Dear friend! As regards “defence of the fatherland” I do not know whether there are differences between us or not. You find a contradiction between my article in the symposium *In Memory of Marx*** and my present statements, without quoting accurately

* — “Send the book”.—Ed.

** See “Marxism and Revisionism” (present edition, Vol. 17, pp. 29–39).—Ed.

either. It is impossible for me to reply to this observation. I have not got the symposium *In Memory of Marx*. Remembering literally what I wrote there, I cannot, of course. Without
exact quotations, from then and now, I am unable to reply to such an argument from
your side.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that you reason somewhat one-sidedly and
formalistically. You take one quotation from the *Communist Manifesto* (the workers have no fatherland) and seem to wish to apply it without reservations, right up to the denial of
national wars.

The whole spirit of Marxism, its whole system, demands that each proposition be considered only (α) historically; (β) only in connection with others; (γ) only in connection with the concrete
experience of history.

Fatherland is a historical concept. The fatherland in the epoch, or to be more exact: in the
moment of struggle for the overthrow of national oppression, is one thing. It is another thing when national movements are far behind. For the “three types of countries” (§ 6 of our theses on self-determination)* the proposition about the fatherland and its defence cannot be applied identically under all conditions.

In the *Communist Manifesto* it is said that the workers have no fatherland.

That is true. But it says not only that. It says also that when national states are being formed the role of the proletariat is somewhat specific. If one takes the first proposition (the workers have no fatherland) and forgets its connection with the second (the workers constitute themselves as a class nationally, though not in the same sense as the bourgeoisie), that will be
arch-incorrect.

What then is this connection? In my opinion, precisely that in the democratic movement (in such a moment, in such a concrete situation) the proletariat cannot refuse to support it (hence, also to defend the fatherland in a national war).

Marx and Engels said in the *Communist Manifesto* that the workers have no
fatherland. But the same Marx

* See “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” (present edition, Vol. 27, pp.
260–61).—Ed.

more than once called for a national war: Marx in 1848, Engels in 1859 (the end of his pamphlet *Po und Rhein*, where he directly inflames the national feeling of the Germans, directly calls
them to a national war). Engels in 1891, in view of the war that was then threatening and approaching against Germany by France (Boulanger) + Alexander III, directly recognised “defence
of the fatherland”.402

Were Marx and Engels muddle-heads, saying one thing today and another tomorrow?

No. In my opinion, the recognition of “defence of the fatherland” in a national war is fully in keeping with
Marxism. In 1891 the German Social-Democrats would really have had to defend the fatherland in a war against Boulanger + Alexander III. That would have been a peculiar
variant of a national war.

Incidentally: in saying this I repeat what was said in the article against Yuri.* You are silent about it for some reason. It seems to me that it is precisely in that article that there are a number of propositions which clarify to the end (or almost) my understanding of Marxism on the question raised here.

On Radek—on the “quarrel” (???!!!) with Radek. Already in the spring I had a dispute with Grigory, who completely failed to understand the political situation at that time and reproached me with a break
with the Zimmerwald Left. That is nonsense.

Connection with the Zimmerwald Left is also a conditional thing. Firstly, Radek ≠ the Zimmerwald Left. Secondly, there was no “break” with Radek in general, but only in a definite
sphere. Thirdly, it is absurd to understand connection with Radek in such a way that our hands are tied in the necessary theoretical and practical struggle.

Ad 1 (to point 1). I have never anywhere made a single step, not a shadow, not only towards a break, but even towards a weakening of the connection with the “Zimmerwald Left”. No one has
pointed out or will point out such a step. Not with Borchardt, not with the Swedes, not with Knief, etc., etc.
(Radek very basely ousted us from the editorial board of the *Vorbote*. Radek behaves in politics
like a Tyszka-type huckster, insolent, impudent, stupid. Grigory wrote

* See “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism” (present edition, Vol. 30, pp. 76–129).—Ed.

to me in the spring of 1916, when I was already in Zurich, that he had no “collegial
work” with Radek. Radek moved away—that is a fact. He moved away because of the *Vorbote*, both from me and from Grigory. Because of the impudence and huckstering baseness of one individual,
the Zimmerwald Left did not cease to be the Left, and it is not worth, it is not clever, not correct to drag it in here.
The *Gazeta Robotnicza*, issue of February 1916, is a specimen of this Tyszka-type (Radek follows in
his footsteps) vilely-lackeyish “game”. Whoever forgives such things in politics, I consider a simpleton or a scoundrel. I shall never forgive them. For this one hits them in the mug
or turns one’s back on them.

I did, of course, the latter. And I do not regret it. We have not lost an iota of our connections with the German Lefts. When the task arose of actually going together with Radek (the Zurich congress
of November 4-5, 1916 403), we went together. All of Grigory’s silly little phrases about my
break with the Zimmerwald Left turned out to be nonsense, which they always were.)
Ad 2—the “sphere” of the break with Radek was, then, (α) Russian and Polish affairs. The resolution of the C.C. confirmed this. (β) The story with Yuri and Co. Radek even now writes (I can
send you them, if you wish) extremely impudent letters to me (and Grigory) on the theme that,
so to speak, “we” (he + Bukharin + Yuri and Co.) “look at it” in such-and-such a way!! Only a simpleton and a scoundrel, who wishes to invent an “intrigue”, crawling into the chink of differences
between us and Yuri and Co., could write like that. If Radek did not understand what he was doing, then he was a simpleton.

If he did understand, then a scoundrel.

The political task of our Party was clear: we could not tie our hands by giving equality in
the editorial board to N. I. + Yuri + E. B. (Grigory did not understand this and drove me to a
direct ultimatum: I declared that I would leave *Kommunist* if we did not break with it.
*Kommunist* was good as long as the trio, who made up half the editorial board, had no particular programme). To give equality to a group of Bukharin + Yuri + E. B. would have been
idiocy and the spoiling of the whole work. Not a drop

of brains has either Yuri, a perfect little sucking-pig, or E. B., and if they allowed themselves to be driven to
group stupidity with Bukharin, then it was necessary to break with them, or more exactly: with *Kommunist*.
That is what was done.

The polemic over self-determination is only just beginning. Here they have a complete mess—and in
the whole question of the attitude towards democracy. To give “equality” here to suckling-pigs and blockheads—never! They did not want to learn peacefully and in a comradely fashion, so let them blame themselves. (I pestered them, calling for talks about this in Berne: they turned up their noses! I wrote them letters
of dozens of pages to Stockholm—they turned up their noses! Well, if that’s the case, go to the devil. I did everything possible for a peaceful outcome. You don’t want that—well, then I’ll smash your mug
and brand you as little blockheads before the whole world. This and only this is how we must act.) What has Radek to do with this? you may ask.

The point is that he was the “heavy artillery” of this “group”, artillery hidden in the bushes on the sideline. Yuri and Co. did not calculate badly (E. B. has intriguing capacities, it turned out she was not leading Yuri towards us, but was creating a group against us). They
calculated: we shall open war, and it is Radek who will do the fighting for us!! Radek will fight for us, so to speak, and Lenin will be tied.

Not a bit of it, my dearest sucking-pigs! I shall not let myself be tied in politics. You want to fight? Come out openly. And the role of Radek—slyly inciting young little sucking-pigs,
while hiding himself behind the “Zimmerwald Left”—is the height of baseness. The filthiest...
from the Tyszka swamp could not have huckstered, lackeyed and intrigued behind one’s back more basely.

Ad 3—has already been clearly said. The question of the attitude of imperialism to democracy and the minimum programme is arising more and more widely (see the Dutch programme in No. 3 of the Bulletin 404; the American S.L.P.* have thrown out the whole minimum programme. *Entwaffnungsfrage***). Here Radek has absolutely a mess in his head (this is clear from his the-

* — Socialist Labour Party.—Ed.

** — The question of disarmament.—Ed.

ses; this was also shown by the question of indirect and direct taxes, raised by my theses). To tie my hands in the explanation of this most important and fundamental question I shall never
permit. I cannot. The question must be explained. On it there will be dozens more “falls” (they will stumble).

He who understands the “connection” of the Zimmerwald Left in such a way that we shall allow our hands to be tied in the theoretical struggle against “imperialist
economism” (this is an international disease: Dutch-American-Russian, etc.) understands nothing. To learn by heart the “Zimmerwald Left” and bang one’s forehead on the floor before the total mess in theory in Radek—I shall not go in for that.

Summing up: after Zimmerwald the manoeuvres were more difficult. We had to take what was needed from
Radek and E. B. and Co., without allowing our hands to be tied. I consider that I succeeded in this. After Bukharin’s departure for America and, chiefly, after the sending to us of Yuri’s article and his
acceptance (he accepted it! had to accept it) of my reply—their cause, as a “group”, was finished. (And Grigory wanted to perpetuate this group, giving it equality: *we would have given it
equality!!*)
With Radek we divided on the Russian-Polish arena and did not invite him into our
*Sbornik**.* That was necessary.

And he cannot now do anything to spoil the work. He was compelled at the congress in Zurich (November 5, 1916) to go together with me, as now, against Grimm.

What does this mean? It means that I succeeded in dividing*** the questions: not an iota has been
weakened in the international onslaught on the Kautskyites (Grimm *y compris****), and at the same
time I am not subordinated to “equality” with Radek’s blockheadism!

Strategically, I now consider the matter won. It is possible that Yuri + Co. + Radek
+ Co. will swear.

* The reference is to *Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata*.—Ed.

** This was very difficult!!

*** — including.—Ed.

*Allez-y, mes amis!* Now the *odium*† will fall on *you*, not on us. But now you cannot
harm the cause, and our road is cleared. We have disentangled ourselves from the dirty (in every sense) muddle with Yuri and with Radek, without weakening the “Zimmerwald Left” by an iota and
having the premises for a struggle against blockheadism on the question of the attitude towards democracy.

*Voilà.*†† Excuse the long letter and the abundance of sharp words: I cannot write otherwise when I speak frankly. Well, that is all *entre nous*†††, it will do, I suppose, and the superfluous cursing.

Best greetings! Yours, Lenin

In general both Radek and Pannekoek pose the question of the struggle against Kautskyism incorrectly.
This NB!!

to Clarens (Switzerland)

---

Written on November 30, 1916

Sent from Zurich

First published in 1949

in *Bolshevik* No. 1

Printed from the original