V. I. LENIN— TO V. A. KARPINSKY
TO GENEVA. *)
[October 8, 1912. Kraków.]
Dear K[arpinsky]! I have not kept abreast of the latest international peace congresses. I have heard about the participation of socialists—and about the opportunist character of their stance—but that is all I have heard.¹
I will not venture to offer a firm opinion on this matter without first perusing the reports from at least one congress. The question is complex.
There is no doubt that the general rise of opportunism and the “balancing” of its forces against the revolutionary Social Democrats in the major industrialized nations of the working class (Germany) must inevitably leave its mark here as well. Let Bebel continue to engage in diplomatic maneuvering with the opportunists—if such diplomacy is deemed necessary—but it is not our place to do so. That is all I can say for now.
Send my greetings to Comrade Olga and to all our friends—including Gorin, of course.
How is he faring? What news do you have? How are things progressing with Plekhanov? Have you had any conversations with him?
Kamenev will be in Switzerland in the fall with his paper—though he is currently here, on his way to Paris. Perhaps I too will make it there in the winter.²
Best regards!
Yours, Lenin
1 This refers to the International Peace Congress held
2 from September 24–28, 1912, in Geneva.
8 Lenin did not spend the winter of 1912 in Geneva.

V. I. LENIN— TO G. V. PLEKHANOV
TO GENEVA.
November 17, 1912. [Kraków.]
Dear Comrade! I have just sent you a telegram regarding our acceptance of the arrangement you had agreed upon with Rubanovich.¹
*
The envelope addressed to V. Karpinsky—“Mr. Karpinsky, Bibliothèque Russe, 7 Rue Hugo de Senger, 7 Geneve, Suisse”—was written in the hand of N. Krupskaya. The postmark date reads: October 8, 1912.
Ed.

LETTERS FROM THE SECOND PERIOD OF EMIGRATION

We ask you to submit to the Commission, for its information, our own position should we differ from yours on the following point.
Kautsky’s article in JNH 6 Neue Zeit, published after the October meeting of the Socialist International,³ is clearly the official position of the Germans, Austrians, and others. We firmly disagree with the central thesis of this article (pp. 191–192, especially from the words “Dabei müssen” to “heischenden Massen”).⁴
Kautsky essentially renounces the idea of a revolutionary mass strike. This is unacceptable—not only from a Russian perspective (with 100,000 political strikers in Petrograd, engaged in revolutionary rallies and expressing sympathy for the sailors’ uprising!), but also from a pan-European standpoint. Of course, you are familiar with our position through the literature, and I trust you will not hesitate to discuss it with Comrade Kamenev.
Our delegate to the Socialist International—Comrade Kamenev (M. Rosenfeld, 11 Rue Roli, 11 Paris XIV).
Please telegraph him if you are not going to attend; and if you do go, be sure to meet with him before the Commission in Basel (M. Rosenfeld, Poste Restante, Bdle). *
If, against all expectations, you are unable to attend, kindly submit your written vote—whether for Rubanovich or for Kamenev—to the Commission.
At your service,
N. Lenin
Wl. Uljanow.
47 Lubomirskiego.
Austria. Kraków.
1 It remains unclear what “arrangement” is being referred to.
a The reference is to the Commission established by the Extraordinary Basel Congress
I
of the International, which drafted the Manifesto Against the Danger of War. The Congress took place from November 21–25, 1912 (see Lenin’s Collected Works, vol. XVI, Appendix 84, p. 721). The Manifesto was adopted unanimously. Each of France, Germany, England, and Russia was represented on the Commission by a single delegate. In accordance with agreements reached with representatives of the RSDLP and with the International Bureau, I. Rubanovich served as Russia’s representative on the Commission.
8 The reference is to the Socialist International’s meeting held in Basel on October 28–29, 1912, where it was decided to convene an emergency socialist congress in response to the Balkan Wars. Among those present were *—Rosenfeld, Poste Restante, Basel. Ed.

D1 lUIIICKIlil (BORNPK from Russia: G. Plekhanov (Social Democrat) and I. Rubenovich (Socialist Revolutionary)). A special closed session of the Socialist International was devoted to Russian affairs.

The article in question is Kautsky’s “Bonn and the International” (“Der Krieg und die Internationale”) in Die Neue Zeit, No. 6, dated November 8, 1912.
In the passage cited by Lenin, Kautsky writes: “At this point, we must already begin to understand how we can—and intend to—counteract war.”
One thing is certain: at present, no government would dare to enter into war while universal military conscription remains in effect and the power of the proletariat continues to grow—unless it first succeeds in cultivating a widespread public mood in favor of war.
On the other hand, it is equally certain that any action aimed at prompting the ruling classes to initiate war—whether through mass demonstrations, armed uprisings, or general strikes—such actions are doomed to fail, and may even prove disastrous in an atmosphere of heightened wartime fervor among the populace.
Our task, then, is to carry out propaganda in this spirit. Mass demonstrations, as planned actions of our party, can only be carried out in a propagandistic manner.
We must take into account the fact that whatever elements may be interested in war—no matter their nature—will seek to spread all manner of false information in order to intimidate, deceive, and incite the masses.
Telegraphs and the press, controlled by these very same elements, greatly facilitate such efforts.
Our most important task is to thwart all of this. In this regard, our daily social-democratic press serves as a powerful instrument of peaceful politics.
However, it would be a grave error—and a direct distortion of Marxism—if, at this moment, we were to turn solely to the proletariat, ignoring the other working masses: the intelligentsia, the petty bourgeoisie, and the peasantry. To be sure, the proletariat is the most reliable defender of peace—but the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry are no less deeply invested in the cause of peace.
Even worse would be if we were to tell non-proletarian segments of the population that imperialism and the struggle for resources in Turkey are a matter of life and death for bourgeois society, and that when we opposed war and called for peace, it was only because we sought to destroy bourgeois society.
To propagate such nonsense would, in the present circumstances, amount to a betrayal of the policy of peace. The tactic designed to preserve peace must not consist in isolating the socialist proletariat from the other popular masses whose interests lie in safeguarding peace; rather, it must consist in harnessing the proletarian resistance to war, in drawing these masses into solidarity with us, in isolating the warmongers and thereby rendering them powerless against the ranks of peace‑seeking masses.

LETTERS FROM THE SECOND PERIOD OF EMIGRATION


V. I. LENIN— TO G. L. SHKLOVSKY
TO VER. *
[Early December 1912. Kraków.] 1
Your letter seems to be the first to arrive bearing a proposal for a “report” on Basel!!² Late, indeed… It appears something was lacking—or perhaps something was in excess—in Basel… I suspect the delegates lacked organizational discipline. And that is deeply regrettable. Kamenev, of course, was fully occupied; but what of the other five??³ Was it really so unclear that Truth needed to be informed daily? Was it truly so difficult to divide responsibilities? Not a single letter went to Truth from the field, while the liquidators were busy producing several reports in Luch.⁴
Is this not shameful? Of course, since we are the ones who sleep while the liquidators work, they naturally fare better. Are any efforts being made to collect funds for Truth? Not a trace—while the liquidators are busy publishing reports in Luch about fundraising abroad. Yet Truth is in dire need, desperately in need, of every last bit of support.
None of the delegates wrote to us about Basel (except Kamenev). It was imperative to divide our efforts and to write twice a day. But everyone remained silent—apparently dissatisfied with something. With what? God alone knows! As for the outcomes of Basel, I am quite satisfied—especially since the liquidators allowed themselves to be caught in the initiative group!!⁵ There could hardly have been a better way to pin that scum down on their own schemes. But the inaction of our delegates—and that vague, elusive “tightening of lips” I detect in them—truly saddens me. Did you speak with the German delegates (after all, four or five of them spoke German)? Who? With whom? How? About what? Nothing is heard—except from Kamenev. Propaganda among the Germans is vitally important.
You write that “our affairs are thriving in the press and in France.”
But matters are far from flourishing when it comes to “Enlightenment.” The situation is critical. We must help—indeed, we must move beyond mere assistance and actually bring about change.
Truth has a circulation of around 23,000. Luch runs at 8–9. Here, the stakes are high…
The manuscript is a copy written in the hand of G. Shklovsky, to whom the letter was originally sent—and who, in turn, forwarded it to its intended recipient, as indicated at the end of the letter. Ed.
** In the manuscript, G. Shklovsky added the following note: “(I wrote that this impression arises when reading ‘Truth.’ G. Sh.)” Ed.

It is still too early to celebrate. But Truth once reached 60,000 in the IV Duma—and then fell to 20,000 over the winter. Its recovery is painfully slow. Without additional support, it simply cannot be sustained. Things are better in France than ever before. All the workers’ councils are now under our control. 6 Never before has this been the case.
For the first time, the South has taken a seat. Out of 12 deputies, 6 are Bolsheviks and 6 are Mensheviks… (= 17%)*
»
III »

»
. . .(= 50%)
»
IV «

»
»
. . .(= 67%)
If you know anyone anywhere who might be inspired by these figures, let them reflect on these numbers and be ashamed of their own discouragement. For the first time in our history, we have a distinguished worker in the Duma—Lider (Malipovsky). He will deliver the declaration. He is no match for Alekshinsky. And though the results may not be immediate, they will be profound. In the III Duma, we began with zero!!
In the realm of illegal work, thanks to our move here, the bureau has accomplished more than ever before. Slowly, but surely, we are moving forward.
We publish more illegally than anyone else. Money is scarce. But when aid arrives—we will publish another Workers’ Newspaper and more besides.
From abroad, the only way to support illegal work is through travel. Beyond that, crucial assistance includes new connections—1) letters—2) contacts—3) passports—4) and so on. Yet all of this is still insufficient. Here, in foreign lands, we accomplish only one-hundredth of what is possible. Most importantly, we must now focus on helping Truth “pull through.” And yet, support for Truth remains woefully inadequate. One man—Bukharin—is making an effort. In other cities, however, no one is writing regular correspondence. No one is organizing fundraisers. No one is collecting interesting local books and pamphlets to send here… nor compiling engaging articles. Comrades, we must think more deeply about these matters! Take, for example, Neuenburg in Switzerland… who has taken care to ensure that such efforts are made? What has actually been done?
HUG YOUR HANDS*"*‘*
* Minutes from the London Congress, 451.7
** In the copy, one word is illegible; it is likely that the word “for” was intended. Ed.
*** Lenin’s letter apparently concluded with a signature. L. Shklovsky added the following note here: “and so forth.” Ed.

LETTERS FROM THE SECOND PERIOD OF EMIGRATION

P.S. Please forward this letter to Yuri, so that he may pass it on to Antonov in Paris, and from there to Vienna. To this day, we still do not know whether Plekhanov discussed the possibility of joining forces with the Socialist Revolutionaries at the October Bureau meeting (cf. Martov in Luch, No. 37)? 8 Did no one ask Rubanovich, or the German delegate, or Günsmann, or anyone else about this??
1 The date is corroborated by the mention of a report on the Basel Socialist Congress, which took place on November 24–25, 1912.
2 The report on the Basel Congress was published in Sozial-Demokrat, No. 30, on January 12, 1913.
3 The Central Committee of the RSDLP was represented at the Basel Congress by six delegates: L. Kamenev, A. Troyanovsky, G. Shklovsky, and others.
4 In Truth, the following were published concerning the Basel Congress: a brief dispatch from Basel, “The Socialist Congress,” in No. 168, dated November 14 (27), and an article, “The International and Peace,” in No. 172, dated November 18 (December 1), 1912.
In Luch, meanwhile, the lead article was “The Basel Congress,” in No. 50, dated November 14 (27), along with “The International Socialist Congress” and two dispatches—telegrams from Basel to Luch, No. 51, dated November 15 (28), and an article, “War—To War,” signed “Ch. A—skin,” in Nos. 52 and 53, dated November 16 (29) and November 17 (December 1), 1912.
5 The reference is to the six Central Committee delegates who withdrew from the RSDLP subcommittee at the Basel Congress. The Central Committee delegates justified their withdrawal by citing disagreement with the subcommittee’s decision to endorse the mandate of the Petersburg “initiative group,” an organization hostile to the Party and actively engaged in struggles against it.
6 The reference is to the Social Democratic Fraction in the Fourth State Duma. The “Six of the Workers’ Council” consisted of six Social Democratic Bolshevik deputies (A. E. Badayev, R. V. Malinovsky, M. K. Muranov, G. I. Petrovsky, F. N. Samoylov, N. R. Shagov), who had been elected to the State Duma through the workers’ council.
7 At the London Congress of the RSDLP, a report was presented on the activities of the Duma Fraction. In the minutes of the London Congress, to which Lenin refers in his letter, Appendix II, “Composition of the Social Democratic Duma Fraction,” states: “From the workers’ council: a total of 23 individuals—12 Mensheviks (52.2%), 9 Bolsheviks (39.1%), and 2 who aligned themselves with the Bolsheviks (8.7%).” (“The London Congress of the RSDLP (held in 1907).” Published by the Central Committee. Paris, 1909, p. 451.)
8 The reference is to L. Martov’s article, “The International Bureau on the Unity of the Social Democrats” (“Luch,” No. 37, dated November 11, 1912), in which it is reported that Plekhanov, speaking at the Socialist International’s meeting in Basel (October 28–29, 1912), stated that the time was not far off when Russian Social Democrats would unite not only among themselves, but also with the Socialist Revolutionaries (see Lenin’s Collected Works, vol. XVI, note 105, p. 732).