OBJECTIONS TO G. E. ZINOVIEV'S COMMENTS

ON THE ARTICLES "ON JUNIUS'S PAMPHLET"

AND "RESULTS OF THE DISCUSSION ON SELF-DETERMINATION"

To the article "On Junius's Pamphlet"

You often laugh at the "era of imperialism." This is how one should treat Radek and Co., for whom

OBJECTIONS TO G. E. ZINOVIEV'S COMMENTS

"era" is a recipe for all ills (pp. 10-11, 14, etc., and even more in the article on self-determination). -
But one must not fall into the opposite extreme. In places, the impression is that you have overdone it by 100
degrees.
what is this about? Era =
9A + 2. Does it mean that
. impossible???

We ourselves said in the resolutions of the Berne Conference that "now, in a completely different, imperialist* era" (etc., see "Socialism and War," 42). You yourself wrote in "The Communist" (p.
188-189): "the essence of the modern era is the transition from the era of wars of national liberation to
the era of wars of imperialist*-plundering and reactionary wars." This proposition, in my opinion, you should
repeat and emphasize its correctness precisely in the articles against Junius and Radek. Otherwise,
the impression is created that you deny it and agree to recognize only and exclusively this war as imperialist.

But the proposition about the "era" in itself (outside of Radek's distortions) is absolutely correct, and it alone gives the line,
saves from eclecticism.

It seems to me further a mistake to emphasize strongly the possibility** of national
wars in Europe...

The task now is to show that even small countries (Serbia, Switzerland, etc.) cannot in
the "current era" "defend the fatherland"**.

Here Grimm and Co. are still confused, here Plekhanov "catches" weaknesses...

Not a mistake, but the truth:
of course, they are possible.

Incorrect (not here)

* V. I. Lenin made a note "x" above this word. Ed.

** Here and below underlined by V. I. Lenin. Ed.

I am saying something completely, completely different: in this war, I am saying, it is not about
a republic in Germany!! Substituting "national wars" here means confusing the era with this war.

This is a fact. There is nothing to fear from the truth. Name another group!

An old, everywhere and always common term. It is ridiculous to think that Radeks
introduced it!!

Of course, only!! After all, I said right there when this is possible. And
you do not try to refute this!

How can one call a reference to a well-known historical fact "unsubstantiated"? Rome, England against Holland and Spain, etc.?

Why? Try to prove this?

You will not prove it if you do not forget that "war is a continuation of politics."

You yourself say in the article against Junius that building tactics on national wars means
"turning one's face to the past, not to the future," that this is a "fantasy of national war"
etc. ...
"Only I. S. D. remains at its post" (p. 5). This must be said differently. Let's not praise
our own too much.

On p. 9 "Imperialist" wars of the time of the Great French Revolution, "Napoleon's imperialism." It is necessary to explain in what sense the term "imperialism" is used here.

P. 10
Only "highly improbable" that "this war of 1914-1916 will turn into a national one"?

P. 12 "Imperialism is possible both on the basis of slavery and on the basis of primitive capitalism," etc. (cf. p. 9).

This needs to be explained separately on a page or two.

Otherwise, all this is unsubstantiated.

P. 13 "The union of Persia, India, and China" can hardly be declared "probable." If anything is not probable,
it is precisely such a union.

OBJECTIONS TO G. E. ZINOVIEV'S COMMENTS

P. 16
Are we against disarmament because we expect more non-reactionary, just
wars in which we will have to defend the fatherland? Or for the socialist revolution?

Can we agree with the interpretation that we are advocating a militia to defend the fatherland in a defensive war?

P. 18
It is inconvenient to simply pretend that Junius has always stood for self-determination. Hinting that
this is Rosa Luxemburg is, of course, impossible. But inserting the word: "now," "under the influence* of the lessons of the war," etc. - is necessary.

P. 27
In Russia, "a very significant proportion of the peasant poor was under the spell of imperialism,
stood for the war." How is this proven? Absolutely not at all. All liberal observers of peasant life, non-partisan (Bishop Nikon), Narodniks ("Russian Wealth") say the opposite. Plekhanov uses such a statement
against us. Leitner has already written about Russian "Volksimperialismus."

Of course, yes!!
and is this not war???

Of course, yes! You are afraid of words without thinking about their meaning. Defending the fatherland in a good war is a good
thing.

This is what hinting means.

By the behavior of the Trudoviks, the SR left peasants. I said "most
likely." It is precisely here that it is dangerous to underestimate the "patriotism"
of the muzhiks.
?? ?

* Underlines, quotes, and question marks by V. I. Lenin. Ed.

2
To the article on self-determination
Plekhanov will be wrong not for the reason you have in mind:
try to explain it!! Belgium "now" is participating in the predatory
war of England + France + Russia, helping to strangle Galicia, Armenia
and so on. Each given war must be assessed concretely.

Incorrect! Directly incorrect!! I specifically indicated what can (in the article on
Junius). Why don't you refute what was said there?? 1) even a hopeless
war is a war; 2) - a hopeless war of a small country with a large one turns into a reliable one with an uprising in the large one.

Where does it follow that in 1918 (my example) there will be an imperialist
war in Europe, and not a socialist revolution?? Is an imperialist war possible in any period
of the imperialist "era"? No, not in any. In 1905, an imperialist war
of England and Ger-
Pp. 24-25. The example of Belgium and a possible Belgian uprising is unsuccessful. Plekhanov
will say: why wait until Belgium is annexed and until it rises up. It is already fighting now to prevent its annexation, and in this way
it is carrying out the defense of the fatherland in a good sense of the word.

In reality, there can be no national war of annexed Belgium against Germany.

OBJECTIONS TO G. E. ZINOVIEV'S COMMENTS

Belgium may join the anti-German coalition at a decisive moment in the next imperialist war - this is true. The bourgeoisie of Belgium will call this a national
war. This is also true. But in fact, this will be a national war no more than
Serbia's current participation on the side of the Entente. (And even worse: the Belgian bourgeoisie has the Congo.)
Austria did not annex Serbia, but it strangled it, strangled the national revolution
of the South Slavs.
--- In the event of the annexation of Belgium by Germany,
we will preach to the Belgian proletarians not a national uprising, but an international one, a struggle hand in hand with the revolutionary German proletariat. If we take
Belgium in isolation, as you do, then it is unclear what the fundamental difference is: why
it was not necessary to defend the Belgian fatherland when it was attacked in order to annex it, but
it will be necessary to defend it after it is annexed? The annexation of Belgium will create a new hotbed
of discontent, the struggle will be complicated by national oppression - this is true. The German proletariat will have to defend the freedom of secession of Belgium - this is also true. It must do this also in relation to Denmark, and we must do this in relation to Sweden. And yet, no
national wars of Damania (because of Norway) and so on turned out to be impossible.
according to whose Fahrplan?*
You have completely lost the only Marxist position of assessing each given war separately!

* - timetable. Ed.

incorrect!!
in the article "Vorbote" 793 (NB) "kann" (NB)
where is the oblivion? Kapp und mu.
ist zweierlei. Sie vergessen das!!***
?? Prudonism consists precisely in denying the possibility (and often the usefulness)
of bourgeois national uprisings and wars.
((This is completely out of place. Not here, not here at all. This is only an answer
to Plekhanov's argument. And this is about the nature of this war.))
against Germany, Sweden against Russia in the current era cannot be imagined. "Use these conflicts" (see; our theses)
- is necessary. But you are not only saying this.

Our theses say (p. 39, penultimate paragraph): Die Tatsache, da. der Kampf
gegen eine imperialistische Regierung... Von einer andern Grossmacht... aus genutzt werden kann* and
etc., i.e.** cannot induce us to abandon self-determination. This is correct. But we must not go further. Otherwise, we forget the very
Tatsache, which is said above.

What should we recommend to Belgium and the Belgian workers after the annexation: to wage a national war against Germany, necessarily
alone, without the support of England - France?

Or - should we obscure that "Tatsache" that in another case Belgium will again be
Werkzeug'om**** of the imperialist bourgeoisie of the anti-German coalition.

In "Socialism and War" (p. 8) you wrote:
"If all states declared war on Germany with the demand for the liberation and compensation of Belgium, - in this case, the sympathy
of the Social Democrats would, of course, be on the side of the enemies
of Germany."
NB

* - The fact that the struggle... against one imperialist power can be... used by another "great" power. Ed.

** Inserted by V. I. Lenin. Ed.

*** - Can and must are two opposites, you forget about this!! Ed.

**** - tool. Ed.

OBJECTIONS TO G. E. ZINOVIEV'S COMMENTS

This can be said. This can be used to motivate for clarity. But this "if" will never
come true. This cannot be forgotten. Uprisings in
Belgium (after annexation), let's say, are possible,
- as they turned out to be possible in 1916 in Ireland. Radek is a philistine for calling the Irish uprising a "putsch." This is certain. But what will we
say about a possible uprising in
Belgium? The same thing that you said about Dublin: the misfortune of this uprising is that it did not merge with the socialist revolution of the international proletariat. In other words, we
will preach to the Belgian workers an international revolution, not a national war.
(With this, you beat yourself, your pp. 1 and 2.)
Aha!!!

Is an unfortunate uprising a possible uprising, yes or no??

You are outrageously illogical. It is one thing to preach to the workers of all
countries an international civil war, it is another thing to deny the possibility of a national war!! One cannot confuse the possible (for different classes and
countries) with the desirable and correct for the socialist
proletariat in a theoretical question. Prudonism grows out of such a confusion. K. Marx and
the Proudhonists in 1866-1869 spoke, preached to the workers "an international socialist revolution" and were right.

But the Proudhonists added: "a progressive national war
is impossible" and

were wrong. The Proudhonists are now stumbling on something similar, not understanding
that the combination of proletarian uprisings in large, great, imperialist
powers with national uprisings and wars of small nations and colonies
against the great powers is possible (and inevitable).
where is this said? Nowhere!! Something else is said:
national wars are possible even under imperialism.

Only this. And this is true.

Try to formulate this "thesis" and it will turn out: "the imperialist
era" gave birth to this imperialist war, but it can also give birth to
another one.

Again and again - do not forget about the example of Serbia in the war of 1914-1916!

In your "just war" against Radek's narrow-mindedness, you often get so carried away
that the perspective turns out to be this: this war is imperialist, but what will happen next
is unknown, there may be a new era of national wars on a new basis.

Of course, you are a thousand times right in saying that imperialism increases national oppression,
makes self-determination relevant (in its revolutionary formulation). But this does not weaken the thesis about the era of imperialist wars in the slightest.

OBJECTIONS TO G. E. ZINOVIEV'S COMMENTS

You say: did the "era" of 1789-1871 exclude non-national wars? True! It did not exclude them. But say (and develop) that the current
era of imperialist wars also, in the same sense (i.e., as individual phenomena that do not change the overall picture), does not exclude national wars. This is all that I propose.

Pp. 27-28. In the very statement of concentration (as a result of the brutal method of imperialism) - there is still no annexationism. In general, the accusation on the point about annexationism seems to me far-fetched - in the formulation that
you gave. Radek and Co. are inconsistent internationalists, not inconsistent annexationists. They can come to Kunoism
if they bring the matter to its "logical conclusion." But now the accusa-
i.e., they are possible (this is the same thing).
"Phenomenon X is possible."
"Phenomenon X is not excluded."

This is the same thing.

The entire article against Junius says this, develops it, and gives examples. It also
says there: "even a hopeless war is a war" - and the conditions for turning the hopeless into the reliable are indicated!!! To
think that there are no (may not be) hopeless wars in history and that
hopeless wars cannot turn into reliable ones - is "imperialist
economism" 794.

Radek's annexationism is not in this, and I do not see annexationism in this. Answer, is there no "annexationism" (in-
consistent) in refusing in advance to restore nations in
Europe??

Answer this!!

true! ist getan*.

This is in the next article on Kautskyism in general.

Here it is necessary to analyze why disarmament is nonsense 795. Radek and Co.
did not accurately pose the whole question of why Kautskyism is absurd.

Im-pos-sible!!

Advocates for Legien!!
"Word and deed"!
tion against them will win if it is formulated more objectively.

P. 33. "As long as and insofar as we are not able to carry out a socialist revolution, the workers must unite more closely." Is it only
"as long as" and "insofar as"? (It would be better to change it stylistically.)
It would be very useful if you analyzed in a special
§ the relationship between the slogan of the United States of Europe and self-determination. Radek and Co. claim that this is the same thing. In such a fundamental article that analyzes all their "arguments," it is inconvenient to bypass this question.

It would also be good to make the "tone" softer in general.

This will only be more convincing. And since you have generally taken them as misguided friends (which
I liked very much), the article will only benefit from this.

About the details - in proofreading. Those who have read it also advocate that "scoundrels" be replaced with a less harsh word.

Written in 1916,

no later than July

Published for the first time in 1933

in Lenin Miscellany XXI

Printed from the manuscript

NOTES ON ISSUES

OF ECONOMIC POLICY

For memory:

Unification into consumer societies. Consumer and worker booklets.

Start with the rich: consumer-worker booklets for 50 rubles.

* This variant is included in the "Draft Amendments to the Theoretical, Political, and Some Other Parts of the Program" (see Works, 5th ed., vol. 32, p. 141). Ed.

PLAN OF THESES ON THE IMMEDIATE CONCLUSION OF PEACE

Apartment owners at 2400 rubles and »
» with the number of rooms » the number of souls of real estate over 25,000 rubles.

State and public service with a salary of 3000 rubles and » (10 ruble booklet).
((1) Preparation of universal labor conscription and (2) the fight against sabotage) + ((3)
class unification of rural workers and village poor.)

Private railways (nationalized) are confiscated.

Joint-stock companies are nationalized.

Factories and plants with more than 20 workers or with a turnover of more than 100,000 rubles
are confiscated.

Bolshevik faction of the Central Executive Committee: 1 from each five in "duty" or
"drivers" ("whip") or "whippers."

Bureau of the faction: subordination in voting.

Control and organizational commissions or groups of flying controllers and organizers (from the Bolshevik faction of the Central Executive Committee).

Flying squads of accountants: banks and other offices.

Written no earlier than December 14 (27)

Published for the first time in 1959

in Lenin Miscellany XXXVI

Printed from the manuscript

PLAN OF THESES ON THE QUESTION

OF THE IMMEDIATE CONCLUSION OF A SEPARATE

AND ANNEXATIONIST PEACE

9. Arguments for an immediate revolutionary war (their incorrectness)
9. - (gg) (1) "promised"... (cf. 13. X. 1915) - - - - (our duty was to prepare for
a revolutionary war)
"Whip"

10. - (aa) (2) international obligations...*
11. - (vv) (3) demoralization...
(bb) (4) "agreement" with German imperialism.*
11 bis | "Agreement" with German imperialism?

Untrue. Example of a strike.
12. Against an immediate revolutionary war and for an annexationist peace:
(.) objectively = agent of Wilson (100 rubles per soldier).
13. (.) va-bank (taking Revel and Estonia, loss of artillery and, perhaps, Peter).
14. (.) impossibility of solving the tasks of the socialist revolution in Russia
with the continuation of the war.
14. (.) fatigue and mood of the army (now democratic).
15. (.) first to strangle the Russian bourgeoisie and reorganize Russia socialistically,
then start a revolutionary war, without stopping preparations for it for a minute.
16. .. If the revolution in the next 1/4-1/2 year in Germany, then we will win,
despite the hardships of the revolutionary war.

If the revolution is later, then there is a 99/100 chance that our power will be overthrown by the exhausted
worker and peasant, will give power to adventurers, who will then conclude an even worse annexationist peace.
17. We have no right to make the fate of the socialist revolution in Russia dependent on such shaky, absolutely unverifiable conditions.
18. What is better: to lose Poland + Lithuania + Courland + etc. or to lose the socialist revolution in Russia?

Further:
To risk losing the socialist revolution because of Poland etc.?

* Points "10. - (aa) (2)" and "11. - (bb) (4)" are crossed out in the manuscript. After point "11. - (bb) (4)"
Lenin added: "see 11 bis on the back" and on the margins also the words: "see 11 bis." Ed.

DRAFT THESES OF BANKING POLICY

There can be no doubt in the answer to this question.

19. Not to put the cards va-bank on a quick (in 1/4-1/2 year) revolution in Europe, but
systematically, without excitement, to prepare a revolutionary war, using the
"busy" war of both groups of imperialist giants.

20. | The policy of a beautiful gesture and a revolutionary phrase - this is the danger of the moment.

21. Objectively: alliance with Wilson or defeat, but no alliance with the imperialists.

22. The forces of both giant groups are approximately equal, without us. Let them exhaust themselves (until the revolution explodes in them too), and we will consolidate the socialist revolution. This is a more reliable path to the international socialist revolution. This is the only path without adventure, without excitement, without va-bank.

Written in early January,

no later than 7 (20), 1918

Published for the first time in 1929

in Lenin Miscellany XI

Printed from the manuscript

DRAFT THESES OF BANKING POLICY*

1. Compile a report of what was received in the banks.
2. Invite a sufficient number of experienced workers to speed up this matter.
3. The nationalization of banks is preserved.
4. All banks are united into one People's Bank of the Russian Republic.
5. Opening as many branches as possible.
6. Declaration of the inviolability of deposits (which, of course, does not diminish the rights
of the state to levy taxes).
7. Free check turnover.
8. Full preservation of worker control (including in the area of issuing money).

* See Works, 5th ed., vol. 36, pp. 219-221. Ed.