V. I.

Lenin

( Theses on points 5, 6, 7a, 7b, and 8 of the agenda: the
struggle to end the war; the attitude towards the problems of
peace, parliamentary action and mass struggles, and the
convocation of the International Socialist
Bureau. [2] )

( The International Socialist Committee, in its notice convening
the Second Conference, invited the affiliated organisations to
discuss the above questions, and to send in their proposals. In
reply to this invitation our Party submits the following
theses.)

1. Just as all war is but a continuation by violent means of the
politics which the belligerent states and their ruling classes had been conducting for many years, sometimes
for decades , before the outbreak of war, so the peace that ends any war can be nothing but a consideration
and a record of the actual changes brought about in the
relation of forces in the course of and as a result of the
war.

2. As long as the foundations of present, i.e., bourgeois,
social relations remain intact, an imperialist war can lead
only to an imperialist peace, i.e., to greater, more extensive and more intense oppression of wreak nations and
countries by finance capital, which grew to gigantic proportions not only in the period prior to
the war, but also during the war. The objective content of
the policies pursued by the bourgeoisie and the governments
of both groups of Great Powers before and during the war leads to intensified economic oppression, national
enslavement and political reaction. Therefore, provided the
bourgeois social system remains, the peace that follows upon
the war, whatever its outcome, must perpetuate this worsening
of the economic and political condition of the masses.

To assume that a democratic peace may emerge from an imperialist
war is, in theory, to substitute vulgar phrases for an historical study of the policies conducted before and during
that war. In practice, it is to deceive the masses of the people
by beclouding their political consciousness, by covering up and
prettifying the real policies pursued by the ruling classes to
prepare the ground for the coming peace, by concealing from the
masses the main thing, namely, that a democratic peace is
impossible without a whole series of revolutions.

3. Socialists do not refuse to fight for reform. Even now, for
example, they must vote in parliament for improvements,
however slight, in the condition of the masses, for increased
relief to the inhabitants of the devastated areas, for the
lessening of national oppression, etc. But it is sheer bourgeois deception to preach reforms as a solution
for problems for which history and the actual political
situation demand revolutionary solutions ’That is precisely
the kind of problems the present war has brought to the
fore. These are the fundamental questions of imperialism,
i.e., the very existence of capitalist society, the questions
of postponing the collapse of capitalism by a re-division of
the world to correspond to the new relation of forces among
the “Great” Powers, which in the last few decades have developed, not only at fantastic speed, but—and this is
particularly important—also with extreme unevenness. Real political activity working a change in the
relation of social forces, and not merely deceiving the
masses with words, is now possible only in one of two forms—either helping “one’s own” national bourgeoisie to
rob other countries (and calling this “defence of the fatherland” or “saving the country”), or assisting the
proletarian socialist revolution fostering and stirring up
the ferment which is beginning among the masses in all the
belligerent countries, aiding the incipient strikes and
demonstrations, etc., extending and sharpening these as yet
feeble expressions of revolutionary mass struggle into a
general proletarian assault to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

Just as all the social-chauvinists are at present deceiving the
people by covering up the real, i.e., imperialist, policy of the capitalists, which is being continued in the
present war with hypocritical phrases about the “dishonest”
attack and “honest” defence on the part of this or that group
of predatory capitalists, so phrases about a “a democratic peace” serve only to deceive the people, as if the
coming peace, which is already being prepared by the capitalists
and diplomats, could “simply” abolish “dishonest” attacks and
restore “honest” relations, and as if it would not be a
continuation, a development, and a perpetuation of this very
imperialist policy, i.e., a policy of financial looting,
colonial robbery, national oppression, political reaction and
intensified capitalist exploitation in every form. What the
capitalists and their diplomats now need is “socialist” servants of the bourgeoisie to deafen, dupe and
drug the people with talk about a “democratic peace ” so as to cover up the real policy of the bourgeoisie, making it difficult for the masses to realise the
real nature of this policy and diverting them from the revolutionary struggle.

4. The “democratic” peace programme, in drafting which prominent
representatives of the Second International are now engaged,
is precisely such a piece of bourgeois deception and hypocrisy. For example, Huysmans at the Arnhem
Congress [3] and Kautsky in Die Neue Zeff, the most authoritative,
official, and “theoretical” spokesmen of this International,
formulated this programme as suspension of the revolutionary
struggle until the imperialist governments have concluded
peace; in the meantime, there are verbal repudiation of
annexations and indemnities, verbal recognition of the self-determination of nations, democratisation of
foreign politics, courts of arbitration to examine international conflicts between states, disarmament, a United
States of
Europe, [4] etc., etc. The real political significance of this “peace programme” was revealed
with particular force by Kautsky, when, to prove the “unanimity of the International” on this question, he cited
the unanimous adoption by the London Conference (February 1915) and the Vienna Conference (April
1915) of the main point of this programme, namely, the
“independence of nations”. Kautsky, before the whole world,
thus openly gave his sanction to the deliberate deception of the people perpetrated by the
social-chauvinists, who combine verbal, hypocritical recognition of “independence” or self-determination of
nations, recognition that binds no one and leads nowhere,
with support for “their own” governments in the imperialist
war, notwithstanding the fact that on both sides the war is accompanied by systematic violations of the
“independence” of weak nations and is being waged for the purpose of consolidating and extending their oppression.

Objectively, this cheap “peace programme” reinforces the
subjection of the working class to the bourgeoisie by “reconciling” the workers, who are beginning to develop a
revolutionary struggle, with their chauvinist leaders, by
underplaying the gravity of the crisis in the socialist movement
to bring back the pre-war state of affairs in the socialist
parties which led the majority of the leaders to desert to the
bourgeoisie. The fact that this “Kautskyite” policy is clothed
in plausible phrases and that it is being conducted not only in
Germany but in all countries, makes it all the more dangerous
for the proletariat. In Britain, for instance, this policy is
being pursued by the majority of the leaders; in France, by
Longuet, Pressemane and others; in Russia, by Axelrod, Martov,
Chkheidze and others; Chkheidze is screening the chauvinist idea
of “defence of the country” in the present war with the “save
the country” phrase, paying lip-service to Zimmerwald, on the
one hand, and on the other, praising Huysmans’s notorious Arnhem
speech in an official declaration by his group: but neither from
the floor of the Duma nor in the press has he actually opposed
the participation of the workers in the war industries committees, and remains on the staff of newspapers advocating
such participation. In Italy, a similar policy is being pursued
by Treves: see the threat made by
Avanti! , [5] the Central
Organ of the Italian Socialist Party, of March 5, 1916, to
expose Treves and other ”reformist-possibilists”, to expose
those “who resorted to every means to prevent the Party
Executive and Oddino Morgari from taking action to secure unity
at Zimmerwald and to create a new International”, etc., etc.

5. The chief of the “peace questions” at the present time is
that of annexations. It most strikingly reveals the now prevailing socialist hypocrisy and the tasks of real
socialist propaganda and agitation.

It is necessary to explain the meaning of annexations, and why
and how socialists must fight against them, Not every appropriation of “foreign” territory can be described as an
annexation, for, generally speaking, socialists favour the
abolition of frontiers between nations and the formation of
larger states; nor can every disturbance of the status quo be described as an annexation, for this would be
extremely reactionary and a mockery of the fundamental concepts
of the science of history; nor can every military seizure of
territory be called annexation, for socialists cannot repudiate
violence and wars in the interests of the majority of the
population. Annexation must apply only to the appropriation of
territory against the will of the population of that territory; in other words, the concept of annexation is
inseparably bound up with the concept of self-determination of
nations.

The present war, however—precisely bemuse it is an imperialist war insofar as -both groups of belligerent
powers are concerned-inevitably had to and did give rise to the
phenomenon of the bourgeoisie and the social-chauvinists
“fighting” violently against annexations when this is done by an
enemy state. This kind of “struggle against annexations” and
this kind of “unanimity” on the question of annexation is
plainly sheer hypocrisy. Obviously, the French socialists who
defend war over Alsace-Lorraine, and the German socialists who
do not demand freedom for Alsace-Lorraine, for German Poland,
etc., to separate from Germany, and the Russian socialists who
describe the war being waged to return Poland to tsarist bondage
as a war to “save the country”, and who demand that Polish
territory be annexed to Russia in the name of “peace without
annexations” etc., etc., are in fact annexationists.

To prevent the struggle against annexations from being mere
hypocrisy, or an empty phrase, to make it really educate the
masses in the spirit of internationalism, the question must be
presented in such a way as to open the eyes of the masses to the
fraud in this matter of annexations, instead of covering it
up. It is not enough for the socialists of each country
to pay lip-service to the equality of nations or to orate, swear
and invoke the: name of God to witness their opposition to
annexations, The socialists of every country must demand
immediate and unconditional freedom to secede for the colonies and nations oppressed by
their own “fatherland”

Without this condition, recognition of the self-determination of nations and principles of internationalism
would, even in the Zimmerwald Manifesto, remain a dead letter,
at best.

6. The socialists’ “peace programme”, and their programme of
“struggle to end the war”, must proceed from the exposure of
the lie of the “democratic peace”, the pacific intentions of
the belligerents, etc., now being spread among the people by demagogic ministers, pacifist bourgeois,
Social-chauvinists, and Kautskyites in all countries, Any
“peace programme” will deceive the people and be a piece of hypocrisy, unless its principal object is to
explain to the masses the need for a revolution, and to
support, aid, and develop the mass revolutionary struggles breaking out everywhere (ferment among the masses,
protests, fraternisation in the trenches, strikes, demonstrations, letters from the front to relatives—for
example, in France—urging them not to subscribe to war loans, etc., etc,), It is the duty of socialists to support, extend and intensify,
every popular movement to end the war. But it is actually being fulfilled only by those socialists who,
like Liebknecht, in their parliamentary speeches, call upon the
soldiers to lay down their arms, and preach revolution and
transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism.

The positive slogan we muse put forward to draw the masses into
revolutionary struggle and to explain the necessity for
revolutionary measures to make a “democratic” peace possible, is
that of repudiation of debts incurred by states.

It is not, enough to hint at revolution, as the Zimmerwald
Manifesto does, by saying that the workers must make sacrifices
for their own and not for someone else’s cause. The masses must
be shown their road clearly and definitely. They must know where to go and why, That mass revolutionary actions during
the war, if successfully developed, can lead only to the
transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war for
socialism is obvious, and it is harmful to conceal this
from the masses. On the contrary, this aim must he indicated
clearly, no matter how difficult its attainment may appear now,
while we are still at the beginning of the road. It is not
enough to say, as the Zimmerwald Manifesto does, that “tile
capitalists lie when they speak about defence of the fatherland”
in the present war, and that the workers in their revolutionary
struggle must ignore their country’s military situation; it is
necessary to State clearly what is merely hinted at here,
namely, that not only the capitalists, but also the social-chauvinists and the Kautskyites lie when they allow the
term “defence of the fatherland” to be applied in the present,
imperialist war and that revolutionary action during the war is
impossible unless “one’s own” government is threatened with
defeat; it must be stated clearly that every defeat, of the
government in a reactionary war facilitates revolution, which
alone is capable of bringing about a lasting and democratic
peace. Finally, the masses must be told that unless they
themselves create illegal organisations and a press that is free
from military censorship, i.e., an illegal press, it will be
quite impossible to render serious support to the incipient
revolutionary struggle, to develop it, to criticise some of its
steps, to correct its errors and systematically to extend and
sharpen it.

7. On the question of socialist parliamentary action, it must he
borne in mind that the Zimmerwald resolution not only expresses sympathy for the five Social-Democratic deputies in
the State Duma, who belong to our Party, and who have been
sentenced to exile to Siberia, but also expresses its solidarity with their tactics. It is impossible to
recognise the revolutionary struggle of the masses while
resting content with exclusively legal socialist activity in
parliament. This can only arouse legitimate dissatisfaction
among the workers, cause them to desert Social-Democracy for
anti-parliamentary anarchism or syndicalism. It must be
stated clearly and publicly that Social-Democratic members of
parliament must use their position not only to make speeches in parliament, but also to render all possible aid
outside parliament to the underground organisation and the revolutionary struggle of the workers, and that the
masses themselves, through their illegal organisation, must
supervise these activities of their leaders.

8. The question of the convocation of the International
Socialist Bureau boils down to a fundamental question of
principle, i.e., whether the old parties and the Second
International can be united. Every step forward taken By the
international labour movement along the road mapped out by
Zimmerwald shows more and more clearly the inconsistency of
the position adopted by the Zimmerwald majority; for, on the
one hand, it identifies the policy of the old parties and of
the Second International with bourgeois policy in the labour movement, with a policy which does not pursue the
interests of the proletariat, but of the bourgeoisie (for
example, the statement in the Zimmerwald Manifesto that the
“capitalists” lie when they speak of “defence of the fatherland” in the present war; also the still more definite
statements contained in the circular of the International
Socialist Committee of February 10, 1916 [6] ); on the other hand, the
International Socialist Committee is afraid of a break with
the International Socialist; Bureau and has promised officially to dissolve when the Bureau
reconvenes. [7]

We state that not only was such a promise never voted on, but it
was never even discussed in Zimmerwald.

The six months since Zimmerwald have proved that actual
work in the spirit of Zimmerwald—not empty phrases but work—is bound up throughout the world
with the split that is becoming deeper and wider. In
Germany, illegal anti-war leaflets are being printed despite the
Party’s decisions, i.e., schismatically. When Deputy Otto Ruhle,
Karl Liebknecht’s closest friend, said openly that there were
actually two parties in existence, one helping the bourgeoisie,
and the other fighting against it, many, Including the
Kautskyites, reviled him, but no one refuted him. In France,
Bourderon, a member of the Socialist Party, is a determined
opponent of a split, but at the same time he submits a resolution to his Party disapproving of the Party’s Central
Committee and of the parliamentary group (desapprouver Comm. Adm. Perm. et Gr. Parl.), which, If adopted,
would certainly have caused an immediate split. In Britain,
T. Russell

Williams, a member of the I.L.P., writing in the moderate Labour Leader, openly admits that a split is
inevitable and finds support; in letters written by local
functionaries. The example of America is perhaps still more
instructive, because even there, in a neutral country, two
irreconcilably hostile trends in the Socialist Party have become
revealed: on the one hand, the adherents of so-called “preparedness”, [1] i.e., war, militarism, and navalism, and
on the other, socialists like Eugene Debs, former presidential
candidate from the Socialist Party, who openly preaches civil
war for socialism, precisely in connection with the coming war.

Actually, there is already a split throughout the world; two
entirely irreconcilable working-class policies in relation to
the war have crystallised. We must not close our eyes to this
fact; to do so would only result in confusing the masses of the
workers, in befogging their minds, in hindering the revolutionary mass struggle with which all Zimmerwaldists
officially sympathise, and in strengthening the influence over
the masses of those leaders whom the International Socialist
Committee, in its circular of February 10, 1916, openly accuses
of “misleading” the masses and of hatching a “plot;” ( Pakt ) against socialism.

It is the social-chauvinists and Kautskyites of all countries
who will undertake the task of restoring the bankrupt
International Socialist Bureau. The task of the socialists is to
explain to the masses the inevitability of a split with those
who pursue a bourgeois policy under the flag of socialism.