Date: 1910
Source: ru:PSS/v49

Source: PSS vol 49

Dear Comrade Weinkop!

The undertaking we are currently engaged in—the plan for an international declaration of principles by the Marxist Left—is of such paramount importance that we have no right to delay; we must see it through to a successful conclusion, and as swiftly as possible. The fact that we are lagging behind poses a grave danger!

Article A.P. in the “Berner Tagwacht” (July 24) concerning the Congress of the Dutch Social Democratic Party is highly significant for our mutual understanding.134 I greet with great joy your position—and those of Gorter and Raves­teijn—on the question of the people’s militia (a position that is also enshrined in our own program). A class of the exploited that does not strive to possess arms, to master their use, and to acquire a thorough understanding of military affairs would be nothing more than a servile class. Those who advocate disarmament in opposition to the people’s militia—such “leftists” can be found in Germany and even in Scandinavia: I debated this very issue with Höglund in 1910—are, in fact, adopting the stance of petty-bourgeois pacifists and opportunists within small states. For us, however, the decisive perspective must be that of the great powers and of revolutionary struggle—in other words, of civil war as well. From the standpoint of social revolution, considered apart from time and space, anarchists may indeed oppose the people’s militia. But our most pressing task now is precisely to draw a sharp line between the Marxist Left on the one hand, and the opportunists (including the Kautskys) and the anarchists on the other.

One passage in A.P.’s article utterly outraged me—namely, the part where he claims that Mrs. Roland-Holst’s fundamental declaration “completely aligns with the viewpoint of the Social Democratic Party”!!

From this fundamental declaration, as it appeared in the “Berner Tagwacht” and in the “Internationale Korrespondenz”135, I can clearly see that under no circumstances can we afford to stand in solidarity with Mrs. Roland-Holst. In my view, Mrs. Roland-Holst is—

the Dutch Kautsky, or the Dutch Trotsky. These individuals may, in principle, “resolutely disagree” with the opportunists—but in practice, they agree with them on every crucial issue!!

Mrs. Roland-Holst rejects the principle of defending the fatherland; in other words, she rejects social-chauvinism. That is commendable. But she does not reject opportunism!! In her lengthy declaration, not a single word is directed against opportunism! Not a single clear, unambiguous statement about revolutionary means of struggle—though there are far more lofty phrases about “idealism,” self-sacrifice, and the like, which any scoundrel, including Truusje and Kautsky, is only too eager to sign up to! Not a single word about breaking with the opportunists! The slogan of “peace” is pure Kautsky-style rhetoric! Instead—and entirely consistent, from the standpoint of Mrs. Roland-Holst’s unprincipled “fundamental declaration”—she advises collaboration with the Social Democratic Party and with the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party!! This amounts to: unity with the opportunists.

It is just like our friend Trotsky: “in principle, resolutely opposed to the defense of the fatherland”—yet in practice, he advocated unity with Chkheidze’s faction in the Russian Duma (that is, with the very same opponents of our own faction, exiled to Siberia, and with the closest allies of the Russian social-chauvinists).

No. No. Never—and under no circumstances—will we ever agree in principle with Mrs. Roland-Holst’s declaration. It is a thoroughly ill-conceived, purely Platonic, and hypocritical form of internationalism. It is riddled with half-measures. Politically speaking, it is suited only to serve as a “left wing” (that is, a “harmless minority,” a “decorative Marxist embellishment”) within the old, rotten, and despicable servant parties—within the liberal labor parties.

Of course, we do not demand an immediate split in any given party—for example, in Sweden, Germany, or France. It is quite possible that, some time later, the moment will be more favorable for such a split—for instance, in Germany. But in principle, we must unconditionally demand a complete break with opportunism. The entire struggle of our party—and of the workers’ movement across Europe—must be directed against opportunism.

This is not merely a current, nor a tendency; rather, opportunism has now become an organized instrument wielded by the bourgeoisie within the workers’ movement. Moreover, questions of revolutionary struggle—tactics, methods, propaganda within the army, fraternization in the trenches, and the like—must be thoroughly examined, debated, carefully considered, rigorously tested, and clearly explained to the masses through the underground press. Without this, any “recognition” of revolution remains nothing more than empty rhetoric. We have no common ground with those who merely chatter—those whom the Dutch call “passive” radicals.

I hope, dear Comrade Weinkop, that you will not take offense at these remarks.

After all, we must come to a proper understanding so that we can jointly wage the arduous struggle ahead.

Please show this letter to Comrade Pannekoek and to our other Dutch friends.

Yours, N. Lenin

P.S. I will soon send you the official resolution adopted by our party in 1913 on the question of the right of all nations to self-determination*. We are in favor of this principle. Now, in our struggle against the social-chauvinists, we must stand for it more than ever before.

In Zwolle, Netherlands

Translated from German

---

Written after July 24

Sent from Zürichberg, Switzerland

First published on January 21, 1949, in Pravda, No. 21

Printed from manuscript