# Principles on the Military Question (Several Principles on the Question of War)

SEVERAL PRINCIPLES ON WAR

of the Swiss socialist newspapers, in all likelihood, for the Zurich «Volksrecht».
SEVERAL PRINCIPLES
ON THE QUESTION OF WAR.
[December 1916, Zurich.]
Among the left social-democrats of Switzerland, there is complete unanimity on the need, precisely in connection with the present war, to reject the principle of defense of the fatherland. The proletariat, or at least its best elements, are also opposed to the defense of the country.
Thus, in relation to the most burning issue of modern socialism in general and the Swiss socialist party in particular, there appears to be the necessary unity. But if we look at the matter more closely, we will inevitably come to the conclusion that this unity is only an appearance.
In reality, there is absolutely no clarity—not to mention a unity of opinions—on the fact that the statement of a negative attitude towards the defense of the fatherland is itself a matter that places extraordinarily high demands on the revolutionary consciousness, as well as on the revolutionary capacity of the party that proclaims it—of course, provided that such a statement does not boil down to an empty phrase. If they simply proclaim the rejection of the defense of the country quite simply, without any conclusions, i.e., without understanding these demands, without realizing that all propaganda, agitation, organization, in a word, all the activities of the party must be fundamentally "renewed" (to use Karl Liebknecht's expression) and adapted to the higher revolutionary tasks, then this statement turns into an empty phrase.
Let us carefully consider what the rejection of the defense of the country actually means if we treat it as a political slogan that is taken seriously and which must be truly implemented.
First. We propose that proletarians and exploited people of all warring countries and countries threatened by war reject the defense of the country. Now, from the experience of several positiv aus Erfahrung mehrerer kriegführenden Länder, was es in
Wirklichkeit bedeutet, die Landesverteidigung im jetzigen Kriege
abzulehnen. Das bedeutet alle Grundlagen der heutigen bürgerlichen
Gesellschaft zu negieren, und zwar nicht nur theoretisch, nicht nur
im allgemeinen, sondern praktisch, unmittelbar, sofort eine Axt
an die Wurzel der heutigen Gesellschaftsordnung zu legen. Ist es
etwa nicht klar, dass wir das nur unter der Bedingung tun dürfen,
wenn wir nicht bloss die festeste theoretische Überzeugung haben,
dass der Kapitalismus schon vollständig reif zur Umwandlung in den
Sozialismus geworden ist, sondern dass wir praktisch, unmittelbar,
sofort diese sozialistische Umwälzung d. h. die sozialistische Revolution für durchführbar halten?
Das vergisst man aber fast immer, wenn man von der Ablehnung
der Vaterlandsverteidigung spricht. Höchstens ist man bereit «theo-
retisch» die Reife des Kapitalismus zur Umwandlung in den Sozia-
lismus anzuerkennen, aber von einer sofortigen, gründlichen Änderung der Gesamttätigkeit der Partei im Sinne der unmittelbar bevor-
stehenden sozialistischen Revolution will man nichts hören!
Das Volk sei unvorbereitet dazu!
Es ist aber unkonzent bis zur Lächerlichkeit. Entweder—oder.
Entweder dürfen wir die sofortige Ablehnung der Landesverteidi-
gung nicht proklamieren, — oder müssen wir sofort die systematische
Propaganda der unmittelbaren Durchführbarkeit der sozialistischen
Revolution entfalten oder zu entfalten beginnen. Im gewissen Sinne
ist «das Volk» natürlich weder zur Ablehnung der Landesverteidigung,
noch zur sozialistischen Revolution «vorbereitet», aber daraus folgt
nicht, dass wir das Recht haben zwei Jahre------ zwei Jahre!----
den systematischen Beginn dieser Vorbereitung aufzuschieben!
Zweitens. Was stellt man der Politik der Vaterlandsverteidigung
und des Burgfriedens entgegen? Revolutionären Kampf gegen den
Krieg, «revolutionäre Massenkämpfe», wie sie durch den Beschluss
des Parteitages zu Aarau 1915 anerkannt worden sind. Es ist zweifelsohne ein ausgezeichneter Beschluss, aber... aber die Geschichte
der Partei seit diesem Parteitage, die wirkliche Politik der Partei,
beweist eben, dass es ein papierner Beschluss geblieben ist!
Was ist das Ziel der revolutionären Massenkämpfe? Die Partei
hat das offiziell nicht gesagt, und man spricht darüber überhaupt
nicht. Es wird entweder als selbstverständlich betrachtet, oder aus-
drücklich anerkannt, dass dieses Ziel «Sozialismus» ist. Man stellt
dem Kapitalismus (oder dem Imperialismus) den Sozialismus entgegen.

SEVERAL PRINCIPLES ON WAR
Щ
warring countries, we know firsthand what it really means to reject the defense of the fatherland in the present war.
This means negating all the foundations of modern bourgeois society and cutting at the root of the modern social order not only in theory, not only "in general," but in practice, directly, right now. Is it not clear that this can only be done on the condition that we have not simply come to the firmest theoretical conviction that capitalism is already fully ripe for its transformation into socialism, but if we recognize this socialist upheaval, i.e., the socialist revolution, as practically achievable immediately, right now.
But this is almost always overlooked when they talk about rejecting the defense of the fatherland. At best, there is a willingness to "theoretically" acknowledge that capitalism has already matured for transformation into socialism, but they do not even want to hear about an immediate radical change in all the activities of the party in the spirit of the immediately impending socialist revolution!
The people are supposedly not prepared for this!
But this is inconsistent to the point of ridiculousness. Either—or. Either we have no need to declare now that we reject the defense of the country, or we must now unfold or begin to unfold a systematic propaganda of the immediate implementation of the socialist revolution. In a certain sense, "the people" are, of course, "unprepared" either to reject the defense of the country or for the socialist revolution, but it does not follow from this that we have the right to postpone the beginning of such systematic preparation for two years------ TWO years! ----
Secondly. What is opposed to the policy of defending the fatherland and *Burgfrieden*? Revolutionary struggle against the war, "revolutionary mass actions," as they were recognized by the resolution of the *Parteitag* in Aarau in 1915. This is undoubtedly an excellent decision, but... the history of the party since this *Parteitag*, the real policy of the party, proves that it has remained a paper decision!
What is the goal of revolutionary mass actions? The party has not officially said anything about this, and they do not talk about it at all. Either they consider it self-evident, or they explicitly recognize that this goal is "socialism." Socialism is opposed to capitalism (or imperialism).

But this is extremely (theoretically) illogical and practically
devoid of content. Illogical because it is too general, too vague.
“Socialism” in general, as a goal in opposition to capitalism (or imperialism), is now recognized not only by Kautskyites and social chauvinists,
but also by many bourgeois politicians. But now it is not a question
of a general opposition of two social systems, but of concrete tasks of concrete "revolutionary mass actions" against a concrete evil, namely against today's high cost of living, today's military danger or the present
war.
The entire Second International from 1871 to 1914 juxtaposed
socialism to capitalism in general, and it was precisely in this too general
“generalization” that it went bankrupt. It ignored precisely
the specific evil of our era, which F. Engels characterized 30 years
ago, on January 10, 1887, with the following words:
... "Within the Social Democratic party itself, including
the Reichstag faction, a certain kind of petty-bourgeois socialism finds its place. It finds expression there
in such a form that the basic views of modern socialism and the demand for the transformation of all means of production into public property are recognized as correct, but the implementation of this is considered possible
only in the distant, practically indefinite future. Thus, at the present time, it turns out to be doomed to simple social patching" ... (Preface to "The Housing Question").
The specific goal of "revolutionary mass actions" can only be the specific measures of a socialist revolution, and not "socialism" in general. But when they propose to accurately
define these specific measures, as the Dutch comrades did
in their program, published in the Bulletin of the I. S. K., No. 3 (Bern, February 29, 1916): annulment of state
debts, expropriation of banks, expropriation of all large enterprises — if they propose to include such completely
specific measures in the official resolution of the party, and systematically explain them in the most popular form
through constant party propaganda and agitation at meetings, in parliamentary speeches, in initiative proposals, to counteract them, then you get the same dismissive, or
evasive, thoroughly sophistical answer again, that the people are
unprepared for this, and so forth!
But that is precisely why it is necessary to begin this preparation immediately and to carry it out incessantly!
Thirdly. The party has "recognized" revolutionary mass struggles.
Good. But is the party capable of doing such a thing?
Is it preparing for it? Is it studying these issues, collecting the
appropriate material, is it creating appropriate bodies and organizations, is it discussing relevant issues within the people, with the people?
No thought of it! The party remains (persists) entirely
in the old, only-parliamentary, only-trade-union, only-
reformist, only-legal track. The party remains notoriously
incapable of demanding and leading revolutionary mass struggles, it is notoriously not preparing for it at all. The old slovenliness
prevails, and the "new" word (rejection of the defense of the fatherland, revolutionary mass struggles) remains nothing but a word. And the Leftists are not aware of this, they do not systematically, persistently, everywhere, in all areas of party activity, gather their
forces to fight against this evil.
One cannot help but shrug one's shoulders when one reads, for example, the following sentence (the last sentence) from Grimm's theses
on the military question:
"In this case (namely in the event of a danger of war, to initiate a mass strike of transport personnel, etc.), the organs of the party, together with the trade union organizations of the country, must make the necessary arrangements."
These theses were published in the summer of this year,
and on September 16, 1916, in the "Swiss Metalworkers' Newspaper," at the head of which are the names of the
editors: O. Schneeberger and K. Dür, one could read, on behalf of the editors, the following phrase (I almost said: the following official answer to Grimm's theses or Grimm's pious wishes):
..."The phrase "The worker has no fatherland" is quite absurd... at a moment when the workers
A Few Basic Propositions on the War then “again we get the same dilatory or evasive, thoroughly sophistical answer that the people are not yet prepared for this, etc.!
But the point is precisely to begin this preparation now and carry it out steadfastly!
Thirdly. The party has “recognized” mass revolutionary actions. Excellent. But is the party capable of carrying out anything like this? Is it preparing for this? Is it studying these questions, collecting relevant material, creating relevant bodies and organizations, discussing relevant questions in the people, together with the people?
Nothing of the kind! The party (stubbornly) remains entirely in its old exclusively parliamentary, exclusively trade-unionist, exclusively reformist, exclusively legal rut. The party knowingly remains incapable of assisting revolutionary mass actions and leading them, it knowingly is utterly unprepared for this. The old routine prevails and the “new” words (rejection of the defense of the fatherland, revolutionary mass struggle) – remain only words! And the left does not realize this and does not systematically, persistently gather its forces everywhere, in all areas of party work, in order to combat this evil.
One cannot help shrugging, reading, for example, the following phrase (the last phrase) in Grimm's theses on the question of war:
“The organs of the party, together with the trade union organizations of the country, must in this case (i.e. calling on railway employees to mass strikes in case of danger of war, etc.) take all necessary measures.”
These theses were published in the summer of this year, and on September 16, 1916, in the “Schweizerische Metallarbeiterzeitung” (“Swiss Metalworkers' Newspaper”), headed by the names of the editors: O. Schneeberger and K. Dürr, one could read the following phrase (I almost said: the following official answer to Grimm's theses or pious wishes):
... "Very bad taste ... the phrase: "the worker has no fatherland" at a time when the workers of all

Europas in ihrer überwiegenden Mehrheit gegen die «Feinde» ihres Vaterlandes seit zwei Jahren Seite an Seite mit dem Burgertum im Felde stehen, und die Daheimgebliebenen trotz Not und Elend «durchhalten» wollen. In der Schweiz würden wir bei einem fremden Angriff sicher dasselbe Schauspiel erleben»!!! '*
Ist es keine «kautskyanische» Politik, Politik der ohnmächtigen Phrase, der linken Deklamationen und der opportunistischen Praxis, wenn man einerseits Resolutionen vorschlägt, die Partei soll gemeinsam mit den Gewerkschaftsorganisationen» revolutionäre Massenstreiks einleiten, andererseits aber gegen die grütlianerische d. h. sozialpatriotische, reformistische, nur legalistische Richtung und deren Vertreter innerhalb der Partei und der Gewerk-schaften keinen Kampf führt ?
Heißt es die Massen zu «erziehen» oder die Massen zu korrumpieren und zu demoralisieren, wenn man ihnen nicht täglich sagt und beweist, dass die «leitenden» Genossen O. Schneeberger, K. Durr, P. Pfliiger, H. Greulich, Huber und mehrere andere eben solche sozialpatriotische Ansichten haben, eben solche sozial-patriotische Politik treiben, die Grimm so «tapfer» entlarvt und geißelt. ...wenn es sich um Reichsdeutsche und nicht um die Schweizer handelt? Die Auslander beschimpfen, die «eigenen» «Mitburger» verdecken... ist es «internationalistisch»? ist es «demokratisch»?
Hermann Greulich hat die Lage der schweizerischen Arbeiter-schaft, die Krise des schweizerischen Sozialismus sowie auch das Wesen der grütlianerischen Politik innerhalb der sozialistischen Partei mit folgenden Worten gekennzeichnet:
...«Die Lebenshaltung ist nur wenig und nur bei den ober-sten Schichten (hört! hört!; der Arbeiterschaft gehoben. Die Masse der Arbeiter blieb in Not, Sorgen und Entbehrungen. Darum kommt von Zeit zu Zeit der Zweifel, ob der bisherige Weg der richtige sei. Die Kritik sucht neue Wege und hofft namentlich Erfolge von einem schärferen Vorgehen. Man macht Versuche damit, die in der Regel (?) misslingen (??), und dann die Rückkehr zur alten Taktik mit verstärkten Kräften bewirken» (ist nicht auch hier der Wunsch der Väter des Gedankens?)... «Nun ist der Weltkrieg gekommen... Die ungeheure Verschlechterung der Lebenshaltung, die sich bis zur

A Few Fundamental Propositions on the War

Europas in ihrer überwiegenden Mehrheit gegen die «Feinde» ihres Vaterlandes seit zwei Jahren Seite an Seite mit dem Burgertum im Felde stehen, und die Daheimgebliebenen trotz Not und Elend «durchhalten» wollen. In der Schweiz würden wir bei einem fremden Angriff sicher dasselbe Schauspiel erleben»!!! '*
Is it not a “Kautskian” policy, a policy of impotent phrase, of left declamations and opportunistic practice, when on the one hand resolutions are proposed that the party should “jointly with the trade union organizations” call for revolutionary mass strikes, and on the other hand no struggle is waged against the Grütlian, i.e. social-patriotic, reformist, exclusively legalistic direction and its supporters in the party and trade unions?
Does this mean "educating" the masses or corrupting and demoralizing them, if they are not told and proven daily that the "leading" comrades O. Schneeberger, K. Dürr, P. Pflüger, G. Greulich, Huber and many others have the same social-patriotic views and pursue the same social-patriotic policy as that which Grimm so "courageously" exposes and castigates... when it comes to Germans of Germany, and not to the Swiss? To scold foreigners, to cover up "one's own" "fellow citizens"... is this "internationalist"? Is this "democratic"?
Hermann Greulich in the following words described the situation of the Swiss workers, the crisis of Swiss socialism, as well as the essence of
Grütlian politics within the socialist party:
..."The standard of living has risen very little and only for the upper strata (listen,
listen!)
of the proletariat.
The mass of workers still live in need, worries and deprivations. Therefore, from time to time, doubt arises whether
the path we have taken so far is correct. Critics are looking for new paths and especially place hopes on
a more decisive action. Attempts are made in this direction, which, as a rule (?) fail (??) and cause a return to the old tactics with renewed vigor" (is not the wish here the father of the thought?)... "And now
the world war has come... The enormous decline in the standard of living, Not solcher Schichten steigert, die vorher noch ein erträgliches Dasein führten, verstärkt die revolutionäre Stimmung»
(hear! hear!)... «Die Leitung der Partei stand wahrlich nicht auf der Höhe ihrer Aufgabe und ließ sich von den Heißspornen (so? so?) allzu sehr (??) leiten... Das Zentralkomitee des Grütlivereins nimmt für sich die «praktische nationale Politik» in Anspruch, die es außerhalb der Partei betreiben will. ...Warum hat es das innerhalb der Partei (hear! hear!) nicht getan? Warum hat es fast immer nur mir überlassen, den Kampf mit den Überradikalen zu führen?» («Offener Brief an den Grütliverein Hottingen», d. 26. IX. 1916).5
So far Greulich. It is therefore not the case that a couple of «Halbe Uzlender» (as the Grütlianer within the party secretly think or imply in the press, and the Grütlianer outside the party openly say) want to plant revolutionism into a labor movement viewed by them «with foreign eyes» out of their personal impatience. No. No less than Hermann Greulich, — whose actual political role is that of a bourgeois labor minister in a small democratic republic, — informs us that only the upper strata of the working class enjoy a slight improvement in their situation, but the masses remain in need, and that «the strengthening of the revolutionary mood» does not come from the cursed foreign «agitators», but from the «enormous deterioration of living standards».
So?
So it will certainly correspond to the truth if we say:
Either the Swiss people will starve, and with each week starve more terribly, and daily run the risk of being drawn into the imperialist war, that is, to be slaughtered for the benefit of the capitalists, or it follows the advice of the best part of its working class, gathers all its forces and makes the socialist revolution.
The socialist revolution? A utopia! A «distant practically unforeseeable» possibility!...
It is no more of a utopia than rejecting the defense of the fatherland in this war, or carrying out a revolutionary mass

Several Fundamental Propositions on War dochodjaščee do nuzhdy v takih slojah, kotorye ran'še veli
eshche snosnoe sushchestvovanie, usilivaet revoljucionnoe na-
stroenie» (slushajte! slushajte!)... «Dejstvitel'no, rukovod-
stvo partiej ne bylo na vysote stojashchih pered neju za-
dach i sliškom poddavalos' (??) vlijaniju gorjachih golov
(tak? tak?)... C. K. Grjutlianskogo sojuza beret na sebja pro-
vedenie «prakticheskoj nacional'noj politiki», kotoruju
on hochet vesti vne partii. ...Pochemu on eto ne sdelal vnutri partii?» (slushajte! slushajte!)? «Pochemu on pochti
vsegda predostavljal mne vesti bor'bu s sverhradikalami?»
(Otkrytoe pis'mo Grjutlianskomu sojuzu. Gottingen, 26 sen-
tjabrja 1916 g.).3
Tak govorit Grejlih. Znachit, vovse ne tak obstoit delo, chto
budto-by neskol'ko «zlonamerennyh inostrancev» (kak vtihomolku
dumajut ili namekajut v pechati grjutliancy v partii, a grjutliancy
vne partii otkryto vyskazyvajut) hotjat v poryve svoego ne-
terpenija vnesti revoljucionnost' v rabochee dvizhenie, rassmatrivaemoe imi cherez «ochki inostrancev». Net, ne kto inoj,
kak German Grejlih, politicheskaja rol' kotorogo fakticheski
ravnjaetsja roli burzhuaznogo ministra truda v malen'koj demo-
kraticheskoj respublike, — soobshchaet nam, chto tol'ko u verhnih
sloev rabochih imeetsja некоtорое uluchshenie polozhenija, a massa
ostaetsja v nuzhde, i chto «usilenie revoljucionnogo nastroenija»
ishodit ne ot prokljatyh inostrannyh «podstrekatelej», a ot
«kolossal'nogo ponizhenija urovnja zhizni».
Itak?
Itak, bezuslovno budet pravil'no, esli my skazhem:
Ili shvejcarskij narod budet golodat', pritom s kazhdoj nedelej golodat' vse uzhasnee, i ezhednevno podver-
gat'sja opasnosti byt' vtjanutym v imperialistskuju vojnu,
t. e. byt' ubitym za interesy kapitalistov, ili on po-
sleduet sovetu luchshej chasti svoego proletariata, soberet
vse svoi sily i soveršit socialisticheskuju revoljuciju.
Socialisticheskaja revoljucija? Kakaja utopija! «Otdalennaja,
prakticheski neopredelimaja» vozmozhnost'!...
Eto utopija otnjud' ne v bol'shej mere, chem otricanie za-
shchity otechestva v etoj vojne ili revoljucionnaja massovaja

Krieg zu führen. Man berausche sich nicht durch Worte und man lasse sich nicht durch Worte erschrecken (einschüchtern). Den revolutionären Kampf gegen den Krieg ist fast jeder bereit anzuerkennen, aber man stelle sich einmal die Größe der Aufgabe vor, einem solchen Kriege ein Ende durch Revolution zu bereilen! Nein, es ist keine Utopie, die Revolution wächst in allen Ländern. Und die Frage steht jetzt nicht so: weiter ruhig und erträglich zu leben oder sich ins Abenteuer zu stürzen. Die Frage steht vielmehr so: verhungern und für andere, für fremde Interessen abgeschlachtet zu werden, oder große Opfer für den Sozialism
struggle against this war. Do not be intoxicated by words, and do not let yourself be frightened (intimidated) by words. Almost everyone is ready to recognize the revolutionary struggle against the war, but just imagine the magnitude of the task of hastening an end to such a war through revolution! No, it is not a utopia, the revolution is growing in all countries. And the question now is not: to continue to live quietly and tolerably or to plunge into adventure. The question is rather this: to starve and be slaughtered for others, for foreign interests, or to make great sacrifices for Socialism.