Date: 1916-11-30
Source: ru:PSS/v49

# I. F. ARMAND. NOVEMBER 30, 1916

Source: CW vol 49

I cannot answer this indication precisely. I do not have the collection "In Memory of Marx." Of course, I could not remember word for word what I wrote there. Without exact quotes, both from that time and now, I am unable to respond to such an argument on your part.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that you are reasoning somewhat one-sidedly and formalistically. You took one quote from the "Communist Manifesto" (workers have no fatherland) and want to apply it without qualifications, even to the point of denying national wars.

The entire spirit of Marxism, its entire system, requires that each proposition be considered only (.) historically; (.) in connection with others; (.) in connection with the concrete experience of history.

Fatherland is a historical concept. It is one thing when the fatherland is in the era or, more precisely, at the moment of struggle against national oppression. It is another thing when national movements are far behind. For the "three types of countries" (§ 6 of our theses on self-determination)*, the position on the fatherland and its defense cannot be applied equally under all conditions.

In the "Communist Manifesto," it is said that workers have no fatherland.

This is correct. But it is not only this that is said there. It is also said that in the formation of national states, the role of the proletariat is somewhat special. If one takes the first proposition (workers have no fatherland) and forgets its connection with the second (the proletariat constitutes itself as a class nationally, but not in the sense of the bourgeoisie), then this would be extremely wrong.

What, then, is this connection? In my opinion, it is precisely that in the democratic movement (at such a moment, in such a specific situation), the proletariat cannot refuse to support it (and, consequently, to defend the fatherland in a national war).

Marx and Engels said in the "Communist Manifesto" that workers have no fatherland. But the same Marx

* See "Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 27, pp. 260-261). Ed.

called for a national war more than once: Marx in 1848, Engels in 1859 (at the end of his pamphlet "Po and Rhine," where he directly incites German national sentiment, calling them to a national war). Engels in 1891, in view of the impending war by France (Boulanger) + Alexander III against Germany, directly recognized "defense of the fatherland" 402.

Were Marx and Engels muddleheads, saying one thing today and another tomorrow?

No. In my opinion, recognizing "defense of the fatherland" in a national war fully corresponds to Marxism. In 1891, the German Social Democrats indeed should have defended the fatherland in a war against Boulanger + Alexander III. This would have been a specific variant of a national war.

By the way: in saying this, I am repeating what was said in the article against Yuri*. You are silent about it for some reason. It seems to me that on the question raised here, there are a number of positions in this very article that clarify my understanding of Marxism to the end (or almost).

About Radek - about the "quarrel" (???!!!) with Radek. I already had a dispute with Grigory in the spring, who did not understand the political situation at the time and accused me of breaking with the Zimmerwald Left. This is nonsense.

The connection with the Zimmerwald Left is also a conditional matter. First, Radek does not equal the Zimmerwald Left. Second, there was no "break" with Radek in general, but only in a certain sphere. Third, it is absurd to understand the connection with Radek in such a way that it would tie our hands in necessary theoretical and practical struggles.

Ad 1 (to point 1). I have never taken a single step, not even a shadow of a step, either towards a break or even towards weakening the connection with the "Zimmerwald Left." No one has pointed out or will point out such a step to me. Neither with Borchardt, nor with the Swedes, nor with Knief, and so on and so forth. (Radek very meanly kicked us out of the editorial board of "Vorbote." Radek behaves in politics like a Tyschinski merchant, impudent, brazen, and stupid. Grigory wrote

* See "On the Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperialist Economism'" (Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 30, pp. 77-130). Ed.