Dear friend! Thank you very much for the translation. I have not been able to read it; I spoke at the very beginning of the congress, when the French had not yet arrived and nothing was being translated into French. I will still try to make use of the translation, I will send it to Abramovich, etc., and we will try to get it published somewhere.

I did not manage to go to the post office today: it closed at 7 p.m., and I was busy at the congress.

My impression of the congress is good. For the first time during the war, at a Swiss congress, not only does a left wing manifest itself (in 1914 there was none at all; in 1915 it was just beginning to show), but it is also directly starting to unite in opposition to both the right and the "centre" (Grimm). Radek deserves great credit for this; earlier, in the summer, he made some mistakes, because Grigory wrote to me positively that Radek boasted to him about how I "reconciled Grimm with Platten" (what a fine achievement!). And Bronsky pursues a line three times more vacillating and three times more foolish than Radek's.

Radek has arrived, and we have "reconciled" with them (there was tension, close to a break).

On the eve of the congress, we managed to arrange a private meeting of the left delegates (which I had been insisting on for three weeks, but without success until then!). At this meeting, all the left leaders were present, including the young ones*. Radek and I, acting in unison, easily passed our resolution, agreeing to acceptable concessions. The struggle began at the congress. The first battle was over the assessment of the "Nationalrat" faction. The left attacked. The speeches by Nen and Platten were excellent. Greulich defended the right very weakly. Grimm played the center again and, through "amendments," achieved a unanimous vote (somewhat confusing the cards). He saw that the majority was clearly on Platten's side. Tomorrow there should be a fight over the question of Kintal: here, the draft of the left resolution, which we helped to develop, is much better than the one on the Nationalrat. We will see what comes out! I am like an old warhorse in battle.

Sincerely, Your Lenin

---

Written on November 4, 1916

Sent from Zurich to Zorenberg (Switzerland)

Published for the first time, from the manuscript

N. D. KIKNADZE

Dear comrade!

You dispute my remark about the possibility of transforming this imperialist war into a national one.

Your argument? "We would have to defend the imperialist fatherland"...

Is this logical? If the fatherland remains "imperialist," how can the war become national??

In my opinion, the talk about "possibilities" was incorrectly introduced by Radek and §-f in thesis 5 of the "International" 392.

Marxism stands on the ground of facts, not possibilities.

A Marxist must base his political premises only on facts that are precisely and indisputably proven.

This is exactly what our (party) resolution* does.

When instead of this, they present "impossibility," I reply: this is incorrect, non-Marxist, and stereotypical. All kinds of transformations are possible.

And I cite a historical fact (the wars of 1792-1815). I take this as an example to illustrate the possibility of something similar (with a backward development) now.

In my view, you confuse the possible (about which I did not start the conversation!!) with the real, when you think that recognizing the possibility allows changing tactics. This is the height of illogicality.

* See Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 26, pp. 161-167. Ed.

I admit that it is possible for a social democrat to transform into a bourgeois and vice versa.

An indisputable truth. Does it follow from this that I should now recognize the given bourgeois, Plekhanov, as a social democrat? No, it does not. And in terms of possibility? Let's wait for it to transform into reality.

That's all. In "methodology" (which you write about), one must distinguish between the possible and the actual.

All kinds of transformations are possible, even a fool into a wise man, but such a transformation rarely becomes actual. And based on the "possibility" of such a transformation, I will not stop considering a fool a fool.

Your confusion about "dual" education is unclear to me. I specifically gave an example (Norway) in "Prosveshchenie"* and in the article against Kievsky**.

You do not respond to this!! You take a completely unclear example about Poland.

This is not "dual" education, but bringing different things to a common denominator, leading to one Moscow from Nizhny Novgorod and from Smolensk.

A Swedish social democrat who does not stand for Norway's freedom to secede is a scoundrel. You do not dispute this. A Norwegian can be for or against secession. Is unity on such a question necessary for all social democrats of all countries? No.

This would be a stereotype, a ridiculous stereotype, a ridiculous claim.

We have never accused Polish social democrats (I wrote this in "Prosveshchenie") for being against Polish independence.

Instead of a simple, clear, theoretically indisputable argument: it is impossible to support such a democratic demand (an independent Poland) now, which in practice subordinates us entirely to one of the imperialist powers or coalitions

* See "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 25, pp. 289-294). Ed.

** See "A Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperialist Economism'" (Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 30, pp. 99-106). Ed.

N. D. KIKNADZE. NOVEMBER 1916

(this is indisputable, this is enough; this is necessary and sufficient)
- instead, they reached an absurdity: "unrealizable."

We ridiculed this in 1903 and in April 1916.

Good Polish social democrats almost, almost proved the impossibility of creating a new Polish state, only... only the imperialist Hindenburg interfered: he took and realized it 393.

To what ridiculous doctrinairism do people reach who want (from the Krakow point of view 394) to deepen (or shall we say, deepen?) "economics"!!

They have written themselves into denying "Staatenbau"!!** Is not all democracy Staatenbau? Is not the independence of Dutch India, demanded by Gorter, Staatenbau?

We are for the freedom of Dutch India to secede. But is a social democrat from Dutch India obliged to be for secession? Here is another example of supposedly "dual" education!!

War is the continuation of politics. Belgium is a colonial country - you reason. But surely we can determine what kind of policy this war continues, whether it is the policy of Belgian slavery or Belgian liberation??

I think we can.

And if someone gets confused, it will be a matter of fact.

One cannot "prohibit" national wars (as Radek wants) out of fear that brainless people or swindlers might again pass off an imperialist war as a national one!! This is ridiculous, and Radek makes it so.

We are not against national uprisings, but for them. This is clear. And we cannot go any further: we will examine each case concretely, and hopefully, we will not mistake the uprising in South America in 1863 for a "national uprising"...

* - PPS (Polish Social Democrats). Ed.

** - "state-building"!! Ed.

I had Engels' article from Grünberg's Archive 395, but I sent it to Grigory. I will get it back from him and send it to you.

Sincerely, Your Lenin
N. K. asks me to send her regards.

Written in November, after the 5th, Sent from Zurich to Geneva

First published in 1925 in the Lenin Collection III

Published from the manuscript