Notes: Conference materials

PROPOSAL OF THE CC OF THE RSDLP TO THE 2ND SOCIALIST CONFERENCE

masses, for instance, for an increase in relief to the inhabitants of devastated regions, for a weakening of national [or military] oppression, etc. But it is evident that on the basis of the given war and the peace arising from it, such reformist activity for improving the condition of the masses is possible only on a miniature scale. It would be a glaring deception of the masses to instill in them, directly or indirectly, the idea of the possibility of a reformist solution to the questions posed by this war. For t h i s  war has created a r e v o l u t i o n a r y  situation in Europe, placing on the agenda the most fundamental questions of imperialism, which cannot help but be resolved in imperialist fashion except in the event of a r e v o l u t i o n a r y  overthrow of the present governments and ruling c l a s s e s of Europe. Therefore, the principal and fundamental task in the struggle for a lasting and democratic peace on the part of socialists should be: 1° explaining to the masses the necessity of a r e v o l u t i o n a r y  mass struggle, systematic propaganda for it, and the creation of a corresponding organization; 2° exposing the hypocrisy and lies both of the bourgeois-pacifists and of the socialists, especially the Kautskyans, [(see thesis No. 8)] phrases about peace and the "unanimity" of the 2nd I n t e r n a t i o n a l on the question of a "program of peace." Such phrases are doubly hypocritical coming from "socialists" who, following the bourgeoisie, deny the possibility of transforming this imperialist war into civil war for socialism and oppose every r e v o l u t i o n a r y  effort in this direction.

10. The central point of the dominant hypocrisy regarding the "program of peace" is the supposedly unanimous recognition of the struggle against old and new annexations. But those who speak of annexations and the struggle against them are either unable or unwilling for the most part to think about what an annexation is. It is clear that an annexation cannot be called every appropriation of "foreign" territory, because socialists, speaking generally, sympathize with the elimination of boundaries between nations, the rapprochement and fusion of nations, the formation of larger states. It is clear that an annexation cannot be considered every violation of status quo:* this would be the greatest reactionism and a mockery of the fundamental concepts of historical science. It is clear that an annexation cannot be considered every violent, military appropriation, because socialists cannot object to violence if it is applied in the interests of the mass population and in the interests of human progress. It is clear that an annexation can and should be considered only the appropriation of territory against the will of its population. In other words, the concept of annexation is inseparably linked with the concept of national self-determination.

* — the existing state of affairs. Ed.

11. It is precisely on the basis of this war, by virtue of the fact that it is imperialist on the part of both groups of warring "great" powers, that there should have and has arisen the phenomenon that the bourgeoisie and social-chauvinists vigorously "struggle" against "annexations" if they are committed or are being committed by the enemy state. Südekum and his Austro-German friends and defenders, down to Haase and Kautsky, are silent about the annexation committed by Germany with respect to Alsace-Lorraine, Denmark, Poland, etc., but very often "struggle against annexations" committed by Russia with respect to Finland, Poland, Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc., by England with respect to India, etc. On the other hand, the English, French, Italian, and Russian Südekums, i.e., Guesde, Hyndman, Vandervelde, Renaudel, Treves, Plekhanov, Axelrod, Tsereteli and Co., are silent about the annexations of England with respect to India, France with respect to Nice or Morocco, Italy with respect to Tripoli or Albania, Russia with respect to Poland, Ukraine, etc., but in return, for the most part, struggle against the annexations committed by Germany.

It is clear that such "struggle against annexations" on the part of the social-chauvinists and "Kautskyans" bears a completely hypocritical character, and to such a struggle the bourgeoisie helps both directly, by appropriating millions and millions for chauvinist propaganda, and indirectly, by granting a monopoly of legality only to social-chauvinists and Kautskyans.

It is clear that both the French "socialists" who justify war for Alsace-Lorraine and the Germans who do not demand freedom of separation of Alsace-Lorraine from Germany are equally annexationists, no matter how they swear otherwise. It is clear that Russian "socialists" who speak or write against the "collapse of Russia" or who now justify, directly or indirectly, war over who will enslave Poland, in the name of the slogan "peace without annexations," are such annexationists as well, and so on and so forth.

12. In order not to transform the "struggle against annexations" into an empty phrase or into abominable hypocrisy, socialists must: 1° explain to the masses the necessity of revolutionary struggle for the conquest of political power by the proletariat and the carrying out of a socialist revolution, which grows out of all the conditions of the imperialist epoch and this imperialist war and which alone is able firmly and everywhere to ensure the self-determination of nations, that is, to liberate the oppressed nations and to realize the rapprochement and fusion of nations not on the basis of violence, but on the basis of equality and the agreement of the proletariat and working masses of all nations. — 2°, they must immediately conduct the widest propaganda and agitation against the veiled chauvinism and annexationism of the O f f i c i a l socialist parties, especially in the "great" powers. Socialists must explain to the masses that only in words is a socialist and internationalist, while in deed a chauvinist and annexationist, that English socialist who does not struggle immediately for the freedom of separation of Ireland, India, etc., — that French socialist who does not struggle for the freedom of French colonies, against war for the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, etc., — that German socialist who does not struggle for the freedom of separation of Alsace-Lorraine, the Danes, Poles, Belgians, Serbs, etc., — that Russian socialist who does not struggle for the freedom of separation of Ukraine, Finland, etc., against war over Poland, — that Italian socialist who does not struggle for the freedom of separation of Tripoli, Albania, etc., that Dutch socialist who does not struggle for the freedom of separation and independence of the Dutch Indies, — that Polish socialist who does not struggle for the complete freedom and equality of rights of the oppressed Jews and Ukrainians, etc.

13. From the Zimmerwald Manifesto and from the circular of the I.S.C. of 10. II. 1916 (bulletin No. 3) it follows with inevitability that every "war against war" and "struggle for peace" is hypocrisy if it is not inseparably linked with an immediate r e v o l u t i o n a r y  mass struggle, with propaganda and preparation for such struggle. But this conclusion must be set forth directly and definitively. It is necessary, in the 1st place, to explain to the masses what the development of r e v o l u t i o n a r y  mass struggle can and must (muss) lead to in the circumstances of the European war. It leads inevitably to the transformation of the imperialist war into civil war for socialism. All the talk about workers preferring to die for their own cause rather than for someone else's hints at this. But hints are insufficient. One must clearly place before the masses a great, though perhaps not imminent, goal. One must know where and why one is going. In the 2nd place, if we call on the masses to struggle against their governments "(regardless of the military situation of the given country," then we thereby not only reject in principle the permissibility of "defense of the fatherland" in this war, but also recognize the desirability of the defeat of every bourgeois government for the transformation of this defeat into revolution. And this must be said directly: r e v o l u t i o n a r y  mass struggle cannot become international if the conscious representatives of it do not unite openly with one another in the name of the defeat and overthrow of all bourgeois governments. In 3° — and this is the most important thing — one cannot conduct a r e v o l u t i o n a r y  mass struggle without creating everywhere, not only at the top but also among the masses, an illegal organization for propaganda, preparation, discussion of its course and conditions. If there were street demonstrations in Germany, if in France there was a series of letters from the front calling for not signing war loans, if in England, not to mention Russia,* there were mass strikes, then in order to help this struggle, to bring it together internationally, it is absolutely necessary to illuminate in free, that is, illegal, press e v e r y  step along this path, to check successes, to weigh their conditions, to rally and develop the struggle. Without an illegal organization and illegal press, recognition of r e v o l u t i o n a r y  "mass action" will remain (as it does in Switzerland) a bare phrase.

14. On the question of parliamentary struggle (Aktion) of socialists one must bear in mind that the Zimmerwald resolution not only expresses sympathy for the s.d. deputies to the State Duma belonging to our party and condemned to exile in Siberia, but also solidarizes itself with their tactics. To recognize r e v o l u t i o n a r y  mass struggle and to be reconciled with exclusively legal, exclusively reformist activity of socialists in parliaments is impossible; this would lead only to legitimate discontent among workers and their departure from social democracy to anti-parliamentary anarchism or syndicalism. It is necessary to say clearly and for all to hear that s.d. deputies in parliaments must use their position not only for speeches in parliaments but also for comprehensive, extra-parliamentary assistance to the illegal organization and r e v o l u t i o n a r y  struggle of workers, and that the masses themselves must, through their illegal organization, check such activity of their leaders.

15. The question of convening the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Socialist B u r e a u, placed on the agenda of the 2nd I n t e r n a t i o n a l Socialist Conference being convened, inevitably raises a more fundamental and principled question: is unity of the old parties and the 2nd International possible? The wider the sympathies for the Z i m m e r w a l d union grow among the masses, the more incomprehensible it becomes to them, the more harmful it becomes for the development of their struggle, the inconsistency and timidity of that position which essentially identifies the old parties and the 2nd I n t e r n a t i o n a l with bourgeois policy in the workers' movement (see the Z i m m e r w a l d Manifesto and the circular of the I.S.C. of 10. II. 1916), and, on the other hand, is afraid of a split with them and promises to dissolve the I.S.C. as soon as the old I n t e r n a t i o n a l Socialist B u r e a u convenes.

This promise was neither voted on nor even discussed in Z i m m e r w a l d.

For half a year after Z i m m e r w a l d, it has become even more clear that a split is inevitable, that one cannot carry on in unity with the old parties the work which the Z i m m e r w a l d Manifesto recommends, that fear of a split hampers every step in this direction. In Germany, not only did the I.S.D. group condemn fear of a split and openly speak out against the hypocrisy of the preachers of unity, but also a member of the Reichstag faction, Otto Rühle, the closest comrade of K. Liebknecht, openly came out for a split. And Vorwärts was unable to advance against Rühle even a single serious or honest argument. In France, the member of the Socialist party Bourderon ostensibly against a split, but in deed proposed to the congress a resolution which directly "disapproves (disavows) the C.A.P. (Comité Administratif Permanent = Central Committee of the party) and G.P." (Groupe Parlementaire = parliamentary group). It is clear that the adoption of such a resolution would mean an immediate and unconditional split of the party. In England, in the pages of even the moderate "Labour Leader," T. Russell Williams openly spoke more than once for the inevitability of a split, meeting with support from a number of party members. In America, with the formal unity of the Socialist party, some of its members speak out for militarism and war (the so-called preparedness), while others, including E. Debs, the former socialist presidential candidate, openly preach civil war for socialism in connection with the threatening war.

Throughout the world there is already in fact a split, and closing one's eyes to this only harms the Zimmerwald movement, making them ridiculous in the eyes of the masses, who very well know that every step of their work in the spirit of Z i m m e r w a l d means a continuation and strengthening of the split.

It is necessary to have the courage to openly recognize the inevitable and accomplished fact, to reject the harmful illusions about possible unity with "defenders of the fatherland" in this war, to help the masses free themselves from the influence of those leaders who "mislead" (see the circular of the I.S.C. of 10. II. 1916) or are preparing through "amnesty" a "conspiracy" (Pakt) against socialism.

Such is our proposal on the question of the agenda regarding the convening of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Socialist B u r e a u in The Hague.

6. 1913 and 1913

* FRAGMENTS FROM THE SECOND VARIANT.

U.

3. This war was created by the r e v o l u t i o n a r y [catastrophic] situation that developed in Europe, that is, such an exacerbation of economic and political contradictions as led to the impossibility of their peaceful, non-violent solution. On the other hand, the very course of this war and its prolongation continually deepens and expands this r e v o l u t i o n a r y situation. This war was born of the fundamental interests of imperialist bourgeoisie; the war objectively placed on the agenda the fundamental [aspects] of imperialism; and on the other hand, the war has deepened the chasm between the interests of the proletariat and the existence of bourgeois society, which has matured into capitalist imperialism.

Socialists do not deny and cannot deny the struggle for reforms. It is possible, as an exception, that they might succeed by reformist means in achieving some "improvement" such as an increase in relief to the population devastated by war: socialists will vote for this in parliament if they are allowed to vote.

2. Insofar as the struggle for reforms on the part of socialists is necessary for the solution of those questions which, by the objective state of affairs, can be solved reformistically, [to that extent] that is, without the transfer of political power from the hands of the exploiting class to the hands of the exploited class, insofar is the preaching of reforms for the solution of questions which history and the actual political situation have posed r e v o l u t i o n a r i l y a mere bourgeois deception of the people. Precisely such are the questions posed on the agenda by this war at the present time. This war has placed on the agenda the fundamental questions of imperialism, that is, the very existence of capitalist society, and to instill in the people, directly or indirectly, the idea of the possibility of reformistically solving these questions would be charlatanism. The matter concerns a new division of the world, corresponding to the new relationships of force between capitalist states, which in recent decades have developed not only extraordinarily rapidly, but also — what is especially important — extraordinarily unevenly. On the basis of capitalist social relations, this new partition of the world is impossible otherwise than through wars and violence. The objective state of affairs excludes a reformist solution of the ripened contradictions, excludes any other way out except a series of imperialist wars or a socialist revolution of the proletariat, the conditions for the success of which have already been created precisely by this epoch of imperialism. Actual political activity under these conditions is possible only as one of two things: either helping "one's own" national b o u r g e o i s i e to plunder other countries or helping the beginning...*

No. 

Reformist phrases are the principal means of deceiving the people [and the principal means] at such a time, when the objective situation has placed before history the greatest world crisis, which, regardless of the will of individual parties, can be only either postponed and transferred to the next imperialist war or resolved through a socialist revolution. It is not chance and not the evil will of individual governments or

* The continuation of the manuscript has not been preserved. Ed.