There could be no development of the proletarian struggle for socialism prior to the overthrow of feudalism, absolutism, and foreign oppression. When, in speaking of the wars of such periods, Socialists stressed the legitimacy of «defensive» wars, they always had these aims in mind, namely, revolution against mediaevalism and serfdom. By a «defensive» war, Socialists have always understood a «just» war in this particular sense (Wilhelm Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). It is only in this sense that Socialists have always regarded wars «in defence of the homeland», or «defensive» wars, as legitimate, progressive, and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, or India on Britain, or Iran or China on Russia, and so on, these would be «just» and «defensive» wars, irrespective of who would be the first to attack; any Socialist would wish the oppressed, dependent, and unequal States victory over the oppressor, slave-owning, and predatory «Great» Powers.

But imagine a slave-owner, who owns 100 slaves, warring against another, who owns 200 slaves, for a more «just» redistribution of slaves. The use of the term of a «defensive» war, or a war «in defence of the homeland», would clearly be historically false in such a case and would in practice be sheer deception of the common people, philistines, and the ignorant by the astute slave-owners. It is in this way that the peoples are being deceived with «national» ideology and the term «defence of the homeland», by the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie, in the war now being waged between slave-owners with the purpose of consolidating slavery.

#1.4. THE WAR OF TODAY IS AN IMPERIALIST WAR

It is almost universally admitted that this war is an imperialist war. In most cases, however, this term is distorted, or applied to one side, or else a loophole is left for the assertion that this war may, after all, be bourgeois-progressive, and of significance to the national-liberation movement. Imperialism is the highest stage in the development of capitalism, reached only in the 20th century. Capitalism now finds that the old national States, without whose formation it could not have overthrown feudalism, are too cramped for it. Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree that entire branches of industry are controlled by syndicates, trusts, and associations of capitalist multi-millionaires, and almost the entire globe has been divided up among the «lords of capital», either in the form of colonies, or by entangling other countries in thousands of threads of financial exploitation. Free trade and competition have been superseded by a striving toward monopolies, the seizure of territory for the investment of capital and as sources of raw materials, and so on. From the liberator of nations, which it was in the struggle against feudalism, capitalism in its imperialist stage has turned into the greatest oppressor of nations. Formerly progressive, capitalism has become reactionary; it has developed the productive forces to such a degree that humanity is faced with the alternative of adopting socialism or of experiencing years and even decades of armed struggle between the «Great» Powers for the artificial preservation of capitalism by means of colonies, monopolies, privileges, and national oppression of every kind.

#1.5. A WAR BETWEEN THE BIGGEST SLAVE-OWNERS FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND CONSOLIDATION OF SLAVERY

To make the significance of imperialism clear, we will quote precise figures showing the partition of the world among the so-called «Great» Powers (that is, those successful in great plunder).

#Partition of the World Among the «Great» Slave-Owning Powers

| «Great» Powers | Colonial Area (1876) | Colonial Population (1876) | Colonial Area (1914) | Colonial Population (1914) | Metropolitan Area (1914) | Metropolitan Population (1914) | Total Area | Total Population | | ———————————————————————————————————————————— | —————————— | ————————————— | —————————— | ————————————— | ———————————— | ——————————————— | ———————- | ———————— | | Britain | 22'500'000 km² | 251'900'000 | 33'500'000 km² | 393'500'000 | 300'000 km² | 46'500'000 | 33'800'000 km² | 440'000'000 | | Russia | 17'000'000 km² | 15'900'000 | 17'400'000 km² | 33'200'000 | 5'400'000 km² | 136'200'000 | 22'800'000 km² | 169'400'000 | | France | 900'000 km² | 6'000'000 | 10'600'000 km² | 55'500'000 | 500'000 km² | 39'600'000 | 11'100'000 km² | 95'100'000 | | Germany | | | 2'900'000 km² | 12'300'000 | 500'000 km² | 64'900'000 | 3'400'000 km² | 77'200'000 | | Japan | | | 300'000 km² | 19'200'000 | 400'000 km² | 53'000'000 | 700'000 km² | 72'200'000 | | United States | | | 300'000 km² | 9'700'000 | 9'400'000 km² | 97'000'000 | 9'700'000 km² | 106'700'000 | | Total for the Six «Great» Powers | 40'400'000 km² | 273'800'000 | 65'000'000 km² | 523'400'000 | 16'500'000 km² | 437'200'000 | 81'500'000 km² | 960'600'000 | | Colonies belonging to other than Great Powers (Belgium, Netherlands, and other States) | | | 9'900'000 km² | 45'300'000 | | | 9'900'000 km² | 45'300'000 | | Three «semi-colonial» countries (Turkey, China, and Iran) | | | | | | | 14'500'000 km² | 361'200'000 | | Total | | | | | | | 105'900'000 km² | 1'367'100'000 | | Other States and countries | | | | | | | 28'000'000 km² | 289'900'000 | | Entire globe (exclusive of Arctic and Antarctic regions) | | | | | | | 133'900'000 km² | 1'657'000'000 |

Hence, it will be seen that, since 1876, most of the nations which were foremost fighters for freedom in 1789-1871 have, on the basis of a highly developed and «overripe» capitalism, become oppressors and enslavers of most of the population and nations of the globe. From 1876 to 1914, six «Great» Powers grabbed 25'000'000 km², that is, an area 2 1/2 times that of Europe! Six powers have enslaved 523'000'000 people in the colonies. For every four inhabitants in the «Great» Powers, there are five in «their» colonies. It is common knowledge that colonies are conquered with fire and sword, that the population of the colonies are brutally treated, and that they are exploited in a thousand and one ways (by exporting capital, through concessions, and so on, cheating in the sale of commodities, subjugation by the authorities of the «ruling» nation, and so on and so forth). The Anglo-French bourgeoisie are deceiving the people when they say that they are waging a war for the freedom of nations and of Belgium; in fact, they are waging a war for the purpose of retaining the colonies they have grabbed and robbed. The German imperialists would free Belgium, and so on, at once if the British and French would agree to «fairly» share their colonies with him. A feature of the situation is that, in this war, the fare of the colonies is being decided by a war on the Continent. From the standpoint of bourgeois justice and national freedom (or the right of nations to existence), Germany might be considered absolutely in the right as against Britain and France, for it has been «done out» of colonies, its enemies are oppressing an immeasurably far larger number of nations than it is, and the Slavs that are being oppressed by its ally, Austria, undoubtedly enjoy far more freedom than those of Tsarist Russia, that veritable «prison of nations». Germany, however, is fighting, not for the liberation of nations, but for their oppression. It is not the business of Socialists to help the younger and stronger robber (Germany) to plunder the older and overgorged robbers. Socialists must take advantage of the struggle between the robbers to overthrow all of them. To be able to do this, Socialists must first of all tell the people the truth, namely, that this war is, in three respects, a war between slave-owners with the aim of consolidating slavery. This is a war, firstly, to increase the enslavement of the colonies by means of a «more equitable» distribution and subsequent more concerted exploitation of them; secondly, to increase the oppression of other nations within the «Great» Powers, since both Austria and Russia (Russia in greater degree and with results far worse than Austria) maintain their rule only by such oppression, intensifying it by means of war; and, thirdly, to increase and prolong wage-slavery, since the proletariat is split up and suppressed, while the capitalists are the gainers, making fortunes out of the war, fanning national prejudices, and intensifying reaction, which has raised its head in all countries, even in the freest and most republican ones.

#1.6. WAR IS THE CONTINUATION OF POLITICS BY OTHER (THAT IS, VIOLENT) «MEANS»

This famous dictum was uttered by Clausewitz,² one of the most profound writers on the problems of war. Marxists have always rightly regarded this thesis as the theoretical basis of views on the significance of any war. It was from this standpoint that Marx and Engels always regarded the various wars.

Apply this view to the present war. You will see that, for decades, for almost half a century, the governments and the ruling classes of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, and Russia have pursued a policy of plundering colonies, oppressing other nations, and suppressing the working-class movement. It is this, and only this, policy that is being continued in the present war. In particular, the policy of both Austria and Russia, in peacetime as well as in wartime, is a policy of enslaving nations, not of liberating them. In China, Iran, India, and other dependent countries, on the contrary, we have seen during the past decades a policy of awakening tens and hundreds of millions of people to a national life, of their liberation from the reactionary «Great» Powers' oppression. A war waged on such a historical basis can even today be a bourgeois-progressive war of national liberation.

If the present war is regarded as a continuation of the politics of the «Great» Powers and of the main classes within them, a glance will immediately reveal the glaring anti-historicity, falseness, and hypocrisy of the view that the «defence-of-the-homeland» idea can be justified in the present war.

#1.7. THE CASE OF BELGIUM

The favourite plea of the social-chauvinists of the Triple (now Quadruple) Entente³ (in Russia, Plehanov and Company) is the case of Belgium. This instance, however, speaks against them. The German imperialists have brazenly violated the neutrality of Belgium, as belligerent States have done always and everywhere, trampling upon all treaties and obligations if necessary. Let us suppose that all States interested in the observance of international treaties should declare war on Germany with the demand that Belgium be liberated and indemnified. In that case, the sympathies of Socialists would, of course, be with Germany's enemies. But the whole point is that the Triple (now Quadruple) Entente is waging war, not over Belgium; this is common knowledge, and only hypocrisy will disguise the fact. Britain is grabbing at Germany's colonies and at Turkey, Russia is grabbing at Galicia and Turkey, France wants Alsace-Lorraine and even the left bank of the Rhine; a treaty has been concluded with Italy for the division of the spoils (Albania and Anatolia); bargaining is going on with Bulgaria and Romania, also for the division of the spoils. In the present war waged by the governments of today, it is impossible to help Belgium otherwise than by helping to throttle Austria, Turkey, and so on! Where does «defence of the homeland» come in here? In this lies the specific feature of imperialist war, a war between reactionary-bourgeois and historically outdated governments, waged for the purpose of oppressing other nations. Whoever justifies participation in the present war is perpetuating the imperialist oppression of nations. Whoever advocates taking advantage of the present embarrassments of the government, so as to fight for the social revolution, is championing the real freedom of really all nations, which is possible only under socialism.

#1.8. WHAT RUSSIA IS FIGHTING FOR

In Russia, capitalist imperialism of the latest type has fully revealed itself in the policy of tsarism toward Iran, Manchuria, and Mongolia, but, in general, military-feudal imperialism is predominant in Russia. In no country in the world are the majority of the population oppressed so much as in Russia; Russians constitute only 43% of the population, that is, less than half; the non-Russians are denied all rights. Of the 170'000'000 inhabitants of Russia, around 100'000'000 are oppressed and denied their rights. Tsarism is waging a war to seize Galicia and finally crush the liberties of the Ukrainians, and to obtain possession of Armenia, Istanbul, and so on. Tsarism regards the war as a means of diverting attention from the mounting discontent within the country and of suppressing the growing revolutionary movement. To every two Russians in Russia today, there are two or three non-Russians without even elementary rights: tsarism is striving, by means of the war, to increase the number of nations oppressed by Russia, to perpetuate this oppression, and thereby to undermine the struggle for freedom which the Russians themselves are waging. The possibility of oppressing and robbing other nations perpetuates economic stagnation, because the source of income is frequently, not the development of productive forces, but the semi-feudal exploitation of non-Russians. Thus, on the part of Russia, the war is marked by its profoundly reactionary character, its hostility to national liberation.

Social-chauvinism is advocacy of the idea of «defence of the homeland» in the present war. This idea logically leads to the abandonment of the class struggle during the war, to voting for war credits, and so on. In fact, the social-chauvinists are pursuing an anti-proletarian, bourgeois policy, for they are actually championing, not «defence of the homeland» in the sense of combating foreign oppression, but the «right» of one or other of the «Great» Powers to plunder colonies and to oppress other nations. The social-chauvinists reiterate the bourgeois deception of the people that the war is being waged to protect the freedom and existence of nations, thereby taking sides with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Among the social-chauvinists are those who justify and varnish the governments and bourgeoisie of one of the belligerent groups of powers, as well as those who, like Kautsky, argue that the Socialists of all the belligerent powers are equally entitled to «defend the homeland». Social-chauvinism, which is, in effect, defence of the privileges, the advantages, the right to pillage and plunder, of one's «own» (or any) imperialist bourgeoisie, is the utter betrayal of all Socialist convictions and of the decision of the Basle International Socialist Congress.

#1.10. THE BASLE MANIFESTO

The Manifesto on War unanimously adopted in Basle in 1912 has in view the very kind of war between Britain and Germany and their present allies, which broke out in 1914. The Manifesto openly declares that no interests of the people can serve to justify such a war «waged for the sake of the profits of the capitalists and the ambitions of dynasties», on the basis of the imperialist, predatory policy of the Great Powers. The Manifesto openly declares that war is dangerous to «governments» (all of them without exception), notes their fear of «a proletarian revolution», and very definitely points to the example set by the Paris Commune of 1871, and by October-December 1905 in Russia, that is, to the examples of revolution and civil war. Thus, the Basle Manifesto lays down, precisely for the present war, the tactics of the workers' revolutionary struggle on an international scale against their governments, the tactics of proletarian revolution. The Basle Manifesto repeats the words in the Stuttgart Resolution that, in the event of war, Socialists must take advantage of the «economic and political crisis» it will cause, so as to «hasten the downfall of capitalism», that is, take advantage of the governments' wartime difficulties and the indignation of the masses to advance the socialist revolution.

The social-chauvinists' policy, their justification of the war from the bourgeois-liberation standpoint, their sanctioning of «defence of the homeland», their voting for credits, membership in governments, and so on and so forth, are downright treachery to Socialism, which can be explained only, as we will soon show, by the victory of opportunism and of the national-liberal labour policy in the majority of European Social-Democratic Parties.

#1.11. FALSE REFERENCES TO MARX AND ENGELS

The Russian social-chauvinists (headed by Plehanov) make references to Marx's tactics in the war of 1870; the German (of the type of Lensch, David, and Company) — to Engels's statement, in 1891, that, in the event of a war against Russia and France combined, it would be the duty of the German Socialists to defend their homeland; finally, the social-chauvinists of the Kautsky type, who want to reconcile and legitimize international chauvinism, refer to the fact that Marx and Engels, while condemning war, nevertheless, from 1854-55 to 1870-71 and 1876-77, always took the side of one belligerent State or another once war had broken out.

All these references are outrageous distortions of the views of Marx and Engels, in the interest of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, in just the same way as the writings of the Anarchists Guillaume and Company distort the views of Marx and Engels, so as to justify Anarchism. The war of 1870-71 was historically progressive on the part of Germany, until Napoleon the Third was defeated: the latter, together with the Tsar, had oppressed Germany for years, keeping it in a state of feudal disunity. But, as soon as the war developed into the plundering of France (the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine), Marx and Engels emphatically condemned the Germans. Even at the beginning of the war, Marx and Engels approved of the refusal of Bebel and Liebknecht to vote for war credits, and advised Social-Democrats not to merge with the bourgeoisie, but to uphold the independent class interests of the proletariat. To apply to the present imperialist war the appraisal of this bourgeois-progressive war of national liberation is a mockery of the truth. The same applies with still greater force to the war of 1854-55, and to all the wars of the 19th century, when there existed no modern imperialism, no mature objective conditions for socialism, and no mass Socialist Parties in any of the belligerent countries, that is, none of the conditions from which the Basle Manifesto deduced the tactics of a «proletarian revolution» in connection with a war between Great Powers.

Anyone who today refers to Marx's attitude toward the wars of the epoch of the progressive bourgeoisie, and forgets Marx's statement that «the workers have no country»⁴ — a statement that applies precisely to the period of the reactionary and outdated bourgeoisie, to the epoch of the socialist revolution, is shamelessly distorting Marx, and is substituting the bourgeois standpoint for the Socialist one.

#1.12. THE COLLAPSE OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL

Socialists of the whole world solemnly declared in Basle, in 1912, that they regarded the impending war in Europe as the «criminal» and most reactionary deed of all the governments, which must hasten the downfall of capitalism by inevitably engendering a revolution against it. The war came, the crisis was there. Instead of revolutionary tactics, most of the Social-Democratic Parties launched reactionary tactics, and went over to the side of their respective governments and bourgeoisie. This betrayal of Socialism signifies the collapse of the Second (1889-1914) International, and we must realize what caused this collapse, what brought social-chauvinism into being and gave it strength.

Throughout the existence of the Second International, a struggle was raging within all the Social-Democratic Parties, between their revolutionary and opportunist wings. In a number of countries, a split took place along this line (Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Bulgaria). Not one Marxist has ever doubted that opportunism expressed bourgeois politics within the working-class movement, expresses the interests of the small bourgeoisie and the alliance of a tiny section of bourgeoisified workers with their «own» bourgeoisie, against the interests of the proletarian masses, the oppressed masses.

The objective conditions at the close of the 19th century greatly intensified opportunism, converted the utilization of bourgeois legality into subservience to the latter, created a thin crust of working-class officialdom and aristocracy, and attracted numerous small-bourgeois «fellow-travelers» to the Social-Democratic Parties.

The war has sped up this development and transformed opportunism into social-chauvinism, transformed the secret alliance between the opportunists and the bourgeoisie into an open one. Simultaneously, the military authorities have everywhere instituted martial law and have muzzled the masses of the workers, whose old leaders have nearly all gone over to the bourgeoisie.

Opportunism and social-chauvinism stand on a common economic basis — the interests of a thin crust of privileged workers and of the small bourgeoisie, who are defending their privileged position, their «right» to some modicum of the profits that their «own» national bourgeoisie obtain from robbing other nations, from the advantages of their Great-Power status, and so on.

Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same ideological and political content — class collaboration instead of the class struggle, renunciation of revolutionary methods of struggle, helping one's «own» government in its embarrassed situation, instead of taking advantage of these embarrassments, so as to advance the revolution. If we take Europe as a whole, and if we pay attention, not to individuals (even the most authoritative), we will find that it is the opportunist trend that has become the bulwark of social-chauvinism, whereas, from the camp of the revolutionaries, more or less consistent protests against it are heard from almost all sides. And, if we take, for example, the grouping of trends at the Stuttgart International Socialist Congress in 1907, we shall find that international Marxism was opposed to imperialism, while international opportunism was already in favour of it at the time.

#1.14. UNITY WITH THE OPPORTUNISTS MEANS AN ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE WORKERS AND THEIR «OWN» NATIONAL BOURGEOISIE, AND SPLITTING THE INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTIONARY WORKING CLASS

In the past, before the war, opportunism was often looked upon as a legitimate, though «deviationist» and «extremist», component of the Social-Democratic Party. The war has shown the impossibility of this in the future. Opportunism has «matured», and is now playing to the full its role as emissary of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement. Unity with the opportunists has become sheer hypocrisy, exemplified by the German Social-Democratic Party. On every important occasion (for example, the 4th of August vote), the opportunists present an ultimatum, to which they give effect through their numerous links with the bourgeoisie, their majority on the executives of the trade unions, and so on. Today, unity with the opportunists actually means subordinating the working class to their «own» national bourgeoisie, and an alliance with the latter for the purpose of oppressing other nations and of fighting for dominant-nation privileges; it means splitting the revolutionary proletariat of all countries.

No matter how hard, in individual instances, the struggle may be against the opportunists, who predominate in many organizations, whatever the specific nature of the purging of the workers' parties of opportunists in individual countries, this process is inevitable and fruitful. Reformist Socialism is dying; regenerated Socialism «will be revolutionary, uncompromising, and insurrectionary», to use the apt expression of the Swiss Socialist Paul Golay.

#1.15. «KAUTSKYISM»

Kautsky, the leading authority in the Second International, is a most typical and striking example of how a verbal recognition of Marxism has led in practice to its conversion into «Struveism» or into «Brentanoism».⁵ Another example is Plehanov. By means of patent sophistry, Marxism is stripped of its revolutionary living spirit; everything is recognized in Marxism except the revolutionary methods of struggle, the propaganda and preparation of those methods, and the education of the masses in this direction. Kautsky «reconciles» in an unprincipled way the fundamental idea of social-chauvinism, recognition of defence of the homeland in the present war, with a diplomatic sham concession to the Left wing — his abstention from voting for war credits, his verbal claim to be in the opposition, and so on. Kautsky, who, in 1909, wrote a book on the approaching epoch of revolutions and on the connection between war and revolution; Kautsky, who, in 1912, signed the Basle Manifesto on taking advantage of the impending war — Kautsky is outdoing himself in justifying and embellishing social-chauvinism, and, like Plehanov, joins the bourgeoisie in ridiculing any thought of revolution and all steps toward the immediate revolutionary struggle.

The working class cannot play its world-revolutionary role unless it wages a ruthless struggle against this backsliding, spinelessness, subservience to opportunism, and unparalleled vulgarization of the theories of Marxism. Kautskyism is not fortuitous; it is the social product of the contradictions within the Second International, a blend of loyalty to Marxism in word, and subordination to opportunism in deed.

This fundamental falseness of «Kautskyism» manifests itself in different ways in different countries. In the Netherlands, Roland-Holst, while rejecting the idea of defending the homeland, defends unity with the opportunists' party. In Russia, Trotskij, while rejecting this idea, also defends unity with the opportunist and chauvinist Nasa Zarja [Our Dawn] group. In Romania, Racovski, while declaring war on opportunism as being responsible for the collapse of the International, is, at the same time, ready to recognize the legitimacy of the idea of defending the homeland. All this is a manifestation of the evil which the Dutch Marxists (Gorter and Pannekoek) have called «passive radicalism», and which amounts to replacing revolutionary Marxism with eclecticism in theory, and servility to or impotence toward opportunism in practice.

The war has undoubtedly created a most acute crisis and has immeasurably increased the distress of the masses. The reactionary nature of this war, and the unblushing lies told by the bourgeoisie of all countries to conceal their predatory aims with «national» ideology, are, on the basis of an objectively revolutionary situation, inevitably creating revolutionary moods among the masses. It is our duty to help the masses become conscious of these moods, deepen them, and give them shape. This task finds correct expression only in the slogan: «Convert the imperialist war into civil war!» All consistently waged class struggles in wartime and all seriously conducted «mass-action» tactics inevitably lead to this. It is impossible to predict whether a powerful revolutionary movement will flare up in connection with, during, or after the Great Powers' imperialist First or Second World Wars; in any case, it is our bounden duty to work systematically and unswervingly in this direction.

The Basle Manifesto makes direct reference to the example set by the Paris Commune, that is, the conversion of a war between governments into a civil war. Half a century ago, the proletariat was too weak; the objective conditions for socialism had not yet matured; there could be no coordination and cooperation between the revolutionary movement in all the belligerent countries; the «national ideology» (the traditions of 1792), with which a faction of the Parisian workers were imbued, was a small-bourgeois weakness, which Marx noted at the time, and was one of the causes of the downfall of the Commune. Half a century since that time, the conditions that then weakened the revolution have ceased to operate, and, today, it is unpardonable for a Socialist to resign themself to a renunciation of activities in the spirit of the Paris Communards.

#1.17. THE EXAMPLE SET BY THE FRATERNIZATION IN THE TRENCHES

Cases of fraternization between the soldiers of the belligerent nations, even in the trenches, have been reported in the bourgeois newspapers of all the belligerent countries. The grave importance attached to the matter by the governments and the bourgeoisie is evidenced by the harsh orders against such fraternization issued by the military authorities (of Germany and Britain). If such cases of fraternization have proved possible, even when opportunism reigns supreme in the top ranks of the Social-Democratic Parties of Western Europe, and when social-chauvinism has the support of the entire Social-Democratic press and all the authorities of the Second International, then that shows us how possible it would be to shorten the present criminal, reactionary, and slave-owners' war and to organize a revolutionary international movement, if systematic work were conducted in this direction, at least by the Left-wing Socialists in all the belligerent countries.

#1.18. THE IMPORTANCE OF AN UNDERGROUND ORGANIZATION

No less than the opportunists, leading Anarchists all over the world have disgraced themselves with social-chauvinism (in the spirit of Plehanov and Kautsky) in this war. One of the useful results of this war will undoubtedly be that it will kill both Anarchism and opportunism.

While under no circumstances or conditions refraining from utilizing all legal opportunities, however small, for organizing the masses and for the propaganda of Socialism, the Social-Democratic Parties must break with subservience to legality. You shoot first, my bourgeois friends, wrote Engels, hinting at civil war and at the necessity of our violating legality after the bourgeoisie had done so. The crisis has shown that the bourgeoisie violate it in all countries, even the freest ones, and that it is impossible to lead the masses to a revolution unless an underground organization is set up for the purpose of advocating, discussing, appraising, and preparing revolutionary methods of struggle. In Germany, for example, all the honest things that Socialists are doing are being done despite despicable opportunism and hypocritical «Kautskyism», and, moreover, are being done secretly. In Britain, people are being sentenced to penal servitude for printing appeals against enlisting.

It is a betrayal of Socialism to consider compatible with membership in the Social-Democratic Party any repudiation of underground methods of propaganda, and ridicule of these methods, in the legally published press.

#1.19. ON THE DEFEAT OF ONE'S «OWN» GOVERNMENT IN THE IMPERIALIST WAR

The standpoint of social-chauvinism is shared equally by both advocates of victory for their governments in the present war and by advocates of the slogan of «neither victory nor defeat». A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, and cannot fail to see that the latter's military reverses must facilitate its overthrow. Only a bourgeois, who believes that a war started by governments must necessarily end as a war between governments, and wants it to end as such, can regard as «ridiculous» and «absurd» the idea that the Socialists of all the belligerent countries should express their wish that all their «own» governments should be defeated. On the contrary, it is a statement of this kind that would be in keeping with the innermost thoughts of every class-conscious worker, and be in line with our activities for the conversion of the imperialist war into a civil war.

The serious anti-war agitation being conducted by a faction of the British, German, and Russian Socialists has undoubtedly «weakened the military might» of the respective governments, but that agitation stands to the credit of the Socialists. The latter must explain to the masses that they have no other road of salvation except the revolutionary overthrow of their «own» governments, whose difficulties in the present war must be taken advantage of precisely for that purpose.

#1.20. PACIFISM AND THE PEACE SLOGAN

The temper of the masses in favour of peace often expresses the beginning of protest, anger, and a realization of the reactionary nature of the war. It is the duty of all Social-Democrats to utilize that temper. They will take a most ardent part in any movement and in any demonstration motivated by that sentiment, but they will not deceive the people with admitting the idea that a peace without annexations, without oppression of nations, without plunder, and without the embryo of new wars among the present governments and ruling classes is possible in the absence of a revolutionary movement. Such deception of the people would merely mean playing into the hands of the secret diplomacy of the belligerent governments and facilitating their counter-revolutionary plans. Whoever wants a lasting and democratic peace must stand for civil war against the governments and the bourgeoisie.

#1.21. THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION

The most widespread deception of the people by the bourgeoisie in the present war consists in their using the ideology of «national liberation» to cloak their predatory aims. The British have promised the liberation of Belgium, the Germans of Poland, and so on. Actually, as we have seen, this is a war waged by the oppressors of most of the world's nations for the purpose of increasing and expanding that oppression.

Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. They must, therefore, unequivocally demand that the Social-Democratic Parties of the oppressor countries (especially of the so-called «Great» Powers) should recognize and champion the oppressed nations' right to self-determination, in the specifically political sense of the term, that is, the right to political secession. The Socialist of a ruling or a colonial nation who does not stand for that right is a chauvinist.

The championing of this right, far from encouraging the formation of small States, leads, on the contrary, to the freer, fearless, and therefore wider and more universal formation of large States and federations of States, which are more to the advantage of the masses and are more in keeping with economic development.

In their turn, the Socialists of the oppressed nations must unfailingly fight for complete unity of the workers of the oppressed and oppressor nationalities (this includes organizational unity). The idea of the juridical separation of one nation from another (the so-called «cultural-national autonomy» advocated by Bauer and Renner) is reactionary.

Imperialism is the epoch of the constantly increasing oppression of the nations of the world by a handful of «Great» Powers; it is therefore impossible to fight for the socialist world revolution against imperialism unless the right of nations to self-determination is recognized. Marx and Engels pointed out that no nation can be free if it oppressed other nations. A proletariat that tolerates the slightest coercion of other nations by its «own» nation cannot be a Socialist proletariat.

#2. CLASSES AND POLITICAL PARTIES IN RUSSIA

#2.1. THE BOURGEOISIE AND THE WAR

In one respect, the Russian government has not lagged behind its European counterparts; like them, it has succeeded in deceiving its «own» people on a grand scale. A huge and monstrous machine of falsehood and cunning has been set going in Russia as well, to infect the masses with chauvinism, and create the impression that the tsarist government is waging a «just» war, and is selflessly defending its «Slavic siblings», and so on.

The feudal class and the upper stratum of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie have ardently supported the tsarist government's bellicose policy. They are rightly expecting enormous material gains and privileges for themselves from the carving up of the Turkish and the Austrian legacy. A series of their congresses have already voiced anticipation of the profits that will flow into their pockets should the tsarist army be victorious. Moreover, the reactionaries are very well aware that, if anything can stave off the downfall of the Romanov monarchy and delay the new revolution in Russia, it can only be a foreign war ending in victory for the Tsar.

Broad strata of the urban «middle» bourgeoisie, of the bourgeois intellectuals, professionals, and so on, have also been infected with chauvinism — at all events at the beginning of the war. The Cadets — the political party of the Russian liberal bourgeoisie — have given the Tsar's government full and unconditional support. In the sphere of foreign policy, the Cadets have long been a government party. Pan-Slavism — with the aid of which tsarist diplomacy has more than once carried out its grand political swindles — has become the official ideology of the Cadets. Russian liberalism has deteriorated into national liberalism. It is vying in «patriotism» with the Black Hundreds; it always willingly votes for militarism on land and at sea; and so on. Approximately the same thing is to be seen in the camp of Russian liberalism as in Germany in the 1870s, when «free-thinking» liberalism decayed and from it arose a national-liberal political party. The Russian liberal bourgeoisie has definitely taken to the path of counter-revolution. The standpoint of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party [RSDLP] on this question has been fully confirmed. The facts have shattered the view held by our opportunists that Russian liberalism is still a motive force of a revolution in Russia.

The ruling class has also succeeded, with the aid of the bourgeois press, the clergy, and so on, in awakening chauvinist sentiments among the peasantry. With the return of the soldiers from the field of slaughter, however, sentiment in the rural areas will undoubtedly turn against the tsarist monarchy. The bourgeois-democratic political parties that come into contact with the peasantry have failed to withstand the chauvinist wave. The Labour Party in the Duma refused to vote for war credits, but, through its leader, Kerenskij, it made a «patriotic» declaration which played into the hands of the monarchy. In general, the entire legally published Populist press followed the liberals' lead. Even the Left wing of bourgeois democracy — the so-called Social-Revolutionary Party, which is affiliated to the International Socialist Bureau — is swimming with the same tide. Mr. Rubanovic, that party's representative on the International Socialist Bureau, has come out as a self-confessed social-chauvinist. Half of the number of this party's delegates to the London Conference of Socialists of the Entente Countries voted for a chauvinist resolution (while the other half abstained from voting). Chauvinists predominate in the illegally published press of the Social-Revolutionaries (the newspaper Novosti⁶ [News] and others). The revolutionaries from «bourgeois circles», that is, bourgeois revolutionaries who are not connected with the working class, have come to a dead end in this war. The sad fate of Kropotkin, Burtsev, and Rubanovic is highly significant.

#2.2. THE WORKING CLASS AND THE WAR

The proletariat is the only class in Russia that nobody has been able to infect with chauvinism. Only the most ignorant strata of the workers were involved in the few excesses that occurred in the early days of the war. The part played by workers in the Moscow anti-German riots has been greatly exaggerated. By and large, the working class of Russia has proved immune to chauvinism.

The explanation lies in the revolutionary situation in the country and in the Russian proletariat's general conditions of life.

The years 1912-14 marked the beginning of a great new revolutionary upswing in Russia. We again witnessed a great strike movement, the like of which the world has never known. The number involved in the mass revolutionary strike in 1913 was, at the very lowest estimate, 1'500'000, and, in 1914, it rose to over 2'000'000, approaching the 1905 level. The first barricade battles took place in St. Petersburg, on the eve of the war.

The underground RSDLP has performed its duty to the international. The banner of internationalism has not wavered in its hands. Our Party long ago severed all organizational ties with the opportunist groups and elements; its feet were not weighed down with the fetters of opportunism and of «legality at any price», this circumstance helping it perform its revolutionary duty — just as the break with Bissolati's opportunist party has helped the Italian comrades.

The general situation in our country does not favour any efflorescence of «Socialist» opportunism among the masses of the workers. In Russia, we see a series of shades of opportunism and reformism among the intellectuals, the small bourgeoisie, and so on, but it has affected an insignificant minority among the politically active sections of the workers. The privileged stratum among factory workers and clerks is very thin in our country. Blind faith in legality could not appear here. Before the war, the Liquidators (the political party of the opportunists led by Akselrod, Potresov, Cerevanin, Maslov, and others) found no serious support among the masses of the workers. The elections to the Fourth Duma resulted in the reelection of all six of the anti-Liquidationist working-class candidates. The circulation of the legally published workers' press in Petrograd and Moscow and the collection of funds for it have incontrovertibly proved that 4/5 of the class-conscious workers are opposed to opportunism and Liquidationism.

Since the beginning of the war, the Tsar's government has arrested and exiled thousands and thousands of progressive workers, members of our underground RSDLP. This circumstance, together with the establishment of martial law in the country, the suppression of our newspapers, and so on, has slowed down the movement. But for all that, our Party is continuing its underground revolutionary activities. In Petrograd, our Party Committee is publishing the underground newspaper Proletarskij Golos⁷ [Proletarian Voice].

Articles from the Social-Democrat, the Central Organ published abroad, are reprinted in Petrograd and sent out to the provinces. Leaflets are secretly printed, and are circulated even in army barracks. In various secluded places outside the city, secret workers' meetings are held. Of late, big strikes of metalworkers have begun in Petrograd. In connection with these strikes, our Petrograd Committee has issued several appeals to the workers.

In 1913, a split took place among the Social-Democratic deputies to the Duma. On one side were the seven supporters of opportunism, led by Cheidze; they had been reelected by seven non-proletarian provinces, where the workers totaled 214'000. On the other side were six deputies, all from the workers' curia, elected for the most industrialized centres in Russia, in which the workers number 1'000'000.

The chief issue in the split was the alternative between the tactics of revolutionary Marxism and the tactics of opportunist reformism. In practice, the disagreement manifested itself mainly in the sphere of extra-parliamentary work among the masses. In Russia, this work had to be conducted secretly, if those conducting it wished to remain on a revolutionary basis. The Cheidze group remained a faithful ally of the Liquidators (who repudiated underground work) and defended them in all talks with workers and at all meetings. Hence the split. The six deputies formed the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma, which, as a year's work has incontrovertibly shown, has the support of the vast majority of Russian workers.

On the outbreak of the war, the disagreement stood out in glaring relief. The Cheidze group confined itself to parliamentary action. It did not vote for war credits, for that would have awakened a storm of indignation among the workers (we have seen that, in Russia, even the small-bourgeois Labourites did not vote for war credits); neither did it utter any protest against social-chauvinism.

Expressing the political line of our Party, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma acted quite differently. It carried into the middle of the working class a protest against the war, and conducted anti-imperialist propaganda among the masses of the Russian proletarians.

It met with a very sympathetic response from the workers — which frightened the government, compelling it, in flagrant violation of its own laws, to arrest our deputy comrades and exile them to Siberia for life. In its very first official announcement of the arrest of our comrades, the tsarist government wrote:

An entirely exceptional stand in this respect was taken by some members of Social-Democratic societies, the objective of whose activities was to shake the military might of Russia by agitating against the war, by means of underground appeals and verbal propaganda.

Only our Party, through its Central Committee, gave a negative reply to Vandervelde's well-known appeal for a «temporary» cessation of the struggle against tsarism. Moreover, it has now become known, from the testimony of Price Kudasev, the Tsar's envoy to Belgium, that Vandervelde did not draw up this appeal alone, but in collaboration with the above-mentioned envoy. The guiding centre of the Liquidators agreed with Vandervelde and officially stated in the press that, «in its activities, it does not oppose the war».

The main accusation leveled by the Tsar's government against our deputy comrades was that they distributed this negative reply to Vandervelde among the workers.

At the trial, the Prosecutor for the Crown, Mr. Nenarokomov, set up the German and French Socialists as examples to our comrades. He said:

The German Social-Democrats voted for war credits and proved to be friends of the government. That is how the German Social-Democrats acted, but the dismal knights of Russian Social-Democracy did not act in this way. [...] The Socialists of Belgium and France unanimously forgot their quarrels with the other classes, forgot party strife, and unhesitatingly rallied around the flag.

But the members of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma, on directives from the Party's Central Committee, did not act in this way, he complained...

The trial revealed an imposing picture of the extensive underground anti-war agitation our Party was conducting among the masses of the proletariat. It goes without saying that the Tsar's court «uncovered» only a fraction of the activities our comrades were conducting in this field, but even what was revealed showed how much had been done within the brief span of a few months.

At the trial, the underground manifestos issued by our groups and committees, against the war and for international tactics, were read out. The members of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group were in touch with the class-conscious workers all over Russia and did everything in their power to help the workers appraise the war from the Marxist standpoint.

Comrade Muranov, the deputy of the workers of Harkiv Province, stated at the trial:

Realizing that the people did not return me to the Duma just to warm my seat there, I traveled around the country to ascertain the mood of the working class.

He admitted that he had undertaken the functions of a secret agitator of our Party, that, in the Urals, he had organized workers' committees at the Verheinetskij Works and elsewhere. The trial showed that, after the outbreak of war, members of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the Duma traveled, for propaganda purposes, throughout almost the whole of Russia, and that Muranov, Petrovskij, Badaev, and others arranged numerous workers' meetings, at which anti-war resolutions were passed, and so on.

The Tsar's government threatened the accused with capital punishment. That was why they did not all behave at the trial as courageously as Comrade Muranov. They tried to make it difficult for the prosecutors to secure convictions. This is being unworthily utilized by the Russian social-chauvinists, so as to obscure the crux of the issue, that is to say, the kind of parliamentarism the working class needs.

Parliamentarism is recognized by Südekum and Heine, Sembat and Vaillant, Bissolati and Mussolini, Cheidze and Plehanov; it is also recognized by our comrades in the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group, as well as by the Bulgarian and Italian comrades, who have broken with the chauvinists. There are different kinds of parliamentarism. Some utilize the parliamentary arena in order to curry favour with their governments, or, at best, to wash their hands of everything, as the Cheidze group has done. Others utilize parliamentarism in order to remain revolutionary to the end, to perform their duty as Socialists and internationalists, even under the most difficult circumstances. The parliamentary activities of some give them ministerial posts; the parliamentary activities of others take them to prison, exile, and penal servitude. Some serve the bourgeoisie — others serve the proletariat. Some are social-imperialists — others are revolutionary Marxists.

#3. THE RECONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL

How should the International be reconstituted? But, first, a few words about how the International should not be reconstituted.

Of course, the social-chauvinists of all countries are great «internationalists»! Since the very beginning of the war, they have been weighed down with concern over the International. On the one hand, they assure us that the talk about the collapse of the International is «exaggerated». Actually, nothing out of the ordinary has happened. Listen to Kautsky: the International is simply a «peacetime instrument»; naturally, this instrument has not proved quite up to the mark in wartime. On the other hand, the social-chauvinists of all countries have found a very simple, and, what is most important, an international way out of the situation that has arisen. The solution is simple: it is only necessary to wait until the war ends, but, until then, the Socialists of each country must defend their «homeland» and support their «own» government. When the war ends, there will be a mutual «amnesty», the admission that everybody was right, and that, in peacetime, we live as siblings; in wartime, however, we stick to such-and-such resolutions, and call upon the German workers to exterminate their French siblings, and the other way around.

Kautsky, Plehanov, Victor Adler, and Heine are all equally agreed on this. Victor Adler writes that, «when we have passed through this difficult time, our first duty will be to refrain from pointing to the mote in each other's eye». Kautsky asserts that, «until now, no serious Socialists from any side have spoken in a way to awaken apprehension» concerning the fate of the International. «It is unpleasant to shake hands [of the German Social-Democrats] that reek of the blood of the innocently slaughtered», Plehanov says, but at once goes on to propose an «amnesty». «It will here be quite appropriate», he writes, «to subordinate the heart to the mind. For the sake of the great cause, the International will have to take into consideration even belated remorse.» In the Sozalistische Monatshefte [Socialist Monthly], Heine describes Vandervelde's behaviour as «courageous and dignified», and sets him up as an example to the German Left wing.

In short, when the war ends, appoint a commission consisting Kautsky, Plehanov, Vandervelde, and Adler, and a «unanimous» resolution in the spirit of a mutual amnesty will be drawn up in a trice. The dispute will be nicely hushed up. Instead of being helped to understand what has taken place, the workers will be deceived with a sham and paper «unity». A union of the social-chauvinists and hypocrites of all countries will be described as reconstitution of the International.

We must not close our eyes to the great danger inherent in such a «reconstitution». The social-chauvinists of all countries are equally interested in that outcome. All of them are equally unwilling that the masses of the workers of their respective countries should themselves try to understand the issue: Socialism or nationalism? All of them are equally interested in concealing each other's sins. None of them are able to propose anything except what has already been proposed by Kautsky, that past master of «international» hypocrisy.

Yet this danger has scarcely been realized. During a year of war, we have seen a number of attempts to reconstitute international ties. We shall not speak of the London and Vienna conferences, at which outspoken chauvinists got together to help the general staffs and the bourgeoisie of their «homelands». We are referring to the Lugano and Copenhagen conferences,⁸ the International Women's Conference, and the International Youth Conference.⁹ These assemblies were animated by the best intentions, but they wholly failed to discern the above-mentioned danger. They neither laid down a militant internationalist line, nor indicated to the proletariat the danger threatening it from the social-chauvinists' method of «reconstituting» the International. At best, they confined themselves to repeating the old resolutions, without telling the workers that the cause of Socialism is lost unless a struggle is waged against the social-chauvinists. At best, they were marking time.

#3.2. THE STATE OF AFFAIRS AMONG THE OPPOSITION

There cannot be the least doubt that what interests all internationalists most is the state of affairs among the German Social-Democratic opposition. The official German Social-Democratic Party, the strongest and the foremost in the Second International, has dealt the international workers' organization the most telling blow. At the same time, however, it was among the German Social-Democrats that the strongest opposition arose. Of all the big European parties, it is in the German Party that a loud voice of protest was first raised by comrades who have remained loyal to the banner of Socialism. We were delighted to read the journals Lichtstrahlen [Rays of Light] and Die Internationale [The International]. It gave us still greater pleasure to learn of the distribution in Germany of secretly printed revolutionary manifestos, as, for example, the one entitled: The Main Enemy Is at Home. This showed that the spirit of Socialism is still alive among the German workers, and that there are still people in Germany capable of upholding revolutionary Marxism.

The split in the present-day Socialist movement has most strikingly revealed itself within the German Social-Democratic movement. Three trends can be clearly distinguished here:

Firstly, the opportunist chauvinists, who have nowhere sunk to such foul apostasy as in Germany.
Secondly, the Kautskyite «Centre», which have here proved totally incapable of playing any other role than that of menials to the opportunists.
Thirdly, the Left wing, who are the only Social-Democrats in Germany.

Naturally, the state of affairs among the German Left wing is what interests us most. In them, we see our comrades, the hope of all the internationalist elements.

What is the state of affairs among them?

The journal The International was quite right in writing that the German Left wing is still in a state of ferment, that considerable regroupings still await it, and that, within it, some elements are more resolute and others less resolute.

Of course, we Russian internationalists do not in the least claim the right to interfere in the internal affairs of our comrades, the German Left wing. We understand that they alone are fully competent to determine their methods of combating the opportunists, according to the conditions of time and place. Only we consider it our right and our duty to express our frank opinion on the state of affairs.

We are convinced that the author of the leading article in the journal The International was perfectly right in stating that the Kautskyite «Centre» is doing more harm to Marxism than avowed social-chauvinism. Anyone who plays down differences, or, in the guise of Marxism, now teaches the workers that which Kautskyism is preaching, is in fact lulling the workers, and doing more harm than the Südekums and Heines, who are putting the issue squarely and are compelling the workers to try to make up their own minds.

The Fronde against the «official bodies», which Kautsky and Haase have of late been permitting themselves, should mislead nobody. The disagreements between them and the Scheidemanns are not on fundamentals. The former believe that Hindenburg and Mackensen are already victorious and that they can already permit themselves the luxury of protesting against annexations. The latter believe that Hindenburg and Mackensen are not yet victorious and that, therefore, it is necessary «to hold out to the end».

Kautskyism is waging only a sham struggle against the «official bodies» just to be able, after the war, to conceal from the workers the clash of principles and to paper over the issue with a thousand and one padded resolutions drawn up in a vaguely «Left-wing» spirit, in the drafting of which the diplomats of the Second International are such experts.

It is quite understandable that, in their difficult struggle against the «official bodies», the German opposition should also make use of this unprincipled Fronde raised by Kautskyism. However, to any internationalist, hostility toward Neo-Kautskyism must remain the touchstone. Only those who combat Kautskyism and understand that, even after its leaders' pretended change of intention, the Centre remains, on all fundamental issues, an ally of the chauvinists and the opportunists — only those are genuine internationalists.

In general, our attitude toward wavering elements in the International is of tremendous importance. These elements — mainly Socialists of a pacifist shade — are to be found both in the neutral countries and in some of the belligerent countries (in Britain, for example, the Independent Labour Party). Such elements can be our fellow-travelers. Ties with them for a struggle against the social-chauvinists are necessary. It should, however, be remembered that they are merely fellow-travelers, and that, on all main and fundamental issues, these elements will march against us, not with us, when the International is being reconstituted; they will side with Kautsky, Scheidemann, Vandervelde, and Sembat. At international conferences, we must not restrict our programme to what is acceptable to these elements. If we do, we shall fall captive to the wavering pacifists. This is what happened, for example, at the International Women's Conference in Berne. There, the German delegation, which supported Comrade Clara Zetkin's standpoint, actually played the part of the «Centre». The Women's Conference said only that which was acceptable to the delegates of the opportunist Dutch Party led by Troelstra, and to the delegates of the Independent Labour Party; we shall always remember that, at the London Conference of «Entente» chauvinists, the Independent Labour Party voted in favour of Vandervelde's resolution. We would like to express our greatest esteem for the Independent Labour Party for the courageous struggle it has been waging against the British government during the war. We know, however, that this political party has never taken a Marxist standpoint. For our part, we hold that, today, it is the main task of the Social-Democratic opposition to raise the banner of revolutionary Marxism, to tell the workers firmly and definitely how we regard imperialist wars, and to advance a call for mass revolutionary action, that is, convert the period of imperialist wars into the beginning of a period of civil wars.

Despite everything, revolutionary Social-Democratic elements exist in many countries. They are to be found in Germany, Russia, Scandinavia (where Comrade Höglund represents an influential trend), the Balkans (the political party of the Bulgarian «Tesnjaki»), Italy, Britain (part of the British Socialist Party), France (Vaillant himself has admitted in L'Humanité [Humanity] that he has received letters of protest from internationalists, but he has not published any one of them in full), the Netherlands (the Tribunists¹⁰), and so on. To rally these Marxist elements, however small their numbers may be at the outset; to reanimate, in their name, the now forgotten ideals of genuine Socialism; and to call upon the workers of all countries to break with the chauvinists and rally around the old banner of Marxism — such is the task of the day.

Conferences with so-called programmes of «action» have until now confined themselves to announcing a more or less outspoken programme of sheer pacifism. Marxism is not pacifism. Of course, the speediest possible termination of the war must be striven for. However, the «peace» demand acquires a proletarian significance only if a revolutionary struggle is called for. Without a series of revolutions, what is called a democratic peace is a philistine utopia. The purpose of a real programme of action can be served only by a Marxist programme, which gives the masses a full and clear explanation of what has taken place, explains what imperialism is and how it should be combated, declares openly that the collapse of the Second International was brought about by opportunism, and openly calls for a Marxist International to be built up without and against the opportunists. Only a programme that shows that we have faith in ourselves and in Marxism, and that we have proclaimed a life-and-death struggle against opportunism, will sooner or later win us the sympathy of the genuinely proletarian masses.

The RSDLP has long parted company with its opportunists. Besides, the Russian opportunists have now become chauvinists. This only fortifies us in our opinion that a split with them is essential in the interests of Socialism. We are convinced that the Social-Democrats' present differences with the social-chauvinists are in no way less marked than the Socialists' differences with the Anarchists when the Social-Democrats parted company with the latter. The opportunist Monitor was right when he wrote, in the Preussische Jahrbücher [Prussian Yearbooks], that the unity of today is to the advantage of the opportunists and the bourgeoisie, because it has compelled the Left wing to submit to the chauvinists and prevents the workers from understanding the polemic and forming their own genuinely working-class and genuinely Socialist political party. We are firmly convinced that, in the present state of affairs, a split with the opportunists and chauvinists is the prime duty of revolutionaries, just as a split with the yellow trade unions, the anti-Semites, the liberal trade unions, and so on, was essential in helping speed up the enlightenment of backward workers and draw them into the ranks of the Social-Democratic Party.

In our opinion, the Third International should be built up on that kind of revolutionary basis. To our Party, the question of the expediency of a break with the social-chauvinists does not exist, it has been answered with finality. The only question that exists for our Party is whether this can be achieved on an international scale in the immediate future.

It is perfectly obvious that, to create an international Marxist organization, there must be a readiness to form independent Marxist political parties in the various countries. As a country with the oldest and strongest working-class movement, Germany is of decisive importance. The immediate future will show whether the conditions are mature for the formation of a new and Marxist International. If they are, our Party will gladly join such a Third International, purged of opportunism and chauvinism. If they are not, then that will show that a more or less protracted period of evolution is needed for that purge to be effected. Our Party will then form the extreme opposition within the old International, pending the time when the conditions in the various countries make possible the formation of an international workers' association standing on the basis of revolutionary Marxism.

We do not know and cannot know what road world developments will take in the next few years. What we do know for certain and are unshakably convinced of is that our Party will work indefatigably in the above-mentioned direction, in our country and among our proletariat, and through its day-by-day activities will build up the Russian Section of the Marxist International.

In Russia, too, there is no lack of avowed social-chauvinist and Centrist groups. These people will fight against the formation of a Marxist International. We know that, in principle, Plehanov shares the standpoint of Südekum and is already holding out a hand to the latter. We know that, under Akselrod's leadership, the so-called Organizing Committee is preaching Kautskyism on Russian soil. Under a cloak of working-class unity, these people are calling for unity with the opportunists and, through the latter, with the bourgeoisie. Everything we know about the present-day working-class movement in Russia, however, gives us full assurance that the class-conscious proletariat of Russia will, as until now, remain with our Party.

The tactics of the RSDLP in relation to the war, as outlined above, are the inevitable outcome of the 30 years' development of Social-Democracy in Russia. These tactics, as well as the present state of Social-Democracy in our country, cannot be properly understood without going deeper into the history of our Party. That is why here, too, we must remind the reader of the major facts in that history.

As an ideological trend, the Social-Democratic movement arose in 1883, when Social-Democratic views, as applied to Russia, were, for the first time, systematically expounded abroad by the Emancipation of Labour group. Until the early 1890s, Social-Democracy was an ideological trend without links with the mass working-class movement in Russia. At the beginning of the 1890s, the growth of public consciousness and the unrest and strike movement among the workers turned Social-Democracy into an active political force inseparably connected with the struggle (both economic and political) of the working class. It was from that time, too, that the split into Economists and Iskra-ists [Spark-ists] began in the Social-Democratic movement.

#4.1. THE ECONOMISTS AND THE OLD SPARK (1894-1903)

Economism was an opportunist trend in Russian Social-Democracy. Its political essence was summed up in the programme: «For the workers, the economic struggle; for the liberals, the political struggle.» Its theoretical mainstay was so-called «Legal Marxism» or «Struveism», which «recognized» a «Marxism» that was completely devoid of any revolutionary spirit and adapted to the needs of the liberal bourgeoisie. Pleading the backwardness of the masses of workers in Russia, and wishing to «march with the masses», the Economists restricted the tasks and scope of the working-class movement to the economic struggle and to political support for liberalism; they set themselves no independent political or revolutionary tasks.

The old Spark (1900-03) waged a victorious struggle against Economism, for the principles of revolutionary Social-Democracy. The finest elements in the class-conscious proletariat sided with the Spark. Several years before the revolution, the Social-Democrats came out with a most consistent and uncompromising programme, whose correctness was borne out by the class struggle and by the action of the masses during the Revolution of 1905. Whereas the Economists adapted themselves to the backwardness of the masses, the Spark was educating the workers' vanguard that was capable of leading the masses onward. The present-day arguments of the social-chauvinists (that is, the need to reckon with the masses; the progressiveness of imperialism; the «illusions» harboured by the revolutionaries; and so on) were all advanced by the Economists. It was 20 years ago that the Russian Social-Democrats made their first acquaintance with the opportunist modification of Marxism into Struveism.

#4.2. THE MINORITY AND THE MAJORITY (1903-08)

The period of bourgeois-democratic revolution gave rise to a fresh struggle between Social-Democratic trends; this was a direct continuation of the previous struggle. Economism developed into Minoritarianism. The defence of the old Spark revolutionary tactics gave rise to Majoritarianism.

In the turbulent years of 1905-07, Minoritarianism was an opportunist trend backed by the bourgeois liberals, which brought liberal-bourgeois tendencies into the working-class movement. Its essence lay in an adaptation of the working-class struggle to suit liberalism. Majoritarianism, on the contrary, set the Social-Democratic workers the task of mobilizing the democratic peasantry for the revolutionary struggle, despite the vacillation and treachery of the liberals. As the Minoritarians themselves admitted on more than one occasion, the masses of workers followed the Majoritarian lead in all the most important actions of the revolution.

The Revolution of 1905 tested, developed, and tempered the uncompromisingly revolutionary Social-Democratic tactics in Russia. The direct action of classes and political parties repeatedly revealed the link between Social-Democratic opportunism (Minoritarianism) and liberalism.

#4.3. MARXISM AND LIQUIDATIONISM (1908-14)

The period of counter-revolution again placed on the agenda — this time in an entirely new form — the question of the opportunist and revolutionary tactics of the Social-Democrats. The mainstream in the Minority, regardless of protests from many of its finest representatives, brought forward the Liquidationist trend, a renunciation of the struggle for another revolution in Russia, a renunciation of underground organization and activities, contempt for and ridicule of the «underground», of the slogan for a republic, and so on. The group of legal contributors to the journal Our Dawn (our friends Potresov, Cerevanin, and others) formed a core — independent of the old Social-Democratic Party — which, in a thousand ways, had been supported, publicized, and nurtured by the liberal bourgeoisie of Russia, who are out to win the workers away from the revolutionary struggle.

This group of opportunists was expelled from the Party by the January 1912 Conference of the RSDLP, which reconstituted the Party, in the teeth of furious resistance from a number of groups and coteries abroad. For over two years (the beginning of 1912 until mid-1914), a stubborn struggle was in progress between the two Social-Democratic Parties: the Central Committee, which was elected in January 1912, and the Organizing Committee, which refused to recognize the January Conference and wanted to reconstitute the Party in a different way, by maintaining unity with the Our Dawn group. A stubborn struggle raged between the two workers' dailies (Pravda [Truth], and Luc¹¹ [Ray] and its successors), and between the two Social-Democratic groups in the Fourth Duma (the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group of Truth-ists or Marxists, and the «Social-Democratic group» of the Liquidators led by Cheidze).

The Truth-ists, who championed loyalty to the Party's revolutionary principles, encouraged the incipient revival of the working-class movement (especially after the spring of 1912), combined underground and aboveground organization, press, and agitation, and rallied around themselves the overwhelming majority of the class-conscious workers, whereas the Liquidators — who, as a political force, operated exclusively through the Our Dawn group — banked on the all-round support of the liberal-bourgeois elements.

The open money contributions made by workers' groups to the newspapers of the two political parties — a form of payment of Social-Democratic membership dues adapted to the Russian conditions of the time (and the only one legally possible and easily verifiable by the public) — strikingly confirmed the proletarian source of the strength and influence of the Truth-ists (Marxists), and the bourgeois-liberal source of the Liquidators (and their Organizing Committee). Here are the brief figures of these contributions, which are given in full in the book Marxism and Liquidationism¹² and summarized in the German Social-Democratic Leipziger Volkszeitung¹³ [Leipzig People's Newspaper] of the 21st of July, 1914.

The number and sums of contributions to the St. Petersburg daily newspapers, Marxist (Truth-ist) and Liquidationist, from the 1st of January to 13th of May, 1914, were the following:

| | Truth-ists | Liquidators | | —————————————— | —————— | —————- | | From workers' groups | | | | Number of contributions | 2'873 | 671 | | Sum in rubles | 18'934 | 5'296 | | From non-workers' groups | | | | Number of contributions | 713 | 453 | | Sum in rubles | 2'650 | 6'760 |

Thus, by 1914, our Party had united 4/5 of the class-conscious workers of Russia around revolutionary Social-Democratic tactics. For the whole of 1913, the Truth-ists received contributions from 2'181 workers' groups, the Liquidators from 661. The figures from the 1st of January, 1913 to the 13th of May, 1914 were: 5'054 contributions from workers' groups for the Truth-ists (that is, for our Party), and 1'332, that is, 20,8%, for the Liquidators.

The Great War in Europe of 1914-15 has given all the European Social-Democrats, as well as the Russian ones, an opportunity of putting their tactics to the test of a crisis of a worldwide scale. The reactionary and predatory nature of this war between slave-owners stands out in far more striking relief in the case of tsarism than it does in the case of the other governments. Yet the Liquidators' main group (the only one which, besides ours, exerts serious influence in Russia, thanks to its liberal connections) has turned toward social-chauvinism! With its fairly lengthy monopoly of legality, this Our Dawn group has conducted propaganda among the masses in favour of «non-resistance to the war», and victory for the Triple (and now Quadruple) Entente; it has accused German imperialism of extraordinary sins; and so on. Plehanov, who, since 1903, has given numerous examples of his utter political spinelessness and his desertion to opportunism, has taken this standpoint even more emphatically (which has won him praise from the entire bourgeois press of Russia). Plehanov has sunk so low as to declare that tsarism is waging a just war, and to grant interviews to Italian government newspapers, urging that country to enter the war!

The correctness of our appraisal of Liquidationism and of the expulsion of the main group of Liquidators from our Party has thus been fully confirmed. The Liquidators' real programme and the real significance of their trend today consist, not only in opportunism in general, but in a defence of the dominant-nation privileges and advantages of the Russian feudal lords and bourgeoisie. Liquidationism is a trend of national-liberal labour policy. It is an alliance of a faction of the radical small bourgeoisie and a tiny faction of privileged workers with their «own» national bourgeoisie, against the masses of the proletariat.

#4.5. THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN THE RANKS OF THE RUSSIAN SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS

As we have already said, our January 1912 Conference has not been recognized by the Liquidators, nor by a number of groups abroad (those of Plehanov, Aleksinskij, Trotskij, and others), or by the so-called «national» (that is, non-Russian) Social-Democrats. Among the numberless epithets hurled against us, «usurpers» and «splitters» have been most frequently repeated. We have replied by quoting precise and objectively verifiable figures showing that our Party has united 4/5 of the class-conscious workers in Russia. This is no small figure, considering the difficulties of underground activities in a period of counter-revolution.

If «unity» were possible in Russia on the basis of Social-Democratic tactics, without expelling the Our Dawn group, why have our numerous opponents not achieved it, even among themselves? 3 1/2 years have elapsed since January 1912, and, all this time, our opponents, much as they have desired to do so, have failed to form a Social-Democratic Party in opposition to us. This fact is our Party's best defence.

The entire history of the Social-Democratic groups that are fighting against our Party has been a history of collapse and disintegration. In March 1912, all of them, without exception, «united» in reviling us. But, already in August 1912, when the so-called August Bloc¹⁴ was formed against us, disintegration set in among them. Some of the groups defected from them. They were unable to form a political party and a Central Committee; what they set up was only an Organizing Committee «for the purpose of restoring unity». Actually, this Organizing Committee proved an ineffective cover for the Liquidationist group in Russia. Throughout the tremendous upswing of the working-class movement in Russia and the mass strikes of 1912-14, the only group in the entire August Bloc to conduct work among the masses was the Our Dawn group, whose strength lay in its links with the liberals. Early in 1914, the Latvian Social-Democrats officially withdrew from the August Bloc (the Polish Social-Democrats did not join it), while Trotskij, one of the leaders of the Bloc, left it unofficially, again forming his own, separate group. At the Brussels Conference of July 1914, at which the Executive Committee of the International Socialist Bureau, Kautsky, and Vandervelde participated, the so-called Brussels Bloc was formed against us, which the Latvians did not join, and from which the Polish opposition Social-Democrats immediately withdrew. On the outbreak of war, this bloc collapsed. Our Dawn, Plehanov, Aleksinkij, and An,¹⁵ the leader of the Caucasian Social-Democrats, became open social-chauvinists, who came out for the desirability of Germany's defeat. The Organizing Committee and the Bund defended the social-chauvinists and the principles of social-chauvinism. Although it voted against the war credits (in Russia, even the bourgeois democrats, the Labourites, voted against them), the Cheidze Duma group remained Our Dawn's faithful ally. Plehanov, Aleksinskij, and Company, our extreme social-chauvinists, were quite pleased with the Cheidze group. In Paris, the newspaper Nase Slovo [Our Word] (the former Voice) was launched, with the participation of Martov and Trotskij, who wanted to combine a platonic defence of internationalism with an absolute demand for unity was Our Dawn, the Organizing Committee, or the Cheidze group. After 250 issues, this newspaper was itself compelled to admit its disintegration: one faction of the Editorial Board gravitated toward our Party, Martov remained faithful to the Organizing Committee, which publicly censured Our Dawn for its «Anarchism» (just as the opportunists in Germany, David and Company, Internationale Korrespondenz¹⁶ [International Correspondence], and Legien and Company have accused Comrade Liebknecht of Anarchism); Trotskij announced his rupture with the Organizing Committee, but wanted to stand with the Cheidze group. Here are the programme and the tactics of the Cheidze group, as formulated by one of its leaders. In No. 5, 1915, of the Sovremennij Mir¹⁷ [Contemporary World], journal of the Plehanov and Aleksinskij trend, Chenkeli wrote:

To say that German Social-Democracy was in a position to prevent its country from going to war and failed to do so would mean either secretly wishing that it should not only have breathed its last at the barricades, but also have the homeland breathe its last, or looking at nearby things through an Anarchist's telescope.¹⁸

These few lines express the sum and substance of social-chauvinism: both the justification, in principle, of the idea of «defence of the homeland» in the present war, and mockery — with the permission of the military censors — of the preachment of and preparation for revolution. It is not at all a question of whether the German Social-Democrats were or were not in a position to prevent war, or whether, in general, revolutionaries can guarantee the success of a revolution. The question is: Shall Socialists behave like Socialists or really breathe their last in the embrace of the imperialist bourgeoisie?

#4.6. OUR PARTY'S TASKS

Social-Democracy in Russia arose before the bourgeois-democratic revolution (1905) in our country, and gained strength during the revolution and counter-revolution. The backwardness of Russia explains the extraordinary multiplicity of trends and shades of small-bourgeois opportunism in our country; whereas the influence of Marxism in Europe and the stability of the legally existing Social-Democratic Parties before the war converted our exemplary liberals into near-admirers of «reasonable», «European» (non-revolutionary), «legal» «Marxist» theory and Social-Democracy. The working class of Russia could not build up its political party otherwise than in a resolute 30-year struggle against all the varieties of opportunism. The experience of the World War, which has brought about the shameful collapse of European opportunism and has strengthened the alliance between our national liberals and social-chauvinist Liquidationism, has still further fortified our conviction that our Party must follow the same consistently revolutionary road.

Editor's Note: The First International Socialist Conference, held at Zimmerwald, Switzerland, met on the 5th to 8th of September, 1915 and was attended by 38 delegates from 11 European countries — Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Lenin led the delegation of the Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. The Conference discussed: firstly, reports from the various countries; secondly, a joint declaration by the German and French representatives; thirdly, the Zimmerwald Left's proposal for a policy resolution; fourthly, the Zimmerwald Manifesto; fifthly, elections to the International Socialist Committee; and, sixthly, a message of sympathy with war victims. It adopted the Manifesto To the European Proletariat, in which, at the insistence of Lenin and the Left-wing Social-Democrats, several fundamental propositions of revolutionary Marxism were included. The Conference also adopted a joint declaration by the German and French delegations, a message of sympathy with war victims and fighters persecuted for their political activities, and elected the International Socialist Committee. The Zimmerwald Left group was formed at this Conference. Lenin's appraisal of the Conference and the Majoritarian tactics will be found in his articles The First Step and Revolutionary Marxists at the International Socialist Conference. ↩
See: Carl von Clausewitz: On War (Before 1831) ↩
Editor's Note: The Quadruple Entente was the imperialist alliance of Britain, France, Russia, and Italy during the imperialist First World War. The latter joined the Entente after breaking away from the Central Powers. ↩
Source: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party (December 1847-January 1848) ↩
Editor's Note: Brentanoism refers to the bourgeois-reformist doctrine of the German economist Lujo Brentano, a variety of the bourgeois distortion of Marxism. Brentano advocated a «class truce» in capitalist society, insisted on the possibility of the social contradictions in capitalism being overcome without resorting to class struggle, and maintained that the solution of the working-class problem lay in the organization of reformist trade unions and the introduction of factory legislation and that the interests of workers and capitalists could be reconciled. Under the guise of Marxist phrases, Brentano and his followers tried to subordinate the working-class movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie. ↩
Editor's Note: Novosti [News] was a Social-Revolutionary daily published in Paris between August 1914 and May 1915. ↩
Editor's Note: Proletarskij Golos [Proletarian Voice] was an underground paper published by the St. Petersburg Committee of the RSDLP between February 1915 and December 1916. Four issues appeared, The War and Russian Social-Democracy being published in No. 1. ↩
Editor's Note: The Copenhagen Conference of Socialists of Neutral Countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands) took place on the 17th and 18th of January, 1915 with the aim of reconstituting the Second International. The Conference resolved to appeal, through the Socialist Parties' members of parliaments, to the respective governments, offering to act as mediators between the belligerent countries and attempt to bring about the termination of the war. ↩
Editor's Note: The International Socialist Youth Conference on the attitude toward the war was held on the 4th to 6th of April, 1915 in Berne, Switzerland. the Conference was attended by representatives of youth organizations from ten countries: Russia, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Italy, Denmark, and Sweden. The Conference passed a decision to celebrate International Youth Day annually, and elected the International Socialist Youth Bureau, which began publication of the Jugend-Internationale [Youth International] in compliance with Conference decisions. Lenin and Karl Liebknecht contributed to this journal. ↩
Editor's Note: This refers to the Dutch Social-Democratic Party, whose mouthpiece was the newspaper De Tribune [Tribune]. Their leaders were Wijnkoop, Pannekoek, Gorter, and Roland-Holst. Though not a consistently revolutionary political party, the Tribunists formed the Left wing of the Dutch labour movement, and, during the imperialist First World War (1914-18), adhered to internationalist principles. In 1918, they founded the Communist Party of Holland. ↩
Editor's Note: Luc [Ray] was a legal daily of the Minoritarian Liquidators, published in St. Petersburg from September 1912 to July 1913. The newspaper was maintained chiefly by contributions from the liberals. ↩
Editor's Note: This refers to Marxism and Liquidationism: A Symposium of Articles on the Fundamental Issues of the Modern Labour Movement. A number of articles by Lenin directed against the Liquidators were published in the symposium. Here, he is referring to his articles, The Working Class and Its Press and How the Workers Responded to the Formation of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Group in the Duma. ↩
Editor's Note: Leipziger Volkszeitung [Leipzig People's Newspaper] was a daily of the Left-wing German Social-Democrats, published from 1894 to 1933. For many years, Comrades Franz Mehring and Rosa Luxemburg were its editors. From 1917 to '22, it was the organ of the Independent Social-Democratic Party. After 1922, it became the organ of the Right-wing Social-Democrats. ↩
Editor's Note: The August Bloc was an anti-Party bloc of Liquidators, Trotskijites, and other opportunists against the Majority. It was founded by Trotskij at a conference of anti-Party groups and trends held in Vienna in August 1912. The overwhelming majority of delegates were living abroad and out of touch with the working class in Russia; they had no direct links with the Party work in Russia. The conference passed anti-Party, liquidationist decisions on all questions of Social-Democratic tactics, and declared against the existence of an underground political party. The August Bloc, which consisted of ill-assorted elements, soon fell apart at the impact of the Majority, which defended the underground workers' party. ↩
Editor's Note: This refers to N.N. Jordania, the leader of the Caucasian Minority. ↩
Editor's Note: Internationale Korrespondenz [International Correspondence] was a weekly of a social-chauvinist trend dealing with problems of world politics and the working-class movement, published in Berlin from 1914 to '17. ↩
Editor's Note: Sovremennij Mir [Contemporary World] was a literary, scientific, and political journal established in St. Petersburg from 1906 to '18. Its chief contributors were Minoritarians, including G.V. Plehanov. Majoritarians contributed to the journal during the bloc with Plehanov and in early 1914. During the imperialist First World War (1914-18), it became the organ of the social-chauvinists. ↩
Author's Note: Trotskij recently announced that he deemed it his task to enhance the prestige of the Cheidze group in the International. No doubt Chenkeli will with equal energy enhance Trotskij's prestige in the international... ↩