*INTRODUCTION.*

(1) Urgency of the question. On everyone’s lips or in their ears.
Why? (a) War inflames national hatred and threatens national oppression.
(b) Imperialism is the epoch of oppression of nations on a new historical basis.
(2) The task of the Zimmerwald Left — to rally and on this basis also to smash social-chauvinism, to clarify the consciousness of the working class.

I. 
The Economic Point of View.
(3) “Capital has outgrown national frameworks. The unification of nations (in one state) is inevitable and progressive.” True! But Marxism does not = Struvism, not justification and defense of violence against nations, but revolutionary struggle for socialism, unification of workers of different nations, their brotherhood.
(4) Against violence, for democratic unification of nations. “Freedom of secession” is the highest expression of democratism.
(5) Economic unification gains from democratism, from freedom of secession (Norway and Sweden; America versus Germany).

II. The Political-Historical Point of View.
(6) “Self-determination of nations is a worn-out slogan of the outmoded, past epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolutions and movements.”
— Imperialism creates the oppression of nations on a new basis. Imperialism renovates this old slogan.
(7) The East and the colonies (> 1,000 million of the earth’s population). “New” bourgeois-democratic national movements. Colonies 1876 — 314 million, 1914 — 570 + ½.

*Lenin’s heading. Ed.*

…[illegible non-Russian characters]…

III. The Political Point of View.
(8) We do not discard bourgeois-democratic slogans, but carry out the democratic in them more consistently, more fully, more resolutely.
(9) Not the interests of nations, but the interests of brotherhood, solidarity of the workers of different nations.

IV. The Point of View of State Borders.
(10) We do not defend the given borders of states.
(11) We are not for the utopia of small states, we do not demand everywhere and always “independence of national states” ….
(12) We put in the first place the interests of the class struggle of the workers under all possible changes of state borders.
(13) “Disintegration” of Russia (England, Austria?) = United States.

V. The Point of View of the International Class Struggle of the Proletariat.
(14) The danger (and inevitability under capitalism) of national hostility and distrust (à la Axelrod? No!)
(15) The gist: the relation of the oppressing nations to the oppressed.
(16) Class solidarity of the workers of different nations is impossible without recognition of the right to secession.

VI. “Practical Feasibility.”
(17) “Utopia”! Norway versus Sweden.
(18) “An exception”! (“A backwoods”).
Yes, like all democratic reforms and transformations.
(19) “Practically = zero.”
No = (a) freedom of agitation for secession (b) decision of the question of secession by referendum (2 sections of the constitution).
(20) “What are the guarantees? Only war will decide!” (Our guarantees are the education of the working masses in the spirit of brotherhood of nations.)

VII. The Military Point of View.
(21) “Self-determination of nations = justification of participation in war.”
There is war and war. We do not “deny” national wars. They are possible even now.
(22) “If self-determination, then Holland, Sweden, etc. have the right to defend themselves.” How can one defend oneself in an imperialist war?

VIII. The Struggle against Social-Chauvinism.
(23) Social-chauvinism is as inevitable a product of imperialism as the wireless telegraph. The struggle against it is the essence now.
(24) Struggle against the chauvinism of one’s own nation.
(25) The main thing — great-power chauvinism.
(26) “Recognition of equal rights” = evasion of the question of state construction, of secession, of cases of imperialist war.
(27) We hit the nail on the head only with our formulation. Only this formula strikes and cuts international social-chauvinism.

IX. Comparison with Divorce.
(28) Rosa Luxemburg on divorce (versus autonomy).
(29) Semkovsky’s objection.
(30) Its incorrectness.

X. The Case of Weil.
(31) The social-chauvinists expelled Weil, a betrayal of their principles.
(32) Participation in the war from our point of view is not a sin. But for agitation in the army? for turning the war into a civil war?
(33) Choice of nation. (In which army?)

XI. The Attitude of the Liberal Bourgeoisie and.
(34) In Russia: we (Cadets) are for equal rights, but never undertook to defend the right to secession from the Russian state.
(35) Karl Kautsky on political self-determination (“cultural and autonomy is enough”)…

XII. The Experience of the RSDLP.
(36) The posing of the question at the congress of 1903.
(37) The departure of the P.S.D. and the entry in 1906.
(38) Never officially demanded the repeal of § 9.
(39) The “union” of opportunists with Rosa in 1914 (liquidators Semkovsky; Liebman; Yurkevich; Alexinsky).

XIII. The Example of Marx and Engels.
(40) 1848 Germany versus oppressed nations (Nachlass, III, pp. 109, 113 and 114 *). 1866 Engels and the International (Marx) on Poland and Germany. 1869 Marx on Ireland and.
(41) The point of view of the interests of the workers of the oppressing nation. (NB) Marx for federation with Ireland (NB)

XIV. The “Formula” of the “Zimmerwald Left”.
(42) “Not maintaining the domination of one nation over another” …
The question: does it include freedom of secession? Or not. Non-recognition of freedom of secession is precisely “maintaining domination”.
This formula = “the first step toward rapprochement” 5 ….

------------------------

On the Article “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”¹

November 1913. Bern

*Excerpts from the article*

Crossed-out pages of the initial text of the article

…“the right of nations to self-determination” seems to Comrade Parabellum³ a return to an outlived olden time, to a petty-bourgeois utopia of “separatism” and peaceful competition between independent national states.
Fighting against this enemy (petty-bourgeois utopians), who in essence has long been dead and buried, Comrade Parabellum unnoticedly plays into the hands of the social-chauvinists, who dominate in England, France, Germany, and partly in Russia.
We cannot counterpose revolutionary mass struggle for socialism to a revolutionarily consistent program on the national question. We must unite the first with the second. One must not conceive the socialist revolution as a single battle on a single front: imperialism against socialism. This revolution will be an entire epoch of sharpened class struggle and all kinds of social upheavals, a whole series of battles on the most diverse fronts, over the most varied economic and political transformations, which have matured and demand a radical break-up of old relations. Among these democratic transformations, entering into the concept of social revolution, a prominent place cannot but be occupied by transformations of national relations. The revolutionary proletariat will not fulfill its task if it does not now uphold a consistent program on this question as well.

…• • • (a) 4 *

…with a revolutionary program on the national question. With Comrade Parabellum it comes out as though the socialist revolution is one battle on one economic front: socialism against imperialism. This is not true. The revolution of the proletariat will be an epoch of a whole series of battles on all fronts, i.e., on all economic and political questions, including the national question. The resolution of the sum of conflicts arising from all these unresolved questions will give the social revolution. The sum of battles over all these transformations will give the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the establishment of full democracy, and the organization of socialist society.
It is absurd to counterpose the revolutionary struggle against capitalism to one of the questions of democracy, the national question. The proletariat cannot conquer otherwise than through democracy, otherwise than realizing democracy in full. Therefore all democratic demands — militia, election of officials by the people, equal rights of nations, self-determination of nations, etc. — must be completed and united by the demand of revolutionary struggle against capitalism. Not to counterpose this struggle to individual democratic demands, but to give in the realm of each democratic question a definition of our tasks that is just as revolutionary and tied to the general revolutionary struggle for socialism — that is the only Social-Democratic posing of the question.
Comrade Parabellum, instead of determining the revolutionary line of the proletariat in the national question, gives us assurances that “we are against annexations, against violence against nations.” Any number of such assurances are to be found among the social-chauvinists and Kautsky and Co. All these people will reject Parabellum’s formula “revolutionary mass struggle against capitalism,” but with pleasure…

------------------------

…self-determination of nations hypocritically, without extending this recognition precisely to those nations that are oppressed by their own nation (Cunow, Parvus, Plekhanov, Hyndman) — this includes not only Plekhanov and Hyndman, but also Kautsky, who, seeking “unity” with the social-chauvinists, wrote that demanding “state independence” (staatliche Selbständigkeit) for every nation means demanding something “excessive,” “zu viel” (Neue Zeit, 33, II, 77, 16. IV. 1915)³. Either they entirely deny the right to self-determination with arguments of the Parabellum type (Cunow, Parvus, Russian opportunists and liquidators).
Kautsky’s position is the most harmful and dangerous for the working class, for in words he recognizes the self-determination of nations, in words recognizes that the Social-Democratic party “allseitig (!) und rückhaltlos (?) achtet und fordert die Selbständigkeit der Nationen”* (p. 241 ibid., 21. V. 1915)⁴, yet in reality he reduces this right to a meaningless formula, actually curtails it, without singling out the socialists of the oppressed…

------------------------

*Uncrossed pages of the initial text of the article*

…after 1848, fighting not at all against petty-bourgeois democrats (they were already killed and buried by then), but against the chauvinism of the English workers, against the anarchism of Proudhon, who “denied” the national question almost as resolutely as Parabellum denies it today.
Marx demanded in 1868 the separation of Ireland from England! Not only did he entertain no illusions about the possibility of the separate existence of a small Irish people alongside mighty England, which even then was the greatest world empire — no, Marx directly and immediately foresaw the necessity of a federation with England immediately after separation. Marx not for a minute… imperialism, urgent and vitally correct in relation to all great powers and all nations oppressed by them.

------------------------

The “great-power” nations, Englishmen, Germans, Frenchmen, Great Russians, directly and indirectly, mediately and immediately, oppress the greater half of the earth’s population, now waging the first — and probably not the last — imperialist war for the extension, consolidation of this oppression, for a more “just,” more corresponding to the given strength of capital of different countries, redivision of great-power rights, advantages and privileges.
Precisely the point of view of the struggle against the chauvinism of the dominant, advanced, world-fate-holding great-power nations — and not at all the point of view of “small peoples” and various “corners of Europe” — must now be decisive.
Precisely the interests of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against capitalism, and not at all the interests of little small peoples, demand that the socialists of the great powers defend the right to secession (= the right to self-determination) of the oppressed nations. The struggle for socialism is the struggle of the internationally revolutionary proletariat. Precisely because capitalism has bound the whole world into one economic organism, this struggle cannot but be international. And in order to be so in deed, not only in words, it is necessary that the proletariat not fight against the oppression of nations in a bourgeois way, not…

------------------------

… democrats. In distinction from them, from the Scheidemanns, from the face of the Vorstand who “assure” that they are against annexations, in distinction from Kautsky, who reduces the demand for self-determination to a demand for cultural (non-political) self-determination harmless to the bourgeoisie, acceptable to the bourgeoisie, not binding for anyone — we must advance, precisely from the point of view of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of the advanced countries, a demand which fundamentally exposes the bourgeoisie, fundamentally undermines its sophisms, formulates the basic and main thing in the matter of the freedom of nations, namely the demand for freedom of secession. The unacceptability of this demand for the bourgeoisie — in the vast majority of cases and in the full extent of its realization this demand is, of course, unacceptable — does not mean its “utopianism” (only the Cunows and their like, lackeys of imperialist bourgeoisie, understand “utopianism” in this way!). No, the unacceptability for the bourgeoisie means that we, as representatives of the revolutionary proletariat, do not dream of any peaceful development of capitalism, do not sow illusions on this score, but expect precisely the sharpening of the struggle and revolution from the explanation to the masses, from the insistence before the masses upon our consistently democratic demands.
It is self-evident — and the example of Marx’s demand for the separation of Ireland from England in 1868 especially clearly confirms this — that freedom of secession does not at all mean propaganda for the formation of small national states in general. It means only, on the one hand, a consistently, with proletarian revolutionary spirit, not with bourgeois half-heartedness, carried-through demand for democratism to the end — without stopping before the fact that consistent democratism leads to social revolution, but on the contrary precisely from this drawing strength and firmness for a resolute struggle for democracy. It means, on the other…

------------------------

… will make up the socialist revolution and unfold all its content, national conflicts over the oppression of nations will also occur. Incidents like the Zabern incident⁵ will be no rarer, but more frequent, and the task of the proletariat will be not to ignore all such “incidents,” but on the contrary to sharpen, broaden, and turn them into the beginning of the socialist revolution. Only the consistently democratic program on the question of self-determination, proposed by us, answers such a purpose.
The petty-bourgeois democrats and routine socialists, not seeing the depth of the collapse of the Second International, content themselves with the old formula of “self-determination”…

*Excerpt from the plan of the article ** (4)*
Against annexations (this is acceptable also for bourgeois pacifist-democrats).
(5) The distinction between oppressing and oppressed nations is insignificant from the point of view of the utopia of “brotherhood of peoples” under capitalism. It is significant from the point of view of the revolutionary struggle against pacifism.
(6) The bourgeoisie is ready to promise any kind of “equal rights,” any kind of “national autonomy,” as long as the proletariat in a peaceful Scheidemann-like, Kautskyist manner submits to it on the question of the borders of the state.

*Footnotes:*
* “From the Literary Nachlass,” III, pp. 109, 113 and 114 (see below, pp. 201-203). Ed.
** The note of this excerpt is made on the reverse of p. 21 of the manuscript of the article “The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” (see above). Ed.

1 In the twenties of October 1915 Lenin planned to deliver lectures in Zurich and Geneva: “On the 22nd in Zurich, on the 20th in Geneva,” he wrote to Karpinsky in Geneva (see “Lenin Miscellany” XI, 184). The lecture in Zurich on the theme “The International Socialist Conference of September 5-8” took place on October 23. While informing Karpinsky about the day of the lecture, Lenin wrote: “If possible, set [in Geneva. Ed.] a day or two before or after” (ibid., p. 185). The theme of the lecture in Geneva was, apparently, determined later: “I will write about the lecture tomorrow” (letter to Karpinsky of October 6, ibid., p. 189). The synopsis “Imperialism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination” obviously refers to the lecture in Geneva, delivered by Lenin on October 28, 1915. Lenin added this date to the manuscript later, on the side of the heading, putting it in square brackets.
2 Axelrod’s point of view is set out by him in the brochure “The Crisis and the Tasks of International Social-Democracy,” which appeared shortly before the Zimmerwald Conference (see Lenin’s Works, XVIII, 306).
3 See Lenin’s article “A Caricature of Marxism” (Works, XIX, 232-233).
4 J. Weil was a German Social-Democrat, revisionist, a native of Alsace; during the imperialist war he went over to the side of the French, volunteering for the French army; for this he was expelled from the party in Germany, stripped of his deputy’s mandate, and declared a deserter.
5 See Lenin’s article “The First Step” (Works, XVIII, 297-301).
* “allseitig (!) und rückhaltlos (?) achtet und fordert die Selbständigkeit der Nationen” — “all-roundedly (!) and unreservedly (?) respects and demands the independence of nations.” Ed.
³ “Neue Zeit”, XXXIII. Jahrg. II. Bd. 1915, SS. 34-42; 71-81; 107-116; 138-146 (see “Lenin Miscellany” XVII, 267-269).
⁴ Kautsky’s article “Nochmals unsere Illusionen” (“Once More Our Illusions”), printed in “Neue Zeit”, XXXIII. Jahrg. II. Bd. 1915, SS. 230-241 and 264-275.
⁵ See Lenin’s article “Zabern” (Works, XVII, 99).