Socialists have always condemned war between nations as barbarous and brutal. But our attitude towards war 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 the country; we understand that war cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created; and we also differ in that we fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary. We Marxists differ from both the pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from the standpoint of Marx's dialectical materialism) to study each war separately. In history there have been numerous wars which, in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally harmful and reactionary

page 5

    The Great French Revolution ushered in a new epoch in the history of mankind. From that time to the Paris Commune, from 1789 to 1871, one of the types of wars were wars of a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberating character. In other words, the chief content and historical significance of these wars were the overthrow of absolutism and feudalism, the undermining of these institutions, the overthrow of alien oppression. Therefore, those were progressive wars, and during such wars, all honest, revolutionary democrats, and also all Socialists, always sympathized with the success of that country (i.e., with that bourgeoisie), which had helped to overthrow, or sap, the most dangerous foundations of feudalism, absolutism and the oppression of other nations. For example, the revolutionary wars waged by France contained an element of plunder and conquest of alien territory by the French, but this does not in the least alter the fundamental historical significance of these wars, which destroyed and shattered feudalism and absolutism in the whole of old, serf-ridden Europe. In the Franco-Prussian war, Germany plundered France, but this does not alter the fundamental historical significance of this war, which liberated tens of millions of German people from feudal disintegration and

page 6

    The epoch of 1789-1871 left deep traces and revolutionary memories. Before feudalism, absolutism and alien oppression were overthrown, the development of the proletarian struggle for Socialism was out of the question. When speaking of the legitimacy of "defensive" war in relation to the wars of such an epoch, Socialists always had in mind precisely these objects, which amounted to revolution against medievalism and serfdom. By "defensive" war Socialists always meant a "just " war in this sense (W. Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). Only in this sense have Socialists regarded, and now regard, wars "for the defence of the fatherland," or "defensive" wars, as legitimate, progressive and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be "just," "defensive" wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathize with the victory of the operessed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slave-owning, predatory "great" powers.

    But picture to yourselves a slave-owner who owned 100 slaves warring against a slave-owner who owned 200 slaves for a more "just" distribution of slaves. Clearly, the application of the term "defensive" war, or war "for the defence of the fatherland," in such a case would be historically false, and in practice would be sheer deception of the common peo-

page 7

    Nearly everybody admits that the present war is an imperialist war, but in most cases this term is distorted or applied to one side, or a loophole is left for the assertion that this war may, after all, have a bourgeois-progressive, national liberating significance. Imperialism is the highest stage in the development of capitalism, reached only in the twentieth century. Capitalism now finds the old national states, without the formation of which it could not have overthrown feudalism, too tight for it. Capitalism has developed concentration to such a degree that whole branches of industry have been seized by syndicates, trusts and associations of capitalist billionaires, and almost the entire globe has been divided up among the "lords of capital," either in the form of colonies, or by enmeshing other countries in thousands of threads of financial exploitation. Free trade and competition have been superseded by the striving for monopoly, for the seizure of territory for the investment of capital, for the export of raw materials from them, and so forth. From the liberator of nations that capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist capitalism has become the greatest oppressor of nations. Formerly progressive, capitalism has be

page 8

    To explain the significance of imperialism, we will quote exact figures showing the division of the world among the so-called "great" (i.e., successful in great plunder) powers: [See p. 9 --Ed.] From this it is seen how most of the nations which fought at the head of others for freedom in 1789-1871, have now, after 1876, on the basis of highly developed and "overripe" capitalism, become the oppressors and enslavers of the majority of the populations and nations of the globe. From 1876 to 1914, six "great" powers grabbed 25 million sq. kilometres, i.e., an area two and a half times that of Europe! Six powers are enslaving over half a billion (523 million) inhabitants of colonies. For every four inhabitants of the "great" powers there are five inhabitants of "their" colonies. And everybody knows that colonies are conquered by fire and sword, that the populations of colonies are brutally treated, that they are exploited in a thousand ways (by exporting capital, concessions, etc., cheating when selling them goods, subordination to the authorities of the "ruling" nation, and

page 9

"Great" Powers	C o l o n i e s				Metropolises		T o t a l
	1876		1914		1914
	Square kilome- ters	Inhab- itants	Square kilome- ters	Inhab- itants	Square kilome- ters	Inhab- itants	Square kilome- ters	Inhab-  itants
	millions		millions		millions		millions
England Russia France Germany Japan United States   of America	22.5 17.0  0.9  ---  ---  ---	251.9  15.9   6.0  ---  ---  ---	33.5 17.4 10.6  2.9  0.3  0.3	393.5  33.2  55.5  12.3  19.2   9.7	0.3  5.4  0.5  0.5  0.4  9.4	46.5 136.2  39.6  64.9  53.0  97.0	33.8 22.8 11.1  3.4  0.7  9.7	440.0 169.4 95.1 77.2 72.2 106.7
Six "great"   powers	40.4	273.8	65.0	523.4	16.5	437.2	81.5	960.6
Colonies belonging not to   great powers (but to   Belgium, Holland and   other states) Three "semi-colonial" countries   (Turkey, China, Persia)			9.9	45.3			9.9   14.5	45.3   361.2
T o t a l							105.9	1,367.1
Other states and countries							28.0	289.9
Entire globe (without polar regions)							133.9	1,657.0

page 10

so on and so forth). The Anglo-French bourgeoisie are deceiving the people when they say that they are waging war for the freedom of nations and for Belgium; actually they are waging war for the purpose of retaining the colonies they have inordinately grabbed. The German imperialists would free Belgium, etc., at once if the British and French would agree "fairly" to share their colonies with them. The peculiarity of the situation lies in that in this war the fate of the colonies is being decided by war on the Continent. From the standpoint of bourgeois justice and national freedom (or the right of nations to existence), Germany would be absolutely right as against England and France, for she has been "done out" of colonies, her enemies are oppressing an immeasurably far larger number of nations than she is, and the Slavs who are oppressed by her ally Austria undoubtedly enjoy far more freedom than those in tsarist Russia, that real "prison of nations." But Germany is fighting not for the liberation, but for the oppression of nations. It is not the business of Socialists to help the younger and stronger robber (Germany) to rob the older and overgorged robbers. Socialists must take advantage of the struggle between the robbers to overthrow them all. To be able to do this, the Socialists must first of all tell the people the truth, namely, that this war is in a treble sense a war between slave-owners to fortify slavery. This is a war firstly, to fortify the enslavement of the colonies by means of a "fairer" distribution and subsequent more "concerted" exploitation of them; secondly, to fortify the oppression of other nations within the "great" powers, for both Austria and Russia (Russia more and much worse than Austria) maintain their rule only by such oppression, intensifying it by means of war; and thirdly, to fortify and prolong wage slavery, for the proletariat is

page 11

    The favourite plea of the social-chauvinist triple (now quadruple) entente (in Russia, Plekhanov and Co.), is the example of Belgium. But this example goes against them. The German imperialists shamelessly violated the neutrality of Belgium, as belligerent states have done always and every where, trampling upon all treaties and obligations if necessary. Let us suppose that all the states interested in the observation of international treaties declared war on Germany with the demand for the liberation and indemnification of Belgium. In such a case, the sympathies of Socialists would, of course, be on the side of Germany's enemies. But the whole point is that the "triple (and quadruple) entente" is waging war not over Belgium: this is perfectly well known, and only hypocrites conceal this. England is grabbing Germany's colonies and Turkey; Russia is grabbing 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, Asia Minor); bargaining is going on with Bulgaria and Rumania, also for the division of the spoils. In the present war waged by the present governments it is impossible to help Belgium without helping to strangle Austria or Turkey, etc.! How does "defence of the

page 13

    In Russia, capitalist imperialism of the latest type has fully revealed itself in the policy of tsarism towards Persia, Manchuria and Mongolia; but, in general, military and feudal imperialism predominates in Russia. In no country in the world is the majority of the population oppressed so much as it is in Russia; Great Russians constitute only 43 per cent of the population, i.e., less than half; all the rest are denied rights as aliens. Of the 170 million inhabitants of Russia, about 100 million are oppressed and denied rights. Tsarism is waging war to seize Galicia and finally to crush the liberties of the Ukrainians, to seize Armenia, Constantinople, etc. Tsarism regards the war as a means of diverting attention from the growth of discontent within the country and of suppressing the growing revolutionary movement. At the present time, for every two Great Russians in Russia there are from two to three rightless "aliens": tsarism is striving by means of the war to increase the number of nations oppressed by Russia, to perpetuate this oppression and thereby undermine the struggle for freedom which the Great Rus-

page 14

    Social-chauvinism is advocacy of the idea of "defence of the fatherland" in the present war. Further, this idea logically leads to the abandonment of the class struggle during the war, to voting war credits, etc. Actually, the social chauvinists are pursuing an anti-proletarian, bourgeois policy; for actually, they are championing not "defence of the fatherland" in the sense of fighting foreign oppression, but the "right" of one or other of the "great" powers to plunder colonies and to oppress other nations. The social-chauvinists repeat the bourgeois deception of the people that the war is being waged to protect the freedom and existence of nations, and thereby they go over to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. In the category of social-chauvinists are those who justify and embellish 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 have an equal right to "defend the fatherland." Social-chauvinism, being actually defence of the privileges, advantages, robbery and violence of one's "own" (or every) imperialist bourgeoisie, is the utter betrayal of all socialist convictions and of the decision of the Basle International Socialist Congress.

page 15

    The Russian social-chauvinists (headed by Plekhanov), refer to Marx's tactics in the war of 1870; the German (of the type of Lensch, David and Co.) to Engels' statement in 1891 that in the event of war against Russia and France together, it would be the duty of the German Socialists to defend their fatherland; and lastly, the social-chauvinists of the Kautsky type, who want to reconcile and legitimatize international chauvinism, refer to the fact that Marx and Engels, while condemning war, nevertheless, constantly, from 1854-1855 to 1870-1871 and 1876-1877, took the side of one or another belligerent state 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 Co. distort the views of Marx and Engels in justification of anarchism. The war of 1870-1871 was a historically progressive war on the part of Germany until Napoleon III was defeated; for the latter, together with the tsar, had oppressed Germany for many years, keeping her in a state of feudal disintegration. But as soon as the war developed into the plunder of France (the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine), Marx and Engels emphatically condemned the Germans. And even at the beginning of that war Marx and Engels approved of the refusal of Bebel and Liebknecht to vote for credits and advised the Social-Democrats not to merge with the bourgeoisie, but to uphold the independent class interests of the proletariat. To apply the appraisal of this bourgeois-progressive and national-liberating war to the present imperialist war means mocking at truth.

page 17

The same applies with still greater force to the war of 1854-1855, and to all the wars of the nineteenth century, when there was no modern imperialism, no ripe objective conditions for Socialism, and no mass Socialist parties in any of the belligerent countries, i.e., none of the conditions from which the Basle Manifesto deduced the tactics of "proletarian revolution" in connection with a war between the great powers.

    The Socialists of all the world solemnly declared in Basle, in 1912, that they regarded the impending war in Europe as the "criminal" and most reactionary affair of all the governments, which must hasten the downfall of capitalism by inevitably calling forth a revolution against it. The war came, the crisis came. Instead of revolutionary tactics, the majority of the Social-Democratic parties conducted reactionary tactics, 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 understand what caused this collapse, what brought social-chauvinism into being, what gave it strength.

page 18

    During the whole epoch of the Second International, a struggle raged everywhere in the Social-Demoaatic parties between the revolutionary and the opportunist wings. In a number of countries a split has taken place along this line (England, Italy, Holland, Bulgaria). Not a single Marxist has any doubt that opportunism expresses bourgeois policy within the working-class movement, expresses the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the alliance of a tiny section of bourgeoisified workers with "their" bourgeoisie against the interests of the proletarian masses, the oppressed masses.

    The objective conditions of the end of the nineteenth century exceptionally intensified opportunism, converted the utilization of bourgeois legality into subservience to it, created a tiny stratum of bureaucrats and aristocrats within the working class, and drew into the ranks of the Social-Democratic parties numerous petty-bourgeois "fellow travelers."

    The war accelerated 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 everywhere have introduced martial law and have muzzled the mass of the workers, whose old leaders have nearly all gone over to the bourgeoisie.

    Opportunism and sociaI-chauvinism have the same economic basis: the interests of a tiny stratum of privileged workers and of the petty bourgeoisie who are defending their privileged position, their "right" to crumbs of the profits "their" national bourgeoisie obtain from robbing other na-

page 19

tions, from the advantages of their position as the ruling nation, etc.

    In the past epoch, before the war, although opportunism was often regarded as a "deviationist," "extremist" part of the Social-Democratic Party, it was nevertheless regarded as a legitimate part. The war has shown that this cannot be so in [the -- DJR] future. Opportunism has "matured," is now playing to the full its role as emissary of the bourgeois in the

page 20

    The war has undoubtedly created a most acute crisis and has increased the distress of the masses to an incredible de gree. The reactionary character of this war, and the shameless lies told by the bourgeoisie of all countries in covering up their predatory aims with "national" ideology, are inevitably creating, on the basis of an objectively revolutionary situation, revolutionary moods among the masses. It is our duty to help the masses to become conscious of these moods, to deepen and formulate them. This task is correctly exrpressed only by the slogan: convert the imperialist war into civil war; and all consistently waged class struggles during the war, all seriously conducted "mass action" tactics inevitably lead to this. It is impossible to foretell whether a powerful revolutionary movement will flare up during the dirst or the second war of the great poers, whether during or after it; in any case, our bounden duty is systematicallyand undeviatingly to work precisely in this direction.

    The Basle Manifesto refers directly to the example set by the Paris Commune, i.e., to the conversion of a war between governments into civil war. Half a century ago, the proletariat was too weak; the objective conditions for Socialism had not yet ripened; there could be no coordination and

page 23

    The bourgeois newspapers of all the belligerent countries have reported cases of fraternization between the soldiers of the belligerent nations even in the trenches. And the issue by the military authorities (of Germany, England) of draconic orders against such fraternization proved that the governments and the bourgeoisie attached grave importance to it. The fact that such cases of fraternization have been possible even when opportunism reigns supreme in the top ranks of the Social-Democratic parties of Western Europe, and when social-chauvinism is supported by the entire Social-Democratic press and by all the authorities of the Second International, 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, if only by the Left-wing Socialists in all the belligerent countries.

page 24

    The most prominent Anarchists all over the world, no less than the opportunists, have disgraced themselves with social-chauvinism (in the spirit of Plekhanov and Kautsky) in this war. One of the useful results of this war will undoubtedly be that it will kill both anarchism and opportunism.

    Both the advocates of victory for their governments in the present war and the advocates of the slogan "neither victory nor defeat," equally take the standpoint of social-chauvinism. A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war, cannot fail to see that its military reverses facilitate its overthrow. Only a bourgeois who believes that a war started by the 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 wish for the of all "their" governments and express this wish. On the contrary, it is precisely a statement of this kind that would conform to the cherished thoughts of every class-conscious worker, and would be in line with our activities towards converting the imperialist war into civil war.

    The sentiments of the masses in favour of peace often express incipient protest, anger and consciousness of the reac-

page 26

    The most widespread deception of the people perpetrated by the bourgeoisie in the present war is the concealment of its predatory aims with "national-liberation" ideology. The English promise the liberation of Belgium, the Germans of Poland, etc. Actuallyj as we have seen, this is a war waged by the oppressors of the majority of the nations of the world for the purpose of fortifying and expanding such oppression.

    Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations. Therefore, they must without fail demand that the Social-Democratic parties of oppressing countries (especially of the so-called "great" powers) should recognize and champion the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, precisely in the political sense of the term, i.e., the right to political secession. The So-

page 27

cialist of a ruling or colony-owning nation who fails to champion this 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 widespread formation of very big states and federations of states, which are more beneficial for the masses and more fully in keeping with economic development.

    The Socialists of oppressed nations must, in their turn unfailingly fight for the complete (including organizational) unity of the workers of the oppressed and oppressing nationalities. The idea of the juridical separation of one nation from another (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 and, therefore, it is impossible to fight for the socialist internationaI revolution against imperialism unless the right of nations to self-determination is recognized. "No nation can be free if it oppresses other nations" (Marx and Engels). A proletariat that tolerates the slightest violence by "its" nation against other nations cannot be a socialist proletariat.

page 28

    In one respect, the Russian government has not lagged behind its European confrères; like them, it has succeeded in deceiving "its" people on a grand scale. A huge, monstrous machine of falsehood and cunning was set going in Russia too for the purpose of infecting the masses with chauvinism, of creating the impression that the tsarist government is waging a "just" war, that it is disinterestedly defending its "brother Slavs," etc.

    The landlord class and the upper stratum of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie ardently supported the tsarist government's bellicose policy. They are rightly expecting enormous material gains and privileges for themselves out of the partition of the Turkish and the Austrian legacy. A whole series of their congresses already have a foretaste of the profits that would flow into their pockets if the tsarist army were victorious. Moreover, the reactionaries are very well aware that if anything can postpone the downfall of the Romanov monarchy and delay the new revolution in Russia, it can only be a foreign war that ends in victory for the tsar.

    Broad strata of the urban "middle" bourgeoisie, of the bourgeois intelligentsia, professional people, etc., were also

page 29

infected with chauvinism -- at all events at the beginning of the war. The Cadets -- the party of the Russian liberal bourgeoisie -- wholly and unreservedly supported the tsarist government. 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 degenerated into national liberalism. It is vying in patriotism with the Black Hindreds; it always willingly votes for militarism, na valism, etc. In the camp of Russian liberalism, approximately the same thing is observed as was seen in the 70's in Germany when "free-thinking" liberalism decayed and from it arose a national-liberal party. The Russian liberal bourgeoisie has definitely taken the path of counter-revolution. The point of view of the R.S.D.L.P. on this question has been fully confirmed. Life has shattered the view held by our opportunists that Russian liberalism is still a motive force of the revolution in Russia.

    Among the peasantry, the ruling clique, with the aid of the bourgeois press, the clergy, etc., also succeeded in rousing chauvinist sentiments. But, as the soldiers return from the field of slaughter, sentiment in the rural districts will undoubtedly turn against the tsarist monarchy. The bourgeois-democratic parties that come in contact with the peasantry failed to withstand the chauvinist wave. The Trudovik party in the State Duma refused to vote for war credits; but through the mouth of its leader Kerensky it made a "patriotic" declaration which played extremely well into the hands of the monarchy. The entire legally published press of the "Narodniks" in general, trailed behind the liberals. Even the Left-wing of bourgeois democracy -- the

page 30

    The only class in Russia that they did not succeed in infecting with chauvinism is the proletariat. Only the most ignorant strata of the workers were involved in the few excesses that occurred at the beginning of the war. The part played by workers in the Moscow anti-German riots was greatly exaggerated. In general, and on the whole, the working class of Russia proved to be immune to chauvinism.

    This is to be explained by the revolutionary situation in the country and by the general conditions of life of the Russian proletariat.

    The years 1912-1914 marked the beginning of a new, grand revolutionary upswing in Russia. We again witnessed a great strike movement such as the world has not known. The number involved in the mass revolutionary strike in 1913 was, at the very lowest estimation, one and a half

page 31

million, and in 1914 it rose above two million and drew near to the level of 1905. On the eve of the war, in St. Petersburg, things had already developed to the first barricade battles.

    The underground Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party performed its duty to the International to the full. The banner of internationalism did not falter in its hands. Our Party had broken organizationally with the opportunist groups and elements long ago; its feet were not weighted with the fetters of opportunism and of "legalism at any price," and this circumstance helped it to perform its revolutionary duty -- just as the break-away from Bissolati's opportunist party helped the Italian comrades too.

    The general situation in our country is inimical to the efflorescence of "socialist" opportunism among the masses of the workers. In Russia we see a whole series of shades of opportunism and reformism among the intelligentsia, the petty bourgeoisie, etc.; but it constitutes an insignificant minority among the politically active strata of the workers. The privileged stratum of workers and office employees in our country is very weak. The fetishism of legality could not be created here. The Liquidators (the party of the opportunists led by Axelrod, Potressov, Cherevanin, Maslov, and others) found no serious support among the masses of the workers before the war. The elections to the Fourth State Duma resulted in the return of all the six anti-liquidator worker deputies. The circulation of and collection of funds for the legally published workers' press in Petrograd and Moscow have proved irrefutably that four-fifths of the class-conscious workers are opposed to opportunism and liquidationism.

page 32

    In 1913 a split occurred among the Social-Democratic deputies in the State Duma. On one side were the seven supporters of opportunism led by Chkheidze. They were elected for the seven non-proletarian gubernias* where the workers numbered 214,000. On the other side were six deputies, all from workers' curiae, elected for the most industrialized centres in Russia, in which the workers numbered 1,008,000.

    The chief issue in the split was: the tactics of revolutionary Marxism or the tactics of opportunist reformism? In

page 33

practice, the disagreement manifested itself mainly in the sphere of work outside of parliament among the masses. In Russia this work had to be conducted secretly if those conducting it wanted to remain on revolutionary ground. The Chkheidze group remained a faithful ally of the Liquidators who repudiated underground work, and defended them in all talks with the workers, at all meetings. Hence the split. The six deputies formed the R.S.D.L. group. The year's work has shown irrefutably that this is the group that the overwhelming majority of the Russian workers supports.

    On the outbreak of the war the disagreement stood out in glaring relief. The Chkheidze group confined itself to parliamentary action. It did not vote for credits, for had it done so it would have roused against itself a storm of indignation among the workers. (We have seen that in Russia even the petty-bourgeois Trudoviki did not vote for credits); but it did not utter a protest against social-chauvinism either.

    The R.S.D.L. group, expressing the political line of our Party, acted differently. It carried into the very depths of the working class a protest against the war; it conducted anti-imperialist propaganda among the broad masses of the Russian proletarians.

    And it met with a very sympathetic response among the workers -- which frightened the government and compelled it, in flagrant violation of its own laws, to arrest our comrades, the deputies, and to sentence them to lifelong exile in Siberia. In its very first official announcement of the arrest of our comrades the tsarist government wrote:

    "An entirely exceptional position in this respect was taken by some members of Social-Democratic societies, the object of whose activities was to shake the military might of Russia

page 34

by agitating against the war by means of underground appeals and verbal propaganda."

    In response to Vandervelde's well-known appeal "tem porarily" to stop the struggle against tsarism -- it has now become known from the evidence of Prince Kudashev, the tsar's envoy in Belgium, that Vandervelde did not draw up this appeal alone, but in collaboration with the above mentioned tsar's envoy -- only our Party, through its Central Committee, replied in the negative. The guiding centre of the Liquidators agreed with Vandervelde and officially stated in the press that "in its activities it will not counteract the war."

    The tsarist government's primary charge against our comrades, the deputies, was that they propagated this negative answer to Vandervelde among the workers.

    At the trial, the tsarist Prosecutor, Mr. Nenarokomov, set up the German and French Socialists as examples for our comrades. "The German Social-Democrats," he said, "voted for the war credits and proved to be the 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 other classes, forgot party strife and unhesitatingly rallied round the flag." But the members of the R.S.D.L. group, obeying the instructions of the Central Committee of the Party, did not act in this way, he said. . . .

    The trial unfolded 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 tsarist court did not by a very long way "reveal" all the activities our comrades were conducting in this sphere;

page 35

but even what was revealed showed how much had been done within the short space of a few months. At the trial the secret manifestoes issued by our groups and committees against the war and for international tactics were read. Threads stretched from the class-conscious workers all over Russia to the members of the R.S.D.L. group, and the latter did all in its power to help the workers to appraise the war from the standpoint of Marxism.

    Comrade Muranov, the deputy of the workers of the Kharkov Gubernia, said at the trial:

    "Understanding that the people did not send me into the State Duma for the purpose of wearing out the seat of a Duma armchair, I travelled about the country to ascertain the mood of the working class." He admitted at the trial that he took upon himself the function of a secret agitator of our Party, that in the Urals he organized a workers' committee at the Verkhneisetsky Works, and in other places. The trial showed that after the war broke out members of the R.S.D.L. group travelled through almost the whole of Russia for propaganda purposes, that Muranov, Petrovsky, Badayev and others arranged numerous workers' meetings, at which anti-war resolutions were passed, and so forth.

    The tsarist government threatened the accused with capital punishment. Owing to this, not all of them behaved at the actual trial as bravely as Comrade Muranov. They tried to make it difficult for the tsarist prosecutors to secure their conviction. The Russian social-chauvinists are now meanly utilizing this to obscure the essence of the question: what kind of parliamentarism does the working class need?

    Parliamentarism is recognized by Sudekum and Heine, Sembat and Vaillant, Bissolati and Mussolini, Chkheidze and Plekhanov, and parliamentarism is recognized by our

page 36

comrades in the R.S.D.L. Duma group; it is recognized 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 win the favour of their governments, or, at best, to wash their hands of everythmg, like the Chkheidze group. 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 bring them into ministerial seats; the parliamentary activities of others bring them -- to prison, to exile, to penal servitude. Some serve the bourgeoisie, others -- the proletariat. Some are social-imperialists. Others are revolutionary Marxists.

page 37

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

    Oh, the social-chauvinists of all countries are big "internationalists"! Since the very beginning of the war they have been burdened with care for the International. On the one hand, they assure us that the talk about the collapse of the International is "exaggerated." Actually, nothing exceptional has occurred. Listen to Kautsky: simply, the International is a "peacetime instrument"; naturally, this instrument was found to be somewhat not up to the mark in wartime. On the other hand, the social-chauvinists of all countries have found a very simple -- and chiefly, an international -- way out of the situation that has arisen. A simple way out: it is only necessary to wait until the war ends; but until the war ends the Socialists of each country must defend their "fatherland" and support "their" government; when the war ends -- mutual "amnesty," admission that everybody was right, that in peacetime we live like brothers, but in wartime we

page 38

-- on the basis of such and such resolutions -- call upon the German workers to exterminate their French brothers, and vice versa.

    On this Kautsky and Plekhanov and Victor Adler and Heine are equally agreed. Victor Adler writes that "when we have passed through this hard time, our first duty will be to refrain from pointing to the mote in each other's eye." Kautsky asserts that "up till now no voices of serious Socialists have been heard from any side that rouse apprehensions" concerning the fate of the International. Plekhanov says that "it is unpleasant to grasp the hands" (of the German Social-Democrats) "that reek of the blood of the innocently killed." But he at once goes on to propose an "amnesty": "here it will 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." Heine, in Sozialistische Monatshefte describes Vandervelde's behaviour as "courageous and proud," and sets him up as an example for the German Lefts.

    In short, when the war ends, appoint a commission consisting of Kautsky and Plekhanov, Vandervelde and Adler and a "unanimous" resolution in the spirit of mutual amnesty will be drawn up in a trice. The dispute will be safely covered up. Instead of helping the workers to understand what has occurred, they will deceive them with sham, paper "unity." The amalgamation of the social-chauvinists and hypocrites of all countries will be described as the restoration of the International.

    We must not conceal from ourselves the fact that the danger of such a "restoration" is very great. The social chauvinists of all countries are equally interested in it. All of them are equally unwilling that the masses of the workers

page 39

themselves should try to grasp the issue: Socialism or nationalism? All of them are equally interested in covering up each other's sins. None of them is able to propose anything except what is proposed by that virtuoso in "international" hypocrisy, Kautsky.

    There can be no doubt whatever that what interests all internationalists most is the state of affairs among the German Social-Democratic opposition. Official German Social-Democracy, which was the strongest and the leading party in the Second International, struck the heaviest blow at the

page 40

international workers' organization. But at the same time, it was in German Social-Democracy that the strongest opposition was found. Of all the big European parties, it was in the German party that the loud voice of protest of the comrades who have remained loyal to the banner of Socialism was first raised. It was with joy that we read the magazines Lichtstrahlen and Die Internationale. With still greater joy we learned of the distribution in Germany of secretly printed manifestoes, as for example the manifesto entitled: "The Chief Enemy Is at Home." This showed that the spirit of Socialism is alive among the German workers, that there are still people in Germany capable of upholding revolutionary Marxism.

    The split in the present-day socialist movement has been most strikingly revealed within German Social-Democracy. Here we very distinctly see three trends: the opportunist chauvinists, who have nowhere sunk to such a degree of renegacy as they have in Germany; the Kautskyan "Centre," which has here proved to be incapable of playing any other role than that of servitors of the opportunists; and the Left -- who are the only Social-Democrats in Germany.

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

    What is the state of affairs in it? The magazine Die Internationale was quite right when it wrote that the German Left was still in a state of ferment, that considerable regroupings still lie ahead in it, that there are more resolute and less resolute elements within it.

    We Russian internationalists do not in the least, of course, claim the right to interfere in the internal affairs of our comrades the German Lefts. We are aware that they alone are

page 41

fully competent to determine their methods of fighting the opportunists in conformity with the conditions of time and place. Only, we deem it our right and duty frankly to express our opinion on the state of affairs.

    We are convinced that the author of the leading article in the magazine Die Imernationale was profoundly right when he asserted that the Kautskyan "Centre" is doing more harm to Marxism than avowed social-chauvinism. Whoever now obscures disagreements, whoever now, in the guise of Marxism, preaches to the workers what Kautskyism is preaching, is lulling the workers, is more harmful than the Sudekums and Heines, who put the question bluntly and compel the workers to try to grasp the issue.

    The fact that Kautsky and Haase are permitting themselves lately to demur against the "official bodies" 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 fight against the "official bodies" precisely in order to be able, after the war, to obscure the fundamental dispute for the workers and to gloss the matter over with the 1,001st puffy resolution couched in a vaguely "Leftist" spirit, in the drafting of which the diplomats of the Second International are such masters.

    It is quite understandable that in their arduous struggle against the "official bodies" the German opposition should also make use of this unprincipled opposition raised by Kautskyism. But what must remain the touchstone for every interna-

page 42

tionalist is -- hostility towards neo-Kautskyism. Only he is a genuine internationalist who fights Kautskyism, who under stands that, fundamentally, the "Centre," even after the sham turn taken by its leaders, remains an ally of the chauvinists and opportunists.

    The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party split away from its opportunists long ago. The Russian opportunists have now, in addition, bccome chauvinists. This only strengthens our opinion that a split from them in the interests of Socialism is essential. We are convinced that the Social Democrats' present disagreements with the social-chauvinists are in no way less wide than the Socialists' disagreements with the Anarchists when the Social-Democrats split away from the latter. The opportunist Monitor rightly said in Preussische Jahrbücher that the present unity was to the advantage of the opportunists and the bourgeoisie because it compelled the Lefts to submit to the chauvinists and prevents the workers from grasping the issue and from forming their own genuinely workers', genuinely socialist party. We are most firmly convinced that in the present state of affairs, a split from the opportunists and chauvinists is the primary duty of the revolutionary -- just as a split from the yellows, the anti-Semites, the liberal workers' unions, etc., was essen-

page 45

tial precisely in the interests of the speediest enlightenment of the backward workers and of drawing them into the ranks of the Social-Democratic Party.

    In our opinion, the Third International should be built on precisely such a revolutionary basis. For our Party, the question as to whether it is expedient to break with the social-chauvinists does not exist. For it, this question has been irrevocably settled. The only question that exists for our Party is whether this can be achieved in the nearest future on an international scale.

    It is quite understandable that to bring about an international Marxist organization, there must be a readiness to form independent Marxist parties in different countries. Germany, being the country with the oldest and strongest working-class movement, is of decisive importance. The immediate future will show whether conditions have already ripened for the formation of a new, Marxist International. If they have, our Party will gladly join such a Third International that will be purged of opportunism and chauvinism. If they have not, it will show that a more or less prolonged evolution is needed for this purging. In that case, our Party will be the extreme opposition within the old International -- until a base is formed in different countries for an international working men's association that stands on the basis of revolutionary Marxism.

    We do not, nor can we, know, what developments will take place in the international arena within the next few years. But there is one thing we know for certain, and of which we are unshakably convinced, namely, that our Party, in our country, among our proletariat, will work tirelessly in the above-mentioned direction, and by all its daily activities

page 46

will build up the Russian section of the Marxist International.

    In Russia too we have no lack of avowed social-chauvinists and "Centre" groups. These people will fight against the formation of a Marxist International. We know that Plekhanov, in principle, stands on the same ground as Sudekum and is already stretching out a hand to him. We know that the so-called "Organization Committee" led by Axelrod is preaching Kautskyism on Russian soil. In the guise of working-class unity, these people are preaching unity with the opportunists and, through them, with the bourgeoisie. But everything we know about the present working-class movement in Russia fully convinces us that the class-conscious proletariat in Russia will, as hitherto, remain with our Party.

page 47

    The above-described tactics of the R.S.D.L.P. in relation to the war are the inevitable result of the thirty years' development of Social-Democracy in Russia. These tactics, and the present state of Social-Democracy in our country, cannot be properly understood unless one ponders over the history of our Party. That is why we must here too remind the reader about the major facts in this history.

    As an ideological trend, Social-Democracy 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 beginning of the nineties, Social-Democracy remained an ideological trend with no connection with the mass working-class movement in Russia. At the begnning of the nineties, the upswing of the social movement, the unrest and strike movement among the workers, transformed Social-Democracy into an active political force inseparably connected with the struggle (both economic and political) of the working class. And from that very moment Social-Democracy began to split up into "Economists" and "Iskra-ists."

page 48

    The epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolution gave rise to a new struggle between trends in Social-Democracy that was the direct continuation of the preceding struggle. "Economism" changed into "Menshevism." The championing of the revolutionary tactics of the old Iskra gave rise to "Bolshevism."

    In the turbulent years of 1905-1907, Menshevism was an opportunist trend backed by the bourgeois liberals, and carried liberal-bourgeois trends into the working-class movement. Adaptation of the working-class struggle to liberalism -- such was its substance. Bolshevism, on the contrary, set the Social-Democratic workers the task of rousing the democratic peasantry for the revolutionary struggle despite the vacillation and treachery of liberalism. And the masses of the workers, as the Mensheviks themselves admitted more than once, marched with the Bolsheviks during the revolution in all the biggest actions.

    The 1905 revolution tested, strengthened, deepened and steeled the uncompromisingly revolutionary Social-Democratic tactics in Russia. The open actions of classes and parties repeatedly disclosed the connection between Social-Democratic opportunism ("Menshevism") and liberalism.

page 50

    The counter-revolutionary epoch again, in an entirely new form, placed the question of the opportunist and revolution ary tactics of Social-Democracy on the order of the day. The chief current of Menshevism, in spite of the protests of many of its best representatives, gave rise to the trend of liquidationism, renunciation of the struggle for a new revolution in Russia, renunciation of secret organization and activity, contempt for and ridicule of the "underground," of the slogan of a republic, etc.) The group of legal writers for the magazine Nasha Zarya (Messrs. Potressov, Cherevanin, and others) constituted a nucleus, independent of the old Social-Democratic Party, which in a thousand ways was supported, boosted and nursed by the liberal bourgeoisie of Russia which wanted to wean the workers from the revolutionary struggle.

    The great European war of 1914-1915 gave all the European and also the Russian Social-Democrats the opportunity to test their tactics on a crisis of world-wide dimensions. The reactionary, predatory and slave-owner character of the war stands out in immeasurably more striking relief in the case of tsarism than it does in the case of the other governments. Nevertheless, the major group of Liquidators (the only group besides ours which has serious influence in Russia thanks to its liberal connections) turned towards social chauvinism! Enjoying a monopoly of legality for a fairly long period, this Nasha Zarya group conducted propaganda among the masses in favour of "non-resistance to the war," of wishing for the victory of the triple (now quadruple) entente, accusing German imperialism of "super-diabolical sins," etc. Plekhanov, who, since 1903, has repeatedly given examples of his extreme political spinelessness and desertion to opportunism, took up still more pronouncedly the very position that is so highly praised by the whole of the bour-

page 53

geois press of Russia. Plekhanov has sunk so low as to declare that tsarism is waging a just war, and to publish an interview in the government newspapers in Italy urging her to enter the war!!

    As we have already said, neither the Liquidators, nor a number of groups abroad (those of Plekhanov, Alexinsky, Trotsky and others), nor the so-called "national" (i.e., non-Great Russian) Social-Democrats have recognized our Conference of January 1912. Among the innumerable epithets hurled against us, those most often repeated were "usurpers" and "splitters." We answered by quoting exact and objectively verifiable figures showing that our Party united four-fifths of the class-conscious workers in Russia. This is no small figure considering the difficulties of underground activities in a counter-revolutionary epoch.

page 54

    If "unity" were possible in Russia on the basis of Social-Democratic tactics without expelling the Nasha Zarya group, why have not our numerous opponents brought it about even among themselves? No less than three and a half years have passed since January 1912, and during the whole of 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 our Party is a history of collapse and disintegration. In March 1912, all of them without exception "united" in abusing us. But already in August 1912, when the so-called "August bloc" was formed against us, disintegration began among them. Some of the groups fell away from them. They could not form a party and a Central Committee. They set up only an Organization Committee "for the purpose of restoring unity." Actually, this O.C. turned out to be a feeble cover for the liquidationist group in Russia. During the whole period of the tremendous upswing of the working class movement in Russia and of the mass strikes of 1912-1914, the only group in the entire August bloc that conducted activities among the masses was the Nasha Zarya group, whose strength lay in its liberal connections. And in the beginning of 1914, the Lettish Social-Democrats officially withdrew from the "August bloc" (the Polish Social-Democrats did not join it), while Trotsky, one of the leaders of the bloc, left it unofficially, having again formed his own separate group. In July 1914, at the conference in Brussels, with the participation of the Executive Committee of the I.S.B., Kautsky and Vandervelde, the so-called "Brussels bloc" was formed against us, which the Letts did not join, and from which the Polish opposition Social-Democrats

page 55

page 57

working class of Russia could not build up its party otherwise than in a resolute, thirty-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 of our national-liberals with social-chauvinist liquidationism, still further strengthens our conviction that our Party must continue further along the same consistently revolutionary road.

Written in July-August 1915
 
Published in pamphlet form
in the autumn of 1915 by the
editorial board of the newspaper
Sotsial-Demokrat, Geneva

page 99