# "PEACE TERMS" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION
Source: ru:LS/v17

"PEACE TERMS" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION
235
Objecting to Rosa Luxemburg (see the article cited above), Lenin
reproached her for having "said not a single word on the substance."
"Undoubtedly," he wrote (p. 451), "the Norwegian petty bourgeois,
wishing to have their own king at their own expense and rejecting by
popular vote the draft for the establishment of a republic, displayed
very base philistine qualities. Undoubtedly, 'Napshud,' if he failed to
notice this, displayed equally base and equally philistine qualities."
"But what has all this to do with it??" wrote Lenin (see the cited article)
and adduced arguments on the substance. In his speech, the Duma
faction evidently defended 'Napshud,' arguing that he 'did not desire a
little king.'
7 See Lenin's Works, Vol. XVII, p. 156.
8 This refers to the draft law on national equality, introduced into the
IV State Duma by the RSDLP faction (see Lenin's Works, Vol. XVII, pp. 291-292).
9 The opponent's perplexity was evidently caused by the following thought of Lenin:
"... it is the unconditional duty of a Marxist to champion the most decisive and
most consistent democratism in all parts of the national question," wrote Lenin in
"Critical Remarks on the National Question" (Works, Vol. XVII, p. 145). "This is
a task that is, in the main, negative. The proletariat cannot go further than this in
supporting nationalism, for beyond that begins the 'positive' (affirmative) activity
of the bourgeoisie, striving to strengthen nationalism."
10 The Polish Socialist Party "Proletariat" arose in 1900 from a group of splitters,
headed by Kulczycki, from the PPS, and published the organ "Proletariat." The
party advanced the demand for autonomy of Poland, advocated terror and stood for
close ties with the Russian revolutionary movement. The party did not have great
influence among the masses and in 1907, after a series of failures, disappeared from
the scene.
11 See note 49, p. 251.
18'.84
"PEACE TERMS" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL
QUESTION
FEBRUARY 1916
The document published below, under the title "'Peace Terms' in
Connection with the National Question," represents a plan-outline of a
paper which was read by Lenin in Zurich on February 25 and 26, 1916
(see letter No. 78 in Len. Misc. XI, p. 206, and the memoirs of M. Kharitonov
in "Notes of the Institute of Lenin," Book II, pp. 422-423). In Geneva,
Lenin read a paper on the same theme on March 4, 1916, as is evident
from the file of the Police Department (No. 343, Div. 3, fols. 19-24), which
contains a brief

236
LENIN MISCELLANY
summary of the paper (see also letter No. 82, p. 211 in Len.
Misc. XI).
Whether this paper also took place in Lausanne, as was
planned (see the same letters), could not be established.
The archive of the Institute of Lenin contains three sheets of a
notebook-sized manuscript, the pages of which were numbered by Lenin
in pencil: 1 — blank. On the first page there is an excerpt from an article
by Kautsky in "Neue Zeit" of November 27, 1914 (see below point I of
"Materials for the Paper," p. 255); the second — blank; on the third — an
excerpt "Marx on Lopatin" (point XVIII, p. 290); on the fourth — an
excerpt "Kautsky on Peace" (point VII, pp. 264 and 266); on the fifth —
"Outline of an Article by L. Martov" (p. 240). The plan-outline of the
paper is written on the reverse of the fifth page of this manuscript. The
sheet of manuscript with the record of the outline of Martov's article and
the plan-outline of the paper has folds lengthwise and crosswise.
To the right of the plan-outline is a preliminary draft of the plan (b),
written in pencil (some words traced over in ink), crossed out. To the left
is the same plan in revised form (a), written in ink. In several cases the
numbering of the paragraphs of the plan, written out fair, has been
corrected in ink pencil. Some insertions and
indications are also written in ink pencil, all of which are noted in the
footnotes.
The outline-analysis of Martov's article in Nos. 47 and 48 of "Nashe
Slovo" (c) is written in ink.
II.
"PEACE TERMS" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION.
* FINAL TEXT OF THE PLAN-OUTLINE.
I:
1. "Peace" = a current and popular slogan. (Priests,
bourgeoisie, governments..) 2
2. "Peace" as a mood of unconscious protest.3
3. K[arl] K[autsky]. "Struggle for Peace," "program of
peace"... "All agree."4 Hypocrisy. KK | 1 |3
4. Gorter on peace. Correct! Gorter 4 57-9; 4 4 4.6 ("Friedens-
heuchelei")*
* — "hypocritical striving for peace." Ed.

237
"PEACE TERMS" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION
5. H[eu]m[ann]s. Already program of peace:7
(1) Self-determination of nations.
(2) Democratization of foreign policy.
(3) Strengthening of parliamentary control.
(4) Arbitration courts.
(5) Against annexations.
(6) United States of Europe.
Analysis
/Part II
\ separately
6. "Hypocrisy" (N. R. II. in Berner Tagwacht 10
n o v a l
a r t i c l e).11
7. Brailsford. III. 1914 book 12 and his pamphlet, Union of
D e m o c r a t i c C o n t r o l. 13
8. "Lullaby," lulling the proletariat to sleep.
9. "United States of Europe" (and "trusts" of Trotsky).14
10. Sum total = deception of the working class. (All
chauvinists of socialism for. (Quote
from Kautsky
21.
XI.
1915)).15
| p. 4 beginning | *i
II:
16/# 11. "Self-determination of nations"
a) chauvinists16 (Fabians,17 Austerlitz,18 Parvus,19 Lensch,20
Semkovsky,21, Liebman,22 Yurkevich.23
b) Kautskyans,
| p. 4 | *24
c) lefts = Marxists...............25
17. 12. Martov26 and "Rabocheye Utro" 27..........("Self-defense"
v e r s u s Engels 1866. 29
15. 13. Resolutions of 1913 of our party30 { articles in
Prosveshcheniye and in "Sotsial-Demokrat"}31
11. 14. Petty-bourgeois utopias, "equal nations" and the reality of
imperialism: oppressing and oppressed nations.32
12. 15. "Feel the tooth" Marx versus Lopatin. 33
13. 16. Marx on Ireland. 186934 (cf. Marx 1848 on
Germany).35
11. 17. Russian Cadets in polemics with "Pravda." "Did not
undertake to defend the right of secession from Russia" .... 36
*
Written in pencil. Ed.
Second series of numbering written in pencil. Ed.

238
LENIN MISCELLANY
18. Separation or liberation for union?
19. Zimmerwald declaration of P.S.D.37 "They do not think what
they say." 38
20. Gorter and self-determination versus "colonial
program".......39
21. Misfortune to be born in small states.
22. Colonies and Rosa Luxemburg (ich bin ich...).40*
23. "Cultural-national autonomy."41
Its reactionary nature.
24. Drawing together and fusion of nations.
NB: 25. SS ** i
"Program of peace" = struggle against the deception of
workers by means of phrases about peace. !
26. In the national question preparation of peoples
by propaganda of internationalism, but not doctrinaire, but
living. III
Martov "attacked" Pannekoek + Gorter, bypassing the
main thing = Kautskyism.42
\B: Engels' letter of 1882 on colonies.43
6.
"PEACE TERMS" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION
* PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE PLAN-OUTLINE.
Brailsford (compare K. Kautsky) and Union of Democratic Control.11
"United States of Europe" and Trotsky.
"Self-determination of nations" Heumann + "Self-defense."
Self-determination of nations and P.S.D.15 + Gorter Pannekoek).
Semkovsky and divorce
\( Semkovsky + Liebman + Jurkewitsch.
Parvus + Lensch + Austerlitz + [...]**** etc. etc.
"Polish independents" 46 (Rabocheye Utro).47
Struggle against nationalism. Drawing together and fusion of nations.
Cultural-national autonomy.
* — I am I. Ed.
** — In sum, in the final analysis. Ed.
*** — compare. Ed.
**** One word here is illegible. Ed.

"CONDITIONS OF PEACE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION
239
"Liberation of oppressed [nations]."
Reference to../ oppression.
What is annexation?
Merits of the R.S.D.L.P. and the Dutch.48
Misfortune to be born in a small country.
Sweden and Norway (cf. Rosa Luxemburg).49
Imperialism and the rapprochement of nations in the assessment of the bourgeoisie.
Zimmerwald declaration of the R.S.D.L.P. "They do not say what they think."
Russian Cadets and "freedom of secession from Russia."
Peace as a mood, (cannonade) — as an approach, awakening.
A) "Peace" (as the most common and popular slogan). <{ Governments, bourgeoisie, priests. }
B) K. Kautsky and Huysmans. "Everyone agrees".......
Deception. Hypocrisy.
(1 [5]) "Self-determination of nations" ((4 points of Huysmans)) + United States of Europe. — 2) Democratization of foreign policy. — 3) Strengthening of parliamentary control. — 4) "Arbitration courts". — 5 [1]) Against annexations.)
c) Gorter on peace (cf. Zimmerwald Left Internationale Flugblätter No. 1)50
e) Self-determination. Formulation of the question. Oppressing and oppressed.
Q Rosa Luxemburg! and Gorter.
t) "To feel the tooth."
y) "Workers' Morning" and Martov.
X) "Cultural-national autonomy."
ts) Self-determination as separation and as liberation.
J "Self-defense and its reference to self-determination versus
j Engels 1866: "Russia has plundered"
ji
Rosa Luxemburg and Börne-Fichte ("ich bin ich, was ausser mir ist Lebensmittel").*51

* Illegible. Ed.
** — Rosa Luxemburg and Börne-Fichte ("I am I, and everything outside me is a means of life (nutrient medium)." Ed.

240
LENIN MISCELLANY
millions
nations
great-power
300
<medium and small
300
g
1.100
oppressed
550
400
100
1050 52
v.
• OUTLINE-ANALYSIS OF L. MARTOV'S ARTICLE "WHAT FOLLOWS FROM THE RIGHT TO NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION".
Martov in
Nos. 17 and 18 of "Our Voice"53
in § I — imperialism is the oppression of nations.54
Correct.
Further: "finance capital has stopped the process
NB
of formation of national states"55
Incorrect! Colonies. Asia. The Balkans.
cf. Hilferding.56
§ II. Attacked Pannekoek
and Gorter, on their error in argumentation.57
a) And kept silent about Kautsky, about his not only error, but hypocrisy, falsehood, prostitution of Marxism.
,
(cf. Zimmerwald Left58 and Vorbote)59
!^) "we are not obliged" to always support secession
(Armenian question)60
False! The main thing is evaded: freedom of secession.
= Kautsky. "Zu viel verlangt!"*...61
§ III. From the right to self-determination one cannot deduce participation in defense.62
(error here is the denial of national wars).

"CONDITIONS OF PEACE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION
241
1 This refers, evidently, to the peace encyclicals of Pope Benedict XV (of September 8, 1914, November 1 of the same year, etc.). See the article "Der Weltkrieg und die katholische Kirche" ("The World War and the Catholic Church") by August Erdmann in No. 19 of "Die Neue Zeit" of August 6, 1915. The Lenin Institute archive holds a copy of this article with Lenin's markings.
2 On steps towards concluding peace (in particular, a separate peace between Germany and Russia), both by governments and the bourgeoisie, see M. Erzberger "Germany and the Entente", State Publishing House, 1923, Moscow, pp. 198-200, and also V. I. Semennikov "The Policy of the Romanovs on the Eve of the Revolution. From the Entente to Germany". State Publishing House, 1926, pp. 9-72.
In the article "Questions of Peace" Lenin wrote: "Everyone, down to Kitchener, Joffre, Hindenburg and Nicholas the Bloody, unconditionally stands for peace in general, for each of them wishes to end the war..." (Works, vol. XVIII, p. 226).
3 In the article "Bourgeois Philanthropists and Revolutionary Social Democracy" (vol. XVIII, p. 155) Lenin wrote: "The unenlightened popular masses (petty bourgeois, semi-proletarians, part of the workers, etc.) by the desire for peace in the most indefinite form express the growing protest against the war, the growing vague revolutionary mood."
4 Kautsky, who still generally stood on the ground of revolutionary Marxism in 1909, with the beginning of the imperialist war abandoned his former views and took a vacillating position between internationalists and defencists, covering up social-chauvinism with internationalist phrases.
In a letter to Shlyapnikov of October 17, 1914 (see Len. Misc. II, pp. 194-195) Lenin wrote about Kautsky that he "is now more harmful than anyone. So dangerous and vile is his sophistry, covering up the filth of the opportunists (in 'Neue Zeit') with the smoothest and most polished phrases. The opportunists are an obvious evil. The German 'Centre' with Kautsky at its head is a concealed evil, diplomatically colored, clogging the eyes, mind and conscience of the workers, most dangerous of all" (see "Materials for the Report", point I, p. 253).
5 The mark "KK 1", as well as the marks for § 4 "p. 4 beginning" and "f|: p. 4", made by Lenin in ink pencil, correspond to special sheets (with similar marks), which are mentioned in the introductory remark on p. 236. According to the meaning of the quotations Lenin wrote out on these sheets, it is clear that these notes were intended for the corresponding paragraphs of the report.
6 Herman Gorter — a left-wing Dutch socialist, later communist. An internationalist during the war years. This refers to Gorter's pamphlet "Der Imperialism, der Weltkrieg und die Sozialdemokratie", which was published in Amsterdam in 1914, and in 1915 was translated into German. There is a Russian translation of this booklet, which Lenin called "excellent":
"Imperialism, the World War and Social Democracy", translated by M. Ulyanova, State Publishing House, 1920 (see "Materials for the Report", point II, p. 254).
7 Camille Huysmans — Secretary of the International Socialist Bureau of the Second International. A social-patriot during the war years. He made attempts to restore the Second International, speaking in its defense at the extraordinary
Lenin Miscellany XVII
16

242
LENIN MISCELLANY
congress of the Dutch party in Arnhem on January 9, 1916. Organizer of conferences of socialists from neutral countries.
In his speech at the congress in Arnhem, arguing that the Second International was "not dead", Huysmans said: "Before acting, we had to clarify the state of affairs. Therefore, our plan of work boils down to two tasks: 1) Convening separate meetings of s.d. parties from neutral countries, the Entente powers and the Central Powers to discuss the four points that were to form the basis of all peace resolutions. 2) Inviting individual delegations to The Hague for a detailed discussion of these points. As you know, the socialists of neutral countries met in Copenhagen on January 17 and 18, 1915, the socialists of the Entente countries in London on February 14, the socialists of Germany and Austria in Vienna on April 20, 1915. Of course, the resolutions adopted at all these meetings do not agree on all points. But in Copenhagen, London, and Vienna, the social democrats demanded the right to self-determination for all nations. And in Copenhagen, London, and Vienna, the social democrats demanded the democratization of diplomacy and the strengthening of parliamentary control. And in Copenhagen, London, and Vienna, the social democrats declared themselves in favor of arbitration courts in all kinds of conflicts between states. The general agreement on these four points, which form the basis of the resolutions of the Stuttgart, Copenhagen and Basel congresses, was already a step forward." Quoted from "Our Voice" No. 4 (118) of January 24, 1916 (see the article "On the Peace Program" in Lenin's Works vol. XIX, pp. 49-51), and also "Proposal of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P." vol. XIX, p. 59;. On the London conference see articles: "Concerning the London Conference" and "On the London Conference" (Lenin's Works vol. XVIII, pp. 134-135 and 120-121), on the Vienna and Copenhagen conferences in the pamphlet "Socialism and War" vol. XVIII, p. 213).
8 See the article "Results of the Discussion on Self-Determination" (Lenin's Works vol. XIX, pp. 247-251).
9 Points 5 and 6 are evidently meant.
10 This refers to an article by Henriette Roland-Holst "Huysmans Rede auf dem Parteitag der S. D. A.P." ("Huysmans' Speech at the Congress of the Social Democratic Workers' Party") (see "Materials for the Report", point III, p. 258).
Roland-Holst — a Dutch socialist. During the war years she initially took a position close to that of Trotsky (Lenin, according to Radek, called her "Trotsky in a skirt"). In a letter to A. Kollontai in the summer of 1915 (Len. Misc. II, p. 235) Lenin wrote: "Roland-Holst, like Rakovsky (have you seen his French pamphlet?!), like Trotsky, are, in my opinion, all most harmful 'Kautskyans' in the sense that all, in different forms, stand for unity with the opportunists, all, in different forms, cover up opportunism, all pursue (in different ways) eclecticism instead of revolutionary Marxism." Later R.-H. took a more consistent internationalist position and at the Zimmerwald Conference joined its "left" wing.
11 By "new article" Lenin evidently means the article by Henriette Roland-Holst "Die nationalistische Kampagne Huysmans in Holland" ("The Nationalist Campaign of Huysmans in Holland" in No. 43.

"PEACE TERMS" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION

2 4 3
"Beilage zur Berner Tagwacht" of February 21, 1916). In this article, H. Roland-Holst recounts two speeches by Huysmans following the Arnhem congress: in Rotterdam and Amsterdam. "Thanks to these speeches, every thinking worker who does not allow himself to be used as a tool in the hands of the social-patriotic Social Democratic Workers' Party could be convinced that Huysmans is not only a great patriot, but also a politician of the most ordinary stripe, who no longer has anything in common with socialism." Encouraged by the reception of his speech in Arnhem, Huysmans "used the opportunity afforded him in Rotterdam to 'correct' his Arnhem speech in a patriotic sense." "He flaunted his social-patriotism, which he had managed to conceal in Arnhem." Huysmans sharply polemicized with the representative of the internationalists, Wijnkoop, who spoke in the discussion (see "Materials for the Report," point IV, p. 260), and called "cowards" those who do not defend their "fatherland," do not stand up for "hearth and home," do not protect "wives and children" when they are subjected to an enemy offensive. Huysmans' speech in Amsterdam, which "abounded in incredible stupidities and vulgarities," provoked a counter-demonstration from the left. Some of those present, who interrupted the speaker, were removed from the meeting hall with the help of the police, whom the chairman of the meeting had summoned.
12 This refers to the book by Henry Noel Brailsford, "The War of Steel and Gold."
Brailsford (b. 1873) is one of the major publicists of modern England. He initially belonged to the left wing of the Liberals, then joined the Independent Labour Party. During the World War, he was a participant in the pacifist "Union of Democratic Control." For his book, see Lenin's article "The Collapse of the Second International" (Vol. XVIII, footnote on p. 248).
13 See "Materials for the Report," points V and VI, pp. 262 and 264.
14 During the war, Trotsky occupied a centrist position, rejecting the slogan of civil war, the slogan of defeat, and the necessity of an organizational break with the social-chauvinists.
In the article "The Program of Peace" — IV. "The United States of Europe," published in No. 29 of "Nashe Slovo" of February 4, 1916, Trotsky defended the idea that "the economic and political unification of Europe is a necessary prerequisite for the very possibility of national self-determination... On a pan-European scale, the principle of the 'right' to self-determination can acquire flesh and blood only under the conditions of a European Federal Republic... The economic unification of Europe, promising enormous benefits to the producer and consumer, and to all cultural development in general, becomes a revolutionary task of the European proletariat in the struggle against imperialist protectionism and its instrument—militarism. The United States of Europe—without monarchies, standing armies, and secret diplomacy—is therefore the most important component part of the proletarian program of peace... If the German armies were to achieve... a decisive victory... if German militarism were to succeed... in the forcible semi-unification of Europe... the program of the revolutionary European movement would become the destruction of the forcible, anti-democratic form of the achieved unity while

244
LENIN MISCELLANY
preserving and further developing its foundations—in the form of the complete abolition of customs barriers, the unification of legislation, above all labor legislation, etc. In other words: the slogan of the United States of Europe—without monarchies and standing armies—would, under the indicated conditions, become the unifying and guiding slogan of the European revolution... In the event of the war ending in a 'draw'... If the capitalist states of Europe were to succeed in uniting into an imperialist trust, this would, of course, mean a step forward compared to the present state, for it would above all create a unified pan-European material base for the workers' movement. The proletariat, in this case too, would have to fight not for a return to the 'autonomous' national state, but for the transformation of the imperialist trust of states into a republican European Federation... Let us assume, finally, that even during this war a mass revolutionary movement begins. It is clear that it can develop successfully and achieve victory only as a pan-European movement. Remaining isolated within national boundaries, it is doomed to destruction... The establishment of a stable regime of proletarian dictatorship would prove conceivable only across the whole of Europe, taking the form of a European republican Federation. The state unification of Europe, not achieved either by force of arms or by industrial and diplomatic treaties, would in this case arise as an urgent task of the victorious revolutionary proletariat. The United States of Europe is the slogan of the critical epoch we have entered. Whatever course military operations may take in the future; however diplomacy may sum up the results of the present war; whatever the tempo of the development of the revolutionary movement in the immediate period, the slogan of the United States of Europe will in all cases acquire enormous significance as the political program of the struggle of the European proletariat for power."
For Lenin's attitude towards the slogan of the United States of Europe, see "Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Groups Abroad" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XVIII, p. 121), "On the Slogan of the United States of Europe" (ibid., pp. 230–233), and "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism" (Vol. XIX, p. 305).
15 See "Materials for the Report," point VII, p. 264.
16 On social-chauvinism and the self-determination of nations, see Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, pp. 44–45.
17 The Fabians, the Fabian Society—a liberal organization founded in 1884, which set itself the task of diverting English workers from the ideas of revolutionary socialism through the propaganda of "municipal socialism" and minor reforms, supposedly transforming capitalist society into a socialist one. The Fabians attempted, in Engels' expression, "to permeate liberalism with socialism." The organ of the Fabians is "The New Statesman." The ideologists of the society are Sidney and Beatrice Webb. See the article "Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, pp. 11–12), as well as "English Pacifism and the English Dislike of Theory" (Vol. XVIII, pp. 139–140), in which Lenin wrote: "...the conduct during the war of the Fabians (see, e.g., their weekly 'The New Statesman') and the German Social Democratic Party, including Kautsky, is completely identical. The same, both direct and indirect, de-

"PEACE TERMS" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION
245
fense of social-chauvinism; the same combination of such defense with a readiness to utter any kind of nice, humane, and almost-left phrases about peace, disarmament, etc., etc.—
'The Fabians are more sincere and honest than Kautsky and Co., for they did not promise to stand for revolution, but politically they are one and the same.'"
18 Friedrich Austerlitz (b. 1862)—one of the leaders of the Austrian Social Democratic Party, editor of the central organ "Arbeiter Zeitung"; during the war he took a markedly chauvinist position.
See "Materials for the Report," point IX, p. 268.
19 Parvus (A. L. Gelfand) (1869–1924)—during the war an extreme social-chauvinist, editor and publisher of the social-imperialist journal "Die Glocke." Simultaneously engaged in large-scale speculation, undertaking supplies for the army. After the October Revolution, Parvus asked through Radek for permission to come to Soviet Russia, but Lenin rejected this request (see K. Radek, "Portraits and Pamphlets," State Publishing House, 1927, p. 131) (see "Materials for the Report," point X, p. 270).
20 Paul Lensch, who before the war was one of the editors of the Social Democratic newspaper "Leipziger Volkszeitung," where F. Mehring, R. Luxemburg, and other representatives of the left wing collaborated, turned during the imperialist war into a rabid German chauvinist.
In No. 8 (of December 15, 1915) of Parvus's chauvinist journal "Die Glocke," Lensch's article "Die Selbstbestimmungsflause" ("The Empty Phrase about Self-Determination") appeared, in which he qualifies the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination as a "petty-bourgeois invention." In his opinion, "the chatter about self-determination has nothing in common with Social Democracy; there is nothing about self-determination at all in the classical literature of our party or in the works of its founders. This slogan is a remnant of the petty-bourgeois democracy of 1848 and subsequent years and stands in the sharpest contradiction to the international interests of the working class." See "Theses 'The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination'" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, p. 43, footnote), the pamphlet "Socialism and War" (Works, Vol. XVIII, pp. 200–201), and the article "Results of the Discussion on Self-Determination" (Works, Vol. XIX, pp. 243–244, 252–253).
21 Semkovsky (literary pseudonym of S. Yu. Bronstein), a Menshevik, polemicized with Lenin on the national question and, in particular, on the question of the right of nations to self-determination, against which he spoke (see, among other things, his article "Simplified Marxism in the National Question," Nos. 69 and 71 of "Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta" of October 29 and 31, 1913). As can be seen from a letter to V. A. Karpinsky of February 24, 1916 (see Len. Misc. XI, p. 212), Lenin used in his report "Peace Terms in Connection with the National Question" a note to Semkovsky's article "The Disintegration of Russia?" ("Free Tribune"), published in No. 45 of "Nashe Slovo" of March 21, 1915 (Lenin erroneously indicates that the article was published in the Paris "Golos" (predecessor of "Nashe Slovo")) (see the above-mentioned letter to Karpinsky).
In this article Semkovsky writes: "...Even before the war, the writer of these lines had occasion to point out in print (in 'Novaya Rabochaya Gazeta') that

246
LENIN MISCELLANY
interpretation of a well-known point of our program in the sense of a specific
emphasis and promotion in agitation of the "right to secession"
can only play into the hands of the most blatant, reactionary-utopian
nationalism.*
...At the present time we must reject these tendencies all the more decisively,
which have emerged more distinctly than before in our own ranks
(for example, in the articles of Comrade Zalevsky, in the articles and reports of Comrade Lenin)."
See the article
"On a Caricature of Marxism and on 'Imperialist Economism'" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, p. 233), as well as "On the National Program of the R.S.D.L.P." Vol. XVII, pp. 118–120).
22 Libman (pseudonym of P. L. Gersh) (b. 1882) — a prominent Bundist.
Lenin polemicized against his opportunist views on the national question, in particular, against the article "A New Edition of an Old Mistake" in No. 28 of "Zeit" of September 30, 1913, in which Libman wrote: "When the Russian S.D. 15 years ago put forward in its program the point on the right of every nationality to 'self-determination,' everyone asked themselves: what does this fashionable expression actually mean? There was no answer to this. This word remained shrouded in fog. In reality, at that time it was difficult to dispel this fog. The time had not yet come to concretize this point — they said at that time — let it remain in the fog for now, and life itself will show what content to put into this point." See "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination," Lenin's Works Vol. XVII, p. 469, as well as the article "Critical Remarks on the National Question," ibid., pp. 129–159.
23 L. Yurkevich (pseudonym of L. Rybalka) — member of the Central Committee of the Ukrainian S.D.L.P. He actively participated in the legally published Ukrainian S.D. journal "Dzvin" ("The Bell") in Kiev in 1913–1914 (see Lenin's Works Vol. XVII, note 00, p. 716), on whose pages he preached petty-bourgeois nationalism and separatism in the Ukrainian workers' movement, against which Lenin sharply polemicized.
See "Materials for the Report," point XI, p. 270, as well as the article "Critical Remarks on the National Question" (Vol. XVII, pp. 129–159).
24 By "Kautskyites" Lenin meant, in addition to Kautsky
(see "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination," Vol. XVIII, p. 326), also Trotsky, Martov, and others (see "On the Program of Peace," Vol. XIX, p. 53).
See also "Materials for the Report," point VII, p. 264.
25 By "Left Marxists" Lenin means: the Dutch Left (Gorter and Pannekoek), the Polish (Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Radek)
and others.
Supporters of the "right to secession" defended themselves by reference to the fact that they were defending only an abstract "right," but not agitating concretely for secession: recognition of the right to divorce does not mean agitation for divorce. But when the "right to divorce" is justified by the fact that "all husbands, madam, are better than your husband," then there is no possibility of separating the defense of the "right"
from direct agitation for divorce... see the Announcement and Resolutions of the Summer
1913 Conference of the C.C., etc.

"CONDITIONS OF PEACE IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION"
247
Anton Pannekoek (pseudonym K. Horner) — during the war, a supporter
of the Zimmerwald Left. In the article "Sozialistische Friedensbedingungen"
("Socialist Conditions of Peace"), published in "Berner Tagwacht"
Nos. 73 and 75 of March 29 and 31, 1915, Pannekoek wrote: "...Individual people
and entire peoples, both townspeople and rural inhabitants, are merely instruments and objects in the struggle of imperialism for its goals. But thereby it is clear that those who see nothing else in these questions except questions of independence, and consequently put forward the demand for national self-determination, look at the matter — insofar as they are not an exponent of their own national imperialism — from too petty-bourgeois a point of view. The petty bourgeois, who does not see the entire enormous mechanism, complains: leave me alone so that I can arrange my own affairs together with my compatriots. He sees only European questions. But the practice of real politics is determined by questions of world domination, the enslavement of other parts of the world under the power of imperialism."
Rosa Luxemburg (Junius) — from the beginning of the war took an internationalist position. Being an opponent of § 9 of the RSDLP program on the national question, Rosa Luxemburg in the article "The National Question and Autonomy" most thoroughly formulated her objections against the slogan of the "right of nations to self-determination," which were subjected to criticism by Lenin (see "Materials for the Report," point XII, p. 275, as well as "Critical Remarks on the National Question," "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination").
K. B. Radek (Parabellum) — during the war belonged to the Zimmerwald Left. Author of a number of articles on the question of self-determination of nations, in which he opposed Lenin. See "Materials for the Report," point XIV (a and b, pp. 282 and 284).
26
Yu. O. Martov — at the beginning of the war, of all the Mensheviks, took the position closest to internationalism (see "The Position and Tasks of the Socialist International," Lenin's Works Vol. XVIII, p. 68). Martov did not, however, long maintain this position. Covering up social-chauvinists with revolutionary phraseology is characteristic of Martov's later articles. See "Materials for the Report," point XV, p. 284, as well as "Report on the Topic 'The Proletariat and War'" (Lenin's Works Vol. XVIII, pp. 51–52).
27 "Rabocheye Utro" ("Workers' Morning") (previously "Utro" ("Morning")) — a Menshevik legal organ, published in Petrograd in the autumn of 1915. "Rabocheye Utro" published articles by representatives of both trends in Menshevism, but the defensists predominated. See "Materials for the Report," point XVI, p. 287.
28 Reference is to the collection of extreme social-chauvinists "Samozashchita" ("Self-Defense") No. 1, 1916, Petrograd. This collection contained articles by V. I. Zasulich, A. I. Potresov, P. Maslov, Yevg. Mayevsky, V. Levitsky, and others. See "Materials for the Report," point XVII, p. 289.
29 This refers to F. Engels' article on the Polish question, published by D. Ryazanov in Grünberg's "Archive for the History of Socialism" in 1915. See Lenin's Works Vol. XIX, footnote, p. 258.
30 Lenin has in mind the resolution on the national question of the "summer" or "August" (so called for conspiratorial reasons)

248
LENIN MISCELLANY
conference of the CC with party workers, which took place in Poronin (Galicia) from October 5 to 14, 1913. See this resolution in Lenin's Works
Vol. XVII, pp. 11–13.
31 In "Prosveshcheniye" ("Enlightenment") were published Lenin's articles: "Critical Remarks on the National Question" (Vol. XVII, pp. 129–159), "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Vol. XVII, pp. 425–474), and others. In "Sotsial-Demokrat" ("Social Democrat"): "On the National Program of the R.S.D.L.P." (Vol. XVII, pp. 116–121)
and others.
32 See the Theses "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination," § 6 (Works Vol. XIX, p. 43), the articles "On a Caricature of Marxism," § 2 (ibid., pp. 201–205), "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Vol. XVIII, pp. 324–325).
33 In his article "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Vol. XVII, p. 459) Lenin wrote: "Marx had the habit of 'feeling the tooth,' as he put it, of his socialist acquaintances, testing their consciousness and conviction. Having met Lopatin, Marx writes to Engels on July 15, 1870, a highly flattering review of the young Russian socialist... A socialist belonging to the oppressor nation, Marx questions him about his attitude towards the oppressed nation and immediately reveals a shortcoming common to socialists of the ruling nations (English and Russian): lack of understanding of their socialist duties towards oppressed nations, chewing over prejudices inherited from the 'great-power' bourgeoisie."
See "Materials for the Report," point XVIII, p. 290.
34
In a letter to Kugelmann on November 29, 1869, Marx wrote: "...I am more and more convinced — and now the only thing is to inculcate this conviction in the minds of the English working class — that it will never be able to take a decisive step forward in England itself until it finally breaks with the policy of the ruling classes in the Irish question. The English working class must not only assist the Irish, but must take the initiative in dissolving the union founded in 1801 and replacing it with a free union on a federal basis. The English proletariat must adhere to such a policy not out of sympathy for the Irish, but because it is necessary from the point of view of its own interests. If this is not done, the English people will remain on leading strings of the ruling classes, because they will have to act together with them against Ireland. Every popular movement in England itself is paralyzed by discord with the Irish, who constitute a very significant part of the working class even in England itself. The first condition for the liberation of the proletariat in England is the overthrow of the English landed oligarchy — but as long as this oligarchy retains a strong position in Ireland, its power cannot be crushed in England itself" (Marx's Letters to Kugelmann. Marxist Library edited by D. B. Ryazanov, translation by M. I. Ulyanova, State Publishing House, 1928, pp. 68–69). See also Lenin's article "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Works Vol. XVII, pp. 461–464).
35
This refers to Marx's article "National Revolutions" from the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" (see K. Marx and F. Engels in the Era of the German Revolution

"CONDITIONS OF PEACE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION

249
tion (1818–1850). Essays and articles collected by F. Mehring. Edited and with a preface by D. Ryazanov. State Publishing House. Moscow, 1926). In this article Marx writes: "A nation which has allowed itself throughout its history to be turned into an instrument for the oppression of all other nations—such a nation must first prove in practice its real revolutionary character... Revolutionary Germany should have, especially in relation to neighboring peoples, renounced all its past. Together with its own freedom, it should have proclaimed the freedom of those peoples it had hitherto oppressed. And what did revolutionary Germany do?" (p. 111). "The blame for... the atrocities perpetrated with Germany's help in other countries falls not only on the government, but to a large extent on the German people themselves. Were it not for their blindness, their servile spirit, their readiness and willingness to play the role of mercenaries, 'good-natured' executioners and obedient tools of the lords by the 'grace of God,' the German name would not be so hated, cursed, and despised abroad, and the peoples enslaved by Germany would long ago have come to a normal state of free development. Now that the Germans have shaken off their own yoke, their entire policy towards foreign countries must also be changed, otherwise we will strangle our own young, still barely sensed, freedom in the very chains with which we bind foreign peoples. Germany will become free to the same extent that it grants freedom to neighboring peoples" (p. 116).

See also the theses "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" §5, "Marxism and Proudhonism in the National Question" in Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, p. 42.

36 See "Rech'" — articles by M. Mogilyansky in Nos. 174 and 331 of July 29 (August 11) and December 3 (16), 1913: "The All-Ukrainian Congress of Students" and "Self-Determination and Separatism," as well as a note in the "Press" section in No. 340 of December 12 (25), 1913. This note stated: "Indeed, the Kadets never undertook to defend the right of 'secession of nations from the Russian state.'"

In "Proletarskaya Pravda," see Lenin's articles: "The Kadets and the 'Right of Nations to Self-Determination'" (No. 4 of December 11 (24), 1913) and "National-Liberalism and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (No. 12 of December 20, 1913 (January 2, 1914)) (Works, Vol. XVII, pp. 108–109 and 168–169); in No. 3 of "Rabochaya Pravda" (of July 16 (29), 1913) — "The Kadets on the Ukrainian Question" (Works, Vol. XVI, pp. 520–521). For more details on this polemic, see Lenin's article "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Vol. XVII, pp. 442–450).

37 See "Materials for the Report," point XIX, p. 290, as well as the theses "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, pp. 46–47).

38 In the article "Results of the Discussion on Self-Determination" (Works, Vol. XIX, p. 263), Lenin writes: "...When the Dutch and Polish Social Democrats argue against self-determination, using general arguments, i.e., those concerning imperialism in general, socialism in general, democracy in general, national oppression in general, one can truly say that error rides on error and drives error on. But one need only discard this clearly

250
LENIN MISCELLANY
erroneous shell of general arguments and look at the essence of the matter from the point of view of the peculiarity of the special conditions of Holland and Poland, and their peculiar position becomes understandable and entirely legitimate. It can be said, without fear of falling into paradox, that when the Dutch and Polish Marxists foam at the mouth against self-determination, they are not entirely saying what they want to say, or in other words: they want to say not quite what they are saying."

39 See "Materials for the Report," point II, p. 298.

40 This refers to the following quotation from Rosa Luxemburg's article "The National Question and Autonomy": "One can, indeed, greatly simplify this problem by generally separating the question of colonial seizures from the national question. And this point of view is often applied consciously or unconsciously by the defenders of the 'right of nations.' It corresponds to the position in colonial policy taken, for example, by Edgar David in the German Social Democracy or Van Kol in the Dutch, which consists in the fact that colonial seizures are a manifestation of the civilizing mission of European peoples and that they will be necessary even under a socialist system. Such a position can be briefly characterized as the 'European' application of a well-known paraphrase by Ludwig Börne of Fichte's philosophical principle: 'Ich bin ich — was ausser mir ist Lebensmittel' ('I am I, and everything outside me is a means of life (nutritive medium)'). If only European nations are recognized as nations in the strict sense of the word, and all colonial peoples are considered a 'nutritive medium,' then one can speak of 'national states' in Europe, including France, Denmark, or Italy; then one can reduce the national question to intra-European complications. But in that case, the 'right of nations to self-determination' becomes the banner only of the ruling races and clearly reveals its true origin from the ideology of bourgeois liberalism with its 'European cretinism.' In the understanding of socialists, this right must inevitably have a world character. The mere realization of this is enough to show that the hope for the realization of this 'right' within the framework of the existing system is a utopia. This utopia is in direct contradiction to the tendencies of capitalist development, on which Social Democracy has based its existence, for a universal return to the redistribution of all existing states into national units and their redrawing according to the model of large and small national states is an utterly hopeless enterprise, and from a historical point of view—reactionary" ("Przegląd Socjaldemokratyczny"—"Social Democratic Review" for 1908, pp. 502–503).

41 See "Critical Remarks on the National Question" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XVII, pp. 144–149), as well as "Theses on the National Question" §7 (Lenin's Works, Vol. XVI, pp. 510–511).

42 Lenin refers to Martov's article "What Follows from the 'Right of Nations to Self-Determination'?" (Nos. 17 and 18 of "Nash Golos" (Samara) of January 17 (30) and 24 (February 6), 1916). See "On the Program of Peace" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, p. 53).

"CONDITIONS OF PEACE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION
251

43 See "Results of the Discussion on Self-Determination" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, p. 266).

44 See "English Pacifism and the English Dislike of Theory" (Lenin's Works, Vol. XVIII, p. 139).

45 The Polish Social Democratic Party (see "Materials for the Report," point XII, p. 275).

46 This refers to the "right wing" of the PPS (Polish Socialist Party) or "Frak," the "niepodległościowcy" (independence advocates), who stood for the independence of Poland.

47 This refers to the article "Polish Emigration" by B. D-ki in No. 11 of "Rabocheye Utro" of October 15, 1916. See "Materials for the Report," point XXI, p. 304, as well as Lenin's article "On Peace Without Annexations and on the Independence of Poland," Vol. XIX, pp. 30–32.

48 Lenin speaks of the "merits of the PSD and the Dutch," since both fought against social-chauvinism.

49 This refers to the separation of Norway from Sweden, the decision on which was adopted by the Storting (parliament) on June 7, 1905, and confirmed by a referendum. On how Rosa Luxemburg regarded this fact, see Lenin's article "On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Works, Vol. XVII, pp. 450–455).

50 "Internationale Flugblätter" ("International Leaflets," No. 1), publication of the Zimmerwald Left, which contained the draft resolution "The World War and the Tasks of Social Democracy," submitted to the Zimmerwald Conference by the "Left." For more details, see Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, note 198, p. 486.

51 See above, note 40.

52 The figures are apparently taken from the "Hotkalender" for 1914.

53 Lenin refers to L. Martov's article "What Follows from the 'Right to National Self-Determination'" (Nos. 17 and 18 of "Nash Golos").

54 This refers to the following quotation from the above-mentioned article by Martov: "...In the international sphere, the dominance of capitalist relations leads to the fact that the outgrowing of state frameworks by the economy occurs through fierce struggle between states, through the absorption of weak nations by strong ones, through the exploitation and political enslavement of the former by the latter, through the transformation of the most powerful national states into world empires."

55 This refers to the following quotation from the same article: "...The onset of the imperialist stage of development of world capitalism—economically characterized by the complete dominance of finance capital over industrial and commercial capital—stopped, without allowing it to be completed, the process of the formation of national states, based on the triumph of the right to national self-determination."

56 This evidently refers to the following passage from Hilferding: "As for the newly opened countries—there, imported capital intensifies antagonisms and causes a constantly growing resistance of peoples awakening to national self-consciousness against the newcomers; this resistance can easily grow into dangerous measures directed against foreign capital. It revolutionizes to the core"

252
LENIN MISCELLANY
old social relations, the thousand-year agrarian isolation of "non-historical nations" is being destroyed, they are being drawn into the capitalist orbit. Capitalism itself little by little gives the conquered the means and methods for liberation. And they put forward the goal that once seemed highest to the European nations: the creation of a unified national state, as an instrument of economic and cultural freedom. This movement towards independence threatens European capital in its most valuable areas of exploitation, which promise the most brilliant prospects, and European capital can maintain its domination only by constantly increasing its military forces" ("Finance Capital, The Latest Phase in the Development of Capitalism." Authorized translation from German with an introductory article by I. I. Stepanov. Published by "V. I. Znamensky and Co." Moscow, 1912, p. 487).
57
"Does it not follow from this that the working class is inscribing in its minimum program the demand for the right of nations to self-determination in vain?" writes Martov. "This opinion has often been expressed before by some Marxists, and is expressed now. Only recently, a whole group of Dutch Marxists, led by Pannekoek and Gorter, refused even to sign the well-known Zimmerwald Declaration on the grounds that this latter puts forward, among other slogans, the slogan of free self-determination."
58 This apparently refers to the passage in the draft resolution submitted by the left wing of the international socialist conference in Zimmerwald: "The World War and the Tasks of Social Democracy," which discusses the attitude towards social-patriotism and social-imperialism (see Lenin's Works, vol. XVIII, p. 416).
59 This apparently refers to No. 1 of "Vorbote," January 1916, which contained Lenin's article "Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International" (see Works, vol. XIX, pp. 1-15).
60 This refers to the following quotation from the same article by Martov: "The forms in which one or another national party would like to realize the right of its people to self-determination may run counter to the course of social development and the interests of the proletariat. Take, for example, the Armenian people. Recognition of their right to decide their own political fate does not yet oblige us to support the slogan of any nation that would like to realize its right to self-determination by forming a separate state with its own army, its own customs barrier, etc. If we find that such a new state would have no economic basis for its development, we, from the point of view of the interests of the working class, while defending the right to free self-determination, will strive for the Armenian nation to realize this self-determination in another form."
61 See "Materials for the Report," point VIII, p. 266.
62 This refers to the following quotation from Martov's article: "...The principle of national self-determination is constantly used to justify the political participation of the working class in the defense of the country. If the working class, they say (the socialists of Germany and France) demands in its program the freedom of national self-determination, then it logically follows

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
253
that when this freedom is endangered, it is obliged to defend it, consequently, it is obliged to participate in the defense of its nation... Indeed, does participation in defense follow from the right to self-determination? A Marxist must give a negative answer to this question. Participation in defense cannot be deduced from the right to self-determination. Whoever wants to justify participation in defense must find another principled justification."
* MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATIONAL QUESTION.
I
18580
K[arl] K[autsky] N[eue] Z[eit] 27/XI 1914, p. 250/
("One cannot by any means think that the policy of the International turned out to be a soap bubble that burst upon collision with the harsh realities of war. On the contrary, this policy is deeply rooted in the living conditions of the proletariat. It must inevitably revive to new life and new effective force (Wirksamkeit), as soon as the possibility for action in favor of peace (Friedensaktion) appears. Then the time will come again for the International as an instrument of peace, and then it will be seen whether the war has undermined its strength or not. Then we will see whether the 'national paroxysm' has destroyed international thinking and feeling, or whether the latter, on the contrary, has victoriously asserted its strength and finds expression in unanimous agreement with the international peace program.
'If this succeeds, then something great will have been achieved (ist grosses geschehen). And we have every reason to expect that it will succeed.'...
... 'Whatever the immediate practical success of the peace program of the International may be when the peace conditions are established, its lasting, propagandistic success must inevitably be powerful in any case.'..........
The extract from K. Kautsky's article "Die Internationalität und der Krieg" ("Internationality and the War") was written by Lenin in Russian translation on a separate sheet of paper, numbered: "1" (see introductory note on p. 236). Ed.

LENIN MISCELLANY
II.
DER IMPERIALISMUS, DER WELTKRIEG UND DIE SOZIALDEMOKRATIE
by Hermann Gorter/
137. Karl K[autsky] 1908 and 1914 ("Marxist").
X. The Future.
...Kautsky has already issued the slogan of disarmament, of ceasing imperialism and the arms race.2)
It will be the slogan under which all will find each other again [137-138]. From Kautsky down to the last reformist, it will be the slogan of the
future....
...Compare with this what the earlier Kautsky, the Kautsky of 1908, wrote in "Der Weg zur Macht" about war, imperialism and armaments:
"The equilibrium of states, achieved with such difficulty, is now beginning to totter due to unexpected changes over which they have no influence. Problems whose peaceful solution seemed impossible, and which were therefore postponed for a long time, such as the relationship with the Balkan states, suddenly arise and demand their solution. Unrest, mistrust, uncertainty everywhere. The nervousness already heightened by the arms race is driven to its peak.
The world war is brought to the most threatening proximity.
But the experience of the last decade proves that war means revolution, which has major political shifts of power as its consequence. As late as 1891, Engels still thought it would be a great misfortune for us if a war broke out that would bring revolution in its wake and put us at the helm, because this would happen prematurely. For a while, the proletariat could, by utilizing the given political ground, advance more securely than by risking a revolution brought about by a war.
2) ...On page 250 of "Neue Zeit" of November 27, 1914, after the article had again expressly stated that Social Democrats should participate in war when invasion threatens, the following is named as the permanent goal of the International:
"Struggle for peace, class struggle in peace."
*
Below are printed excerpts from G. Gorter's book with Lenin's underlinings. Ed.
This note was made by Lenin on the cover of Gorter's book. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
255
II.
IMPERIALISM, THE WORLD WAR AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
by Hermann Gorter.
137. K[arl] K[autsky] 1908 and 1914 ("Marxist").
X. The Future.
...Kautsky has already given the slogan of disarmament, of ceasing imperialist policy and armament. 2)
This slogan unites everyone again. It will become the slogan of the future, from Kautsky down to the last reformist....
...Compare with this what the earlier Kautsky, the Kautsky of 1908, wrote in "The Road to Power" about war, imperialism and armaments:
"The equilibrium between states, achieved with such difficulty, is now again coming into a state of fluctuation due to unexpected changes over which these states have no influence. Problems, the peaceful resolution of which seemed impossible and which were postponed for a long time, such as the relationship to the Balkan states, arise again and demand resolution. Everywhere unrest, mistrust, uncertainty. The nervousness already heightened due to armament reaches its apogee.
'The threat of world war is becoming close.
'But the experience of the last decades proves that war causes revolution, has as a consequence major political shifts of forces. As late as 1891, Engels considered that it would be a great misfortune for us if a war broke out which would entail revolution and place us at the helm of government, for this would be premature. For a certain period, the proletariat could, by utilizing the given political conjuncture, achieve results more surely than by risking a revolution caused by war.
2) ...On p. 250 of "Neue Zeit" of November 25, 1914, after the article had once again definitely stated that Social Democrats should take part in war when threatened with invasion, the following goal facing the International is pointed out:
'Struggle for peace, class struggle during peace.'

256
LENIN MISCELLANY
«Seitdem hat die Situation sich sehr geandert. Das Proletariat ist heute 
so erstarkt, dass es einem Kriege mit mehr Rulie entgegen sehen kann».
«In dieser allgemeinen Unsichcrheit sind aber die niichsten Aufgaben 
des Proletariats klar gegeben. Wir haben sie bereits entwickelt. Es kommt 
i nicht mehr vorwarts ohne Aenderung der staatlichen Grundlagen auf denen es 
seinen Kampf fiihrt. Die Demokratie im Reich, aber auch in den Einzel- 
staaten, namentlich in Preussen und Sachsen, auf energischste an zu stre- 
ben — das ist seine nachste Aufgabc in Deutschland; seine hochste interna- 
tionale Aufgabe der Kampf gegen Weltpolitik und Militarismus.
Ebenso klar wie diese Aufgaben, liegen auch die Mittei zu tage, die 
uns zu ihrer Losung zu Gebote stehen. Zu den bislier schon angewandten 
I ist noch der Massenstreik getreten... Wenn er seit den glorreichen Tagen 
von 1905 etwas in den Ilintergrund getreten ist, so beweist das nur... dass 
es thoricht ware ihn unter alien Umstanden anwenden zu wolleno.
...Konnte das Kapital die Kolouieu, die Einflusspharen, die Staaten wie 
China unter sich aufteilen ohne Krieg, dann brauchte es nichts zu verausgabeu 
fiir Militar und Marino, sondern konnte alLes anwenden fiir die Ausbeutunu 
und Auswucherung jener Lander. Dann erst wurde das Kapital ins Riesenhafte 
wachsen.
Deshalb ist auch der Reformist fiir den Frieden.
Der Zwcck, der nichtzu erreichende Zweck der Friedensbewegung ist
also, hinter alien ihren schonen Phrasen: die Knechtung der ArbeUer- 
klasse, die Unterwerfung und Ausbeutung der schwachen Yolker.
In sofern sie nicht Heuchelei oder Selbstbetrug ist, ist sie reactioniir.
... Indem [139] sie den Kampf, das einzige Entwirklungsmittel bis jetzt 
will aufhoren lasseu, isl sie reactionar.
139. The peace movement and imperialism are two sides of the same thing. *
Aber sowohl als Heuchelei und Selbstbetrug wie als Mittel zur grosseren 
Knechtung und Ausbeutuni: ist sie die Kehrseite des Impcrialismus.
Friedensbewegung und Imperialismus gehoren zusammen. Sic sind zwei 
Seiten desselben Din^es.
Toricht, vernunftlos das Proletariat, das jetzt seine ganze Taktik richten 
sollte auf diesen Zukunftslraum, auf rden Frieden unter dem Kapitalismus!
I Betriiger diejenigen die, ob Bourgeois, ob Sozialist, bewusst oder unbewusst,
das Proletariat fliO] damit einschlafern wollen! Es wiirde sich wiederum
* This note was made by Lenin on the cover of Gorter's book. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS FOR PEACE"
257
"Since then the situation has changed greatly. The proletariat is now so 
strong that it can face the approaching war with greater calm.
"But amidst this general uncertainty, the immediate tasks of the proletariat 
emerge clearly enough. We have already pointed them out. Further progress 
will not be made without changes in the very foundations of the state on which 
the struggle is waged. To strive most energetically for a democratic system 
throughout the empire, as well as in the individual states, — that is the 
immediate task of the proletariat in Germany; its highest international task 
is the struggle against world politics and militarism.
"Just as obvious as these tasks are the means at our disposal for their 
resolution. Added to the means applied so far is the general strike. If after 
the glorious days of 1905 it receded into the background, this only proves... 
that it would be foolish to strive to apply it under all circumstances."
...If capital could divide among itself the colonies, spheres of influence, 
states such as China, without war, then it would not need to spend on army 
and navy, and could use everything for the exploitation and squeezing of 
these lands. Only then could capital reach gigantic proportions.
That is why the reformists also stand for peace.
Thus the real goal of the peace movement is the enslavement of the 
working class, the subjugation and exploitation of weak peoples. That is what 
is hidden behind these beautiful phrases.
Insofar as this national movement is not hypocrisy and self-deception, it 
is reactionary.
...Insofar as it wants to stop the struggle, the only means of development 
that has existed so far, it is reactionary.
139. The peace movement and imperialism are two sides of the same thing.
But as hypocrisy and self-deception and as a means to greater enslavement 
and exploitation, this movement represents the reverse side of imperialism.
The pacifist movement and imperialism are phenomena of the same order. 
They are two sides of the same thing.
Reckless, foolish would be the proletariat which built its entire tactics 
on this mirage, on the hope for peace under capitalism. Deceivers are 
those, be they bourgeois or socialists, who consciously or unconsciously strive 
to lull the proletariat in this way.
Lenin Miscellany XVII
17

258
LENIN MISCELLANY
zur Passivitat verdammen. Es wiirde sich wieder, wie jetzl, vom Imperia­
lism us und vom Krieg wiirgen, von der Entwicklung zerschmettern lassen.. 
Es wiirde wiederum nur Niederlage und Schadcn erleiden.
H i. "Peace hypocrisy." *
... l)a es sich aber dem Imperialisms anpasst, wird der politische Kampf 
bedeutungslos und verschwindet. Das Proletariat verliert, da es sieht dass die 
Sozialdemokratie den Imperialismus, das Kraftzcntrum des Kapitals, nicht 
angreift, alles Selbstvertrauen. Es wird eine Masse die die Sklavin ist der 
Herrscher, aus 
der alle 
Energie, aller 
Idealism us 
verschwunden 
ist. 
Eine Masse die nur sklaviseh direkten, materiellen 
Vorteil erstrebt und
ein williges Werkzeug ist des Imperialismus. Eine niedrige nationale Masse,
'  
' 
/VY Y Y W  . /VYYVYYY ГУYYYYYV
im Dienste der Nation, ohne Sozialismus, ohne Internationalismus, ohne inter­
nationalen politischen Kampf der allein jetzt J der Geist eines sozialistischen 
Proletariats sein kann. — Das Proletariat hiillt sich, zusammen mit der Bour 
geoisie, in eine einzige Wolke der Friedcnsheuchelei, wahrend sie Beide
wissen, dass sie kriegsbereit sind, aber л on Internationalismus und von Frie­
den reden....
III. 
20046.
HUYSMANS' SPEECH AT THE PARTY CONGRESS OF THE S.D.A.P.*
We are informed from Holland:
H. R. H. At the extraordinary party congress of the S.D.A.P. of Holland 
held on 8/9 Jan., the secretary of the International Socialist Bureau, Camille 
Huysmans, delivered a lengthy speech in which he endeavored to show that 
the 2nd International was still alive and that the restoration of international 
unity was underway...
When he finished speaking, the assembly rose from their seats and sang 
the Internationale. The women wept, tears glistened in the eyes of the men; 
everything dissolved into sheer sentimentality and unity-drivel.
We too could have wept when we read the report of the proceedings, 
but not from sentimentality truly, but from shame, from indignation, from 
bitter wrath at the wretched hypocrisy...
* Lenin's underlinings and notes were made on the preserved clipping of an article by H. Roland-Holst in "Beilage zur Berner Tagwacht" No. 18 of January 22, 1916. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS FOR PEACE"
259
the proletariat. It would thereby condemn itself to passivity. It would again, 
as now, condemn itself to be stifled by imperialism and war, its development 
would again be suppressed, shattered. It would again have to suffer defeat 
and loss.
/44. "Hypocritical striving for peace."*
...But as the proletariat adapts itself to imperialism, political struggle 
becomes meaningless and ceases. The proletariat loses all self-confidence, 
seeing that social democracy does not fight against imperialism, the central 
force of capital. It turns into a mass slavishly subordinated to the master, a 
mass that has lost all energy, all idealism. Into a mass that slavishly 
strives only for immediate material advantages and represents 
a willing tool in the hands of imperialism. A base national 
/VWWW"'fWV'/WVVV'\i у /WVN
mass in the service of the nation, without socialism, without internationalism,
'/WWW /\ .'V.VY'V'/VN 
* 
~
without the international political struggle which alone can now inspire the 
socialist proletariat. The proletariat envelops itself, together with the bourgeoisie, 
in a single cloud of peace hypocrisy, while both know that they are prepared 
for war, but talk of internationalism and of peace....
III.*
HUYSMANS' SPEECH AT THE PARTY CONGRESS OF THE S.D.A.P.
We are informed from Holland:
H. R. G. At the extraordinary party congress of the Social Democratic 
Party of Holland held on 8/9 January, the secretary of the International 
Socialist Bureau, Camille Huysmans, delivered a lengthy speech in which he 
endeavored to show that the II International was alive and that measures were 
being taken to restore international unity...
When he finished, those present at the meeting rose from their seats and 
sang the Internationale. The women wept, tears glistened in the eyes of the 
men; everything was immersed in sentimentality, everyone, as if drugged, was 
enveloped in dreams of unity.
* *
*
We too could have wept when we read the report of the meeting, but, 
of course, not from sentimentality, but from shame, from indignation, from 
bitterness and wrath against this wretched hypocrisy...

260
LENIN MISCELLANY
| 
...Truly, we were prepared for much, but that the much-experienced men of the I. S. B. would dare to proclaim the "restoration of unity" and pride themselves on it while the war is still on, while the proletarians of various countries of Western and Central Europe are slaughtering each other with the consent of their official representatives in parliaments, with the help of the murder weapons approved by these representatives and manufactured under the supervision of Social Democratic ministers of munitions—this we had not imagined. We were incapable of imagining such cynicism, such an extraordinary degree of hypocrisy. We thought these gentlemen would be decent enough to wait with the performance of their tragicomedy until the conclusion of peace.

However, they preferred to perform it now. And this proves that they feel strong. Their strength stems, at least in Holland, from the political ignorance and submissiveness of the masses, from the need of these masses for self-deception... * ...Only because Huysmans spoke of unity.........did the participants of the S. D. A. P. congress weep tears of joy... although all who were present knew that all this was a lie, that there was no real unity among the "officials," nor could there be any as long as they cling to patriotism...

...We must mercilessly combat the intoxication of unity talk, we must ceaselessly repeat to the proletariat that one cannot be simultaneously national and international, patriotic and socialist. We must make it clear to the working class that until it has won a clear understanding of the essence of imperialism, until it considers the defense of the fatherland as obsolete,...*

IV.
"L'Humanite" 9. 11. 1916."
(Correspondence from "La Haye" dated 4. II. 1916)
Speeches by Huysmans *** (on Wednesday (sic!) ??? 2. III. ??? in Rotterdam)

Wijnkoop against him
"Wijnkoop — of the revolutionary socialist party of Holland violently attacks Huysmans:
'One cannot be simultaneously, he says, a nationalist and a socialist. The proletarians have no fatherland. The speaker relates that Belgian soldiers no longer want to go to the front, that they are committing suicide in large numbers' (Violent protests, jeers in the hall).
'The chairman invites the opponent not to defy the assembly.
'Since Huysmans voted for war credits, he is no longer for us the international secretary, he is nothing. We will found another International without Saint Camille.'"

...In response to Wijnkoop, Huysmans found magnificent accents that unleashed enthusiasm in the Dutch-Belgian audience:
'Coward is he who does not defend his country when it has been attacked as Belgium was, when defenseless people were murdered, everything set on fire and ravaged.'"

NB "Avanti." 12. II. 1916. On Huysmans' speech.*

V.
Defense or conquest?**
...The Germans are nearer the truth when they regard it as a Russo-German war. It began in a struggle for the hegemony of the Near East, with its pivotal point at Belgrade. It will end logically, if either side achieves a decisive success, in a melting of all the frontiers of the East, and the settlement by force of arms of the question whether its destinies shall be governed by Germany or by Russia. It is, to my mind, an issue so barbarous, so remote from any real interest or concern of our daily life in these islands, that I can only marvel at the illusions, and curse the fatality which have made us belligerents in this struggle. We are neither Slavs nor Germans. How many of us, high or low, dare form a decided opinion as to whether Bosnia would in the end be happier under the native but intolerant and semi-civilised rule of the Serbs, or the alien but relatively civilised rule of Austria? How many of us would dare to answer one by one the questions whether Poles and Ruthenians and Slovacks would be the happier for passing from Austrian to Russian rule? We have not even debated these questions, yet our arms are helping to settle them. Our fleet in the North Sea, our army in France may be winning for the Tsar millions of fresh subjects, and for the familiar process of forcible Russification unnumbered victims. They will pass from a higher to a lower

264
LENIN MISCELLANY
civilisation, from a system usually tolerant and fitfully Liberal, to one
(
which has not even begun to grasp the idea of toleration, and whose
answer to Liberalism is the censorship, the prison, and the «truly Russian» pogrom...
...Within a year from the breaking of Germany’s power (if that is
the result of this war), as Russia forces her way through the Dardanelles,
dominates Turkey, overruns Persia, and bestrides the road to India, our
Imperialists will be calling out for a strong Germany to balance a threatening
Russia...
VI.
The four cardinal points in the policy of the union of
democratic control are as follows.*
1. No Province shall be transferred from one Government to another
without the consent by plebiscite or otherwise, of the population of such
province.
2. No Treaty, Arrangement, or Undertaking shall be entered upon in
the name of Great Britain without the sanction of Parliament. Adequate
machinery for ensuring democratic control of foreign policy shall be created.
3. The Foreign Policy of Great Britain shall not be aimed at creating
Alliances for the purpose of maintaining the «Balance of Power» but shall
be directed to concerted action between the Powers, and the setting up
of an International Council, whose deliberations and decisions shall be public...
4. Great Britain shall propose as part of the Peace settlement a plan
for the drastic reduction, by consent, of the armaments of all the belligerent
Powers, and to facilitate that policy shall attempt to secure the general nationalisation of the manufacture of armaments, and the control of the export
of armaments by one country to another.
VII.**
18480
II. K[autsky] on peace:
/
«It is highly superfluous, indeed directly harmful, to declare from the outset
that our efforts to preserve peace must always fail again in the future,
as long as there is no socialism. We must, on the contrary, exert every effort
to give them the most powerful expression possible already in present-day
society. On the other hand, it would be highly premature if we
*
Underlinings taken by us from the same brochure by Brailsford (see
footnote p. 262); printed on the cover. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT «CONDITIONS OF PEACE»
265
to a lower one, from a system usually characterised by tolerance and at times
liberalism, to a system which has not even begun to grasp the idea of tolerance and whose
answer to liberalism is censorship, prison and the «truly Russian» pogrom...
...And not a year will pass after the collapse of Germany's power (if that
is the result of this war), as Russia will at that time force her way through the Dardanelles by force of arms, dominate Turkey, invade
Persia, seize the road to India, and our imperialists will cry out
about the necessity of a strong Germany to counter the threat from Russia...
VI.
The four cardinal points in the policy of the
union of democratic control:*
1) No province shall be transferred by the government of any
state to another without the consent of the population of that province, expressed
by means of a plebiscite.
2) No treaty, agreement or undertaking shall enter into
force on behalf of Great Britain without the sanction of Parliament. An
appropriate apparatus must be created to ensure democratic control of foreign policy.
3) The foreign policy of Great Britain shall not aim at
creating alliances to maintain the «balance of power», but it
should be directed towards establishing a concert of European powers and founding
an International Council, whose deliberations and decisions shall be public...
4) Great Britain shall propose, as an integral part of the peace treaty,
a plan for the drastic reduction of armaments by mutual agreement
of all the belligerent powers. To facilitate the implementation of this policy
it is necessary to guarantee the universal nationalisation of the production of armaments
and control over the export of arms from one country to another.
VII."
K. Kautsky on peace:
«It is completely superfluous, even directly harmful, to declare in advance
that our strivings for the preservation of peace must always suffer defeat
in the future, until socialism triumphs. We must,
on the contrary, strain every effort to manifest these strivings as energetically as possible
already in present-day society. On the other hand, it would be highly premature if
** Extracts from K. Kautsky were made by Lenin on the reverse
page of the sheet with the note «Marx on Lopatin» (see below, p. 280), numbered
in pencil as 4. Ed.

266
LENIN MISCELLANY
/
® were to vouch for the securing of peace, as long as capitalism exists» (Neue Zeit, p. 562, 28.1.1916, end of article «Central Europe»).
(Neue Zeit, p. 271, 26.XI.1915)....
«I expect that after the war, the decisive factor for the assessment
of individual deputies will not be their stance on 4 August 1914, but their later stance, above all the one
they take from now until the conclusion of peace»... 1
NB
Height
of
VILE
NESS
(«too much demanded»: p. 77 Neue Zeit 16.IV 1915 April). 4
{16 April 1915} Kautsky
S. D. Fraction 4 August 19143 — would be *too much to
demand state; national autonomy*
VIII
23317.
TWO WRITINGS FOR RELEARNING
by Karl Kautsky.
3 «Neue Zeit»
16/IV. 1915. p.
77**
... Cunow here commits the error of equating the independence of nations
and their state independence as synonymous concepts. That
21.V.1915:
#
«All the peace programmes that have been formulated so far within the International, those of Copenhagen, London, Vienna, they all demand the recognition of the independence* of nations, and rightly so. This demand must form our compass in the present world war» (Neue Zeit p. 241,
21.V.1915) (Kautsky). 2
«The International is not an effective tool in war,
it is essentially an instrument of peace» (Neue Zeit, p. 248,
27/IX 1914).
«Struggle for peace, class struggle in peace» (p. 250
ibid.). 3
*
The last two paragraphs were written by Lenin in coloured pencil in the
free space. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT «CONDITIONS OF PEACE»
267
they are, however, by no means so. This is already shown by the programme of the Austrian
Social Democracy, which demands the autonomy of the nations of Austria without breaking
their state framework.
If the declaration of the fraction demanded state independence for every people, then it would indeed have (demanded too much). But
it demands for every people merely what, from the standpoint of international democracy, must be demanded: national
independence.
«too much)
NB
IX.
20782
«Volkstribune»
«V 29. 1915 (21. July 1915)*
On the article series «Critical Observations».
(as all articles connected with the discussion of Dannenberg's article were called).7
Article
«The Brave Italians and the Bad Germans»
by Friedrich Austerlitz.
...«For the social-democratic conception, the independence
of a nation consists in its autonomy; sovereignty
as an indispensable form of national independence belongs to
bourgeois-nationalist ideology. I state these self-evident truths only to place the character of the Italian war of attack
and conquest in a light that no sophistry can obscure».......
-- «I (Austerlitz) have thought of the International throughout the whole war, counteracted national hatred, worked for peace».......
*
The extract from the newspaper «Volkstribune» was made by Lenin on a separate
piece of paper. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS FOR PEACE"
269
independence. But they are by no means equivalent. This is already shown by the program of the Austrian Social Democracy, which demands autonomy for the nationalities of Austria without breaking up the state framework.

If the Declaration of the Fraction demanded for each people
state independence, that would undoubtedly be an ex-
cessive demand. But it puts forward for each people only
such a demand as must be put forward from the point of view of
international democracy, namely, national independence.
______
"excessive"
NB
IX.
"Volkstribüne" 6 ("People's Tribune"
No. 29. 1915
21 July
1915)*
To the series of articles "Critical Remarks."
(That was the name of all articles connected with the discussion of the article by Dannenberg") 7
Article
"Good Italians and Bad Germans"
by Friedrich *4 // A d l e r.
..."From a Social Democratic point of view, the independence
of a nation consists in its autonomy; sovereignty, as a necessary
f o r m of national independence, is part of bourgeois-
nationalist ideology. I mention these self-
evident things only to give such an
illumination of the character of the Italian offensive and conquest
war, which could not be obscured by any s o -
p h i s t r y." ____
"...Throughout the entire war I (Austerlitz4 thought of
the International, counteracted hatred between peoples,
-carried on work for peace".......

270
LENIN COLLECTION
X.
26507
Leipziger Volkszeitung No. 20 26/I.*
Bulgaria.
Parvus against Tsarism.
Prague, 25 January. Today's midday edition of the Social Democratic
Pravo publishes a telegraphic report from Sofia of the 24th, according to which
a large people's meeting took place there under the chairmanship of Kirkoff,
attended by over 5,000 persons. Greeted with enthusiasm, the German
Social Democratic publicist Parvus spoke against Tsarism. The meeting
was in complete agreement with the standpoint of German Social Democ-
racy. The view expressed by the speaker, with which the meeting declared
itself in agreement, was that
Germany is fighting for the European democratic cause and that a
German victory is the only guarantee for the independence and national
development of the Balkan states. The meeting further declared itself in favor
of the accession of the Balkan states to the Central Powers, as well as for the
independence and freedom of the Ukrainians, the Poles, and the peoples of the
Caucasus...
XI.
278 к
RUSSIAN MARXISTS AND THE UKRAINIAN WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT*
by
L e v a  Y u r k e v i c h.
Ten years ago, the Russian Marxists, proceeding from the principle of struggle
against all oppression — over whomever and wherever it might manifest itself — officially
recognized "the right to self-determination for all nations forming part of the (Russian)
state."
I
They understood and understand this right predominantly in the sense of |
statehood, i.e., they recognized for each nationality the right to strive for separation from Russia and for its own state independence. "If Poland does not wish to enter into a lawful marriage
with Russia, then we cannot force her," Plekhanov once said, and these
his words have more than once served as an explanation of the right of nations to self-determination.
NB
Translation from Ukrainian edited by V. Kraevsky^

272
LENIN COLLECTION
... Russian Marxists .. often even argued that in general "the creation
of new states is a reactionary phenomenon" and no one, it seems, defended
the state unity of Russia as energetically as the Russian Marxists did.
In our time, therefore, the matter of Poland's independence has already lost
its immediate general European significance and has lost its living
basis among the Polish people. This is recognized by prominent Marxists of Europe,
recognized also by Polish Marxists. It goes without saying that the
Russian Marxists also have no desire to split contemporary Russia and therefore
their "right to self-determination of nations," when understood in the state
sense (and they understand it precisely in that sense) is an empty and completely useless phrase.
Strange in general is this recognition for nations of the right only to state
self-determination.
^ ^ ; '
National rebirth (self-determination) is a profoundly deep social
process, which may culminate in state independence, but may also
not. Modern national rebirths, in fact, have absolutely no
separatist-state aims, and neither in Austria nor in Russia does a single oppressed
nation seriously speak of state separation as a concrete
means of escaping national bondage. All oppressed nations now demand
only national-political rights within the boundaries of their own state. Therefore,
to approach the national question now with a separatist
program is the same as wanting to examine the sun with a lantern in one's hands.
The Russian Marxists, therefore, while standing for the right of nations to state
self-determination (we already know that they stand for it only in words),
although they create the impression of people who solve the national question
in an extraordinarily radical way, in reality evade a principled and
programmatic solution to the problems of the national movements, which are now beginning to stir Russia so vividly.
The root of the contemporary national question lies in the right of nations to cultural
and political self-determination, but the Russian Marxists close their eyes to this,
preferring to play with words about the state independence of oppressed peoples.
When they, among other things, discussed in 1903 the point on the right
of national self-determination, the following resolution was proposed: "recognition
for all nations forming part of the state of the right to self-determination and to the freedom of their cultural development."
This resolution they rejected almost unanimously . . .

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"

273
...Russian Marxists... often even argued that in general "the creation of new states is a reactionary phenomenon" and no one, it seems, defended the state unity of Russia as energetically as the Russian Marxists.
At the present time, the question of Poland's independence has thus already lost its former pan-European significance, has lost its ground even among the Polish people.
Prominent European Marxists recognize this, and Polish Marxists recognize it as well. It is understandable, therefore, that Russian Marxists also have no desire to fragment contemporary Russia, and consequently their slogan of "the right of nations to self-determination," if understood in the state sense [and they do understand it precisely that way], is an empty and utterly useless phrase.
It is strange, in general, this recognition of the right of nations only to state self-determination.
National revival (self-determination) is a profound social process, which may culminate in state independence, but may also not culminate in it. Contemporary examples of national revival, as it happens, pursue no goals of state independence whatsoever, and neither in Austria nor in Russia does any oppressed nation seriously speak of state separatism as a concrete way to overthrow national oppression. All oppressed nations now seek only national-political rights within the borders of their own state. Thus, to approach the resolution of the national question now with a program of independence is the same as wanting to see the sun with a candle in hand.
Thus, Russian Marxists, while defending the right of nations to state self-determination (we already know they defend it only in words), although they create the impression of people resolving the national question in an extremely radical manner, in reality evade a principled and programmatic response to the problems of the national movement, which are now beginning to agitate Russia so vividly.
The root of the national question at the present time lies in the right of nations to cultural and political self-determination, but the Russian Marxists close their eyes to this, preferring to play with words about the state independence of oppressed peoples.
In 1903, when the Russian Marxists, among other things, discussed the clause on the right of national self-determination, the following resolution was proposed: "recognition for all nations comprising the state of the right to self-determination and to freedom of cultural development."
This resolution they unanimously rejected...
Lenin's Collection XVII
1*S

274
LENIN'S COLLECTION
It is clear, therefore, that the Russian Marxists are in essence completely indifferent to the right of nations to free cultural-political development. And although they, indeed, recognize the necessity of fighting against national oppression, at the same time they themselves are participants in that oppression, insofar as they oppose the national forms of the workers' movement of the oppressed peoples.

The document of Lenin printed below, "Rosa [Luxemburg (on self-determination)]", consists of summary notes on an article by Rosa Luxemburg, "The National Question and Autonomy," published in *Przegląd Socjaldemokratyczny* ("Social Democratic Review") for 1908 and 1909. Lenin made these notes while reading, for his personal use, and did not intend them in this form for publication in the slightest degree. It is understandable, therefore, that various harsh epithets found in these notes directed at Rosa Luxemburg, which were provoked by her erroneous view on the national question, are in no way indicative of Lenin's overall attitude towards the author of the article "The National Question and Autonomy." This attitude of Lenin towards Rosa Luxemburg is vividly expressed in his article "On Ascending High Mountains, on the Harm of Despondency, on the Usefulness of Trade, on the Attitude towards the Mensheviks, etc." (1922). In the third chapter of this article, "On Fox Hunting; on Levi; on Serrati," Lenin wrote:
"Paul Levi now wishes to curry special favor with the bourgeoisie — and, consequently, with the 2nd and 2½ Internationals, its agents — by republishing precisely those works of Rosa Luxemburg in which she was wrong. We will answer this with two lines from a good Russian fable: eagles may sometimes descend lower than hens, but hens will never rise as high as eagles. Rosa Luxemburg was mistaken on the question of Poland's independence; mistaken in 1903 in her assessment of Menshevism; mistaken in the theory of capital accumulation; mistaken when, in July 1914, together with Plekhanov, Vandervelde, Kautsky and others, she defended the unification of Bolsheviks with Mensheviks; mistaken in her prison writings of 1918 (although upon her release from prison at the end of 1918 and beginning of 1919 she herself corrected most of her mistakes). But despite these mistakes, she was and remains an eagle; and not only will her memory always be precious to communists throughout the world, but her biography and her complete collected works (with which the German communists are unforgivably late, excused only in part by the unheard-of number of victims in their difficult struggle) will be a most useful lesson for the education of many generations of communists throughout the world. 'German Social Democracy after August 4, 1914 — a stinking corpse' — this is the saying of Rosa Luxemburg with which her name will enter the history of the world workers' movement" (Works, Vol. XXVI, p. 204).
Lenin's notes on Rosa Luxemburg's article are made in a notebook on whose cover, in the right corner, is written in his handwriting "γ". On the notebook cover there are also the following markings: 1) Rosa L[uxemburg (on self-determination)] 2) Bernhard (Polen) 3)
Notes on Rosa Luxemburg's article, written by Lenin in black ink, occupy four and a half pages in the notebook. Following these notes, the notebook contains an analysis of the German book by Ludwig Bernhard, "The Polish Public in the Prussian State."

XII.
ROSA L[UXEMBURG (ON SELF-DETERMINATION)].
*Przegląd Socjaldemokratyczny*.8
1908 No. 6 (August);
(482 – 515. 1. "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination")
No. 7 (September);
(597 – 631.
2. The National State and the Proletariat.
3. Federation, Centralization and Particularism.)
No. 8 – 9 (October – November); (687 – 710. 4. Centralization and Self-Government.)

276
LENIN'S COLLECTION
No. 10 (December);
No. 11 (June 1909)
(795 – 818. 5. Nationality and Autonomy.)
(136 – 163.
6. Autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland.)
No. 11 – 13 (August – September 1909).
(351 – 376. 6. Autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland.)
Rosa Luxemburg: "The National Question and Autonomy".1

This "article" — in size, a full book of 10 printer's sheets * with a tail — reveals the author's extreme weakness (and lack of independence) in theory and politics.

Against § 9:
(I) "Nothing specifically connected with socialism" 483
"with w[orker]s' p[olitic]s"
"a paraphrase of the old slogan of bourgeois nationalism".10
(2) obviously applies both to Russia and Switzerland, America etc. 483 – nonsense...11
3)... it is absent "from the programs of contemporary socialist parties"......12

* Side note: a count of the pages of Luxemburg's article by chapters = 165 pages. Ed.
"Nothing specifically connected with socialism." Ed.
1908 No. 6 (August);
No. 7 (September);
(482 – 515. I. "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination".)
(597 – 631.
2. The National State and the Proletariat.
3. Federation, Centralization and Particularism.)

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"

277
even in the Austrian]?) "only" in the R[ussian] S[ocial] D[emocratic] (485)¹: <
But 
\ there is a connection with the London international decision 
of 1896 NB
"misunderstanding"!! 
^"Paraphrase of one paragraph of it" v 485.)
NB (ustgpa^
Hypocrisy] n 
sophistry around the London (1896 
1 
;|! decision (486).|)
>487) Not a single party (even the Austrian) "understood" the London resolution as a "practical solution"...¹⁵
"Practicality"!!* 
7 
8 times pr[acticality: 487**
| "only practical reform". | * *
"abstract principle of socialist ideal" ¹⁷
487) - a shot in the dark !!
487 
8 Protest against oppression? Not from here, they say - but from the principled "stanowiska socjalizmu" ****¹⁸ V88 
|
V88— "purely negative character"__ ¹⁹
Ivlko wyminiecie tej kwestji *****
(title?)
488 "sweeping and stereotyped character" X 9. 
shows that] it is "alien" to Marx's socialism (G.
I "Metaphysical phrase".
("eternal formula" etc. etc. . -0 
"dialectics"!!!
M B Rosa did not notice the differences between the S[ocialist] R[evolutionaries] and the S[ocial] D[emocrats]: ±8'> (NH)-¹ ******
489. Napoleon for the plebiscite; it 
ttt
- 
; Charlatanism:
policy for "freedom" of strikebreakers-
either "nic" usta f[ormul]a'
either 
support 
all national aspirations²³
She understood!!!
one must pose concrete]...
489.. 
another matter the national 
question in the Balkans;
» 
» struggle of the Irish] against England ■ЧВ
* A harsh epithet regarding R. Luxemburg has been omitted. Ed.
** Taken by Lenin in a frame, written in pencil, later. Ed.
*** This phrase is written in pencil, later. Ed.
**** — "position of socialism". Ed.
***** — "only an attempt to evade this question". Ed.
****** The phrase was written later, at the top of the 3rd sheet. Ed.

278
LENIN MISCELLANY
490 3 uprisings] in Poland— different] c[lasses] etc.²⁵
490 — "Eastern question"— Balkan question (1855).²⁶
Hungarians²⁷ (1848) (494) Czechs (1848)²⁸ 
491— 2....
(493) Sw[itzer]l[an]d XIV c. XVI c. (etc.) forest cantons ²⁹
492.... "method" of M[a]rx— not abstract f[ormul]as, but concrete] ³⁰ (everything, only not Russia!!).
495— "anarch[is]tic phraseology" (on the right of peoples etc. 
"don't be radical, but reality" ³¹
496=right is on a silver platter!!.. ³²
496—  
— "pure utopia" (M[a]rx on backward peoples: 1
1 
499 i. f. K[autsky] on the "national state": the best. . .³⁴
499— "but this is only an abstraction, not corresponding to reality"!! ³⁵ 
[I
499 — 500 — but development lies not in the tendency towards the national state, but in the struggle between peoples for great states....³⁶
not the national state, but "panstwo zaborize" (501)
/ predatory 
\ ³⁷ 
V conquering /
501. Colonies of different states!! (ha ha!)³⁸
502. 2 lines about India! (Only) (although here powazny ruch 
«narodowy» przeciw Anglji). *³⁹
504... "People" as a whole = "concept of bourgeois ideology"...⁴⁰ (so clever!) etc. about class struggle...
X III/* 
205¹²
"Verhandlungen und Beschlüsse des internationalen sozialistischen Arbeiter- und Gewerkschafts-Kongresses zu London vom 27 Juli bis 1 August. 1896".
(Berlin. 1896. Buch[handlung] Vorwärts. 20 pff.). 
Resolution:
((Der III Kongress erklärt, dass er für volles Selbstbestimmungsrecht aller Nationen eintritt und mit den Arbeitern jeden
* — serious "national" movement against England. Ed.
'* The excerpt was made on a separate sheet of paper. 
Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
279
I. b[ourgeois] democracy > against] f[e]d[e]r[a]lism__ * 
**
II proletariat I against: b[ourgeoi]sie|
-507. H[o]w to know the will of the people?⁴¹ 
508. M[ajo]rity of the people? But this is — death for the S[ocial] D[emocrats], as a class party of the proletariat! ((so clever!))...⁴² 
509 — 515. Editor of Iskra in 1906 (Robotnik) on the constituent [assembly] in W[ar]s[a]w ⁴³
No. 7. § 2. Panstwo narodowe a proletarjat. ***
598. Kautsky (in Neue Z[eit] 1897/8 (Vol. I), p. 517) on the three factors of modern national ideas:
1) striving of b[ourgeoi]sie for internal m[a]rk[e]t.
2' 
» 
» 
» political f[ree]d[o]m.
3 
» 
» 
» national enlightenment;
and lit[eratu]re.⁴⁴
598 
Thus, then, a historical category⁴⁵ (finally!!! she understood,...*
599 Chatter about national unity; among the Germans...⁴⁶
#00 
I Independence (for one's own people) — oppression for others: Hungarians 1848 etc.⁴⁷ 
#03 But... (oh clever one!) — this is the business of the b[ourgeoi]sie, not of the proletariat (603) — the b[ourgeoi]sie could not have created a f[eudal] state first!!!, ha-ha!! ⁴⁸ 
b[ourgeoi]sie's business 
to create, 
p[r]o[l]e[tariat]'s — to destroy 
the class state 
dialectics! ⁴⁹
XIII .
"Protocols and resolutions of the international workers' and trade union congress in London from July 27 to August 1, 1896."/***
(Berlin, 1896. Book depot "Vorwärts". 20 pfennigs). 
Resolution:
"The III congress declares that it stands for the full right of self-determination (Selbstbestimmungsrecht) of all nations and expresses
* A harsh epithet omitted. Ed.
Later marginal insertion. Ed.
— The national state and the proletariat. Ed.
Translation made by Lenin. See Works vol. XVII, p. 400.

280
LENIN MISCELLANY
Landes sympathisiert, das gegenwärtig unter dem Joche des militärischen, nationalen oder anderen Despotismus leidet, er fordert die Arbeiter aller dieser Länder auf, in die Reihen der klassenbewussten Arbeiter der ganzen Welt zu treten, um mit ihnen gemeinsam für die Ueberwindung des internationalen Kapitalismus und die Durchsetzung der Ziele der internationalen Sozialdemokratie zu kämpfen." (Page 18) ⁵⁰
XIV a. 
i⁰⁸⁵
ANNEX [ON] END OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY.*
... 1) The victory of the Triple Entente is not possible without the victory of Russia, which would then annex Armenia, Galicia, Constantinople, perhaps a part of Prussia, thereby creating five new Alsace-Lorraines. The victory of the Triple Entente would increase the number of slaves of capitalist England and France in the colonies;...
| 
Modern states were formed in no way in accordance with any principle of nationalities, but as a consolidation of economically-geographically connected territories, which provided the best ground for the development of capitalism. The similarity of language favored this development, for it is a powerful means of communication. Where language coincided with territory, the capitalist national state arose, whereby even in France and England very many splinters of other nations were fused together...
... Even economically very backward Russia has shown, in the behavior of the Polish, Latvian, Armenian bourgeoisie, that it is not only military force that holds the peoples together in this "prison of peoples", but also the 
needs of capitalist 
expansion, 
for which the immense territory is an excellent 
ground for development...........This development causes the boundary posts, which we, in the forty years of peaceful capitalist development, have become accustomed to regard as venerable, immovable milestones of history, to totter....
What interests does the working class have to represent here? Should it make the ideal of the national state, as distilled from the history of France, England, Germany and Italy by democratic ideologists, its own?.......... Should it, where a nation possesses no echo in any state at all, pursue separatist politics in connection with powers that have an interest in a different shaping of the geographical map?.......... The Alsace-Lorraine question is now
* 
Lenin's underlinings on K. Radek's article are taken from the surviving issues No. 252 and 253 of "Berner Tagwacht" of October 28 and 29, 1915. 
Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT ("CONDITIONS OF PEACE")

281

its sympathy for the workers of every country currently suffering under the yoke of military, national or other absolutism; the congress calls upon the workers of all these countries to join the ranks of the class-conscious (Klassenbewusste = conscious of the interests of their class) workers of the whole world, in order to fight together with them for the overcoming of international capitalism and for the realization of the aims of international social democracy." *18) 10

XIV a.

ANNEXATIONS AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. *

...A victory of the Triple Entente is impossible without a victory of Russia, which would, following this, annex Armenia, Galicia, Constantinople and, possibly, part of Prussia, which would give rise to five new Alsace-Lorraines. A victory of the Triple Entente would increase the number of colonial slaves of capitalist England and France...

Modern states were formed in no way according to the principle of nationality, but as a result of the unification of territories that were in economic and geographical connection with each other, and which presented an excellent basis for the development of capitalism. Similarity of languages favored this development, since language is a powerful instrument of communication. Where language coincided with territory, a capitalist national state arose, and even in England and France very many strata of other nationalities merged...

...Even Russia, very backward economically, has proven, by the example of the Polish, Latvian and Armenian bourgeoisie, that not only militaristic armament holds nationalities in this "prison of peoples," but also the needs of capitalist expansion, for which the vast territory is an excellent foundation for development... This development causes the border posts, which we, during forty years of peaceful capitalist development, have become accustomed to consider as venerable, firmly established milestones of history, to waver....

Whose interests does the working class represent in this case? Should it recognize as its ideal the ideal of the national state, as it was obtained by the ideologists of democracy from the history of France, England, Germany and Italy?.......... Should it, in the case where a nation finds no expression in any state at all, pursue a separatist policy in alliance with states interested in transforming the geographical map?.........The problem of Alsace-Lorraine

382
LENIN MISCELLANY

is that of imperialism, because the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to France would weaken German imperialism militarily. The Armenian question is that of imperialism, because dominion over Armenia would give Russian imperialism dominion over the entire Persian Gulf region, etc., etc....

It cannot be in the interest of the proletariat to push back the wheel of history and to cram the productive forces, which are outgrowing the framework of the national state, back into this framework....

Should it, then, accept as an inescapable fate the imperialist division and redivision of states, carried out according to the militaristic-economic interests of the imperialist states, and tolerate the national oppression associated with this by the ruling nationalities? No! It cannot demand a return to the stage of the national state already behind us. On the contrary, it must seek to accelerate the journey to the next stage, which is called socialism...

We are opponents of annexations... Not out of love for the old map of Europe, but because socialism requires free, boundless space for its development, we are against annexations. We are against them, because they are connected with national oppression. And we will fight this national oppression most sharply, because a proletariat that would help its bourgeoisie to oppress other nations would be raising up executioners against itself... We will wage our struggle against national oppression as part of our ever-intensifying class struggle, whose goal is the socialist organization of the capitalist cultural sphere. Not the illusory struggle for the non-existent right of self-determination of peoples in individual corners of Europe, within the framework of capitalism, arm in arm with the capitalist governments, but the revolutionary mass struggle of the proletariat against capitalism, against its acts of national violence, that is our position on questions of annexation. A protest against the national violation of a people, however justified, becomes the greatest crime against that people, and against the proletariat in general, if it leads to an alliance with a government, to the abandonment of the class struggle... Only he who... seeks to transform the world war of capitalism into a world war against capitalism, only he accelerates the moment when the people, in control of the means of production, will for the first time in the history of modern nations determine their own destiny on the ruins of capitalism. Struggle against old and new annexations, but not in the name of the past and the present, but in the name of the socialist organization of the world!...

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT ("CONDITIONS OF PEACE")
283

is at the present time a problem of imperialism, because the transfer of Alsace-Lorraine to France would weaken German imperialism militarily. The problem of Armenia is also a problem of imperialism, because the dominion of Russian imperialism over Armenia would give it dominion over the entire Persian Gulf, etc., etc....

It is not in the interests of the proletariat to turn the course of history back and to cram the productive forces, which are outgrowing the framework of the national state, back into these same frames—

Should it accept, as an inescapable fate, the imperialist division and redistribution of states, carried out according to the militaristic-economic interests of the imperialist states, and tolerate the national oppression associated with this by the ruling nationalities? No! One cannot demand a return to the stage of the national state already lying behind us. On the contrary, one must move more quickly to the next stage, called socialism...

We are opponents of annexations... Not out of love for the old map of Europe, but because socialism requires free, boundless space for its development, we are against annexations. We are against them, because they are connected with national oppression, which we will fight with all our might, for a proletariat that helps its bourgeoisie to oppress other nationalities is itself preparing executioners... We will wage the struggle against national enslavement as part of our ever-intensifying class struggle, whose goal is the socialist reconstruction of capitalist culture. On the question of annexations, we stand not on the position of an illusory struggle for the non-existent right of nations to self-determination, in individual corners of Europe, within the framework of capitalism, hand in hand with capitalist governments, but on the position of the revolutionary mass struggle of the proletariat against capitalism, against its acts of national violence. Such is our position on the question of annexations. A protest against national enslavement, however justified, if it leads to an alliance with one's own government, to the abandonment of the class struggle, is the greatest crime against that people and against the proletariat in general... Only he who... strives with all his might to transform the world capitalist war into a world war against capitalism, only he accelerates the moment when the people, having seized the means of production, will for the first time in the history of modern nationalities determine their own destiny on the ruins of capitalism. Struggle against former and new annexations, but not in the name of the past and the present, but in the name of the socialist reconstruction of the whole world!...

284
LENIN MISCELLANY
XIV b.
THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION
By Karl Radek.*
(From "Lichtstrahlen" No. 3 of 5/XII. 1915.)
...But we reject the slogan of the right to self-determination not only because it is historically false. It can also practically mislead the proletariat. It strengthens in them the belief that they possess the right to self-determination in independent countries, and that it is the duty of Social Democracy to support every struggle for independence....

XV.
TWO TENDENCIES IN THE AUGUST BLOC
By L. Martov.**
I.
...The official position of the Duma faction, reinforced by certain appeals of the Organizing Committee, remained, in its hostility to the war and to any idea of "defencism," the undoubted official position of the entire August Bloc...
...Dissatisfaction with the direction taken by "Nasha Zarya" — later "Nashe Delo" — led our Petrograd comrades to raise the question of reforming the editorial board of this organ in such a way that it could no longer, as the sole Menshevik journal in Russia, serve as the official organ of "defencist" views.
An agreement was reached, as a result of which internationalists joined the editorial board, and in issue No. 3 of "Nashe Delo" it was announced that, on the main question of the day, the journal would allow representatives of both tendencies to express themselves on equal terms. Thus the journal became a forum for discussion, and the "defencist" articles that continued to appear in it morally committed only their authors. However, the other main goal pursued by the reform was not achieved: censorship conditions prevented representatives of the anti-defencist point of view from using the opportunity to develop their views on the pages of the journal...
Underlining and notes by Lenin from the preserved copy of No. 3 of the journal "Lichtstrahlen" ("Rays of Light") of 5 December 1915. Ed.
** Underlinings and marks by Lenin taken from the preserved copy of "No. 3 of the Izvestia of the Foreign Secretariat of the OC of the RSDLP" of 5 February 1916. Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS FOR PEACE"
285
XIV b.
THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION
By Karl Radek.*
(From "Lichtstrahlen" No. 3 of 5 December 1915.)
...We reject the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination not only because it is historically false, but also because it can practically lead the proletariat astray. This slogan strengthens in the proletariat the conviction that it supposedly possesses the right to self-determination in independent countries, and that it is the duty of Social Democracy to support any struggle for independence...
At the local conferences that took place in Petrograd, on the Volga, in the south, and in the southwestern region of the "Bund," the question of the attitude of Social Democracy to the cause of "defence" was raised and invariably resolved in an internationalist sense. At the July congress, on the question of the struggle against high prices, the Mensheviks, led by Comrades Skobelev and Khaustov, together with workers of other factions, expressed in a well-known declaration a principled hostility to any participation of the proletariat in the "defencist" movement that was sweeping bourgeois democracy...
But the incipient social upsurge, which was a reaction to the defeats of the Russian army... evoked, perhaps for the first time since the beginning of the war, a strong stirring of the sense of national self-preservation among the working-class masses. This alone, however, probably could not have strengthened the position of our "defencists." But the broad social movement that began under the "defencist" banner, led by the industrial bourgeoisie and at one time reaching wide proportions, opened before the class-conscious workers the prospect of using the new political situation in the interests of developing their own organization and drawing the broad masses into political struggle...
...The Social Democrat-defencists... understanding that a real and decisive struggle would be necessary for the transfer of power, harbor another illusion: that the participation of the proletariat in the struggle for "national defence" will allow it to fulfill its duty as the vanguard of democracy, to organize itself into a revolutionary independent force, and to direct the entire process of the "defencist" social movement towards the struggle for a fundamental dismantling of the regime. This is an illusion, because objectively, regardless of the will of the proletariat, its participation in the work of organizing "defence" has only one meaning: it strengthens the position of imperialism, which is directing this "defence"...

286
LENIN MISCELLANY
In the atmosphere of panic, spread by millions of "refugees," Social Democratic "defencism" made noticeable gains among the workers... In the new Petersburg newspaper "Rabocheye Utro" we already encounter a "peaceful" coexistence of defencists and anti-defencists, who have apparently come together on a compromise which we can call nothing other than rotten. The ideology of "defencism" is not propagated in the editorial articles; 1) the declarations of the Petersburg and Moscow defencists are printed "as documents," the principled position of the Mensheviks (e.g., in the article by Comrade Oransky in No. 2) is set forth as internationalist, placing at the center of the working class's tasks the international unification for the struggle for peace and relying on the decisions of the Zimmerwald Conference, while dissociating themselves from Plekhanov's pronouncements (though without sufficient decisiveness). But in the sphere of current politics, all the greater concessions are made to that opportunism which logically follows from the "defencist" ideology... A compromise bought at the price of a refusal of decisive practical action... we must, on the part of the internationalists, recognize as a rotten compromise...
...The social upsurge that began under the banner of "national defence" seems to have caught the internationalists of the August Bloc by surprise and paralyzed them... In any case, to the program of utilizing the revolutionary situation offered by the supporters of "defence," they are in no hurry to oppose an equally definite program of utilizing it in the spirit of a militant internationalist policy, the beginning of which was laid by the declarations of the Duma faction and the delegation at the Moscow July congress...
...The question of two opposing socialist policies must be posed point-blank, without any hesitation and without any delay.
III.
...Whether the August Bloc will come to a formal split or whether the revolutionary-internationalist line will triumph within it without shattering its organizational unity, we do not know. But... If we were to become firmly convinced that "defencism"... would lead to a final rupture of a part of our "August Bloc" with the principles of revolutionary Marxism,... even in that case we could not draw the organizational conclusion in the sense of an immediate break in organizational ties with the wavering and nationalist elements and the separation of the active internationalists into a special new faction. We would have to proceed not by forming such a faction, but by striving to convene a general conference or congress of our part of the party in order to pose before it, in all their acuteness, the new problems and to obtain a party answer to them, which would reveal where the majority is and where the minority is, would give the internationalists the opportunity to count their forces, and would thereby suggest to them the organizational conclusions that they must draw."

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS FOR PEACE"
XVI.
SOCIAL DEMOCRATS ON THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY./
From the Editorial Board.
Two documents have been sent to the editorial board: 1) a declarative statement from Moscow Social Democrats—supporters of the defence of the country, and a declaration-appeal from Petrograd "Social Democrats—supporters of national self-defence." Both declarations were adopted after a series of meetings that took place in mid-September (independently of each other) in Petrograd and Moscow.
Without entering into an examination of the substance of these documents, the editorial board considers it its duty to acquaint its readers with them as material of lively interest to the working-class milieu at the present time...
The Moscow declaration reads:
"At the center of life at the present moment is the defence of the country, and accordingly the defence of the country must also become the center of our current practical policy, as its initial premise and as its regulating principle...
In coming out in defence of the country, we are defending its right to self-determination, we are fighting against the economic, political, and cultural enslavement that threatens it. In this struggle we advance the slogan of peace; through struggle we achieve those conditions for it under which, in our deepest conviction, alone the preservation and development of international comradely feelings among the workers of all countries is possible.
Events are proceeding at a forced pace, and, correspondingly... we must at a forced pace... extend the line through the organizational process taking place in the country towards its completion—the organization of power. To mobilize and organize our proletariat under the conditions of the present moment means, above all, to mobilize and organize it on the basis of serving the needs of the defence of the country and alleviating the hardships of wartime...
For us, what is essential in these classes and groups is not their ideas, but the extent to which their actions move us forward even by a single step... they are compelled to converge with us for the application of common efforts, for the realization of certain immediate tasks. These considerations determine our attitude towards such an institution as the 4th State Duma, and towards such a political grouping of the present day as the Progressive Bloc.
We regard as proceeding along the same path as us that activity of theirs which transforms the old; we take into account what is being done by them in a positive
Underlinings and marks by Lenin taken from the preserved copy of No. 1 of "Rabocheye Utro" of 15 October 1915. Ed.

288
LENIN MISCELLANY
positive in the sense of, for example, servicing the rear or in the sense of defending even minimal reforms.

The second document, emanating from the Petrograd “S. D.— supporters of popular self-defense,” begins as follows:

The victorious invasion of the German armies into Russia... carries with it the threat of political and economic enslavement, which, turning Russia into a country economically unequal to others, into a country serving as an object for the exploitation of foreign capital... Such enslavement of Russia will turn the Russian proletariat into a double slave, exploited by both its own and foreign capitalists.

All of Russia, all its people, with the exception of insignificant cliques..., long bound by ties of sympathy with Prussian-Junker reaction, have a vital interest in defending the country against the German invasion, in defending the country against those calamities which will long destroy all hopes and aspirations of the Russian democracy and proletariat. And no one else but the Russian democracy, especially the Russian proletariat, on whose shoulders, in the final analysis, the burdens of all disasters befalling the country are placed, must with the greatest determination and unanimity rise to the defense of their country.

The patriotism of the working class is the most resolute and most far-sighted patriotism... It is not limited by national frameworks, it does not contradict the international strivings of the working class, for the defense of a country subjected to foreign invasion is the defense of the freedom of its class development, it is the defense of the freedom of that class development within national frameworks, which is absolutely necessary for the success of international proletarian unity.

...Internal conditions have always had a depressing effect on all social self-activity and initiative... This same reason was the cause that incited religious and national discord, and this together
TSB NB j taken in millions of Russian citizens daily killed the feeling of
!ChV NB 5 the “motherland,”
disunited, dismembered the country, turning it into a weak,
* scattered and little capable of self-defense.
The salvation of the country, its defense, the halt of the invasion of foreign armies presuppose for Russia... its transformation... And the more decisive the participation of the proletariat in the organization of popular self-defense, the... more significantly the danger of the country’s defeat, which threatens most of all the propertyless classes, will be reduced.
Nationwide defense, presenting to warring and neutral Europe a new Russia, a transformed Russia, is capable of halting the foreign invasion.
The defense of a country threatened with defeat is a vital cause of the Russian proletariat.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT “CONDITIONS OF PEACE”
289
XVII.
ON THE WAR
V. I. Zasulich.*
... From the very beginning I wished and continue to wish for the most complete defeat of Germany possible...
Regarding Russia, I share Plekhanov’s view on the conditions into which a decisive victory of Germany would place her. I cannot doubt any of this for a moment, but — unfortunately — something else is also certain for me.
Z a s [u l i c h]
When recently at a meeting an orator called
-
on those present to forget everything except resistance
■p. 1  for the defeat of
to the “foreign” force advancing upon us, a woman’s voice
G[ermany]
cried out from the spot: we cannot — the “domestic” force does not allow us to forget about it.
And, indeed, these two forces wage an unceasing struggle among themselves for the soul of the Russian democrat following events. (p. 1)
Ya.
2 — w[orke]rs # >
... I know, a significant part of the working democracy
will say
— if these lines catch their eye — will say
that such feelings could only be held by chauvinist hangers-on of the bourgeoisie, while they — the internationalists — were always for peace and could not be interested in defense simply because they were always guided by the idea of international solidarity.
So they say, so they think, and nevertheless the very fact of such a predominance of internationalism precisely among Russian workers is completely improbable after everything that has happened among the workers of the West... (p.
P. S. I have just read in No. 241 of “Russkie Vedomosti” (of October 21) an exposition of the content of
g
Plekhanov’s article, printed in the newspaper “Priziv.”
Plek[hanov] in Priz[iv] ^ I was very gladdened by this article... (p. 3)

ON PATRIOTISM AND INTERNATIONALITY
A. N. Potresov.*
Potr[es]ov p.
... It must also be remembered that alongside the forces of im-
y ^ __ y £
perialist predation, forces of another order continue their line — the forces of established
Only those passages from the Collection “Samozashchita,” No. 1 for 1916, which Lenin marked and copied onto the book’s cover (see marginal notes) are printed here. He usually did this when he wanted to note for himself the most important or most interesting passage of a book.
Ed.
Lenin Miscellany XVII
19

290
LENIN MISCELLANY
within national-state frameworks of diverse and multifaceted cultures. International will must reckon with cultural-political unity, which forms the national-state individuality of each country, not only as a force that cannot currently be overcome, and with which therefore a compromise-truce is concluded, but also as a genuine wealth accumulated by history, which must be preserved and which — being
XVIII.
1848<>
Marx on Lopatin (5 July 1870): *51
“A very alert, critical mind, cheerful character, stoic like a Russian peasant, who makes do with whatever he finds. Weak point: Poland. Here he speaks exactly like an Englishman — say an English Chartist of the old school — about Ireland” (IV, 292)
NB
(1)
(*)
(3;
phrase
XIX.
ON THE POLISH QUESTION/*
The Polish delegation, consisting of the representation of the Main Board of the Social Democracy of Russian Poland and Lithuania, the Regional Board of the Social Democracy of Russian Poland and Lithuania, and the Central Committee of the Polish Socialist Party, submitted the following declaration on the Polish question to the International Socialist Conference in Zimmerwald:

The representatives of the leading circles of the three Polish social democratic party organizations active in Russian Poland, on the occasion of the first meeting of representatives of the socialist workers of the belligerent countries, make the following declaration:
From the first moment of the war, all social democratic parties of Russian Poland, despite the differences that divided them before the war, unanimously and jointly demonstrated their principled enmity
The excerpt was made by Lenin on a separate sheet of paper, numbered in pencil: “| 3 |.” Ed.
Lenin’s remarks and underlinings are taken from the surviving copy of Bulletin No. 2 of the International Socialist Commission (“Internationale Kommunistische Kommission zu Bern, Bulletin”), dated November 27, 1915.
Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT “CONDITIONS OF PEACE”
291
transformed — will form the basis of the higher culture of the future.
Reckoning with this national-state individualism of each country — that very individualism which, incidentally, has long been recognized as legitimate in the well-known and popular thesis on the right to self-determination — international will will eo ipso* reckon also with the phenomenon derivative of this individualism — with patriotism in its proletarian-democratic essence. (pp. 14-15)

XVIII.
Marx on Lopatin (5 July 1870):81
“A very clear, critical mind, cheerful character, patient and enduring, like a Russian peasant, who is content with everything at hand. Weak point: Poland. On this point he speaks exactly like an Englishman — say, an English Chartist of the old school — about Ireland” (April 292).

XIX.
ON THE POLISH QUESTION **
The Polish delegation, consisting of representatives of the Main Board of the Social Democracy of Russian Poland and Lithuania, the Warsaw Board of the Social Democracy of Russian Poland and Lithuania, and the Central Committee of the Polish Socialist Party, made the following declaration on the question of Poland to the International Socialist Conference in Zimmerwald:

The representatives of the leading circles of the three Polish social democratic organizations active in the Kingdom of Poland take advantage of the first meeting of representatives of the proletariat of the warring countries to declare the following:
From the first moment of the war, despite the differences that divided them before it, all social democratic organizations of the Kingdom of Poland unanimously and jointly adopted an irreconcilable position, both in relation to
NB
(1)
;2)
13)
^Phrase!
—  of itself.

292
LENIN MISCELLANY
to the war and resolutely opposed all attempts to infect the Polish proletariat with the contagion of war ideology.

In the face of the terrible devastation of the entire country, which from the first moment of the war has not ceased, throughout its whole extent, to be the immediate theater of the most ruthless destruction wrought by millions of men slaughtering each other — the class-conscious Polish proletariat remained faithful to the banner of international socialism, manifesting this in word and deed in all industrial centers of the country, both in the joint demonstrations of the Social Democratic parties and in the numerous open elected workers' institutions.

From the first moment of the war, the entire Polish Social Democracy opposed equally the demagogic liberation legends by means of which the governments of both coalitions sought to conceal their predatory imperialist aims, as well as the so-called "orientations" of the Polish bourgeois parties, which supported and disseminated these legends in the form of special national war programs ("unification of Poland," a Polish "buffer state," etc.).

The Polish Social Democracy fights against the cynical demagogy of the tsarist government, the bloody executioner of the Polish people, which at the outbreak of the war came forward with ringing promises, reduced and repudiated them after the first military successes, only to renew them now under the weight of defeat, after the loss of Warsaw, to the country occupied by German troops.

Polish socialism fights against the designs of German and Austrian imperialism, which from the beginning of the war to the present moment has been playing a base and deceitful game with the Polish people, and whose real intentions are reflected in the retention of anti-Polish credits in the Prussian budget and the language paragraph in the imperial legislation, as well as in the subordination of the civil administration of formerly autonomous Galicia to an Austrian general.

294
LENIN MISCELLANY
The class-conscious revolutionary Polish proletariat, finally, opposed itself to the coalitions of the Polish possessing classes, which on both sides of the battle line, obedient to their class interests and in accordance with their imperialist hopes and aspirations, support the warring governments, justifying for the Poles the (doubly) fratricidal war by alleged Polish aims.

At the present moment, the Polish lands, transformed into one gigantic cemetery and one bloody desert, face the immediate danger of new annexation operations and partition projects.

The German and Austrian governments, depriving the Polish people of the possibility of deciding their own fate, regard the Polish regions as a pledge in the coming game of compensations, which is either to be divided between the Central Monarchies or bargained back to Russian tsarism.

In this, with particular brutality, is manifested the essence of the policy of capitalist governments, which, sending the popular masses to the slaughter, at the same time autocratically determine the fate of the people for entire generations.

The Polish Social Democracy enters a most decisive and solemn protest against the cutting up and tearing apart of an entire country, which is being sacrificed to what in the era of the Holy Alliance was called the "convenances de l'Europe" and what is now the naked strategic interest of the great powers and the economic class demand of the ruling imperialist cliques.

With the deepest bitterness did the Polish socialist workers learn that the majority of socialists, both in the countries of the Triple Entente and in the Central Monarchies, succumbed to the influence of war hypnosis — some, following the command of the imperialists, actively supported the rehabilitation of tsarism, others entrusted the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns with the liberation of oppressed peoples. At the moment when

296
LENIN MISCELLANY
At the moment when the German government is preparing to dispose of the Polish lands as if they were a conquered colony, the barely veiled declaration of the government to this effect met with no opposition from German Social Democracy. The German social-nationalists, who before the war fought the Polish-Galician social-patriotic war-mongers, are now abetting the latter's criminal and most senseless war utopias, in order thereby to justify their own support of the government.

By demonstrating the incapacity of capitalism to adapt interstate relations to the requirements of the world economy, and by imposing the heaviest burdens on the popular masses, the present war opens an era of military conflicts and social upheavals. The revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, which on this basis must unfold with elemental force on an international, European scale, will be directed against the very foundations of the capitalist system itself, and will develop into a struggle for socialism.

The Polish Social Democracy expresses the conviction that only participation in this impending struggle of the revolutionary international proletariat, which will also shatter the fetters of national oppression and abolish every form of foreign domination, can secure for the Polish people the possibility of a free, all-round development as an equal member in the International of Peoples.

Here are contained the following five propositions in [r]e[l]a[t]i[o]n [t]o* political postulates.

(1) The Polish people must have an "Entscheidung über ihre Geschicke."**  
* — more accurately, Ed.  
** — "decision regarding its own destiny." Ed.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
297
when the German government is preparing to dispose of the Polish regions as a conquered colony, the barely concealed corresponding intention in the chancellor's declaration met with no resistance from German Social Democracy. The German social-nationalists, who before the war fought the Polish-Galician social-patriotic war-mongers, are now patronizing their senseless and criminal war utopias, in order thereby to justify the support they themselves give to their governments.

The present war, having revealed the incapacity of capitalism to adapt interstate relations to the requirements of the world economy, and having imposed the heaviest burdens on the popular masses, opens an era of military conflicts and social upheavals. The revolutionary struggle of the proletariat, which under these conditions must flare up with elemental force on an international, European scale, will be directed against the very foundations of the capitalist system, and will unfold into a struggle for socialism. ((only!))

The Polish S.D. expresses the conviction that only participation in this impending struggle of the revolutionary international proletariat, participation in a struggle which will tear asunder the fetters of national oppression and destroy every form of foreign domination, will also secure for the Polish people the possibility of all-round free development as an equal member in the International of Peoples.
(2) "possibility of free development as an equal member in the I[nternatio]nal of P[eople]s"
(3) "liberation of oppressed peoples"
(4) must be "torn asunder the fetters of national oppression and destroyed every form of foreign domination"
(5) countries "must not be carved up and divided into parts" ...*

Lenin's note is written on the bulletin under the Polish statement. Ed.

298
LENIN MISCELLANY
Im
richtig!
n b
XX.
IMPERIALISM, THE WORLD WAR AND SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
By Hermann Gorter.32
Brotherhood with the working class in the colonies... 12/
...revolutionary Social Democracy is against capitalist colonial policy. — Why?
...also in its own interest... The workers from the colonies are used as its competitors, as wage depressors. The small peasants and workers of India, and of the parts of the world oppressed by the powerful states, are the future socialists. The time is drawing ever nearer when not only the Japanese and Chinese workers, but also the Indian and the black working population of certain parts of Africa, will come to the workers' movement.
The proletariat must not alienate these workers and small peasants.
It should help and assist them in everything, for it must be helped by them.
They should already now realize that they belong to the European and American and Australian proletariat.
Colonial policy causes enmity between workers, when workers of different nationalities become involved in it. Colonial policy awakens in the workers imperialism, nationalism and chauvinism, and thus divides them.

"Colonial program"... 1)
1) And the proletariat, although it realizes that colonial policy develops capitalism, has the right to oppose it, because it knows and strives for a different, better society than the capitalist one, and because at least the Western European states Germany and England are materially ripe for this socialist society.

Headings for individual passages from Gorter's book were made by Lenin on the cover of the copy he read. Underlinings and marks by Lenin are also taken from this preserved copy.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
299
XX.
IMPERIALISM, THE WORLD WAR AND SOCIAL
Brotherhood with the working class in the colonies... 12
...revolutionary Social Democracy is against capitalist colonial policy. Why?
...also from the point of view of its own interests. The workers of the colonies are used as its competitors, as wage depressors. The small landowners and workers of India and the countries exploited by the great powers are the future socialists. The time is drawing ever nearer when not only the Japanese and Chinese workers, but also the Indian and the black working population of certain parts of Africa will join the workers' movement.
The proletariat must not alienate these workers and small peasants.
It should help and assist them in everything, for it too needs their help.
They should now already understand that they belong to the European, American and Australian proletariat.
Colonial policy breeds enmity between workers, when workers of different nationalities are drawn into it. Colonial policy awakens in workers imperialism, nationalism and chauvinism, and consequently divides them.

"Colonial program"... 14.
1) The proletariat, if it understands that colonial policy helps the development of capitalism, has the right to oppose it, for it knows a different, better society than the capitalist one, a socialist society, striving for it, and because, at least the Western European states Germany and England are materially ripe for this socialist society.
correct!
NB
not only!
9
DEMOCRACY
By Hermann Gorter.32
Western European

300
LENIN MISCELLANY
With what has been said above, the colonial program of revolutionary Social Democracy is also given. It comprises: 1. Protest against colonial subjugation and exploitation. 2. Attempt to protect and liberate the natives, as long as they themselves are too weak for revolutionary action. 3. Support of every revolutionary action of the natives, and demand for their political and national independence, as soon as they themselves begin a revolutionary action.

Ref[o]rmists against the freedom of India... 66.
We have seen above that colonial policy, and therefore imperialism, can bring direct small advantages to individual larger or smaller groups of workers. It brings work and wages. Also for the petty bourgeois, the small masters and shopkeepers, drops of the golden colonial profits fall.
That is why the German petty-bourgeois reformists Bernstein, Noske, etc., etc., are for colonial policy.
That is why in Holland the petty-bourgeois reformists, like Troelstra, Vliegen, the parliamentary fraction, the entire leadership and almost all members of the S.D.A.P., are for colonial policy, and they stand hostilely opposed to the independence and immediate liberation of India.

Nations striving for the establishment of national states...124
England, Germany, France, the United States strive for the highest capital power, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Japan for a high power.
And the half or wholly agrarian countries strive to make themselves into independent capitalist states, with their own industry: Russia, Canada, Argentina, Australia, South Africa.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
301
(
What has been stated above represents the colonial program of revolutionary social democracy.
It contains: 1. Protest against the colonial policy of violence and oppression. 2. An attempt to protect and promote the liberation of the natives, while they are still too weak for an independent revolutionary movement. 3. Support for every revolutionary uprising of the natives and assistance in their struggle for political and national independence, as soon as they begin this struggle and undertake their own revolutionary action.
Reformists against the freedom of India... 66.
(
"We saw above that colonial policy, and consequently imperialism, can bring certain larger or smaller groups of workers
NB
-
immediate petty advantages. Work and wages appear. And for the petty bourgeoisie, for small masters and shopkeepers, drops of golden colonial profits fall.
{
That is why the German petty-bourgeois reformists, Bernstein, Noske, etc., etc., stand for colonial policy.
That is why in Holland the petty-bourgeois reformists, like Troelstra, Vliegen, the parliamentary faction,
all the leading circles of the party and almost
all members of the S.D.A.P. speak out for colonial policy
and are hostile to the independence
]yg
and immediate liberation of India.
Nations striving to found national states ... 121
England, Germany, France, the United States strive for the highest power of capital, Italy,
Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland,
Japan — for high power.
Countries wholly or half agricultural strive to transform themselves into independent capitalist states with their own industry. Such are: Russia, Canada,
Argentina, Australia, South Africa.

302
LENIN MISCELLANY
S B  NB
NB
And besides there are countries which must still found their nationality on a basis suitable for capitalism, and they strive for this: the countries of Austria-Hungary, the Balkans, Turkey, China.
And the subjugated colonies begin to strive for their own independent capitalist power: British and Dutch India, Egypt.
But everywhere the nation, nationality is the driving force, and at the same time the basis, on which and by means of which capitalism can develop.
The position of the small state. 37 note.
1) As for the small nations, their nationality is certainly threatened. And from all sides.
quite right!
By "friends" and enemies. They cannot pursue an independent policy in the long run. The proletariat of these countries must therefore, not only for other reasons, but also for this reason, follow the policy of the proletariats of the large countries which we defend.
Striving of nations for freedom... 127.
And the nationalities not yet founded: China and Turkey, the Balkan states, want to become free nations,
NB
independent of the capitalist-strong nations. Therefore they come into conflict with these.
And the subjugated colonies want to become free and themselves capitalist-strong. Thus their interest comes into conflict with that of their exploiters.
... This is the appearance of the earth: Capitalist-strong nations, Capitalist-weak nations, Non-independent, Enslaved, Not yet founded Capitalist Nations.

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
303
Besides, there are countries which must still build their nationality on foundations suitable for capitalism and strive for this. Such are the countries: Austria-Hungary, the states of the Balkan Peninsula, Turkey, China.
And the colonies subjugated until now begin to strive for their own independent capitalist power. Such are British and Dutch India, Egypt.
But everywhere the nation, nationality represents
UV NB
<13 itself the driving force and at the same time the basis, on which and thanks to which capitalism can develop.
NB
The position of the small state. 37 note.
1) As for the small national states, their nationality is certainly under threat. And from all sides, both from "friends" and from enemies. Over a long period they cannot pursue their own policy. And for this reason, as well as for others, the proletariat of these countries must be guided by the above-mentioned policy of the proletariat of the large states.
Striving of nations for freedom ... 127.
Nationalities not yet fully formed: China and Turkey, the states of the Balkan Peninsula — want to become free nations, independent of the strong capitalist nations. Because of this they come into conflict with the latter.
And the enslaved colonies want to become free and capitalist-strong. Because of this their interests come into collision with the interests of their oppressors.
... This is the spectacle the globe presents: strong capitalist nations, weak capitalist nations, non-independent, enslaved nations with still undeveloped capitalist production.
completely
right!
NB

304
LENIN MISCELLANY
The striving for independence grows... 141.
... but at the same time the necessity of independence
NB
grows. Everywhere.
And all interests clash with each other. For a long time yet, for many many years. Everywhere, in all parts of the world.
One cannot doubt this; imperialism has made its entry. The capital expansion of the powerful collides with the consciousness of independence and the will for self-reliance of the weaker and still powerless. It collides in its parts with itself. A colossal world collision of the capitalist forces of the powerful among themselves, of the powerful with the weak, of the alliances of all with the alliances of all, is in the making. A series of wars threatens, gigantic armaments are certain, over the whole world.
Trotsky's program and self-determination... 126.
False therefore are also the practical demands which Trotsky... formulates as demands of the proletariat during and after the peace: The right of every nation to self-determination. — The United States of Europe — without monarchies, without standing armies, without ruling feudal castes, without secret diplomacies. These demands are based on a false conception of reality. They either harm the proletariat and its development, or they lie beyond the power of the proletariat, and are therefore
(2)
utopian and misleading.
XXI
THE POLISH EMIGRATION OF B.D-KY/
The past months of war have given birth in the consciousness of broad strata of the Polish people to a deep striving for independence... awakened in the working masses a national self-consciousness, alien to the chauvinism of the "black bloc" of Polish reaction, with Dmowski and Niemojewski at its head. In the public consciousness of broad strata of Polish democracy, the idea of the national independence of Poland triumphed... before the Russian democracy the Polish question arises in its full scope, unrelentingly... The Russian liberals... "refusing" to give "simple answers to the accursed questions" about the independence of Poland.
Lenin Miscellany XVII

306
•1LENIN COLLECTION
1 This quotation was taken by Lenin from Kautsky's article "Fraktion und Partei" ("Faction and Party").*
2 Quotation from Kautsky's article "Nochmals unsere Illusionen" ("Once Again About Our Illusions").
3 From Kautsky's article "Die Internationalist und der Krieg" ("The Internationalist and the War").
4 See "Materials for the Report", point VIII, p. 266.
5
In the article "Der Krieg" ("The War") in No. 319 of "Neue Zeit" of 21 August 1914, Kautsky wrote: "Whether the conditions for approving war credits were actually present and whether the vote for them was objectively correct can only be established by an impartial historical investigation after the war."
And in the article "Fraktion und Partei" ("Faction and Party") in "Neue Zeit" No. 9 of 26 November 1915, Kautsky wrote: "...the issue now is not to bring to trial those who voted for war credits on 4 August. I would least of all insist on this or wish to violate factional discipline for this purpose. Let this question be dealt with by the party congress, if other more pressing questions do not push it aside before the congress is convened."
6
"Volkstribüne" ("People's Tribune")—the organ of the Vienna district Social Democratic organization, whose leading group consisted of Deputy David, editor of the "Volkstribüne", and his closest associates: Franz Lill, Müller, and Schacherl, disciples of the revolutionary but non-Marxist leader Schumeyer. Closest to them were the "Internationalists of Austria": Fritz Adler, Robert Danneberg, and Therese Schlesinger, who represented the right wing of Zimmerwald. The "Volkstribüne" was repeatedly in opposition to the Central Committee.
7
Robert Danneberg (b. 1885) (Lenin mistakenly calls him Dannenberg)—an Austrian Social Democrat. Together with his close group (see note 6), Danneberg repeatedly criticized the patriotic illusions of the party's Central Committee and the "Arbeiterzeitung". The impetus for the discussion was given by the "Day of the German People", initiated by Friedrich Austerlitz. The "Arbeiterzeitung" did not allow discussion in its pages, but the viewpoint of the "left" found expression in Danneberg's articles published in AW Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of 17, 24, and 31 March and 7 and 14 April 1915, in the section "Kritische Bemerkungen" ("Critical Remarks"). These articles—"Kritik der anderen oder Selbstkritik?" ("Criticism of Others or Self-Criticism?"), "Die Vaterlandsverteidigung und ihre Konsequenzen für die Partei" ("Defense of the Fatherland and Its Consequences for the Party"), "Wer soll vom Frieden reden?" ("Who Should Speak of Peace?"), "Der Kampf gegen den Zarismus und 'Kaiserismus'" ("The Struggle Against Tsarism and 'Kaiserism'"), "Internationale" ("The International")—became the platform of all leftists in Austria even before Zimmerwald. Later this platform was concretized, but already with a tilt toward Kautskyism by Fritz Adler in his appeal of the "Internationalists of Austria to the International".
Ultra-patriots sharply criticized Danneberg's position. Austerlitz, who on 5 August proclaimed as a "good German" the "Day of the German People", and later as an Austrian patriot shouted

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"
307
"on to Paris", in the article "Good Italians and Bad Germans" spoke out against the right to self-determination for Italians.
8
"Przegląd Socjaldemokratyczny" ("Social Democratic Review")—the theoretical organ of the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania. It was published in Krakow under the editorship of the Main Board of the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania from 1902 to 1904 and from 1906 to 1910. The immediate direction of the journal's editorial board was in the hands of L. Tyszka, R. Luxemburg, J. Marchlewski, and A. Barski.
Articles by prominent foreign Social Democratic figures of various tendencies were also printed in "Przegląd": Kautsky, Mehring, K. Liebknecht, Lafargue, Pannekoek, Ryazanov, Maslov, and others. A number of Lenin's articles were also published in this journal: "An Assessment of the Russian Revolution" (No. 2, 1908), "The Agrarian Program of Social Democracy in the Russian Revolution" (No. 7, 1908), "A Few Remarks on P. Maslov's 'Reply'" (No. 8–9, 1908).
Below, Lenin has copied out the issues of "Przegląd" in which Rosa Luxemburg's article "The National Question and Autonomy" was published, along with the headings of the individual chapters of this article.
•
Rosa Luxemburg's article "The National Question and Autonomy" has not yet been translated into Russian. The translation of the quotations mentioned in Lenin's notes was made from Polish under the editorship of V. Krajewski.
10
"In this formula" [it refers to the right of nations to self-determination. Ed.] "what is most striking is that it is not at all anything specifically connected either with socialism or with working-class politics. 'The right of nations to self-determination'—at first glance it is a paraphrase of the old slogan of bourgeois nationalism of all countries and all times, 'the right of nations to freedom and independence'" (p. 483).
11 "...Despite the elasticity of the principle of 'the right of nations to self-determination', which is a pure platitude, being obviously equally applicable not only to peoples living in Russia, but also to nations living in Germany and Austria, Switzerland and Sweden, America and Australia, we do not find it in any program of modern socialist parties" (p. 483). The translation of this quotation was made by Lenin (see Lenin's Works, Vol. XVII, p. 434).
12 "In particular, the program of a party which operates in a state with an extremely diverse national composition, and for which the national question plays a paramount role—the program of Austrian Social Democracy does not contain the principle of the right of nations to self-determination" (p. 483). Translation made by Lenin (ibid., p. 436).
13 "In the ranks of international socialism, the Russian workers' party is the only party that has in its program the demand for 'the right of nations to self-determination'" (p. 485).
14 "This formula is, it is true, in some connection with international socialism; it is precisely a paraphrase of one paragraph of the resolution on the national question adopted in 1896 by the International Socialist Workers' Congress in London. However, the circumstances that led to the adoption of this resolution, and its text, clearly prove

308
LENIN COLLECTION
that interpreting § 9 of the program of the Russian party as an application of the London resolution would be simply a misunderstanding" (p. 485).
15 "Under the influence of the criticism of the Polish Social Democracy on the eve of the congress and the discussion that took place in connection with this in the socialist press, as well as under the influence of the first manifestation of the mass workers' movement in Russia—the memorable strike of 40,000 Petersburg textile workers in May 1896—the international congress did not adopt the Polish proposal [this refers to the proposal of the social-patriotic PPS at the London Congress. Ed.], which in its entire argumentation and character was directed against the Russian revolutionary movement. The congress adopted instead the 'London Resolution', which thus signified the rejection of the proposal for the restoration of Poland: 'The Congress declares that it stands for the full right of self-determination (Selbstbestimmungsrecht) of all nations and expresses its sympathy for the workers of every country currently suffering under the yoke of military, national, or other absolutism; the congress calls upon the workers of all these countries to join the ranks of the class-conscious (Klassenbewusste = conscious of their class interests) workers of the whole world, in order to fight together with them for the overcoming of international capitalism and for the realization of the goals of international Social Democracy' (p. 486). Translation of the paragraph of the resolution of the London Congress made by Lenin (see Lenin's Works, Vol. XVII, p. 455, as well as 'Materials for the Report', point XIII, p. 278).
16 "Indeed we see that no socialist party understood the London Resolution as a practical solution to the national question and included it in its program in that sense. In particular, Austrian Social Democracy, for which the resolution of the national problem was a matter of life, did not do so" (p. 487).
17 "...the political programs of modern workers' parties aim not at preaching abstract principles of the socialist ideal, but at formulating those practical social and political reforms which are necessary for the conscious proletariat and which it strives for within the framework of bourgeois society, in order to facilitate its class struggle and its final victory" (p. 487).
18 "The only practical conclusion that can be drawn from this formula for the everyday politics of the working class is the indication that its duty is to fight against all manifestations of national oppression. If we recognize the right of every nation to self-determination, then logically we must, of course, condemn any attempt by one people to decide the fate of another, to impose by force on another people certain forms of national life. However, the duty of the class party of the proletariat to protest and fight against national oppression does not at all stem from a special 'right of nations', just as its striving for social and political equality of the sexes does not at all stem from special 'women's rights', to which the movement of bourgeois emancipationists refers, but from the general antagonism toward the class system, toward all forms of social inequality and social domination—in short, from the very principled position of socialism" (pp. 487–8).

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE"

309

19 "But even apart from this, the aforementioned indication for practical policy is of a purely negative character." . . "In short, the formula of the 'right of nations to self-determination' is in essence not a political and programmatic indication in the field of the national question, but a kind of attempt to bypass this question" (p. 488).

20 "The sweeping and stereotyped character of § 9 of the program of the R.S.D.L.P. already shows that such a resolution of the question is alien to the position of Marxian socialism. The 'right of the nation,' applied equally to all countries and at all times, is merely a metaphysical phrase of the type of 'rights of man' and 'rights of the citizen'... 'Dialectical materialism, which is the foundation of scientific socialism, has broken once and for all with this kind of 'eternal' formulas. For historical dialectics has proven that there are no 'eternal' truths, and consequently no 'eternal rights'" (p. 488).

21 "Besides Russian Social Democracy, we find this formula [referring to the right of nations to self-determination. Ed.] only in the program of the Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries, where it is combined with the principle of state federalism."

22 "When Napoleon or some other despot like him resorts to a plebiscite, this extreme form of political democracy, for the purposes of Caesarism, exploiting the political unconsciousness and economic dependence of the popular masses, we do not hesitate to come out with all decisiveness against this 'democracy,' not in the least embarrassed by the grandeur of the sovereignty of the people, which is something like an inviolable idol for the metaphysicians of bourgeois democracy.

When a German Tessendorf, a tsarist gendarme, or a 'truly Polish' National Democrat defends the 'personal freedom' of strikebreakers, protecting them from the moral and material pressure of organized workers, we do not hesitate for a minute to speak out in favor of the latter, recognizing for them the full moral and historical right to compel their unconscious competitors to solidarity, although from the point of view of the formalism of liberalism, 'those wishing to work' undoubtedly have behind them the right of the 'free individual' to act as reason or unreason dictates to them" (p. 489).

23 "This formula either expresses nothing at all [referring to the right of nations to self-determination. Ed.], is an empty, non-binding phrase, or it unconditionally obliges socialists to support all national aspirations, and then it is directly erroneous" (p. 489).

24 "The attitude of socialists to the national question, as is already evident from the general premises of historical materialism, depends above all in each individual case on the concrete conditions, which are very different in different countries and, moreover, change greatly over time in each country. Even a superficial acquaintance with the facts is sufficient to recognize that the national struggle within the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans has a completely different character, a different economic and historical basis, a different international significance, and different prospects than the struggle of the Irish against the domination of England" (p. 489).

25 "Whoever plunges the lancet of the researcher of the peculiarities of the historical materialist deeper beneath the surface of our three national uprisings will see in them three completely different types of socio-political movement, which only due to external circumstances each time took the form of a struggle against partition... To approach the Kościuszko War, the November and January uprisings with the same yardstick of the sacred rights of a 'conquered people' means to give them no assessment at all, to display, from both a historical and political point of view, a complete lack of critical sense" (p. 490).

26 "A striking example of how a change in historical conditions influences the socialists' assessment of the national question and their attitude towards it is the Eastern question. During the Crimean War of 1855, the sympathies of all democratic and socialist Europe were on the side of Turkey and against the liberation aspirations of the Southern Slavs. The 'right' of all nations to freedom did not in the least prevent Marx, Engels, and Liebknecht from taking a hostile stance against the Balkan Slavs and decisively supporting the unity of Turkey. For they assessed the then national movement of the Slavic tribes in Turkey not from the point of view of any 'eternal,' sentimental formulas of liberalism, but from the point of view of those material relations which, according to their then views, constituted the essence of this national movement. Seeing in the liberation aspirations of the socially backward Balkan Slavs only machinations of Russian tsarism aimed at the partition of Turkey, Marx and Engels, without hesitation, subordinated the national freedom of the Slavs to the interests of European democracy, defending the unity of Turkey as a bulwark against Russian reaction. This policy, by tradition, persisted in German Social Democracy until the mid-nineties, when, on the occasion of the struggle of the Turkish Armenians, the elderly Wilhelm Liebknecht spoke out in this spirit. But it was precisely at this time that the position of German and international Social Democracy on the Eastern question changed in a directly opposite direction. Social Democracy began openly to support the aspirations of the oppressed nationalities in Turkey, aimed at winning conditions for a cultural existence in one form or another, and cast aside all concern for the artificial preservation of the unity of Turkey. It was guided by a sense of duty, but here too not solely by a sense of duty towards the Armenians and Macedonians as oppressed nations, but above all by an analysis of the material basis of relations in the East, beginning from the middle of the last century. This analysis led Social Democracy to the conviction that the political disintegration of Turkey was the result of its economic-political development in the second half of the 19th century, and that, moreover, the temporary preservation of Turkey corresponded to the interests of the reactionary diplomacy of Russian absolutism. According to this conviction, Social Democracy in this case, as in all other questions, went not against objective development, but in accordance with this development" (pp. 490-491).

27 "A direct opposite to this movement is represented by the national Hungarian uprising in 1848, for it was easy to foresee that, in view of the social and national relations in that country, the historical consequence of a Hungarian victory would be the complete domination of the Magyar minority over the mixed majority of conquered nationalities.

"Despite all the external features of revolutionariness of the Swiss movement and despite the undoubted double-edged character of the Magyar movement, vividly expressed besides in the servility with which the Hungarian revolutionaries helped the Vienna government suppress the Italian revolution, the creators of scientific socialism subjected the Swiss uprising to sharp criticism as a manifestation of reaction, while they treated the Hungarian uprising of 1848 with ardent support. Consequently, they were guided in both cases not at all by the formula of the 'right of nations to self-determination,' which was, of course, applicable to the Swiss to a much greater degree than to the Magyars, but by a realistic analysis of the movement from historical and political points of view" (p. 494).

28 "Another example can be the directly opposite attitude of Marx and Engels during the revolution of 1848 towards the national aspirations of the Czechs on the one hand and Poland on the other. There is no doubt that from the point of view of the 'right of nations to self-determination,' the Czechs could claim support from European democrats and socialists no less than the Poles. Nevertheless, Marx, paying no attention to this abstract formula, then attacked the Czechs and their liberation aspirations, considering these aspirations a harmful complication of the revolutionary situation, all the more deserving of severe condemnation because, in Marx's opinion, the Czechs were a moribund nationality doomed to early extinction. The creators of the Communist Manifesto expressed these views at the very time when they were defending the national movement of the Poles with all their might, calling upon all progressive and revolutionary forces to aid our patriots.

"With what sober realism, alien to all sentimentalism, Marx examined national problems during the revolution itself is shown precisely by his attitude to the Polish and Czech questions" (p. 491).

29 "...an even more striking example of the treatment of the national question by the founders of modern socialist policy is their purely historical, hence free from any influence of the issues and passions of current politics, assessment of the liberation movement of the Swiss in the 14th century. The uprising of the Swiss cantons against the bloody oppression of the despotism of the Habsburgs, an uprising which, in the form of the historical myth of Tell, is the object of boundless adoration of liberal-bourgeois idealistic romanticism, was assessed by Friedrich Engels in 1847 as follows: 'The struggle of the forest Swiss cantons against Austria, the glorious oath on the Rütli, Tell's heroic shot, the unforgettable victory at Morgarten—all this was the struggle of stubborn shepherds against the pressure of historical development, the struggle of obstinate, immovable local interests against the interests of the whole nation, the struggle of ignorance against education, of barbarism against civilization. The shepherds then won a victory over civilization, but as punishment for this they were cut off from all further civilization'" (p. 493).

312
LENIN MISCELLANY
30 “We cite these quotations in order to emphasize the method adhered to by Marx and Engels in the national question, a method which takes no account of any abstract formulas, but solely of the real relations in each individual case” (pp. 492–493).
31 “...the desire to bestow upon all peoples, countries, groups, and every human being the right to freedom, equality, and similar blessings by means of a single sweeping stroke of the pen is characteristic precisely of the youthful period of the socialist movement, especially of the phraseological bravado of anarchism. The socialism of the modern working class, namely scientific socialism, is not carried away by a very radical-sounding resolution of social and national questions, but examines first of all the real conditions of these problems” (p. 495).
32 “Indeed, even if we, as socialists, recognized the unconditional right of all nations to independence, the destinies of peoples would undoubtedly not change in the slightest as a result. The ‘right’ of nations to freedom, just like the ‘right’ of the worker to economic independence, in and of itself under the given social conditions has as much value as that ‘right’ of every person to eat off golden plates, about which Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote that he was ready at any moment to sell it for a ruble” (pp. 495–496).
33 “Equally, the hope of resolving national questions on the basis of capitalism, by securing for all nations, clans, and tribes the right to ‘self-determination,’ is a pure utopia. ...Marx even asserted in his time that the vocation of these remnant nations in the present moment is to be a support of counter-revolution until they are finally swept from the face of the earth by the great hurricane of revolution or world war.
‘There is not a single country in Europe that does not have in its remote corners some national remnants, leftovers of the former population, pushed aside and conquered by the nation that later became the bearer of historical development. These remnants of a nation ruthlessly trampled, in Hegel’s expression, by the course of history, these dregs of peoples become each time the fanatical bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until the moment of their complete annihilation or loss of national distinctiveness, just as their entire existence is already a protest against the great historical revolution.
‘Such in Scotland are the Highlanders, the support of the Stuarts, from 1640 to 1745.
‘Such in France are the Bretons, the support of the Bourbons, from 1792 to 1800.
‘Such in Spain are the Basques, the support of Don Carlos.
‘Such in Austria are the Pan-Slavist southern Slavs; these are only the dregs of peoples resulting from a very tangled thousand-year development.’
In another article, speaking of Pan-Slavist tendencies, Marx writes: ‘...in an epoch when in general the large monarchies in Europe represented an “historical necessity,” the Germans and Magyars united all these small, puny, and powerless nations into one large state and thereby made them capable of participating in historical development, to which they, left to themselves, would have remained completely alien...’

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT “CONDITIONS OF PEACE”
313
‘But at the present time, as a result of the powerful progress of industry, trade, and means of communication, political centralization represents an even more urgent need than it did then, in the 15th and 16th centuries. What is not yet centralized is being centralized’ (Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels u. Ferdinand Lassalle, herausgegeben von Franz Mehring. Bd. III, S. 241 u. 255) (pp. 496–97).
34 “Kautsky... emphasizes mainly the peaceful, cultural side of development, whereas Marx emphasizes its political side, the external weapon of which is conquest. Both of them, however, characterize the fate of nationalities in the course of history not as a tendency toward separation and independence, but quite the opposite.
‘Kautsky, as far as we know, for the first time in modern socialist literature formulates the historical tendency toward the destruction of national peculiarities in general under the socialist system and toward the merging of all civilized humanity into one nationality.
‘Kautsky notes, it is true, that in our time capitalist development simultaneously evokes a phenomenon that at first glance contradicts this: the awakening and growth of national consciousness and the need for a national state. The latter is the state form that best corresponds to modern conditions and in which the state can most successfully fulfill its tasks’” (p. 499).
35 “...This ‘best’ national state is only an abstraction, easily amenable to theoretical development and theoretical defense, but not corresponding to reality” (p. 499). The translation was made by Lenin (see Lenin’s Works, Vol. XVII, p. 429).
36 “Historical development in the direction of a universal cultural commune proceeds through contradictions, like all social development, but this contradiction to the unifying development of international civilization lies not where Kautsky seeks it, not in the tendency toward the ideal of the ‘national state,’ but where Marx points: in the struggle among peoples for the creation of great states, apart from great cultural spheres and despite them”... (pp. 499–500).
37 “From the point of view of... the struggle for existence on the international market, world politics, and colonial possessions, for the great capitalist states, ‘the state that best corresponds to its tasks in modern conditions,’ i.e., to the needs of capitalist exploitation, is not the ‘national’ state, as Kautsky supposes, but the predatory (rapacious) state” (p. 501).
38 On page 501 of her article, Rosa Luxemburg provides the following table of “colonies of various states”:
(p. 499).
In Asia . . .
In Africa . .
In America .
In Australia
Great Britain
France
Germany
361,445,000 18,073,000
120,041
40,028,000 31,500,000 11,447,000
7,557,300
428,819
—
Holland
37,734,000
142,000*
5,811,000
89,000
448,000

314
LENIN MISCELLANY
Belgium
Denmark
Spain
Portugal
USA
—
810,000
7,635,426
In Asia.................
—
In Africa........... 19,000,000
In America...........
—
In Australia
. . .
—
42,422
291,000
6,460,000
953,243
13,000
“To the above-mentioned enormous figures, covering about 500 million population, one should add,” writes R. Luxemburg, “the colossal population figures of those countries that do not figure as colonies but that are in fact in complete dependence on European countries; then these population figures should be broken down into an incalculable number of nationalities and ethnographic groups in order to clearly imagine what has been the impact of capitalist imperialism so far on the destinies of nations and on the possibility of their ‘self-determination’” (p. 501).
39 “...Brazil, Argentina, and other former colonies, in which Portuguese and Spanish emigrants play the predominant role, achieved their independence from European countries first of all in order to independently conduct the slave trade and freely exploit them on plantations, as well as to seize all surrounding weaker colonies. In all probability, the relations in India are of the same character, where recently a rather serious ‘national’ movement against England seems to be awakening. The very existence in India of a huge number of nationalities at different stages of social and cultural development and mutual dependence should caution against too hasty an assessment of the Indian movement by the vulgar yardstick of the ‘right of nations’” (p. 502).
40 “Speaking of the ‘right of nations to self-determination,’ we abuse the concept of ‘nation,’ viewing it as something whole, as a single social and political quantity. But precisely this concept of ‘nation’ is one of those categories of bourgeois ideology that Marxist theory has subjected to radical revision, showing that under this nebulous shell, just as under the concept of ‘civil liberty,’ ‘equality before the law,’ etc., a quite definite historical content is concealed.”
... “Of a collective and unified will, of the self-determination of ‘nations’ in a society thus constituted, there can be no question. If we encounter in the history of modern society a ‘national’ movement and a struggle for ‘national’ interests, then this is usually a class movement of the ruling layer of the bourgeoisie, which in this case can represent the interests of other national strata insofar as, under the guise of ‘national interests,’ it defends progressive forms of historical development and insofar as the working class has not yet separated from the mass of this ‘nation’ following the bourgeoisie into an independent, politically conscious class. The French bourgeoisie had the right to act in this sense as the third estate in the Great Revolution in the name of the French ‘nation,’ and even the German bourgeoisie in 1848 could still to some extent consider itself the representative of the German ‘nation’...” (pp. 502–503).

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT ("CONDITIONS OF PEACE")

315
tion," although the *Communist Manifesto*, and partly the *Neue Rheinische Zeitung*, were already outposts of a particular class policy of the German proletariat. In both cases, this meant only that the revolutionary class cause of the bourgeoisie at that stage of social development was simultaneously the cause of the entire popular stratum, which together with the bourgeoisie still constituted a single political mass in relation to the dominant feudalism.

"This circumstance already proves that the position of the socialist party on the national question cannot be based on operating with 'rights of nations.' The very fact of the existence of such a party testifies that the bourgeoisie has ceased to be the representative of the entire popular mass, that the class of the proletariat is not hiding in the folds of bourgeois clothing, but has separated from it as an independent class with its own particular social and political aspirations.

"And since the understanding of the words 'nation,' 'right,' and 'will of the nation' in the sense of a single whole, as we have already pointed out, is a remnant of the period of immature and unacknowledged antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the application of this concept by a proletariat possessing class consciousness and an independent organization would be a glaring contradiction to history" (pp. 504–5).

41 "'The nation' must have the right to self-determination. But who is this 'nation' and who is authorized, who has the 'right' to be the exponent of the 'nation' and its will? How can one know what the 'nation' really wants? Is there even a single political party that would not assert that it, contrary to all others, is the true exponent of the will of the 'nation,' while others represent only a distortion, a falsification of the national will?" (p. 507).

42 "At first glance, the principle of democracy seems to provide a possibility to distinguish the true will of the nation, a possibility which lies in establishing the opinion of the majority.

"The nation wants what the majority of the nation wants. But woe to that social democratic party which would ever recognize this principle as binding for itself: such recognition would be tantamount to a death sentence for social democracy as a revolutionary party. Social democracy is essentially a party expressing the interests of the vast majority of the nation. Nevertheless, if we speak of the expression of the conscious will of social democracy, it is, for now, in bourgeois society, a party of the minority striving to become the majority. However, social democracy strives to be the party of the majority not by reflecting in its aspirations, its politics, its program the will of the majority of the nation; on the contrary, it strives for this by becoming the exponent of the conscious will not of the entire nation at all, but only of the class of the proletariat. And even within the framework of this class, social democracy is not and does not claim to be the exponent of the will of the majority; it expresses only the will and consciousness of the advanced, most revolutionary stratum of the urban, industrial proletariat. It seeks to expand this will, striving to clear its path to the majority of the working people, by explaining to them their own interests. The 'will

316 LENIN MISCELLANY

of the nation' or its majority is by no means an idol before which social democracy reverently bows; on the contrary, the entire historical mission of social democracy consists primarily in revolutionizing and educating the will of the 'nation,' i.e., its working majority" (p. 508).

43 "Let us take a concrete example of the application of the principle of the 'right of nations to self-determination.'"

"With regard to Poland at a given revolutionary moment, one of the Russian social democrats from the editorial board of the former *Iskra* [meaning Martov, who published an article in Polish in *Rabotnik*. Ed.] in 1906 argued for the necessity of a constituent assembly in Warsaw as follows:

"'If one proceeds from the consideration that the political organization of Russia is the decisive factor in the question of existing national oppression, then one must conclude that the proletariat of the oppressed nationalities and annexed countries must take the most active part in the organization of the Russian legislative assembly. This assembly must, if it wishes to fulfill its revolutionary mission, break the bonds of coercion with which the autocracy has bound the 'dominant' and oppressed nationalities.

"'And there is no satisfactory, i.e., revolutionary, way to resolve this question except by implementing the right of nations to self-determination.

"'...But in what concrete form should the already recognized right to self-determination be realized?

"'Where the national question is more or less identical with the question of state law, and this applies precisely to Poland, there the body capable of realizing the right to self-determination won by the nation can and must be a regional legislative assembly, whose task is to determine the relationship of the given 'borderland country' to the state as a whole, its further belonging to the state or secession, its internal structure, and its future connection with the state whole.

"'Consequently, the legislative assembly of Poland must decide whether Poland is to enter the new Russia and what the constitution of Poland should be. And the Polish proletariat must exert every effort so that its class will leaves as strong an imprint as possible on the decision of this body of national self-government.

"'...The demand put forward by the proletariat for a legislative assembly for Poland must in no case mean that the Polish nation should be represented in the Russian legislative assembly by some delegation of the Warsaw Sejm.

"'I think that such representation in the Russian assembly would not correspond to the interests of revolutionary development. It would bind the proletarian and bourgeois elements of the Polish Sejm with a solidarity and mutual responsibility that contradict the actual relationship of their interests.'"

"This article, which gives moral sanction to the opportunist wing of the

MATERIALS FOR THE REPORT "CONDITIONS OF PEACE" 317

RSDLP for the Warsaw Constituent Assembly, put forward by the PPS in the first period of the revolution, had no practical consequences. After the split in the PPS, the so-called left wing of that party, having publicly renounced the program of restoring Poland, was forced to renounce also the partial nationalist program in the form of the slogan of the Warsaw Constituent Assembly. But this article remains a characteristic attempt to operate in practice with the principle of the 'right of nations to self-determination.'

"The slogan of the Warsaw Constituent Assembly is thus clearly devoid of any political or theoretical significance, as a short-lived trial improvisation of bankrupt Polish nationalism, like a soap bubble that bursts immediately. This slogan is fit only for illustrating the practical application of the right of nations to self-determination.

"This illustration is new proof that, by recognizing the 'right of nations to self-determination' within the framework of the existing order, social democracy offers 'nations' either a cheap sanction to act as 'nations' can act only on the basis of 'force,' or an empty phrase devoid of any force. But this position contradicts the true vocation of social democracy: the defense of the class interests of the proletariat and the revolutionary development of society. Meanwhile, the founders of scientific socialism were guided solely by these considerations when examining the national question" (pp. 509–512).

44 "In his article on national struggle and the social democratic program in Austria, published ten years ago, Kautsky speaks of those factors which, in his opinion, constitute the roots of the modern national idea, the growth of which 'accompanies throughout Europe the formation of the modern state.' These factors are as follows: 'the striving of the bourgeoisie to secure an internal market for its commodity production, then the striving for political freedom, for democracy, finally the striving for the spread of popular education and literature'" (p. 598).

45 "Already from the cited formulation of Kautsky's theory, we see first of all his fundamental position, namely the view of the national question as a historical category" (p. 598).

48 "...The national idea in the cited formulation is most closely connected with a specific epoch of modern development. ... When it is a question of the national movement as a manifestation of political life, a striving to explain the so-called national state, its connection with the bourgeois epoch is undeniable. The history of the national unification of Germany is a typical example of this. The nucleus around which the later German Empire crystallized was that German 'Zollverein,' 'Zollparlament,' whose champion, Friedrich List, with his vulgar theory of 'national economy,' must be recognized to a much greater extent as the true messiah of Germany's national unity than the idealist Fichte, who is usually called the first apostle of Germany's national rebirth" (p. 599).

47 "...The specific form of national aspirations corresponding to the class interests of the bourgeoisie is state independence.

318
LENIN COLLECTION

"The nation-state represents at the same time that necessary historical form in which the bourgeoisie passes from national defense to an offensive position, from defending and consolidating its own nationality to a policy of seizure and domination over other nationalities."

48
"...The bourgeoisie grows and develops as a class within the womb of the feudal aristocratic-oligarchic order. Striving for the triumph of capitalism as a form of production, for its own triumph as the ruling class, it creates the modern state on the ruins of the noble order. With the development of capitalism and the domination of the bourgeoisie, already within the framework of the class bourgeois state, the proletariat in turn emerges politically.
...Taking the question from a historical point of view, the idea that the modern proletariat can, as a separate class conscious of its interests, now create (dopiero) only the modern nation-state — this idea is equivalent to the notion that the bourgeoisie in any country whatsoever would begin by creating a feudal order, if such had not accidentally arisen normally or taken special forms, as, for example, in Russia" (p. 601). From the words: "Taking the question" — Lenin's translation.

40 "Historically, the class vocation, the task of the bourgeoisie is the creation of the modern 'national' state, while the historical task of the proletariat is the destruction of this state, as the political form of capitalism from which it itself is born, in order to create the socialist order. The proletariat, as the popular mass, can participate in the national movement of the bourgeoisie, where the development of the bourgeoisie requires the creation of a 'national' state, as, for example, was the case in Germany. But then it acts under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, and not as an independent class with a special political program" (p. 603). From the words: "Historically" to "destruction" — Lenin's translation.

50 See note 15, p. 308.

51 "Der Briefwechsel zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx". Hrsg. von August Bebel und Eduard Bernstein. IV. Stuttgart. 1921 ("Correspondence of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx", published by August Bebel and Eduard Bernstein. IV. Stuttgart, 1921), p. 292.

52 On Gorter, see Lenin's Works, Vol. XIX, p. 263 and note on p. 43.