# 1905 — MAY 1917

1 “I. S. D.” — “Internationale Sozialisten Deutschlands” (“International Socialists of Germany”) — a group of German left Social-Democrats that emerged during the First World War.
1 1 L. Martov (Yu. O. Tsederbaum) — one of the leaders of Menshevism. During the period of the World Imperialist War, he held a centrist position.
1 2 F. Veis (Menders) — one of the leaders of the Latvian Mensheviks.
1 3 The reference is to the collection "Self-Defense" with articles by V. Zasulich, A. Potresov, P. Maslov, Ana (N. Zhordania) and others, published in Petrograd in 1916.
1 4 "Vorbote" ("The Herald") — a journal, the theoretical organ of the Zimmerwald Left; published in German in Bern. Two issues were published: No. 1 — in January and No. 2 — in April 1916. V. I. Lenin took an active part in the founding of the journal. A discussion of the left Zimmerwaldists on the question of the right of nations to self-determination and the slogan of "disarmament" unfolded on the pages of the journal.
1 5 By “Theses of Radek and Co.” V. I. Lenin means the “Theses on Imperialism and National Oppression,” which were compiled by K. Radek and printed under the signature of the editorial board of the “Gazeta Robotnicza” in the journal “Vorbote” No. 2 in April 1916, and then in Russian in the “Collection of ‘Sotsial-Demokrat’” No. 1. The response to them were the theses of the editorial board of the Central Organ of the RSDLP, the newspaper “Sotsial-Demokrat” — “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination,” also printed in the journal “Vorbote” No. 2, and in Russian in the “Collection of ‘Sotsial-Demokrat’” No. 1 in October 1916 (see V. I. Lenin, Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 27, pp. 252-266).

SECOND INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST CONFERENCE IN KIENTHAL

[Between April 24 and 30, 1916]

EXCHANGE OF NOTES WITH PIERRE BRISON

C'est n'est pas de la théorie parce que «le pacifisme» (représenté par Vandervelde et compagnie) sert en réalité, en pratique, à décliner les masses de la lutte révolutionnaire *.
La lutte révolutionnaire — sauf dans les Parlements et dans la mesure où le parlementarisme peut être révolutionnaire — est impossible dans les pays où le prolétariat est sous les armes. N'oublions pas la réalité.
* Here and below underlined by P. Brison.

Nous sommes contre le «pacifisme», croyant que ce n'est qu'une duperie bourgeoise et que c'est la lutte révolutionnaire, et non pas les phrases sonores sur la paix, qui est le vrai moyen d'atteindre le socialisme — seule garantie de la paix. Oui — mais aujourd'hui c'est de la théorie. Parlons des moyens de terminer cette guerre. Ce que vous dites est bon pour prévenir les autres guerres — en accentuant la propagande socialiste.

TRANSLATION
This is not a matter of theory, because "pacifism" (represented by Vandervelde and company) serves, in reality, in practice, to distract the masses from the revolutionary struggle *.
The revolutionary struggle — except in parliaments and to the extent that parliamentarianism can be revolutionary — is impossible in countries where the proletariat is under arms. Let's not forget about reality.
We are against "pacifism," believing that it is only a bourgeois deception and that it is the revolutionary struggle, and not loud phrases about peace, that is the real means of achieving socialism — the only guarantee of peace. Yes — but today it is a matter of theory. Let's talk about ways to end this war. What you say is good for preventing new wars, because it emphasizes the importance of socialist propaganda.

REMARKS ON THE DRAFT THESES "THE ATTITUDE OF THE PROLETARIAT TO THE QUESTION OF PEACE"

Lenin
The Position of the Proletariat on Questions of Peace. Proposal for Theses
[objectively] (essence)
The present war is the result of the imperialist contradictions generated by bourgeois property relations; its goal is the regrouping of power relations between the capitalist classes on the world market, according to the military successes achieved in the war. Since the goal of the war is not the sublation of the capitalist commodity production that gave rise to it, it cannot eliminate the causes of future wars either. It leaves the old problems unresolved, complicates them, and creates new contradictions, which, on the basis of unimpeded imperialist development, along with increased economic and military pressure, conjure up new conflicts and thus the danger of further warlike entanglements. Therefore, when the bourgeois governments and their agents claim that the war has the purpose of creating a lasting peace, they are lying or ignoring the conditions for the realization of such a goal. Just as little as annexations, that is, the oppression of foreign peoples, can be the means to secure a peaceful development of humanity, just as little can lasting peace be brought about by demands that are well-intentioned but contradict the historical conditions of capitalism, such as limitation of armaments, introduction of compulsory arbitration, democratization of foreign policy, etc. On the basis of a class society, these demands remain a utopia. The limitation of armaments, which itself is only a means of armistice between the imperialist states, can neither sublate nor mitigate the causes of war, quite apart from the fact that in the age of imperialism there is no generally valid standard according to which armaments should be limited. Compulsory arbitration presupposes a universally recognized law, which can neither be created by the brutal force of an imperialist war nor realized in a class society whose legal morality in each case flows from the material interests of its ruling class. The democratization of foreign policy presupposes, in addition to political democracy, social democracy within the states, which in turn is impossible as long as the capitalist form of ownership and thus the exploitation of man by man exists. Incorrect! Unrealizable with reformist means, unrealizable without revolutions, cannot be lasting without socialism, something like that... that's not the emphasis. Quite wrong!! So against democracy. The same prerequisite applies to the so-called right of nations to self-determination. As long as the peoples in their internal economic, political, and social relations are dominated by a possessing class, which has all the economic and state means of power at its disposal with which it exploits its own compatriots by subjugating them, the people cannot determine themselves. Reformist ~ \ / ~ reformist (opportunistic). From these considerations, the proletariat must reject the utopian demands of bourgeois pacifists and bourgeoisified socialists, who are preparing to awaken new \/ in place of old illusions and to put the proletariat at the service of these illusions, which ultimately only serve to confuse, inflame, and fuel chauvinism, war enthusiasm, and the policy of perseverance in the war, just as sharply as it rejects the imperialist war. II If there is no possibility of establishing a lasting peace on the basis of capitalist society, its prerequisites are created in the struggle for socialism. By sublating capitalist private property, socialism eliminates the causes of war, along with the exploitation of the masses of the people (by the possessing classes and thus the national oppression at the same time. The struggle for lasting peace can therefore consist only in the struggle for the realization of socialism. Every proletarian action that abandons the class struggle and subordinates proletarian goals to those of the bourgeois classes and their governments, by showing solidarity with the national exploiting class, works against the conditions of a lasting peace. Such an action not only entrusts the capitalist classes and bourgeois governments with a task they cannot fulfill, it also uselessly delivers the best forces of the working class to the slaughterhouse, and thus consecrates the strongest and most capable part of the working class, which during the war as well as in the following time of peace would be primarily called upon to lead the struggle for socialism, to doom and destruction. The only possible solution from the standpoint of proletarian interests in the face of bourgeois peace goals is therefore the call for an immediate ceasefire and the immediate initiation of peace negotiations, regardless of the given state of the military and strategic situation. III Only to the extent that this call is heard in the \| ranks of the international proletariat and leads to vigorous actions in the sense of the \^ class struggle, with the overthrow of capitalist class rule as the ultimate goal, will the working class succeed in gaining influence on the content of the coming peace. Any other position excludes the influence of the proletariat on the content of the peace and leaves the determination of its conditions to the power dictum of governments, diplomacy, and the ruling classes. By working in the revolutionary mass struggle for the ultimate goals of socialism and thus for the liberation of humanity from the scourge of militarism and war, the proletariat must at the same time turn against all annexationist desires of the belligerents. Not because it considered the world map as it existed before the war as an immovable entity, not because it considered the future restructuring of the national borders as unnecessary and excluded, must it wage the struggle against annexations. Socialism itself strives for the sublation of all national oppression through the economic and political unification of peoples on a democratic basis, which cannot be realized within the framework of capitalist state borders. The attainment of this goal is made more difficult precisely by annexations, in whatever form they may appear, because the violent dismemberment of nations, their arbitrary division and incorporation into foreign states, worsen the conditions of the proletarian class struggle. Just as incompatible as annexation is with the interests of the proletariat is the demand for war reparations. Just as the ruling classes in every country seek to shift the costs of warfare onto the shoulders of the working class, so too would the costs of war damage ultimately have to be borne by the proletariat of the country concerned. This shifting also harms the working class of the victorious country, as the deterioration of the economic and social situation of the proletariat of one country has a reciprocal effect on the proletariat of the other country, thus making the conditions of the international class struggle more difficult. Neither annexations nor war reparations, but a common shifting of the burdens of war in the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against the ruling classes in every country, that is the solution of the socialist workers in their action for the immediate bringing about of peace. Precisely because today's war is very deeply rooted in the overall relations of the imperialist epoch (competition for world domination, finance capital, monopolies, world politics, etc.), benevolent phrases about lasting peace, about democratic peace, etc., about the peace that is supposedly possible under the present governments, with the continuation of the rule of the bourgeois bourgeoisie, such phrases deceive the masses, by concealing from them the real, actual foundations of imperialist policy, implanting in them false confidence in the bourgeoisie, leading to reformism*.

* This paragraph was written by V. I. Lenin on the back of the first sheet of the theses.

Lenin [objectively] (essence)

TRANSLATION
The Proletariat's Attitude to the Question of Peace Draft Theses I The present war is the result of imperialist contradictions engendered by bourgeois property relations; its aim is a regrouping in the balance of power between the capitalist classes on the world market in accordance with the military successes achieved in the war. Since the aim of this war is not the destruction of the capitalist commodity production that caused it, it is also unable to eliminate the causes of future wars. It leaves old problems unresolved, confuses them even more, and creates new contradictions, which, on the basis of unhindered imperialist development, cause, along with the intensification of economic and militarist oppression, new conflicts, and thereby the danger of further military clashes. Therefore, when bourgeois governments and their agents claim that the purpose of the war is to establish a lasting peace, they are lying or ignoring the conditions necessary to achieve such a goal. Just as annexations, i.e., the oppression of other nations, cannot be a means that would ensure the peaceful development of mankind, so it is impossible to establish a lasting peace through such, admittedly well-intentioned, but contradicting the historical conditions (of development) of capitalism, demands as the limitation of armaments, the introduction of mandatory arbitration, the democratization of foreign policy, etc. On the basis of [capitalist] class society, these demands remain a utopia. The limitation of armaments, which in itself is only a means of establishing a truce between imperialist states, cannot either destroy or mitigate the causes of war, not to mention that in the era of imperialism there is no universally binding scale on the basis of which armaments could be limited. Mandatory arbitration presupposes the existence of a universally recognized law, which cannot be created either by the brute force of the imperialist war or implemented in such a class society, the legal consciousness of which at each given stage stems from the material interests of its ruling class. The democratization of foreign policy presupposes the existence, along with political democracy, of social democracy in the internal life of states, the creation of which, in turn, is impossible as long as the capitalist form of property exists, and thereby the exploitation of man by man. Incorrect! Not achievable by reformist means, not realizable without revolutions, not able to be lasting without socialism, such as,... The same prerequisites are necessary for the so-called right of nations to self-determination. As long as the peoples in their internal economic, political and social relations are subject to the rule of the propertied classes, who dispose of all economic and state means of power with which they oppress and exploit their own compatriots, the people cannot self-determine. The main thing is not this. Completely wrong!! Means against democracy. Reformist. ~ \ / ~ Reformist (opportunistic). Proceeding from these considerations, the proletariat must, as resolutely as it rejects the imperialist war, reject the utopian demands of bourgeois pacifists and bourgeoisified socialists, who are going to awaken new illusions instead of the old ones \/ and force the proletariat to serve these illusions, which ultimately only contribute to confusion, excitement and fanning of chauvinism, militarist frenzy and the policy of war until a victorious end. II If it is impossible to establish a lasting peace on the basis of capitalist society, then its prerequisites are created in the struggle for socialism. Socialism, by destroying capitalist private property, eliminates, simultaneously with the exploitation of the masses by the propertied classes, and thereby with national oppression, also the causes of war. Therefore, the struggle for a lasting peace can only consist in the struggle for the implementation of socialism. Any proletarian action that is a renunciation of the class struggle and subordinates the goals of the proletariat to the goals of the bourgeois classes and their governments, since it is in solidarity with the national class of exploiters, hinders the creation of conditions for a lasting peace. Such actions only entrust to the capitalist classes and bourgeois governments a task that they cannot fulfill, they also uselessly throw the best forces of the working class into the slaughter and thus doom to death and destruction the most energetic and capable part of the working class, which is primarily called upon to lead the struggle for socialism both during the war and in the subsequent peacetime. + exposure of the predatory policy formulated in secret treaties, etc. + The only solution to the issue possible from the point of view of proletarian interests, compared with bourgeois aims of peace, is therefore the call for an immediate conclusion of a truce and the immediate start of peace negotiations, regardless of the military and strategic situation at this stage. III Only to the extent that this appeal finds a response in the ranks of the international proletariat and leads to energetic actions in the spirit of the class struggle with the ultimate goal of overthrowing capitalist class rule, will the working class be able to influence the nature of the future peace. Any other position excludes the influence of the proletariat on the nature of peace and gives the establishment of its conditions to the arbitrariness of governments, diplomacy and the ruling classes. Waging a revolutionary mass struggle for the implementation of the ultimate goals of socialism, and thereby for the liberation of mankind from the scourge of militarism and war, the proletariat must at the same time oppose all annexationist desires of the warring states. The proletariat must fight against annexations not because it considers the (political) map of the world as it existed before the war as some kind of immutable magnitude, not because it considers the future formation of new state borders unnecessary and impossible. Socialism itself strives for the destruction of all national oppression through the economic and political unification of nations on a democratic basis, which cannot be implemented within the framework of capitalist state borders. But it is precisely annexations, in whatever form they may take, that make it difficult to achieve this goal, because the forcible dismemberment of nations, their arbitrary division and inclusion in foreign states worsen the conditions of the proletarian class struggle. Just like annexations, the demand for contributions is incompatible with the interests of the proletariat. Just as the ruling classes in each country try to put the costs of waging war on the shoulders of the working class, so the burden of paying contributions will ultimately also have to be borne by the proletariat of the respective country. Such a shifting of the burden of expenses will also harm the working class of the victorious country, since the deterioration of the economic and social situation of the proletariat of one country has a reverse effect on the proletariat of another country and thus makes the conditions of the international class struggle difficult. Neither annexations nor contributions, but the general liberation from the burden of war through the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against the ruling classes in each country – this is the slogan of the socialist workers in their call for the immediate establishment of peace. Precisely because the present war is very deeply rooted in the totality of relations of the imperialist era (competition for world domination, finance capital, monopolies, division of the world, etc.), therefore, benevolent phrases about a lasting peace, about a democratic peace, etc., about a peace that is supposedly possible under the present governments, while preserving power for the ruling class of the bourgeoisie, such phrases deceive the masses, hiding from them the real, actual foundations of imperialist policy, inspire false confidence in the bourgeoisie, and turn into reformism*. * This paragraph was written by V.I. Lenin on the reverse side of the first sheet of the theses. Lenin [objectively] (essence)

DRAFTS OF A SPEECH AT A MEETING OF THE COMMISSION ON THE QUESTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST BUREAU
[En deux mots je répondrai à Martoff. Il m'accuse de tirer sur le dos de la majorité de Zimmerwald, quand je dis qu'elle voulait se concilier avec Vandervelde. Mais la majorité de Zimmervald ne devait pas dire et n'avait...]**
En deux mots je répondrai à Martoff. En me reprochant ma critique de la majorité de Zimmervald, il ne répond pas à ce que j'ai déjà indiqué une fois: que dans le bulletin — non pas N 2 comme Grimm a dit, mais dans le N 1 — on a dit que notre I. S. K. va se démettre (sich auflösen) si le Bureau ancien remplit son devoir. On n'a pas voté ça à Zimmerwald. Je veux répondre surtout à Modigliani. Il veut être pratique. Il n'est point du tout pratique. Il...
TRANSLATION
[In a few words, I will answer Martov. He accuses me of stabbing the Zimmerwald majority in the back when I say that it wanted to reconcile with Vandervelde. But the Zimmerwald majority should not have said and not...]**
In a few words, I will answer Martov. Reproaching me for criticizing the Zimmerwald majority, he does not answer what * This paragraph was written by V. I. Lenin on the back of the first sheet of theses. ** Text crossed out by V. I. Lenin. *** The manuscript breaks off here. I already indicated once: that in the bulletin — not in the second issue, as Grimm said, but in the first — it was said that our ISK would relinquish its powers (declare itself dissolved) if the former Bureau fulfilled its purpose. This was not voted on in Zimmerwald. I mainly want to answer Modigliani. He wants to be practical. He is not practical at all. He...

1905 – MAY 1917