A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism
V.I. Lenin

Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/

V. I. Lenin

## A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

“ No one can discredit revolutionary Social-Democracy as
long as it does not discredit itself.” That maxim always comes to mind,
and must always be borne in mind, when any major theoretical or tactical
proposition of Marxism is victorious, or even placed on the order of the
day, and when, besides outright and resolute opponents, it is
assailed by friends who hopelessly discredit and disparage it and turn it
into a caricature. That has happened time and again in the history of the
Russian Social-Democratic movement. In the early nineties, the victory of
Marxism in the revolutionary movement was attended by the emergence of a
caricature of Marxism in the shape of Economism, or “strikeism”. The
Iskrists [3] would not have been able to uphold the fundamentals of
proletarian theory and policy, either against petty-bourgeois Narodism or
bourgeois liberalism, without long years of struggle against Economism. It
was the same with Bolshevism, which triumphed in the mass labour movement
in 1905 due, among other things, to correct application of the boycott of
the tsarist
Duma [4] slogan in the autumn of 1905, when the key battles of the
Russian revolution were being fought. Bolshevism had to face—and overcome
by struggle—another caricature in 1908–10, when Alexinsky and others
noisily opposed participation in the Third
Duma. [5]

It is the same today too. Recognition of the present war as
imperialist and emphasis on its close connection with the
imperialist era of capitalism encounters not only resolute opponents, but
also irresolute friends, for whom the word“imperialism” has become all the rage. Having memorised the word, they are offering the workers hopelessly confused theories and
reviving many of the old mistakes of the old Economism. Capitalism has
triumphed— therefore there is no need to bother with political
problems, the old Economists reasoned in 1894–1901, falling into rejection
of the political struggle in Russia. Imperialism has triumphed— therefore there is no need to bother with the problems
of political democracy, reason the present-day imperialist
Economists. Kievsky’s article, printed above, merits attention as a sample
of these sentiments, as one such caricature of Marxism, as the first
attempt to provide anything like an integral literary exposition of the
vacillation that has been apparent in certain circles of our Party abroad
since early 1915.

If imperialist Economism were to spread among the Marxists, who in the
present great crisis of socialism have resolutely come out against
social-chauvinism and for revolutionary internationalism, that would be a
very grave blow to our trend—and to our Party. For it would discredit it
from within, from its own ranks, would make it a vehicle of caricaturised
Marxism. It is therefore necessary to thoroughly discuss at least the most
important of Kievsky’s numerous errors, regardless of how “uninteresting”
this may be, and regardless of the fact, also, that all too often we shall
have to tediously explain elementary truths which the thoughtful and
attentive reader has learned and understood long since from our literature
of 1914 and 1915.

We shall begin with the “central” point of Kievsky’s disquisitions in
order to immediately bring to the reader the very “substance” of this new
trend of imperialist Economism.

## 1. The Marxist Attitude Towards War and “Defence of the Fatherland”

Kievsky is convinced, and wants to convince his reader, that he
“disagrees” only with §9 of our Party Programme dealing
with national self-determination. He is very angry and tries to refute the
charge that on the question of democracy he is departing from the
fundamentals of Marxism in general , that he has “betrayed” (the angry quotation marks
are Kievsky’s) Marxism on basic issues. But the point is that the moment
our author begins to discuss his allegedly partial disagreement on an
individual issue, the moment he adduces his arguments, considerations,
etc., he immediately reveals that he is deviating from Marxism all along
the line. Take §b (Section 2) of his article. “This demand [i. e.,
national self-determination] directly [!!] leads to social-patriotism,”
our author proclaims, explaining that the “treasonous” slogan of
fatherland defence follows “quite [!] logically [!]  from the right of
nations to self-determination”.... In his opinion, self-determination
implies “sanctioning the treason of the French and Belgian
social-patriots, who are defending this independence [the national
independence of France and Belgium] with arms in hand! They are doing what the supporters of ‘self-determination’ only
advocate....”  “Defence of the fatherland belongs to the arsenal of our
worst enemies....” “We categorically refuse to understand how one can simultaneously be against defence of the fatherland and for
self-determination, against the fatherland and for it.”

That’s Kievsky. He obviously has not understood our resolutions against
the fatherland defence slogan in the present war. It is therefore necessary
again to explain the meaning of what is so clearly set out in our
resolutions.

The resolution our Party adopted at its Berne Conference in March 1915, “ On the Defence of the
Fatherland
Slogan ”, [1] begins with the words: “ The present war is, in substance ”....

That the resolution deals with the present war could not have
been put more plainly. The words “in substance” indicate that we must
distinguish between the apparent and the real, between appearance and
substance, between the word and the deed The purpose of all talk about
defence of the fatherland in this war is mendaciously to present as
national the imperialist war of 1914–16, waged for the division of
colonies, the plunder of foreign lands, etc. And to obviate even the
slightest possibility of distorting our views, we added to the resolution a
special paragraph on “ genuinely national wars”, which “took
place especially (especially does not mean exclusively!)  between
1789 and 1871”.

The resolution explains that the “basis” of these “genuinely”
national wars was a “long process of mass national movements, of a
struggle against absolutism and feudalism, the overthrow of national
oppression”....

Clear, it would seem. The present imperialist war stems from the
general conditions of the imperialist era and is not accidental, not an
exception, not a deviation from the general and typical. Talk of defence of
the fatherland is therefore a deception of the people, for this war is not a national war. In a genuinely national war the words
“defence of the fatherland” are not a deception and we are
not opposed to it. Such (genuinely national) wars took place
“especially” in 1789–1871, and our resolution, while not denying by a
single word that they are possible now too, explains how we should
distinguish a genuinely national from an imperialist war covered by
deceptive national slogans. Specifically, in order to distinguish the two
we must examine whether the “basis” of the war is a “long process of
mass national movements”, the “overthrow of national oppression”. The
resolution on “pacifism” expressly states: “Social-Democrats cannot
overlook the positive significance of revolutionary wars, i.e., not
imperialist wars, but such as were con ducted, for instance [note: “for
instance”], between 1789 and 1871 with the aim of doing away with national
oppression....” Could our 1915 Party resolution speak of the national wars
waged from 1789 to 1871 and say that we do not deny the positive
significance of such wars if they were not considered possible today too?
Certainly not.

A commentary, or popular explanation, of our Party resolutions is given
in the Lenin and Zinoviev pamphlet Socialism and War . It plainly states, on
page 5 , that “socialists have regarded wars ‘for the defence of the
fatherland’, or ‘defensive’ wars, as legitimate, progressive and just” only in the sense of “overthrowing alien oppression”. It cites
an example: Persia against Russia, “ etc. ”, and says: “These
would be just, and defensive wars, irrespective of who would lie the first
to attack; any socialist would wish the oppressed, dependent and unequal
states victory over the oppressor, slave-holding and predatory ‘Great’
Powers.” [2]

The pamphlet appeared in August 1915 and there are German and French
translations. Kievsky is fully aware of its contents. And never, on no
occasion, has he or anyone else challenged the resolution on the defence of
the father land slogan, or the resolution on pacifism, or their
interpretation in the pamphlet. Never, not once! We are therefore entitled
to ask: are we slandering Kievsky when we say that he has absolutely failed
to understand Marxism if, beginning with March 1915, he has not challenged
our Party’s views on the war, whereas now, in August 1916, in an article on
self-determination, i.e., on a supposedly partial issue, he reveals an
amazing lack of understanding of a general issue?

Kievsky says that the fatherland defence slogan is “treasonous”. We
can confidently assure him that every slogan is and always will be
“treasonous” for those who mechanically repeat it without
understanding its meaning, without giving it proper thought, for
those who merely memorise the words without analysing their
implications.

What, generally speaking, is “defence of the fatherland”?  Is it a
scientific concept relating to economics, politics, etc.? No. It is a much
bandied about current expression, sometimes simply a philistine phrase,
intended to justify the war . Nothing more. Absolutely nothing! The
term “treasonous” can apply only in the sense that the philistine is
capable of justifying any war by pleading “we are defending our
fatherland”, whereas Marxism, which does not degrade itself by stooping to
the philistine’s level, requires an historical analysis of each war in
order to determine whether or not that particular war can be
considered progressive, whether it serves the interests of democracy and
the proletariat and, in that sense , is legitimate, just, etc.

The defence of the fatherland slogan is all too often unconscious
philistine justification of war and reveals inability to analyse the
meaning and implications of a particular war and see it in historical
perspective.

Marxism makes that analysis and says: if the “substance” of
a war is, for example , the overthrow of alien oppression (which
was especially typical of Europe in 1789–1871), then such a war
is progressive as far as the oppressed state or nation is
concerned. If , however, the “substance” of a war is redivision
of colonies, division of booty, plunder of foreign lands (and such is the war of 1914–16), then all talk of defending the
fatherland is “sheer deception of the people”.

How, then, can we disclose and define the “substance” of a war? War
is the continuation of policy. Consequently, we must examine the policy
pursued prior to the war, the policy that led to and brought about the
war. If it was an imperialist policy, i.e., one designed to safeguard the
interests of finance capital and rob and oppress colonies and foreign
countries, then the war stemming from that policy is imperialist. If it was
a national liberation policy, i.e., one expressive of the mass movement
against national oppression, then the war stemming from that policy is a
war of national liberation.

The philistine does not realise that war is “the continuation of
policy”, and consequently limits himself to the formula that “the enemy
has attacked us”, “the enemy has invaded my country”, without stopping
to think what issues are at stake in the war, which classes are waging it, and with what political objects. Kievsky
stoops right down to the level of such a philistine when he declares that
Belgium has been occupied by the Germans, and hence, from the point of view
of self-determination, the “Belgian social-patriots are right”, or: the
Germans have occupied part of France, hence, “Guesde can be satisfied”,
for “what is involved is territory populated by his nation” (and not by
an alien nation).

For the philistine the important thing is where the armies
stand, who is winning at the moment . For the Marxist the important
thing is what issues are at stake in this war, during which first one, then the other army may be on top.

What is the present war being fought over? The answer is given in our
resolution (based on the policy the belligerent powers pursued for decades
prior to the war). England, France and Russia are fighting to keep the
colonies they have seized, to be able to rob Turkey, etc. Germany is
fighting to take over these colonies and to be able herself to rob Turkey,
etc. Let us suppose even that the Germans take Paris or
St. Petersburg. Would that change the nature of the present war? Not at
all. The Germans’ purpose—and more important, the policy that would bring
it to realisation if they were to win—is to seize the colonies, establish domination over Turkey, annex areas populated by other nations, for
instance, Poland, etc. It is definitely not to bring the French or the
Russians under foreign domination. The real essence of the present war is
not national but imperialist. In other words, it is not being fought to
enable one side to overthrow national oppression, which the other side is
trying to maintain. It is a war between two groups of oppressors, between
two freebooters over the division of their booty, over who shall rob Turkey
and the colonies.

In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers (i.e., powers
that oppress a whole number of nations and enmesh them in dependence on
finance capital, etc.), or in alliance with the Great Powers, is
an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914–16. And in this war
“defence of the fatherland” is a deception, an attempt to justify the
war.

A war against imperialist, i.e., oppressing, powers by oppressed (for example, colonial) nations is a genuine national war. It is
possible today too. “Defence of the fatherland” in a war waged by an
oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists
are not opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.

National self-determination is the same as the struggle for complete
national liberation, for complete independence, against annexation, and
socialists cannot—without ceasing to be socialists—reject such a struggle in whatever form, right down to an uprising or war.

Kievsky thinks he is arguing against Plekhanov: it was Plekhanov who
pointed to the link between self-determination and defence of the
fatherland! Kievsky believed Plekhanov that the link was really of the kind Plekhanov made it out to be. And having
believed him, Kievsky took fright and decided that he must reject
self-determination so as not to fall into Plekhanov’s conclusions.... There
is great trust in Plekhanov, and great fright, but there is no trace of thought about the substance of Plekhanov’s mistake!

The social-chauvinists plead self-determination in order to present
this war as a national war. There is only one correct way of combating
them: we must show that the war is being fought not to liberate nations,
but to determine which of the great robbers will oppress more nations. To fall into negation of wars really waged for liberating nations is to present
the worst possible caricature of Marxism. Plekhanov and the French
social-chauvinists harp on the republic in France in order to justify its
“defence” against the German monarchy. If we were to follow Kievsky’s
line of reasoning, we would have to oppose either the republic or a war really fought to preserve the republic!! The German
social-chauvinists point to universal suffrage and compulsory primary
education in their country to justify its “defence” against tsarism. If
we were to follow Kievsky’s line of reasoning, we would have to oppose
either universal suffrage and compulsory primary education or a war really fought to safe guard political freedom against attempts to
abolish it!

Up to the 1914–16 war Karl Kautsky was a Marxist, and many of his
major writings and statements will always remain models of Marxism. On
August 26, 1910, he wrote in Die Neue
Zeit , [6] in reference to the imminent war:

“ In a war between Germany and England the issue is not democracy, but
world domination, i.e., exploitation of the world. That is not an issue on
which Social-Democrats can side with the exploiters of their nation”
( Neue Zeit , 28. Jahrg., Bd. 2, S. 776).

There you have an excellent Marxist formulation, one that fully
coincides with our own and fully exposes the present-day Kautsky,
who has turned from Marxism to defence of social-chauvinism. It is a
formulation (we shall have occasion to revert to it in other articles) that
clearly brings out the principles underlying the Marxist attitude towards
war. War is the continuation of policy. Hence, once there is a struggle for
democracy, a war for democracy is possible . National self-determination is but one of the democratic demands and does not, in
principle, differ from other democratic demands. “World domination” is,
to put it briefly, the substance of imperialist policy, of which
imperialist war is the continuation. Rejection of “defence of the father
land” in a democratic war, i.e. , rejecting participation in such
a war, is an absurdity that has nothing in common with Marxism. To
embellish imperialist war by applying to it the concept of “defence of the
fatherland”, i.e., by presenting it as a democratic war, is to deceive the
workers and side with the reactionary bourgeoisie.

## Notes

[1]   — Lenin

[2]   — Lenin

[3] Iskrists —supporters of Lenin’s newspaper Iskra , the
most consistent revolutionary Social-Democrats.

Iskra —the first all-Russian illegal Marxist newspaper founded in December 1900, published abroad and secretly sent into Russia.
It was taken over by the Mensheviks in 1903, and beginning with No. 52
ceased to be the organ of revolutionary Marxism. It came to be known as the
new Iskra as distinct from the old, Bolshevik Iskra .

[4] The Bulygin Duma derived its name from Minister of the Interior
A. G. Bulygin, who drafted the act for its convocation and the regulations
governing the elections. The Duma was intended to be an advisory body under
the tsar. The Bolsheviks called for an active boycott of the Duma and
concentrated their propaganda on the following slogans: armed uprising,
revolutionary army, provisional revolutionary government. They used the
boycott campaign to mobilise all the revolutionary forces, carry out mass
political strikes and prepare an armed uprising. The nation-wide general
political strike of October 1905 and the mounting wave of revolution
prevented the elections and the Duma was never convened. Lenin discusses
the Bulygin Duma in his articles: “The Constitutional Market-Place”,
“The Boycott of the Bulygin Duma and Insurrection”, “Oneness of the Tsar
and the People, and of the People and the Tsar”, “In the Wake of the
Monarchist Bourgeoisie, or in the Van of the Revolutionary Proletariat and
Peasantry?” (see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 351–55; Vol. 9,
pp. 179–87, 191–99, 212–29).

[5] Reference is to the otzovists and ultimatumists .

Otzovists —an opportunist group composed of A. A. Bogdanov,
G. A. Alexinsky, A. V. Sokolov (S. Volsky), A. V. Lunacharsky, M. N. Lyadov
and others, which emerged among a section of the Bolsheviks in 1908. Under
cover of revolutionary phrases they demanded the recall (the Russian word otozvat means recall) of the Social-Democratic members of the Third Duma. They also refused to work in
legal organisations—the trade unions, co-operatives and other mass
organisations—contending that in conditions of rampant reaction the Party
must confine itself exclusively to illegal activity. The otzovists did
immense damage to the Party. Their policy would have isolated the Party
from the masses and, in the end, would have turned it into a sectarian
organisation.

Ultimatumism —a variety of otzovism, from which it differed
only inform. The ultimatumists proposed that the Social-Democratic Duma
members be presented with an ultimatum—either they fully submit to the
decisions of the Party Central Committee, or be recalled from the Duma. The
ultimatumists failed to appreciate the need for painstaking work to help
the Social-Democratic deputies overcome their mistakes and adopt a
consistent revolutionary line. Ultimatumism was, in fact, disguised
otzovism. Lenin called the ultimatumists “bashful otzovists”.

[6] Die Neue Zeit (New Times)—theoretical organ of the German
Social-Democratic Party, published in Stuttgart from 1883 to 1923; edited
by Karl Kautsky up to October 1917 and after that by H. Cunow. Die Neue
Zeit was the first to publish several works of Marx and Engels. Engels
helped the magazine by his advice and not infrequently criticised it for
deviating from Marxism. After Engels’s death in 1895, Die Neue
Zeit threw its pages open to articles by Eduard Bernstein and other
revisionists. It published Bernstein’s “Problems of Socialism”, which
became the starting-point of a revisionist campaign against Marxism. In the
First World War Die Neue Zeit took a Centrist position and gave
factual support to the social-chauvinists.

V. I. Lenin

## A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

## 2. “Our Understanding of the New Era”

The heading is Kievsky’s. He constantly speaks of a “new era”, but
here, too, unfortunately his arguments are erroneous.

Our Party resolutions speak of the present war as stemming from the
general conditions of the imperialist era. We give a correct Marxist
definition of the relation between the “era” and the “present war”:
Marxism requires a concrete assessment of each separate war. To understand
why an imperialist war, i.e., a war thoroughly reactionary and
anti-democratic in its political implications, could, and inevitably did,
break out between the Great Powers, many of whom stood at the head of the
struggle for democracy in 1789–1871—to understand this we must
understand the general conditions of the imperialist era, i.e., the
transformation of capitalism in the advanced countries into imperialism.

Kievsky has flagrantly distorted the relation between the “era” and
the “present war”. In his reasoning, to consider the matter concretely means to examine the “era”. That is precisely where
he is wrong.

The era 1789–1871 was of special significance for Europe. That is
irrefutable. We cannot understand a single national liberation war, and
such wars were especially typical of that period, unless we understand the
general conditions of the period. Does that mean that all wars of
that period were national liberation wars?  Certainly not. To hold that
view is to reduce the whole thing to an absurdity and apply a ridiculous
stereotype in place of a concrete analysis of each separate war. There were
also colonial wars in 1789–1871, and wars between reactionary empires that
oppressed many nations.

Advanced European (and American) capitalism has entered a new era of
imperialism. Does it follow from that that only imperialist wars are now
possible? Any such contention would be absurd. It would reveal inability to
distinguish a given concrete phenomenon from the sum total of variegated
phenomena possible in a given era. An era is called an era precisely
because it encompasses the sum total of variegated phenomena and wars,
typical and untypical, big and small, some peculiar to advanced countries,
others to backward countries. To brush aside these concrete questions by resorting
to general phrases about the “era”, as Kievsky does, is to abuse the very
concept “era”. And to prove that, we shall cite one example out of
many. But first it should be noted that one group of Lefts,
namely, the German Internationale group, [3] has advanced this manifestly erroneous proposition in §5
of its theses, published in No. 3 of the Bulletin of the Berne
Executive Committee (February 29, 1916): “National wars are no
longer possible in the era of this unbridled imperialism.” We analysed that
statement [1] in Sbornik
Sotsial-Demokrata . [4] Here we need merely note that though everyone
who has followed the internationalist movement is long acquainted with this
theoretical proposition (we opposed it way hack in the spring of 1916 at
the extended meeting of the Berne Executive Committee), not a single
group has repeated or accepted it. And there is not a single word in
the spirit of this or any similar proposition in Kievsky’s article, written
in August 1916.

That should be noted, and for the following reason: if this or a
similar theoretical proposition were advanced, then we could speak of
theoretical divergencies. But since no such proposition has been
advanced, we are constrained to say: what we have is not a different
interpretation of the concept “era”, not a theoretical divergency, but
merely a carelessly uttered phrase, merely abuse of the word “era”.

Here is an example. Kievsky starts his article by asking:
“Is not this (self-determination) the same as the right to receive free of
charge 10,000 acres of land on Mars? The question can be answered only in
the most concrete manner, only in context with the nature of the present
era. The right of nations to self-determination is one thing in the era of
the formation of national states, as the best form of developing the
productive forces at their then existing level, but it is quite another
thing now that this form ,the national state, fetters the development of
the productive forces. A vast distance separates the era of the
establishment of capitalism and the national state from the era of the
collapse of the national state and the eve of the collapse of capitalism
itself. To discuss things in ‘general’, out of context with time and space, does
not befit a Marxist.”

There you have a sample of caricaturing the concept “imperialist
era”. And its caricature must be fought precisely because it is a new and
important concept! What do we mean when we say that national states have
become fetters, etc.?  We have in mind the advanced capitalist countries,
above all Germany, France, England, whose participation in the present war
has been the chief factor in making it an imperialist war. In these countries, which hitherto have been in the van of mankind,
particularly in 1789–1871, the process of forming national states has been
consummated. In these countries the national movement is a thing
of an irrevocable past, and it would be an absurd reactionary utopia to try
to revive it. The national movement of the French, English, Germans has
long been completed in these countries history’s next step is a
different one: liberated nations have become transformed into oppressor
nations, into nations of imperialist rapine, nations that are going through
the “eve of the collapse of capitalism”.

But what of other nations?

Kievsky repeats, like a rule learned by rote, that Marxists should
approach things “concretely”, but he does not apply that
rule. In our theses, on the other hand, we deliberately gave an example of
a concrete approach, and Kievsky did not wish to point out our mistake, if
he found one.

Our theses (§6)
state that to be concrete not less than three different types
of countries must be distinguished when dealing with self-determination. (It was clearly impossible to discuss each separate
country in general theses.) First type:
the advanced countries of Western Europe (and America), where the national
movement is a thing of the past . Second type: Eastern Europe,
where it is a thing of the present . Third type: semi-colonies and
colonies, where it is largely a thing of the future . [2]

Is this correct or not? This is what Kievsky should have
levelled his criticism at. But he does not see the essence of the
theoretical problems! He fails to see that unless he refutes the
above-mentioned proposition (in §6) of our theses—and it cannot be refuted because it is correct—his disquisitions
about the “era” resemble a man brandishing his sword but striking no
blows.

“ In contrast to V. Ilyin’s opinion,” he writes at the end of his
article, “we assume that for the majority [!] of Western [!]  countries
the national problem has not been settled....”

And so, the national movements of the French, Spaniards, English,
Dutch, Germans and Italians were not consummated in the seventeenth,
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and earlier? At the beginning of the
article the concept “era of imperialism” is distorted to make it appear
that the national movement has been consummated in general, and not only in
the advanced Western countries. At the end of the same article the
“national problem” is declared “not settled” in precisely the
Western countries!! Is that not a muddle?

In the Western countries the national movement is a thing of the
distant past. in England, France, Germany, etc., the “fatherland” is a
dead letter, it has played its historical role, i.e. , the national
movement cannot yield here anything progressive, anything that will elevate
new masses to a new economic and political life. History’s next step here
is not transition from feudalism or from patriarchal savagery to national
progress, to a cultured and politically free fatherland, but transition
from a “fatherland” that has out lived its day, that is capitalistically
overripe, to socialism.

The position is different in Eastern Europe. As far as the Ukrainians
and Byelorussians, for instance, are concerned, only a Martian dreamer
could deny that the national movement has not yet been consummated there,
that the awakening of the masses to the full use of their mother tongue and
literature (and this is an absolute condition and concomitant of the full
development of capitalism, of the full penetration of exchange to the very
last peasant family) is still going on there. The “fatherland”
is historically not yet quite a dead letter there. There the
“defence of the fatherland” can still be defence of democracy,
of one’s native language, of political liberty against oppressor nations,
against medievalism, whereas the English. French, Germans and Italians lie
when they speak of defending their father land in the present war, because
actually what they are defending is not their native language, not their right to national development, but their rights as slave-holders, their colonies, the foreign
“spheres of influence” of their finance capital, etc.

In the semi-colonies and colonies the national movement is,
historically, still younger than in Eastern Europe.

What do the words “advanced countries” and imperialist era
refer to? In what lies the “special” position of Russia (heading
of §e in the second chapter of Kievsky’s article), and not only
Russia? Where , is the national liberation movement a false phrase
and where is it a living and progressive reality? Kievsky reveals
no understanding on any of these points.

## Notes

[1]   — Lenin

[2]   — Lenin

[3] The Internationale Group—a revolutionary organisation of Left
German Social-Democrats, founded in the early days of the First World War
by Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin, Julian
Marchlewski, Leon Jogiches (Tyszka) and Wilhelm Pieck. In April 1915, Rosa
Luxemburg and Franz Mehring started the Internationals magazine,
which served to unite the core of the Left forces in Germany. A national
conference of these forces was held in Berlin on January 1, 1916, and
officially inaugurated the Internationale group. It also adopted
its platform of “Basic Principles” (“Leitsätze”), drawn up by Rosa
Luxemburg in cooperation with Liebknecht, Mehring and Clara Zetkin. In 1915
the group issued a number of political leaflets and in 1916 began illegal
publication of its Political Letters signed Spartacus (they appeared
regularly up to October 1918), and the group came to be known by that name.

It conducted mass revolutionary propaganda, organised mass anti-war
demonstrations, directed strike struggles and exposed the imperialist
nature of the world war and the treachery of the opportunist
Social-Democratic leaders. However, the Spartacus group made serious
mistakes on questions of theory and policy: they negated the possibility of
national liberation wars in the imperialist era, were inconsistent on the question of turning the imperialist war into
a civil war, underestimated the vanguard role of the proletarian party, and
did not work for a decisive break with the opportunists.

In April 1917 the group joined the Centrist Independent Social
Democratic Party of Germany as an organisationally autonomous unit, but
broke with the Independents following the November 1918 Revolution in
Germany and organised the Spartacus League. It published its programme on
December 14, 1918 and at its inaugural Congress (December 30,
1918–January 1, 1919) founded the Communist Party of Germany. Lenin
repeatedly criticised the errors and inconsistency of the German Left
Social-Democrats, but had a high regard for their revolutionary activity.

[4] Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata was founded by Lenin and published by
the newspaper Sotsial-Demokrat . Two issues appeared, in October
and December 1916 (see also Note 17).

V. I. Lenin

## A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

## 3. What Is Economic Analysis?

Central to all the disquisitions of the self-determination opponents is
the claim that it is generally “unachievable” under capitalism or
imperialism. The word “unachievable” is frequently used in widely
different and inaccurately defined meanings. That is why in our theses we
insisted on what is essential in any theoretical discussion: an explanation
of what is meant by “unachievable”. Nor did we confine ourselves to
that. We tried to give such an explanation. All democratic demands
are “unachievable” under imperialism in the sense that politically they
are hard to achieve or totally unachievable without a series of
revolutions.

It is fundamentally wrong, however, to maintain that self-determination
is unachievable in the economic sense.

That has been our contention. It is the pivotal point of our
theoretical differences, a question to which our opponents in any serious
discussion should have paid due attention.

But just see how Kievsky treats the question.

He definitely rejects unachievable as meaning “hard to achieve”
politically. He gives a direct answer in the sense of economic
unachievability.

“ Does this mean,” Kievsky writes, “that self-determination under
imperialism is just as unachievable as labour money under commodity
production?” And he replies: “Yes, it means exactly that. For what we are
discussing is the logical contradiction between two social categories:
‘imperialism’ and ‘self-determination of nations’, the same logical
contradiction as that between two other categories: labour money and commodity
production. Imperialism is the negation of self-determination, and no
magician can reconcile the two.”

Frightening as is the angry word “magician” Kievsky hurls at us, we
must nevertheless point out that he simply fails to understand what
economic analysis implies. There should be no “logical contradiction”—providing, of course, that there is proper logical
thinking—either in an economic or political analysis. Hence, to
plead a “logical contradiction” in general when what we are
discussing is economic and not political analysis, is completely
irrelevant. Both economic and political phenomena come within
“social categories”. Consequently, having first replied directly and
definitely:
“Yes, it means exactly that” (i.e., self-determination is just as unachievable as labour money under commodity production), Kievsky
dismisses the whole matter by beating about the bush, without offering any
economic analysis.

How do we prove that labour money is unachievable under commodity
production? By economic analysis. And economic analysis, like every other,
rules out “logical contradictions”, takes economic and only economic categories (and not “social categories” in general) and from
them concludes that labour money is unachievable. In the first chapter of Capital there is no mention whatever of politics, or political
forms, or “social categories”: the analysis applies only to
economic phenomena, commodity exchange, its development Economic analysis
shows—needless to say, through “logical” arguments—that under
commodity production labour money is unachievable.

Kievsky does not even attempt anything approximating an economic
analysis! He conjures the economic substance of imperialism with
its political tendencies, as is obvious from the very first phrase of the
very first paragraph of his article. Here is that phrase:

“ Industrial capital is the synthesis of pre-capitalist production and
merchant-usurer capital. Usurer capital becomes the servant of industrial
capital. Then capitalism subjects the various forms of capital and there
emerges its highest, unified type finance capital. The whole era can
therefore be designated as the era of finance capital of which imperialism
is the corresponding foreign-policy system.”

Economically, that definition is absolutely worthless: instead of
precise economic categories we get mere phrases. However, it is impossible
to dwell on that now. The important thing is that Kievsky proclaims
imperialism to be a “foreign-policy system”.

First, this is, essentially, a wrong repetition of Kautsky’s wrong
idea.

Second, it is a purely political, and only political, definition of
imperialism. By defining imperialism as a “system of policy” Kievsky
wants to avoid the economic analysis he promised to give when he
declared that self-determination was “ just as ” unachievable,
i.e., economically unachievable, under imperialism as labour money under
commodity production! [1]

In his controversy with the Lefts, Kautsky declared that imperialism
was “merely a system of foreign policy ” (namely, annexation),
and that it would be wrong to describe as imperialism a definite economic
stage, or level, in the development of capitalism.

Kautsky is wrong. Of course, it is not proper to argue about words. You
cannot prohibit the use of the “word” imperialism in this sense or any
other. But if you want to conduct a discussion you must define your terms
precisely.

Economically, imperialism (or the “era” of finance capital—it is
not a matter of words) is the highest stage in the development of
capitalism, one in which production has assumed such big, immense
proportions that free competition gives way to monopoly . That is
the economic essence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in
trusts, syndicates, etc., in the omnipotence of the giant banks, in the
buying up of raw material sources, etc., in the concentration of banking
capital, etc. Everything hinges on economic monopoly.

The political superstructure of this new economy, of monopoly
capitalism (imperialism is monopoly capitalism) is the change from democracy to political reaction. Democracy corresponds to free
competition. Political reaction corresponds to monopoly. “Finance capital
strives for domination, not freedom,” Rudolf Hilferding rightly remarks in
his Finance Capital .

It is fundamentally wrong, un-Marxist and unscientific, to single out
“foreign policy” from policy in general, let alone counterpose foreign
policy to home policy. Both in foreign and home policy imperialism strives
towards violations of democracy, towards reaction. In this sense
imperialism is indisputably the “negation” of democracy in
general , of all democracy , and not just of one of its demands, national self-determination.

Being a “negation” of democracy in general, imperialism is also a “negation” of democracy in the national question (i.e.,
national self-determination): it seeks to violate democracy. The
achievement of democracy is, in the same sense, and to the same degree,
harder under imperialism (compared with pre-monopoly capitalism), as the
achievement of a republic, a militia, popular election of officials,
etc. There can be no talk of democracy being “economically” unachievable.

Kievsky was probably led astray here by the fact (besides his general
lack of understanding of the requirements of economic analysis) that the
philistine regards annexation (i.e., acquisition of foreign territories
against, the will of their people, i.e. , violation of self-determination) as equivalent to the “spread” (expansion) of finance
capital to a larger economic territory.

But theoretical problems should not be approached from philistine
conceptions.

Economically, imperialism is monopoly capitalism. To acquire full
monopoly, all competition must be eliminated, and not only on the home
market (of the given state), but also on foreign markets, in the whole
world. Is it economically possible, “in the era of finance
capital”, to eliminate competition even in a foreign state? Certainly it
is. It is done through a rival’s financial dependence and acquisition of
his sources of raw materials and eventually of all his enterprises.

The American trusts are the supreme expression of the economics of
imperialism or monopoly capitalism. They do not confine themselves to
economic means of eliminating rivals, but constantly resort to political,
even criminal, methods. It would be the greatest mistake, however, to
believe that the trusts cannot establish their monopoly by purely economic
methods. Reality provides ample proof that this is “achievable”: the
trusts undermine their rivals’ credit through the banks (the owners of the
trusts become the owners of the banks: buying up shares); their supply of
materials (the owners of the trusts become the owners of the railways:
buying up shares); for a certain time the trusts sell below cost, spending
millions on this in order to ruin a competitor and then buy up his
enterprises, his sources of raw materials (mines, land, etc.).

There you have a purely economic analysis of the power of the trusts
and their expansion. There you have the purely economic path to expansion: buying up mills and factories, sources of raw materials.

Big finance capital of one country can always buy up competitors in
another, politically independent country and constantly does
so. Economically, this is fully achievable. Economic “annexation” is fully “achievable” without political annexation and is widely
practised. In the literature on imperialism you will constantly come across
indications that Argentina, for example, is in reality a “trade colony”
of Britain, or that Portugal is in reality a “vassal” of Britain,
etc. And that is actually so: economic dependence upon British banks,
indebtedness to Britain, British acquisition of their railways, mines,
land, etc., enable Britain to “annex” these countries economically
without violating their political independence.

National self-determination means political independence. Imperialism
seeks to violate such independence because political annexation often makes
economic annexation easier, cheaper (easier to bribe officials, secure
concessions, put through advantageous legislation. etc.), more convenient,
less troublesome—just as imperialism seeks to replace democracy generally
by oligarchy. But to speak of the economic “unachievability” of
self-determination under imperialism is sheer nonsense.

Kievsky gets round the theoretical difficulties by a very simple and
superficial dodge, known in German as “ burschikose ” phraseology,
i.e., primitive, crude phrases heard (and quite naturally) at student
binges. Here is an example:
“Universal suffrage,” he writes, “the eight-hour day and even the
republic are logically compatible with imperialism, though
imperialism far from smiles [!!] on them and their achievement is therefore
extremely difficult.”

We would have absolutely no objections to the burschikose statement that imperialism far from “smiles” on the republic—a
frivolous word can sometimes lend colour to a scientific polemic!—if in
this polemic on a serious issue we were given, in addition , an
economic and political analysis of the concepts involved. With Kievsky,
however, the burschikose phrase does duty for such an analysis or
serves to conceal lack of it.

What can this mean: “Imperialism far from smiles on the republic”?
And why?

The republic is one possible form of the political super structure of
capitalist society, and, moreover, under present-day conditions the most
democratic form. To say that imperialism does not “smile” on the republic
is to say that there is a contradiction between imperialism and
democracy. It may very well be that Kievsky does not “smile” or even
“far from smiles” on this conclusion. Nevertheless it is irrefutable.

To continue. What is the nature of this contradiction between
imperialism and democracy? Is it a logical or illogical contradiction?
Kievsky uses the word “logical” without stop ping to think and therefore
does not notice that in this particular case it serves to conceal (both from the reader’s and author’s eyes and mind) the very
question he sets out to discuss! That question is the relation of
economics to politics:
the relation of economic conditions and the economic content of imperialism
to a certain political form. To say that every “contradiction” revealed
in human discussion is a logical contradiction is meaningless
tautology. And with the aid of this tautology Kievsky evades the substance of the question: Is it a “logical” contradiction
between two economic phenomena or propositions (1)? Or two political phenomena or propositions (2)? Or economic and political phenomena or propositions (3)?

For that is the heart of the matter, once we are discussing economic
unachievability or achievability under one or another political form!

Had Kievsky not evaded the heart of the matter, he would probably have
realised that the contradiction between imperialism and the republic is a
contradiction between the economics of latter-day capitalism (namely,
monopoly capitalism) and political democracy in general. For Kievsky will
never prove that any major and fundamental democratic measure (popular
election of officials or officers, complete freedom of association and
assembly, etc.) is less contradictory to imperialism (or, if you like, more
“smiled” upon) than the republic.

What we have, then, is the proposition we advanced in our
theses: imperialism contradicts, “logically” contradicts, all political democracy in general . Kievsky does not “smile” on this
proposition for it demolishes all his illogical constructions. But what can
we do about it? Are we to accept a method that is supposed to refute
certain propositions, but instead secretly advances them by using such
expressions as “imperialism far from smiles on the republic”?

Further. Why does imperialism far from smile on the republic? And how
does imperialism “combine” its economics with the republic?

Kievsky has given no thought to that. We would remind him of the
following words of Engels in reference to the democratic republic. Can
wealth dominate under this form of government? The question concerns the
“contradiction” between economics and politics.

Engels replies: “The democratic republic officially knows nothing any
more of property distinctions [between citizens]. In it, wealth exercises
its power indirectly, but all the more surely. On the one hand, in the form
of the direct corruption of officials, of which America provides the
classical example; on the other hand, in the form of an alliance between
government and stock exchange....” [2]

There you have an excellent example of economic analysis on the
question of the “achievability” of democracy under capitalism. And the
“achievability” of self-determination under imperialism is part of that
question.

The democratic republic “logically” contradicts capitalism, because
“officially” it puts the rich and the poor on an equal footing. That is a
contradiction between the economic system and the political
superstructure. There is the same contradiction between imperialism and the
republic, deepened or aggravated by the fact that the change-over from free
competition to monopoly makes the realisation of political freedoms even
more “difficult”.

How, then, is capitalism reconciled with democracy? By indirect
implementation of the omnipotence of capital. There are two economic means
for that: (1) direct bribery; (2) alliance of government and stock
exchange. (That is stated in our theses—under a bourgeois system finance
capital “can freely bribe and buy any government and any official”.)

Once we have the dominance of commodity production, of the bourgeoisie,
of the power of money—bribery (direct or through the stock exchange) is
“achievable” under any form of government and under any kind of
democracy.

What, it can be asked, is altered in this respect when capitalism gives
way to imperialism, i.e., when pro-monopoly capitalism is replaced by
monopoly capitalism?

Only that the power of the stock exchange increases. For finance
capital is industrial capital at its highest, monopoly level which has
merged with banking capital. The big banks merge with and absorb the stock
exchange. (The literature on imperialism speaks of the declining role of
the stock exchange, but only in the sense that every giant bank is itself
virtually a stock exchange.)

Further. If “wealth” in general is fully capable of achieving
domination over any democratic republic by bribery and through the stock
exchange, then how can Kievsky maintain, without lapsing into a very
curious “logical contradiction”, that the immense wealth of the trusts
and the banks, which have thousands of millions at their command, cannot
“achieve” the domination of finance capital over a foreign, i.e.,
politically independent, republic??

Well? Bribery of officials is “unachievable” in a foreign state? Or
the “alliance of government and stock exchange” applies only to one’s own
government?

The reader will already have seen that it requires roughly ten pages of
print to untangle and popularly explain ten lines of confusion. We cannot
examine every one of Kievsky’s arguments in the same detail. And there is
not a single one that is not confused. Nor is there really any need for
this once the main arguments have been examined. The rest will be dealt
with briefly.

## Notes

[1] Is Kievsky aware of the impolite word Marx used in reference to such
“logical methods”? Without applying this impolite term to
Kievsky, we nevertheless are obliged to remark that Marx described such
methods as “fraudulent”: arbitrarily inserting precisely what is at
issue, precisely what bas to be proved, in defining a concept.

We repeat, we do not apply Marx’s impolite expression to
Kievsky. We merely disclose the source of his mistake. (In the manuscript
this passage is crossed out.— Ed .)  — Lenin

[2] The quotation is from Engels’s The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works ,
Vol. II, Moscow, 1962, p. 321).

V. I. Lenin

## A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

## 4. The Example of Norway

Norway “achieved” the supposedly unachievable right to self-determination in 1905, in the era of the most rampant imperialism. It
is therefore not only absurd, but ludicrous, from the theoretical
standpoint, to speak of “unachievability”.

Kievsky wants to refute that by angrily calling us “rationalists”. (What has that to do with it? The rationalist con fines
himself to purely abstract disquisitions, while we have pointed to a very
concrete fact! But perhaps Kievsky is using the foreign word
“rationalist” in the same... how to put it more mildly?... in the same
“unhappy” manner he used the word “extractive” at the beginning of his
article, when he presented his arguments “in extractive form”?)

Kievsky reproaches us. For us, he says, “the important thing is the
appearance of phenomena rather than the real substance”. Well, let us
examine the real substance.

His refutation begins with this example: enactment of a law against
trusts does not prove that their prohibition is unachievable. True
enough. But the example is an unhappy one, for it militates against Kievsky. Laws are political measures, politics. No
political measure can prohibit economic phenomena. Whatever political form
Poland adopts, whether she be part of Tsarist Russia or Germany, or an
autonomous region, or a politically independent state, there is no
prohibiting or repealing her dependence on the finance capital of the
imperialist powers, or preventing that capital from buying up the shares of
her industries.

The independence Norway “achieved” in 1905 was only political. It
could not affect its economic dependence, nor was this the intention. That is exactly the point made in our theses. We
indicated that self-determination concerns only politics, and it would
therefore be wrong even to raise the question of its economic
unachievability. But here is Kievsky “refuting” this by citing an example
of political bans being powerless against the economy! What a
“refutation”!

To proceed. “One or even many instances of small-scale industry
prevailing over large-scale industry is not sufficient to refute Marx’s
correct proposition that the general development of capitalism is attended
by the concentration and centralisation of production.”

Again, the argument is based on an unfortunate example , chosen
to divert the attention (of the reader and the author) from the substance
of the issue.

We maintain that it would be wrong to speak of the economic
unachievability of self-determination in the same sense as we speak of the
unachievability of labour money under capitalism. Not a single “example”
of such achievability can be cited. Kievsky tacitly admits we are
correct on this point when he shifts to another interpretation of
“unachievability”.

Why does he not do so directly? Why does he not openly and precisely
formulate his proposition: “self-determination, while achievable
in the sense that it is economically possible under capitalism, contradicts
development and is therefore either reactionary or merely an exception”?

He does not do so because a clear formulation of this counter-proposition would immediately expose its author, and he therefore
tries to conceal it.

The law of economic concentration, of the victory of large-scale
production over small, is recognised in our own and the Erfurt
programmes. Kievsky conceals the fact that nowhere is the law of political
or state concentration recognised. If it were the same kind of law—if
there were such a law—then why should not Kievsky formulate it and
suggest that it be added to our programme? Is it right for him to leave us
with a bad, incomplete programme, considering that he has discovered this
new law of state concentration, which is of practical significance since it
would rid our programme of erroneous conclusions?

Kievsky does not formulate that law, does not suggest that it be added
to our programme, because he has the hazy feeling that if he did he would
be making himself a laughing stock. Everyone would laugh at this amusing
imperialist Economism if it were expressed openly and if, parallel with the
law that small-scale production is ousted by large-scale production, there
were presented another “ law ” (connected with the first or
existing side by side with it) of small states being ousted by big ones!

To explain this we shall put only one question to Kievsky: Why is it
that economists (without quotation marks) do not speak of the
“disintegration” of the modern trusts or big banks? Or of the possibility
and achievability of such disintegration? Why is it that even the
“imperialist Economist” (in quotation marks) is obliged to admit that the
disintegration of big states is both possible and achievable, and not only
in general, but, for example, the secession of “small nationalities”
(please note!) from Russia (§e, Chapter II of Kievsky’s article)?

Lastly, to show even more clearly the lengths to which our author goes,
and to warn him, let us note the following:
We all accept the law of large-scale production ousting small-scale
production, but no one is afraid to describe a specific “instance” of
“small-scale industry prevailing over large-scale industry” as a
reactionary phenomenon. No opponent of self-determination has yet
ventured to describe as reactionary Norway’s secession from Sweden, though we raised the question
in our literature as early as
1914 . [1]

Large-scale production is unachievable if, for instance, hand-worked
machines remain. The idea of a mechanical factory “disintegrating” into
handicrafts production is utterly absurd. The imperialist tendency towards
big empires is fully achievable, and in practice is often achieved, in the
form of an imperialist alliance of sovereign and independent—politically
independent—states. Such an alliance is possible and is encountered not
only in the form of an economic merger of the finance capital of two
countries, but also in the form of military “co-operation” in an
imperialist war. National struggle, national insurrection, national
secession are fully “achievable” and are met with in practice under imperialism. They are even more pronounced, for imperialism does not halt
the development of capitalism and the growth of democratic tendencies among
the mass of the population. On the contrary, it accentuates the
antagonism between their democratic aspirations and the anti-democratic
tendency of the trusts.

It is only from the point of view of imperialist Economism, i.e.,
caricaturised Marxism, that one can ignore, for instance, this specific
aspect of imperialist policy: on the one hand, the present imperialist war
offers examples of how the force of financial ties and economic interests
draws a small, politically independent state into the struggle of the Great
Powers (Britain and Portugal). On the other hand, the violation of
democracy with regard to small nations, much weaker (both economically and
politically) than their imperialist “patrons”, leads either to revolt
(Ireland) or to defection of whole regiments to the enemy (the Czechs). In
this situation it is not only “achievable”, from the point of view of
finance capital, but sometimes even profitable for the trusts, for their imperialist policy, for their imperialist war, to allow individual small nations as much
democratic freedom as they can, right down to political independence, so as
not to risk damaging their “own” military operations. To overlook the
peculiarity of political and strategic relationships and to repeat
indiscriminately a word learned by rote, “imperialism”, is anything but
Marxism.

0 n Norway, Kievsky tells us, firstly, that she “had always been an
independent state”. That is not true and can only be explained by the
author’s burschikose carelessness and his disregard of political
issues. Norway was not an independent state prior to 1905, though
she enjoyed a very large measure of autonomy. Sweden recognised Norway’s
political independence only after her secession. If Norway “had
always been an independent state”, then the Swedish Government would not
have informed the other powers, on October 26, 1905, that it recognised
Norway’s independence.

Secondly, Kievsky cites a number of statements to prove that Norway
looked to the West, and Sweden to the East, that in one country mainly
British, and in the other German, finance capital was “at work”,
etc. From this he draws the triumphant conclusion: “This example [Norway] neatly fits into our
pattern.”

There you have a sample of the logic of imperialist Economism!  Our
theses point out that finance capital can dominate in “any”, “even
independent country”, and all the arguments about self-determination being
“unachievable” from the point of view of finance capital are therefore
sheer confusion. We are given data confirming our proposition
about the part foreign finance capital played in Norway before and after her secession. And these data are supposed to refute our proposition!

Dilating on finance capital in order to disregard political
issues—is that the way to discuss politics?

No. Political issues do not disappear because of Economism’s faulty
logic. British finance capital was “at work” in Norway before and after
secession. German finance capital was “at work” in Poland prior to her
secession from Russia and will continue to “work” there no
matter what political status Poland enjoys. That is so elementary that
it is embarrassing to have to repeat it. But what can one do if the ABC is
forgotten?

Does this dispense with the political question of Norway’s status?
With her having been part of Sweden? With the attitude of the workers when
the secession issue arose?

Kievsky evades these questions because they hit hard at the
Economists. But these questions were posed, and are posed, by life
itself. Life itself posed the question:
Could a Swedish worker who did not recognise Norway’s right to secession
remain a member of the Social-Democratic Party? He could not .

The Swedish aristocrats wanted a war against Norway, and so did the
clericals. That fact does not disappear because Kievsky has “forgotten”
to read about it in the history of the Norwegian people. The Swedish worker
could, while remaining a Social-Democrat, urge the Norwegians to vote
against secession (the Norwegian referendum on secession, held on August
13, 1905, resulted in 368,200 votes for secession and 184 against, with
about 80 per cent of the elector ate taking part). But the Swedish worker
who, like the Swedish aristocracy and bourgeoisie, would deny the
Norwegians the right to decide this question themselves, without the Swedes and irrespective of their will, would have been a social-chauvinist and a miscreant the Social-Democratic Party
could not tolerate in its ranks .

That is how §9 of our Party Programme should be applied. But our
imperialist Economist tries to lump over this clause. You cannot
jump over it, gentlemen, without falling into the embrace of chauvinism!

And what of the Norwegian worker? Was it his duty, from the
internationalist point of view, to vote for secession?  Certainly
not. He could have voted against secession and remained a
Social-Democrat. He would have been betraying his duty as a member of the
Social-Democratic Party only if he had proffered a helping hand to a
Black-Hundred Swedish worker opposed to Norway’s freedom of
secession.

Some people refuse to see this elementary difference in the position of
the Norwegian and Swedish worker. But they expose themselves when they evade this most concrete of political questions, which we squarely
put to them. They remain silent, try to wriggle out and in that way
surrender their position.

To prove that the “Norwegian” issue can arise in Russia, we
deliberately advanced this proposition: in circumstances of a purely military and strategic nature a separate Polish state is
fully achievable even now . Kievsky wants to “discuss” that—and
remains silent!

Let us add this: Finland too, out of purely military and
strategic considerations, and given a certain outcome of the present imperialist war (for instance, Sweden joining the Germans
and the latter’s semi-victory), can become a separate state
without undermining the “achievability” of even a single operation of
finance capital, without making “unachievable” the buying up of Finnish
railway and industrial shares. [2]

Kievsky seeks salvation from unpleasant political issues in an amazing
phrase which is amazingly characteristic of all his “arguments”: “At any
moment... [that is literally what he says at the end of §c, Chapter I]
the Sword of Damocles can strike and put an end to the existence of an
‘independent’ workshop” (a “hint” at little Sweden and Norway).

That, presumably, is genuine Marxism: a separate Norwegian state, whose
secession from Sweden the Swedish Government described as a
“revolutionary measure”, has been in existence only some ten years. Is
there any point in examining the political issues that follow from
this if we have read Hilferding’s Finance Capital and “understood” it in the sense that “at any moment”—if we are to
exaggerate then let’s go the whole hog!—a small state might vanish? Is
there any point in drawing attention to the fact that we have perverted
Marxism into Economism, and that we have turned our pol icy into a rehash
of the speeches of case-hardened Russian chauvinists?

What a mistake the Russian workers must have made in 1905 in seeking a
republic: finance capital had already been mobilised against it in France,
England, etc., and “at any moment” the “Sword of Damocles” could have
struck it down, if it had ever come into being!

“ The demand for national self-determination is not ...utopian in the
minimum programme: it does not contradict social development, inasmuch as
its achievement would not halt that development.” That passage from Martov
is challenged by Kievsky in the section in Which he cites the
“statements” about Norway. They prove , again and again, the
generally known fact that Norway’s “self-determination” and secession did not halt either the development of finance
capital generally, or expansion of its operation in particular, or the buying up of Norway by the English!

There have been Bolsheviks among us, Alexinsky in 1908–10, for
instance, who argued with Martov precisely at a time when Martov
was right! God save us from such “allies”!

## Notes

[1]   — Lenin

[2] Given one outcome of the present war, the formation of new states in Europe
(Polish, Finnish, etc.) is fully “achievable” without in any way
disturbing the conditions for the development of imperialism and its
power. On the contrary, this would increase the influence,
contacts and pressure of finance capital. But given another outcome, the
formation of new states in Hungary, Czechia, etc., is likewise “achievable”. The British imperialists are already planning this second
outcome in anticipation of their victory. The imperialist era does not
destroy either the striving for national political independence or its “achievability” within the bounds of world imperialist
relationships. Outside these bounds, however, a republican
Russia, or in general any major democratic transformations anywhere else in
the world are “unachievable” without a series of revolutions and are
unstable without socialism. Kievsky has wholly and completely failed to
understand the relation of imperialism to democracy.  — Lenin

V. I. Lenin

## A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

## 5. “Monism And Dualism”

Reproaching us for “interpreting the demand dualistically”,
P. Kievsky writes:

“ Monistic action of the international is replaced by dualistic propaganda .”

That sounds quite Marxist and materialistic: monistic action is
contrasted to “dualistic” propaganda.  Unfortunately, closer examination
reveals that it is verbal “monism”, like the “monism” of
Dühring. “if I include a shoe brush in the unity mammals,”
Engels wrote exposing Dühring’s “monism”, “this does not help it to
get mammary glands.” [3]

This means that only such things, qualities, phenomena and actions that
are a unity in objective reality can be declared “a unity”. It is this “ detail ” that our author overlooks!

He thinks we are “dualists”, first, because what we demand,
primarily, of the workers of the oppressed nations—this refers to the
national question only— differs from what we demand of the
workers of the oppressor nations.

To determine whether P. Kievsky’s “monism” is the same as
Dühring’s, let us examine objective realities .

Is the actual condition of the workers in the oppressor and in
the oppressed nations the same, from the standpoint of the national
question?

No, it is not the same.

(1) Economically , the difference is that sections of the
working class in the oppressor nations receive crumbs from the superprofits the bourgeoisie of these nations obtains by extra
exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations. Besides, economic
statistics show that here a larger percentage of the workers
become “straw bosses” than is the case in the oppressed nations, a larger percentage rise to the labour aristocracy . [1] That is a fact. To a certain degree the workers of the oppressor
nations are partners of their own bourgeoisie in plundering the
workers (and the mass of the population) of the oppressed nations.

(2) Politically , the difference is that, compared with the
workers of the oppressed nations, they occupy a privileged position in many spheres of political life.

(3) Ideologically , or spiritually, the difference is that they
are taught, at school and in life, disdain and contempt for the workers of
the oppressed nations. This has been experienced , for example, by
every Great Russian who has been brought up or who has lived among Great
Russians.

Thus, all along the line there are differences in objective
reality, i.e., “dualism” in the objective world that is independent of
the will and consciousness of individuals.

That being so, how are we to regard P. Kievsky’s assertion about the
“monistic action of the International”?

It is a hollow, high-sounding phrase, no more.

In real life the International is composed of workers divided into oppressor and oppressed nations. If its
action is to be monistic , its propaganda must not be the
same for both. That is how we should regard the matter in the light of real
(not Dühringian) “monism”, Marxist materialism.

An example? We cited the example of Norway (in the legal press over two
years ago!), and no one has challenged it. In this concrete case taken from
life, the action of the Norwegian and Swedish workers was
“monistic”, unified, inter nationalist only because and insofar
as the Swedish workers unconditionally championed Norway’s freedom
to secede, while the Norwegian workers raised the question of secession
only conditionally . Had the Swedish workers not supported Norway’s
freedom of secession unconditionally , they would have been chauvinists , accomplices of the chauvinist Swedish landlords, who
wanted to “keep” Norway by force, by war. Had the Norwegian workers not raised the question of secession conditionally , i.e.,
allowing even Social-Democratic Party members to conduct propaganda and
vote against secession, they would have failed in their internationalist
duty and would have sunk to narrow, bourgeois Norwegian nationalism. Why?
Because the, secession was being effected by the bourgeoisie , not
by the proletariat! Because the Norwegian bourgeoisie (as every other) always strives to drive a wedge between the workers of its own and
an “alien” country! Because for the class-conscious workers every
democratic demand (including self-determination) is subordinated to the supreme interests of socialism. For example, if Norway’s secession
from Sweden had created the certainty or probability of war between Britain
and Germany, the Norwegian workers, for that reason alone , would
have had to oppose secession. The Swedish workers would have had the right
and the opportunity, without ceasing to be socialists, to agitate against
secession, but only if they had waged a systematic, consistent and
constant struggle against the Swedish Government for Norway’s freedom to secede. Otherwise the Norwegian workers and people would not , and could not , accept the advice of the
Swedish workers as sincere.

The trouble with the opponents of self-determination is that they
confine themselves to lifeless abstractions, fearing to analyse to
the end a single concrete real-life instance. Our concrete statement in the
theses that a new Polish state is quite “achievable” now ,
given a definite combination of purely military, strategic
conditions, [2] has not been challenged either by the Poles or by P. Kievsky. But no one
wanted to ponder the conclusions that follow from this tacit
admission that we were right. And what follows, obviously, is that
internationalist propaganda cannot be the same for the Russians
and the Poles if it is to educate both for “monistic action”. The
Great-Russian (and German) worker is in duty bound unconditionally to
insist on Poland’s freedom to secede; otherwise he will, in fact,
now be the lackey of Nicholas II or Hindenburg. The Polish worker could insist on secession only conditionally, because to
speculate (as do the
Fracy [4] ) on the victory of one or the other imperialist bourgeoisie is
tantamount to becoming its lackey. Failure to understand this
difference, which is a prerequisite for “monistic action” of the
International, is about the same as failing to understand why “monistic
action” against the tsarist army near Moscow, say, requires that the revolutionary forces march
west from Nizhni-Novgorod and east from Smolensk.

Second, our new exponent of Dühringian monism reproaches us for not
striving to achieve “the closest organisational unity of the various
national sections of the International” in the event of a social
revolution.

Under socialism, P. Kievsky writes, self-determination becomes
superfluous, since the state itself ceases to exist. That is meant as an
argument against us! But in our theses we clearly and definitely say, in three lines, the last three lines of section one, that
“democracy, too, is a form of state which must disappear when the state
disappears”. It is precisely this truism that P. Kievsky repeats—to
“refute” us, of course!—on several pages of his §r (Chapter I), and repeats it in a distorted way . “We picture to
ourselves,” he writes, “and have always pictured the socialist system as
a strictly democratic [!!?], centralised system of economy in which the
state, as the apparatus for the domination of one part of the population
over the other, disappears.” This is confusion, because democracy too is domination “of one part of the population over the
other”; it too is a form of state. Our author obviously does not
understand what is meant by the withering away of the state after
the victory of socialism and what this process requires.

The main point, however, is his “objections” regarding the era of the
social revolution. He calls us “talmudists of self-determination”—what
a frightening epithet—and adds: “We picture this process [the social
revolution] as the united action of the proletarians of all [!] countries,
who wipe out the frontiers of the bourgeois [!] state, who tear down the
frontier posts [in addition to “wiping out the frontiers”?], who blow up
[!]  national unity and establish class unity.”

The wrath of this stern judge of the “talmudists” notwithstanding, we
must say: there are many words here, but no “ideas”.

The social revolution cannot be the united action of the proletarians
of all countries for the simple reason that most of the countries
and the majority of the world’s population have not even reached, or have only just reached, the capitalist stage of
development. We stated this in section six of our theses, but P. Kievsky,
because of lack of attention, or inability to think, did “not notice”
that we included this section for a definite purpose, namely, to refute
caricature distortions of Marxism. Only the advanced countries of
Western Europe and North America have matured for socialism, and ii
Engels’s letter to Kautsky ( Sbornik
Sotsial-Demokrata ) [5] Kievsky will find a concrete illustration of
the real and not merely promised “ idea ” that to dream of the
“united action of the proletarians of all countries” means
postponing socialism to the Greek calends, i.e., for ever.

Socialism will be achieved by the united action of the proletarians,
not of all, but of a minority of countries, those that have reached the advanced capitalist stage of development. The cause of Kievsky’s
error lies in failure to understand that. In these advanced
countries (England, France, Germany, etc.) the national problem was solved
long ago; national unity outlived its purpose long ago; objectively , there are no “general national tasks” to be
accomplished. Hence, only in these countries is it possible now to
“blow up” national unity and establish class unity.

The undeveloped countries are a different matter. They embrace the
whole of Eastern Europe and all the colonies and semi-colonies and are
dealt with in section six of the theses (second- and third-type
countries). In those areas, as a rule, there still exist oppressed
and capitalistically undeveloped nations. Objectively , these
nations still have general national tasks to accomplish, namely, democratic tasks, the tasks of overthrowing foreign
oppression .

Engels cited India as an example of such nations, stating that she
might perform a revolution against victorious socialism, for Engels was
remote from the preposterous imperialist Economism which imagines that
having achieved victory in the advanced countries, the proletariat will
“automatically”, without definite democratic measures, abolish
national oppression everywhere. The victorious proletariat will reorganise
the countries in which it has triumphed. That cannot be done all at once;
nor, indeed, can the bourgeoisie be “vanquished” all at once. We
deliberately emphasised this in our theses, and Kievsky has again failed to stop and think why we stressed this point in connection with the
national question.

While the proletariat of the advanced countries is over throwing the
bourgeoisie and repelling its attempts at counter-revolution, the
undeveloped and oppressed nations do not just wait, do not cease to exist,
do not disappear. If they take advantage even of such a bourgeois
imperialist crisis as the war of 1915-16—a minor crisis compared with
social revolution—to rise in revolt (the colonies, Ireland), there can be
no doubt that they will all the more readily take advantage of the great crisis of civil war in the advanced countries to rise in
revolt.

The social revolution can come only in the form of an epoch in which
are combined civil war by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie in the
advanced countries and a whole series of democratic and
revolutionary movements, including the national liberation movement, in the
undeveloped, backward and oppressed nations.

Why? Because capitalism develops unevenly, and objective reality gives
us highly developed capitalist nations side by side with a number of
economically slightly developed, or totally undeveloped,
nations. P. Kievsky has absolutely failed to analyse the objective conditions of social revolution from the standpoint of the economic
maturity of various countries. His reproach that we “invent”
instances in which to apply self-determination is therefore an attempt to
lay the blame at the wrong door.

With a zeal worthy of a better cause, Kievsky repeatedly quotes Marx
and Engels to the effect that “one must not invent things out of his own
head, but use his head to discover in the existing material conditions”
the means that will free humanity of social evils. When I read those oft
repeated quotations I cannot help recalling the late and unlamented
Economists who just as tediously... harped on their “new discovery” that
capitalism had triumphed in Russia. Kievsky wants to “smite” us with
these quotations: he claims that we invent out of our own heads the
conditions for applying self-determination in the epoch of imperialism! But
we find the following “incautious admission”in his own article:

“ The very fact that we are opposed [author’s italics] to
defence of the fatherland shows most clearly that we will actively resist suppression of a national uprising, for we shall thereby be
combating imperialism, our mortal enemy” (Chapter II, §r).

To criticise an author, to answer him, one has to quote in
full at least the main propositions of his article. But in all of Kievsky’s
propositions you will find that every sentence contains two or three errors
or illogicalities that distort Marxism!

1) He is unaware that a national uprising is also “defence of
the fatherland”! A little thought, however, will make it perfectly clear
that this is so, since every “nation in revolt” “defends”
itself, its language, its territory, its fatherland, against the oppressor
nation.

All national oppression calls forth the resistance of the broad
masses of the people; and the resistance of a nationally oppressed
population always tends to national revolt. Not infrequently
(notably in Austria and Russia) we find the bourgeoisie of the oppressed
nations talking of national revolt, while in practice it enters
into reactionary compacts with the bourgeoisie of the oppressor nation
behind the backs of, and against , its own people. In such cases
the criticism of revolutionary Marxists should be directed not against the
national movement, but against its degradation, vulgarisation, against the
tendency to reduce it to a petty squabble. Incidentally, very many Austrian
and Russian Social-Democrats overlook this and in their legitimate hatred of the petty, vulgar and sordid national squabbles—disputes and
scuffles over the question, for instance, of which language shall have
precedence in two-language street signs—refuse to support the national
struggle. We shall not “support” a republican farce in, say, the
principality of Monaco, or the “republican” adventurism of “generals”
in the small states of South America or some Pacific island. But that does
not mean it would be permissible to abandon the republican slogan for
serious democratic and socialist movements. We should, and do, ridicule the
sordid national squabbles and haggling in Russia and Austria. But that does
not mean that it would be permissible to deny support to a national
uprising or a serious popular struggle against national oppression.

2) If national uprisings are impossible in the “imperialist era”,
Kievsky has no right to speak of them. If they are possible, all his fine-spun talk about “monism” and our “inventing”
examples of self-determination under imperialism, etc., etc., falls to
pieces. Kievsky defeats his own arguments.

If “we” “actively resist suppression” of a “national uprising”—a case which P. Kievsky “ himself ” considers
possible—what does this mean?

It means that the action is twofold, or “dualistic”, to
employ the philosophical term as incorrectly as our author does:
(a) first, it is the “action” of the nationally oppressed proletariat and
peasantry jointly with the, nationally oppressed bourgeoisie against the oppressor nation;
(b) second, it is the “action” of the proletariat, or of its
class-conscious section, in the oppressor nation against the
bourgeoisie of that nation and all the elements that follow it.

The innumerable phrases against a “national bloc”, national
“illusions”, the “poison” of nationalism, against “fanning national
hatred” and the like, to which P. Kievsky resorts, prove to be
meaningless. For when he advises the proletariat of the oppressor countries
(which, be it remembered, he regards as a serious force) “actively to
resist suppression of a national uprising”, he thereby fans national hatred and supports the establishment of a “bloc with
the bourgeoisie” by the workers of the oppressed nations.

3) If national uprisings are possible under imperialism, so are
national wars. There is no material political difference between the
two. Military historians are perfectly right when they put rebellions in
the same category as wars. Kievsky has unwittingly refuted not only
himself, but also
Junius [6] and the Internationale group, who deny the possibility of national wars under imperialism. And this denial is
the only conceivable theoretical ground for denying self-determination of
nations under imperialism.

4) For what is a “national” uprising? It is an uprising aimed at the
achievement of political independence of the oppressed nation,
i.  e., the establishment of a separate national state.

If the proletariat of the oppressor nation is a serious force (in the
imperialist era, as our author rightly assumes), does not its determination
“actively to resist suppression of a national uprising” imply
assistance in creating a separate national state? Of course it does.

Though he denies the “achievability” of self-determination, our brave
author now argues that the class-conscious proletariat of the advanced
countries must assist in achieving this “unachievable” goal!

5) Why must “we” “actively resist” suppression of a
national uprising? P. Kievsky advances only one reason: “...we shall
thereby be combating imperialism, our mortal enemy.” All the strength of this argument lies in the strong word
“mortal”. And this is in keeping with his penchant for strong words
instead of strong arguments—high-sounding phrases like “driving a stake
into the quivering body of the bourgeoisie” and similar Alexinsky
flourishes.

But this Kievsky argument is wrong . Imperialism is as much our
“mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget,
however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that
imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it
is not every struggle against imperialism that we should
support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes
against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the
reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.

Consequently, once the author admits the need to support an uprising of
an oppressed nation (“actively resisting” suppression means supporting
the uprising), he also admits that a national uprising is progressive , that the establishment of a separate and new state,
of new frontiers, etc., resulting from a successful uprising, is progressive .

In none of his political arguments is the author consistent!

The Irish Rebellion of 1916, which took place after our theses had
appeared in No. 2 of Vorbote , proved, incidentally, that it was
not idle to speak of the possibility of national uprisings even in
Europe.

## Notes

[1] See, for instance, Hourwich’s book on immigration and the condition of
the working class in America, Immigration and
Labour .— Ed .

[2]   — Lenin

[3] This is from Engels’s Anti-Dühring , Moscow, 1959, pp. 63–64.

[4] Fracy (“Revolutionary Faction”)—the Right wing of the Polish
Socialist Party (P.S.P.), a reformist nationalist party founded in 1892 and
led by Pilsudski. While advocating independence for Poland, the
P.S.P. conducted separatist nationalist propaganda among the Polish
workers, endeavouring to discourage them from joint struggle with the
Russian workers against the autocracy and capitalism.

In 1906 the party split into the Left P.S.P. and Right P.S.P. or
Fracy. The latter continued the P.S.P. nationalist and chauvinist policy
before, during and after the First World War.

[5] Reference is to Engels’s letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882. Lenin
cites it in his article “The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up”
(see present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 352–53).

[6] Junius was the pen-name of Rosa Luxemburg.

V. I. Lenin

## A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

## 6. The Other Political Issues Raised and Distorted By P. Kievsky

Liberation of the colonies, we stated in our theses, means
self-determination of nations. Europeans often forget that colonial peoples too are nations, but to tolerate this “forgetfulness” is to
tolerate chauvinism.

P. Kievsky “objects”:

In the pure type of colonies, “there is no proletariat in the
proper sense of the term” (end of §r, Chapter II). “For whom, then,
is the ‘self-determination’ slogan meant?  For the colonial bourgeoisie?
For the fellahs? For the peasants?  Certainly not. It is absurd for socialists [Kievsky’s italics] to demand self-determination for
the colonies, for it is absurd in general to advance the slogans of a
workers’ party for countries where there are no workers.”

P. Kievsky’s anger and his denunciation of our view as “absurd”
notwithstanding, we make bold to submit that his arguments are
erroneous. Only the late and unlamented Economists believed that the
“slogans of a workers’ party” are issued only for workers. [1] No, these slogans are issued for the whole of the labouring population, for
the entire people. The democratic part of our programme—Kievsky has given
no thought to its significance “in general”—is addressed specifically
to the whole people and that is why in it we speak of the
“people”. [2]

The colonial and semi-colonial nations, we said, account for 1,000
million people, and P. Kievsky has not taken the trouble to refute that
concrete statement. Of these 1,000 million, more than 700 million (China,
India, Persia, Egypt) live in countries where there are workers. But even with regard to colonial countries where there are no
workers, only slave-owners and slaves, etc., the demand for
“self-determination”, far from being absurd , is obligatory hit every Marxist. And if he gave the matter a little
thought, Kievsky would probably realise this, and also that
“self-determination” is always advanced “for” two nations: the
oppressed and the oppressing .

Another of Kievsky’s “objections”:

“ For that reason we limit ourselves, in respect to the colonies, to a
negative slogan, i.e., to the demand socialists present to their governments—‘get out of the colonies!’  Unachievable
within the framework of capitalism, this demand serves to intensify the
struggle against imperialism, but does not contradict the trend of
development, for a socialist society will not possess colonies.”

The author’s inability, or reluctance, to give the slightest thought to
the theoretical contents of political slogans is simply amazing!  Are we to
believe that the use of a propaganda phrase instead of a theoretically
precise political term alters matters? To say “get out of the colonies”
is to evade a theoretical analysis and hide behind propaganda phrases!  For
every one of our Party propagandists, in referring to the Ukraine, Poland,
Finland, etc., is fully entitled to demand of the tsarist government (his
“own government”): “get out of Finland”, etc. However, the intelligent
propagandist will understand that we must not advance either positive or
negative slogans for the sole purpose of “intensifying” the
struggle. Only men of the Alexinsky type could insist that the “negative”
slogan “get out of the Black-Hundred Duma” was justified by the desire to
“intensify” the struggle against a certain evil.

Intensification of the struggle is all empty phrase of the
subjectivists, who forget the Marxist requirement that every slogan be
justified by a precise analysis of economic realities, the political situation and the political significance of the
slogan. It is embarrassing to have to drive this home, but what can one do?

We know the Alexinsky habit of cutting short a theoretical discussion
of a theoretical question by propaganda outcries. It is a bad habit. The
slogan “get out of the colonies” has one and only one political and
economic content: freedom of secession for the colonial nations, freedom to
establish a separate state! If, as P. Kievsky believes, the general laws of imperialism prevent the self-determination of
nations and make it a utopia, illusion, etc., etc., then how can one, with
out stopping to think, make an exception from these general laws for most of the nations of the world?  Obviously, P. Kievsky’s
“theory” is a caricature of theory.

Commodity production and capitalism, and the connecting threads of
finance capital, exist in the vast majority of colonial countries. How,
then, can we urge the imperialist countries, their governments, to “get out of the colonies” if, from
the standpoint of commodity production, capitalism and imperialism,
this is an “unscientific” and “utopian” demand, “refuted” even by Lensch, Cunow and the rest?

There is not even a shadow of thought in the author’s argumentation!

He has given no thought to the fact that liberation of the colonies is
“unrealisable” only in the sense of being “unrealisable without
a series of revolutions”. He has given no thought to the fact that it is
realisable in conjunction with a socialist revolution in
Europe. He has given no thought to the fact that a “socialist society will
not possess” not only colonies, but subject nations in general . He has given no thought to the fact that, on the question
under discussion, there is no economic or political difference
between Russia s “possession” of Poland or Turkestan. He has given no
thought to the fact that a “socialist society” will wish to “get out of
the colonies” only in the sense of granting them the free right to secede, but definitely not in the sense of recommending secession .

And for this differentiation between the right to secede and the
recommendation to secede, P. Kievsky condemns us as “jugglers”, and to
“scientifically substantiate” that verdict in the eyes of the workers, he
writes:

“ What is a worker to think when he asks a propagandist how the
proletariat should regard samostiinost [political independence for
the Ukraine], and gets this answer: socialists are working for the right to
secede, but their propaganda is against secession?”

I believe I can give a fairly accurate reply to that question, namely:
every sensible worker will think that Kievsky is not capable
of thinking .

Every sensible worker will “think”: here we have P. Kievsky telling
us workers to shout “get out of the colonies”. In other words, we
Great-Russian workers must demand from our government that it get out of
Mongolia, Turkestan, Persia; English workers must demand that the English
Government get out of Egypt, India, Persia, etc. But does this mean that we proletarians wish to separate ourselves from the
Egyptian workers and fellahs, from the Mongolian, Turkestan or Indian
workers and peasants? Does it mean that we advise the labouring masses of the colonies to
“separate” from the class-conscious European proletariat?  Nothing of the
kind. Now, as always, we stand and shall continue to stand for the closest
association and merging of the class-conscious workers of the advanced
countries with the workers, peasants and slaves of all the
oppressed countries. We have always advised and shall continue to advise
all the oppressed classes in all the oppressed countries, the colonies
included, not to separate from us, but to form the closest
possible ties and merge with us.

We demand from our governments that they quit the colonies, or, to put
it in precise political terms rather than in agitational outcries—that
they grant the colonies full freedom of secession, the genuine right to self-determination , and we ourselves are sure to
implement this right, and grant this freedom, as soon as we capture
power. We demand this from existing governments, and will do this
when we are the government, not in order to “recommend”
secession, but, on the contrary, in order to facilitate and accelerate the democratic association and merging of nations. We shall exert
every effort to foster association and merger with the Mongolians,
Persians, Indians, Egyptians. We believe it is our duty and in our
interest to do this, for otherwise socialism in Europe will not be
secure . We shall endeavour to render these nations, more backward and
oppressed than we are, “disinterested cultural assistance”, to borrow the
happy expression of the Polish Social-Democrats. In other words, we will
help them pass to the use of machinery, to the lightening of labour, to
democracy, to socialism.

If we demand freedom of secession for the Mongolians. Persians,
Egyptians and all other oppressed and unequal nations without
exception, we do so not because we favour secession , but only because we stand for free , voluntary association and merging as distinct from forcible association. That is the only reason!

And in this respect the only difference between the Mongolian
or Egyptian peasants and workers and their Polish or Finnish counterparts
is, in our view, that the latter are more developed, more experienced
politically than the Great Russians, more economically prepared, etc., and
for that reason will in all likelihood very soon convince their peoples that it is unwise to extend their present legitimate hatred of the
Great Russians, for their role of hangman, to the socialist workers and to a socialist Russia. They will convince them that economic
expediency and internationalist and democratic instinct and consciousness
demand the earliest association of all nations and their merging in a
socialist society. And since the Poles and Finns are highly cultured
people, they will, in all probability, very soon come to see the
correctness of this attitude, and the possible secession of Poland and
Finland after the triumph of socialism will therefore be only of short
duration. The incomparably less cultured fellahs, Mongolians and Persians
might secede for a longer period, but we shall try to shorten it by
disinterested cultural assistance as indicated above.

There is no other difference in our attitude to the Poles and
Mongolians, nor can there be. There is no “contradiction”, nor
can there be, between our propaganda of freedom of secession and our firm
resolve to implement that freedom when we are the government, and
our propaganda of association and merging of nations. That is what, we feel
sure, every sensible worker, every genuine socialist and internationalist
will “think” of our controversy with
P. Kievsky. [3]

Running through the article is Kievsky’s basic doubt: why advocate and,
when we are in power, implement the freedom of nations to secede ,
considering that the trend of development is towards the merging of nations? For the same
reason—we reply—that we advocate and, when in power, will implement the
dictatorship of the proletariat, though the entire trend of development is
towards abolition of coercive domination of one part of society over
another. Dictatorship is domination of one part of society over the rest of
society, and domination, moreover, that rests directly on
coercion. Dictatorship of the proletariat, the only consistently
revolutionary class, is necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and repel
its attempts at counter-revolution. The question of proletarian
dictatorship is of such overriding importance that he who denies the need
for such dictator ship, or recognises it only in words, cannot he a member
of the Social-Democratic Party. However, it cannot be denied that in
individual cases, by way of exception, for instance, in some small country
after the social revolution has been accomplished in a neighbouring big
country, peaceful surrender of power by the bourgeoisie is possible , if it is convinced that resistance is hopeless and if it
prefers to save its skin. It is much more likely, of course, that even in
small states socialism will not be achieved without civil war, and
for that reason the only programme of international
Social-Democracy must be recognition of civil war, though violence is, of
course, alien to our ideals. The same, mutatis mutandis (with the necessary alterations), is applicable to nations. We favour their
merger, but now there can be no transition from forcible merger
and annexation to voluntary merger without freedom of secession. We
recognise—and quite rightly—the predominance of the economic factor,
but to interpret it a‘ la Kievsky is to make a caricature of
Marxism. Even the trusts and banks of modern imperialism, though inevitable
everywhere as part of developed capitalism, differ in their concrete
aspects from country to country. There is a still greater difference,
despite homogeneity in essentials, between political forms in the advanced
imperialist countries—America, England, France, Germany. The same variety
will manifest itself also in the path mankind will follow from the
imperialism of today to the socialist revolution of tomorrow. All nations
will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, hut all will do so in not
exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some
form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the
varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of
social life. There is nothing more primitive from the viewpoint of theory,
or more ridiculous from that of practice, than to paint, “in the name of
historical materialism”, this aspect of the future in a
monotonous grey. The result will be nothing more than Suzdal daubing. And
even if reality were to show that prior to the first victory of
the socialist proletariat only 1/500 of the nations now oppressed will win
emancipation and secede, that prior to the final victory of the
socialist proletariat the world over (i.e., during all the vicissitudes of
the socialist revolution) also only 1,500 of the oppressed nations will
secede for a very short time— even in that event we would be
correct, both from the theoretical and practical political standpoint, in
advising the workers, already now, not to permit into their
Social-Democratic parties those socialists of the oppressor nations who do
not recognise and do not advocate freedom of secession for all oppressed nations. For the fact is that we do not know, and cannot know,
how many of the oppressed nations will in practice require secession in
order to contribute something of their own to the different forms of democracy, the different forms of transition to socialism. And
that the negation of freedom of secession now is theoretically false from
beginning to end and in practice amounts to servility to the chauvinists of
the oppressing nations—this we know, see and feel daily.

“ We emphasise,” P. Kievsky writes in a footnote to the passage quoted
above, “that we fully support the demand ‘against forcible
annexation’....”

But he makes no reply, not even by a single word, to our perfectly
clear statement that this “demand” is tantamount to recognising
self-determination, that there can be no correct definition of the concept
“annexation” unless it is seen in context with self-determination. Presumably Kievsky believes that in a discussion it is
enough to present one’s arguments and demands without any supporting
evidence!

He continues: “... We fully accept, in their negative formulation, a number of demands that tend to sharpen proletarian
consciousness against imperialism, hut there is absolutely no possibility
of working out corresponding positive formulations on the basis of the existing system. Against war, yes, but not
for a democratic peace....”

Wrong—wrong from the first word to the last. Kievsky has read our
resolution on “ Pacifism and the Peace Slogan ” (in the pamphlet Socialism and War ,
pp. 44–45 [4] )

and even approved it, I believe. But obviously he did not understand it. We
are for a democratic peace, only we warn the workers against the
deception that such a peace is possible under the present, bourgeois
governments “without a series of revolutions”, as the resolution points
out. We denounced as a deception of the workers the “abstract” advocacy
of peace, i.e., one that does not take into account the real class
nature, or, specifically, the imperialist nature of the present governments in the belligerent countries. We definitely stated in the Sotsial-Demokrat (No. 47) theses that if the revolution places our Party in power during the
present war, it will immediately propose a democratic peace to all the
warring countries. [5]

Yet, anxious to convince himself and others that he is opposed “only”
to self-determination and not to democracy in general, Kievsky ends up by
asserting that we are “not for a democratic peace”. Curious logic!

There is no need to dwell on all the other examples he cites, and no
sense in wasting space on refuting them, for they are on the same level of
naïve and fallacious logic and can only make the reader smile. There is
not, nor can there be, such a thing as a “negative” Social-Democratic
slogan that serves only to “sharpen proletarian consciousness against
imperialism” without at the same time offering a positive answer to the
question of how Social-Democracy will solve the problem when it
assumes power. A “negative” slogan unconnected with a definite positive
solution will not “sharpen”, but dull consciousness, for such a slogan is
a hollow phrase, mere shouting, meaningless declamation.

P. Kievsky does not understand the difference between “negative”
slogans that stigmatise political evils and economic evils. The difference lies in the fact that certain economic evils are part
of capitalism as such, whatever the political superstructure, and that it is impossible to eliminate them
economically without eliminating capitalism itself. Not a single instance
can be cited to disprove this. On the other hand, political evils represent
a departure from democracy which, economically, is fully possible “on the
basis of the existing system”, i.e., capitalism, and by way of exception
is being implemented under capitalism—certain aspects in one country,
other aspects in another. Again, what the author fails to understand is
precisely the fundamental conditions necessary for the implementation of
democracy in general!

The same applies to the question of divorce. The reader will recall
that it was first posed by Rosa Luxemburg in the discussion on the national question. She expressed the perfectly justified opinion
that if we uphold autonomy within a state (for a definite region, area,
etc.), we must, as centralist Social-Democrats, insist that all major
national issues—and divorce legislation is one of them—should
come within the jurisdiction of the central government and central
parliament. This example clearly demonstrates that one can not be a
democrat and socialist without demanding full freedom of divorce now,
because the lack of such freedom is additional oppression of the oppressed
sex—though it should not be difficult to realise that recognition of the freedom to leave one’s husband is not an invitation to
all wives to do so!

P. Kievsky “objects”:

“ What would this right [of divorce] be like if in such cases
[when the wife wants to leave the husband] she could not exercise her right? Or if its exercise depended on the will of third parties, or, worse still, on the will of claimants to her
affections? Would we advocate the proclamation of such a right? Of
course not!”

That objection reveals complete failure to understand the relation
between democracy in general and capitalism. The conditions that
make it impossible for the oppressed classes to “exercise” their
democratic rights are not the exception under capitalism; they are typical
of the system. In most cases the right of divorce will remain unrealisable
under capitalism, for the oppressed sex is subjugated economically. No
matter how much democracy there is under capitalism, the woman remains a
“domestic slave”, a slave locked up in the bedroom, nursery, kitchen. The
right to elect their “own” people’s judges, officials, school-teachers, jurymen,
etc., is likewise in most cases unrealisable under capitalism precisely
because of the economic subjection of the workers and peasants. The same
applies to the democratic republic: our programme defines it as
“government by the people”, though all Social-Democrats know perfectly
well that under capitalism, even in the most democratic republic, there is
bound to be bribery of officials by the bourgeoisie and an alliance of
stock exchange and the government.

Only those who cannot think straight or have no knowledge of Marxism
will conclude: so there is no point in having a republic, no point in
freedom of divorce, no point in democracy, no point in self-determination
of nations! But Marxists know that democracy does not abolish
class oppression. It only makes the class struggle more direct, wider, more
open and pronounced, and that is what we need. The fuller the freedom of
divorce, the clearer will women see that the source of their “domestic
slavery” is capitalism, not lack of rights. The more democratic the system
of government, the clearer will the workers see that the root evil is
capitalism, not lack of rights. The fuller national equality (and it is not complete without freedom of secession), the clearer will the
workers of the oppressed nations see that the cause of their oppression is
capitalism, not lack of rights, etc.

It must be said again and again: It is embarrassing to have to drive
home the ABC of Marxism, but what is one to do if Kievsky does not know it?

He discusses divorce in much the same way as one of the secretaries of
the Organising Committee abroad, Semkovsky, discussed it, if I remember
rightly, in the Paris Golos . [6] His line of reasoning was that freedom of divorce is
not, it is true, an invitation to all wives to leave their husbands, but if
it is proved that all other husbands are better than yours, madame, then it
amounts to one and the same thing!!

In taking that line of argument Semkovsky forgot that crank thinking is
not a violation of socialist or democratic principles. If Semkovsky were to
tell a woman that all other husbands were better than hers, no one would
regard this as violation of democratic principles. At most people would say: There are bound to be big cranks in a big party! But if Semkovsky were
to take it into his head to defend as a democrat a person who opposed
freedom of divorce and appealed to the courts, the police or the church to
prevent his wife leaving him, we feel sure that even most of
Semkovsky’s colleagues on the Secretariat Abroad, though they are sorry
socialists, would refuse to support him!

Both Semkovsky and Kievsky, in their “discussion” of divorce, fail to
understand the issue and avoid its substance, namely, that under capitalism
the right of divorce, as all other democratic rights without
exception, is conditional, restricted, formal, narrow and extremely
difficult of realisation. Yet no self-respecting Social-Democrat will
consider anyone opposing the right of divorce a democrat, let alone a
socialist. That is the crux of the matter. All “democracy”
consists in the proclamation and realisation of “rights” which under
capitalism are realisable only to a very small degree and only
relatively. But without the proclamation of these rights, without a
struggle to introduce them now, immediately, without training the masses in
the spirit of this struggle, socialism is impossible .

Having failed to understand that, Kievsky bypasses the central
question, that belongs to his special subject, namely, how will we
Social-Democrats abolish national oppression? He shunts the question aside
with phrases about the world being “drenched in blood”, etc. (though this
has no bearing on the matter under discussion). This leaves only one single
argument: the socialist revolution will solve everything! Or, the argument
sometimes advanced by people who share his views: self-determination is
impossible under capitalism and superfluous under socialism.

From the theoretical standpoint that view is nonsensical; from the
practical political standpoint it is chauvinistic. It fails to appreciate
the significance of democracy. For socialism is impossible without
democracy because:
(1) the proletariat cannot perform the socialist revolution unless it
prepares for it by the struggle for democracy; (2) victorious socialism cannot consolidate its victory and bring humanity
to the withering away of the state without implementing full democracy. To
claim that self-determination is superfluous under socialism is therefore
just as nonsensical and just as hopelessly confusing as to claim that democracy is superfluous
under socialism.

Self-determination is no more impossible under capitalism, and just as superfluous under socialism, as democracy generally.

The economic revolution will create the necessary prerequisites for
eliminating all types of political oppression. Precisely for that
reason it is illogical and incorrect to reduce everything to the economic
revolution, for the question is: how to eliminate national
oppression?  It cannot be eliminated without an economic revolution That is
incontestable. But to limit ourselves to this is to lapse into
absurd and wretched imperialist Economism.

We must carry out national equality; proclaim, formulate and
implement equal “rights” for all nations. Everyone agrees with
that save, perhaps, P. Kievsky. But this poses a question which Kievsky
avoids: is not negation of the right to form a national state
negation of equality?

Of course it is. And consistent, i.e., socialist, democrats proclaim,
formulate and will implement this right, without which there is no path to
complete, voluntary rapprochement and merging of nations.

## Notes

[1] P. Kievsky would do well to reread what A. Martynov and Co. wrote in
1899–1901. He would find many of his “own” arguments there.  — Lenin

[2] Some curious opponents of “self-determination of nations” try to refute
our views with the argument that “nations” are divided into classes! Our
customary reply to these caricature Marxists is that the democratic part of
our programme speaks of “government by the people”.  — Lenin

[3] Evidently Kievsky simply repeated the slogan “get out of the
colonies”, advanced by certain German and Dutch Marxists, without
considering not only its theoretical content and implications, but also the
specific features of Russia. It is pardonable—to a certain extent—for a
Dutch or German Marxist to confine himself to the slogan “get out of the
colonies”. For, first, the typical form of national oppression,
in the case of most West-European countries, is oppression of the colonies,
and, second, the very term “colony” has an especially clear, graphic and
vital meaning for West-European countries.

But what of Russia? Its peculiarity lies precisely in the fact that the
difference between “ our ” “colonies” and “our” oppressed
nations is not clear, not concrete and not vitally felt!

For a Marxist writing in, say, German it might be pardonable to
overlook this peculiarity of Russia; for Kievsky it is unpardonable. The sheer absurdity of trying to discover some serious
difference between oppressed nations and colonies in the case of Russia
should be especially clear to a Russian socialist who wants not simply to repeat , but to think .  — Lenin

[4]   — Lenin

[5]   — Lenin

[6] Golos (The Voice)—a Menshevik daily paper published in Paris
from September 1914 to January 1915, with Trotsky playing a leading part in
its editorship. The first five issues appeared under the title Nash
Golos (Our Voice). Followed a Centrist policy and in the early days of
the First World War published L. Martov’s articles against tie
social-chauvinists. Subsequently Martov shifted to the right and the
paper’s policy changed in favour of the social-chauvinists. In January 1915
it was replaced by Nashe Slovo (Our Word).

The Organising Committee —the leading Menshevik centre,
inaugurated at the August 1912 Conference of liquidators. In the First
World War the Organising Committee followed a social-chauvinist
policy, justified tsarist Russia’s part in the war and carried on jingoist
propaganda. Published a magazine Nasha Zarya (Our Dawn) and, after
its closure, Nashe Dyelo (Our Cause), later renamed Dyelo , and the newspaper Rabocheye Utro (Workers’
Morning), later renamed Utro . The O.C. functioned up to the
elections of the Menshevik Central Committee in August 1917. Besides the
0. C. which operated inside Russia, there was a Secretariat Abroad composed
of five secretaries—P. B. Axelrod, I. S. Astrov-Poves, Y. O. Martov,
A. S. Martynov and S. Y. Semkovsky. It followed a pro-Centrist line and
used internationalist phraseology to cover up its support of the Russian
social-chauvinists. The Secretariat Abroad published a,newspaper, Izvestia (News), which appeared from February 1915 to March 1917.

Semkovsky’s article “Russia Disintegrating?”, to which Lenin
evidently refers, appeared in Nashe Slovo No. 45, March 21, 1915.

V. I. Lenin

## A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism

## 7. Conclusion. Alexinsky Methods

We have analysed only a fraction of P. Kievsky’s arguments. To analyse all of them would require an article five times the length of this
one, for there is not a single correct view in the who]e of what Kievsky
has to say. What is correct —if there are no mistakes in the
figures—is the footnote data on banks. All the rest is an impossible
tangle of confusion peppered with phrases like “driving a stake into the
quivering body”, “we shall not only judge the conquering heroes, but
condemn them to death and elimination”, “the new world will be born in
agonising convulsions”, “the question will not be one of granting
charters and rights, nor of proclaiming the freedom of the nations, but of
establishing genuinely free relationships, destroying age old slavery and
social oppression in general, and national oppression in particular”, and
so on and so forth.

These phrases are, at one and the same time, the cover and expression
of two things: first, their underlying “idea” is imperialist
Economism , which is just as ugly a caricature of Marxism, and just as
complete a misinterpretation of the relationship between socialism and
democracy, as was the late and unlamented Economism of 1894–1902.

Second, we have in these phrases a repetition of Alexinsky
methods. This should be especially emphasised, for a whole section of
Kievsky’s article (Chapter II, §f, “The Special Position of the
Jews”) is based exclusively on these methods.

At the 1907 London Congress the Bolsheviks would dissociate themselves
from Alexinsky when, in reply to theoretical arguments, he would pose as an
agitator and resort to high-falutin, but entirely irrelevant, phrases
against one or another type of exploitation and oppression. “He’s begun
his shouting again,” our delegates would say. And the “shouting” did not
do Alexinsky any good.

There is the same kind of “shouting” in Kievsky’s article. He has no
reply to the theoretical questions and arguments expounded in the
theses. Instead, he poses as an agitator and begins shouting about the
oppression of the Jews, though every thinking parson will realise that his
shouting, and the Jewish question in general, have no relation whatever to
the subject under discussion.

Alexinsky methods can lead to no good.

## Notes