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).