V. I.

Lenin

Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International [7]

Has the Second
International really ceased to exist? This is being stubbornly
denied by its most authoritative representatives, like Kautsky
and Vandervelde . Their point of view is that, save for the rupture of relations,
nothing has really happened; all is quite well.

To get at the truth of the matter, let is turn to the Manifesto of the Basle Congress of 1912, which applies
particularly to the present imperialist world war and which
was accepted by all the socialist parties of the world. No
socialist, be it noted, will dare in theory deny the necessity of making a concrete, historical appraisal of
every war.

Now that war has broken out, neither the avowed opportunists nor
the Kautskyites dare repudiate the Basle Manifesto or compare its demands
with the conduct of the socialist parties during the war. Why? Because
the Manifesto completely exposes both.

There is not a single word in the Basle Manifesto about the defence of
the fatherland, or about the difference between a war of aggression
and a war of defence; there is nothing in it at all about what the
opportunists and Kautskyites [1] of Germany and of the Quadruple
Alliance [8] at all crossroads are now dinning into the ears of the world. Nor could
it have said anything of the sort, because what it does say absolutely
rules out the use of such concepts. It makes a highly concrete
reference to the series of political and economic conflicts which had
for decades been preparing the ground for the present war, had become
quite apparent in 1912, and which brought about the war In 1914. The
Manifesto recalls the Russo-Austrian conflict for “hegemony in the
Balkans”; the conflicts between Britain, France and Germany (between
all these countries!) over their “policy of conquest in Asia
Minor”; the Austro-Italian conflict over the “striving for domination”
in Albania, etc. In short, the Manifesto defines all these as
conflicts emanating from “capitalist imperialism”. Thus, the Manifesto
very clearly recognises the predatory, imperialist, reactionary,
slave-driving character of the present war, i.e., a character which
makes the idea of defending the fatherland theoretical nonsense and a
practical absurdity. The big sharks are fighting each other to gobble
up other peoples’ “fatherlands”. The Manifesto draws the inevitable
conclusions from undisputed historical facts: the war “cannot be
justified on the slightest pretext of its being in the interest of the
people”; it is being prepared “for the sake of the capitalists’
profits and the ambitions of dynasties”. It would be a “crime” for the
workers to “shoot each other down”. That is what the Manifesto says.

The epoch of capitalist imperialism is one of ripe and rotten-ripe
capitalism, which is about to collapse, and which is mature enough to make
way for socialism. The period between 1789 and 1871 was one of progressive
capitalism when the overthrow of feudalism and absolutism, and liberation
from the foreign yoke were on history’s agenda. “Defence of the fatherland”,
i.e., defence against oppression, was permissible on these grounds, and
on these alone. The term would be applicable even now in a war against
the imperialist Great Powers, but it would be absurd to apply it to a war
between the imperialist Great Powers, a war to decide who gets the
biggest piece of the Balkan countries, Asia Minor, etc. It is not surprising,
therefore, that the “socialists” who advocate “defence of the fatherland”
in the present war shun the Basle Manifesto as a thief shuns the scene
of his crime. For the Manifesto proves them to be social-chauvinists, i.e.,
socialists in words, but chauvinists in deeds, who are helping “their own”
bourgeoisie to rob other countries and enslave other nations. That is the very substance of chauvinism—to defend one’s “own” fatherland even when
its acts are aimed at enslaving other peoples’ fatherlands.

Recognition that a war is being fought for national liberation implies
one set of tactics; its recognition as an imperialist war, another.
The Manifesto clearly points to the latter. The war, it says, “will
bring on an economic and political crisis”, which must be “utilised”,
not to lessen the crisis, not to defend the fatherland, but, on the
contrary, to “ rouse ” the masses and “hasten the downfall of
capitalist rule”. It is impossible to hasten something for which
historical conditions are not yet mature. The Manifesto declares that
social revolution is possible , that the conditions for it
have matured , and that it will break out precisely in connection with war. Referring to the examples of the
Paris Commune and the Revolution of 1905 in Russia, i.e.,
examples of mass strikes and of civil war, the Manifesto declares that
“the ruling classes” fear “a proletarian revolution”. It is sheer
falsehood to claim, as Kautsky does, that the socialist attitude to
the present war has not been defined. This question was not
merely discussed, but decided in Basle, where the tactics of
revolutionary proletarian mass struggle were recognised.

It is downright hypocrisy to ignore the Basle Manifesto altogether, or
in its most essential parts, and to quote instead the speeches of
leaders, or the resolutions of various parties, which, in the first
place, antedate the Basle Congress, secondly, were not decisions adopted by the parties of the whole world, and thirdly,
applied to various possible wars, but never to the present
war. The point is that the epoch of national wars between the big
European powers has been superseded by an epoch of imperialist wars
between them, and that the Basle Manifesto had to recognise this fact
officially for the first time.

It would be a mistake to regard the Basle Manifesto as an empty
threat, a collection of platitudes, as so much hot air. Those whom the
Manifesto exposes would like to have it that way. But it is not
true. The Manifesto is but the fruit of the great propaganda work
carried on throughout the entire epoch of the Second International; it
is but the summary of all that the socialists had disseminated among the masses in the hundreds of thousands of speeches, articles and
manifestos in all languages. It merely reiterates what Jules Guesde , for example, wrote in 1899, when he castigated
socialist ministerialism in the event of war: he wrote of war provoked
by the “capitalist pirates” ( En Garde! , p. 175); it merely
repeats what Kautsky wrote in 1909 in his Road to Power , where he admitted that the “peaceful” epoch was over and
that the epoch of wars and revolutions was on. To represent the Basle
Manifesto as so much talk, or as a mistake, is to regard as mere talk,
or as a mistake, everything the socialists have done in the last
twenty-five years. The opportunists and the Kautskyites find the
contradiction between the Manifesto and its non-application so
intolerable because it lays bare the profound contradictions in the
work of the Second International. The relatively “peaceful” character
of the period between 1871 and 1914 served to foster opportunism first
as a mood , then as a trend , until finally it formed a group or stratum among the labour bureaucracy and
petty-bourgeois fellow-travellers. These elements were able to gain
control of the labour movement only by paying lip-service to
revolutionary aims and revolutionary tactics. They were able to win
the confidence of the masses only by their protestations that all this
“peaceful” work served to prepare the proletarian revolution. This contradiction was a boil which just had to burst, and
burst it has. Here is the question: is it worth trying, as Kautsky and
Co. are doing, to force the pus back into the body for the sake of
“unity” (with the pus), or should the pus be removed as quickly and as
thoroughly as possible, regardless of the pang of pain caused by the
process, to help bring about the complete recovery of the body of the
labour movement?

Those who voted for war credits, entered cabinets and advocated
defence of the fatherland in 1914–15 have patently betrayed socialism.
Only hypocrites will deny it. This betrayal must be explained.

II

It would be absurd to regard the whole question as one of personalities. What has opportunism to do with
it when men like Plekhanov and Guesde , etc.?—asks Kautsky
( Die Neue Zeit , May 28, 1915). What has opportunism to do with it
when Kautsky , etc.?—replies Axelrod on behalf of the opportunists of the Quadruple Alliance ( Die Krise der Sozialdemokratie , Zurich, 1915, p. 21). This is a complete
farce. If the crisis of the whole movement is to be explained, an examination must be made, firstly, of the economic significance of the present policy; secondly, its underlying ideas; and thirdly, its connection with the history of the various trends in the socialist movement .

What is the economic substance of defencism in the war of 1914–15? The bourgeoisie of all the
big powers are waging the war to divide and exploit the
world, and oppress other nations. A few crumbs of the bourgeoisie’s huge profits may come the way of the small
group of labour bureaucrats, labour aristocrats, and petty-bourgeois fellow-travellers. Social-chauvinism and
opportunism have the same class basis, namely, the alliance
of a small section of privileged workers with “their” national bourgeoisie against the working-class
masses; the alliance between the lackeys of the bourgeoisie
and the bourgeoisie against the class the latter is exploiting.

Opportunism and social-chauvinism have the same political content , namely, class collaboration, repudiation of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, repudiation of revolutionary action,
unconditional acceptance of bourgeois legality, confidence in the
bourgeoisie and lack of confidence in the proletariat.
Social-chauvinism is the direct continuation and consummation of British liberal-labour politics, of Millerandism and Bernsteinism . [9]

The struggle between the two main trends in the labour movement—revolutionary
socialism and opportunist socialism—fills the entire period from 1889 to 1914. Even today there are two main trends
on the attitude to war in every country. Let us drop the bourgeois and
opportunist habit of referring to personalities. Let us take the
trends in a number of countries. Let us take ten European
countries: Germany, Britain, Russia, Italy, Holland, Sweden, Bulgaria,
Switzerland, Belgium and France. In the first eight the division into
opportunist and revolutionary trends corresponds to the division into
social-chauvinists and internationalists. In Germany the strongholds
of social-chauvinism are Sozialistische Monatshefte   [10] and Legien and Co.; in

Britain the
Fabians   [11] and the Labour
Party  [12] (the
I.L.P.   [13] has always been allied with them and has supported their organ, and in
this bloc it has always been weaker than the social-chauvinists,
whereas three-sevenths of the
B.S.P.   [14] are internationalists); in Russia this trend is represented by Nasha Zarya   [15] (now Nashe Dyelo ), by the Organising Committee , [16] and by the Duma group led by Chkheidze; in Italy it is
represented by the reformists with Bissolati at their head; in
Holland, by Troelstra’s party; in Sweden, by the majority of the Party
led by Branting; in Bulgaria, by the so-called “Shiroki” [17] socialists;
in Switzerland by Greulich and Co. In all these countries it
is the revolutionary Social-Democrats who have voiced a more or less
vigorous protest against social-chauvinism. France and Belgium are
the two exceptions; there internationalism also exists, but is very
weak.

Social-chauvinism is opportunism in its finished form. It is quite
ripe for an open, frequently vulgar, alliance with the bourgeoisie and
the general staffs. It is this alliance that gives it great power and a
monopoly of the legal press and of deceiving the masses. It is absurd to go on regarding opportunism as an inner-party phenomenon . It is
ridiculous to think of carrying out the Basle resolution together with
David, Legien, Hyndman, Plekhanov and Webb. Unity with the social-chauvinists
means unity with one’s “own” national bourgeoisie, which exploits other
nations; it means splitting the international proletariat. This does not
mean that an immediate break with the opportunists is possible everywhere;
it means only that historically this break is imminent; that it is necessary
and inevitable for the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat; that
history, which has led us from “peaceful” capitalism to imperialist capitalism,
has paved the way for this break. Volentem ducunt fata, nolentem trahunt . [2]

III

This is very well understood by the shrewd representatives of the bourgeoisie. That is why they are so lavish in
their praise of the present socialist parties, headed by the
“defenders of the fatherland”, i.e., the defenders of imperialist
plunder. That is why the social-chauvinist leaders are rewarded by
their governments either with ministerial posts (in France and
Britain), or with a monopoly of unhindered legal existence (in Germany
and Russia). That is why in Germany, where the Social-Democratic Party
was strongest and where its transformation into a national-liberal
counter-revolutionary labour party has been most obvious, things have
got to the stage where the public prosecutor qualifies the struggle
between the “minority” and the “majority” as “incitement to class
hatred”! That is why the greatest concern of the clever opportunists
is to retain the former “unity” of the old parties, which did the
bourgeoisie so many good turns in 1914 and 1915. The views held by
these opportunists in all countries of the world were expounded with
commendable frankness by a German Social-Democrat in an article signed
“Monitor” which appeared in April 1915, in the reactionary magazine Preussische Jahrbücher . [18] Monitor thinks that it would be very dangerous
for the bourgeoisie if the Social-Democrats were to move still further to the right . “It must preserve its character as a labour
party with socialist ideals; for the day it gives this up a new party
will arise and adopt the programme the old party had disavowed, giving
it a still more radical formulation” ( Preussische Jahrbücher ,
1915, No.4, pp. 50–51).

Monitor hit the nail on the head. That is just what the British Liberals and the French Radicals have always
wanted—phrases with a revolutionary ring to deceive the masses
and induce them to place their trust in the Lloyd Georges, the
Sembats, the Renaudels, the Legiens, and the Kautskys, in the men
capable of preaching “defence of the fatherland” in a predatory
war.

But Monitor represents only one variety of opportunism, the
frank, crude, cynical variety. Others act with stealth, subtlety, and
“honesty”. Engels once said that for the working class “honest”
opportunists were the greatest danger. [19] Here is one example.

Kautsky wrote in Die Neue Zeit (November 26, 1915)
as follows: “The opposition against the majority is growing; the masses
are in an opposition mood. . . . After the war [only after the
war?— N. L. ] class antagonisms will become so sharp that radicalism will gain
the upper hand among the masses. . . . After the war [only after the
war?— N. L. ] we shall be menaced with the desertion of the
radical elements from the Party and their influx into the party of anti-parliamentary [??
meaning extra-parliamentary] mass action. . . . Thus, our Party is splitting
up into two extreme camps which have nothing in common.” To preserve unity,
Kautsky tries to persuade the majority in the Reichstag to allow the minority
to make a few radical parliamentary speeches. That means Kautsky wants
to use a few radical parliamentary speeches to reconcile the revolutionary
masses with the opportunists, who have “nothing in common” with revolution,
who have long had the leadership of the trade unions, and now, relying
on their close alliance with the bourgeoisie and the government, have also
captured the leadership of the Party. What essential difference is there
between this and Monitor’s “programme”? There is none, save for the sugary
phrases which prostitute Marxism.

At a meeting of the Reichstag group on March 18, 1915, Wurm ,
a Kautskyite, “warned” against “pulling the strings too taut. There is
growing opposition among the workers’ masses to the majority of the
group, we must keep to the Marxist [?! probably a misprint: this
should read “the Monitor”] Centre” ( Klassenkampf gegen den Krieg! Material zum Fall Liebknecht . Als Manuskript
gedruckt, [3]

p. 67.) Thus we
find that the revolutionary sentiment of the masses was
admitted as a fact on behalf of all the Kautskyites (the so-called Centre) as early as March, 1915 !! But eight
and a half months later, Kautsky again comes forward with the proposal
to “reconcile” the militant masses with the opportunist,
counter-revolutionary party—and he wants to do this with a few
revolutionary-sounding phrases!!

War is often useful in exposing what is rotten and discarding
the conventionalities.

Let us compare the British Fabians with the German Kautskyites. Here
is what a real Marxist, Frederick Engels, wrote about the
former on January 18, 1893: “. . . a band of careerists who have
understanding enough to realise the inevitability of the social
revolution, but who could not possibly entrust this gigantic task to
the raw proletariat alone. . . . Fear of the revolution is their
fundamental principle” ( Letters to Sorge ,
p. 390). [20]

And on November 11, 1893, he wrote: “. . . these haughty bourgeois who
kindly condescend to emancipate the proletariat from above if only it
would have sense enough to realise that such a raw, uneducated mass
cannot liberate itself and can achieve nothing without the kindness of
these clever lawyers, writers and sentimental old women” (ibid.,
p. 401). [21]

In theory Kautsky looks down upon the Fabians with the contempt
of a Pharisee for a poor sinner, for he swears by “Marxism”. But what
actual difference is there between the two? Both signed the Basle
Manifesto, and both treated it as Wilhelm II treated Belgian neutrality.
But Marx all his life castigated those who strove to quench the revolutionary
spirit of the workers.

Kautsky has put forward his new theory of “ultra-imperialism”
in opposition to the revolutionary Marxists. By this he means that the
“rivalries of national finance capitals” are to be superseded by the “joint
exploitation of the world by international finance capital” ( Die Neue Zeit , April 30, 1915). But he adds: “We do not as yet have sufficient
data to decide whether this new phase of capitalism is possible.” On the
grounds of the mere assumption of a “new phase”, which he does not even
dare declare definitely “possible”, the inventor of this “phase” rejects
his own revolutionary declarations as well as the revolutionary tasks and
revolutionary tactics of the proletariat—rejects them now , in
the “phase” of a crisis, which has already broken out , the phase
of war and the unprecedented aggravation of class antagonisms! Is this
not Fabianism at its most abominable?

Axelrod , the leader of the Russian Kautskyites, says, “The centre of gravity of
the problem of internationalising the proletarian movement for
emancipation is the internationalisation of everyday practice”; for
example, “labour protection and insurance legislation must become the
object of the workers’ international organisation and action”
(Axelrod, The Crisis of Social-Democracy , Zurich, 1915,
pp. 39–40). Not only Legien, David and the Webbs, but even

Lloyd George himself, and Naumann, Briand and Milyukov would quite obviously
subscribe to such “internationalism”. As in 1912, Axelrod is quite
prepared to utter the most revolutionary phrases for the very distant
future, if the future International “comes out [against the
governments in the event of war] and raises a revolutionary storm”.
How brave we are! But when it comes to supporting and developing the
incipient revolutionary ferment among the masses now , Axelrod
says that these tactics of revolutionary mass action “would be
justified to some extent if we were on the very eve of the social
revolution, as was the case in Russia, for example, where the student
demonstrations of 1901 heralded the approaching decisive battles
against absolutism”. At the present moment, however, all that is
“utopia”, “Bakuninism”, etc. This is fully in the spirit of Kolb,
David, Südekum and Legien.

What dear old Axelrod forgets is that in 1901 nobody in Russia
knew, or could have known, that the first “decisive battle” would take
place four years later—please note, four years later—and that
it would be “ in decisive”. Nevertheless, we revolutionary Marxists
alone were right at that time: we ridiculed the Krichevskys and Martynovs,
who called for an immediate assault. We merely advised the workers to kick
out the opportunists everywhere and to exert every effort to support, sharpen
and extend the demonstrations and other mass revolutionary action. The
present situation in Europe is absolutely similar. It would be absurd to
call for an “immediate” assault; but it would be a shame to call oneself
a Social-Democrat and not to advise the workers to break with the opportunists
and exert all their efforts to strengthen, deepen, extend and sharpen the
incipient revolutionary movement and demonstrations. Revolution never falls
ready-made from the skies, and when revolutionary ferment starts no one
can say whether and when it will lead to a “real”, “genuine” revolution.
Kautsky and Axelrod are giving the workers old, shop-worn, counter-revolutionary
advice. Kautsky and Axelrod are feeding the masses with hopes that the
future International will surely be revolutionary, but they are
doing this for the sole purpose of protecting, camouflaging and prettifying
the present domination of the counter-revolutionary elements—the

Legiens, Davids, Vanderveldes and Hyndmans. Is it not obvious that “unity”
with Legien and Co. is the best means of preparing the “future” revolutionary
International?

“It would be folly to strive to convert the world war into civil war,” declares David , the leader of the German opportunists ( Die Sozialdemokratie und der Weltkrieg , 1915, p. 172), in reply to the
manifesto of the Central Committee of our Party, November 1, 1914. This
manifesto says, inter alia :

“ However difficult that transformation may seem at any given moment,
socialists will never relinquish systematic, persistent and undeviating
preparatory work in this direction now that war has become a
fact.” [4] ( This passage is also quoted by David, p. 171.) A month before David’s
book appeared our Party published its resolutions defining “systematic
preparation” as follows:

(1) refusal to vote for credits; (2) disruption of the class
truce; (3) formation of illegal organisations; (4) support for solidarity manifestations in the
trenches; (5) support for all revolutionary mass action. [5]

David is almost as brave as Axelrod. In 1912, he did not think that reference
to the Paris Commune in anticipation of the war was “folly”.

Plekhanov, a typical representative of the Entente social-chauvinists,
takes the same view of revolutionary tactics as David. He calls them a
“farcical dream”. But listen to Kolb , an avowed opportunist, who
wrote: “The consequence of the tactics of Liebknecht’s followers would
be that the struggle within the German nation would be brought up to boiling
point” ( Die Sozialdemokratie am Scheidewege , p. 50).

But what is a struggle brought up to boiling point if not civil
war?

If our Central Committee’s tactics, which broadly coincide with
those of the Zimmerwald
Left, [22] were “folly”, “dreams”, “adventurism”, “Bakuninism”—as David, Plekhanov, Axelrod, Kautsky and others
have asserted—they could never lead to a “struggle within a nation”, let
alone to a struggle brought up to boiling point. Nowhere in the world have
anarchist phrases brought about a struggle within a nation. But the facts
indicate that precisely in 1915, as a result of the crisis produced by
the war, revolutionary ferment among the masses is on the increase, and
there is a spread of strikes and political demonstrations in Russia, strikes
in Italy and in Britain, and hunger demonstrations and political demonstrations
in Germany. Are these not the beginnings of revolutionary mass struggles?

The sum and substance of Social-Democracy’s practical programme in this war is to support, develop, extend and sharpen mass revolutionary action, and to set up illegal organisations , for without them there
is no way of telling the truth to the masses of people even in the “free”
countries. The rest is either lies or mere verbiage, whatever its trappings
of opportunist or pacifist theory. [6]

When we are told that these “Russian tactics” (David’s expression)
are not suitable for Europe, we usually reply by pointing to the facts.
On October 30, a delegation of Berlin women comrades called on the Party’s
Presidium in Berlin, and stated that “now that we have a large organising
apparatus it is much easier to distribute illegal pamphlets and leaflets
and to organise ‘banned meetings’ than it was under the Anti-Socialist
Law. . . . Ways and means are not lacking, but the will evidently is” ( Berner Tagwacht , [23] 1915, No. 271).

Had these bad comrades been led astray by the Russian “sectarians”,
etc.? Is it these comrades who represent the real masses , or is
it Legien and Kautsky? Legien, who in his report on January 27, 1915, fumed
against the “anarchistic” idea of forming underground organisations; or
Kautsky, who has become such a counter-revolutionary that on November 26,
four days before the 10,000-strong demonstration in Berlin, he denounced
street demonstrations as “adventurism”!!

We’ve had enough of empty talk, and of prostituted “Marxism”
à la Kautsky! After twenty-five years of the Second
International, after the Basle Manifesto, the workers will no longer believe fine words.
Opportunism is rotten-ripe; it has been transformed into social-chauvinism
and has definitely deserted to the bourgeois camp. It has severed its spiritual
and political ties with Social-Democracy. It will also break off its organisational
ties. The workers are already demanding “illegal” pamphlets and “banned”
meetings, i.e., underground organisations to support the revolutionary
mass movement. Only when “war against war” is conducted on these lines
does it cease to be empty talk and becomes Social-Democratic work. In spite
of all difficulties, setbacks, mistakes, delusions and interruptions, this
work will lead humanity to the victorious proletarian revolution.

---
Notes:
[1]

This does not refer to the personalities of Kautsky’s followers in Germany, but to the
international type of pseudo-Marxist who vacillates between
opportunism and radicalism, but is in reality only a fig-leaf for
opportunism.— Lenin

[2]

The Fates lead the willing, drag the unwilling.— Ed .

[3]
The Class Struggle Against the War. Material on the Liebknecht Case . Printed for private circulation only.— Ed .

[4]
See present edition, Vol, 21 , “The War and
Russian Social-Democracy”.— Ed .

[5]
Ibid., Vol. 21, “The Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Groups
Abroad”.— Ed .

[6]
At the International Women’s Congress held in Berne in March 1915, the
representatives of the Central Committee of our Party urged that it was
absolutely necessary to set up illegal organisations. This was
rejected. The British women laughed at this proposal and praised British
“liberty”. But a few months later British newspapers, like the Labour Leader , [24] reached us with blank spaces, and then came the news of
police raids, confiscation of pamphlets, arrests, and Draconian sentences
imposed on comrades who had spoken in Britain about peace, nothing but
peace!— Lenin

[7]

The article was written by Lenin in German and published in January 1916 in the first
issue of the theoretical organ of the Zimmerwald Left, the magazine
Vorbote (Herald). Earlier, Lenin had written an article in
Russian under the same title; it was first published in the magazine
Proletarskaya Revolutsia (Proletarian Revolution) No. 5