V. I.

Lenin

A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism “ No one can discredit revolutionary Social-Democracy as
long as it does not discredit itself.” That maxim always comes to mind,
and must always be borne in mind, when any major theoretical or tactical
proposition of Marxism is victorious, or even placed on the order of the
day, and when, besides outright and resolute opponents, it is
assailed by friends who hopelessly discredit and disparage it and turn it
into a caricature. That has happened time and again in the history of the
Russian Social-Democratic movement. In the early nineties, the victory of
Marxism in the revolutionary movement was attended by the emergence of a
caricature of Marxism in the shape of Economism, or “strikeism”. The
Iskrists [3] would not have been able to uphold the fundamentals of
proletarian theory and policy, either against petty-bourgeois Narodism or
bourgeois liberalism, without long years of struggle against Economism. It
was the same with Bolshevism, which triumphed in the mass labour movement
in 1905 due, among other things, to correct application of the boycott of
the tsarist
Duma [4] slogan in the autumn of 1905, when the key battles of the
Russian revolution were being fought. Bolshevism had to face—and overcome
by struggle—another caricature in 1908–10, when Alexinsky and others
noisily opposed participation in the Third
Duma. [5]

It is the same today too. Recognition of the present war as
imperialist and emphasis on its close connection with the
imperialist era of capitalism encounters not only resolute opponents, but
also irresolute friends, for whom the word“imperialism” has become all the rage. Having
memorised the word, they are offering the workers hopelessly confused theories and
reviving many of the old mistakes of the old Economism. Capitalism has
triumphed— therefore there is no need to bother with political
problems, the old Economists reasoned in 1894–1901, falling into rejection
of the political struggle in Russia. Imperialism has triumphed— therefore there is no need to bother with the problems
of political democracy, reason the present-day imperialist
Economists. Kievsky’s article, printed above, merits attention as a sample
of these sentiments, as one such caricature of Marxism, as the first
attempt to provide anything like an integral literary exposition of the
vacillation that has been apparent in certain circles of our Party abroad
since early 1915.

If imperialist Economism were to spread among the Marxists, who in the
present great crisis of socialism have resolutely come out against
social-chauvinism and for revolutionary internationalism, that would be a
very grave blow to our trend—and to our Party. For it would discredit it
from within, from its own ranks, would make it a vehicle of caricaturised
Marxism. It is therefore necessary to thoroughly discuss at least the most
important of Kievsky’s numerous errors, regardless of how “uninteresting”
this may be, and regardless of the fact, also, that all too often we shall
have to tediously explain elementary truths which the thoughtful and
attentive reader has learned and understood long since from our literature
of 1914 and 1915.

We shall begin with the “central” point of Kievsky’s disquisitions in
order to immediately bring to the reader the very “substance” of this new
trend of imperialist Economism.

1. The Marxist Attitude Towards War
and “Defence of the Fatherland”

Kievsky is convinced, and wants to convince his reader, that he
“disagrees” only with §9 of our Party Programme dealing
with national self-determination. He is very angry and tries to refute the
charge that on the question of democracy he is departing from the
fundamentals of Marxism in general , that he has “betrayed” (the angry quotation marks
are Kievsky’s) Marxism on basic issues. But the point is that the moment
our author begins to discuss his allegedly partial disagreement on an
individual issue, the moment he adduces his arguments, considerations,
etc., he immediately reveals that he is deviating from Marxism all along
the line. Take §b (Section 2) of his article. “This demand [i. e.,
national self-determination] directly [!!] leads to social-patriotism,”
our author proclaims, explaining that the “treasonous” slogan of
fatherland defence follows “quite [!] logically [!] from the right of
nations to self-determination”.... In his opinion, self-determination
implies “sanctioning the treason of the French and Belgian
social-patriots, who are defending this independence [the national
independence of France and Belgium] with arms in hand! They are
doing what the supporters of ‘self-determination’ only advocate....” “Defence of the fatherland belongs to the arsenal of our
worst enemies....” “We categorically refuse to understand how one can
simultaneously be against defence of the fatherland and for
self-determination, against the fatherland and for it.”

That’s Kievsky. He obviously has not understood our resolutions against
the fatherland defence slogan in the present war. It is therefore necessary
again to explain the meaning of what is so clearly set out in our
resolutions.

The resolution our Party adopted at its Berne Conference in March 1915, “ On the Defence of the Fatherland Slogan ”, [1] begins with the words: “ The present war is, in substance ”....

That the resolution deals with the present war could not have
been put more plainly. The words “in substance” indicate that we must
distinguish between the apparent and the real, between appearance and
substance, between the word and the deed The purpose of all talk about
defence of the fatherland in this war is mendaciously to present as
national the imperialist war of 1914–16, waged for the division of
colonies, the plunder of foreign lands, etc. And to obviate even the
slightest possibility of distorting our views, we added to the resolution a
special paragraph on “ genuinely national wars”, which “took
place especially (especially does not mean exclusively!) between
1789 and 1871”.

The resolution explains that the “basis” of these “genuinely”
national wars was a “long process of mass national movements, of a
struggle against absolutism and feudalism, the overthrow of national
oppression”....

Clear, it would seem. The present imperialist war stems from the
general conditions of the imperialist era and is not accidental, not an
exception, not a deviation from the general and typical. Talk of defence of
the fatherland is therefore a deception of the people, for this war is
not a national war. In a genuinely national war the words
“defence of the fatherland” are not a deception and we are not opposed to it. Such (genuinely national) wars took place
“especially” in 1789–1871, and our resolution, while not denying by a
single word that they are possible now too, explains how we should
distinguish a genuinely national from an imperialist war covered by
deceptive national slogans. Specifically, in order to distinguish the two
we must examine whether the “basis” of the war is a “long process of
mass national movements”, the “overthrow of national oppression”. The
resolution on “pacifism” expressly states: “Social-Democrats cannot
overlook the positive significance of revolutionary wars, i.e., not
imperialist wars, but such as were con ducted, for instance [note: “for
instance”], between 1789 and 1871 with the aim of doing away with national
oppression....” Could our 1915 Party resolution speak of the national wars
waged from 1789 to 1871 and say that we do not deny the positive
significance of such wars if they were not considered possible today too?
Certainly not.

A commentary, or popular explanation, of our Party resolutions is given
in the Lenin and Zinoviev pamphlet Socialism and War .
It plainly states, on page 5 , that “socialists have regarded wars ‘for the defence of the
fatherland’, or ‘defensive’ wars, as legitimate, progressive and just”
only in the sense of “overthrowing alien oppression”. It cites
an example: Persia against Russia, “ etc. ”, and says: “These
would be just, and defensive wars, irrespective of who would lie the first
to attack; any socialist would wish the oppressed, dependent and unequal
states victory over the oppressor, slave-holding and predatory ‘Great’
Powers.” [2]

The pamphlet appeared in August 1915 and there are German and French
translations. Kievsky is fully aware of its contents. And never, on no
occasion, has he or anyone else challenged the resolution on the defence of
the father land slogan, or the resolution on pacifism, or their
interpretation in the pamphlet. Never, not once! We are therefore entitled
to ask: are we slandering Kievsky when we say that he has absolutely failed
to understand Marxism if, beginning with March 1915, he has not challenged
our Party’s views on the war, whereas now, in August 1916, in an article on
self-determination, i.e., on a supposedly partial issue, he reveals an
amazing lack of understanding of a general issue?

Kievsky says that the fatherland defence slogan is “treasonous”. We
can confidently assure him that every slogan is and always will be
“treasonous” for those who mechanically repeat it without
understanding its meaning, without giving it proper thought, for those who merely memorise the words without analysing their
implications.

What, generally speaking, is “defence of the fatherland”? Is it a
scientific concept relating to economics, politics, etc.? No. It is a much
bandied about current expression, sometimes simply a philistine phrase,
intended to justify the war . Nothing more. Absolutely nothing! The
term “treasonous” can apply only in the sense that the philistine is
capable of justifying any war by pleading “we are defending our
fatherland”, whereas Marxism, which does not degrade itself by stooping to
the philistine’s level, requires an historical analysis of each war in
order to determine whether or not that particular war can be
considered progressive, whether it serves the interests of democracy and
the proletariat and, in that sense , is legitimate, just, etc.

The defence of the fatherland slogan is all too often unconscious
philistine justification of war and reveals inability to analyse the
meaning and implications of a particular war and see it in historical
perspective.

Marxism makes that analysis and says: if the “substance” of
a war is, for example , the overthrow of alien oppression (which
was especially typical of Europe in 1789–1871), then such a war
is progressive as far as the oppressed state or nation is
concerned. If , however, the “substance” of a war is redivision
of colonies, division of booty, plunder of foreign lands (and such is the war of 1914–16), then all talk of defending the
fatherland is “sheer deception of the people”.

How, then, can we disclose and define the “substance” of a war? War
is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy
pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the
war. If it was an imperialist policy, i.e., one designed to safeguard the
interests of finance capital and rob and oppress colonies and foreign
countries, then the war stemming from that policy is imperialist. If it was
a national liberation policy, i.e., one expressive of the mass movement
against national oppression, then the war stemming from that policy is a
war of national liberation.

The philistine does not realise that war is “the continuation of
policy”, and consequently limits himself to the formula that “the enemy
has attacked us”, “the enemy has invaded my country”, without stopping
to think what issues are at stake in the war, which classes are waging it, and with what political objects. Kievsky
stoops right down to the level of such a philistine when he declares that
Belgium has been occupied by the Germans, and hence, from the point of view
of self-determination, the “Belgian social-patriots are right”, or: the
Germans have occupied part of France, hence, “Guesde can be satisfied”,
for “what is involved is territory populated by his nation” (and not by
an alien nation).

For the philistine the important thing is where the armies
stand, who is winning at the moment . For the Marxist the important
thing is what issues are at stake in this war, during which first one, then the other army may be on top.

What is the present war being fought over? The answer is given in our
resolution (based on the policy the belligerent powers pursued for decades
prior to the war). England, France and Russia are fighting to keep the
colonies they have seized, to be able to rob Turkey, etc. Germany is
fighting to take over these colonies and to be able herself to rob Turkey,
etc. Let us suppose even that the Germans take Paris or
St. Petersburg. Would that change the nature of the present war? Not at
all. The Germans’ purpose—and more important, the policy that would bring
it to realisation if they were to win—is to seize the colonies, establish domination over Turkey, annex areas populated by other nations, for
instance, Poland, etc. It is definitely not to bring the French or the
Russians under foreign domination. The real essence of the present war is
not national but imperialist. In other words, it is not being fought to
enable one side to overthrow national oppression, which the other side is
trying to maintain. It is a war between two groups of oppressors, between
two freebooters over the division of their booty, over who shall rob Turkey
and the colonies.

In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers (i.e., powers
that oppress a whole number of nations and enmesh them in dependence on
finance capital, etc.), or in alliance with the Great Powers, is
an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914–16. And in this war
“defence of the fatherland” is a deception, an attempt to justify the
war.

A war against imperialist, i.e., oppressing, powers by oppressed (for example, colonial) nations is a genuine national war. It is
possible today too. “Defence of the fatherland” in a war waged by an
oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists
are not opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.

National self-determination is the same as the struggle for complete
national liberation, for complete independence, against annexation, and
socialists cannot—without ceasing to be socialists—reject such
a struggle in whatever form, right down to an uprising or war.

Kievsky thinks he is arguing against Plekhanov: it was Plekhanov who
pointed to the link between self-determination and defence of the
fatherland! Kievsky believed Plekhanov that the link was
really of the kind Plekhanov made it out to be. And having
believed him, Kievsky took fright and decided that he must reject
self-determination so as not to fall into Plekhanov’s conclusions.... There
is great trust in Plekhanov, and great fright, but there is no trace of
thought about the substance of Plekhanov’s mistake!

The social-chauvinists plead self-determination in order to present
this war as a national war. There is only one correct way of combating
them: we must show that the war is being fought not to liberate nations,
but to determine which of the great robbers will oppress more
nations. To fall into negation of wars really waged for liberating nations is to present
the worst possible caricature of Marxism. Plekhanov and the French
social-chauvinists harp on the republic in France in order to justify its
“defence” against the German monarchy. If we were to follow Kievsky’s
line of reasoning, we would have to oppose either the republic or a war
really fought to preserve the republic!! The German social-chauvinists point to universal suffrage and compulsory primary
education in their country to justify its “defence” against tsarism. If
we were to follow Kievsky’s line of reasoning, we would have to oppose
either universal suffrage and compulsory primary education or a war
really fought to safe guard political freedom against attempts to
abolish it!

Up to the 1914–16 war Karl Kautsky was a Marxist, and many of his
major writings and statements will always remain models of Marxism. On
August 26, 1910, he wrote in Die Neue Zeit , [6] in reference to the imminent war:

“ In a war between Germany and England the issue is not democracy, but
world domination, i.e., exploitation of the world. That is not an issue on
which Social-Democrats can side with the exploiters of their nation”
( Neue Zeit , 28. Jahrg., Bd. 2, S. 776).

There you have an excellent Marxist formulation, one that fully
coincides with our own and fully exposes the present-day Kautsky,
who has turned from Marxism to defence of social-chauvinism. It is a
formulation (we shall have occasion to revert to it in other articles) that
clearly brings out the principles underlying the Marxist attitude towards
war. War is the continuation of policy. Hence, once there is a struggle for
democracy, a war for democracy is possible . National self-determination is but one of the democratic demands and does not, in
principle, differ from other democratic demands. “World domination” is,
to put it briefly, the substance of imperialist policy, of which
imperialist war is the continuation. Rejection of “defence of the father
land” in a democratic war, i.e. , rejecting participation in such
a war, is an absurdity that has nothing in common with Marxism. To
embellish imperialist war by applying to it the concept of “defence of the
fatherland”, i.e., by presenting it as a democratic war, is to deceive the
workers and side with the reactionary bourgeoisie.

---
Notes:
[1]

 — Lenin

[2]

 — Lenin

[3]

Iskrists —supporters of Lenin’s newspaper Iskra , the most consistent revolutionary Social-Democrats.

Iskra —the first all-Russian illegal Marxist newspaper founded in December 1900, published abroad and secretly sent into Russia.
It was taken over by the Mensheviks in 1903, and beginning with No. 52
ceased to be the organ of revolutionary Marxism. It came to be known as the
new Iskra as distinct from the old, Bolshevik Iskra .

[4]

The Bulygin Duma derived its name from Minister of the Interior
A. G. Bulygin, who drafted the act for its convocation and the regulations
governing the elections. The Duma was intended to be an advisory body under
the tsar. The Bolsheviks called for an active boycott of the Duma and
concentrated their propaganda on the following slogans: armed uprising,
revolutionary army, provisional revolutionary government. They used the
boycott campaign to mobilise all the revolutionary forces, carry out mass
political strikes and prepare an armed uprising. The nation-wide general
political strike of October 1905 and the mounting wave of revolution
prevented the elections and the Duma was never convened. Lenin discusses
the Bulygin Duma in his articles: “The Constitutional Market-Place”,
“The Boycott of the Bulygin Duma and Insurrection”, “Oneness of the Tsar
and the People, and of the People and the Tsar”, “In the Wake of the
Monarchist Bourgeoisie, or in the Van of the Revolutionary Proletariat and
Peasantry?” (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 351–55; Vol. 9,
pp. 179–87, 191–99, 212–29).

[5]

Reference is to the otzovists and ultimatumists .

Otzovists —an opportunist group composed of A. A. Bogdanov,
G. A. Alexinsky, A. V. Sokolov (S. Volsky), A. V. Lunacharsky, M. N. Lyadov
and others, which emerged among a section of the Bolsheviks in 1908. Under
cover of revolutionary phrases they demanded the recall (the Russian word
otozvat means recall) of the

Social-Democratic members of the Third Duma. They also refused to work in
legal organisations—the trade unions, co-operatives and other mass
organisations—contending that in conditions of rampant reaction the Party
must confine itself exclusively to illegal activity. The otzovists did
immense damage to the Party. Their policy would have isolated the Party
from the masses and, in the end, would have turned it into a sectarian
organisation.

Ultimatumism —a variety of otzovism, from which it differed
only inform. The ultimatumists proposed that the Social-Democratic Duma
members be presented with an ultimatum—either they fully submit to the
decisions of the Party Central Committee, or be recalled from the Duma. The
ultimatumists failed to appreciate the need for painstaking work to help
the Social-Democratic deputies overcome their mistakes and adopt a
consistent revolutionary line. Ultimatumism was, in fact, disguised
otzovism. Lenin called the ultimatumists “bashful otzovists”.

[6]

Die Neue Zeit (New Times)—theoretical organ of the German
Social-Democratic Party, published in Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923; edited
by Karl Kautsky up to October 1917 and after that by H. Cunow. Die Neue Zeit was the first to publish several works of Marx and Engels. Engels
helped the magazine by his advice and not infrequently criticised it for
deviating from Marxism. After Engels’s death in 1895, Die Neue Zeit threw its pages open to articles by Eduard Bernstein and other
revisionists. It published Bernstein’s “Problems of Socialism”, which
became the starting-point of a revisionist campaign against Marxism. In the
First World War Die Neue Zeit took a Centrist position and gave
factual support to the social-chauvinists.