V. I.

Lenin

On the Tasks Confronting the Workers’ Parties with Regard to Opportunism and Social-Chauvinism

The tremendous crisis created within European socialism by
the world war has (as is always the case in great crises) resulted first in
enormous confusion; it then led to a series of new groupings taking shape
among representatives of various currents, shades and views in socialism;
finally, it raised, with particular acuteness and insistence, the question
of what changes in the foundations of socialist policy follow from
the crisis and are demanded by it. Between August and December 1914, the
socialists of Russia also passed through these three “stages” in
a marked fashion. We all know that there was no little confusion at the
beginning; the confusion was increased by the tsarist persecutions, by the
behaviour of the “Europeans”, and by the war alarm. In Paris and
Switzerland, where there was the greatest number of political exiles, the
greatest links with Russia, and the greatest degree of freedom, a new
definite line of demarcation between the various attitudes towards problems
raised by the war was being drawn, during September and October, at
discussions, lectures, and in the press. It can safely be said that there is
not a single shade of opinion in any current (or group) of socialism (and
near-socialism) in Russia which has not found expression and been
analysed. The general feeling is that the time has come for precise and
positive conclusions capable of serving as the basis of systematic and
practical activity, propaganda, agitation, and organisation. The situation
is clear, all have expressed themselves. Let us now see who is with whom , and whither the courses have been taken.

On November 23 (N. S.), on the day following the publication in Petrograd
of a government communique on the arrest of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour group in the
Duma, [4] an event took place at the congress of the
Swedish Social-Democratic Party in Stockholm, which finally and irrevocably
placed on the order of the day the two questions just emphasised. [5] Readers
will find below a description of this event, namely, a full translation,
from the official Swedish Social-Democratic report, of the speeches both of
Belenin (representing the Central Committee) and of Larin (representing the
Organising
Committee), [6] and also the debate on the question raised by
Branting.

For the first time since the outbreak of war, a representative of our
Party, of its Central Committee, and a representative of the liquidationist
Organising Committee met at a congress of socialists of a neutral
country. What did their speeches differ in? Belenin took a most definite
stand regarding the grave, painful but momentous issues of the present-day
socialist movement; quoting
Sotsial-Demokrat , [7] the Party’s
Central Organ, he came out with a resolute declaration of war against
opportunism, branding the behaviour of the German Social-Democratic leaders
(and “many others”) as treachery. Larin took no stand at all; he passed over the essence of the question in silence, confining
himself to those hackneyed, hollow and moth-eaten phrases that always win
hand-claps from opportunists and social-chauvinists in all countries. But
then, Belenin said nothing at all about our attitude towards the other
Social-Democratic parties or groups in Russia, as though intimating:
“Such is our stand; as for the others, we shall not express ourselves
as yet, but shall wait and see which course they will take.” Larin, on the contrary, unfurled the banner of
“unity”, shed a tear over the “bitter fruit of the split
in Russia”, and depicted in gorgeous colours the “work of
unification” carried on by the Organising Committee, which, be said,
had united Plekhanov, the Caucasians, the Bundists, the
Poles, [8] and so forth. Larin’s intentions will be dealt with elsewhere (see
below: The Kind of Unity Larin
Proclaimed” [1]

).

What interests us here is the fundamental question of unity.

We have before us two slogans. One is: war against the opportunists and
the social-chauvinists, who are traitors. The other is: unity in Russia,
in particular with Plekhanov (who, we shall state parenthetically, is
behaving with us in exactly the same way as
Südekum [2] with the
Germans, Hyndman with the British, etc.). Is it not obvious that, though
he is afraid to call things by their proper names, Larin has in fact come
out as advocate of the opportunists and social-chauvinists?

Let us, however, consider in general and in the light of present-day
events the meaning of the “unity” slogan. The proletariat’s
unity is its greatest weapon in the struggle for the socialist
revolution. From this indisputable truth it follows just as indisputably
that, when a proletarian party is joined by a considerable number of
petty-bourgeois elements capable of hampering the struggle for the
socialist revolution, unity with such elements is harmful and perilous to
the cause of the proletariat. Present-day events have shown that, on the one
hand, the objective conditions are ripe for an imperialist war (i.e., a war
reflecting the last and highest stage of capitalism), and, on the other
hand, that decades of a so-called peaceful epoch have allowed an
accumulation of petty-bourgeois and opportunist junk within the socialist parties of all the European countries. Some
fifteen years ago, during the celebrated “Bernsteiniad” in
Germany—and even earlier in many other countries—the question of
the opportunist and alien elements within the proletarian parties
had become a burning issue. There is hardly a single Marxist of note who has
not recognised many times and on various occasions that the opportunists are
in fact a non-proletarian element hostile to the socialist revolution. The
particularly rapid growth of this social element of late years is beyond
doubt: it includes officials of the legal labour unions, parliamentarians
and the other intellectuals, who have got themselves easy and comfort able
posts in the legal mass movement, some sections of the better paid workers,
office employees, etc., etc. The war has clearly proved that at a moment of
crisis (and the imperialist era will undoubtedly be one of all kinds of
crises) a sizable mass of opportunists, supported and often directly guided
by the bourgeoisie (this is of particular importance!), go over to the
latter’s camp, betray socialism, damage the workers’ cause, and
attempt to ruin it. In every crisis the bourgeoisie will always aid the
opportunists, will always try to suppress the revolutionary section of the
proletariat, stopping short of nothing and employing the most unlawful and
savage military measures. The opportunists are bourgeois enemies of
the proletarian revolution, who in peaceful times carry on their bourgeois
work in secret, concealing themselves within the workers’ parties,
while in times of crisis they immediately prove to be open allies
of the entire united bourgeoisie, from the conservative to the most
radical and democratic part of the latter, from the free thinkers, to the
religious and clerical sections. Anyone who has failed to understand this
truth after the events we have gone through is hopelessly deceiving
both himself and the workers. Individual desertions are inevitable under the
present conditions, but their significance, it should be remembered, is
determined by the existence of a section and current of
petty-bourgeois opportunists. Such social-chauvinists, as Hyndman,
Vandervelde, Guesde, Plekhanov and Kautsky, would be of no significance
whatever if their spineless and banal speeches in defence of bourgeois
patriotism were not taken up by the entire social strata of opportunists and
by swarms of bourgeois papers and bourgeois politicians.

Typical of the socialist parties of the epoch of the Second International
was one that tolerated in its midst an opportunism built up in decades of
the “peaceful” period, an opportunism that kept itself secret,
adapting itself to the revolutionary workers, borrowing their
Marxist terminology, and evading any clear cleavage of principles. This type
has outlived itself. If the war ends in 1915, will any thinking socialist be
found willing to begin, in 1916, restoring the workers’ parties
together with the opportunists, knowing from experience
that in any new crisis all of them to a man (plus many other spineless and
muddle-headed people) will be for the bourgeoisie, who will of course find a
pretext to ban any talk of class hatred and the class struggle?

In Italy, the party was the exception for the period of the Second
International; the opportunists, headed by Bissolati, were expelled from the
party. In the present crisis, the results have proved excellent :
people of various trends of opinion have not deceived the workers or blinded
them with pearls of eloquence regarding “unity"; each of them followed
his own road. The opportunists (and deserters from the workers’ party
such as Mussolini) practised social-chauvinism, lauding (as Plekhanov did)
“gallant Belgium”, thereby shielding the policies, not of a
gallant, but of a bourgeois Italy, which would plunder the Ukraine and
Galicia . . . I mean, Albania, Tunisia, etc., etc. Meanwhile, the socialists
were waging against them a war against war, in preparation of a
civil war. We are not at all idealising the Italian Socialist Party
and in no way guarantee that it will stand firm should Italy enter the
war. We are speaking not of the future of that party, but only of the
present. We are stating the indisputable fact that the workers in
most European countries have been deceived by the fictitious unity
of the opportunists and the revolutionaries, Italy being the happy
exception, a country where no such deception exists at present. What was a
happy exception for the Second International should and shall
become the rule for the Third International. While capitalism persists, the
proletariat will always be a close neighbour to the petty bourgeoisie. It is
sometimes unwise to reject temporary alliances with the latter, but
unity with them, unity with the opportunists can be defended at present only by the enemies of the proletariat or by hoodwinked
traditionalists of a bygone period.

Today, following 1914, unity of the proletarian struggle for the
socialist revolution demands that the workers’ parties separate
themselves completely from the parties of the opportunists. What we
understand by opportunism has been clearly said in the Manifesto of the
Central Committee (No. 33, “ The War and Russian Social-Democracy ” [3]

).

But what do we see in Russia? Is it good or bad for the working-class
movement of our country to have unity between people who, in one way or
another and with more or less consistency, are combating chauvinism—of
both the Purishkevich and the Cadet brand—and people who echo that
chauvinism, like Maslov, Plekhanov and Smirnov? Is it good to have unity
between people engaged in anti-war action and such that declare that they
will not oppose the war, like-the influential authors of
“Document” (No. 34) [9] ? Only those who wish to turn a blind eye to
things will find difficulty in answering this question.

The objection may be made that Martov has polemised with Plekhanov in
Golos and, together with a number of other friends and partisans of
the Organising Committee, has battled against social-chauvinism. We do not
deny this, and had words of praise for Martov in No. 33 of the Central
Organ. We would be very glad if Martov were not “turned
about”(see the article, “Martov Turns About”); we would
very much like a decisive anti-chauvinist line to become the line of the
Organising Committee. That, however, does not depend upon our wishes, or upon any one else’s. What are the objective facts? First, Larin,
the Organising Committee’s official representative, is for some reason
silent about Golos , while naming the social-chauvinist Plekhanov,
and also Axelrod, who wrote an article (in Berner Tagwacht [10] ) so as
not to say a single definite word there. Moreover, Larin, apart from his
official position, is more than geographically close to the influential
central group of the liquidators in Russia. Secondly, there is the European
press. In France and Germany, the papers are saying nothing about
Golos , while speaking of Rubanovich, Plekhanov, and Chkheidze. (In
its issue of December 12, Hamburger Echo , one of the most jingoist
organs of the jingoist “Social-Democratic” press of Germany,
called Chkheidze an adherent of Maslov and Plekhanov; this has also been
hinted at by certain papers in Russia. It is clear that all fellow-thinkers
of the Südekums fully appreciate the ideological aid Plekhanov has
given to the Südekums.) In Russia, millions of copies of bourgeois
papers have brought the “people” tidings of
Maslov-Plekhanov-Smirnov—but no news of the trend represented by
Golos. Thirdly, the experience of the legal workers’ press of
1912-14 has definitely proved that the source of a certain degree of social
strength and influence enjoyed by the liquidationist movement lies, not in
the working class, but in that section of bourgeois-democratic
intelligentsia, which has brought the central group of legalist writers to
the fore. The national-chauvinist temper of this section as a section is
testified to by the entire press of Russia, as revealed in the letters of
the Petrograd worker ( Sotsial-Demokrat Nos. 33 and 35) and in the
“Document”(No. 34). Considerable personal re-groupings within
that section are quite possible, but it is absolutely improbable that, as a
section, it should not be “patriotic” and opportunist.

Such are the objective facts. Since we take them into account and are
aware that it is to the advantage of all bourgeois parties that wish for
influence over the workers, to have a Left wing for display (particularly
when that wing is unofficial), we must declare the idea of unity with the
Organising Committee an illusion detrimental to the workers’
cause.

The policy of the Organising Committee who, in far-away Sweden, on
November 23, proclaimed their unity with Plekhanov and spoke words sweet to
the hearts of all social-chauvinists, while in Paris and in Switzerland they
did not bother to make their existence known either on September 13 (when
Golos appeared) or on November 23 or to this day (December 23),
strongly resembles political chicanery of the worst kind. The hope that

Otkliki , [11] scheduled to appear in Zurich, would be of an
official Party nature has been destroyed by a forthright statement in
Berner Tagwacht (December 12), to the effect that this paper will
not be of such a nature. (Incidentally, the editors of Golos
declared in issue No. 52 that to continue at present the rift with the
liquidators would be “nationalism” of the worst kind. This
phrase, which is devoid of grammatical meaning, has only political meaning
that the editors of Golos prefer having unity with the social-chauvinists to drawing closer to those who are irreconcilably hostile
to social-chauvinism. The editors of Golos have made a bad
choice.)

To make the picture complete, it remains for us to add a few words
about
Mysl , [12] organ of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, which
is published in Paris. This paper also lauds “unity”, while it
shields (cf. Sotsial-Demokrat No. 34) the social-chauvinism of
Rubanovich, its party leader, defends the Franco-Belgian opportunists and
ministerialists, says nothing of the patriotic motives of the speech by
Kerensky, one of the extreme radicals among the Russian
Trudoviks, [13] and prints well-worn petty-bourgeois vulgarities on the revision of Marxism, in
a Narodnik and opportunist spirit. What the resolution of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party’s summer conference of
1913 [14] said of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries has been fully and particularly proved by this
behaviour of Mysl.

Some Russian socialists seem to think that internationalism consists in a
readiness to welcome a resolution containing an international vindication of
social-chauvinism in all countries, such as is to be drawn up by Plekhanov
and Südekum, Kautsky and Hervé, Guesde and Hyndman, Vandervelde
and Bissolati, etc. We permit ourselves the thought that internationalism
consists only in an unequivocal internationalist policy within one’s
party. A genuinely proletarian internationalist policy cannot be pursued,
active opposition to the war cannot be preached, and forces for such action
cannot be mustered while we are in the company of the opportunists and the
social-chauvinists. To find refuge in silence, or to wave this truth aside
which, though bitter, is necessary to the socialist, is detrimental and
ruinous to the working-class movement.

---
Notes:
[1]
See pp. 115-17 of this volume.— Ed .

[2]
Plekhanov’s pamphlet, On the War (Paris, 1914), which we have
just received, confirms very convincingly the truth of the assertions made
in the text. We shall return to this pamphlet later on.
— Lenin

[3]
See pp. 25–34 of this volume.— Ed .

[4]
The Bolshevik deputies to the Fourth Duma were arrested on the night of November
5-6 (18-19),1914. The pretext for their arrest was their participation in a
conference they convened in the village of Ozerki, near Petrograd.

Held on November 2-4 (15-17), the conference was attended
by representatives of the Bolshevik organisations of Petrograd,
Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Kharkov and Riga, as well as by the Duma Bolshevik
deputies.

Warned by an agent provocateur the police swooped down on Ozerki when the conference had just
completed its work. During the search of G. I. Petrovsky,
A. Y. Badayev and other Duma Bolshevik deputies, the police found
Lenin’s theses on the war and the newspaper
Sotsial-Demokrat No. 33, which carried the manifesto of
the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. “ The War and Russian Social-Democracy ”. All participants in the conference
were arrested, but the Duma Bolshevik deputies, who enjoyed
parliamentary immunity, escaped arrest. Two days later, however,
they too were arrested, tried and exiled for life to Eastern
Siberia. Lenin devoted to the trial of the Bolshevik deputies the
article

“What Has Been Revealed by the Trial of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Duma Group” , which was
published in Sotsial-Demokrat No. 40, March 29, 1915 (see this
volume, pp. 171-77).

[5]
The
Congress of the Swedish Social-Democratic Party was held in Stockholm on
November 23,1914. The main item on the agenda dealt with the attitude
towards the war. A. G. Shlyapnikov, who brought the Congress a message of
greetings from the R.S.D.L.P’s Central Committee, read a declaration
calling for a struggle to be waged against the imperialist war and branding
the treachery of the leaders of the German Social-Democrats and the
socialist parties of other countries, who had turned social-chauvinist. Branting, leader of the Swedish Social-Democratic
Party’s Right wing, moved that regret be expressed at the section of
the declaration condemning the conduct of German Social-Democracy, asserting
that “it does not befit” the Congress “to reprehend other
parties”. Höglund, leader of the Left Social-Democrats, came out
against Branting’s proposal, and declared that many Swedish
Social-Democrats shared the view expressed in the declaration of the
R.S.D.L.P.’s Central Committee. However, Branting’s proposal was
carried by a majority of votes. Y. Larin addressed the Congress on behalf of
the Menshevik Organising Committee. A report on the Congress was published
in Sotsial-Demokrat No. 36, January 9, 1915.

[6]
The Organizing Committee —the Menshevik guiding centre, was
established at a conference of the Menshevik liquidators and all anti-Party
groups and trends, held in August 1912. It existed until the election of the
Central Committee of the Menshevik party in August 1917.

Belenin —A. G. Shlyapnikov.

[7]
Sotsial-Demokrat —Central Organ of the
R.S.D.L.P., published illegally from February 1908 to January 1917. In all,
58 issues appeared. The first issue was published in Russia, and the rest
abroad, first in Paris and then in Geneva. According to the decision of the
R.S.D.L.P.’s Central Committee, the editorial board was composed of
representatives of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Polish Social-Democrats.

The newspaper published over 80 articles and items by
Lenin. While on the editorial board, Lenin maintained a consistent Bolshevik
stand. Some editors (including Kamenev and Zinoviev) took a conciliatory
attitude towards the liquidators and tried to disrupt Lenin’s
line. The Menshevik editors Martov and Dan sabotaged the work of the
editorial board and openly defended liquidationism in their factional
newspaper Golos Sotsial-Demokrata.

Because of Lenin’s uncompromising struggle against the liquidators Martov and Dan walked out of the editorial board, in June
1911. Beginning with December 1911 Lenin became editor of
Sotsial-Demokrat.

[8]
Lenin is referring to the Caucasian Menshevik liquidators, the Bund (The General
Jewish Workers’ Union of Lithuania, Poland and Russia), and
representatives of the Social-Democratic Party of Poland and Lithuania, who
supported the liquidators.

[9]
The reference is to the reply of the St. Petersburg liquidators (Potresov,
Maslov, Cherevanin and others) to Vandervelde’s telegram urging
Russian Social-Democrats to abstain from opposing the war. In their reply,
the Russian liquidators approved Belgian, French and English socialists
joining bourgeois governments, and declared that in their activities in
Russia they were not opposed to the war.

[10]
Berner Tagwacht —a daily newspaper, organ of the Swiss Social-Democratic
Party, founded in Berne in 1893. In the early days of the First World War,
it published articles by Karl Liebknecht Franz Mehring and other Left
Social-Democrats. Following 1917 the newspaper openly supported
social-chauvinists.

Today the newspaper’s line coincides on the main issues with that of the bourgeois press.

[11]
The
Menshevik Organising Committee announced the forthcoming publication of its
organ Otkliki ( Echoes ), which, however, never appeared.

[12]
Mysl ( Thought )—a daily Socialist-Revolutionary newspaper published in Paris from November 1914 to March 1915.

[13]
Trudoviks —a group of petty-bourgeois democrats in the State
Duma consisting of peasants and intellectuals of a Narodnik trend. The
Trudovik group was formed in April 1906 of peasant deputies to the First
Duma. In the Duma the Trudoviks vacillated between the Cadets and the
Social-Democrats.

During the First World War, most of the
Socialist-Revolutionaries, Popular Socialists and Trudoviks took a
social-chauvinist stand.

[14]
Lenin is referring to the resolution “The Narodniks” which he wrote and
which was adopted by the joint Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Central
Committee and Party officials held between September 23 and October 1
(October 6-14), 1913, in the village of Poronin (near Cracow). For reasons
of secrecy, the conference was called the “Summer” or “August” Conference. See the resolution in Volume 19 of the
present edition, pp. 429-31.