# Separate Notes on the National Question. February — July 1914............................................................. 83 —
Source: Lenin Miscellany XXX
Page: 94

...to the protest which any citizen of the state is entitled to make, regardless of his place of residence.*
1 The excerpt is given in full in the draft speech for delivery in the State Duma "On the Question of National Policy" (Works, XVII, 326).
1 Ibid., p. 326.
1 The draft was written by Lenin in order to combat "the stupidity of the 'cultural-national autonomists'," so that the Social-Democratic Labour Fraction of the State Duma would submit it for discussion in the Duma (see Lenin's letter to Shaumyan of May 19, 1914, Works, XXIX, 107; in this letter Lenin sketched out a plan for the "Draft").
* At the end of the document, Lenin wrote again in pencil: "Draft Law on National Equality]". Paragraph numbering was done later - in pencil. Ed.


mo
THE POLISH S.D. OPPOSITION AT THE CROSSROADS*1
[Later than July 17, 1914. Poronino]
The transition of the Polish S.D. opposition at the Brussels conference to the liquidators seemed unexpected to many and struck all party members extremely hard. It was thought that the Polish S.D. opposition was no less close to the *Pravdists* than the Latvians. And suddenly—the Latvians are on guard against the liquidators, and the Polish S.D. have betrayed!!
What's the matter?
The matter is that the Polish S.D. have two currents: some want to accommodate Tyszka and Rosa Luxemburg, in order to continue Tyszka's policy themselves. This is a policy of unprincipled diplomacy and "playing" between the *be-kamp* and the *me-kamp*, between the party and its liquidators. Today vote for some, tomorrow for others. Under the guise of "impartiality" betray everyone in turn, bargaining for "benefits and privileges." The points of a federative nature in the Stockholm (1906) agreement of the Polish S.D. with the Russian S.D. are a convenient tool for this nasty policy, which Tyszka and Rosa Luxemburg conducted as virtuosos.
The other current is for a complete break with the liquidators, with Federalism, with "playing" the role of a "pendulum" between two warring sides;—for a sincere and close alliance with the *Pravdists*, with the party.
In Brussels, the first current among the Polish S.D. prevailed. It is clear that on our part, therefore, the most complete distrust of the Polish S.D. is inevitable. We shall live and see whether the second current will succeed in uniting, in throwing out a clear, precise, definite banner of consistent, principled politics, politics not only
* Lenin's title. Ed.
G

going against Tyszka's circle, but also against the essence of Tyszka's methods. Needless to say, the unification of the Polish S.D. proletariat is possible only on the basis of such a policy.
The upcoming steps to create such a unification will finally reveal the truth about the actual state of affairs in the Polish S.-D.-type and thereby determine our attitude towards it.
1 The note "The Polish S.D. Opposition at the Crossroads" was not published. For materials for the Brussels conference convened by the International Socialist Bureau of the Second International on July 16-17, 1914, see Lenin, Works, XVII, 541-571.


SEPARATE NOTES
IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPERIALIST WAR
1914—1916
20401
DRAFT [RESOLUTION ON ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE WAR]1
[August 1915. Sörenberg]
The current war was engendered by imperialism, i.e., the highest stage of capitalism, when [the growth of capital forces] the development of the productive forces and the growth of capital have outgrown the narrow framework of individual national states and induce the "great" powers to strive for the enslavement of foreign nations and the seizure of colonies, as sources of raw materials and places for the export of capital.
The objective conditions of socialism have fully matured, and the great powers in the present war are fighting for an artificial postponement of the demise of capitalism by preserving and strengthening the dependence of the colonies, seizing privileges in the world market, and splitting and suppressing the international revolutionary struggle of the workers.
Socialdemocrats fully recognize the necessity of the freedom of all nations. [In the struggle] In the era of the struggle against Feudalism, absolutism, and foreign national oppression, they recognized the defense of the fatherland, and at present they recognize the legitimacy of the war of oppressed nations (especially colonies) against their oppressors, the "great" powers.
But the present war between the great powers is a war of slaveholders for the strengthening and consolidation of slavery, for the redistribution of colonies, for the "right" to oppress foreign nations, for the privileges of great-power capital, for the reactionary suppression of the labour movement. Therefore, phrases about "defense of the fatherland" on the part of both warring groups of powers are a deception of the people by the bourgeoisie. Neither the victory of any of the present governments nor the *status quo ante bellum* can protect the freedom of nations from the imperialist great powers nor give
* state before the war. Ed.
[ 95 ]

The possibility of a tolerable existence for the working class, which is increasingly burdened by soaring prices, industrial trusts, militarism, and the political reaction that accompanies them—even in the most ostensibly free nations.
The true significance of the slogan “defense of the fatherland” in this war lies in its role as a defense of great-power privileges and advantages; it is a defense of the “right” of a particular bourgeoisie to oppress foreign nations. It represents a policy that is, in essence, both pacifist and liberal—seeking to align a small section of the working class with “its own” national bourgeoisie against the vast majority of proletarians and exploited people. Socialists who pursue such a policy are, in practice, nothing more than chauvinists—social-chauvinists. The politics of voting for war credits, of entering into ministries, of embracing Burgfrieden* and the like—all amount to opportunistic politics, a betrayal of socialism. And the working class cannot attain its lofty goals of labor emancipation without waging a resolute struggle against opportunism and social-chauvinism.
The Basel Manifesto of 1912—adopted precisely in anticipation of a war among the great powers, a war that would indeed break out—clearly and unequivocally recognized the reactionary, imperialist character of this conflict, while also explicitly pointing to the “possibility and likelihood” of an impending proletarian revolution, arising directly from the very conditions of such a war. Indeed, the war did create a revolutionary situation, giving rise to revolutionary uprisings and fermentations. The task of the Social Democrats is to sustain and develop these movements, to help clarify the revolutionary consciousness of the masses and to liberate their minds from the lies of bourgeois and socialist chauvinism; to support every effort at mass revolutionary struggle against imperialism in the name of socialism; and to strive to transform imperialist war into a civil war for socialism.
Social Democrats must harness the growing desire for peace among the masses—a desire born of widespread disillusionment and the nascent awakening of revolutionary consciousness—to intensify revolutionary agitation. Yet in doing so, Social Democrats must not delude the people with false hopes of a quick, however temporary, democratic peace that excludes the oppression of nations—without the revolutionary overthrow of the existing governments.
* Civil peace. Ed.


PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION ON THE QUESTION OF WAR

1. The draft resolution printed here is a variant of the text published in Collected Works, Volume XXX, page 230. Lenin wrote this draft to submit it on behalf of the “Lefts” to the Zimmerwald Conference.
8. The Manifesto of the Basel International Socialist Congress was reprinted in Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XVIII, page 408. The Congress had been convened in protest against the Balkan War—and the looming European war—and took place on November 24–25, 1912 (see Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XVIII, page 199, and Lenin’s excerpts below, p. 225).
Lenin’s Collected Works, Volume XXX f


TO THE REFERENCE “IMPERIALISM AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION”
OCTOBER 1918. BERNE
18398
To the National Question *
Great Power Nations (“National Powers” 1914).
49 40 years.
Germans: 12 million in Austria-Hungary
60 (?)
»
» Germany (out of 67)
£ = 72 (?)
English: (?) 45 in England and the English colonies (out of 46)
(?) 80 in the United States
125 (?)
Englishmen
—

in Great Britain (170 x 43) — Germans
—

French
II
so
o00

Japanese
—

Italians
—


Hungarians (?)
—

m
II
osso

Colonies (population in millions).
1914:

1876: 

+81°10 over 38 years
[ Yu

* Lenin’s heading. Ed.


IMPERIALISM AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION
9 9
18398
N
Outline
Summary
Topic: Imperialism and the Self-Determination of Nations.
| Not a “national question” |
Down with the old national program (only self-determination)!
+ Democratic reforms under imperialism?
+ Norway, 1905: “Exclusion”?
+ Ireland, 1869: “Utopia”?
+ National movements in Asia and the colonies—
and in Africa (Egypt)___
– Why divide along national lines when imperialism is an era of the unification of nations?
Why national movements in Ukraine, China, Persia, India, Egypt, and elsewhere—if (when) the advanced countries have already reached the stage of imperialism, which unites nations? If capitalism (= imperialism) in the advanced countries has transcended the confines of national states? Proudhonists and Marx in the 1860s (“Other nations ought to sit on their backsides and wait until France completes its social revolution”).
Marx in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, 1848. Engels in 1866 and Marx in 1869: it is precisely in the interests of the working class of oppressed nations that we must demand the freedom to secede from the oppressors.
Page 1:
— 2 — 3* (compress and revise)
Imperialism is the oppression of nations on a new historical foundation… This is one 7 9 –
The other 7a (tasks) = the awakening of national movements in Western Europe…
(Ukraine after 1905), in Asia, and in Africa (China, India, Egypt)—in the colonies (among the 1,000 million inhabitants of the globe, 570 + 360 = 930)...
| 300–400 million out of 1,600 are oppressors
Pages 4–5, down with them.
Apparently, reference is made to pages from some manuscript of Lenin. Ed.

p. 6 (to be revised). Self-Determination of Nations [“an old, worn-out”
(schabig)
6 [bourgeois–democratic] slogan ((new for a land with a population of 10 million!!))] to turn deception into truth.
Deception for Anglia, France — and for Germany
2 Forms of Deception: Plekhanov’s contra
Parvus “the most schabig” slogan*
Is it only the 6 [bourgeois–democratic] principle?
And brotherhood of workers?
No, nor even the socialist principle.
When we raise the slogan: “freedom of self-determination,” that is, “freedom of secession,” we are, through all our agitation, calling on the oppressed to strive to retain power not through violence, but through economic advantages and cultural development. When we neither recognize nor place at the forefront the right to secession, we in practice leave the door wide open for the lackeys of violence.
Only in this way can we strike the nail on the head **— we must teach the workers: drive out anyone who does not sincerely and honestly uphold the democratic and socialist principles.
18398
Theses
[Four] Five (?) (better four)*** theses: 1) The national liberation movements of oppressed nations, especially those of the so‑called great powers, must demand the right to self‑determination = the right
* against Parvus’s “most worn‑out” slogan. Ed.
** Literally: only in this way do we hit the nail on the head (right at the very point). Ed.
*** The corrections and words in parentheses were added later. Ed.


“IMPERIALISM AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION”
] Q l secession for oppressed nations, defending this right not only in legal channels, but also—and particularly during times of war—in the realm of illegal print media. — 2) The national liberation movements of oppressed nations must demand the fullest possible integration, including organizational integration—not merely rapprochement—between the oppressed nation and the working class of both the oppressed and the oppressing nation. — 3) On the basis of these principles, the national liberation movements of all advanced countries in the 20th century, and especially those of the great powers, must place at the forefront of their national policies the principle: “Workers have no fatherland,” without in any way denying the universal-historical significance of the national‑liberation movements of the backward Tsarist regimes of Eastern Europe and of the colonies of Asia and Africa. — 4) The national liberation movements of all countries must advocate not the federal principle, not the formation of small states as an ideal, but rather the fullest possible rapprochement among nations—rejecting every form of national secession, rejecting cultural‑national autonomy, and instead embracing democratic centralism, favoring the largest states and alliances of states.
5th Thesis: Given the elementary simplicity of Thesis 1, its universal appeal to democracy—and to Marx + Engels from 1848 to 1876, and its confirmation by the experience of war—those national liberation movements that do not recognize this thesis must be treated as enemies of the proletariat, as the worst deceivers, and must be expelled from the party.
It is not enough simply to recognize the struggle against all forms of national oppression, against all forms of national inequality:
(a) Does “inequality” include the right to state‑building—or not?
(3)—The right to secession or not?
(y) The character of everyday agitation: directing attention primarily toward the central issue.
The unity of the working class, the solidarity of the international class struggle of the proletariat, is infinitely more important than the question of state borders—a question that, in the age of imperialism, will be resolved again and again, often precisely through war.

18382
I
Imperialism and the right of nations to self‑determination
(outline) *
[October 28, 1915)
INTRODUCTION.
(1) The urgency of the question. It is on everyone’s lips—or in everyone’s ears. Why? (a) War fuels national hatred and threatens national oppression.
(R) Imperialism is an era of national oppression based on new historical foundations.
(2) The task of Z [ i m m e r w al de r ] L [ i n k e ] (“the Zimmerwald Left”) is to unite and, on this very basis, to break with social‑shovinism, to clarify the consciousness of the working class.
I.
The economic perspective.
(3) “Capital has outgrown national boundaries. The unification of nations (within a single state) is inevitable and progressive.” True! But Marxism is not a doctrine of domination, not a justification or defense of imperialist exploitation of nations; rather, it is a revolutionary struggle for socialism, a struggle to unite workers of different nations, to forge their brotherhood.
(4) Against violence in the name of democratic unification of nations. “Freedom of secession” is the highest expression of democracy.
(5) Economic unification benefits from democracy, from freedom of secession (Norway and Sweden; America versus Germany).
II. The political–historical perspective.
(6) “Self‑determination of nations is a worn‑out slogan from an outdated, bygone era of bourgeois–democratic revolutions and movements.”
— Imperialism creates a new form of national oppression. Imperialism revives this old slogan.
(7) The East and the colonies (with a population of over 1 billion people). “New” bourgeois–democratic national movements.
In 1876, the colonies had a population of 314 million; by 1914, it had grown to 570 million + 1%.
* Lenin’s heading. Ed.

dialectics <r^>^4?>. 4^*.^*-.
-^*^-
£^1*Ц/&ех^*С *f " /££??e^> ' %Z*> сА^д.
</?->-yLj3j2-J «■ ^**4 ' /^*<"
Х«л^4-, ^
£ ъ ~ у -^ ч j
6 ~ Л *-У .
у 4 л ^ . /‘O
U
^ <:
<^»
•
^^ '’y^ U y< Л=-Х5< ^2«5r^“ 'i
^^~сУ<7^.
6fac^e**j** SZr^^fy*.
*2*Sc . o^Z£L~ c
<£>
4^^w9
/rf^L-mJp \ «^k^.
^
**■ m~>>t ' ^ / “
. 0^Jb*^* C . СГШ^С^СА**^/ V/ - —Q---
<=*£$-*? *^Sr< (fe y * ? .s * &
- «
* ; ,^ -^* *tf ■^•V^J
 
<Ztry^AA^ "'*' z^*-^
<1^ л ~ <^-
& )
*-
(
Ь /<>*** ^
£&&
/ w ~^z> /»
4 c ^••^/■, (& J /t*
/b+^/»L ^ ^
^ С я ^ /^ е ' /сл^/*ч , 7P, Jzrc^^K f*
£/o) ^ п A >
/ y j^ L J r^ p -* * ySstyPf b f£ z * < £ ~
ГкЗ?' ?...
(f.U ЧА-0
**> y,*-
- 7 ч^^УЬг
( o j
~
* * & % ^ :У г:г~<сг.


((IMPERIALISM AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF‑DETERMINATION»
YU Z
III.
T o [ point ] of [ view ]
POLITICAL .
(8) We do not discard the longuages of the [bourgeois]-democratic
movements; rather, we pursue them more consistently, more thoroughly, and with greater resolve.
(9) It is not the interests of nations that matter, but the interests of brotherhood and solidarity among the various nations.
IV.
T o [ point ] of [ view ] on the state [boundaries] of [sovereign] states.
(10) We do not defend the existing boundaries of [sovereign] states.
(11) We do not champion the utopia of small [sovereign] states; we do not demand, everywhere and at all times,
“self‑determination” for national [sovereign] states… .
(12) We place the class interests of the working [proletariat] at the forefront—regardless of any possible changes in the [state] boundaries of [sovereign] states.
(13) The “disintegration” of Russia (or of England, or of Austria?) = the United States.
V.
T o [ point ] of [ view ] and on the international [class] struggle of the [proletariat].
(14) The danger—and indeed the inevitability—of national hatred and distrust under capitalism (à la Axelrod? *No!)
(15) The crucial point: the relationship between the [national] interests of different nations must be based on mutual respect.
(16) Class solidarity among workers of different nations is impossible without recognizing the right to secession.
VI.
“Practical feasibility.”
(17) “A utopia!” Norway versus Sweden.
(18) “An exception!” (“The backwoods.”)
Yes, just as with all democratic reforms and transformations.
(19) “Practically speaking—zero.”
No = (a) freedom to agitate for secession (b) resolution of the secession question by means of a referendum (as stipulated in Article 2 of the Constitution).
(20) “What guarantees are there? Only war can decide!”
Our guarantee lies in educating the working masses in the spirit of international brotherhood.

VII. T o [ point ] of [ view ] on military matters.
(21) “Self‑determination of nations = justification for participation in war.”
There is war, and then there is war. We do not “reject” national wars—they remain possible even today.*
(22) “If self‑determination is to be granted, then the Netherlands, Sweden, etc., have the right to defend themselves.” But how can one defend oneself in an imperialist war?
VIII. B [ourgeoisie] and s [ocialist] – sh [ovinism].
(23) Social–shovinism is as inevitable a product of imperialism as wireless telegraphy. The struggle against it is now of paramount importance.
(24) The struggle against the shovinism of one’s own nation.
(25) The key lies in combating narrow-minded, chauvinistic tendencies.
(26) “Recognition of equality” amounts to evading the question of state structure, of secession, and of the potential outbreak of imperialist war.
(27) We hit the nail on the head with our position. This very formula strikes at and dismantles international social–shovinism.
IX. Comparison with divorce 3.
(28) Rosa Luxemburg on divorce (versus autonomy).
(29) Semkovsky’s objection.
(30) His lack of fidelity.
X. The case of Weil 4.
(31) Social–shovinists excluded Weil—betraying their own principles.
(32) From our perspective, taking part in war is not a sin. But what about agitating within the army? What about transforming war into civil war?
(33) The choice of nation. (Which army will you join?)


“IMPERIALISM AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF‑DETERMINATION”
YU 5
XL The relationship between liberal [bourgeoisie] and [socialist] movements.
(34) In Russia: we (the Kadets) advocate for equality—but we never once took up the defense of the right to secede from the Russian [sovereign] state.
(35) Karl Kautsky on political self‑determination (“sufficiently cultural and autonomous”)…
XII. The experience of the RSDLP.
(36) The formulation of the question at the 1903 Congress.
(37) The departure of the P.S.D. and its re‑entry in 1906.
(38) Not once did we officially demand the repeal of Section 9.
(39) The “Union” of opportunists with Rosa in 1914 (liquidators such as Semkovsky; Liebmann; Jurkevich; Alexinsky).
XIII. The example of Marx and Engels.
(40) In 1848, Germany faced oppressed nations (Nachlass, III, pp. 109, 113, and 114 *).
In 1866, Engels and the International (Marx) addressed the issues of Poland and Germany.
In 1869, Marx and Engels engaged in discussions.
(41) A point of view rooted in the interests of the working, oppressed nation.
(NB) Marx advocated for federation with Ireland (NB)
XIV. The “formula” of the Zimmerwald Left.
(42) “Not to uphold the dominance of one nation over another” …
The question remains: does this formula include the freedom to secede? Or not?
To claim the freedom to secede is itself a form of “upholding the dominance” of one nation over another.
This formula represents “the first step toward rapprochement” 5… .
1 In the latter half of October 1915, Lenin planned to deliver lectures in Zurich and Geneva: “On the 22nd in Zurich, on the 20th in Geneva,” he wrote to Karpinsky in Geneva (see Lenin Collection, Volume XI, p. 184). The lecture in Zurich was to be on the topic “The International Socialist Conference, 5–8…” * “From Literary Heritage,” Volume III, pp. 109, 113, and 114 (see below, pp. 201–203). Ed.

September 1915” was held on October 23. In informing Karpinsky about the significance of the day’s lecture, Lenin wrote: “If possible, please schedule [in Geneva—Ed.] a date two days before or after” (ibid., p. 185). The topic of the lecture in Geneva was apparently determined later: “I’ll write you about the lecture tomorrow” (letter to Karpinsky, October 6, ibid., p. 189). The draft of “Imperialism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” clearly refers to the lecture delivered by Lenin in Geneva on October 28, 1915. Lenin later added this date to the manuscript, writing it in the margin beside the title and enclosing it in square brackets.
2 Axelrod’s viewpoint is set forth in his pamphlet “The Crisis and the Tasks of International Social Democracy,” which was published shortly before the Zimmerwald Conference (see Lenin’s Collected Works, vol. XVIII, p. 306).
3 See Lenin’s article “On the Caricature of Marxism” (Collected Works, vol. XIX, pp. 232–233).
4 J. Bailly was a German Social Democrat and revisionist, originally from Alsace; during the imperialist war he switched sides, volunteering for the French Army; for this act he was expelled from the party in Germany, stripped of his parliamentary mandate, and declared a deserter.
6 See Lenin’s article “The First Step” (Collected Works, vol. XVIII, pp. 297–301).


20189 and 20791
TO THE ARTICLE ((REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT
AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION» 1
NOVEMBER 1913. BERNE
Excerpts from the Article
Z
Pages marked e of the original text of the article
[“the right of nations to self-determination”] seems to T. Parabellum to be a return to an outdated past, to the petty-bourgeois utopia of “separatism” and peaceful competition among independent national states.
In waging war against this enemy—these petty-bourgeois utopians, who in essence have long since died and been buried—T. Parabellum, quite unwittingly, ends up playing into the hands of the social-chauvinists who dominate England, France, Germany, and, to some extent, Russia.
We cannot oppose a revolutionary, mass struggle for socialism to a program that is consistently revolutionary on the national question. We must integrate the former with the latter. One cannot conceive of the socialist revolution as a single battle fought along a single front: imperialism versus socialism. This revolution will be an entire epoch of intensified class struggle and all manner of social upheavals—a series of battles fought across the most diverse fronts, over the most varied economic and political transformations that have matured and demand a radical break with old relations. Among these democratic transformations that fall within the scope of the social revolution, national relations must naturally occupy a prominent place. The revolutionary proletariat will not fulfill its task if it does not now adopt a consistent program also on this issue.
• • •• • • (a) 4 *
[the revolutionary program on the national question. For T. Parabellum,] it appears as though the socialist revolution is but a single battle fought along a single economic front: socialism versus imperialism. This is not correct. The proletarian revolution will be an epoch marked by a series of battles fought across all fronts—namely, across all economic and political questions, including those of a national character. [The sum of conflicts] The resolution of [this entire] sum of conflicts arising from all these unresolved questions will bring about the social revolution. The aggregate of battles waged in pursuit of all these transformations will lead to the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, to the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the establishment of full democracy, and to the organization of a socialist society. It is absurd to oppose the revolutionary struggle against capitalism to just one of the questions of de-[(a) b]s7**
mocracy, to the national question. The proletariat cannot achieve victory except through democracy, except by fully realizing democracy. Therefore, all democratic [transformations]—the demands for universal suffrage, for the election of officials by the people, for the equality of nations, for the self-determination of nations, and so on—must be [supplemented, united with the revolutionary struggle], completed and unified under the banner of the revolutionary struggle against capitalism. Rather than opposing this struggle to individual democratic demands, we must, in each and every democratic question, give a definition that is no less revolutionary—and yet remains closely linked to the overarching revolutionary struggle for socialism—such is the only truly socialdemocratic way of framing the question.
[In the third section] T. Parabellum, instead of defining the revolutionary line of the proletariat on the national question, offers us the assurance that “we are opposed to annexations, opposed to violence against nations.” There are plenty of such assurances to be found—not only among the social-chauvinists, but also among Kautsky and his followers. All these individuals may reject Parabellum’s formula of “a revolutionary, mass struggle against capitalism,” but they are more than happy
* Page (a) 4 remained unmarked. Ed.
** This page originally served as a continuation of page (a) 4; later, the numbering of (a) 5 was crossed out and replaced with the numeral s7. Ed.

REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION 9
The self-determination of nations is hypocritical when it fails to extend this right—
(a) 1 0 to those very nations that are oppressed by their own
nationality [(Kunov, Parvus, Plekhanov, Geyndman)]—and this includes not only Plekhanov and Geyndman, but also Kautsky, who, in his quest for “unity” with social‑shovinists, wrote that to demand “state independence” (staatliche Selbststandigkeit) for every
nation means to demand “excessive,” “zu viel” (Neue Zeit 33, II, 77, 16 April 1915) 3. Alternatively, they outright deny the right to self‑determination, relying on arguments akin to those of the Parabellum school (Kunov, Parvus, the Russian opportunists and liquidators).
Kautsky’s position is the most harmful and dangerous stance for the working class, for while he verbally acknowledges the right of nations to self‑determination, while he claims that the Social‑Democrat party “the Selbststandigkeit der Nationen allseitig (!) und riickbaltlos (?) achtet und fordert” *
(S. 241 ibidem, 21 May 1915) 4, in practice he reduces this right to an empty formula, systematically curtailing it—and failing to distinguish between socialist revolutionaries and the oppressed.
Unmarked e pages of the original
TEXT OF THE ARTICLE
after 1848, waging war not against petty‑bourgeois democrats (for they had already been slain and buried), but against the chauvinism of English workers, against the anarchism of Proudhon, who “denied” the national question almost as decisively as Parabellum does today.
In 1868, Marx demanded the separation of Ireland from England! Not only did Marx harbor no illusions about the possibility of a small Irish nation existing independently alongside mighty England—England, which at that time was already the greatest world empire—but Marx foresaw, quite directly and explicitly, the necessity of federation with England immediately following secession. For even a moment,
imperialism, a pressing and acutely relevant issue for all great powers and for all nations oppressed by them.
* “all‑round (!) and forthrightly (?) recognizes and demands the independence of nations.” Ed.

The “great‑power” nations—Englishmen, Germans, Frenchmen, Great Russians—oppress, both directly and indirectly, through intermediaries and without intermediaries, more than half of the world’s population, now embarking on what may well be—not the last, but certainly one of the most significant—imperialist wars to expand and consolidate this oppression, to establish a more “just,” more fully aligned with the respective capital strengths of different countries, a new division of great‑power rights, privileges, and advantages.
It is precisely the perspective of combating the chauvinism of the dominant, advanced nations—the great powers that hold the fate of the world in their hands—that must now prevail, rather than the perspective of “small peoples” and the various “corners of Europe.” It is the interests of the revolutionary struggle of the [masses] of the proletariat against capitalism—not the interests of small nations—that call for socialists in the great powers to defend the right of oppressed nations to secede (= the right to self‑determination). The struggle for socialism is the struggle of the internationalist, revolutionary proletariat. Precisely because capitalism has bound the entire world into a single economic organism, this struggle can only be international in character. And to be truly international—not merely in words—proletarians must fight against the oppression of nations not in the bourgeois manner, not according to the

[...] democratic parties. Unlike them, unlike Scheidemann and the members of the Vorstand who “insist” that they oppose annexations, unlike Kautsky, who reduces the demand for self‑determination to a harmless, bourgeois‑acceptable, non‑binding demand for cultural (non‑political) self‑determination, we must, from the standpoint of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat in the advanced countries, advance a demand that fundamentally exposes the bourgeoisie, that undermines its sophisms at the root, and that articulates the essential and primary issue of national freedom: namely, the demand for the freedom to secede. The fact that this demand is unacceptable to the bourgeoisie—in the vast majority of cases, and in all its full implications—of course, does not mean that it is “utopian” (only Kunovs and their like, lackeys of imperialist bourgeoisie, understand “utopia” in this way!).
1 6
No, the fact that this demand is unacceptable to the bourgeoisie means that we, in our pre-

REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS: II. SELF-DETERMINATION 1 11
The representatives of the revolutionary proletariat harbor no illusions about the peaceful evolution of capitalism; they cultivate no such hopes, but rather anticipate a sharpening of class struggle and the advent of revolution—precisely because they seek to enlighten the masses and to press upon them our consistently democratic demands.
It is self-evident—and the example of Marx’s demand for the separation of Ireland from England in 1868 provides particularly clear confirmation of this—that the freedom to secede does not, in itself, imply the automatic emergence of small national states as a matter of course. On the contrary, it signifies, on the one hand, the consistent, proletarian-revolutionary, rather than bourgeois–opportunistic, pursuit of democratic demands to their ultimate conclusion—not pausing before the fact that uncompromising democracy inevitably leads to social revolution, but precisely drawing strength and steadfastness from this very fact in order to wage a resolute struggle for democracy. On the other hand, it signifies…
…that when the socialist revolution unfolds and its full content is realized, national conflicts arising from the oppression of nations will likewise emerge. Incidents like the one at Zabern will become not less frequent, but more so—and it will be the task of the proletariat not to ignore such “incidents,” but rather to intensify them, to expand them, to transform them into the very vanguard of the socialist revolution. Only a consistently democratic program concerning the question of self-determination, as we propose, can truly fulfill this mission.
The petty-bourgeois democrats and the routine socialists, who fail to perceive the profound crisis underlying the collapse of the Second International, are content with the old formula of “self-determination”…
Excerpt from an article ** (4) Against Annexations (a position that is also acceptable to bourgeois–pacifist–democrats).
* This page of the manuscript is preserved in the IMEL Archive under No. 20791. Based on its content and the character of the handwriting, the editorial board has assigned it to the same article (see also the theses “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” Works, Vol. XIX, p. 39). Ed.
** The recording of this excerpt was made on the reverse side of page 21 of the manuscript of the article “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” (see above). Ed.

LENIN’S COLLECTION (5) The distinction between the oppressor nation and the oppressed nation is fundamentally irrelevant from the standpoint of the utopian ideal of “brotherhood of peoples” under capitalism. It becomes significant only from the standpoint of revolutionary struggle against capitalism.
(6) The bourgeoisie is ready to promise whatever “equality,” whatever “national autonomy,” so long as the proletariat submits to it peacefully, in the manner of Scheidemann or Kautsky, in matters of state boundaries.
1 The passages printed here constitute a fragmentary manuscript of the article “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.” In the IMEL Archive, the same article exists in a different edition—both as Lenin’s handwritten draft in German and as a Russian translation prepared by Krupskaya and subsequently revised by Lenin. The latter two manuscripts were published in Lenin’s Collection, Volume VI, pp. 6–7. The article was included in Lenin’s Works, Volume XVIII, p. 323.
The manuscript bears two distinct redactions: one crossed out by Lenin, the other written on the reverse side of the crossed-out pages.
1 Lenin refers to Parabellum’s article “Annexations and Social Democracy” (“Annexionen und Sozialdemokratie”), which appeared in the Swiss Social Democratic newspaper “Vorwärts Tagwacht,” Nos. 252 and 253, dated October 28 and 29, 1915.
3 Lenin quotes Kautsky’s article “Two Essays for Re-education” (“Zwei Schriften zum Umlernen”), published in “Neue Zeit,” XXXIIIrd Year, Vol. I, 1915, pp. 34–42; 71–81; 107–116; 138–146 (see Lenin’s Collection, Volume XVII, pp. 267–269).
4 Kautsky’s article “Once Again About Our Illusions” (“Nochmals unsere Illusionen”), published in “Neue Zeit,” XXXIIIrd Year, Vol. II, 1915, pp. 230–241 and 264–275.
6 See Lenin’s article “Zabern” (Works, Volume XVII, p. 99).


87287
87890
PROJECT FOR A LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE ON BORDER AFFAIRS AND TO THE SECTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF THE RSDLP
[February–March 1916, Zurich]
Letter from K. Z. to the sectional organizations of the RSDLP
Dear Comrades, In the recently published No. 25 (the second issue during the war) of “The Workers’ Gazette,” the organ of the opposition within the SPD, there appear the resolutions adopted at their meeting—the meeting of the editorial board—which had been passed back in June 1915.
These resolutions clearly demonstrate that, as an organization (we are not speaking of its individual members, some of whom have been carrying out highly valuable work in the German Social Democratic press), the SPD once again wavers—with complete lack of principle!
Not a single word against Kautskyism, not a single word about a firm and resolute struggle against opportunism as the source and foundation of social-chauvinism!! The true meaning of this—there is only one such meaning—is the willingness once again (as in Brussels, March 16, 1914) to enter into “games” with the Kautskys.
We present the main (fourth) resolution in full. Here is its text:
…IV. Relations Between the SDP and the RSDLP. “The Workers’ Gazette” of the SPD (Opposition), No. 25 (January 1916). “Resolutions of the Editorial Board Meeting Held June 1–2, 1915” ***
“In Russia, Polish revolutionary social democracy, organized as a collective composed of the most resolute revolutionary-internationalists…”
* The passages marked with brackets apparently corresponded to points that aroused objections among the members of the Central Committee. Ed.
** Krupskaya’s handwritten note: “games with the Kautskys” was replaced with the words “compromises.” Ed.
*** The translation of the resolution from “The Workers’ Gazette” was carried out by Krupskaya. The passages set in bold here represent additions and amendments made by Lenin. Ed.
[
113 ]

of elements akin to the *sk*ists, the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. believes and, while leaving the regional organisation to regulate organisational relations with it in the future, will politically support it and coordinate its activity with it.

The community of the revolutionary position of the Polish Social-Democrats and the C.C. on the main essential ( *wytyczuych* [defined?]) points of their policy obliges the S.D. II. and L. to relate, as before, critically to the undoubted exaggerations (*wybujalosci* [“luxuriant” growth of crops, etc.]) of its tactics.

Rightly wishing to emphasise the proletariat’s unconditionally hostile attitude to the predatory policy of Tsarism, the C.C. puts forward the slogan of the defeat of Russia, basing it on the particularly reactionary role of Tsarism in Europe and on the particular significance of the Russian Revolution; the C.C. falls, however, in this way, into contradiction with the method of internationalism, which does not allow the hopes and tasks of the proletariat to be linked to one or another outcome of the war, and even gives arguments into the hands of the German social-patriots.

Rightly noting the necessity for the construction of a new International of revolutionary action, rightly rising up against all attempts to [gloss over] obscure the conflict, to patch together anew the old broken International, the C.C. however overestimates the role of mechanically fencing itself off from all less resolute elements, not standing *a priori* on its point of view, and forgets (*przeocza*) that the task of the revolutionary camp (*oboza*) should not be to repel these elements, but to draw them into the struggle with the charlatanry (deceptions) (*s zilbierstwem*) of social-patriotism and to promote the process of their radicalisation with the help of sharp criticism of their ideological instability.

As for the O.C. of the R.S.D.L.P., the [conference] meeting (*narada*) confirms that its main [part] group, located in Russia, and the literary representative (*ekspozytura literacka*) stands on the point of view of social-patriotism, that its weak internationalist wing does not have the strength and courage to break with the social-patriots, that the centre of the O.C. occupies a pacifist point of view; the [conference] meeting believes that the relation of the S.D. II. and L. to the O.C. can consist solely in criticism of its position, promoting its disintegration (*rozkiadu*) and tearing away from the O.C. the internationalist [members] elements of it, grouped around “Nashe Slovo”, an organ which has done much for the elaboration (crystallisation) of internationalist-revolutionary views in the milieu of the R.S.D.L. II.

The same applies in particular to the Bund, which is part of it (O.C.), the position of which represents an even more chaotic mixture of social-patriotic and pacifist, Russophile and Germanophile elements.

End of resolution

IV

The [Polish] S.D. say here that they want to “coordinate” their activity with the C.C.

DRAFT

LETTER TO THE SECTIONS OF THE RSDLP

We believe that it is our unconditional duty to say to the C.C.:

The C.C. must not and cannot “coordinate” its activity with the P.S.D.

Why?

Because the P.S.D. again and again, for the 1001st time, wavers [(or, what is objectively the same, plays a game)] on the fundamental question of our party. There is no doubt that the fundamental question of the S.D. movement in Russia now is the question of the split.

We are irreconcilable on this question, for the entire experience of the S.D. movement in Russia, especially 1903–1909, even more so 1910–1914, and most of all 1915–1916, has convinced us that unity with the O.C. (or, what is all the same, with the Chkheidze Fraction) is harmful for the workers’ movement, ensures its subordination to the bourgeoisie.

The war and “Gvozdevism” have definitively proven this.

And precisely on this, the main, fundamental, root question, the [Polish] S.D. [again and again vacillate]**.

They say not a word about the fact that the war has convinced them of the necessity of a split and the erroneousness of their tactics in Brussels (3/16. VII. 1914).

On the contrary, they inserted into the resolution a phrase precisely specially composed to justify and commit a new “Brussels” defection to the side of the O.C. or Chkheidze. This phrase:

...“The C.C. overestimates the role of mechanical fencing off”...

[In this is the crux. All the rest is only verbiage.] If the C.C. “overestimates” the necessity of a split, then it is clear that the P.S.D. tomorrow or the day after tomorrow has the right to again vote for a new Brussels-Kautskian resolution of “unity”.

This is all the same old *tyshkinstvo*, the old game between the C.C. and the O.C., the old eclectic (to put it mildly) use of the position of the pendulum.

We are not at all against working together with the P.S.D., neither in general, nor in the Zimmerwald Left; we do not defend

* Instead of what is taken in brackets, written by Krupskaya: “So”. Ed.

** By Krupskaya’s hand, the words in brackets are replaced by the word: “vacillate”. Ed.

every jot and tittle of our resolutions; but on the question of (1) the split in Russia and of (2) irreconcilability to Kautskyism in Europe we are irreconcilable. [We consider it our duty to warn all comrades about the unreliability of the [Polish] S.D. and to insist that the C.C. not allow itself to be drawn again into a repetition of the “Brussels” experiments, not to trust the authors and participants of these experiments.]

With comradely greetings, K. 3. O.

18397
GERMAN SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION *
[1916, Zurich]
German Social Democracy was the strongest and most influential party within the Second International. Consequently, on the one hand, it bore the greatest responsibility for the International’s collapse; on the other hand, its example and its experience were of paramount importance for understanding the causes of that collapse and for analyzing the measures, the means, and the paths of struggle against the opportunism that had strangled this very party.
The opportunism that had stifled the German Social Democratic Party—transforming it into a national-liberal workers’ party—culminated in the form of social-chauvinism during the war of 1914–15. **
* Lenin’s heading. Ed.
** The manuscript breaks off here. Ed.
[ P7 ]


18389
EXCERPTS FROM P. LENIN’S ARTICLES ON THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND ON NATIONAL QUESTIONS
[1916, Zurich]
Dr. Paul Lensch: “The Self-Determination Delusion” (Die Glocke, No. 8, 1915, December 15).
… “Petty-bourgeois whim” (p. 465)—the same thing as “disarmament.”
“Petty-bourgeois phrase” (ibid.), the same thing as “disarmament fantasy.”
What is “the right to work,” etc.
For example, Engels, writing in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung on November 14, 1849, spoke of “democratic pan-Slavism” (p. 466), noting that “the word ‘freedom’ replaces everything”—simply an “absolute demand for freedom,” a “fantastical abstraction from reality”—
and Lenin: “just as fantastic an abstraction from reality as the self-determination delusion itself” (p. 467)…
Engels wrote at that time that “the theory of universal brotherhood among peoples, disregarding the historical position and the level of social development of individual nations, seeks nothing more than to broach relations in a purely abstract, idealistic manner” (p. 467)…
and then he turned against “Bakunin’s rhetoric about the brutal subjugation of the South Slavs”
See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIX, p. 43, note. Ed.
** See Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. VII, pp. 203–212; the passages cited can be found on pp. 205, 207, 210, 211–212. Ed.
[ 1 1 9 ]


(1)
“through Hungary and Germany.” — But what, then, does Engels say here?
He argues that it is absurd to label as “crimes” what the Habsburgs and the Magyars accomplished “at a time when, throughout Europe, the great monarchies had already become a historical necessity”—when these small nations united to form a great empire “and thereby enabled themselves to take part in a historic process of development”...
“And are the Persians, Celts, and Christian Germans not worthy of the Czechs, Ogulins, and Sereshans?” (p. 467)
And Lensch declared triumphantly: “This is what ‘self-determination’ looks like according to Marx and Engels!” (p. 468; I would even recommend this to “the socialist illiterates of the pre-war editorial staff”...
“In truth, the self-determination delusion is fundamentally alien to socialism…” Capitalism is the idea of the dependence of the particular upon the general… (“the dependence of the individual upon the totality”…)
The theory of individualism gave rise to “self-determination”… yet it was precisely “the most bitter enemies of democracy” who sought to put it into practice (p. 470), such as Napoleon III.
“The affair of 1859 (Napoleon’s farcical plebiscite on the annexation of Italy: Bernstein, in his postscript to Héritier, dismissed it ‘ironically’) served absolutism so well that even Bismarck was initially inclined to replicate it in the conquered provinces after the Danish War” (p. 470).
NB | Cf. Engels’ remarks on this very topic—and further on the “naive” (p. 472) notion of self-determination, etc.—a “Biedermeier idyll,” as he put it. And how, practically speaking, could this be realized (p. 473)? For example, in the Balkans? A mixture of HapojAOV, etc.


EXCERPTS FROM P. LENIN’S ARTICLES from the Hungarian and German sides.” — So what, then, does Engels have to say about this?
What is so laughable about calling “a crime” that which the Germans and Magyars—“in a period when, throughout Europe, the great monarchies had become an historical necessity”—united these nations into a single, large state, thereby enabling them to take part in the course of historical development…? “And how are the Persians, the Celts, or the Christianized Germans any worse than the Czechs, the Oglan Turks, or the Serbs?” (467).
And Lenin, triumphantly declaring: “This is what ‘the right to self-determination’ looks like according to Marx and Engels!” (p. 468)—a lesson, I might add, for the “illiterate socialists” on the editorial staff of Vorwärts.
“In reality, talk of the right to self-determination is, in essence, alien to socialism… For socialism is the idea that the particular must be subordinated to the general…”
The theory of individualism gave rise to “self-determination”… yet it was precisely “the most ardent opponents of democracy” who sought to put it into practice—Napoleon III, for example.
“The experience of 1859—Napoleon’s farcical attempt to secure popular consent for the annexation of Nice—was so congenial to absolutism that even Bismarck initially seemed ready to replicate the experiment in the provinces he had conquered after the Danish War” (470).
NB HI
| cf. Engels on the same topic N V |
and further on, quite naturally, “self-determination” and the like = “a petty-bourgeois idyll” (ibid.). And how, practically speaking, is this to be realized (p. 473)? Take, for instance, the Balkans—what a mixture of parodies and the like!

NB
NB
NB
“With regard to
NB
No, we must not “allow the conditions of existence of the great cultural nations—those which have hitherto borne the torch of historical progress—to be crippled in favor of some ‘gentle national blossoms’” (473), etc.—nations “which allowed themselves to be used as the willing lackeys of Tsarism and reaction.”
And now Serbia… the interest of the progressive central powers lies in gaining access to the sea… the social-democratic enemy of “the economy of the smaller cantons” (474)…
Alsace–Lorraine, for French socialists, was nothing more than an attempt “to extricate themselves from a difficult situation” (ibid.).
For Germany, Alsace and Lorraine were essential (476), and the “S.D.F. Fraction” was “quite right” when, in its August resolutions on the Alsace–Lorraine question, it completely dismissed the notion of self-determination (476).
Engels wrote in 1891 that between socialist France and socialist Germany, the Alsace–Lorraine question could never “arise.” “The matter is settled in the blink of an eye”—you may wait until the hour of the proletariat’s liberation (476).
He also wrote: “Socialism and Annexations in the Past” (ibid., No. 9, January 1, 1916).
“Against annexations?” (494–495)—this slogan, indeed, calls for “Marxist critique”… against all forms of conquest?
Marx and Engels stood at the vanguard of “European democracy,” opposing such phrases as “disarmament, the right of peoples to self-determination, no annexations” (496).
“with regard to*
NB

Marx and Engels referred to
England as a “counter-revolutionary” force in the global
war. Neue Rhfeinische] Zfeitung] (1848–49, Volume III of the Nachlass, p. ?*), stating that the universal
war would crush “the entire reactionary peoples” (497)...
and in the same article, Engels wrote: “We are asked by
us and by the other revolutionary nations of Europe to guarantee the counter-revolutionary hordes an unimpeded
existence right at our very doorstep… We are to establish,
in the very heart of Germany, a counter-revolutionary
Czech state, to break the power of the German, Polish, and Magyar revolutions through Russian outposts thrust
between them… To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood… we reply that hatred of the Russians was—and
still is—the Germans’ foremost revolutionary passion…” (497–498)...
And in 1848–49, Engels, writing in “Po and Rhine,” observed that the changes (in Europe) to national boundaries
were increasingly tending toward “granting the larger, more
viable European nations ever more clearly their true, natural
borders—borders defined by language and by shared affinities” ***... (while the smaller nations were to be absorbed; when the political map of Europe was redrawn, Germany was to receive all its rightful claims)...
and Lench went on to write:
“Interestingly enough, it is precisely those comrades who, even today,
gladly repeat the slogan: ‘The proletarian has no fatherland,’
who, in this very world war, seem to have no real concern
for the fate of the peoples whose lands they occupy…”
NB
NB
NB
a fine example of socialism! I
* See Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. VII, p. 282. Ed.
** Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 219. Ed.
See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIX, pp. 243–244. Engels’s article “Po and Rhine” is included in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. XI, Part 2, pp. 1–60. Ed.

perl!1 seem to know little beyond the task of granting each proletarian
an independent fatherland (499–500)—and yet, in practice, such a policy would inevitably lead to the collapse of the very doctrine of self-determination” (500), whereas, for instance, large economic entities and the like—((end of excerpts)).


EXTRACTS FROM THE ARTICLES OF P. LENCH

They know only one concern: to grant every proletarian an independent fatherland, and in any case to do everything in their power to prevent any “fatherland” from disappearing from the world map” (499–500).
“But the interests of the working class require that ‘every three miles should mark the beginning of a new ‘nation’—and that, in practice, this would amount to a literal realization of the principle of the right to self-determination” (500), whereas, for instance, large economic entities and the like—((end of excerpts)).
perl!!

APRIL 1916, ZURICH
TO THE THESIS “SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION”
20566
In
insertion in the German proofread version of the theses *
… With regard to the recognition of the right to self-determination, these sentences—underlined by us—do not, in essence, differ in any fundamental way; and if one wishes to express this “right” in other terms, we naturally do not dispute over words. These sentences suffer only from a greater degree of vagueness and indeterminacy in their political formulations than most of the programs and resolutions of the Second International.
18497
Note
There is a certain similarity between the path by which humanity must move toward the abolition of classes and the path by which it must ultimately arrive at the dissolution of nations. Namely: the abolition of classes is brought about only through the transitional stage of the dictatorship of the oppressed class. The dissolution of nations, on the other hand, is achieved only through the genuine liberation of oppressed nations—the true eradication of national oppression—and the criterion of this reality, in the political sense, lies precisely in the freedom of secession. The freedom of secession is the best and the only political means against the idiotic system of petty states and national isolation, which, thanks to the relentless development of capitalism, is inexorably being shattered for the benefit of humanity.
* Lenin’s insertion is printed in bold type. Ed.
[ 128 ]


TO THE THESIS “SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION”¹
▲APRIL 1916, ZURICH
In
insertion in the German proof reading of the theses
… With regard to the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination, these propositions—underlined by us—do not differ in substance from the others; and if this “right” is formulated in different terms, we certainly do not quarrel over words. These propositions suffer only from an even greater vagueness and ambiguity in their political formulations than most of the programs and resolutions of the Second International.
Note
There is some similarity between the way humanity must come to the abolition of classes and the way it must eventually arrive at the subsequent fusion of nations. Namely: the destruction of classes is brought about only by the transitional phase of the dictatorship of the oppressed class. The fusion of nations, however, is achieved only through the liberation of oppressed nations—through the genuine eradication of national oppression—and the criterion of this reality, in the political sense, lies precisely in the freedom of separation. The freedom of separation is the best and the only political means against the idiotic system of small states and national isolation, which, fortunately for humanity, is being inexorably dismantled by the entire course of capitalist development³.
1 The theses “Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” written in German (“Die sozialistische Revolution und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Nationen”), were published in the German journal of the Zimmerwald Left, Vorbote, on April 1, 1916. Lenin’s proofreading insertion (see the text set in bold) was not included in the printed version [
]

(See the Russian text of the theses in Works, Volume XIX, pp. 37–47; compare the text presented here with p. 47.)
2 Lenin refers to the “propositions” of the SPD declaration adopted at the Zimmerwald Conference, which was published in the Bulletin of the International Socialist Commission in Bern on November 27, 1915 (in German).
3 See Lenin, Works, Volume XIX, p. 40.


OUTLINE OF THE THESIS ON IMPERIALISM
AND NATIONAL OPPRESSION
“ROBOTNICHESKAYA GAZETA” 1
[Autumn 1916, Zurich]
I (1) Definition of imperialism (economic)
Change of borders “National state.” Not the only form (it once was)
(under certain conditions – + a state of nationalities)
colonies and contributions annexations – the strengthening of national … is not the same.
(2) (contradicts the interests of the working class) — (especially those of oppressed nations)
(revenge)
(3) To combat annexations and national oppression energetically *
(socialism does not need colonies)
against peace with annexations
21206 (4) Struggle against the violent retention of states
(1) Renounce the defense of the fatherland ___ (2) Denunciation ** of national oppression
(3) Struggle against moral violence directed against national movements
[(5)] Imperialism cannot be transformed in accordance with the interests of the working class
imperialism cannot be freed from national oppression
* Fight energetically. Ed.
** Expose. Ed.
[

]

Only with socialism… 6 [goals] must be resolutionary— classless.
and in socialism not self- a but mit bes t im m u n g *
kcin Ycrlcgung, kcin Vcrtrostcn **
II.
1 ) There can be no freedom under capitalism
2) Self-determination
implies a classless society ***
The separation of nations presupposes ****
Utopia
3) The program must not contain utopias
it awakens unfulfillable hopes regarding capitalism’s capacity to adapt *****
“natio nal-reformist” ****** is needed… a clearer, more transparent socialism *******.
A) We must not cling to these so‑called “rights”...............
the residue of petty-bourgeois democratic ideology. ...
1 The outline was prepared by Lepin based on the text of the Zimmerwald Left’s journal “Yorbote,” No. 2, April 1916 (“Theses on Imperialism and National Oppression”). See the article “The Outcome of the Debate on Self-Determination” (Works, Vol. XIX, pp. 239–272).
* not self-determination, but joint determination. Ed.
** no postponements, no false hopes. Ed.
*** a classless society. Ed.
’ *** presupposes the distinctiveness of nations. Ed.
***** it fosters unrealistic expectations about capitalism’s ability to adapt. Ed.
“natio nal-reformist.” Ed.
******* a clear, unadorned socialism. Ed.