**The Attitude of the Proletariat Toward the Questions of Peace.**

**Proposed Theses**

[*objectively*]

The present war is the result of the imperialist antagonisms (*essence*) engendered by bourgeois property relations; its aim is the regrouping of the balance of power among the capitalist classes on the world market, in accordance with the military successes achieved in the war.

Inasmuch as the aim of the war is not the abolition of the capitalist commodity production which gave rise to it, neither can it eliminate the causes of future wars. It leaves the old problems unsolved, entangles them, and creates new antagonisms which, on the basis of unimpeded imperialist development alongside increased economic and military pressure, conjure up new conflicts and thereby the danger of further warlike entanglements. When, therefore, the bourgeois governments and their agents assert that the war has as its purpose the creation of a lasting peace, they are lying or they ignore the conditions for the realisation of such an aim. Just as little as annexations — that is, the suppression of foreign peoples — can serve as the means to secure a peaceful development of humanity, just as little can lasting peace be brought about by demands which, however well intentioned, stand in contradiction to the historical conditions of capitalism, such as: limitation of armaments, introduction of obligatory arbitration, democratisation of foreign policy, etc.

On the soil of a class society these demands remain a utopia. The limitation of armaments, which is itself merely a means of an armistice between the imperialist states, is capable neither of abolishing nor of mitigating the causes of war, quite apart from the fact that in the era of imperialism there exists no universally valid standard by which armaments could be limited. Obligatory arbitration presupposes a universally recognised law which can neither be created by the brutal force of an imperialist war nor realised in a class society whose legal morality in each case flows from the material interests of its ruling class. The democratisation of foreign policy presupposes, alongside political democracy, social democracy within the states themselves, which is in turn impossible so long as the capitalist form of property and therewith the exploitation of man by man persists.

*Incorrect!*

*Unrealisable by reformist means, unrealisable without revolutions, incapable of being lasting without socialism — something like that…*

*The emphasis does not lie there.*

*Quite incorrect!!*

*Hence against Democracy*

The same presupposition holds for the so-called right of self-determination of nations. So long as the peoples in their internal economic, political, and social relations are dominated by a possessing class which disposes of all economic and state means of power, with which it subjugatingly exploits its own compatriots, the people cannot determine its own fate.

*reformist*

*reformist (opportunist)*

From these considerations, the proletariat must reject just as sharply as it repudiates the imperialist war the utopian demands of bourgeois pacifists and embourgeoisified Socialists, who are preparing to awaken new illusions in place of old ones and to place the proletariat in the service of these illusions, which in the last analysis serve only confusion, the fanning and stoking of chauvinism, enthusiasm for war, and the policy of holding out in war.

If on the soil of capitalist society there is no possibility of establishing a lasting peace, then its preconditions are created in the struggle for socialism. By abolishing capitalist private property, socialism abolishes with the exploitation of the popular masses by the possessing classes and therewith national oppression at the same time the causes of war. The struggle for lasting peace can therefore consist solely in

*Indefinite: reforms are also* — *that is the correct argument.*

the struggle for the realisation of socialism. Every proletarian action which abandons the class struggle and subordinates the proletarian aims to those of the bourgeois classes and their governments, by declaring its solidarity with the national exploiting class, works against the conditions of a lasting peace. Such action not only entrusts to the capitalist classes and bourgeois governments a task which they cannot fulfil; it delivers, moreover, the finest forces of the working class needlessly to the slaughterhouse, and thereby consecrates to ruin and destruction the strongest and most capable part of the working class, which both during the war and in the subsequent time of peace would be called above all to lead the struggle for socialism.

The sole possible solution, from the standpoint of proletarian interests, in opposition to the bourgeois peace aims, is therefore the call for

*Exposure of the predatory policy*

an armistice and the immediate institution of peace negotiations, regardless of the present state of the military and strategic situation.

*— of secret treaties and etc.*

Only in the measure in which this call finds a hearing in the ranks of the international proletariat and leads to vigorous actions in the spirit of the class struggle, with the overthrow of capitalist class domination as the ultimate aim, will the working class succeed in gaining influence over the content of the coming peace.

Every other attitude excludes the influence of the proletariat on the content of the peace and leaves the determination of its conditions to the decree of the governments, of diplomacy, and of the ruling classes.

While the proletariat, in the revolutionary mass struggle for the ultimate aims of socialism and thereby for the liberation of humanity from the scourge of militarism and war, acts simultaneously against all annexationist desires of the belligerents — it is not because it regards the world map as it existed before the war as an inviolable entity, not because it considers a future reshaping of national frontiers unnecessary and excluded, that it must wage the struggle against annexations. Socialism itself strives toward the abolition of all national oppression through the economic and political unification of the peoples on a democratic basis, which cannot be realised within the framework of capitalist state frontiers. The attainment of this aim is made more difficult precisely by annexations, in whatever form they appear, because the forcible dismemberment of nations, their arbitrary partition and incorporation into foreign states, worsens the conditions of the proletarian class struggle.

Equally incompatible as annexation with the interests of the proletariat is the demand for war indemnities. Just as the ruling classes in every country seek to shift the costs of the conduct of the war onto the shoulders of the working class, so too would the costs of war indemnities ultimately have to be borne by the proletariat of the country in question. This

*and Revolution — if one omits here what is specific, that is, the Revolution, then this good sentence becomes an opportunist commonplace.*

shifting also injures the working class of the victorious country, in that the worsening of the economic and social position of the proletariat of one country reacts upon the proletariat of another country and thereby renders the conditions of the international class struggle more difficult.

*Annulment of state debts instead of indemnities.*

Neither annexations nor war indemnities, but rather the common shifting of the burdens of war in the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against the ruling classes in each country — that is the watchword of the socialist workers in their action for the immediate bringing about of peace.

Precisely because the present war is very deeply rooted in the totality of conditions of the imperialist epoch (competition for world domination, finance capital, monopolies, the division of the world, etc.), therefore well-meaning phrases about a lasting peace, a democratic peace, and so on, about a peace which supposedly

Draft Theses

The present war is the result of imperialist contradictions engendered by bourgeois property relations; its aim is the regroupment of the balance of forces between the capitalist classes on the world market in accordance with the military successes achieved in the war.

Since the aim of this war is not the abolition of the capitalist commodity production which gave rise to it, it is likewise incapable of removing the causes of future wars. It leaves the old problems unsolved, entangles them still further, and creates new contradictions which, on the basis of unimpeded imperialist development, give rise, alongside the intensification of economic and militarist oppression, to new conflicts, and thereby to the danger of further armed clashes.

Therefore, when bourgeois governments and their agents assert that the aim of the war is the establishment of a lasting peace, they are lying, or ignoring the conditions necessary for the attainment of such a goal. Just as annexations, i.e., the oppression of alien peoples, cannot be a means of ensuring the peaceful development of mankind, so too it is impossible to establish a lasting peace by means of such demands as, however well-intentioned, contradict the historical conditions of the development of capitalism — demands such as the limitation of armaments, the introduction of compulsory arbitration, the democratisation of foreign policy, and so on. On the soil of [capitalist] class society these demands remain a utopia.

The limitation of armaments, which in itself is merely a means of establishing a truce between imperialist states, can neither abolish nor mitigate the causes of war — to say nothing of the fact that in the epoch of imperialism there exists no universally binding standard on the basis of which armaments could be limited.

Compulsory arbitration presupposes the existence of a universally recognised body of law, which can neither be created by means of the brute force of imperialist war, nor realised in a class society whose sense of justice at every given stage derives from the material interests of its ruling class.

The democratisation of foreign policy presupposes, alongside political democracy, the existence also of social democracy in the internal life of states, the creation of which is in turn impossible so long as the capitalist form of property, and thereby the exploitation of man by man, continues to exist.

*Incorrect! Not realisable by reformist means, not realisable without revolutions, not capable of being lasting without socialism, as for example,...*

The same preconditions are necessary for the so-called right of nations to self-determination. So long as peoples in their internal economic, political, and social relations are subject to the domination of the propertied classes, who dispose of all economic and state means of power by which they oppress and exploit their own compatriots, the people cannot determine their own destiny.

*The main point does not lie here. Completely wrong!! This means being against democracy.*

*# reformist.*

*~ \ / ~ Reformist (opportunist).*

Proceeding from these considerations, the proletariat must, with the same resolution with which it rejects the imperialist war, also reject the utopian demands of the bourgeois pacifists and the embourgeoisified socialists, who propose to awaken new illusions in place of the old ones and to make the proletariat serve these illusions — illusions which in the final analysis serve only to promote confusion, to stir up and fan chauvinism, the militarist frenzy, and the policy of war to a victorious conclusion.

If a lasting peace cannot be established on the soil of capitalist society, then its preconditions are created in the struggle for socialism. Socialism, by abolishing capitalist private property, eliminates simultaneously with the exploitation of the popular masses by the propertied classes, and thereby with national oppression, also the causes of war. Therefore the struggle for a lasting peace

*Indefinite: reforms are also — this is a correct argument.*

can consist only in the struggle for the realisation of socialism. Every proletarian action which represents an abandonment of the class struggle and subordinates the aims of the proletariat to the aims of the bourgeois classes and their governments, insofar as it solidarises with the national class of exploiters, hinders the creation of conditions for a lasting peace. Such actions merely entrust to the capitalist classes and bourgeois governments a task which they are incapable of fulfilling; they moreover cast to no purpose the finest forces of the working class into the slaughter, and thereby consign to destruction and annihilation the most energetic and capable section of the working class, which is above all called upon to wage the struggle for socialism both during the war and in the period of peace that follows it.

*+ the exposure of the predatory policy formulated in the secret treaties, etc.*

*+*

The only solution to the question that is possible from the standpoint of proletarian interests, as against the bourgeois aims of peace, is therefore the call for the immediate conclusion of an armistice and the without-delay commencement of peace negotiations, irrespective of the military and strategic situation at the given stage.

Only insofar as this call finds an echo in the ranks of the international proletariat and leads to energetic actions in the spirit of the class struggle with the ultimate aim of overthrowing capitalist class rule, will the working class succeed in exerting influence upon the character of the future peace. Any other position excludes the influence of the proletariat upon the character of the peace and leaves the determination of its conditions to the arbitrary will of governments, diplomacy, and the ruling classes.

Waging the revolutionary mass struggle for the realisation of the ultimate aims of socialism, and thereby for the deliverance of mankind from the scourge of militarism and war, the proletariat must simultaneously come out against all annexationist aspirations of the belligerent states. The proletariat must wage the struggle against annexations not because it regards the (political) map of the world as it existed before the war as some inviolable quantity, not because it considers the future formation of new state boundaries as unnecessary and impossible. Socialism itself strives for the abolition of all national oppression through the economic and political unification of peoples on a democratic basis, which cannot be realised within the framework of capitalist state boundaries. But it is precisely annexations, in whatever form they may appear, that make the attainment of this goal more difficult, because the forcible dismemberment of nations, their arbitrary division and incorporation into alien states, worsen the conditions of the proletarian class struggle.

Equally incompatible with the interests of the proletariat, alongside annexations, is the demand for indemnities. Just as the ruling classes in each country strive to place the burden of the costs of the war upon the shoulders of the working class, so too the burden of paying indemnities will in the final analysis have to be borne by the proletariat of the respective country. Such a shifting of the burden of costs will also inflict damage upon the working class of the victorious country, insofar as the worsening of the economic and social position of the proletariat of one country exerts a reciprocal effect upon the proletariat of another country, and thereby renders more difficult the conditions of the international class struggle.

Neither annexations nor indemnities, but the common liberation from the burden of war through the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat against the ruling classes in each country — and revolution

*# when what is specific here is omitted, i.e., revolution, then this good proposition is transformed into an opportunist hackneyed phrase.*

*+ annulment of state debts.*

— such is the slogan of the socialist workers in their campaign for the immediate establishment of peace.

Precisely because the present war is very deeply rooted in the totality of relations of the imperialist epoch (competition for world domination, finance capital, monopolies, the partition of the world, etc.), for this reason well-meaning phrases about a lasting peace, about a democratic peace, and so on — about a peace which is allegedly possible under the present governments, with the preservation of power in the hands of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie — such phrases deceive the masses, concealing from them the real, actual foundations of imperialist policy, inspire false confidence in the bourgeoisie, and are transformed into reformism.*