Oh, the social-chauvinists of all countries are great "internationalists"! From the very beginning of the war, they have been burdened with concern for the International. On the one hand, they assure us that talk of the collapse of the International is "exaggerated." In reality, nothing special has happened. Listen to Kautsky: the International is simply an "instrument of peacetime," and it is natural that during wartime this instrument turned out to be somewhat inadequate. On the other hand, the social-chauvinists of all countries have found one very simple – and most importantly: international – means to get out of the situation. The means is uncomplicated: you only need to wait for the end of the war, before the end of the war the socialists of each country must defend their "fatherland" and support "their" governments, and after the end of the war – "amnesty" each other, admit that everyone was right, that during peace we live as brothers, and during war we – on the exact basis of such-and-such resolutions – call on German workers to exterminate their French brothers and vice versa.

Kautsky, Plekhanov, Viktor Adler, and Heine are all equally in agreement on this. Viktor Adler writes that "when we have lived through this difficult time, our first duty will be not to nitpick at each other"{224}. Kautsky asserts that "no voices of serious socialists have so far been heard from any side that would cause one to fear" for the fate of the International. Plekhanov says that "it is unpleasant to shake hands with (German Social-Democrats) smelling of the blood of innocently murdered people." But immediately he proposes an "amnesty": "here it will be quite appropriate," he writes, "to subordinate the heart to reason. For the sake of its great cause, the International will have to take into account even belated regrets." Heine, in "Sozialistische Monatshefte," calls Vandervelde's behavior "courageous and proud" and sets him as an example for the German Left{225}.

In short, when the war ends, appoint a commission from Kautsky and Plekhanov, Vandervelde and Adler, and a "unanimous" resolution in the spirit of mutual amnesty will be drawn up in a moment. The dispute will be successfully glossed over. Instead of helping the workers understand what happened, they will be deceived by a showy paper "unity." The unification of social-chauvinists and hypocrites of all countries will be called the restoration of the International.

There is no need to hide from ourselves: the danger of such a "restoration" is very great. The social-chauvinists of all countries are equally interested in it. All of them equally do not want the working masses of their country to understand the question: socialism or nationalism. All of them are equally interested in covering up each other's sins. All of them can offer nothing other than what the virtuoso of "international" hypocrisy Kautsky offers.

Meanwhile, there is little awareness of this danger. In the year of the war, we have seen a number of attempts to restore international ties. We will not talk about the conferences in London and Vienna, where certain chauvinists gathered to help the general staffs and bourgeoisie of their "fatherlands." We mean the conferences in Lugano, in Copenhagen{226}, the international women's conference and the international youth conference{227}. These gatherings were animated by the best wishes. But they completely failed to see the danger indicated. They did not outline the battle line of the internationalists. They did not point out to the proletariat the danger that threatens it from the social-chauvinist way of "restoring" the International. At best, they limited themselves to repeating old resolutions, without pointing out to the workers that without a struggle against the social-chauvinists, the cause of socialism is hopeless. At best, they were a step in place.