V. I.

Lenin

In their magazine, [2] and more definitely in their report to the
International Socialist
Committee [1] (No. 2 of the Bulletin which appeared in German on
November 27, 1915 [3] ), the adherents of the O.C. attempt to assure the public
that the Chkheidze fraction [4] and the O.C.
have a policy of their own, which is completely internationalist and
differs from the policy of Nashe Dyelo . These assertions are most
flagrant untruths. In the first place, ever since the O.C. was formed
(August, 1912), we have witnessed for many years the most complete
political agreement on all fundamentals, and the closest political
cooperation, between the Chkheidze fraction and the O.C. and the Nasha Zarya group; and only this group has carried on
systematic work among the masses (the liquidators’ daily papers). If there
are any real differences among such close “friends,” they must be proved,
not by words but by weighty facts. Not a single fact of this kind
can be brought forward, Secondly, for a number of years, from 1912
to 1914, the Chkheidze fraction and the O.C. have been pawns in the hands
of Nasha Zarya and have systematically defended its policy (a fact
very well known to the workers of St. Petersburg and other places) and
nor once did they exercise any influence in the direction of
changing the policy of Nasha Zarya, Luch , [5] etc.

In politics concerning the masses –for example, the struggle
against the “strike fever,” the election of leaders of the biggest trade
unions (metal workers and others) and of the most important insurance
organisations (the All-Russian Insurance Council )–Nasha Zarya was the only group that acted independently, while the O.C. and
the Chkheidze fraction merely assisted is serving faithfully and well. Thirdly, not a single fact has occurred in the course of the last eighteen months of
the war to prove that the long established relations of the Chkheidze
fraction and the O.C. with Nasha Zarya have undergone any change.
On the contrary, facts prove the opposite, and some may even be made public
(the majority of facts of this kind should not be made public). It is a
fact that in Russia neither the O.C. nor the Chkheidze fraction has ever,
not even once, opposed the policy of Nashe Dyelo; and yet
a real change in policy would require, not one protest, but a prolonged and
victorious struggle; for Nashe Dyelo is a political quantity
fostered by liberal connections, whereas the O.C. and the Chkheidze
fraction are merely political stage scenery. It is a fact that
Utro and Rabocheye Utro , [6] which wholly and entirely pursue
the policy of Nashe Dyelo, even outwardly demonstrate their
political proximity to the Chkheidze fraction and speak in the name of the
entire August bloc. It is a fact that the Chkheidze fraction is collecting
funds for Rabecheye Utro. It is a fact that the whole of the
Chkheidze fraction is now writing for the Samara social-chauvinist paper
Nash Golos (see No. 17). It is a fact that one of the most
prominent members of the Chkheidze fraction, Chkhenkeli, has published in
the press, in the “defencist” or social-chauvinist magazine Sovremenny = Mir , [7] the magazine published by Messrs. Plekhanov and Alexinsky,
declarations of principles in line with those of Plekhanov, Nashe Dyelo, Kautsky and Axelrod. We quoted Chkhenkeli’s declaration a long
time ago, and yet neither the adherents of the O.C, their magazine, nor
Trotsky in his Nashe = Slove [8] have dared to defend this declaration, although they defend
and advertise the Chkheidze fraction. Fourthly, direct political statements
in the name of the whole of the Chkheidze fraction and of the whole of the
O.C. prove our assertion. Take the most important pronouncements, which
have been reprinted in the O.C.’s magazine: the declaration of Chkheidze
and Co. and the manifesto of the O.C. The point of view of both these
documents is identical, the position they both take is the same.
Since the O.C. is the supreme leading body in the “August bloc” against our
Party, and since the O.C.’s manifesto was printed secretly, which means
that it was able to speak more freely and more openly than Chkheidze is
able to speak in the Duma, let us examine the O.C.’s manifesto.

It is interesting to note, by the way, that this manifesto has already
been the subject of controversy in the German Social-Democratic press, in
the Berne Social Democratic paper. A contributor to that newspaper
described the manifesto as “patriotic”. This roused the indignation of the
Foreign Secretariat of the O.C., which published a refutation declaring
that “we, too, the Foreign Secretariat, are guilty of such patriotism,” and
invited the editors of the paper to be the judges, as it were; for this
purpose it submitted to them a full German translation of the manifesto. We
must add that the editors of this paper are notoriously partial to the O.C.
and give it publicity. What did these editors, who are partial to the O.C.,
say?

“ We have read a manifesto issued by the O.C.,” said the editors (No.
250), “and we must admit that the text may undoubtedly give rise to
misunderstanding and impart to the whole a meaning which was perhaps alien
to the authors of the manifesto.”

Why did not the adherents of the O.C. reprint in their magazine this
opinion of the editors, whom they themselves had invited to act as judges?
Because it is the opinion of the friends of the O.C. who publicly refused
to defend the O.C.! The opinion was written with exquisite diplomatic
courtesy, which makes it particularly evident that the editors desired to
say something “pleasant” to Axelrod and Martov. But the pleasantest thing
they could say is: “Perhaps” ( only “perhaps”!) “the O.C. did not
say what it meant to say; but what it did say may undoubtedly give rise to
misunderstanding!!”

We strongly urge our readers to read the O.C.’s manifesto, which is
reproduced in the Bund’s Bulletin (No. 9). Anyone who reads it
carefully will note the following clear and simple facts: 1) the manifesto
does not contain a single statement which in principle repudiates national
defence in the present war; 2) there is absolutely nothing in the manifesto
which in principle would be inacceptable to the “defencists” or
social chauvinists; 3) there are a number of statements in the manifesto
which are completely identical with “defencism”: “The proletariat cannot
remain indifferent to the impending defeat” (almost literally what is said
in Rabocheye Utro, which says: “not indifferent” towards “saving
the country from defeat”); “the proletariat is vitally interested in the
self preservation of the country”; “a popular revolution” must save the
country “from external defeat,” etc. Instead of using expressions
like these, one who is really hostile to racial chauvinism would have said
instead : The landowners, the tsar and the bourgeoisie are lying;
by national self-preservation they mean preserving the Great-Russian
oppression of Poland and retaining her by force; they are lying, their talk
about saving the “country” from defeat being designed to conceal their
desire to “save” the Great-Power privileges and divert the proletariat from
the tasks of fighting the international bourgeoisie. To admit in
one breath the need for the international solidarity of the proletariat of
the belligerent countries in this predatory imperialist war and the
permissibility of phrases about “saving” one of these countries from
“defeat” is sheer hypocrisy and signifies that one’s declarations are
nothing more than idle talk and false oratory. The implication there is
that the tactics of the proletariat depend on the military situation of a
given country at a given time; if that is the case the French
social-chauvinists would also be right in helping to “save” Austria or
Turkey from “defeat”.

The O.C. Secretariat Abroad writing in the German Social-Democratic
press (the Berne paper) has put forward yet another sophism which is so
shameless, so crude, and so deliberately “set” to catch the Germans in
particular, that the adherents of the O.C. wisely refrained from repeating
it before the Russian public “ If it is patriotism,” they write for the benefit of the Germans in a tone of noble indignation, “to tell the proletariat that
revolution is the only means of saving the country from disaster”, then we,
too, are “patriots”, and “we wish the International had many more ‘patriots’
like this in every Socialist Party; we are sure that Liebknecht, Rosa
Luxemburg and Merrheim would be very glad to have many more ‘patriots’ like
these around them to appeal to the German and French workers with
manifestos of this kind”.

This is deliberate misrepresentation; the five secretaries know
perfectly well that there is not a hint of any bourgeois
revolutionary mood or any bourgeois social movement striving for
revolution for the sake of victory over the enemy either in France
or Germany, both of which are headed for socialist revolution; in Russia,
however, just because she is headed for a bourgeois -democratic
revolution, such a movement does exist, as everybody knows. The
five secretaries are trying to deceive the Germans by an amusing sophism:
the O.C. and Chkheidze and Co. cannot be revolutionary chauvinists
in Russia, they argue, because in Europe a combination of revolutionism
with chauvinism is an absurdity!

Yes, in Europe it is an absurdity. In Russia, however, it is a fact. You
may reproach the
Prizyv [9] crowds for being bad bourgeois revolutionaries, but you cannot deny that in their own way they combine
chauvinism with revolutionism. The July conference of the Narodniks in
=

Russia, [10] Nashe Dyelo and Rabocheye Utro wholly and entirely take the position of the Prizyv-ists in this respect:
they, too, combine chauvinism with revolutionism.

The Chkheidze fraction, in its declaration (pp.141-43 of the O.C.’s
magazine) took up the same position. Chkheidze uses the same
chauvinist phrases about the “danger of defeat,” and if he admits
the imperialist character of the war, stands for “peace without
annexations,” “the general tasks of the entire international proletariat,”
“the struggle for peace,” etc., etc. so does Rabocheye Utro; and
so do the petty-bourgeois Russian Narodniks. In this very magazine of the
O.C., on page 146, we read that the petty-bourgeois Narodniks have admitted
the imperialist character of the war, have adopted the demand for “peace
without annexations” and have admitted that Socialists (the Narodniks as
well as the Rabocheye Utro wish to be known as Socialists) “must
strive for the speedy restoration of the international solidarity of the
Socialist organisations in order to stop the war,” etc. The petty-bourgeois
Narodniks resort to all these phrases to camouflage the slogan of “national
defence,” which they have openly advanced, whereas Chkheidze, the O.C, and
Rabocheye Utro pass off this slogan in the guise of “save the
country from defeat.”

The sum and substance of the whole thing is that Chkheidze and the O.C.
have poured out a string of revolutionary phrases, which commit them to
nothing and which in no way hinder the practical policies of the
Prizyv-ists and the Nashe Dyelo-ists, but they have hushed up these policies. In one way or another they support
participation in the War Industries Committees.

Fewer phrases about revolution, gentlemen, and more clarity,
straightforwardness and honesty in the practical policies of today. You
promise to be revolutionaries, but just now you are helping the
chauvinists, the bourgeoisie and tsarism, either by openly advocating that
the workers be represented in the War Industries Committees, or by tacitly
defending those who participate in them by refraining from fighting
them.

Martov may wriggle as much as he likes. Trotsky may shout against our
factionalism, concealing with these shouts (an old trick of
Turgenev’s...
hero! [11] ) his own, no doubt non-factional, “expectations” that
someone in Chkheidze’s fraction is “in agreement” with him and swears that
he is a Left, an internationalist, etc. But facts remain facts. There is
no shadow of serious political difference not only between the
O.C. and the Chkheidze fraction, there is none even between these bodies
and Rabocheye Utro or Prizyv.

That is why in practice they are together in opposing our
party, in supporting the bourgeois policy of workers participating
in the War Industries Committees, and are together in siding with the
non-party workers and the Narodniks. The verbal reservations and vows of
the “foreign secretaries” that they “disagree” remain idle phrases, which
affect the real policy of the masses as little as the vows of Sudekum,
Legien and David that they are “for peace” and “against war” absolve them
of chauvinism.

---
Notes:
[1]

Die Internationale Sozialistiche Kommission zu Bern. Bulletin –the I.S.C. organ from September 1915 to January
1917. It was published in English, French, and German. There were six
issues in all.
— Lenin

[2]

The Bulletin of the International Socialist Committee at Berne was the organ of the Zimmerwald League and was
published between 1915 and 1917 in English, French, and German.

[3]



[4]

The five Menshevik deputies in the first Duma headed by Chkheidze.

[5]



[6]



[7]



[8]



[9]



[10]



[11]