We posed this question in our theses with complete precision (§ 7).[6] The Polish comrades did not answer it: they circumvented it, insistently asserting 1) that they are against annexations and 2) explaining why they are against them. These are very important questions, no doubt about it. But these are different questions. If we care at all about the theoretical coherence of our principles, about their clear and precise formulation, we cannot circumvent the question of what annexation is, once this concept figures in our political propaganda and agitation. The circumvention of this question in a collegial discussion cannot be interpreted otherwise than as an abandonment of position.

Why did we pose this question? We explained this when we posed it. Because "protest against annexations is nothing other than recognition of the right of self-determination." The concept of annexation ordinarily includes 1) the concept of violence (forcible incorporation); 2) the concept of national oppression (incorporation of a "foreign" territory, etc.) and – sometimes – 3) the concept of violation of the status quo. And we indicated this in the theses, and our indication met with no criticism.

The question arises: can social-democrats be against violence at all? Clearly not. Thus we are not against annexations because they constitute violence, but for some other reason. In the same way, social-democrats cannot be for the status quo either. No matter how you twist it, you cannot escape the conclusion: annexation is a violation of national self-determination, it is the establishment of state boundaries against the will of the population.

To be against annexations means to be for the right of self-determination. To be "against the forcible retention of any nation within the boundaries of a given state" (we deliberately employed this slightly modified formulation of the same thought in § 4 of our theses,[7] and the Polish comrades answered us quite clearly here, declaring in their § 1, 4, at the beginning, that they are "against the forcible retention of oppressed nations within the boundaries of the annexing state") – this is the same thing as being for national self-determination.

We do not wish to dispute over words. If there is a party that declares in its programme (or in a resolution binding on all, the form does not matter), that it is against annexations,[8] against the forcible retention of oppressed nations within the boundaries of its state, then we declare complete principled agreement with such a party. It would be absurd to insist on the word "self-determination." And if in our party there are people who wish to alter the wording of § 9 of our party programme in this spirit, we shall consider disagreement with such comrades to be not at all a matter of principle!

The matter concerns only political clarity and theoretical coherence of our slogans.

In verbal discussions on this question – whose importance, especially now in connection with the war, no one denies – one encountered the following argument (we did not find it in print): protest against a known evil does not necessarily mean recognition of a positive concept that excludes the evil. The argument is plainly untenable and therefore, apparently, has not been reproduced anywhere in print. If a socialist party declares that it is "against the forcible retention of an oppressed nation within the boundaries of the annexing state," then that party thereby binds itself to renounce forcible retention when it is in power.

We have not the slightest doubt that if tomorrow Hindenburg were to half-defeat Russia and the expression of this half-victory were (in connection with the desire of England and France to weaken tsarism somewhat) a new Polish state, fully "realizable" from the standpoint of the economic laws of capitalism and imperialism, and if then the day after tomorrow the socialist revolution were to triumph in Petrograd, Berlin, and Warsaw, then the Polish socialist government, like the Russian and German, would renounce "forcible retention" of, say, Ukrainians "within the boundaries of the Polish state." If the government includes members of the editorial board of *Gazeta Robotnicza*, they would undoubtedly sacrifice their "theses" to this as well and would thereby refute the "theory" that "the right of self-determination does not apply to socialist society." If we thought otherwise, we would not place on the agenda a comradely discussion with the social-democrats of Poland, but a ruthless struggle against them as chauvinists.

Suppose I go out onto the street of any European city and publicly declare, repeating afterwards in newspapers, a "protest" against the fact that I am not permitted to buy a human being into slavery. There is no doubt that I would rightly be considered a slave-holder, a supporter of the principle or system – as you like – of slavery. That my sympathies for slavery are clothed in the negative form of protest rather than in the positive ("I am for slavery"), this will deceive no one. Political "protest" is entirely equivalent to a political programme; this is so obvious that it is somewhat awkward even to be compelled to clarify it. In any case, we are firmly convinced that on the part of, at least, the Zimmerwald Left – we do not speak of all Zimmerwaldists, for there are Martov and other Kautskyans among them – we shall not encounter "protest" if we say that in the Third International there will be no place for people capable of separating political protest from political programme, of counterposing one to the other, and so forth.

Without wishing to dispute over words, we permit ourselves to express a firm hope that the Polish social-democrats will soon endeavor to formulate officially both their proposal to remove § 9 from our (and their too) party programme, as well as from the programme of the International (resolution of the London Congress of 1896), and their definition of the corresponding political thoughts concerning "old and new annexations" and concerning "forcible retention of an oppressed nation within the boundaries of the annexing state." – Let us proceed to the next question.