V. I.

Lenin

90

To:   DAVID WIJNKOOP

Dear Comrade Wijnkoop, The scheme with which we are now occupied, the plan
for an international declaration of principle by the Marxist
Left, is so important that we have no right to delay, and
must carry it through successfully to its conclusion, moreover as quickly as possible. The fact that we are late with
it presents a great danger!

The article by A. P. in Berner Tagwacht (July 24) on the Congress of the S.D.P. of Holland is extremely
important for our mutual understanding. [1] I welcome with the
greatest joy the position taken up by you, Gorter and
Ravesteyn on the question of a people’s militia (we have
that in our programme too). An exploited class which did
not strive to possess arms, to know how to use them and
to master the military art would be a class of lackeys. The
defenders of disarmament as against a people’s militia (there are “Lefts” of this kind in Scandinavia too: I argued
about this with Höglund in 1910) are taking up the position of petty bourgeois, pacifists, opportunists in the small
states. But for us it is the point of view of the great states
and the revolutionary struggle (i.e., also of civil war ) which
must be decisive. Anarchists may be against a people’s militia, from the point of view of the social revolution
(conceived of without relation to time and space). But our
most important task now is to draw a sharp line of demarcation between the Marxist Left on the one hand and the
opportunists (and Kautskians) and anarchists on the other.

One passage in the article by A. P. really revolted me,
namely the one where he says that the declaration of principle by Mme. Roland-Hoist “completely corresponds to
the point of view of the S.D.P.”!!

From that declaration of principle, in the form in which
it was printed in Berner Tagwacht and in Internationale Korrespondenz , [2] I see that we cannot in any circumstances
accept solidarity with Mme. Roland-Hoist. Mme.
Roland-Hoist, in my opinion, is a Dutch Kautsky or a Dutch
Trotsky. These people in principle “firmly disagree” with the
opportunists, but in practice , on all important questions, they
agree!! Mme. Roland-Hoist rejects the principle of defence
of the fatherland, i. e., she rejects social-chauvinism. That is
good. But she does not reject opportunism!! In a most lengthy
declaration there is not one word against opportunism!
There is not one clear, unambiguous word about revolutionary means of struggle (but in return, all the more phrases
about “idealism”, self-sacrifice, etc., which every scoundrel,
including Troelstra and Kautsky, can very willingly accept)! Not one word about a rupture with the opportunists!
The watchword of “peace” is quite d la Kautsky! Instead
of this (and quite consistently, from the point of view of
the unprincipled “declaration of principle” of Mme.
Roland-Hoist) the advice to co-operate both with the S.D.P.
and the S.D.L.P.!! This means unity with the opportunists.

Quite like our Mr. Trotsky: “in principle firmly against
defence of the fatherland”, in practice for unity with the
Chkheidze group in the Russian Duma (i.e., with the opponents of our group which has been exiled to Siberia, with
the best friends of the Russian social-chauvinists).

No. No. Never and in no circumstances shall we agree in
principle with the declaration of Mme. Roland-Hoist. It is
a quite thoughtless, purely platonic and hypocritical internationalism. Just one long compromise. It is suited
(speaking politically) only to the task of forming a “Left
wing” (i.e., a “harmless minority”, a “decorative Marxist
signboard”) in the old, rotten and scoundrelly lackey parties
(the Liberal Labour parties).

Of course, we do not demand an immediate split in this or that party, for example, in Sweden, Germany or France.
It is very possible that the time for this will be more favourable (for example, in Germany) somewhat later. But in principle we must unquestionably demand a complete break
with opportunism. The whole struggle of our Party (and of
the working-class movement in Europe generally) must be
directed against opportunism. The latter is not a current
of opinion, not a tendency; it (opportunism) has now become
the organised tool of the bourgeoisie within the working-class movement. And furthermore: questions of the
revolutionary struggle (tactics, means, propaganda in the army,
fraternisation in the trenches, etc. ) must undoubtedly be
analysed in detail , discussed, thought out, tested, explained to the masses in the illegal press. Without this any
“recognition” of revolution remains only an empty phrase.
We have no common road with phrase-mongering (in Dutch:
“passive”) radicals.

I hope, dear Comrade Wijnkoop, that you will not take offence at these remarks of mine. After all, we must come
to a proper agreement, in order to carry on jointly this
difficult struggle.

Please show this letter to Comrade Pannekoek and other
Dutch friends.

Yours,
N. Lenin

P.S. I will shortly semi you the official resolution of our
Party (of 1975) on the question of the right of all nations
to
self-determination. [3] We are for this . Now, in the struggle
against the social-chauvinists, we must be more for this
than ever before.

---
Notes:
[1]
Reference is to Anton Pannekoek’s article “Der Jahreskongress der
S.D.P. in Holland” (“The S.D.P. Congress in Holland”), published in the
supplement to Berner Tagwacht No. 170, July 24, 1915.

[2]
Internationale Korrespondenz (International Bulletin)—German
social-chauvinist weekly, appeared in Berlin from the end of September 1914
to October 1, 1918.

[3]
Lenin refers to the resolution on the nationalities problem passed by
the “August” (“Summer”) Conference of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P. with
Party workers, held in Poronin, September 23 to October 1 (October 6–14),
1913 (see present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 427–29).