V. I.

Lenin

Louis Blanc, the French socialist, won unenviable notriety
during the revolution of 1848 by changing his stand from that of
the class struggle to that of petty-bourgeois illusions,
illusions adorned with would-be “socialist” phraseology, but in
reality tending to strengthen the influence of the bourgeoisie
over the proletariat. Louis Blanc looked to the bourgeoisie for
assistance, hoped, and inspired hopes in others, that the
bourgeoisie could help the workers in the matter of “labour organisation”—this vague term purporting to express
“socialist” tendencies.

Blancism has now gained the upper hand in Right-wing “Social-Democracy”, in the Organising Committee party in
Russia. Chkheidze, Tsereteli, Steklov, and many others, who are now
leaders of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and
were also leaders of the recent All-Russia Conference of Soviets , [1] have taken the same stand as Louis Blanc.

On all major issues of present-day political life these leaders, who
occupy approximately the position of the international Centrist trend
represented by Kautsky, Longuet, Turati, and many others, have
embraced the petty-bourgeois views of Louis Blanc. Take, for instance,
the question of war.

The proletarian standpoint in this matter consists of a definite class
characterisation of war, and of an irreconcilable hostility to
imperialist war—that is, to a war between groups of capitalist countries ( no matter whether monarchies or
republics ) for a division of capitalist spoils.

The petty-bourgeois viewpoint differs from the bourgeois one (outright
justification of the war, outright “defence of the fatherland”, i.e.,
defence of the interests of one’s own capitalists, defence of
their “right” to annexations) in that the petty bourgeois
“renounces” annexations, “condemns” imperialism, “demands” from the
bourgeoisie that it cease to be imperialistic while keeping within the
framework of world-imperialist relations and the capitalist system of
economy. Confining himself to this mild, innocuous, wishy-washy
declamation, the petty bourgeois, in practice , trail helplessly behind the bourgeoisie, “sympathising” in some
things with the proletariat in words, remaining dependent on the
bourgeoisie in deeds, unable or unwilling to understand the path
leading to the overthrow of the capitalist yoke, the only path that
can rid the world of imperialism.

To “demand” of the bourgeois governments that they make a “ solemn declaration ” in the spirit of renouncing annexations is the
height of audacity on the part of the petty bourgeois, and an example
of anti-imperialist “Zimmerwaldist” consistency. It is not difficult
to see that this is Blancism of the worst type. For one thing, no
bourgeois politician with any experience will ever have difficulty in
mouthing any number of glib, “brilliant”, high-sounding phrases
against annexations “in general”, as meaningless as they are noncommittal. But when it comes to deeds , one can always do a
conjuring trick after the manner of Rech , which had the
deplorable courage to declare that
Kurland [2] (now annexed by the imperialist predators of bourgeois Germany) was not
annexed by Russia!

This is trickery of the most disgusting kind, the most shameless deception of the workers by the bourgeoisie, for
anybody the least familiar with politics must know that
Kurland had always been annexed to Russia.

We openly and directly challenge Rech :

(1) to present to the people such a political definition of the concept “annexation”
as would apply equally to all annexations in the world,
German, British, and Russian, past and present, to all without exception; (2) to state clearly and definitely what, in
its opinion, is meant by renunciation of annexations, not in
word, but in deed. To give such a political definition of the
concept “renunciation of annexations in deed” as would apply not only to the Germans, but also to the English and
all other nations who have ever practised annexations.

We maintain that Rech will either decline to accept our
challenge or it will be exposed by us before the whole nation. And it
is precisely because of this question of Kurland touched upon by
Rech that our dispute is not a theoretical one but a practical one of the greatest urgency and vital interest.

Second, let us assume, if only for a moment, that the bourgeois
ministers are the ideal of honesty, that the Ouchkovs, Lvovs,
Milyukovs and Co. sincerely believe in the possibility of
renouncing annexations, while preserving capitalism, and that they
really want to renounce them.

Let us, for a moment, assume even this, let us make this
Blancist assumption.

One is entitled to ask: Can a grown-up person be content with what
people think of themselves, without comparing it with what
they do ? Is it possible for a Marxist not to distinguish good wishes and declarations from objective realities?

No. It is not.

Annexations are maintained by the bonds of finance capital, banking
capital, imperialist capital. Herein is the modern, the
economic, foundation of annexations. From this angle, annexations are
politically guaranteed profits on thousands of millions of
capital “invested” in thousands upon thousands of enterprises in the
annexed countries.

It is impossible, even given the wish to do so, to renounce
annexations without taking decisive steps towards throwing
off the yoke of capitalism.

Does that mean, as Yedinstvo , Rabochezya Gazeta , [3] and the other “Louis Blancs” of our petty bourgeoisie are
ready to conclude and actually do conclude, that we must not take any
decisive steps towards overthrowing capitalism, that we must accept at
least a modicum of annexations?

No. Decisive steps must be taken towards the overthrow of
capitalism. They must be taken ably and gradually, relying
only on the class-consciousness and organised activity of the
overwhelming majority of the workers and poor peasants. But taken they
must be. The Soviets of Workers’ Deputies have already started to take them in a number of places in Russia.

The order of the day now is a decisive and irrevocable parting of the
ways with the Louis Blancs—the Chkheidzes, Tseretelis, Steklovs,
the party of the O.C., the Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries, etc.,
etc. The masses must be made to see that Blancism is ruining and will
utterly ruin the further success of the revolution, even the success
of freedom, unless the masses realise how harmful these
petty-bourgeois illusions are and join the class-conscious workers in
their cautious, gradual, well-considered, yet firm and direct steps towards
socialism.

Outside of socialism there is no deliverance of humanity
from wars, from hunger, from the destruction of still more
millions and millions of human beings.

---
Notes:
[1]



[2]



[3]