V. I.

Lenin

The war has led to a grave crisis in the whole of international
socialism. Like any other crisis, the present crisis of socialism has
revealed ever more clearly the inner contradictions lying deep within it;
it has torn off many a false and conventional mask, and has shown up in
the sharpest light what is outmoded and rotten in socialism, and what its
further growth and advance towards victory will depend on.

Practically all Social-Democrats in Russia realise that. the old
divisions and groupings are, if not obsolescent, then at least undergoing a
transformation. In the forefront is the division on the main issue raised by
the war, viz., the division into “internationalists” and
“social-patriots”. We have taken these terms from the editorial
in Nashe Slovo No. 42, and for the time being shall not
deal with the question of whether they should be supplemented by contrasting
revolutionary Social-Democrats with national liberal-labour politicians.

It is not a matter of names, to be sure; the gist of the main
present-day division has been correctly indicated in Nashe Slovo
. The internationalists, it says, are “united in their negative
attitude towards social-patriotism as represented by Plekhanov”. The
editors call upon the “now disunited groups” “to come to
an understanding and unite for at least a single act-expressing the attitude
of Russian Social-Democrats towards the present. war and Russian
social-patriotism”.

Besides this appeal through the press, the editors of Nashe Slovo have sent a letter to us and the Organising

Committee, proposing that, with their participation, a conference be called to discuss the
matter. In our reply we spoke of the necessity “to clarify certain
preliminary questions, so as to know whether we are at one in the main
issue”. We stressed two such preliminary questions: (1) no declaration
would help unmask the “social-patriots” (the editors naming
Plekhanov, Alexinsky, and the well-known group of Petrograd liquidationist
writers who support the XYZ journal [1] who “falsify the will of
the advanced proletariat of Russia” (the expression used by the
editors of Nashe Slovo); to unmask the social-patriots, a
protracted struggle is necessary; (2) what grounds were there to count the
Organising Committee among the “internationalists”?

On the other hand, the Organising Committee’s secretariat abroad
sent us a copy of its reply to Nashe Slovo, which, in short,
asserted that a “preliminary” selection of certain groups and the “exclusion of others” were out of the question;
and that “invitations to the conference should be sent to the
representatives abroad of all party centres and groups that attended ...
the Brussels Conference of the International Socialist Bureau before the
war” (letter of March 25, 1915).

Thus, the Organising Committee has declined on principle to confer with
the internationalists alone, since it wishes also to confer with
the social-patriots (the Plekhanov and the Alexinsky trends are known to
have been represented at Brussels). The same spirit marked the resolution of
the Social-Democrats gathered in Nervi (Nashe Slovo No. 53), which
was adopted following Yonov’s report (and obviously expressed the
views of this representative of the most radical and internationalist
elements in the Bund).

This resolution, which is highly characteristic and valuable in helping
us specify the “middle road” being sought by many socialists
living abroad, expresses sympathy with Nashe Slovo’s “principles”, but at the same time expresses disagreement with
Nashe S/ova’s stand, “which consists in creating organisational divisions, uniting internationalist socialists alone, and
defending the necessity of splits within socialist proletarian parties that
have historically come into being”. In the opinion of the gathering,
Nashe Slovo’s “one-sided handling” (of these questions) is “highly detrimental to clarification of problems
connected with the restoration of the International”.

We have already pointed out that the views of Axeirod, the Organising
Committee’s official representative, are social-chauvinist. Neither in
the press nor in its correspondence has Nashe Slovo made any reply
to this. We have pointed out that the Burid’s stand is the same, with
a bias towards Germanophile chauvinism. The Nervi resolution has born this
out in a manner which, if indirect, is highly significant: it has declared
that unification of internationalists alone is harmful and
schismatic. The question has been presented with a clarity that is most
praiseworthy.

Still clearer is the Organising Committee’s reply, which expresses,
not an oblique attitude towards the issue, but one that is straightforward
and formal. We must confer, it says, not without the social-patriots, but with them.

We should be thankful to the Organising Committee for its letter to
Nashe Slovo, confirming the correctness of our opinion of that
body.

Does that mean that Nashe Slovo’s entire idea of uniting
the internationalists has been wrecked? No, it does not. While there exist
ideological solidarity and a sincere desire to combat social-patriotism, no
failure of any conferences can check unity among internationalists. At the
disposal of the editors of Nashe Slovo is the great instrument of
a daily paper. They can do something immeasurably more businesslike and
serious than calling conferences and issuing declarations; they can invite
all groups, and themselves start: (1) to immediately evolve full,
precise, unequivocal and perfectly clear definitions of the content of
internationalism (it being a fact that Vandervelde, Kautsky, Plekhanov,
Lensch, and Haenisch also call themselves internationalists!), of
opportunism, the collapse of the Second International, the tasks and the
methods of combating socialpatriotism, etc.; (2) to rally forces for a
severe struggle for certain principles, not only abroad, but mainly in
Russia.

Indeed, can anyone deny that there is no other way towards the
victory of internationalism over social-patriotism, and that there can be
none? Half a century of Russian political emigration (and thirty years of
Social-Democratic emigration)-have these not shown that all
declarations, conferences, etc., abroad are powerless, insignificant, and
empty, unless they are supported by a lasting movement of
some social stratum in Russia? Does not the present war also teach us that
everything that is immature or decaying, everything that is conventional or
diplomatic, will collapse at the first blow?

During the eight months of war, all Social-Democratic centres, groups,
currents, and shades of opinion have held conferences with all and sundry,
and have come out with “declarations”, i.e., made their opinions
known to the public. Today the task is different, and closer to action: more distrust of resonant declarations and
spectacular conferences; more energy in evolving precise replies
and advice to writers, propagandists, agitators, and all thinking workers,
written in a way that cannot but be understood; more clarity and
purposefulness in mustering the forces for a long-term effort to give effect
to such advice.

Much has been given to the editors of Nashe Slovo —after
all, they are a daily paper!—and they will have much to answer for if
they fail to carry out even this “minimum programme”.

A final remark: in May 1910, exactly five years ago, we made mention, in
our press abroad, of a highly outstanding political fact, of “far
greater significance” than the conferences and declarations of many
very “powerful” Social-Democratic centres, i. e., the fact of the formation in Russia of a group of legalist writers working in
the selfsame XYZ journal. What has been shown by the facts
during these five years, so eventful in the history of the labour movement
in Russia and the whole world? Have not the facts shown that in Russia we
have a certain social nucleus to rally the elements of a
national liberal-labour party (after the “European” pattern)? What are the conclusions forced on all Social-Democrats by the
circumstance that, with the exception of Voprosy Strakhovaniya , [2] we
see, in Russia, the open expression only of this current, Nashe Dyelo , Strahhovaniye Rabochikh , Severny Gobs , [3] Maslov and Plekhanov?

So we repeat: more distrust of resonant declarations, and more courage in
facing grave political realities.

---
Notes:
[1]
Lenin is referring to Nasha Zarya, a journal of the Menshevik liquidators.

[2]
Voprosy Strakhovaniya (Problems of Insurance)—a Bolshevik
legal journal, published at intervals in St. Petersburg from October 1913 to
March 1918. It worked, not only for the achievement of workers’
insurance, but also for the Bolshevik “uncurtailed slogans” of
an eight-hour day, confiscation of the landed estates, and a democratic
republic. The Bolsheviks A. N. Vinokurov, N. A. Skripnik, P. I. Stuka,
N. M. Shvernik and others contributed to the journal.

[3]
Severny Gales (Voice of the North)—Menshevik weekly, publshed
in Petrograd from January to March 1915.