V. I.

Lenin

118

To:   INESSA ARMAND

Dear Friend, About Engels. If you have run across the issue of Neue Zeit
with Kautsky’s story (and Engels’s letters) about how they distorted
Engels’s preface to Klassenkämpfe , it would be a good thing if
you copied it out in full detail in a special notebook. If you can’t, then
send me the exact number of Neue Zeit , the year, volume and
page. [2]

Your attacks on Engels, I am convinced, are totally groundless. Excuse
my frankness. One must prepare much more seriously before writing like
that! Otherwise it’s easy to disgrace oneself—I warn you entre nous , as a friend, between ourselves, in case you begin talking in this way some day in the press or at a meeting.

The Belgian strike? First of all it is possible that on this question
of fact, an individual question, Engels was mistaken. Of course, that is
possible. One must collect every thing he wrote on this question. Secondly,
events in recent times in general , 1905 definitely, have
provided something new about general strikes, which Engels did not
know. Engels had been accustomed for decades to hear about the “general
strike” only the empty phrases of the anarchists, whom he
legitimately hated and despised. But later events have demonstrated a new type of “mass strike”, a
political one, i.e., a particularly non-anarchist one. This new
feature Engels did not know yet , and could not know.

This must not be forgotten.

Was not the Belgian strike a transition from the old to the
new? Could Engels at that time (1891–92?? He was already 71–72;
dying) see that this was not the old Belgian belch (the Belgians for a long time were Proudhonists), but the transition
to something new? This must be thought over.

As regards “defence of the fatherland”, in my opinion, you are
falling into abstraction and unhistoricalness. I repeat what I said in the
article against
Yuri [1]

:

defence of the fatherland = justification for taking part in the
war . Nothing more. To generalise this, to make it a “general
principle”, is ridiculous , supremely unscientific. (I will send
you the American programme of the S.L.P., with this ridiculous
generalisation.) Wars are a supremely varied, diverse, complex thing. One
cannot approach them with a general pattern.

( I) Three main types: the relation of an oppressed nation to the
oppressor (every war is the continuation of politics; politics is the
relationship between nations, classes, etc.). As a general rule,
war is legitimate on the part of the oppressed (irrespective of whether it
is defensive or offensive in the military sense).

( II) The relation. between two oppressor nations. The struggle for
colonies, for markets, etc. (Rome and Carthage; Britain and Germany
1914–17). As a general rule, a war of that kind is robbery on
both sides; and the attitude of democracy (and socialism) to it
comes under the rule: “Two thieves are fighting, may they both
perish”....

( III) The third type. A system of nations with equal rights. This question is much more complex !!!! Especially if side
by side with civilised, comparatively democratic nations there stands
tsarism. That’s how it was (approximately) in Europe from 1815 to 1905.

1891. The colonial policy of France and Germany was
insignificant . Italy, Japan, the United States had no colonies at all (now they have). In Western Europe a
system had come into being (N.B. this!! Think over this!! Don’t
forget this!! We live not only in separate states, but also in a certain
system of states; it is permissible for the anarchists to ignore
this; we are not anarchists), a system of states, on the whole
constitutional and national. Side by side with them was powerful,
unshaken, pre-revolutionary tsarism, which had plundered and oppressed
everyone for hundreds of years, which crushed the revolutions of 1849 and
1863.

Germany (in 1891) was the country of advanced socialism. And
this country was menaced by tsarism in alliance with Boulangism!

The situation was quite, quite different from what it is in 1914–17,
when tsarism has been undermined by 1905, while Germany is waging a war to
dominate the world. A different pair of shoes!!

To identify, even to compare the international situations of 1891 and
1914, is the height of unhistoricalness.

Stupid Radek wrote recently in the Polish manifesto (“ Befreiung Polens ”) that “ Staatenbau ” is not the aim of the
Social-Democratic struggle. This is arch-stupidity! It is half-anarchism,
half-idiocy! No, no, we are not at all indifferent to the
Staatenbau , to the system of states, to their mutual relations .

Engels was the father of “passive radicalism”?? Untrue! Nothing of
the kind. You will never be able to prove this. (Bogdanov and Co. tried,
but only disgraced themselves.)

In the imperialist war of 1914–17, between two imperialist coalitions, we must be against “defence of the fatherland”,
since (1) imperialism is the eve of socialism, (2) imperialist war is a war of thieves over their booty,
(3) in both coalitions there is an advanced proletariat,
(4) in both a socialist revolution is ripe . Only for these reasons are we against “defence of the fatherland”, only
for these reasons!!

Best greetings and wishes.

Yours, Lenin

I have sent for the addresses of the youth organisations. They have
been promised me.

And so, as regards the plan of publication: push ahead with
the affair. And your lecture on pacifism ? [3]

P.S. I got both your last two letters at once, but it must have been my own
fault.

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 28–76.— Ed .

[2]
Lenin has in mind Kautsky’s article “Einige Feststellungen über Marx
und Engels” (“Some Facts about Marx and Engels”) printed in Die Neue Zeit , 1908, No. 1, October 2, pp. 5–7.

[3]
Inessa Armand gave her lecture on pacifism on January 21, 1917 (see
Letter 119).