Is there any connection between imperialism and the monstrous and disgusting victory opportunism (in the
form of social-chauvinism) has gained over the labour movement in Europe?

This is the fundamental question of modern socialism. And having in our
Party literature fully established, first, the imperialist character of our
era and of the present [1] , and, second, the inseparable historical connection between
social-chauvinism and opportunism, as well as the intrinsic similarity of
their political ideology, we can and must proceed to analyse this
fundamental question.

We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism
as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its
specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund
capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the
fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism.
Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms:
(1) cartels, syndicates and trusts—the concentration of production has
reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of
capitalists; (2) the monopolistic position of the big banks—three, four or five giant
banks manipulate the whole economic life of America, France, Germany;
(3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the
financial oligarchy (finance capital is monopoly industrial capital merged
with bank capital); (4) the (economic) partition of the world by the international cartels has
begun . There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command the entire world market and divide it “amicably” among
themselves—until war re divides it. The export of capital, as
distinct from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a
highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely linked with the economic
and territorial-political partition of the world; (5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies) is
completed .

Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism in America and Europe,
and later in Asia, took final shape in the period 1898–1914. The
Spanish-American War (1898), the Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902), the
Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) and the economic crisis in Europe in 1900 are
the chief historical landmarks in the new era of world history.

The fact that imperialism is parasitic or decaying capitalism is
manifested first of all in the tendency to decay, which is characteristic
of every monopoly under the system of private ownership of the
means of production. The difference between the democratic-republican and
the reactionary-monarchist imperialist bourgeoisie is obliterated precisely
because they are both rotting alive (which by no means precludes an
extraordinarily rapid development of capitalism in individual branches of
industry, in individual countries, and in individual periods). Secondly,
the decay of capitalism is manifested in the creation of a huge stratum of
rentiers, capitalists who live by “clipping coupons”. In each of the four
leading imperialist countries—England, U.S.A., France and
Germany—capital in securities amounts to 100,000 or 150,000
million francs, from which each country derives an annual income
of no less than five to eight thousand million. Thirdly, export of capital
is parasitism raised to a high pitch. Fourthly, “finance capital strives
for domination, not freedom”. Political reaction all along the
line is a characteristic feature of imperialism. Corruption, bribery on a
huge scale and all kinds of fraud. Fifthly, the exploitation of oppressed
nations—which is inseparably connected with annexations—and especially
the exploitation of colonies by a handful of “Great” Powers, increasingly
transforms the “civilised” world into a parasite on the body of hundreds
of millions in the uncivilised nations. The

Roman proletarian lived at the expense of society. Modern society lives at
the expense of the modern proletarian. Marx specially stressed this
profound observation of
Sismondi. [7] Imperialism somewhat changes the situation. A privileged
upper stratum of the proletariat in the imperialist countries lives partly
at the expense of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations.

It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism
in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of
capitalism, is already dying capitalism, the beginning of its
transition to socialism. The tremendous socialisation of labour by
imperialism (what its apologists-the bourgeois economists-call
“interlocking”) produces the same result.

Advancing this definition of imperialism brings us into complete
contradiction to K. Kautsky, who refuses to regard imperialism as a “phase
of capitalism” and defines it as a policy “preferred” by
finance capital, a tendency of “industrial” countries to annex
“agrarian” countries. [2]

Kautsky’s definition is thoroughly false from the theoretical
standpoint. What distinguishes imperialism is the rule not of
industrial capital, but of finance capital, the striving to annex
not agrarian countries, particularly, but every kind of
country. Kautsky divorces imperialist politics from imperialist
economics, he divorces monopoly in politics from monopoly in economics in
order to pave the way for his vulgar bourgeois reformism, such as
“disarmament”, “ultraimperialism” and similar nonsense. The whole
purpose and significance of this theoretical falsity is to obscure the
most profound contradictions of imperialism and thus justify the
theory of “unity” with the apologists of imperialism, the outright
social-chauvinists and opportunists.

We have dealt at sufficient length with Kautsky’s break with Marxism on
this point in Sotsial-Demokrat and
Kommunist . [8] Our Russian Kautskyites, the supporters of the Organising Committee [3] (O.C.), headed by Axelrod and Spectator, including even Martov, and to a
large degree Trotsky, preferred to maintain a discreet silence on the
question of Kautskyism as a trend. They did not dare defend Kautsky’s
war-time writings, confining themselves simply to praising Kautsky (Axelrod
in his German pamphlet, which the Organising Committee has
promised to publish in Russian) or to quoting Kautsky’s private
letters (Spectator), in which he says he belongs to the opposition and
jesuitically tries to nullify his chauvinist declarations.

It should be noted that Kautsky’s “conception” of imperialism—which
is tantamount to embellishing imperialism—is a retrogression not only
compared with Hilferding’s Finance Capital (no matter how
assiduously Hilferding now defends Kautsky and “unity” with the
social-chauvinists!) but also compared with the social-liberal
J. A. Hobson. This English economist, who in no way claims to be a Marxist,
defines imperialism, and reveals its contradictions, much more profoundly
in a book published in
1902 [4]

This is what Hobson (in whose book may be found nearly all Kautsky’s
pacifist and “conciliatory” banalities) wrote on the highly important
question of the parasitic nature of imperialism:

Two sets of circumstances, in Hobson’s opinion, weakened the power of
the old empires:
(1) “economic parasitism”, and (2) formation of armies from dependent peoples. “There is first the habit
of economic parasitism, by which the ruling state has used its provinces,
colonies, and dependencies in order to enrich its ruling class and to bribe
its lower classes into acquiescence.” Concerning the second circumstance,
Hobson writes:

“ One of the strangest symptoms of the blindness of imperialism [this song about the “blindness” of imperialists comes more
appropriately from the social-liberal Hobson than from the “Marxist”
Kautsky] is the reckless indifference with which Great Britain, France, and
other imperial nations are embarking on this perilous dependence. Great
Britain has gone farthest. Most of the fighting by which we have won our Indian Empire has been done by natives; in India,
as more recently in Egypt, great standing armies are placed under British
commanders; almost all the fighting associated with our African dominions,
except in the southern part, has been done for us by natives.”

The prospect of partitioning China elicited from Hobson the following
economic appraisal: “The greater part of Western Europe might then assume
the appearance and character already exhibited by tracts of country in the
South of England, in the Riviera, and in the tourist-ridden or residential
parts of Italy and Switzerland, little clusters of wealthy aristocrats
drawing dividends and pensions from the Far East, with a somewhat larger
group of professional retainers and tradesmen and a larger body of personal
servants and workers in the transport trade and in the final stages of
production of the more perishable goods: all the main arterial industries
would have disappeared, the staple foods and semi-manufactures flowing in
as tribute from Asia and Africa.... We have foreshadowed the possibility of
even a larger alliance of Western states, a European federation of Great
Powers which, so far from forwarding the cause of world civilisation, might
introduce the gigantic peril of a Western parasitism, a group of advanced
industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and
Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer
engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept
in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the
control of a new financial aristocracy. Let those who would scout such a
theory [he should have said: prospect] as undeserving of consideration
examine the economic and social condition of districts in Southern England
today which are already reduced to this condition, and reflect upon the
vast extension of such a system which might be rendered feasible by the
subjection of China to the economic control of similar groups of
financiers, investors [rentiers] and political and business officials,
draining the greatest potential reservoir of profit the world has ever
known, in order to consume it in Europe. The situation is far too complex, the play of world forces far too incalculable, to render this or any other
single interpretation of the future very probable; but the influences which
govern the imperialism of Western Europe today are moving in this
direction, and, unless counteracted or diverted, make towards such a
consummation.”

Hobson, the social-liberal, fails to see that this “counteraction”
can be offered only by the revolutionary proletariat and
only in the form of a social revolution. But then he is a
social-liberal! Nevertheless, as early as 1902 he had an excellent insight
into the meaning and significance of a “United States of Europe” (be it
said for the benefit of Trotsky the Kautskyite!) and of all that is now
being glossed over by the hypocritical Kautskyites of various
countries, namely, that the opportunists (social-chauvinists) are
working hand in glove with the imperialist bourgeoisie precisely
towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa, and
that objectively the opportunists are a section of the petty
bourgeoisie and of a certain strata of the working class who have been bribed out of imperialist superprofits and converted to
watchdogs of capitalism and corruptors of the labour movement.

Both in articles and in the resolutions of our Party, we have
repeatedly pointed to this most profound connection, the economic
connection, between the imperialist bourgeoisie and the opportunism which
has triumphed (for long?) in the labour movement. And from this,
incidentally, we concluded that a split with the social-chauvinists was
inevitable. Our Kautskyites preferred to evade the question! Martov, for
instance, uttered in his lectures a sophistry which in the Bulletin of the Organising Committee, Secretariat Abroad [9] (No. 4, April 10, 1916) is expressed as follows:

“... The cause of revolutionary Social-Democracy would be in a sad,
indeed hopeless, plight if those groups of workers who in mental
development approach most closely to the ‘intelligentsia’ and who are the
most highly skilled fatally drifted away from it towards opportunism....”

By means of the silly word “fatally” and a certain sleight-of-hand,
the fact is evaded that certain groups of workers have already drifted away to opportunism and to the
imperialist bourgeoisie! And that is the very fact the sophists of the
O.C. want to evade ! They confine themselves to the “official
optimism” the Kautskyite Hilferding and many others now flaunt: objective
conditions guarantee the unity of the proletariat and the victory of the
revolutionary trend! We, forsooth, are “optimists” with regard to the
proletariat!

But in reality all these Kautskyites—Hilferding, the O.C. supporters,
Martov and Co.—are optimists ... with regard to opportunism . That is the whole point!

The proletariat is the child of capitalism—of world capitalism, and
not only of European capitalism, or of imperialist capitalism. On a world
scale, fifty years sooner or fifty years later—measured on a
world scale, this is a minor point—the “proletariat” of course
“will be” united, and revolutionary Social-Democracy will “inevitably”
be victorious within it. But that is not the point, Messrs. Kautskyites. The point is that at the present time, in the
imperialist countries of Europe, you are fawning on the
opportunists, who are alien to the proletariat as a class, who are
the servants, the agents of the bourgeoisie and the vehicles of its
influence, and unless the labour movement rids itself of
them, it will remain a bourgeois labour movement . By advocating
“unity” with the opportunists, with the Legiens and Davids, the
Plekhanovs, the Chkhenkelis and Potresovs, etc., you are, objectively,
defending the enslavement of the workers by the imperialist
bourgeoisie with the aid of its best agents in the labour movement. The
victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy on a world scale is absolutely
inevitable, only it is moving and will move, is proceeding and will
proceed, against you, it will be a victory over you.

These two trends, one might even say two parties, in the
present-day labour movement, which in 1914–16 so obviously parted ways all
over the world, were traced by Engels and Marx in England
throughout the course of decades , roughly from 1858 to 1892.

Neither Marx nor Engels lived to see the imperialist epoch of world
capitalism, which began not earlier than 1898–1900. But it has been a
peculiar feature of England that even in the middle of the nineteenth century she already revealed at
least two major distinguishing features of imperialism: (1) vast
colonies, and (2) monopoly profit (due to her monopoly position in the
world market). In both respects England at that time was an exception among
capitalist countries, and Engels and Marx, analysing this exception, quite
clearly and definitely indicated its connection with the
(temporary) victory of opportunism in the English labour movement.

In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “... The
English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that
this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the
possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat
alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole
world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to
Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a
big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of
censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold
themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban
workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did
not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of
the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks
about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be
led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to
Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the
English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they
think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there
are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share
the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”

On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: “The most repulsive thing
here [in England] is the bourgeois ‘respectability’, which has grown deep
into the bones of the workers.... Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best
of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord
Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after
all.” [10] In a letter, dated April 19, 1890: “But under the
surface the movement [of the working class in England] is going on, is
embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant
lowest [Engels’s italics] strata. The day is no longer far off
when this mass will suddenly find itself , when it will
dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion.” On March 4,
1891: “The failure of the collapsed Dockers’ Union; the ‘old’ conservative
trade unions, rich and therefore cowardly, remain lone on the
field....” September 14, 1891: at the Newcastle Trade Union Congress the
old unionists, opponents of the eight-hour day, were defeated “and the
bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour party ” (Engels’s italics throughout)....

That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of
decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his
preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England , 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working
class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction
to the “great mass of working people”. “A small, privileged, protected
minority” of the working class alone was “permanently benefited” by the
privileged position of England in 1848–68, whereas “the great bulk of
them experienced at best but a temporary improvement”....
“With the break-down of that [England’s industrial] monopoly, the English
working class will lose that privileged position...” The members of the
“new” unions, the unions of the unskilled workers, “had this immense
advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the
inherited ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of
the better situated ‘old unionists’” .... “The so-called
workers’ representatives” in England are people “who are forgiven their
being members of the working class because they themselves would like to
drown their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism...”

We have deliberately quoted the direct statements of Marx and Engels at
rather great length in order that the reader may study them as a whole . And they should be studied, they are worth carefully pondering
over. For they are the pivot of the tactics in the labour movement that are
dictated by the objective conditions of the imperialist era.

Here, too, Kautsky has tried to “befog the issue” and substitute for
Marxism sentimental conciliation with the opportunists. Arguing against the
avowed and naive social-imperialists (men like Lensch) who justify
Germany’s participation in the war as a means of destroying England’s
monopoly, Kautsky “ corrects ” this obvious falsehood by another
equally obvious falsehood. Instead of a cynical falsehood he employs a
suave falsehood! The industrial monopoly of England, he says, has
long ago been broken, has long ago been destroyed, and there is nothing
left to destroy.

## Why is this argument false?

Because, firstly, it overlooks England’s colonial monopoly.
Yet Engels, as we have seen, pointed to this very clearly as early as 1882,
thirty-four years ago! Although England’s industrial monopoly may have been
destroyed, her colonial monopoly not only remains, but has become extremely
accentuated, for the whole world is already divided up! By means of this
suave lie Kautsky smuggles in the bourgeois-pacifist and
opportunist-philistine idea that “there is nothing to fight about”. On
the contrary, not only have the capitalists something to fight
about now, but they cannot help fighting if they want to preserve
capitalism, for without a forcible redivision of colonies the new
imperialist countries cannot obtain the privileges enjoyed by the older
( and weaker ) imperialist powers.

Secondly, why does England’s monopoly explain the (temporary) victory
of opportunism in England? Because monopoly yields superprofits ,
i.e., a surplus of profits over and above the capitalist profits that are
normal and customary all over the world. The capitalists can
devote a part (and not a small one, at that!) of these superprofits to
bribe their own workers, to create something like an alliance
(recall the celebrated “alliances” described by the Webbs of English
trade unions and employers) between the workers of the given nation and
their capitalists against the other countries. England’s
industrial monopoly was already destroyed by the end of the nineteenth century. That is beyond
dispute. But how did this destruction take place? Did all
monopoly disappear?

If that were so, Kautsky’s “theory” of conciliation (with the
opportunists) would to a certain extent be justified. But it is
not so, and that is just the point. Imperialism is monopoly capitalism. Every cartel, trust, syndicate, every giant bank
is a monopoly Superprofits have not disappeared; they still
remain. The exploitation of all other countries by one privileged,
financially wealthy country remains and has become more intense. A handful
of wealthy countries—there are only four of them, if we mean independent,
really gigantic, “modern” wealth: England, France, the United States and
Germany—have developed monopoly to vast proportions, they obtain
super profits running into hundreds, if not thousands, of millions,
they “ride on the backs” of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people
in other countries and fight among themselves for the division of the
particularly rich, particularly fat and particularly easy spoils.

This, in fact, is the economic and political essence of imperialism,
the profound contradictions of which Kautsky glosses over instead of
exposing.

The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on
this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its super profits
most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is
divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember
Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries
Committees, [5] labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office
employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.

Between 1848 and 1868, and to a certain extent even later, only England
enjoyed a monopoly: that is why opportunism could prevail there
for decades. No other countries possessed either very rich
colonies or an industrial monopoly.

The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new,
imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several,
though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly. (In Japan and Russia the monopoly of military power,
vast territories, or special facilities for robbing minority nationalities,
China, etc., partly supplements, partly takes the place of, the monopoly of
modern, up-to-date finance capital.) This difference explains why
England’s monopoly position could remain unchallenged for
decades. The monopoly of modern finance capital is being frantically
challenged; the era of imperialist wars has begun. It was possible in
those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country
for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other
hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe
smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour
aristocracy”. Formerly a “ bourgeois labour party ”, to use
Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country,
because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist
for a long time. Now a “ bourgeois labour party ” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in
view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils
it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of
countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc.,
while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are
increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass
of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.

On the one hand, there is the tendency of the bourgeoisie and the
opportunists to convert a handful of very rich and privileged nations into
“eternal” parasites on the body of the rest of mankind, to “rest on the
laurels” of the exploitation of Negroes, Indians, etc., keeping them in
subjection with the aid of the excellent weapons of extermination provided
by modern militarism. On the other hand, there is the tendency of the
masses , who are more oppressed than before and who bear the whole
brunt of imperialist wars, to cast off this yoke and to overthrow the
bourgeoisie. It is in the struggle between these two tendencies that the
history of the labour movement will now inevitably develop. For the first
tendency is not accidental; it is “substantiated” economically. In
all countries the bourgeoisie has already begotten, fostered and
secured

for itself “bourgeois labour parties” of social-chauvinists. The
difference between a definitely formed party, like Bissolati’s in Italy,
for example, which is fully social-imperialist, and, say, the semi-formed
near-party of the Potresovs, Gvozdyovs, Bulkins, Chkheidzes, Skobelevs and
Co., is an immaterial difference. The important thing is that,
economically, the desertion of a stratum of the labour aristocracy to the
bourgeoisie has matured and become an accomplished fact; and this economic
fact, this shift in class relations, will find political form, in one shape
or another, without any particular “difficulty”.

On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of
modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have
created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek,
reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the
economic privileges and sops. Lucrative an soft jobs in the government or
on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees,
on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or
on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois
law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist
bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the
“bourgeois labour parties”.

The mechanics of political democracy works in the same direction.
Nothing in our times can be done without elections; nothing can be done
without the masses. And in this era of printing and parliamentarism it is
impossible to gain the following of the masses without a widely
ramified, systematically managed, well-equipped system of flattery, lies,
fraud, juggling with fashionable and popular catchwords, and promising all
manner of reforms and blessings to the workers right and left—as long as
they renounce the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of bourgeoisie.
I would call this system Lloyd-Georgism, after the English Minister Lloyd
George, one of the foremost and most dexterous representatives of this
system in the classic land of the “bourgeois labour party”. A first-class
bourgeois manipulator, an astute politician, a popular orator who will
deliver any speeches you like even r-r-revolutionary ones, to a labour
audience, and a man who is capable of obtaining sizable sops for docile workers in the
shape of social reforms (insurance, etc.), Lloyd George serves the
bourgeoisie splendidly, [6] and serves it precisely among the workers, brings its influence
precisely to the proletariat, to where the bourgeoisie needs it
most and where it finds it most difficult to subject the masses morally.

And is there such a great difference between Lloyd George and the
Scheidemanns, Legiens, Hendersons and Hyndmans, Plekhanovs, Renaudels and
Co.? Of the latter, it may be objected, some will return to the
revolutionary socialism of Marx. This is possible, but it is an
insignificant difference in degree, if the question is regarded from its
political, i.e., its mass aspect. Certain individuals among the present
social-chauvinist leaders may return to the proletariat. But the
social-chauvinist or (what is the same thing) opportunist trend
can neither disappear nor “return” to the revolutionary
proletariat. Wherever Marxism is popular among the workers, this political
trend, this “bourgeois labour party”, will swear by the name of Marx. It
cannot be prohibited from doing this, just as a trading firm cannot be
prohibited from using any particular label, sign or advertisement. It has
always been the case in history that after the death of revolutionary
leaders who were popular among the oppressed classes, their enemies have
attempted to appropriate their names so as to deceive the oppressed
classes.

The fact that is that “bourgeois labour parties,” as a political
phenomenon, have already been formed in all the foremost
capitalist countries, and that unless determined and relentless struggle is
waged all along the line against these parties—or groups, trends, etc.,
it is all the same—there can be no question of a struggle against
imperialism, or of Marxism, or of a socialist labour movement. The
Chkheidze faction, [11] Nashe Dyelo and Golos Truda [12] in Russia, and the O.C. supporters abroad are nothing but varieties of one such party. There is not the slightest reason for
thinking that these parties will disappear before the social
revolution. On the contrary, the nearer the revolution approaches, the more
strongly it flares up and the more sudden and violent the transitions and
leaps in its progress, the greater will be the part the struggle of the
revolutionary mass stream against the opportunist petty-bourgeois stream
will play in the labour movement. Kautskyism is not an independent trend,
because it has no roots either in the masses or in the privileged stratum
which has deserted to the bourgeoisie. But the danger of Kautskyism lies in
the fact that, utilising the ideology of the past, it endeavours to
reconcile the proletariat with the “bourgeois labour party”, to preserve
the unity of the proletariat with that party and thereby enhance the
latter’s prestige. The masses no longer follow the avowed
social-chauvinists: Lloyd George has been hissed down at workers’ meetings
in England; Hyndman has left the party; the Renaudels and Scheidemanns, the
Potresovs and Gvozdyovs are protected by the police. The Kautskyites’
masked defence of the social-chauvinists is much more dangerous.

One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to
the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and
mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the
nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions
were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not
reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not
forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a
minority of the proletariat . In England then, as in Germany now,
not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can
seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat
under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so
much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective
significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it
serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does
it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation
with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of
Germany, etc., now.

Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of
the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “ lowest mass ”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who
are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of
Marxist tactics!

Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the
proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and
opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be
definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for
certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war
represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we
wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper , to the real
masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle
against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and
social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of
the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority
of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and
influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we
teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for
socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful
vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the
masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to
educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against
opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal,
the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.

In the next article, we shall try to sum up the principal features that
distinguish this line from Kautskyism.

---
Notes:
[1]

The reference is to the First World War of 1914–18. p.5 — Lenin

[2]

“ Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism. It
consists in the striving of every industrial capitalist nation to subjugate
and annex ever larger agrarian territories irrespective of the nations that
inhabit them” (Kautsky in Die Neue Zeit ; September 11, 1914).
— Lenin

[3]

Organising Committee (O.C.)—the leading centre of the
Mensheviks, supporters of the petty-bourgeois, opportunist trend in the
Russian Social-Democratic Party. It was formed in 1912; during the world
imperialist war it took a social-chauvinist stand, justifying the war led
by the tsarist government and preaching nationalistic and chauvinistic
ideas. p.7 — Lenin

[4]

J. A. Hobson, Imperialism , London, 1902. — Lenin

[5]

War Industries Committees were set up in Russia in May 1915 by the
big imperialist bourgeoisie for aiding tsarism in conducting the war. In an
attempt to bring the workers under its influence and instil defencist
sentiments into them, the bourgeoisie decided to form “Workers’ Groups”
of the War Industries Committees, thereby showing that a “class truce”
between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat was established in Russia. The
Bolsheviks advocated a boycott of the War Industries Committees and were
successful in securing this boycott with the support of the majority of the
workers.
p. 4 — Lenin

[6]

I recently read an article in an English magazine by a Tory, a political
opponent of Lloyd George, entitled “Lloyd George from the Standpoint of a
Tory”. The war opened the eyes of this opponent and made him realise what
an excellent servant of the bourgeoisie this Lloyd George is! The Tories
have made peace with him! — Lenin

[7]

See Karl Marx, Preface to the second edition of The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

Die Neue Zeit (New Times)—the theoretical journal of the German
Social-Democratic Party, published in Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923. Up to
October 1917 it was edited by Karl Kautsky, later by Heinrich Cunow. Some
of the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were first published in
Die Neue Zeit . Engels gave regular advice to the editors and
frequently criticised them for permitting deviations from Marxism in the
journal. In the late nineties, after the death of Engels, the journal
regularly carried articles by revisionists. During the First World War
(1914–18) the journal occupied a Centrist position, in reality supporting
the social-chauvinists.

[8]

Sotsial-Demokrat —Central Organ of the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party, published as an illegal newspaper from February 1908 to
January 1917.

Kommunist —a journal started by Lenin; published in Geneva in
1915 by the editorial board of the newspaper
Sotsial-Demokrat . Only one (double) issue appeared.

[9]

Bulletin of the R.S.D.L.P. Organising Committee, Secretariat Abroad —a Menshevik Centrist organ, published in Geneva from February
1915 to March 1917. Altogether ten issues appeared.

[10]



[11]

Chkheidze faction —the Menshevik group in the Fourth Duma led by
N. S. Chkheidze. Officially followed a Centrist policy in the First World
War, but factually supported the Russian social-chauvinists. In 1916 the
group was composed of M. I. Skobelev, I. N. Tulyakov, V. I. Khaustov,
N. S. Chkheidze and A. I. Chkhenkeli. Lenin criticises their opportunist
policy in several articles, including “The Chkheidze Faction and Its
Role”, “Have the Organising Committee and the Chkheidze Group a Policy of
Their Own?”

[12]

Nashe Dyelo (Our Cause)—a Menshevik monthly, chief mouthpiece of
the liquidators and Russian social-chauvinists. Published in Petrograd in
\thinspace1915 in place of Nasha Zarya (Our Dawn) which was closed
in October 1914. Contributors included Y. Mayevsky, P. P. Maslov,
A. N. Potresov and N. Cherevanin. Six issues appeared altogether.

Golos Truda (Voice of Labour)—a legal Menshevik paper published in Samara in 1916, after the closure of Nash Golos (Our
Voice). Three issues appeared.