V. I.

Lenin

(LETTER TO COMRADE SAFAROV)

February 10, 1916

Dear Comrade, Your deportation from France–which, incidentally, was noted with a
protest even in the chauvinist paper, La Bataille , [2] which, however, did not care to tell the truth, namely,
that you were deported for sympathising with the opposition–has once
again recalled to my mind the burning question regarding the situation and
the tasks of the opposition in France.

I saw Bourderon and Merrheim in Zimmerwald. I heard their reports and
read about their work in the newspapers. I cannot in the least doubt their
sincerity and devotion to the cause of the proletariat. Nevertheless, it is
obvious that their tactics are mistaken. Both fear a split more than
anything else. Not a step, not a word that might lead to a split in the
Socialist Party or in the trade unions in France, that might lead to a
split in the Second International, to the creation of the Third
International–such is the slogan of both Bourderon and Merrheim.

Nevertheless, the split in the labour and Socialist movements throughout
the world is a fact. We have two irreconcilable working class tactics and
policies in relation to the war. It is ridiculous to close our eyes to this
fact. Any attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable will doom all our work to
futility. In Germany, even Deputy Otto Ruhle, a comrade of Liebknecht’s ,
has openly admitted that a split in the Party is inevitable, because its
present majority, the official “leaders” of the German Party, have gone
over to the bourgeoisie. The arguments advanced against Ruhle and
against a split by the so-called representatives of the “centre” or “marsh”
(le marais) by Kautsky and the
Vorwärts , [3] are just lies and hypocrisy, however “well-intentioned” this hypocrisy may be. Kautsky and
the Vorwärts cannot and do not even attempt to deny that the
majority of the German Party is in fact carrying out the policy of the
bourgeoisie. Unity with such a majority is detrimental to the
working class. Such unity means subordinating the working class to the
bourgeoisie of “its own” nation; it means a split in the international
working class. Actually Ruhle is right when he says that there are two parties in Germany. One, the official party, is carrying out the
policy of the bourgeoisie. The other, the minority, is publishing illegal
manifestoes, organising demonstrations, etc. We see the same thing all over
the world, and the impotent diplomats, or the “marsh,” such as Kautsky in
Germany, Longuet in France and Martov and Trotsky in Russia, are causing
the greatest harm to the labour movement by their insistence upon a
fictitious unity, thus hindering the now ripe and imminent unification of the opposition in all countries and the
creation of the Third International. In England even a moderate paper like
the Labour Leader publishes Russell Williams’ letters urging the necessity
for a split with the trade union “leaders” and with the Labour
Party, which he says, “sold out” the interests of the working class. A
number of members of the Independent Labour Party have declared in the
press that they sympathise with Russell Williams. In Russia, even Trotsky,
the “conciliator,” is now compelled to admit that a split is inevitable
with the “patriots,” i.e., the party of the “Organisation
Committee,” the O.C., who approve of workers participating in the War
Industries
Committees. [4] It is only false pride that compels Trotsky to continue
to defend “unity” with Chkheidze’s Duma fraction, which is the most
faithful friend, protector and defender of the “patriots” and the O.C.

Even in the United States of America there is actually a complete split.
Some Socialists in that country are for the army, for “preparedness,” for
war. Others, including the most popular leader of the workers, Eugene Debs,
the Socialist Party Presidential candidate, preach civil war against the
war of nations.

Look at what Bourderon and Merrheim are doing! In words they are opposed
to a split. But read the resolution which Bourderon moved at the Congress
of the French Socialist
Party. [5] This resolution demands the withdrawal of the Socialists from the Cabinet!! The resolution bluntly
“ disapprover ” of the C.A.P. and the G.P. (C.A.P=Com. Adm. Perm.,
G.P.= Gr.
Parlem. [1]

)!!!

It is as clear as daylight that the adoption of such a resolution would cause a split in the Socialist
Party and in the trade unions, because Messrs. Renaudel, Sembat,
Jouhaux and Co. would never reconcile themselves to that.

Bourderon and Merrheim share the error, the weakness and the timidity of
the majority of the Zimmerwald Conference. On the one hand, in its
Manifesto this majority indirectly calls for revolutionary struggle, but is afraid to do so openly. On the one
hand, it declares that the capitalists in all countries are lying
when they talk about “defending the fatherland” in the present war. On the
other hand, the majority was afraid to add the obvious truth which, in any
case, every thinking worker will add for himself that not only are
the capitalists lying, but so also are Renaudel, Sembat, Longuet,
Hyndman, Kautsky, Plekhanov and Co.! The majority of the Zimmerwald
Conference wants to become reconciled with Vandervelde, Huysmans, Renaudel
and Co. again. This is harmful to the working class, and the “Zimmerwald
Left” acted correctly when it openly told the workers the truth.

Look at the hypocrisy of the socialiste-chauvins: in France they praise
the German minority in Germany they praise the French!!

What enormous significance the action of the French opposition would
have if it straightforwardly, fearlessly, openly declared to the whole
world: We are in agreement only with the German opposition, only with Ruhle and his associates!! Only with those who fearlessly sever all
connections with avowed and tacit social-chauvinism, socialism chauvine, i.e., with all the “defenders of the fatherland” in the
present war!! We ourselves are not afraid to sever our connections with the French “patriots” who call the defence of
colonies “defence of the fatherland,” and we call upon Socialists and
syndicalists in all countries to do the same !! We extend our
hand to Otto Ruhle and Liebknecht, only to them, and to
those who associate with them; and we denounce the French and the German
majorit\’e and “ le marais .” We proclaim the great international unity of all those Socialists in all countries who in this
war repudiate the fraudulent phrase, “defence of the fatherland,” and who
are a fraud, and who engaged in preaching and preparing for the world
proletarian revolution!

Such an appeal would be of enormous importance. It would scatter the
hypocrites, expose and unmask international fraud, and would give a
tremendous impetus to the rapprochement of those workers the world over who
have really remained loyal to internationalism.

Anarchist phrase-mongering has always been very harmful in France. But
now the anarchist-patriots, the anarchist-chauvins, like Kropotkin ,
Grave, Cornelissen and the other knights of La Bataille Chauviniste will help to cure very many workers of anarchist
phrase-mongering. Down with the social-patriots and socialist-chauvins!
This call will find an echo in the hearts of the workers of France. Not
anarchist phrase-mongering about revolution, but sustained, earnest,
tenacious, persistent, systematic work of creating every where
illegal organisations among the workers, of spreading free, i.e.,
illegal literature, of preparing the movement of the masses against their
governments. This is what the working class of all countries needs!

It is untrue to say that “the French are incapable” of carrying on
systematic illegal work. Untrue! The French quickly learned to conceal
themselves in the trenches; they will quickly learn the new
conditions of illegal work and systematically to prepare for a
revolutionary mass movement. I believe in the French revolutionary
proletariat. It will also stimulate the French opposition.

With best wishes, Yours, Lenin

P.S. I suggest that the French comrades publish a translation of this letter (full translation) as a special = leaflet . [6]

---
Notes:
[1]
The French abbreviations for Permanent Administrative Commission and
parliamentary group.— Ed .

[2]



[3]



[4]



[5]



[6]