Notes: Kienthal conference materials

“Of Our Word,” illuminated in Lenin’s articles: a) “The Question of the Unification of the International” (Works, vol. XVII3, p. 150); “The Collapse of Platonic Internationalism” (ibid., p. lofi); “On the Situation in Russian Social Democracy” (ibid., p. 174); “Socialism and War” (ibid., p. 222).

* LETTER TO THE EDITORS OF "OF OUR WORD".1
DRAFT DECLARATION.* FOR CIRCULATION AMONG THE GROUPS OF INTERNATIONALIST SOCIAL DEMOCRATS PREPARING FOR A CONFERENCE.
Bern 9/II 1915.
Dear Comrade!
In your letter of 6.II2 you propose to us a plan of struggle against "official social-patriotism" regarding the projected London conference of Socialists of "allied countries" by agreement.3 As you see, of course, from our organ "Social-Democrat", we stand on the point of view of this struggle in general and are waging it. Therefore, we are very glad of the approach of your appeal and gladly accept your proposal to discuss a plan of joint actions.
The conference, planned, which was being planned, it is said, for 15.II (we have not received a single document about it) will [may] be postponed until* 25.II or later (judging by Ghoisman's letter, reporting on the meeting of the Executive Commission on 20.II and on the plan of personal negotiations of the members (of the secretary; ** of the Executive Commission with socialists of France, England, and Russia]).5 It is also possible that the conference is being planned not by official members of the I.S.B., but as private meetings of individual "prominent" socialists.
Therefore, the opposition of a "clear, revolutionary and internationalist" point of view to "official social-patriotism", about which you write and to which we fully sympathize, must be prepared for all possible cases [and in case of a conference of Official

*
Printed from manuscript. Above the text Lenin wrote in pencil “Keep” and — “Copy.”
Ed.
The word “secretary” is overwritten by Lenin above the word “members.”
Ed.

representatives of parties and in case of private meetings in all its forms and for 15.II and for a later time].
For our part, we propose, responding to your desire, the following draft declaration, containing such an opposition (with the aim of reading [or! and printing] this declaration]):
"The undersigned representatives of S.D. organizations of Russia, England, etc.) proceed from the conviction that the present war is not only on the part of Germany and Austro-Hungary, but also on the part of England and France (acting in alliance with tsarism), an imperialist war, i.e., a war of the epoch of the last stage of the development of capitalism, an epoch when the bourgeois states in national borders have outlived their time, a war directed exclusively to the seizure of colonies, the plunder of competing countries, and the weakening of the proletarian movement by inciting proletarians of one country against proletarians in another.
Therefore, the unconditional duty of socialists of all warring countries is the immediate and decisive implementation of the Basel resolution, namely:5
1) a) * breaking of national blocs [or Burgfrieden ** in all countries;
2) [(bis)]*** call on the workers of all warring countries to energetic class struggle, both economic and political, against the bourgeoisie of their country, the bourgeoisie making unheard-of profits on military supplies and enjoying the support of the military authorities to shut the workers’ mouths and increase oppression over them.
3) [2] b) a decisive condemnation of all voting of military credits;
4) [3] c) withdrawal from the bourgeois ministries of Belgium and France and recognition that entry into ministries and voting for credits is no less a betrayal of the cause of socialism than is the whole behavior of the German and Austrian S.D.

* At first Lenin gave the declaration points a, b, c, d), and then renumbered them twice with numbers; we are printing the declaration in the order of the last numerical numbering.
Ed.
** — civil peace. Ed.
*** Point 2 was written later, as «a bis»— an addition.
Ed.

5) [4] d) agitation to immediately extend a hand to the internationalist elements refusing to vote for military credits of German, Austrian, etc., S.D.-тии and the formation together with them of an international committee for agitation* for ending the war not in the spirit of pacifists, Christians, and petty-bourgeois democrats, but in inextricable connection with the preaching and organization of mass revolutionary actions of the proletarians of each country against the governments and bourgeoisie of their country;
6) [5] support for all attempts at rapprochement and fraternization in the army and in the trenches between socialists of warring countries, despite the prohibitions of the military authorities of England, Germany, etc.
7) [6] call on socialist women of warring countries to intensify agitation in the above direction];*
8) [7] d) call for support from the entire international proletariat for the struggle against tsarism and those S.D. deputies of Russia who not only refused to vote for credits, but also did not stop at the danger of persecution, conducting their socialist work in the spirit of international revolutionary social-democracy.
As for some prominent S.D. writers of Russia who have defended official social-patriotism (such as, for example, Plekhanov, Alexinsky, Maslov, etc.), the undersigned disclaim all responsibility for their statements, resolutely protest against them, and declare that S.D. workers of Russia, according to all data, do not stand on this point of view.
It goes without saying that the official representative of our Central Committee in the I.S.B., Comrade Litvinov [address.*** We are sending him your letter and a copy of our reply to you. We ask you to contact him directly on all urgent matters.] [alone autonomously] independently decides the question of certain private amendments, individual steps in negotiations, etc., — we can only declare our full solidarity with this comrade in all essentials.

* The beginning of point 5 — a later formulation by Lenin.
Ed.
** Points 6 and 7 were written by Lenin later.
Ed.
*** The address of M. Litvinov is not given in the manuscript.
Ed.

As for the O.K. and the Bund, since they have Official representation in the I.S.B., we have reason to fear that they stand for "official social-patriotism" (in its Francophile, Germanophile or conciliatory form of these two tendencies). [If] In any case, we will be very glad [that] if you would not refuse to inform us both of your answer (your amendments, your counter-draft declaration, etc.), and the answer of those organizations (O.K., Bund, etc.) to whom you have addressed and will address yourselves.7

With comradely greetings, Lenin.
My address:*
1 "Nashe Slovo" organ of L. Trotsky, daily Social-Democratic newspaper, published in Paris from January 29, 1915 to September 15, 1916. For details on the position of "Nashe Slovo," see Lenin's Collected Works, vol. XIX, pp. 453–454, note 34.
2 The mentioned letter of "Nashe Slovo" is not available at the Institute. Lenin mentions receiving it and his reply to it in a letter to A. G. Shlyapnikov of February 11, 1915. (Lenin Miscellany II, pp. 226–227).
3 The London conference took place on February 14 (1), 1915. The procedure for its convocation, representation at it, course of its work, etc., as well as the attempts made by "Nashe Slovo" in connection with it to unite the Social-Democratic internationalists of Russia are covered in Lenin's articles "On the London Conference" (vol. XVIII, pp. 134–135); in the articles of "Nashe Slovo" ("No. 20 of February 2, No. 24 of February 25, No. 26 of February 27, No. 30 of March 4, and No. 32 of March 6, 1915"); in the weekly of the English "Independent Labour Party" ("Labour Leader") No. 7 of February 18, 1915.
4 The mentioned letter from Huysmans, forwarded to Lenin by M. Litvinov (see Lenin Miscellany II, p. 226), is not available at the Institute.
5 The Basel Resolution — the "Manifesto of the Basel International Socialist Congress" against the danger of war was unanimously adopted on November 25, 1912. See its text in Lenin's Collected Works, vol. XVIII, pp. 408–411.
6 At the London conference, M. Litvinov (Maximovich), having broad powers from the Central Committee, proposed not this declaration sent to him by Lenin, but his own, identical in content to Lenin's, but more sharp in form. The text of M. Litvinov's declaration, with which Lenin fully agreed, was printed in "Sotsial-Demokrat" No. 40 of March 29, 1915: Litvinov's declaration was mistakenly included in Lenin's Works (see vol. XVIII, pp. 122–123).
7 The declaration of "Nashe Slovo" was printed in "Nashe Slovo" No. 26 of February 27, 1915 with significant censorship gaps. The missing places are filled by us by translating them from the German text from the newspaper "Berner Tagwacht" No. 42 of February 20, 1915, where the declaration was printed in full. These places are specified by us in footnotes.
* Lenin's address is not given in the manuscript.
Ed.

LETTER TO THE EDITORS OF "NASHE SLOVO"

Appendix.
* DECLARATION OF "NASHE SLOVO".
Having discussed at the meeting on February 13 the question of the London Conference, the assembly of collaborators of "Nashe Slovo" defines its attitude towards it as follows:
1) The very principle on the basis of which the London Conference is convened, as a conference of socialists of "allied" countries, i.e., countries linked by the temporary commonality of the imperialist interests of their ruling classes, is fundamentally contrary to the tasks of international politics.
2) The aspiration of the governmental socialists of "allied" countries to use the conference convened on the specified basis for moral and political support of the policy of the Triple Entente,* for maintaining the illusion of the socialist duty of "defense of the fatherland" and of the allegedly defensive nature of the war, in order to justify and reinforce the slogan of Grey-Viviani-Sazonov about the struggle to a victorious end, is a criminal abuse of the idea and authority of international socialism, which they want to cover up the interests of Russian, English and French imperialism hostile to it.
3) The main task of truly socialist elements of "allied" countries in relation to the specified conference is to expose the tendencies associated with it and to clarify to socialists of "hostile" countries that governmental socialists do not reflect the opinion of all socialist elements of "allied" countries.
4) Considering from this very point of view the boycott of the conference to be inexpedient, which would only facilitate its transformation into an anti-socialist demonstration, the assembly recognizes as necessary active participation in the conference of revolutionary elements of Russian socialism in order to counteract the specified intentions, in order to resolutely oppose revolutionary socialist slogans to the slogans of social-patriotism; with the aim of bringing together elements of "allied" countries faithful to the International for a more systematic and resolute struggle hand in hand with revolutionary socialists of "hostile" countries against war and the poison of chauvinism and, finally, for the speedy convocation for these purposes of an international conference of all socialist parties.
5) The slogan of simultaneous revolutionary mobilization of the proletariat in all countries, the slogan of revolutionary action, which must be opposed at the London Conference to the program of war, is:
The speediest cessation of the war. No violent annexations.
6) **A prerequisite for striving for the speedy achievement of peace is:

* Starting from here to the end of the paragraph — translated from "Berner Tagwacht". Ed.
** Point 6 is translated from "Berner Tagwacht".
Ed.

The breaking of the national bloc in all warring countries.
The resumption of the proletarian class struggle of workers in warring countries on an economic and political basis.
A decisive rejection of all credits for the war and the army.
The withdrawal of Social Democrats from the bourgeois ministries of France and Belgium.
The struggle against all attempts to hinder the rapprochement of soldiers facing each other in the trenches.
Assistance in publishing an appeal to women-socialists of warring countries in the indicated spirit.
Support by the entire proletariat for the struggle against tsarism and especially support for those Social Democratic workers' representatives who not only voted against military credits, but, risking persecution, continued their work in the spirit of international revolutionary socialism.
Any deviation from this program, which is only a deduction from the resolutions of the Stuttgart, Copenhagen, and Basel congresses, any strengthening of solidarity with the dominant classes, any glossing over of existing contradictions, would only increase the confusion in the minds of the workers and would support the interests of pseudo-socialist imperialism, which contradicts the tasks of the International.
7) Any deviation from the above-described line, which stems from the exact meaning and spirit of the resolutions of the Stuttgart, Copenhagen, and Basel congresses, towards a compromise with governmental socialists, any softening of contradictions with them at this conference, would inevitably threaten only to consolidate the existing turmoil in the minds and would facilitate the social-imperialist participants in the conference in achieving their reactionary goal, entirely directed against the restoration of the socialist International.
As for some Social Democratic literati of Russia, who came out in defense of social-patriotism (such as Plekhanov, Alexinsky, Maslov, etc.), the delegation must remove from itself all responsibility for their speeches, resolutely protest against them, and declare that the Social Democratic workers of Russia do not stand on this point of view.
The assembly of collaborators of "Nashe Slovo" decided to forward this declaration to the attention of the delegates of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, who will represent at the London Conference the Central Committee, the O.K. and national organizations.

LETTER FROM THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP TO THE EDITORS OF "NASHE SLOVO"

18082
* LETTER FROM THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP TO THE EDITORS OF "NASHE SLOVO".
[March 23, 1915. Bern.]1
Dear Comrades! We completely agree with you that the consolidation of all genuine Social-Democratic internationalists is
one of the most pressing matters at the present moment. Before
giving an answer to your practical proposal, we consider it
necessary to frankly clarify some preliminary questions, in order to know whether there exists between us genuine so-
lidarity on the fundamental points. You are quite rightly indignant
about the fact that Alexinsky, Plekhanov, etc. appear in the foreign press, passing off their voice as "the voice of the Russian
proletariat or its influential groups." This must be combated.
But in order to combat it, one must address the root of the evil. There is no
doubt that there has been and is no greater corruption than
the so-called system of representation of the notorious foreign
"currents." And here we are hardly entitled to reproach foreigners.
Let us recall the recent past. Was it not at the same Brussels Conference
(August 3, 1914) 2 that Alexinsky and Plekhanov (and not
them alone) were given the right to represent "currents"?
Is it possible, after this, to be surprised that foreigners accept them as representatives
of "currents" now? Nothing can be done against this evil through this or that declaration.
A long struggle is necessary here. In order for it to be
successful, one must say to oneself once and for all that we recognize
only organizations that have been connected with the working masses for years,
authorized by solidarity committees, etc., and that we brand as a deception of the workers the system under which 1/2 a
dozen intellectuals, having released 2-3 issues of a newspaper or jour-
nal, declares themselves a "current" and claims "equal rights"
with the party.
Do we have agreement here, dear comrades?
Then - about the internationalists. In one of the recent
editorials of your newspaper, you list the organizations that,
in your opinion, stand on the point of view of internationalism.3
Among them, in one of the first places, is listed... the Bund.
We would like to know what grounds you have for classifying the Bund as internationalists? The resolution of its Central Committee
does not contain a single definite word on the sore points

202 of socialism. It reeks of the most unprincipled eclecticism. The organ
of the Bund (Informational Leaflet) undoubtedly stands on the point of view
of Germanophile chauvinism, or - gives a "synthesis" of French
and German chauvinism. It is no accident that Kosovsky's article
adorned the pages of the "Neue Zeit," a journal which (we
hope you agree with us on this) now belongs to the number
of the most indecent of the so-called "socialist" or- gans of the press. 1
We are wholeheartedly in favor of uniting internationalists.
We would very much like there to be more of them. But one cannot
deceive oneself; one cannot include people and organizations
among the internationalists who are knowingly "dead souls"
in terms of internationalism.
What is to be understood by internationalism? Is it possible, for
example, to include among the internationalists the supporters of the restoration
of the International on the principle of mutual "amnesty"? The most
prominent representative of the theory of "amnesty," as you know,
is Kautsky. Viktor Adler spoke in the same vein. We believe that the defenders of amnesty are the most dangerous
opponents of internationalism. An International restored
on the basis of "amnesty" would lower socialism by a whole head. No concessions, no agreements with Kautsky
and Co. are absolutely permissible. The most decisive struggle
against the theory of "amnesty" is conditio sine qua non * of internationalism.
It is vain to talk about internationalism if there is no desire
and willingness to go to the end in breaking with the defenders of "amnesty."
And the question is - is there agreement between us on this fundamental question? In your newspaper, a negative attitude towards the policy of "amnesty"
somehow flashed through.
But agree that, before taking any practical steps, we have the right to ask you to express to us in
detail your view on this question.
And in this connection, there is the question of the attitude towards the O.C.
We, in the very first letter to you, considered it necessary to frankly tell
you that there are serious grounds to doubt the internationalism
of this institution.5 You have not attempted to dispel this opinion.
We ask you again - what data do you have to consider the O.C. as standing on the point of view of internationalism? After all, it is impossible

* - an essential condition. Ed.

LETTER FROM THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE RSDLP TO THE EDITORS OF "NASHE SLOVO" to seriously deny that the position of P.B. Axelrod, stated
in several of his printed statements, is a flagrant chauvinist
(almost Plekhanovite) position. But Axelrod is un- doubtedly the most prominent representative of the O.C. Take further the official
statements of the O.C. Its report to the Copenhagen Conference
was written in such tones that it was reprinted by the most extreme
German chauvinists.6 The statements of the "Foreign
Secretariat" of the O.C. are the same. At best, they say nothing
definite. And on the other hand, Larin - officially on behalf of the O.C., and not on behalf of some foreign secretariat - made statements aimed at defending chauvinism.7
Where is internationalism here? And is it not clear that the O.C. entirely
stands on the point of view of mutual "amnesty"?
Further - what guarantees exist that the O.C.
represents some kind of force in Russia? Now, after the
appearance of "Nasha Zarya," this question is particularly legitimate.8 The group
of "Nasha Zarya" has been pursuing its line for years, it has created a daily
newspaper, it has been conducting mass agitation in its spirit.
And the O.C.?
We all recognize that the matter will be decided not by the balance of forces
in foreign groups, in Zurich, Paris, etc., but the matter will be
decided by the influence among the workers of St. Petersburg and among the workers
of all Russia. This must be borne in mind in all our steps.
Such are our considerations, which we wanted to express to you.
We will be very happy to receive from you a detailed and clear
answer to all these questions. Then it will be possible to think
about the further course.
1 The basis for the date is the reply letter from "Nashe Slovo" (see p. 204).
2 The Brussels unification conference did not take place in August,
as indicated in the document, but on July 16-17 (3-4), 1914 (see Lenin's Works,
vol. XVII, p. 541).
3 The reference is to the editorial of "Nashe Slovo" No. 12 of March 18,
1915, "Where is the Majority?".
4 "Informational Leaflet of the Foreign Organization of the Bund" was published
from June 1911 to June 1916. A total of 11 issues were published (see about it
Lenin's Works, vol. XIX, p. 455, note 37).
In No. 7 (January) of 1915, an article by Vl. Kosovsky "Liberation Legend"
was published, which then, in an abridged form under the same
name ("Befreiungslegende"), appeared in No. 19 of "Neue Zeit" of February 12, 1915.