In § 3 of the first section of their theses, our Polish comrades state with complete determinateness that they are against all annexations. Unfortunately, in § 4 of the same section we encounter assertions that must be recognized as annexationist. This § begins with the following… how shall we say it more gently?… peculiar phrase:

"The starting point of social-democracy's struggle against annexations, against the forcible retention of oppressed nations within the boundaries of the annexing state, is the rejection of any defense of the fatherland (italics of the authors), which in the era of imperialism is a defense of the rights of one's own bourgeoisie to oppress and plunder foreign peoples…"

What is this? How can this be?

"The starting point of the struggle against annexations is the rejection of any defense of the fatherland…" But "defense of the fatherland" is a term that can be applied, and until recently has been commonly applied, to every national war and every national uprising! We are against annexations, but… we understand this to mean that we are against the war of the annexed for their liberation from those who annexed them, we are against the uprising of the annexed for the purpose of liberation from those who annexed them! Is this not an annexationist assertion?

The authors of the theses motivate their… peculiar assertion by claiming that "in the era of imperialism" defense of the fatherland is a defense of one's own bourgeoisie's rights to oppress foreign peoples. But this is true only with respect to imperialist war, i.e., war between imperialist powers or groups of powers, when both warring sides not only oppress "foreign peoples," but wage war precisely over who shall oppress foreign peoples more!

Such a view is clearly expressed in the theses of the German group "Internationale" and in the brochure of Junius, to which we devote a special article[11]. Let us note, in addition to what is said there, that the national uprising of an annexed region or country against the annexing power can be called precisely an uprising, not a war (we have heard such an objection and therefore cite it, although we consider this terminological dispute unserious). In any case, hardly anyone will decide to deny that annexed Belgium, Serbia, Galicia, Armenia will call their "uprising" against the annexing power a "defense of the fatherland" and will call it correctly. It turns out that the Polish comrades are against such an uprising on the grounds that in these annexed countries there is also a bourgeoisie which also oppresses foreign peoples, or rather: may oppress them, since we are speaking only of its "right to oppress." To evaluate a given war or uprising, therefore, one takes not its actual social content (the struggle of an oppressed nation against an oppressing nation for its liberation), but the possible realization of oppression by the now-oppressed bourgeoisie of its "right to oppress." If Belgium, say, in 1917 is annexed by Germany, and in 1918 rises up for its liberation, then the Polish comrades will be against the uprising on the grounds that the Belgian bourgeoisie has the "right to oppress foreign peoples"!

There is not a grain of anything either Marxist or revolutionary in this reasoning. Without betraying socialism, we must support every uprising against our main enemy, the bourgeoisie of the great powers, if it is not the uprising of a reactionary class. By refusing support to the uprising of annexed regions, we are – objectively – becoming annexationists. Precisely "in the era of imperialism," which is the era of beginning social revolution, the proletariat will support with particular energy today the uprising of annexed regions, in order tomorrow or simultaneously to strike at the bourgeoisie of the "great" power, weakened by such an uprising.

However, the Polish comrades go even further in their annexationism. They are not only against the uprising of annexed regions, they are against any restoration of their independence, even peaceful! Listen:

"Social-democracy, rejecting all responsibility for the consequences of imperialism's oppressive policy, fighting against it in the sharpest manner, in no way advocates the establishment of new boundary markers in Europe, the restoration of those demolished by imperialism" (italics of the authors).

Right now boundary markers between Germany and Belgium, between Russia and Galicia have been "demolished by imperialism." International social-democracy must be, you see, against their restoration in any way whatsoever. In 1905, "in the era of imperialism," when the autonomous Diet of Norway proclaimed separation from Sweden, and the war of Sweden against Norway, preached by Swedish reactionaries, failed both because of the resistance of Swedish workers and because of the international imperialist situation – social-democracy would have had to be against Norway's separation, because this undoubtedly meant "the establishment of new boundary markers in Europe"!!

This is already direct, open annexationism. There is no need to refute it; it refutes itself. Not a single socialist party will decide to accept this position: "we are against annexations in general, but for Europe we sanction annexations or make peace with them, once they have been carried out…"

One need only stop to examine the theoretical sources of the error that has led our Polish comrades to such an obviously… "impossible" conclusion. We shall speak below about the groundlessness of singling out "Europe." The following two sentences from the theses clarify other sources of error:

"…There, where the wheel of imperialism has rolled over an already-formed capitalist state, crushing it, there the savage form of imperialist oppression brings about the political and economic concentration of the capitalist world, preparing socialism…"

This justification of annexations is Struvism, not Marxism{21}. Russian social-democrats, remembering the 1890s in Russia, know well this manner of distorting Marxism, common to Messrs. Struve, Kunov, Legin and Co. Precisely concerning German Struvists, the so-called "social-imperialists," in another thesis (II, 3) of the Polish comrades we read:

…(The slogan of self-determination) "gives the social-imperialists the opportunity, by proving the illusory character of this slogan, to represent our struggle against national oppression as historically unjustified sentimentalism and thereby undermine the proletariat's confidence in the scientific basis of the social-democratic program…"

This means that the authors consider the position of German Struvists to be "scientific"! We congratulate them.

Only one "trifle" destroys this remarkable argument, which threatens us with the claim that the Lenchis, Kunovs, Parvuses are right against us: namely, these Lenchis are consistent in their own way, and in issues 8–9 of the chauvinist German "Kolokol"{22} – we intentionally cited these very issues in our theses – Lenchi proves simultaneously both the "scientific groundlessness" of the slogan of self-determination (the Polish social-democrats apparently recognized this argumentation of Lenchi as irrefutable, as is evident from the reasoning in their theses that we cited…) and the "scientific groundlessness" of the slogan: against annexations!!

Because Lenchi understood perfectly well that simple truth to which we pointed out to our Polish colleagues, who did not wish to respond to our indication: there is no difference, "neither economic, nor political," nor logical in general, between "recognizing" self-determination and "protesting" against annexations. If the Polish comrades consider the arguments of the Lenchis against self-determination irrefutable, then one cannot help but recognize the fact: all these arguments of the Lenchis are directed also against the struggle against annexations.

The theoretical error lying at the foundation of all the reasoning of our Polish colleagues has led them to the point that they have turned out to be inconsistent annexationists.