On December 28, French newspapers arrived in Bern with a report on the congress of the C.G.T., and on December 30, a new appeal of the Bern I.S.K. (Internationale Sozialistische Kommission) – the International Socialist Commission, the executive organ of the Zimmerwald association – appeared in the Bern and Zurich socialist newspapers. This appeal, dated the end of December 1916, speaks of the peace proposal from Germany, as well as from Wilson and other neutral countries, and all these governmental moves are called – and, of course, quite justly called – a "comedy of peace," a "game to fool their own peoples," "hypocritical pacifist gesticulations of diplomats."

Opposed to this comedy and lies, as the "only force" capable of achieving peace, etc., is the "firm will" of the international proletariat "to turn the weapons of struggle not against their brothers, but against the enemy in their own country."

The quoted passages clearly show us two fundamentally different policies, which until now seemed to coexist within the Zimmerwald association and which have now finally diverged.

On the one hand, Turati states definitely, and quite justly, that the proposal of Germany, Wilson, etc., was merely a "paraphrase" of Italian "socialist" pacifism; the declaration of the German social-chauvinists and the vote of the French show that both sides have perfectly appreciated the usefulness of a pacifist cover for their policy.

On the other hand, the appeal of the International Socialist Commission calls the pacifism of all belligerent and neutral governments a comedy and hypocrisy.

On the one hand, Jouhaux unites with Merrheim, Bourderon, Longuet and Raffin-Dugens with Renaudel, Sembat and Thomas, and the German social-chauvinists, Südekum, David, Scheidemann, proclaim the impending "restoration of Social-Democratic unity" with Kautsky and the "Social-Democratic Labour Group."

On the other hand, the appeal of the International Socialist Commission calls upon the "socialist minorities" to fight energetically against "their governments" "and their social-patriotic hirelings" (Söldlinge).

Either – or.

To expose the emptiness, absurdity, hypocrisy of bourgeois pacifism, or to "paraphrase" it into "socialist" pacifism? To fight against Jouhaux and the Renaudels, against Legien and Davids, as "hirelings" of the governments, or to unite with them on the empty pacifist declamations of the French or German model?

Along this line now runs the watershed between the Zimmerwald Right, which always strenuously opposed a split with the social-chauvinists, and the Zimmerwald Left, which in Zimmerwald itself not in vain took care to publicly dissociate itself from the Right, to come forward both at the conference and afterwards in the press with a special platform. The approach of peace, or even the intensified discussion of the peace question by certain bourgeois elements, has not accidentally but inevitably caused a particularly clear divergence between these two policies. For peace has always been pictured and is pictured by bourgeois pacifists and their "socialist" imitators or echoers as something fundamentally different, in the sense that the idea: "war is the continuation of peace policy, peace is the continuation of war policy" has always remained incomprehensible to pacifists of both shades. That the imperialist war of 1914–1917 is the continuation of the imperialist policy of 1898–1914, if not of an even earlier period, neither the bourgeois nor the social-chauvinists wanted or want to see. That peace can now, unless the bourgeois governments are revolutionarily overthrown, only be an imperialist peace, continuing the imperialist war, neither the bourgeois nor the socialist pacifists see.

Just as they approached the assessment of this war with senseless, vulgar, philistine phrases about attack or defence in general, so they approach the assessment of peace with the same philistine commonplaces, forgetting the concrete historical situation, the concrete reality of the struggle between the imperialist powers. And for the social-chauvinists, these agents of the governments and the bourgeoisie within the workers' parties, it was natural to seize especially upon the approach of peace, even upon talk of peace, in order to gloss over the depth of their reformism, their opportunism, revealed by the war, in order to restore their undermined influence over the masses. Therefore the social-chauvinists, as we have seen, both in Germany and in France, are making strenuous attempts to "unite" with the unstable, unprincipled, pacifist part of the "opposition."

And within the Zimmerwald association, attempts will probably be made to gloss over the divergence of the two irreconcilable lines of policy. Two kinds of such attempts can be foreseen. "Practical" reconciliation will consist simply in mechanically combining loud revolutionary phrases (such as, for example, the phrases in the appeal of the International Socialist Commission) with opportunist and pacifist practice. So it was in the Second International. The arch-revolutionary phrases in the appeals of Huysmans and Vandervelde and in some congress resolutions only covered up the arch-opportunist practice of the majority of the European parties, without transforming it, without undermining it, without fighting it. It is doubtful that this tactic could succeed again within the Zimmerwald association.

"Principled conciliators" will try to serve up a falsification of Marxism in the spirit of, for example, such reasoning that reforms do not exclude revolution, that an imperialist peace with certain "improvements" of national borders or international law or the expenditure budget on armaments, etc., is possible alongside the revolutionary movement, as "one of the moments of the unfolding" of this movement, and so on and so forth.

This would be a falsification of Marxism. Of course, reforms do not exclude revolution. The point now, however, is not this, but that revolutionaries should not exclude themselves before the reformists, i.e., that socialists should not substitute reformist work for their revolutionary work. Europe is experiencing a revolutionary situation. The war and high prices are intensifying it. The transition from war to peace does not at all necessarily eliminate it, for there is no reason to suppose that the millions of workers, who now have magnificent weapons in their hands, will necessarily and unconditionally allow themselves to be "peacefully disarmed" by the bourgeoisie instead of following K. Liebknecht's advice, i.e., turning their weapons against their own bourgeoisie.

The question is not posed as the pacifists, the Kautskyans, pose it: either a reformist political campaign, or a renunciation of reforms. That is a bourgeois posing of the question. In reality, the question is posed thus: either revolutionary struggle, of which reforms are a by-product in case of its incomplete success (this has been proved by the whole history of revolutions throughout the world), or nothing but talk of reforms and promises of reforms.

The reformism of Kautsky, Turati, Bourderon, which now appears in the form of pacifism, not only leaves aside the question of revolution (this is already a betrayal of socialism), not only in practice renounces all systematic and persistent revolutionary work, but even goes so far as to declare that street demonstrations are an adventure (Kautsky in *Neue Zeit*, November 26, 1915), goes so far as to defend and implement unity with the open and decisive opponents of revolutionary struggle, the Südekums, Legiens, Renaudels, Thomas, etc., etc.

This reformism is absolutely irreconcilable with revolutionary Marxism, which is obliged to make full use of the present revolutionary situation in Europe for the direct preaching of revolution, the overthrow of bourgeois governments, the conquest of power by the armed proletariat, without in the least forswearing or renouncing the use of reforms for the development of the struggle for revolution and in its course.

The immediate future will show how the course of events in Europe in general will unfold, the struggle of reformism-pacifism with revolutionary Marxism in particular, including the struggle of the two parts of the Zimmerwald association.

Zurich, January 1, 1917.