V. I.

Lenin

November 14, 1914

Dear Friend, I am very glad to hear from you that the C.O. has been
received, and is to go where it should.

As regards your speech at the congress of the Swedish
Social-Democrats, I can advise only this: either no speech
at all, or a statement that you greet the fraternal party
of the Swedish workers and wish it every success in the spirit of revolutionary international Social-Democracy . [1]
If you cannot say this , then it is not worth while speaking
at all. But if possible, of course, it would be best to add
(1) that the Russian workers have expressed their view through the Social-Democratic Duma group, which did not
vote for the budget, (2) that they are issuing illegal leaflets in St. Petersburg, Riga, Moscow and the Caucasus,
(3) that the organs of their Party, the C.C. and the C.O.,
have declared against international opportunism.

Is this “done”?—H’m.... Of course, Branting won’t like it, but it’s not our business to “please” the opportunists.
If you are given 10–12 minutes and freedom of speech, then
you should speak against German (and other) opportunism,
without, of course, in any way touching either the
Swedish Social-Democrats or their “Young”, and so forth. As
regards restoring the International, I would advise you
not to say anything, either directly or indirectly. I am
sending you an article (a very good one!) on this theme
(translate it and send it to
Russia). [2] We shall keep silent on the question of restoring the International, and stay
on the side lines. We must bide our time. The
Leftists [3] are beginning to stir among the Germans: if they have a
split, then , maybe, the International will be saved from
rotting.

As regards the watchword of “peace”, you are mistaken if you think the bourgeoisie doesn’t even want to hear
of it. Today I have been reading the English Economist .
The wise bourgeois of an advanced country are for peace
(of course, in order to strengthen capitalism). [4] But we
must not let ourselves be confused with the petty-bourgeois,
sentimental liberals, etc. The epoch of the bayonet has
begun. This is a fact; consequently, we have to fight with such a weapon too.

One of these days, the slogan of peace will be taken up
by the German bourgeoisie, and particularly by the opportunists . We must stand for the watchword of the revolutionary proletariat , capable of fighting for its own aims—
and that is civil war. This too is a very concrete watchword,
and it alone unerringly reveals the main trends: either
for the proletarian, or for the bourgeois cause.

As regards the debt to the
Swedes, [5] neither I nor
Nadezhda Konstantinovna can remember anything at all. But
it is quite possible that either I did not know, or have
forgotten. It would be a very good thing, therefore, to send
them a friendly letter of thanks, suggesting that the debt
should be “donated”. I think you yourself could do this,
on behalf of the Petrograd Committee, for example, plus
some Social-Democratic deputies, authorising you in
Petrograd. I believe this would be the best form. I think
you should act in the same way on the loan. I would not
advise pushing a letter from me (it could start “ factional ”
squabbles!). I will send a letter if you insist, but my
advice is: don’t. Without me they will be better inclined to
give, really! Refer to Petrovsky, get a letter from him
(if need be), this is better, really!

All the very best, Yours,
N. Lenin

P.S. If Kollontai translates the Central Committee manifesto (from No. 33 of the C.O.) into German, perhaps
you will send us a copy?

P.S. About the “peace” watchword. An interesting article by Bernstein in the last issue of Neue Zeit shows that
in Britain, where the bourgeoisie is cleverest and freest
of all, etc., there is a trend for peace from the standpoint of
ultra-opportunism. That is, peace is the best guarantee
of “social peace”, i.e., the submission of the proletariat
to the bourgeoisie, the pacification of the proletariat,
the continuation of the existence of capitalism.
Bernstein’s article does not elaborate this. But it is obvious that there are many such peacemakers among the
liberal and radical bourgeois of all countries. Add to this
(1) that all chauvinists are also for peace (only on what
terms)—and in the legal press, we shall not be allowed to speak of our terms!
(2) that the German and Russian
Courts are also for a particular kind of peace with each other
(in secret today, half-open tomorrow), (3) that all the
sentimental bourgeois and philistines are “for peace” from
the “anti-revolutionary”, philistine, slavish, etc., standpoint.

The question is, who objectively now benefits from the watchword of peace? In any case, not the propaganda of
the ideas of the revolutionary proletariat! Not the idea
of utilising the war to hasten the collapse of capitalism!

Add to this the victory of the opportunist chauvinists in nearly all countries: the slogan of peace will only help
them to extricate themselves .