V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v30; en:CW/CW22;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

In issue No. 2 of the Marxist journal of the Zimmerwald Left, *Vorbote* (No. 2, April 1916),{11} theses for and against the self-determination of nations were published, signed by the editorial board of our Central Organ, *Sotsial-Demokrat*,{12} and the editorial board of the organ of the Polish Social-Democratic opposition, *Gazeta Robotnicza*.{13} The reader will find above a reprint of the former and a translation of the latter. On the international arena this question is being posed so broadly perhaps for the first time: in the discussion conducted in the German Marxist journal *Die Neue Zeit* twenty years ago, in 1895–1896, before the London International Socialist Congress of 1896, by Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky and the Polish “niepodległościowcy” (supporters of Poland’s independence, the PPS), who represented three different views, the question was raised only with regard to Poland.{14} Up to now, as far as we know, the question of self-determination has been discussed with any degree of system only by the Dutch and the Poles. Let us hope that *Vorbote* will succeed in advancing the discussion of this question, which is so urgent now, among the English, Americans, French, Germans and Italians. Official socialism, represented both by the direct supporters of “their own” governments, the Plekhanovs, Davids and Co., and by the covert defenders of opportunism, the Kautskyans (including Axelrod, Martov, Chkheidze, etc.), has become so utterly debased on this question that for a very long time to come there will inevitably be, on the one hand, attempts to keep silent and evade the issue, and, on the other, demands by the workers for “direct answers” to the “accursed questions”. We shall try to keep our readers informed in good time of the course of the struggle of views among socialists abroad.

For us Russian Social-Democrats the question is of particular importance; this discussion is a continuation of the discussions of 1903 and 1913;{15} the war has caused some vacillation of thought among members of our Party on this question; it has been sharpened by the tricks of such prominent leaders of the Gvozdyov or chauvinist workers’ party as Martov and Chkheidze, who try to evade the essence of the matter. It is therefore necessary to sum up, if only the first results, of the discussion that has been started on the international arena.

As can be seen from the theses, our Polish comrades give us a direct answer to some of our arguments, for example, on Marxism and Proudhonism. But for the most part they answer us not directly but indirectly, by counterposing their own assertions. Let us examine their indirect and direct answers.

**1. Socialism and the Self-Determination of Nations**

We asserted that it would be a betrayal of socialism to refuse to implement the self-determination of nations under socialism. We are answered: “the right to self-determination is not applicable to socialist society.” The divergence is fundamental. What is its source?

“We know,” our opponents retort, “that socialism will abolish all national oppression, because it abolishes the class interests which lead to it…” What has this reasoning about the economic prerequisites for the abolition of national oppression, which have long been known and are indisputable, to do with the case when the dispute is about one of the forms of political oppression, namely, the forcible retention of one nation within the boundaries of another state? This is simply an attempt to evade political questions! And the subsequent reasoning convinces us still more of the correctness of this appraisal:

“We have no grounds for assuming that in socialist society the nation will have the character of an economic-political unit. In all probability it will have only the character of a cultural and linguistic unit, since the territorial division of the socialist cultural sphere, insofar as such a division will exist, can take place only according to the needs of production, and the decision on this division, of course, must be taken not by individual nations, singly, with full sovereign power (as the ‘right to self-determination’ demands), but jointly by all the citizens concerned…”

This last argument, about joint determination instead of self-determination, pleases the Polish comrades so much that they repeat it three times in their theses! But the frequency of repetition does not turn this Octobrist and reactionary argument into a Social-Democratic one. For all reactionaries and bourgeois grant the nations forcibly retained within the boundaries of a given state the right to “jointly determine” its destinies in a common parliament. Wilhelm II also grants the Belgians the right to “jointly determine” the destinies of the German Empire in a common German parliament.

It is precisely the point at issue—the very thing that is exclusively under discussion, the right to secession—that our opponents are trying to evade. This would be funny if it were not so sad!

In our very first thesis we said that the liberation of oppressed nations presupposes, in the political sphere, a twofold transformation: (1) complete equality of nations. There is no dispute about this, and it applies only to what takes place within the state; (2) freedom of political secession.[4] This applies to the determination of state boundaries. This alone is disputed. And it is precisely this that our opponents are silent about. They do not wish to think about state boundaries, nor even about the state in general. This is a kind of “imperialist economism”, similar to the old “economism” of 1894–1902, which argued: capitalism has triumphed, therefore political questions are of no account.{16} Imperialism has triumphed, therefore political questions are of no account! Such an apolitical theory is fundamentally hostile to Marxism.

Marx wrote in his critique of the Gotha Programme: “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period, the state of which can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”{17} Up to now this truth has been indisputable for socialists, and it contains the recognition of the state right up to the time when victorious socialism develops into complete communism. Engels’ saying about the withering away of the state is well known. We deliberately emphasised in our very first thesis that democracy is a form of the state, which will also wither away when the state withers away. And until our opponents replace Marxism with some new, “non-state” point of view, their reasoning is a sheer error.

Instead of speaking about the state (and therefore about the determination of its boundaries!), they speak about the “socialist cultural sphere”, i.e., they deliberately choose an expression which is indefinite in that respect, so that all state questions are obliterated! The result is a ridiculous tautology: of course, if there is no state, then there is no question of its boundaries. Then the entire democratic-political programme is unnecessary. There will be no republic either when the state “withers away”.

The old “economists”, turning Marxism into a caricature, taught the workers that for Marxists “only” the “economic” is important. The new “economists” think either that the democratic state of victorious socialism will exist without boundaries (like a “complex of sensations” without matter), or that boundaries will be determined “only” according to the needs of production. In reality these boundaries will be determined democratically, i.e., in accordance with the will and “sympathies” of the population. Capitalism violates these sympathies and thereby adds new difficulties to the cause of bringing nations together. Socialism, by organising production without class oppression, by ensuring the well-being of all members of the state, thereby gives full scope to the “sympathies” of the population and, precisely because of this, facilitates and enormously accelerates the drawing together and fusion of nations.

To give the reader a little respite from this ponderous and clumsy “economism”, let us quote the reasoning of a socialist writer who is not involved in our dispute. This writer is Otto Bauer, who also has his “hobby-horse”, “cultural-national autonomy”,{19} but who reasons very correctly on a number of most important questions. For example, in §29 of his book *The National Question and Social Democracy*, he very correctly noted the way imperialist policy is concealed by national ideology. In §30, “Socialism and the Principle of Nationality”, he says:

“A socialist community will never be able forcibly to incorporate entire nations within its borders. Imagine the masses of the people, possessing all the benefits of national culture, taking a full and active part in legislation and administration, and finally, being armed—would it be possible forcibly to subject such nations to the rule of an alien social organism? Every state power rests on armed force. The present-day people’s army, thanks to an ingenious mechanism, is still an instrument in the hands of a particular person, family, or class, just as the knightly and mercenary armies of bygone times. But the army of a democratic community of socialist society is nothing but the armed people, since it consists of highly cultured people, working freely in public workshops and taking a full part in all spheres of state life. Under such conditions every possibility of alien national domination disappears.”

That is correct. Under capitalism it is impossible to abolish national (and political in general) oppression. For this it is necessary to abolish classes, i.e., to introduce socialism. But, while basing itself on economics, socialism is by no means reduced to economics alone. For the elimination of national oppression a foundation is necessary—socialist production, but on this foundation there is also necessary a democratic organisation of the state, a democratic army, etc. By transforming capitalism into socialism, the proletariat creates the possibility of completely eliminating national oppression; this possibility becomes reality “only”—“only”!—with the full implementation of democracy in all spheres, up to the determination of state boundaries in accordance with the “sympathies” of the population, up to complete freedom of secession. On this basis, in turn, there will develop the practically absolute elimination of the slightest national friction, the slightest national distrust, and an accelerated drawing together and fusion of nations will be brought about, which will culminate in the withering away of the state. Such is the Marxist theory, from which our Polish colleagues have erroneously departed.

**2. Is Democracy “Realisable” under Imperialism?**

The whole old polemic of the Polish Social-Democrats against the self-determination of nations is built on the argument of its “unrealisability” under capitalism. As far back as 1903, in the Programme Commission of the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., we Iskra-ists laughed at this argument and said that it repeated the caricature of Marxism of the (sadly famous) “economists”. In our theses we dwelt in particular detail on this error, and it is precisely here, where the theoretical basis of the whole dispute lies, that the Polish comrades did not wish (or were unable?) to answer a single one of our arguments.

The economic impossibility of self-determination would have to be proved by means of an economic analysis, such as we use to prove the unrealisability of the prohibition of machinery or the introduction of labour money, etc. No one has even attempted to give such an analysis. No one will assert that in any country “as an exception” it has been possible to introduce “labour money” under capitalism, as it was possible for one small country, as an exception, in the era of the most unbridled imperialism, to realise the unrealisable self-determination, and even without war and revolution (Norway, 1905). In general, political democracy is only one of the possible (although theoretically normal for “pure” capitalism) forms of superstructure over capitalism. Both capitalism and imperialism, as the facts show, develop under all political forms, subordinating all of them to themselves. Therefore it is theoretically fundamentally wrong to speak of the “unrealisability” of one of the forms and one of the demands of democracy.

The absence of an answer from our Polish colleagues to these arguments compels us to regard the discussion on this point as closed. For the sake of clarity, so to speak, we put forward the most concrete assertion that it would be “ridiculous” to deny the “realisability” of the restoration of Poland now, depending on the strategic and other moments of this war. No answer was forthcoming!

The Polish comrades simply repeated a clearly incorrect assertion (§II, 1), saying: “in questions of the annexation of foreign territories, the forms of political democracy are eliminated; open force decides… Capital will never allow the people to decide the question of its state boundaries…” As if “capital” can “allow the people” to elect its officials who serve imperialism! Or as if any major decisions on important democratic questions, for example, a republic instead of a monarchy, a militia instead of a standing army, were conceivable without “open force”! Subjectively, the Polish comrades wish to “deepen” Marxism, but they do so very unsuccessfully. Objectively, their phrases about unrealisability are opportunism, for they tacitly assume: “unrealisable” without a series of revolutions, just as all democracy, all its demands in general, are unrealisable under imperialism.

Only once, at the very end of §II, 1, in the argument about Alsace, did the Polish colleagues abandon the position of “imperialist economism”, approaching the questions of one of the forms of democracy with a concrete answer, and not with a general reference to the “economic”. And this very approach turned out to be wrong! It would be “particularistic, undemocratic”, they write, if the Alsatians alone, without asking the French, “imposed” on them the annexation of Alsace to France, even if part of Alsace gravitated towards the Germans and this threatened war!!! The confusion is quite amusing: self-determination presupposes (this is self-evident and we particularly emphasised it in our theses) freedom of secession from the oppressing state; that annexation to a given state presupposes its consent is as “not customary” to speak of in politics as it is not customary in economics to speak of the “consent” of the capitalist to receive profit or of the worker to receive wages! It is ridiculous to speak of this.

If one is to be a Marxist politician, then, speaking of Alsace, one must attack the scoundrels of German socialism for not fighting for the freedom of secession of Alsace—attack the scoundrels of French socialism for putting up with the French bourgeoisie, which wishes forcibly to annex the whole of Alsace—attack both for serving the imperialism of “their own” country, fearing a separate, even if small, state; one must show how socialists, recognising self-determination, would settle the question in a few weeks without violating the will of the Alsatians. To argue instead about the terrible danger of the French Alsatians “imposing” themselves on France is simply a gem.

**3. What Is Annexation?**

We posed this question with complete definiteness in our theses (§7).[6] The Polish comrades did not answer it: they evaded it, emphatically declaring (1) that they are against annexations and (2) explaining why they are against them. These are very important questions, no doubt. But they are other questions. If we care at all about the theoretical thoroughness of our principles, about their clear and precise formulation, we cannot evade the question of what annexation is, since this concept figures in our political propaganda and agitation. The evasion of this question in a collegial discussion can be interpreted in no other way than as a refusal to take a stand.

Why did we pose this question? We explained this when posing it. Because “the protest against annexations is nothing else than the recognition of the right to self-determination”. The concept of annexation usually includes (1) the concept of force (forcible annexation); (2) the concept of alien national oppression (annexation of a “foreign” territory, etc.) and—sometimes—(3) the concept of violation of the *status quo*. We pointed this out in the theses, and this indication of ours met with no criticism.

The question arises: can Social-Democrats be against force in general? Clearly, no. Therefore, we are against annexations not because they are force, but for some other reason. Similarly, Social-Democrats cannot be for the *status quo* either. Turn it as you will, you cannot avoid the conclusion: annexation is a violation of the self-determination of a nation, it is the establishment of state boundaries against the will of the population.

To be against annexations means to be for the right to self-determination. To be “against the forcible retention of any nation within the boundaries of a given state” (we deliberately used this slightly modified formulation of the same idea in §4 of our theses,[7] and the Polish comrades answered us here quite clearly, declaring in their §I, 4, at the beginning, that they are “against the forcible retention of oppressed nations within the boundaries of the annexing state”)—this is the same as being for the self-determination of nations.

We do not wish to argue about words. If there is a party which declares in its programme (or in a resolution binding on all—the form is not important) that it is against annexations,[8] against the forcible retention of oppressed nations within the boundaries of its state, we declare our complete principled agreement with such a party. It would be absurd to cling to the word “self-determination”. And if in our Party there are people who wish to change the words, the formulation of §9 of our Party Programme in this spirit, we shall consider the disagreement with such comrades as not at all principled!

The only thing that matters is political clarity and theoretical thoroughness in our slogans.

In verbal discussions on this question—the importance of which, especially now, in connection with the war, no one denies—the following argument has been encountered (we have not found it in print): a protest against a known evil does not necessarily imply the recognition of a positive concept that excludes the evil. The argument is clearly untenable and therefore, obviously, has not been reproduced anywhere in print. If a socialist party declares that it is “against the forcible retention of an oppressed nation within the boundaries of the annexing state”, then that party thereby undertakes to renounce forcible retention when it comes to power.

We do not doubt for a moment that if tomorrow Hindenburg half-defeats Russia and the expression of this half-victory is (in connection with the desire of England and France to weaken tsarism a little) a new Polish state, fully “realisable” from the point of view of the economic laws of capitalism and imperialism, and if the day after tomorrow the socialist revolution triumphs in Petrograd, Berlin and Warsaw, then the Polish socialist government, like the Russian and German ones, will renounce the “forcible retention”, say, of the Ukrainians, “within the boundaries of the Polish state”. If the members of the editorial board of *Gazeta Robotnicza* are in this government, they will undoubtedly sacrifice their “theses” and thereby refute the “theory” that “the right to self-determination is not applicable to socialist society”. If we thought otherwise, we would put on the order of the day not a comradely discussion with the Social-Democrats of Poland, but a ruthless struggle against them as chauvinists.

Suppose I go out into the street of any European city and publicly declare, and then repeat in the newspapers, a “protest” against the fact that I am not allowed to buy a man into slavery. There is no doubt that I would be rightly considered a slave-owner, a supporter of the principle or system, as you like, of slavery. That my sympathy for slavery is clothed in the negative form of a protest, and not in a positive one (“I am for slavery”), will deceive no one. A political “protest” is fully equivalent to a political programme; this is so obvious that it is even awkward to be forced to explain it. In any case, we are firmly convinced that on the part of at least the Zimmerwald Left—we do not speak of all Zimmerwaldians, for there are Martov and other Kautskyans there—we shall not meet with a “protest” if we say that in the Third International there will be no place for people capable of separating a political protest from a political programme, of counterposing one to the other, etc.

Not wishing to argue about words, we permit ourselves to express the firm hope that the Polish Social-Democrats will soon try to formulate officially both their proposal to delete §9 from our (and their) Party Programme, as well as from the programme of the International (the resolution of the London Congress of 1896), and their definition of the corresponding political ideas about “old and new annexations” and about “the forcible retention of an oppressed nation within the boundaries of the annexing state”. Let us pass to the next question.

**4. For Annexations or Against Annexations?**

In §3 of the first section of their theses, the Polish comrades declare with complete definiteness that they are against all annexations. Unfortunately, in §4 of the same section we encounter assertions which must be recognised as annexationist. This § begins with the following… how shall we put it more mildly?… strange phrase:

“The starting point of the Social-Democratic struggle against annexations, against the forcible retention of oppressed nations within the boundaries of the annexing state, is the rejection of all defence of the fatherland (authors’ italics), which in the era of imperialism is the defence of the right of one’s own bourgeoisie to oppress and plunder foreign peoples…”

What is this? How is this?

“The starting point of the struggle against annexations is the rejection of all defence of the fatherland…” But “defence of the fatherland” can be called, and until now it was generally accepted to call, every national war and every national uprising! We are against annexations, but… we understand this to mean that we are against the war of the annexed for their liberation from the annexers, we are against the uprising of the annexed for the purpose of liberation from the annexers! Is this not an annexationist assertion?

The authors of the theses motivate their… strange assertion by the fact that “in the era of imperialism” defence of the fatherland is the defence of the right of one’s own bourgeoisie to oppress foreign peoples. But this is true only in relation to an imperialist war, i.e., a war between imperialist powers or groups of powers, when both belligerents not only oppress “foreign peoples”, but also wage war over who is to oppress foreign peoples more!

Such a view is clearly expressed in the theses of the German *International* group and in the pamphlet by Junius, to which we are devoting a special article.[11] Let us note, in addition to what is said there, that a national uprising of an annexed region or country against the annexer may be called precisely an uprising, and not a war (we have heard such an objection and therefore cite it, although we consider this terminological dispute unserious). In any case, hardly anyone will dare to deny that the annexed Belgium, Serbia, Galicia, Armenia will call their “uprising” against the annexer “defence of the fatherland”, and will call it correctly. It turns out that the Polish comrades are against such an uprising on the ground that in these annexed countries there is also a bourgeoisie, which also oppresses foreign peoples, or rather: may oppress, for the talk is only of its “right to oppress”. For the appraisal of a given war or a given uprising, therefore, what is taken is not its actual social content (the struggle of the oppressed nation against the oppressor for its liberation), but the possible exercise by the currently oppressed bourgeoisie of its “right to oppress”. If Belgium, say, in 1917 is annexed by Germany, and in 1918 rises for its liberation, the Polish comrades will be against the uprising on the ground that the Belgian bourgeoisie has the “right to oppress foreign peoples”!

There is not a grain of Marxism or of revolutionism in general in this reasoning. Without betraying socialism, we must support every uprising against our main enemy, the bourgeoisie of the big states, if this is not an uprising of a reactionary class. By refusing to support the uprising of annexed regions, we—objectively—become annexationists. It is precisely “in the era of imperialism”, which is the era of the beginning social revolution, that the proletariat will support with particular energy today the uprising of the annexed regions, in order tomorrow or simultaneously to attack the bourgeoisie of the “great” power weakened by such an uprising.

However, the Polish comrades go even further in their annexationism. They are not only against the uprising of the annexed regions, they are against any restoration of their independence, even a peaceful one! Listen:

“Social-Democracy, rejecting all responsibility for the consequences of the oppressive policy of imperialism, fighting against them in the sharpest manner, by no means comes out for the establishment of new boundary posts in Europe, for the restoration of those demolished by imperialism” (authors’ italics).

Now “imperialism has demolished the boundary posts” between Germany and Belgium, between Russia and Galicia. International Social-Democracy must, you see, be against their restoration in general, in any way whatsoever. In 1905, “in the era of imperialism”, when the autonomous Storting of Norway proclaimed secession from Sweden, and the war of Sweden against Norway, preached by the Swedish reactionaries, did not take place both because of the resistance of the Swedish workers and because of the international imperialist situation, Social-Democracy would have had to be against the secession of Norway, for this would undoubtedly have meant “the establishment of new boundary posts in Europe”!!

This is already direct, open annexationism. There is no need to refute it; it refutes itself. No socialist party will dare to adopt this position: “we are against annexations in general, but for Europe we sanction annexations or put up with them, once they have been carried out…”

We need only dwell on the theoretical sources of the error which has led our Polish comrades to such a self-evident… “impossibility”. We shall speak below of the groundlessness of singling out “Europe”. The following two phrases from the theses explain other sources of the error:

“…Where the wheel of imperialism has passed over an already formed capitalist state, crushing it, there, in the brutal form of imperialist oppression, the political and economic concentration of the capitalist world takes place, preparing socialism…”

This justification of annexations is Struvism, not Marxism.{21} The Russian Social-Democrats, who remember the 1890s in Russia, know well this manner of distorting Marxism, common to the Struves, Cunows, Legiens and Co. It is precisely about the German Struvists, the so-called “social-imperialists”, that we read in another thesis (II, 3) of the Polish comrades:

…(The slogan of self-determination) “gives the social-imperialists the opportunity, by proving the illusory character of this slogan, to represent our struggle against national oppression as historically unjustified sentimentality and thereby to undermine the confidence of the proletariat in the scientific validity of the Social-Democratic programme…”

This means that the authors consider the position of the German Struvists to be “scientific”! Congratulations.

Only one “trifle” destroys this astonishing argument, which threatens us with the fact that the Lenschs, Cunows, Parvuses are right against us: namely, these Lenschs are consistent in their own way, and in issue No. 8–9 of the chauvinist German *Die Glocke*{22}—we deliberately quoted these very issues in our theses—Lensch proves simultaneously both the “scientific groundlessness” of the slogan of self-determination (the Polish Social-Democrats have apparently recognised this argumentation of Lensch as irresistible, as is evident from the reasoning we have quoted in their theses…) and the “scientific groundlessness” of the slogan: against annexations!!

For Lensch perfectly understood that simple truth which we pointed out to the Polish colleagues, who did not wish to answer our indication: there is no difference, “neither economic nor political”, nor logical in general, between “recognising” self-determination and “protesting” against annexations. If the Polish comrades consider the arguments of the Lenschs against self-determination irresistible, then one cannot but recognise the fact: all these arguments of Lensch are also directed against the struggle against annexations.

The theoretical error underlying all the reasoning of our Polish colleagues has led them to the point where they have turned out to be inconsistent annexationists.

**5. Why Is Social-Democracy Against Annexations?**

From our point of view the answer is clear: because annexation violates the self-determination of nations, or, in other words, constitutes one of the forms of national oppression.

From the point of view of the Polish Social-Democrats, it is necessary to explain specially why we are against annexations, and these explanations (I, 3 in the theses) inevitably entangle the authors in a new series of contradictions.

Two arguments are adduced by them in “justification” of why we (contrary to the “scientifically-founded” arguments of the Lenschs) are against annexations. The first:

“…To the assertion that annexations in Europe are necessary for the military security of a victorious imperialist state, Social-Democracy counterposes the fact that annexations only increase antagonisms and thereby increase the danger of war…”

This is an insufficient answer to the Lenschs, for their main argument is not military necessity, but the economic progressiveness of annexations, which signify concentration under imperialism. Where is the logic here, if the Polish Social-Democrats at one and the same time recognise the progressiveness of such concentration, refusing in Europe to restore the boundary posts demolished by imperialism, and object to annexations?

Further. The danger of what wars do annexations increase? Not of imperialist wars, for these are engendered by other causes; the main antagonisms in the present imperialist war are, undoubtedly, the antagonisms between England and Germany, Russia and Germany. There were and are no annexations here. The talk is about increasing the danger of national wars and national uprisings. But how can one, on the one hand, declare national wars “in the era of imperialism” impossible, and on the other hand, advance the “danger” of national wars? This is not logical.

The second argument.

Annexations “create a chasm between the proletariat of the ruling and the oppressed nations”… “the proletariat of the oppressed nation would unite with its bourgeoisie and see an enemy in the proletariat of the ruling nation. In place of the international class struggle of the proletariat against the international bourgeoisie, there would come a split in the proletariat, its ideological corruption…”

We fully share these arguments. But is it logical on the same question, at the same time, to advance mutually exclusive arguments? In §3 of Section I of the theses we read the quoted arguments, which see a split in the proletariat in annexations, and next to them, in §4, we are told that in Europe one must be against the abolition of already accomplished annexations, for “educating the working masses of the oppressed and oppressing nations for a united struggle”. If the abolition of annexations is a reactionary “sentimentality”, then one cannot argue that annexations dig a “chasm” between the “proletariat” and create a “split” in it; then, on the contrary, one must see in annexations a condition for the drawing together of the proletariat of different nations.

We say: in order for us to be able to accomplish the socialist revolution and overthrow the bourgeoisie, the workers must unite more closely, and the struggle for self-determination, i.e., against annexations, serves this closer union. We remain consistent. The Polish comrades, however, recognising the “irrevocability” of European annexations, recognising the “impossibility” of national wars, defeat themselves when they argue “against” annexations precisely with arguments from national wars! Precisely with arguments of the kind that annexations hinder the drawing together and fusion of the workers of different nations!

In other words: in order to object to annexations, the Polish Social-Democrats have to take arguments from a theoretical baggage which they themselves fundamentally reject.

This becomes even more evident on the question of colonies.

**6. Can Colonies Be Counterposed to “Europe” on This Question?**

In our theses we said that the demand for the immediate liberation of colonies is just as “unrealisable” (i.e., unrealisable without a series of revolutions and unstable without socialism) under capitalism as the self-determination of nations, the election of officials by the people, a democratic republic, etc., and, on the other hand, that the demand for the liberation of colonies is nothing else than the “recognition of the self-determination of nations”.

The Polish comrades did not answer any of these arguments. They attempted to draw a distinction between “Europe” and the colonies. Only for Europe do they become inconsistent annexationists, refusing to abolish annexations once they have been accomplished. For the colonies, however, they proclaim an unconditional demand: “out of the colonies!”.

Russian socialists must demand: “out of Turkestan, out of Khiva, out of Bukhara, etc.”, but they would fall, it is said, into “utopianism”, “unscientific” “sentimentality”, etc., if they demanded the same freedom of secession for Poland, Finland, Ukraine, etc. English socialists must demand: “out of Africa, out of India, out of Australia”, but not out of Ireland. What theoretical grounds can explain such a glaringly incorrect distinction? This question cannot be evaded.

The main “basis” of the opponents of self-determination: “unrealisability”. The same idea, with a slight shade, is expressed by the reference to “economic and political concentration”.

It is clear that concentration also takes place through the annexation of colonies. The economic difference between colonies and European peoples—at least the majority of the latter—formerly consisted in the fact that the colonies were drawn into commodity exchange, but not yet into capitalist production. Imperialism has changed this. Imperialism is, among other things, the export of capital. Capitalist production is being transplanted to the colonies more and more rapidly. It is impossible to tear them out of dependence on European finance capital. From the military point of view, as from the point of view of expansion, the secession of a colony is, as a general rule, realisable only with socialism, and under capitalism either as an exception or at the cost of a series of revolutions and uprisings both in the colony and in the metropolis.

In Europe, the dependent nations are for the most part more developed capitalistically (though not all: the Albanians, many of the non-Russian peoples of Russia) than in the colonies. But it is precisely this that causes greater resistance to national oppression and annexations! It is precisely for this reason that the development of capitalism is more assured in Europe under all political conditions, including secession, than in the colonies… “There,” say the Polish comrades about the colonies (I, 4), “capitalism still faces the task of the independent development of the productive forces…” In Europe this is even more noticeable: capitalism in Poland, Finland, Ukraine, Alsace undoubtedly develops the productive forces more strongly, more quickly, and more independently than in India, Turkestan, Egypt and other colonies of the purest type. Neither independent nor any other development in a society of commodity production is possible without capital. In Europe, the dependent nations have their own capital and an easy opportunity to obtain it on the most varied terms. In the colonies there is no capital of their own, or almost none; the colony cannot obtain it except on terms of political subordination, in the conditions of finance capital. What, then, does the demand for the immediate and unconditional liberation of the colonies mean, in the light of all this? Is it not clear that it is much more “utopian” in that vulgar, caricature-“Marxist” sense of the word “utopia” in which it is used by the Struves, Lenschs, Cunows, and, unfortunately, after them, the Polish comrades? By “utopianism” here is meant, in fact, a departure from the philistine-ordinary, including everything revolutionary. But revolutionary movements of all kinds—including national ones—are more possible, more realisable, more persistent, more conscious, and more difficult to defeat in the European setting than in the colonies.

Socialism, say the Polish comrades (I, 3), “will be able to give the undeveloped peoples in the colonies disinterested cultural help, without dominating over them.” Quite right. But where are the grounds for thinking that a large nation, a large state, having passed to socialism, will not be able to attract a small oppressed nation in Europe by means of “disinterested cultural help”? It is precisely the freedom of secession, which the Polish Social-Democrats “grant” to the colonies, that will attract to the union with the large socialist states the small, but cultured and politically-demanding, oppressed nations of Europe, for a large state under socialism will mean: so many hours of work per day less, so much more earnings per day. The working masses, freeing themselves from the yoke of the bourgeoisie, will strive with all their might for union and fusion with the large and advanced socialist nations, for the sake of this “cultural help”, provided only that yesterday’s oppressors do not offend the highly developed democratic sense of self-respect of the long-oppressed nation, provided they grant it equality in everything, including state construction, in the experience of building “its own” state. Under capitalism this “experience” means wars, isolation, seclusion, narrow egoism of privileged small nations (Holland, Switzerland). Under socialism the working masses themselves will nowhere agree to seclusion for purely economic motives, indicated above, and the variety of political forms, freedom to secede from the state, the experience of state construction—all this will be, until every state in general withers away, the basis of a rich cultural life, a guarantee of the acceleration of the process of voluntary drawing together and fusion of nations.

By singling out the colonies and counterposing them to Europe, the Polish comrades