V. I.

Lenin

The word Südekum has come to be used in a generic sense
to denote a type of smug and unscrupulous opportunist and
social-chauvinist. It is a good sign that the Südekums are held in
general contempt. There is, however, only one way for us to avoid falling
into chauvinism ourselves in so doing: we must do everything we can to help
unmask the Russian Südekums.

By his pamphlet On the War, Pleklianov has definitely placed
himself at the head of the latter. His arguments are a substitution of
sophistry for dialectics all along the line. He sophistically denounces
German opportunism so as to shield French and Russian opportunism. The
result is not a struggle against international opportunism, but support for
it. He sophistically bemoans the fate of Belgium, while saying nothing about
Galicia. He sophistically confuses the period of imperialism (i.e., one in
which, as all Marxists hold, the objective conditions are ripe for the
collapse of capitalism, and there are masses of socialist proletarians), and
the period of bourgeois-democratic national movements; in other words, he
confuses a period in which the destruction of bourgeois fatherlands by an
international revolution of the proletariat is imminent, and the period of
their inception and consolidation. He sophistically accuses the German
bourgeoisie of having broken the peace, while remaining silent about the
lengthy and elaborate preparations for a war against Germany by the
bourgeoisie of the “Triple
Entente”. [1] He sophistically evades the
Basle resolution.. He sophistically substitutes national-liberalism for
social-democracy: the desirability of tsarism’s victory is ascribed to
the interests of Russia’s economic progress, while the nationalities
in Russia, or tsarism’s stunting Russian economic growth, or the
relatively far more rapid and successful growth of Germany’s
productive forces, and so on and so forth, are all questions that are shied
away from. To analyse all of Plekhanov’s sophisms would require a
series of articles, and many of his ridiculous absurdities are hardly worth
going into. We shall touch upon only one of his alleged arguments. In 1870
Engels wrote to Marx that Wilhelm Liebknecht was mistaken in making
anti-Bismarckism his sole guiding principle. [2] Plekhanov was glad
to have discovered the quotation: the same is true, he argues, with regard
to anti-tsarism! Let us, however, try to replace sophistry (i.e., the method
of clutching at the outward similarity of instances, without considering the
nexus between events) with dialectics (i.e., the method of studying all the
concrete. circumstances of an event and of its development). The unification
of Germany was a necessity which Marx recognised as such both prior to and
following 1848. As early as 1859, Engels called forthright upon the German
people to fight for unification. [3] When unification through revolution failed,
Bismarck achieved it in a counter-revolutionary, Junker fashion,
Anti-Bismarckism became absurd as a sole principle, since the
necessary unification was an accomplished fact. But what about Russia? Did
our brave Pleklianov formerly have the courage to declare that
Russia’s development demanded the conquest of Galicia, Constantinople,
Armenia, Persia, etc.? Has he the courage to say so now? Has he considered
that Germany had to progress from the national disunity of the Germans (who
had been oppressed both by France and Russia in the first two-thirds of the
nineteenth century) to a unified nation, whereas in Russia the Great
Russians have crushed rather than united a number of other nations? Without
giving thought to such things, Pleklianov has simply masked his chauvinism
by distorting the meaning of the Engels quotation of 1870 in the same
fashion as Südekum has distorted an 1891 quotation from Engels to the
effect that the Germans must wage a life-and-death struggle against the
allied armies of France and Russia.

In a different kind of language and in quite different circumstances, the
selfsame chauvinism is defended by Nasha Zarya Nos. 7-8-9, wherein
Cherevanin predicts and evokes “the defeat of Germany”, asserting that “Europe [!!] has
risen up” against that country; Mr. A. Potresov berates the German
Social-Democrats for their “blunder”, which “is worse than any crime”, etc., claiming that German militarism is guilty of
“special, extraordinary sins”, and that it is “not the
Pan-Slavic dreams of certain Russian circles which have been a menace to
European peace”, etc.

When the legal press thus depicts Germany’s “extraordinary” guilt and advocates the necessity of her defeat,
is it not echoing Purishkevich and the social-chauvinists? The pressure of
the tsar’s censors imposes silence about “extraordinary”
sins a hundred times greater in number, committed by Russian militarism. Is
it not obvious that, in a situation such as this, people who do not wish to
he chauvinist should at least refrain from speaking of
Germany’s defeat and her extraordinary sins?

Nasha Zarya is not merely pursuing the line of “nonresistance to war”; it is doing much more-bringing grist to
the mill of Great-Russian, tsarist-Purishkevjch chauvinism by using
“Social-Democratic” arguments for the preachment of
Germany’s defeat, and shielding the Pan-Slavists. It was none other
than the Nasha Zarya writers who in 1912-14 conducted mass propaganda of liquidationism among the workers.

Finally, there is Axelrod, whom Martov is trying so angrily and so
unsuccessfully to cover up, defend and shield, in exactly the same way as he
has been doing for the Nasha Zarya writers.

With Axelrod’s consent, his views were set forth in Nos. 86 and 87
of Gobs. These views are social-chauvinist. He used the following
arguments to defend the French and Belgian socialists joining the
bourgeois governments: (1) “To Marx, historical necessity, which is
often inappropriately cited nowadays, did not mean a passive attitude
towards a concrete evil-in expectation of the socialist revolution.”
What muddied reasoning! What has this got to do with it all? Everything
that takes place in history takes place of necessity. That is
elementary. The opponents of social-chauvinism have cited, not historical
necessity but the imperialist nature of the war. Axeirod pretends
that he does not understand this, or the consequent appraisal of the
“concrete evil”, viz., bourgeois domination in all lands, and
the timeliness of launching revolutionary action leading to a
“social revolution”. It is the social-chauvinists who are
“passive” by denying this. (2) It is impossible “to ignore the question of who actually started” the war, “thereby
imposing upon all attacked countries the necessity of defending their
independence”. On the same page, however, Axeirod admits that
“of course the French imperialists were out to provoke a war in two
or three years’ time”.! During that period, he maintains, the
proletariat would grow stronger, thereby enhancing the chances of peace!
We know, however, that during that period, opportunism, which is so dear
to Axelrod’s heart, would grow stronger, thereby enhancing the
chances of its even more shameful betrayal of socialism. We know that, for
decades, three robbers (the bourgeoisie and the governments of
Britain, Russia and France) were arming to pillage Germany. Is there
anything surprising that two robbers began the attack before the other
three got the new knives they had ordered? Is it not a sophism
for phrases about “who started the war” to be used to gloss
over the equal “guilt” of the bourgeoisie of all countries, which was unanimously recognised without question by all
socialists at Basle? (3) “To blame the Belgian socialists for
defending their country” is “not Marxism, but cynicism”. This was exactly how Marx termed Proudhon’s
attitude towards the Polish uprising (of 1863). [4] Beginning with 1848, Marx
constantly stressed the historical progressiveness of the Polish uprising
against tsarism. That was something no one dared deny. The concrete
conditions consisted in an unresolved national problem in the east of
Europe, i.e., in a bourgeois-democratic, not imperialist, nature of the
war against tsarism. That is elementary.

If one’s attitude towards the socialist revolution is negative,
scoffing or negligent (like that of the Axelrods), then one cannot
help the Belgian “country” in the present and concrete war
otherwise than by helping tsarism to throttle the Ukraine. That is a fact,
which it is cynical for a Russian socialist to evade. It is just as cynical
to raise a clamour over Belgium while remaining silent about Galicia.

What ought the Belgian socialists to have done? Since they were unable to
accomplish a social revolution together with the French, etc., they had to
submit to the majority of the nation at the time, and go to war. But,
while submitting to the will of the slave-owning class, they should have
placed the responsibility on the latter, and not have voted for war
credits; they should have sent Vandervelde, not to engage in ministerial
missions to the exploiters, but to organise (together with the
revolutionary Social-Democrats of all countries) illegal revolutionary
propaganda in favour of the “socialist revolution” and civil
war; in the army too such work should have been conducted (experience
having shown that even “fraternisation” between workingmen
clad in uniforms is possible in the trenches of the fighting
armies!). Prattling about dialectics and Marxism while revealing inability
to combine the temporary need to submit to the majority with revolutionary
work under all conditions mean scoffing at the workers and jeering at
socialism. “Citizens of Belgium! Our country has met with a great
calamity brought about by the bourgeoisie of all countries, including
Belgium. You do not wish to overthrow that bourgeoisie? You do not believe
in an appeal to the socialists of Germany? We are in the minority; so I
must submit to you and go to war, but even then I shall call and prepare
for civil war by the proletariat of all countries, because there is no
other salvation for the peasants and workers of Belgium and other
countries!” For a speech like this, a Belgian or French deputy would
have been sent to prison, not given the post of minister, but he would
have been a socialist, not a traitor; in the trenches, both the French and
German workingmen in military uniforms would have spoken of him as their
own leader, not as a traitor to the working class. (4) “While
fatherlands exist, while, as at present, the proletariat’s life and
its movement are compressed into the framework of the fatherlands, and
while the proletariat does not feel another and international soil under
its feet, the question of patriotism and self-defence will continue to
exist for the working class.” Bourgeois fatherlands will exist until
they are destroyed by the international revolution of the proletariat. The
existence of conditions suitable for a revolution was recognised even by
Kautsky

as early as 1909; just as it was unanimously recognised later by the Basle
Congress, and is now proved by the fact of the deep sympathy on the part
of the workers of all countries for those who do not vote for war credits,
and are not afraid of prison and the other sacrifices connected with any
revolution, by virtue of “historical necessity”. Axeirod’s phrase is nothing but a pretext
to avoid revolutionary activity, merely a repetition of the arguments used
by the chauvinist bourgeoisie. (5) The same is true about his assertions
that the conduct of the Germans was not treachery, and that their
behaviour was dictated by “a keen sentiment, the consciousness of an
organic bond with that piece of land, the fatherland, on which the German
proletarians live andwork”. In reality, the behaviour of the
Germans, as well as that of Guesde and the rest, is undoubtedly treachery;
to mask and to shield it is a disgrace. In reality, it is the bourgeois
fatherlands that mutilate, cripple, crush and destroy the “living
bond” between the German workers and the German land by creating a
“bond” between the slave and the slave-owner. In reality, only
the destruction of the bourgeois fatherlands can give the workers of all
countries a “bond with the land”, freedom of their own language, bread, and the benefits of civilisation. Axeiroci is simply an
apologist for the bourgeoisie. (6) To persuade the workers to be
“cautious in accusing of opportunism” such “tested
Marxists as Guesde”, etc., means to induce the workers to be servile
towards their leaders. We would advise the worker to learn from the
example of Guesde’s whole life, with the exceptiiz of his
patent betrayal of socialism in 1914. Private and other circumstances may
be found that mitigate his guilt, but this is not a question of the guilt
of individuals; what we are interested in is the socialist
significance of events. (7) To refer to the “formal” permissibility of joining government on the ground that there exists some
minute point somewhere in a resolution, mentioning “exceptionally
important cases”, is tantamount to the most dishonest pettifogging,
since this minor point was obviously intended to aid the international
revolution of the proletariat, not to counteract it. (8)
Axeirod’s assertion that “the defeat of Russia, while unable
to hamper the organic development of the country, would help liquidate the
old regime”, is true if taken by itself, but when it is used to
justify the German chauvinists, it is nothing but an attempt to curry favour with the Südekums. Recognition of the usefulness of
Russia’s defeat, without openly accusing the German and Austrian
Social-Democrats of having betrayed socialism means in reality helping
them justify themselves, wriggle out of a difficult situation, and deceive
the workers. Axelrod’s article is a double obeisance-one to the
German social-chauvinists, the other to the French. Taken together, these
obeisances constitute typical “Russo-Bundist” social-chauvinism.

Let the readers now judge for themselves the consistency displayed by the
Gobs editors who, in publishing these most disgraceful arguments of
Axeirod’s, have expressed their disagreement only with “some of
his ideas” while in the editorial of No. 96 of their paper, they
advocate a “sharp rupture with the elements of active social-patriotism”. Are the editors of Gobs so naïve or so inattentive
that they do not see the truth? Do they not see that Axelrod’s
reasonings are, from beginning to end, “elements of active
[his writings being the writer’s activity] social-patriotism”.?
And what about the Nasha Zarya writers: Messrs. Cherevanin,
A. Potresov and Co.; are they not elements of active social-patriotism?

---
Notes:
[1]
The Triple
Entente—the imperialist bloc of Britain, France and tsarist Russia,
which took final shape in 1907, and was opposed to the Triple Alliance of
Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. The emergence of the Triple Entente
was preceded by the conclusion of the Franco-Russian alliance of 1891-93
and the Anglo-French agreement of 1904. The formation of the Entente was
concluded by the signing of the Anglo-Russian agreement in 1907. During
the First World War the military and political alliance between Britain,
France and Russia was joined by the United States, Japan, Italy and other
countries.

[2]
See
Engels’s letter to Marx of August 15, 1870.

[3]
Lenin is referring to Engels’s work “ The Po and the Rhine ”.

[4]
See Karl
Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy , Moscow, p. 227.