V. I.

Lenin

PROPOSALS BY THE C.C. OF THE R.S.D.L.P. TO THE SECOND SOCIALIST CONFERENCE CALLED BY THE I.S.C. (BERNE) [5]

THESES ON ITEMS 5, 6, 7a, 7b AND 8 OF THE AGENDA

In announcing the convocation of the Second
International Socialist Conference, the I.S.C. published the following
major items of the agenda:

5. “ The struggle to end the war”

6. “ Problems of peace”

7 a. Parliamentary “action”

}}

“agitation and propaganda ”

}}

}}

7 b. Mass ”

8. International Socialist Bureau.

The I.S.C. has invited organisations to discuss these questions and send in their propositions. Here is the
response of our Party’s C.C. to the invitation:

1. In the same way as any war is only the continuation
by means of force of the policy which the belligerent powers
and the ruling classes in them carried on for long years
or decades before the war, so peace ending any war can be
nothing but an account and a record of the actual changes
in strength achieved as a result of that war.

2. Hence, any talk of assessing a given war on the strength
of the “simple” concepts of defence and attack, and of assessing the coming peace on the strength of “simple”
high-minded wishes for a stable, democratic, honourable,
etc., peace, is most absurd and thick-witted, from the standpoint of theory, from the standpoint of socialist
doctrine, and is the greatest deception of the working class in practice.

3. The present war is an imperialist war, i.e., a war
born of contradictions on the basis of highly developed,
monopoly capitalism, which is ripe for transition to socialism. This war is being waged for world hegemony, i.e.,
for fresh oppression of the weak nations, for another division
of the world, the division of colonies, spheres of influence,
etc.—a division in which the old robber powers, Britain,
France and Russia, would give up a share of their booty
to Germany, a younger and stronger robber power.

4. Consequently, unless a revolution of the proletariat
overthrows the present governments and present ruling classes of the belligerent “Great” Powers, there is absolutely no possibility of any other kind of peace, except a
more or less brief armistice between the imperialist powers,
a peace accompanied by a strengthening of reactionary forces within the states, an intensification of the national
oppression and greater enslavement of the weak nations,
a growth in the inflammable material preparing the way for new wars, etc., etc. For from the objective content
of the policy engendered by the whole epoch of imperialism,
the policy carried on by the bourgeoisie of all the warring
“Great” Powers both before this war and during it , inevitably flows a peace based on a fresh and worse oppression
of nations, etc.

5. To spread among the masses of the people ideas or
hopes of the possibility of a stable or democratic, etc.,
peace between the present governments and the present ruling classes (i.e., the bourgeoisie in alliance with the
landowners), as most of the official socialist parties are
doing, is not only shamelessly to deceive the people, but
also to blunt their vigilance and to distract them from
the revolutionary struggle, which is already in effect beginning as a movement of strikes and demonstrations.

6. That is just the kind of deception of the people and
distraction of the proletariat from the revolutionary struggle that is inherent in the “peace programme” now being
“unanimously” put forward both by Huysmans, the Second
International’s official representative at the congress of
the Sozialdemokratische Arbeiter Partei of Holland in
Arnhem, [6] and by Kautsky, the most influential theoretician of the Second International and the most influential defender of the social-patriots and social-chauvinists of
all countries. Their programme is nothing but verbal and
hypocritical recognition of a few democratic pious hopes:
rejection of annexations and indemnities, self-determination
of nations, democratisation of foreign policy, courts of
arbitration to examine disputes between states, disarmament, United States of Europe, etc., etc.

7. The most obvious confirmation of the fact that this
“peace programme” is sheer hypocrisy is, on the one hand,
its verbal acceptance by a number of bourgeois pacifists
and ministerial demagogues of the warring countries, and
on the other, its repetition by notorious ( notorisch )
chauvinists at the conferences of the “socialists”, first of one
group of warring powers in London (February 1915) and then of the other in Vienna (April
1915). [7] It is the “ socialists” who join bourgeois governments engaged in the
predatory war, who voted the war credits and assisted the war by taking part in various organisations and
institutions, etc., who in practice pursue a policy of defending old and new annexations, colonial oppression, etc.,
that now proclaim before the whole world their “peace programme”, consisting of rejection of annexations and so
forth.

8. The highest authority in the Second International,
Kautsky, proclaimed to the whole world on May 21, 1915 ( Neue Zeit ) that the agreement and “unanimity” of “
socialists” in
London [1] and in Vienna, on the principle of the “independence” or self-determination of nations, proves
the Second International’s “unanimity” on, and “ viability” in, its “peace
programme”. [8] This defence and sanction of the most crying and most brazen hypocrisy
and deception of the workers is by no means an accident,
but a systematic policy pursued in a number of countries
by men who pretend to be “internationalists”, but actually
whitewash the imperialist war by applying to it the idea
of “defence of the fatherland”, and strengthen the domination of the labour movement by social-chauvinists, who have
betrayed socialism, by preaching “unity” with them.
This policy, which is most harmful and dangerous for the working class, is being carried on by Kautsky, Haase and
others in Germany, Longuet, Pressemane and others in
France, most of the leaders in Britain, Axelrod, Martov
and Chkheidze and Co. in Russia, Trèves and others in Italy
(see the threat of Avanti! , the Central Organ of the Italian
Party, issued on March 5, 1916, to expose Trèves and other
“reformist-possibilists ” as having “set in motion every
possible means to obstruct the action of the party leadership and Oddino Morgari towards the Zimmerwald
organisation and the new International itself” [9] ). This
world-wide policy, which is most dangerous for the working class, may be called a Kautskian policy, after its
most authoritative representative.

9. Socialists cannot renounce the struggle for reforms.
They must vote, incidentally in parliaments as well, for
any, even minor, improvements in the condition of the masses, such as higher aids to the inhabitants of devastated
areas, relaxation of national oppression, etc. But on the
basis of the present war and the peace which follows from it , such reformist activity for the improvement of the
people’s condition is obviously possible only in miniature proportions. It would be a crying deception of the
masses to suggest to them, directly or indirectly, that
a reformist solution of the problems raised by the present
war is possible. For this war has brought about a revolutionary situation in Europe by making an issue of the
most fundamental problems of imperialism, which must needs be solved the imperialist way unless the present
governments and ruling classes of Europe happen to be overthrown the revolutionary way. Therefore, the main
\and basic task in the struggle for a stable and democratic
peace on the part of socialists should be: first, explanation
to the masses of the need of revolutionary mass struggle ,
systematic propaganda of such struggle and the creation
of an appropriate organisation; second, exposure of the
lies and hypocrisy both of bourgeois-pacifist and socialist,
particularly Kautskian, talk about peace and the “ unanimity” of the Second International on the “peace programme”.
Such phrases are doubly hypocritical when coming from “socialists” who echo the bourgeoisie in denying any
possibility of transforming the present imperialist war into a civil war for socialism, and who oppose any
revolutionary activity in this direction.

10. The central point of the prevailing hypocrisy about
a “peace programme” is the allegedly unanimous acceptance of struggle against old and new annexations . But
those who talk about annexations and the struggle against
them are unable, or for the most part unwilling, to think
about the meaning of annexation . It is clear that not every
attachment of “foreign” territory can be called annexation,
since socialists, generally speaking, are in favour of eliminating frontiers between nations, the coming together
and integration of nations, and the formation of larger
states. It is clear that not every infringement of the status quo can be considered annexation: this would be a most
reactionary attitude, and a mockery of the fundamental conceptions of historical science. It is clear that not every
attachment by force, that is, war, can be considered annexation, since socialists cannot object to force if it is
applied in the interests of the mass of the population and
the interests of mankind’s progress. It is clear that only
the attachment of territory against the will of its population can and must be deemed annexation. In other words,
the concept of annexation is organically bound up with the
concept of self-determination of nations .

11. It is precisely on the basis of the present war, because
of the fact that it is imperialist on the part of both groups
of warring “Great” Powers, that there was bound to develop, and actually did develop, the phenomenon of the
bourgeoisie and social-chauvinists intensively “ fighting ”
against “annexations”, if they have been carried out, or
are being carried out, by an enemy state. Südekum and his
Austro-German friends and defenders, including Haase and Kautsky, are silent about the annexations carried out
by Germany in respect of Alsace-Lorraine, Denmark, Poland,
etc., but very often “fight against annexations” carried
out by Russia in respect of Finland, Poland, Ukraine, the
Caucasus, etc., by Britain in respect of India, and so forth.
On the other side, the British, French, Italian and Russian
Südekums, i.e., Hyndman, Guesde, Vandervelde, Renaudel,
Trèves, Plekhanov, Axelrod, Chkheidze and Co., are silent
about Britain’s annexations in respect of India, France’s in respect of Nice or Morocco, Italy’s in respect of Tripoli
or Albania, Russia’s in respect of Poland, Ukraine, etc.,
but then largely “fight against annexations” carried out
by Germany.

It is clear that such “struggle against annexations” on
the part of the social-chauvinists and Kautskyites is hypocritical through and through, and the bourgeoisie is
assisting such struggle directly, by allocating millions
upon millions for chauvinist propaganda, and indirectly,
by granting a monopoly of legality only to the social-chauvinists and the Kautskyites.

It is clear that both the French “socialists” who justify
a war for Alsace-Lorraine, and the German “socialists” who
refuse to demand freedom for Alsace-Lorraine to secede from
Germany, are equally annexationists, for all their swearing
to the contrary. It is clear that Russian “socialists” who
speak or write against the “break-up of Russia”, or, behind
the “peace without annexations ” slogan, justify, directly or
indirectly, the present war over who is to enslave Poland,
are just as much annexationists, and so on and so forth.

12. If socialists are not to transform “the struggle against
annexations” into an empty phrase or into revolting hypocrisy, they should, first , explain to the masses the need
for revolutionary struggle for the conquest of political
power by the proletariat and a socialist revolution which
springs from all the conditions of the imperialist epoch
and the present imperialist war, and which alone can firmly
and everywhere ensure the self-determination of nations,
i.e., liberate oppressed nations and effect the coming together and integration of nations, not on the basis of force
but on the basis of the equal rights and consent of the
proletariat and working people of all nations; secondly ,
immediately mount the widest propaganda and agitation against the veiled chauvinism and annexationism of the
official socialist parties, especially in the “Great” Powers.
Socialists should explain to the masses that the English
socialist who does not struggle now for freedom of secession
for Ireland, India, etc., is a socialist and internationalist
only in words, and a chauvinist and annexationist in practice. The same applies to the French socialist who does
not fight for the freedom of the French colonies, against the war to annex Alsace-Lorraine, etc.; the German
socialist who does not fight for freedom of secession for
Alsace-Lorraine, the Danes, the Poles, the Belgians, the Serbs
and others; the Russian socialist who does not fight for
freedom of secession for the Ukraine, Finland, etc., and
against war over Poland; the Italian socialist who does
not fight for freedom of secession for Tripoli, Albania, etc.;
the Dutch socialist who does not fight for freedom of secession and independence for the Dutch East Indies; the Polish
socialist who does not fight for full freedom and equality
for the Jews and the Ukrainians oppressed by the Poles,
and so on.

13. It inevitably follows from the Zimmerwald
manifesto and the I.S.C. circular of Feb. 10, 1916 (Bulletin
No. 3) [10] that all “war on war” and “struggle for peace”
are hypocrisy unless they are indissolubly bound up with
immediate revolutionary mass struggle , and with its propaganda and preparation. But this conclusion must be
set forth straightforwardly and definitely. There is need,
first, to explain to the masses what the development of
the revolutionary mass struggle in the conditions of a
European war can and must (muss ) lead to. It leads inevitably to the transformation of the imperialist war into
a civil war for socialism. This is hinted at by all the speeches
about it being better for the workers to die for their own
cause, rather than for someone else’s. But a hint is insufficient. The masses should have clearly put before them the
great, even though maybe not very immediate, aim. They should know what direction to take and why. Second,
if we call on the masses to fight their governments “ regardless of the military position of a given country”, we
thereby not only reject in principle the admissibility of
“defence of the fatherland ” in the present war, but recognise
the desirability of defeat of any bourgeois government, in
order to transform the defeat into a revolution. And this
must be said straightforwardly: revolutionary mass struggle
cannot become international unless its class-conscious representatives openly unite for the purpose of defeating and
overthrowing all bourgeois governments. Third—and this is most important—it is impossible to carry on a
revolutionary mass struggle without creating everywhere, not only at the top but also in the midst of the masses, an
illegal organisation for its propaganda, preparation and
discussion of its course and conditions. If there have been
street demonstrations in Germany, if there have been many
letters from the front calling on the people not to subscribe
to the war loan in France, if there have been mass strikes
in Britain, to say nothing of Russia, then in order to aid
this struggle, to unify it on an international scale, it is
unquestionably necessary to report every step along this
road in a free, i.e., illegal , press, analysing the successes,
assessing their conditions, and building up and developing
the struggle. Without an illegal organisation and an illegal
press the acceptance of “mass action” will remain an empty phrase (as is the case in
Switzerland). [2]

14. On the question of the socialists’ parliamentary
struggle ( Aktion ), it should be borne in mind that the
Zimmerwald resolution not only expresses its sympathy with the five Social-Democratic deputies of the Duma,
who belong to our Party, and who have been sentenced to
exile in Siberia, but also proclaims its solidarity with their
tactics. It is impossible to recognise the revolutionary
struggle of the masses and put up with the purely legal,
purely reformist activity of socialists in parliaments;
this leads only to legitimate dissatisfaction among the
workers, and their leaving the S.D. ranks for anti-parliamentary
anarchism or syndicalism. It is essential to say clearly
and publicly that Social-Democrats in parliaments must use their position not only to make parliamentary speeches,
but also to give all-round extra-parliamentary assistance
to the illegal organisation and revolutionary struggle of the workers, and that the masses themselves must, through
their illegal organisation, check up on such activity by
their leaders.

15. The question of convening the International
Socialist Bureau, included in the agenda of the coming Second
International Socialist Conference, unavoidably raises the
more fundamental question of principle, namely, whether
the unity of the old parties and of the Second International
is possible. The wider the sympathy among the masses for the Zimmerwald organisation, the less understandable
for the masses and the more harmful for the development
of their struggle is the inconsistency and timidity of the
attitude which in essence identifies the old parties and
the Second International with bourgeois policy in the working-class movement (see the Zimmerwald manifesto and
I.S.C. circular of Feb. 10, 1916), while fearing a split with
them, and promising to dissolve the I.S.C. directly the old
International Socialist Bureau reassembles.

This promise was not voted upon, and was not even discussed at Zimmerwald.

During the six months since Zimmerwald, it has become even clearer that a split is inevitable, that the work
recommended by the Zimmerwald manifesto cannot be carried
on in unity with the old parties, and that the fear of a
split hampers every step on that way. In Germany it is not
only the Internationale Sozialisten Deutschlands group that has condemned the fear of a split, and has openly
come out against the hypocrisy of those who preach unity;
Otto Rühle, a member of the Reichstagsfraktion and a close associate of Karl Liebknecht, has openly declared for
a split. And Vorwärts has failed to find a single serious
or honest argument against Rühle. In France, Bourderon,
a member of the Socialist Party, is against a split in words,
but has actually tabled in the Congress a resolution which
directly “ désapprouve [disapproves ] of the C.A.P. [ Comité Administratif Permanent =Party Executive] and the G.P.”
( Groupe Parlementaire =parliamentary group). The adoption of such a resolution would clearly mean an immediate
and unquestionable split in the party. In Britain, T.
Russel Williams, even writing in the moderate Labour Leader ,
has openly and repeatedly declared the inevitability of a
split, and has met with support from some members of his party. In America, with formal unity in the Socialist
Party, some of its members declare for militarism and war (so-called preparedness), and others, among them
Eugene Debs, the one-time Socialist candidate for the
Presidency, openly preach civil war for socialism in connection
with the looming war.

There is already an actual split throughout the world, and closing their eyes to this only tends to harm the

Zimmerwaldists, making them ridiculous in the eyes of the
masses, who know perfectly well that each step in their work in the spirit of Zimmerwald means a continuation
and widening of the split.

It takes courage openly to recognise what is inevitable
and what has taken place, to abandon the harmful illusions
about unity being possible with the “defenders of the fatherland ” in the present war, to help the masses to be rid of
the influence of those leaders who are “misleading them”
(see the I.S.C. circular of Feb. 10, 1916) or paving the way
for a plot ( Pakt ) against socialism via an “amnesty”.

That is our proposal on the item of the agenda for the calling of the International Socialist Bureau at The Hague.

*     * *
Reformist talk is the main means for deceiving the people at a time when the objective situation has placed
on the agenda of history the greatest world crisis, which,
regardless of the will of the several parties, can be either
evaded or put off until the next imperialist war, or resolved
through a socialist revolution. It is neither an accident
nor the ill will of the several governments or capitalists
of some country but the whole evolution of bourgeois relations that has led to imperialism and the present
imperialist war. Nor is it an accident or the result of some
demagogy or agitation but the objective conditions of the
wartime crisis and the aggravation of class contradictions
that are now giving rise to the strikes, demonstrations and
similar other manifestations of mass revolutionary struggle
in a number of belligerent countries.

Objectively the question appears in this way—and in no other: either to help this still weak but internally
powerful and deep ferment and movement of the masses, which
is potentially capable of developing into a socialist revolution; or to conduct a policy of assisting the bourgeois
governments ( Durchhaltspolitik, politique jusquauboutiste [3]

).

The real meaning of the sugary talk about a democratic peace
is nothing but assistance to the governments through the
hypocritical dulling and duping of the masses.

*     * *
This war has raised the fundamental questions of imperialism, that is, the questions of the very existence of
capitalist society, and it would be quackery to suggest to
the people—directly or indirectly—that any reformist solution of these problems is possible. What is involved
here is a fresh division of the world in accordance with
the new balance of forces between the capitalist states,
which over the last few decades have been developing not
only at exceptional speed but—and this is especially important—extremely unevenly. On the basis of capitalist
social relations this redivision of the world is inconceivable except through force and war. The objective state of
things rules out any reformist solution for the mature contradictions; it rules out any other way out except a
series of imperialist wars or a socialist revolution of the
proletariat, for whose success the imperialist epoch itself
has already created the conditions. Real political activity
in these conditions is possible only as one of two things:
assistance to “one’s own” national bourgeoisie in plundering other countries, or assistance to the
incipient.... [4]

---
Notes:
[1]
The MS. says erroneously “in Copenhagen”.— Ed .

[2]

Paragraphs 12 and 13 are crossed out in the MS.— Ed .

[3]
Carrying on the war to a victorious end.— Ed .

[4]
Here the MS breaks off.— Ed .

[5]
The proposals by the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. to
the Second Zimmerwald Conference were written in response
to the I.S.C.’s “Appeal to All Affiliated Parties and Groups”
(see Internationale Sozialistische Kommission zu Bern. Bulletin
No. 3, February 29, 1916).

There are two variants of the proposals in manuscript of which
the initial 15–point text is published in this volume. For the
second (final) eight-point variant see present edition, Vol. 22,
pp. 109–79.

The Second International Socialist Conference was held in
Kienthal (Switzerland) from April 24 to 30, 1916. It was attended by
the representatives of Germany (7), Italy (7), Russia (8,
including Lenin and Petrova [Inessa Armand]), Poland (5), France
(4), Switzerland (5), etc., a total of 43 persons, of whom 12 were
firm supporters of the Left.

On the agenda there were the following items: the struggle to
end the war, the proletariat’s attitude to the questions of peace,
parliamentary activity and mass struggle; the convocation of
the International Socialist Bureau, etc. At this Conference, the
Left was stronger than at Zimmerwald. Lenin secured the
adoption of a resolution criticising social-pacifism and the activity
of the International Socialist Bureau. The Conference helped to
bring out and rally the internationalist elements who, in 1919,
on the initiative of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, set up the Third,
Communist, International. But the Conference failed to adopt
the basic planks of Bolshevik policy, namely, transformation
of the imperialist war into a civil war, defeat of one’s own
imperialist government in the war, and organisation of the Third
International.

[6]
The congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Holland was held
at Arnhem on January 8 and 9, 1916.

[7]
London Conference of Socialists of the Entente Countries was held
on February 14, 1915. It was attended by social-chauvinists and
pacifists from the socialist parties of Britain, France, and Belgium,
and by the Mensheviks and S.R.s from Russia.

Although the Bolsheviks had not been invited, Litvinov (
Maximovich) went to the conference on Lenin’s instructions to read
out a declaration of the R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee, based
on a draft written by Lenin. It demanded the withdrawal of
socialists from bourgeois governments, a complete break with the
imperialists, refusal to co-operate with them, resolute struggle
against one’s own imperialist government and condemnation of
the voting of war credits. Litvinov was reading the declaration,
when he was interrupted and ruled out of order. He handed the
text of the declaration to the presidium and left the conference.
For details on the London conference, see present edition,
Vol. 21, pp. 132–34 and 178–80.

The Vienna Conference of Socialists of Germany and Austria ,
a kind of response to the London Conference of Socialists of the
Entente Countries, was held in April 1915. It endorsed the
social-chauvinist “Defend the Fatherland ” slogan.

[8]
A reference to K. Kautsky’s article “Nochmals unsere Illusionen”
(Once Again about Our Illusions) in Die Neue Zeit No. 8, May 21,
1915.

[9]
A reference to the editorial article in Avanti! No. 65 of March 5,
1916, entitled “Polemica in casa nostra” (Polemics in Our Camp), in which the editors quoted an extract from Trèves’s article in
Critica sociale , and polemised with him.

[10]
Circular of the International Socialist Commission —an appeal
from the I.S.C. to all parties and groups of the Zimmerwald
Association, adopted unanimously at the February meeting of the
I.S.C. in Berne in 1916. The delegation of the R.S.D.L.P. Central
Committee, led by Lenin, tabled a statement saying that it
regarded the appeal as a step forward in comparison with the
decisions of the First International Socialist Conference in
Zimmerwald, but did not find it satisfactory in every respect. The appeal
appeared in Bulletin der I.S.K. No. 3 on February 29, 1916
and in Sotsial-Demokrat No. 52 on March 25, 1916.