V. I.

Lenin

Dear Comrade, The stand taken by Mr. National Councillor Robert Grimm at the meeting
of the Party Executive on January 7, jointly with all the
social-nationalists and to a considerable degree as their leader, in favour of the resolution to postpone the party congress fills the cup
of patience to overflowing and utterly exposes Mr. National Councillor
Grimm in his true colours.

The chairman of the International Socialist Committee elected at
Zimmerwald, the chairman of the Zimmerwald and Kienthal conferences, the
most “authoritative” representative, in the eyes of the whole world, of
the entire Zimmerwald group, comes out together with, and at the head of,
the social-patriots as a downright traitor to Zimmerwald. He puts forth a
proposal designed to disrupt the party congress, appointed long ago for the
express purpose of deciding, in the freest and—considering the place and
time—most internationally influential European country, the question of
defending the fatherland in an imperialist war!!

Can one remain silent? Gait one remain calm in the face of such a fact,
which would have for ever disgraced the entire Zimmerwald movement, and
converted it into a farce, had not the mask been torn from the face of
Mr. National Councillor Grimm?

The Socialist Party of Switzerland is the only European socialist party
which openly and officially, in open congress, unhindered by military
censorship and the military authorities, joined Zimmerwald, supported it, appointed two members of the International
Socialist Committee and appeared before the whole world as the principal
representative of the Zimmerwald movement, if we do not count the Italian
party, which is in an immeasurably more difficult position owing to the
oppressive war conditions. At its Zurich Congress of November 4–5, 1916,
after delays caused, among other things, by the struggle against the avowed
social-patriots who only in the autumn of 1916 broke away from the party to
form a separate Grütli-Verein, the Socialist Party finally decided to
convene a special party congress in Berne, in February 1917, to decide the
questions of war and of fatherland defence. But now some individuals in the
party are determined to prevent the congress, to disrupt it, to prevent the
workers themselves from discussing and deciding, during the war,
their attitude towards militarism and defence of the fatherland.

At the head of those individuals, whose policy is an out rage to the
whole Zimmerwald movement, we find the chairman of the International
Socialist Committee!

Is this not the utter betrayal of Zimmerwald? Is it not the
spurning of all the Zimmerwald decisions?

We have only to glance at some of the official arguments to justify
postponing the congress to understand the point and purpose of this move.

“ The workers,” we are told, “are not yet ready” to decide this
question!

All the Zimmerwald and Kienthal manifestos and resolutions declare over
and over again that fatherland defence in an imperialist war, a war between
two imperialist coalitions, a war for robbing colonies and throttling weak
nations, is a betrayal of socialism, irrespective of whether this relates
to the “Great Powers” or to small nations, which for the time being have
retained their neutrality. In dozens of ways this idea is repeated in all
the official Zimmerwald and Kienthal documents. It has been presented and
argued over and over again in hundreds of articles and reports in all Swiss
socialist papers, notably in the Berner Tagwacht , of which
Mr. National Councillor Grimm is editor. The declarations of sympathy for
Karl Liebknecht, Höglund, MacLean, etc., emphasised hundreds of times the
conviction common to all the Zimmerwaldists, namely, that these men have rightly
understood the position and interests of the masses , that the
sympathy of the masses , i.e., of the majority of the oppressed and
exploited, is on their side, that by its class instinct the
proletariat everywhere, in “Great” belligerent Germany, as well as in
small neutral Sweden, is coming to see that defence of the fatherland in an
imperialist war is the betrayal of socialism .

And now the chairman of the International Socialist Committee, with the
enthusiastic approval and warm support of all the pronounced
representatives of social-patriotism in the Socialist Party of
Switzerland—H. Greulich, P. Pflüger, Huber, Manz-Schäppi, etc.,
etc.—comes forth with the hypocritical and false argument that the party
congress is being postponed because “the workers are not yet ready”.

This is a lie; it is disgusting, intolerable hypocrisy. Everyone
knows—and the Grütlianer openly publishes this bitter truth—that the congress is being postponed because these social-patriots
are afraid of the workers, afraid that the workers will
decide against defence of the father land; that they threaten to
resign their seats in the Nationalrat, if a decision against defence of the
fatherland is carried. The social-patriot “leaders” of the Socialist
Party of Switzerland, who even now, two and a half years after the
beginning of the war, favour “defence of the fatherland”, i.e.,
defence of the imperialist bourgeoisie of one or the other
coalition, have decided to disrupt the congress , to sabotage the
will of the Swiss socialist workers, to prevent them from discussing and
determining, during the war, their attitude towards the war, towards the
“defenders of the fatherland”, i.e., towards the lackeys of the
imperialist bourgeoisie.

This is the real reason, which everyone knows perfectly well, why the
congress has been postponed; this is a betrayal of Zimmerwald by the
chairman of the International Socialist Committee, who has deserted to the
side of the social-patriots in the Socialist Party of Switzerland,
against the class-conscious workers of Switzerland!

Such is the bitter truth. It has already been told by the avowedly
social-patriot Grütlianer , which, incidentally, is always best
informed about what the Grütlian leaders, Greulich, Pflüger, Huber Manz-Schäppi and Co., inside the
Socialist Party are thinking and doing. Incidentally, three days
before the meeting of January 7, 1917, this paper wrote:  [1]

Another “official” reason for postponing the congress is that the
commission specially elected in December, or even November, 1916, to frame
the resolution on the war question, “failed to arrive at a unanimous
decision”!!

As if Grimm and Co. did not know beforehand that unanimity on such a
question was impossible in the Socialist Party of Switzerland as
long as there remained such “leaders” as Greulich, Pflüger, G. Muller,
Huber, Manz-Schäppi, Otto Lang and others, who while not joining the
social-patriot Grütli party fully share the social-patriot views
of the Grütli-Verein, and who only deceive the socialist workers
by belonging to the Socialist Party!

As if Grimm and Co. did not clearly see in the summer of 1916 that
there was no unity, nor could there be, on the defence of the fatherland
issue: for the social-patriot theses of Pflüger, G. Muller and
others were published in the summer of 1916, and Grimm, being a member of
the Nationalrat, naturally could not help noting thousands of times the social-patriot views at least of Greulich and Co.,
if not of the majority of the Nationalrat Social-Democratic group.

Grimm and Co. want to deceive the socialist workers of
Switzerland. That is why, in appointing a commission, they did not publish the names of its members. But the Grütlianer told
the truth when it published those names and added, as something
taken for granted, as a generally accepted truth, that such a
commission could not arrive at a unanimous decision!

To deceive the workers, Grimm and Co. decided not to publish
the commission resolutions immediately ; they concealed
the truth from the workers. Yet the resolutions have been available for a
long time, and have even been printed confidentially !!

As was only to be expected, the resolution accepting “defence
of the fatherland”, i.e., justifying the betrayal of socialism
during a war whose imperialist character has been exposed a thousand times,
is signed by Huber, Pflüger, Klöti and G. Muller; the resolution rejecting “defence of the
fatherland” is signed by Nobs, Affolter, Schmid, Name and Graber.

Grimm and the social-patriots are playing a disgraceful, unscrupulous
game with the socialist workers.

The workers are not yet ready, they shout, and yet at the very same
time, these leaders conceal from the workers available resolutions which definitely place before the workers two sets of ideas,
two irreconcilable policies, the social-patriot and the Zimmerwald
policies!!

Grimm and the social-patriots are brazen deceivers of the workers, for
it is they who have decided to disrupt the congress, withhold publication
of the resolutions, deny the workers the opportunity openly to weigh and
discuss the two policies—and yet they shout that the workers “are not
yet ready”!

Other “official” arguments for postponing the congress: the need to
combat the high cost of living, conduct the election campaign, etc.

These arguments are a sheer insult to the workers. Who does not know
that we Social-Democrats are not against the struggle for reforms,
that, unlike the social-patriots, unlike the opportunists and reformists,
we do not confine ourselves to the struggle for reforms, but
subordinate it to the struggle for revolution? Who does not know
that this is exactly the policy repeatedly formulated in the Zimmerwald and
Kienthal manifestos? We are not opposed to elections and reforms aimed at
reducing the high cost of living, but our first concern is openly to tell
the masses the truth , namely, that it is impossible to
eliminate high living costs without expropriating the banks and big
industry, i.e., without social revolution.

What does every Zimmerwald manifesto call upon the proletariat
to do in retaliation to the war, in connection with the
war?

It calls for revolutionary mass struggle, for the workers to turn their
weapons against the enemy in their own country (see the last International
Socialist Committee manifesto: An die Arbeiterklasse , [2] end of December 1916), i.e., to turn their weapons against their own bourgeoisie, their own
government.

Should this not make it clear to every thinking person that the policy
of repudiating defence of the fatherland is linked with
the really revolutionary and really socialist struggle against the high
cost of living, with a really socialist, and not bourgeois-reformist,
utilisation of the election campaign?

Is it not clear that the social-patriot policy, the “fatherland
defence” policy in the imperialist war, is the policy of
reformism , i.e., a bourgeois-reformist and not a socialist struggle against high prices, merely an election campaign
struggle?

How is it possible to “ postpone ” a congress which is to
decide the “defence of the fatherland” issue (i.e., to choose
between social-patriot and socialist policy) “on the plea” that
it is necessary to combat high prices, etc.?? Grimm and the social-patriots
advance this false and fraudulent argument to obscure from the
workers the truth that they want to combat high living costs, conduct the
election campaign, etc., in a bourgeois-reformist spirit and not in the
Zimmerwald spirit.

On August 6, 1916, Grimm addressed a meeting in Zurich of
115 Arbeitervertrauensleute aus der ganzen
Schweiz. [3]

His speech was a plea for a bourgeois-reformist, purely reformist, struggle
against the high cost of living! Grimm is marching “with sure step” to
his goal, i.e., to rapprochement with the social-patriots against
the socialist workers, against Zimmerwald.

Particularly disgusting in all this is the fact that Grimm covers up his desertion to the social-patriots by roundly abusing
the non-Swiss social-patriots. And in this lies one of the deepest
roots of Grimm’s treachery, one of the deepest sources of the whole policy
of deception which was revealed on January 7, 1917.

Look at the Berner Tagwacht . It has heaped every manner of
abuse on the Russian, French, English, German and Austrian
social-patriots—in short, on everyone ... except the Swiss! Grimm has
even called the German social-patriot

Ebert, a member of the German Social-Democratic Party Executive, “einen
Rausschmeisser in einen
Bordell” [4] ( Berner Tagwacht No. ...).

Brave fellow, this Grimm, a knightly warrior! Sitting in Berne, he
bravely attacks the social-patriots ... in Berlin! But this knight
maintains a noble reticence about the social-patriots ... in Berne and Zurich !

But is there any difference between Ebert in Berlin and Greulich,
Manz-Schäppi and Pflüger in Zurich, and Gustav Muller, Schneeberger and
Dürr in Berne? None whatever . They are all social-patriots . They all share exactly the same views. The ideas they
bring the masses are “ Grütlian ”, i.e., reformist, nationalist,
bourgeois, ideas, not socialist ideas.

When Grimm drew up his theses on the war issue in the summer of 1916,
he deliberately made them long and vague in the hope that this would
deceive both the Left and the Bight and enable him to “cash in” on their
differences. He concluded the theses with the following sentence:

“ The party and trade union organs should reach agreement” (in the
event of a war danger and the need for revolutionary mass action).

But who is at the head of the trade unions in Switzerland? Among
others, the very Schneeberger and Dürr who in the summer of 1916 were the
editors of the Schweizerische Metallarbeiterzeitung . [5]

They conducted this paper in a reactionary, reformist, social-patriot
spirit, openly declaring that they stood for “defence of
the fatherland”, and openly protesting against the whole
policy of Zimmerwald.

And at the head of the Socialist Party of Switzerland, as the events of
January 7, 1917 reaffirmed, are the social-patriots Greulich, Pflüger,
Manz-Schäppi, Huber, etc., etc.

And so, what is the net result?

It amounts to this: in his theses Grimm proposed that the party place
the leadership of revolutionary mass actions against the war in
the hands of none other than the social-patriots Schneeberger,
Dürr, Greulich, Pflüger and Co.! In the hands of the very people who
are opposed to such actions, in the hands of reformists !!

Now, after January 7, 1917, Grimm’s “tactics” have been fully
exposed.

He wants to be regarded as leader of the Left, as chair man of the
International Socialist Committee, representative and leader of the
Zimmerwaldists. He is trying to deceive the workers with the most
“r-r-revolutionary” phrases, using them, in reality , to
conceal the party’s old, social-patriot, bourgeois-reformist
practice.

He vows and swears that he sympathises with Karl Liebknecht, Höglund,
etc., that he is their supporter, that he is pursuing their policy.

But Karl Liebknecht in Germany, Höglund in small neutral Sweden,
fought not against foreign , but against their own social-patriots. They attacked the reformists and nationalists at home, in
Berlin, in Stockholm, not in other countries. Their ruthless exposure of
the social-patriots won them the honour of being hated by the
Berlin and Stockholm Greulichs, Pflügers, Schneebergers
and Dürrs.

Is it so difficult to realise that when the French chauvinists laud the
German Liebknecht, and when the German chauvinists laud the Englishman
MacLean, they are behaving like swindlers—using “internationalist”
phrases in praise of other people’s internationalism to cover up
their own nationalism? Is it so difficult to realise that Grimm is
behaving in the very same manner when he pours abuse on the social-patriots
of all countries except Switzerland, that he does this for the
express purpose of covering up his desertion to the Swiss social-patriots?

Grimm denounced the German social-patriot Ebert as a “Rausschmeisser
in einem Bordell” for having stolen the Vorwärts from the
German workers, for ejecting Left wingers from the party while
shouting about a split.

But what is Grimm doing at home, in Switzerland, in company with the
dismal heroes of dismal January 7, 1917?

Did, he not steal from the Swiss workers the solemnly promised special
congress to discuss the fatherland defence issue? And is he not preparing
to expel Zimmerwaldists from the party while shouting about a split?

Let us not be childishly naïve, let us squarely face the truth!

At the January 7 meeting, Grimm’s new friends and patrons, the
social-patriots, joined him in protesting against a split. They especially accused the youth organisation of splitting
activities. One of them shouted to the party secretary, Platten, “Er sei
kein Parteisekretär, er sei
Parteiverräter.” [6]

Can one remain silent when such things are being said and when the
“leaders” want to hide them from the party? Can it be that the Swiss
socialist workers will not protest against such methods?

What crime have the Youth League and Platten committed? Their only
crime is that they are sincere adherents of Zimmerwald, sincere
Zimmerwaldists, and not careerists. Their only crime is that they are
opposed to postponing the congress. And if scandal-mongers say
that only the Zimmerwald Left, acting as a separate faction, is opposed to
the postponement of the congress, “opposed to His Majesty Grimm” in
general, has not January 7, 1917 proved that this is nothing but idle
gossip? Have not you, Comrade Name, spoken in opposition to Grimm, although
you have never, either directly or indirectly, formally or informally,
adhered to the Zimmerwald Left?

Causing a split! That is the truly threadbare accusation the
social-patriots in all countries are making in order to cover up the fact
that they are ejecting the Liebknechts and the Höglunds from the
party.

---
Notes:
[1]
In Lenin’s manuscript space is left for a quotation.— Ed .

[2]
To the Working Class .— Ed .

[3]
Workers’ delegates from all parts of
Switzerland. [7] — Ed .

[4]
A “bouncer” in a brothel.— Ed .

[5]
Swiss Metalworkers Gazette.— Ed .

[6]

“ He is not a party secretary, he is a party traitor.”— Ed .

[7]

The allusion is to the conference of 115 representatives of Swiss labour
organisations held in Zurich on August 6, 1916 to discuss the situation
created by rising living costs. The main report was made by Grimm. The
resolution and a brief account of the conference were published in
Volksrecht , August 8, 1916 (No. 183), under the heading “Die
schweizerische Arbeiterschaft und die Teuerung” (“The Swiss Workers and
Rising Living Costs”). The conference appeal to the National Council was
published in Volksrecht of August 10 (No. 185) under the heading
“Massnahmen gegen die Teuerung” (“Measures Against Rising Living
Costs”).