No doubt whatsoever exists that the greatest interest for all internationalists is presented by the situation among the German S.D. opposition. Official German Social Democracy, which was the most powerful and leading party in the II International, dealt the most sensitive blow to the international organization of workers. But within German Social Democracy there proved to be at the same time the strongest opposition. Among the large European parties, it was the first in which comrades, remaining faithful to the banner of socialism, raised a loud voice of protest. With joy did we read the journals: "Lichtstrahlen" and "Die Internationale." With even greater joy did we learn of the spread in Germany of illegal revolutionary appeals, such as, for example, the appeal: "The Main Enemy in Our Own Country." This testified that the spirit of socialism lives among German workers, that in Germany there are still people capable of defending revolutionary Marxism.

Within the depths of German Social Democracy, the split in contemporary socialism has been sketched with the greatest clarity. We see here with complete distinctness three tendencies: opportunist-chauvinists, who nowhere have reached such a degree of degeneration and renegacy as in Germany; Kautskyist "center," which has shown itself here to be completely helpless in performing any role other than servant of the opportunists; and – the Left, representing the sole Social Democrats in Germany.

Most of all, naturally, we are interested in the situation among the German Left. We see in it our comrades, the hope of all internationalist elements.

What then is this situation?

The journal "Die Internationale" was completely right when it said that in the German Left everything is still in a process of fermentation, that great regroupings still lie ahead, that within its bosom there are more decisive and less decisive elements.

We, Russian internationalists, certainly make not the slightest claim to interfere in the internal affairs of our German Left comrades. We understand that only they themselves are fully competent to determine their methods of struggle against opportunists, taking account of the conditions of time and place. We consider only that it is our right and our duty to express frankly our opinion on the situation.

We are convinced that the author of the leading article in the journal "Die Internationale" was profoundly right when he asserted that the Kautskyist "center" causes greater harm to the cause of Marxism than open social-chauvinism does. Whoever obscures the disagreements now, whoever under the guise of Marxism preaches to workers now what Kautskyanderism preaches, whoever lulls the workers to sleep – is more harmful than the Südekums and Heines, who pose the question sharply and compel workers to take a stand.

The carping against the "authorities" which Kautsky and Haase have permitted themselves of late should mislead no one. The disagreements between them and the Schedemanns are not disagreements of principle. Some consider that Hindenburg and Mackensen have already won and that one can now afford oneself the luxury of protest against annexations. Others consider that Hindenburg and Mackensen have not yet won and that therefore one must "hold out to the end."

Kautskyism wages against the "authorities" only a show struggle – precisely in order that after the war it might obscure before the workers the principled dispute and gloss over the matter with the 1001st plump resolution in an indefinitely "leftist" spirit, in which such masters of diplomacy of the II International are so adept.

It is perfectly understandable that in its difficult struggle against the "authorities," German opposition must utilize even this unprincipled carping of Kautskyism. But the touchstone for every internationalist must remain a negative attitude toward neo-Kautskyism. Only he is truly an internationalist who struggles against Kautskyism, who understands that the "center," even after the ostensible turn of its leaders, remains in principle an ally of chauvinists and opportunists.

Of tremendous importance is our attitude toward the wavering elements in the International generally. These elements – predominantly pacifist socialists – exist both in neutral countries and in some warring countries (in England, for example, the Independent Labour Party). These elements can be our traveling companions. Rapprochement with them against social-chauvinists is necessary. But one must remember that these are only traveling companions, that on the main and fundamental question, upon the restoration of the International, these elements will go not with us but against us, will go with Kautsky, Scheidemann, Vandervelde, Samba. At international conferences one cannot limit one's program to what is acceptable to these elements. Otherwise we ourselves will fall captive to wavering pacifists. This was, for example, the case at the women's international conference in Berne. The German delegation, adhering to the viewpoint of com. Clara Zetkin, actually played the role of "center" at this conference. The women's conference said only what was acceptable to the delegates from the opportunist Dutch party of Troelstra and to the delegates from the I.L.P. (Independent Labour Party), which – let us not forget this – at the London conference of chauvinists of "agreement" voted for Vandervelde's resolution. We express our greatest respect to the I.L.P. for its courageous struggle against the English government during the war. But we know that this party did not stand and does not stand on the ground of Marxism. And we believe that the main task of the S.D. opposition at the present moment is – to raise the banner of revolutionary Marxism, to tell the workers firmly and decisively how we view imperialist wars, to put forward the slogan of mass revolutionary actions, that is, the transformation of the epoch of imperialist wars into the beginning of the epoch of civil wars. Revolutionary Social-Democratic elements, despite everything, exist in many countries. They exist both in Germany and in Russia, and in Scandinavia (an influential tendency whose representative is com. Höglund), and on the Balkans (the party of Bulgarian "narrows"), and in Italy, and in England (part of the British Socialist Party), and in France (Vaillant himself acknowledged in "L'Humanité" that he received protesting letters from internationalists, but he did not print a single one in full), and in Holland (the tribunists{228}), and so forth. To unite these Marxist elements – however few they may be at the beginning – in their name to recall now-forgotten words of true socialism, to call upon the workers of all countries to break with chauvinists and stand under the old banner of Marxism – that is the task of the day.

Conferences with the so-called programs of "action" have hitherto amounted only to what – with greater or lesser fullness – proclaims the program of simple pacifism. Marxism is not pacifism. To struggle for the speediest termination of war is necessary. But only when coupled with a call to revolutionary struggle does the demand for "peace" acquire a proletarian meaning. Without a series of revolutions, the so-called democratic peace is a petty-bourgeois utopia. The true program of action would be only the Marxist program, giving the masses a complete and clear answer to what has happened, explaining what imperialism is and how to struggle against it, openly declaring that it was opportunism that led to the collapse of the II International, openly calling to build the Marxist International without and against opportunists. Only such a program, which would show that we believe in ourselves, believe in Marxism, declare to opportunism a struggle not for life but for death, would assure us sooner or later the sympathy of the true proletarian masses.