V. I.

Lenin

111

To:   INESSA ARMAND

Dear Friend

As regards “defence of the fatherland” I don’t know whether we differ
or not. You find a contradiction between my article in the collection of
articles To the Memory of Marx [1] and my present statements, without quoting either precisely. I
cannot reply to this. I haven’t got the collection To the Memory of Marx . Of course, I cannot remember word for word what I wrote in
it. Without precise quotations, then and now, I am not able to
reply to such an argument on your part.

But generally speaking, it seems to me that you argue somehow
in a somewhat one-sided and formalist manner. You have taken one
quotation from the Communist Manifesto (the working men have no
country) and you seem to want to apply it without any reservations, up to and including the repudiation of national wars .

The whole spirit of Marxism, its whole system, demands that each
proposition should be considered ( α ) only historically,
( β ) only in connection with others, ( γ ) only in connection with the concrete experience of
history.

The fatherland is an historical concept. The fatherland in an epoch or,
more precisely, at the moment of struggle for the overthrow of
national oppression, is one thing. At the moment when national movements
have been left far behind, it is another thing. For the “three types of
countries” (§ 6 of our theses on self-determination [2]

)

there cannot be a proposition about the fatherland, and its defence,
identically applicable in all conditions.

In the Communist Manifesto it is said that the working men
have no country.

Correct. But not only this is stated there. It is stated there
also that when national states are being formed the role of the proletariat
is somewhat special. To take the first proposition (the working men have no
country) and forget its connection with the second (the
workers are constituted as a class nationally, though not in the same sense
as the bourgeoisie) will be exceptionally incorrect.

Where, then, does the connection lie? In my opinion, precisely in the
fact that in the democratic movement (at such a moment, in such
concrete circumstances) the proletariat cannot refuse to support it (and,
consequently, support defence of the fatherland in a national war).

Marx and Engels said in the Communist Manifesto that the
working men have no country. But the same Marx called for a
national war more than once: Marx in 1848, Engels in 1859
(the end of his pamphlet Po and Rhine , where the national
feeling of the Germans is directly in flamed, where they are directly
called upon to wage a national war ). Engels in 1891 , in
view of the then threatening and advancing war of France (Boulanger)
+Alexander III against Germany, directly recognised “defence of
the fatherland”. [8]

Were Marx and Engels muddlers who said one thing today and another
thing tomorrow? No. In my view, admission of “defence of the fatherland”
in a national war fully answers the requirements of Marxism. In
1891 the German Social-Democrats really should have defended their fatherland in a war against Boulanger + Alexander III. This
would have been a peculiar variety of national war.

Incidentally, in saying this, I am repeating what I said in my
article against
Yuri. [3]

For some reason you don’t mention it. It seems to me that on the question
raised here there are precisely in that article a number of
propositions which make clear completely (or nearly so) my understanding of
Marxism.

As to Radek—my “quarrel” (???!!!) with Radek. I had an argument
last spring with Grigory, who had no under standing at all of the political
situation at that time, and reproached me for breaking with the Zimmerwald
Left. That is nonsense.

The connection with the Zimmerwald Left is also a conditional
thing. First of all, Radek is not the Zimmerwald Left. Secondly, there was
no “break” with Radek in general, but only in a particular
sphere . Thirdly, it is stupid to conceive of the connection with
Radek in such a way that our hands should be tied in the
necessary theoretical and practical struggle.

Ad 1 (to point 1). I never, anywhere, took a single step, not a
suspicion of it, not merely towards a break, but even towards weakening the
ties with the “Zimmerwald Left”. Nobody has ever pointed one out to me,
or will be able to point it out. Neither with Borchardt, nor with the
Swedes, nor with Knief, etc., etc.

( Radek very meanly threw us out of the editorial board of
Vorbote . Radek behaves in politics like a Tyszka huckster,
impudent, insolent, stupid. Grigory wrote to me in the spring of
1916, when I was already in Zurich, that he had no “team
work” with Radek. Radek has moved away— that is the fact . He moved away on account of Vorbote , both from me
and from Grigory . On account of the impudence and huckster-like
meanness of one person, the Zimmerwald Left does not cease to be Left, and
there is no purpose in dragging it into the affair: it’s not
sensible, not correct.

Gazeta Robotnicza , in the number for February 1916, is a
pattern of such a Tyszka-like rotten servile “game” (Radek follows in his
footsteps). Anyone who forgives such things in politics I consider
a donkey or a scoundrel. I shall never forgive them . For such
things you punch men’s faces or turn away.

Of course I did the second. And I don’t repent. We did not lose a
single hair of our ties with the Left Germans. When the
problem arose of marching together with Radek in practice (the
Zurich Congress of November 4–5, 1916 [9] ), we went ahead together. All Grigory’s silly phrases
about my break with the Zimmerwald Left proved to be a stupidity, which
they always were.)

Ad 2—the “sphere” of the break with Radek, therefore, were
( α ) Russian and Polish affairs. The resolution of the
Committee of Organisations Abroad confirmed this.
( β ) The affair with Yuri and Co. Radek even now is writing (I
can send you them if you wish) the most impudent letters to me (and
Grigory) on the theme that, “we” (he + Bukharin + Yuri and Co.) “see
things” in such-and-such a way!! Only a donkey and a scoundrel, who wants
to invent an “ intrigue ”, squeezing through the crack of
differences between us and Yuri and Co., can write in this way. If Radek
did not understand what he was doing, then he is a donkey. If he did understand, then he is a scoundrel.

The political task of our Party was clear: we could not tie
our hands by equality in the editorial board with N. I. + Yuri +
E. B. (Grigory did not understand this, and drove me to a direct ultimatum:
I declared that I would resign from Kommunist if we did
not break with it. Kommunist was a good thing, so long as
there was no separate programme of the trio who composed 1/2 the
editorial board). To grant equality to a group consisting of
Bukharin + Yuri + E. B. would be idiocy and the ruin of all the
work. Neither Yuri, quite a little pig, nor E. B. has a drop of brains, and
if they had allowed themselves to descend to group stupidity with
Bukharin, then we had to break with them, more precisely with
Kommunist . And that was done.

The polemics over self-determination are only beginning as yet. Here
they are in complete confusion—as in the whole question about
the attitude to democracy. To grant “equality” to little pigs and
fools—never! They didn’t want to learn peaceably and in comradely
fashion, so let them blame themselves. (I pestered them, provoking
conversations about it in Berne: they turned up their noses! I wrote them
letters, tens of pages long, to Stockholm—they turned up their noses!
Well, if that’s how it is, let them go to the devil. I did everything
possible for a peaceable out come. If you don’t want it, I will
punch your faces and expose you as idiots before the whole world. That, and
only that, is the way to treat them.) But where does Radek come in, you
may ask.

Because lie was the “heavy artillery” of this “group”, artillery
hidden in the bushes on one side. Yuri and Co.

were quite skilful in their calculations (E. B. is capable as an intriguer,
it turned out that she was not leading Yuri to us , but setting up
a group against us). Their calculation was: we shall start the war, but
it’s Radek who will fight for us!! Radek will fight for us , while
Lenin will have his hands tied .

But it didn’t come off, my dear little pigs! I will not let my hands be
tied in politics. If you want to fight, come out openly. But the role of
Radek—secretly inciting young pigs, but himself hiding behind the
“Zimmerwald Left”—is the height of scoundrelism. The most lousy ... of
the Tyszka swamp could not have been playing the huckster, the lackey and
the intriguer behind one’s back in dirtier fashion.

Ad 3—I have already stated clearly. The question of the relationship
of imperialism to democracy and the minimum programme is arising on an
ever wider scale (see the Dutch programme in No. 3 of the
Bulletin [10] the American S.L.P. have thrown out the whole minimum programme.
Entwaffnungsfrage [4]

).

On this Radek has absolute confusion in his head (this is clear
from his theses; it was also shown by the question of indirect and direct
taxes raised in my theses). I will never let my hands be tied in explaining
this most important and fundamental question. I cannot. The question has to
be cleared up. There will be dozens of “falls” over it yet (they
will stumble for certain).

Anyone who understands the “connection” with the Zimmerwald Left in
such a way that we should let our hands be tied in the theoretical
struggle against “imperialist Economism” (that international
disease; Dutch-American-Russian, etc.), understands nothing. To learn by
heart the words “Zimmerwald Left” and to kowtow before the utter
theoretical confusion in Radek’s head, that I don’t accept.

The results: after Zimmerwald manoeuvres were more difficult . It was necessary to take the essential from Radek,
E. B. and Co. , without allowing one’s hands to be tied . I
consider that I was successful in this. After Bukharin’s departure to
America and, above all , after Yuri had sent us his article and
after he had accepted (he accepted! he had to accept) my reply, their affairs, as a “group”, were
finished . (Yet Grigory wanted to perpetuate that group,
granting it equality : we would give it equality!!)

With Radek we parted company on the Russo-Polish arena, and
did not invite him into our
Sbornik . [11] It had to be that way .

And now he can do nothing which could spoil the work. He was
obliged at the Zurich Congress (November 5, 1916) to go together
with me, as now, against Grimm .

What does this mean? It means that I succeeded in dividing [5] the questions: not in one iota is the internationalist pressure on
the Kautskians (Grimm y compris [6]

)

weakened, and at the same time I am not subjected to “equality” with
Radek’s stupidity!

Strategically I now consider the cause to have been won. It is possible
that Yuri + Co . + Radek + Co. will abuse me . Allez-y, mes amis ! [7]
Now the odium will fall on you , not on us. But you will now not injure the cause, and for us the road has been
cleared. We have disentangled our selves from the dirty (in all
senses) muddle with Yuri and Radek, without in one iota weakening
the “Zimmerwald Left”, and possessing the requisites for the
struggle against stupidity on the question of the attitude to democracy.

Voilà . I apologise for this long letter and for the abundance of sharp words: I can’t write otherwise when I am speaking
frankly. Well, after all, this is all entre nous , and perhaps the
unnecessary bad language will pass.

Best greetings.

Yours, Lenin

In general, both Radek and Pannekoek are incorrect in the way
they approach the question of the struggle against Kautskianism. This
N.B. !!

---
Notes:
[1]
See “Marxism and Revisionism” (present edition, Vol. 15,
pp. 29–39).— Ed .

[2]
See “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to
Self-Determination” (present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 150–52).— Ed .

[3]
See “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism” (present
edition, Vol. 23, pp. 25–76)— Ed .

[4]
The question of disarmament.— Ed .

[5]
This was very difficult!! — Lenin

[6]
Included.— Ed .

[7]
Go ahead, my friends!— Ed .

[8]
See Marx/Engels, Werke , Bd. 13, S. 267–68, Dietz Verlag,
Berlin, 1964, and Werke , Bd. 22, S. 252–56.

[9]
The Congress of the Social-Democratic Party of Switzerland was held in
Zurich, November 4 and 5, 1916.

[10]
The Bulletin of the International Socialist Commission No. 3,
for February 29, 1916, published the draft programme of the Dutch
Social-Democrats, which contained, among other points, the following
specific demands: democratisation of all representative institutions, the
setting up of a republic, an eight-hour working day, abolition of
militarism.

[11]
Reference is to Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata (see Note 234).