Date: 1917-01
Source: ru:LS/v17

A SHAM OR A REAL SWAMP?

We rub our eyes in astonishment. We reread this important paragraph in Grimm's article and advise the reader to ponder it.
Incredible, but true! In order to prove that the center is a figment of our imagination, Grimm, a representative of this very center of ours, lumps together left internationalists (Liebknecht) and right Zimmerwaldists, or the center!!!
Does Grimm really expect to deceive the Swiss workers and convince them that Liebknecht and the Italian party belong to the same trend? That there is no difference between them, the very difference that separates the left and the center?
Let us present our arguments:
Firstly, let us hear a witness who belongs neither to the center nor to the left. The German social-imperialist Ernst Heilmann wrote on August 12, 1916, in "Glocke," p. 772: ... "The business association, or the Zimmerwald right, whose theorist is Kautsky, and whose political leaders are Haase and Ledebour" — Can Grimm dispute that Kautsky — Haase — Ledebour are typical representatives of the center?
Secondly. Can it remain unknown to Grimm that the Zimmerwald right, or the center, in modern socialism opposes an immediate break with the I.S.B., the International Socialist Bureau in The Hague, the bureau of social-patriots? That the left stands for this break? That representatives of the "International" group in Kienthal — to which Liebknecht belongs — speak out against the convocation of the I.S.B. and fight for a break with it?
Thirdly.
Has
Grimm forgotten that social-pacifism, directly condemned by the Kienthal resolution, has now become the platform of the center in France, Germany, and Italy? That the entire Italian party, which has not protested against the numerous socialist-icist resolutions and statements of its parliamentary group, nor against Turati's shameful speech on December 17, stands on the platform of social-pacifism? That both left groups in Germany, as well as the I.S.G. (International Socialists of Germany) and "International" (or the Spartacus group, to which Liebknecht belongs) directly rejected the social-pacifism of the center? It should not be forgotten that the most malicious social-imperialists and social-patriots of France, led by Sembat, Renaudel, and Jouhaux, also voted for social-pacifist resolutions.

Jouhaux at the head also voted for social-pacifist resolutions and that thereby the real, objective meaning of social-pacifism has been particularly vividly revealed.
Fourthly... but enough! Grimm takes precisely the standpoint of the Center, in that he advises the Swiss party to "content" itself, like the Italian party, with rejecting war credits and the civil peace. Grimm criticizes the proposals of the majority precisely from the standpoint of the Center, because this majority wants to approach the standpoint of Liebknecht.
Grimm pleads for clarity, openness, honesty. Good! Is it not the first commandment of these excellent qualities to clearly, openly, honestly distinguish the standpoint and tactics of Liebknecht from those of the Center? Not to lump them together?
To be with Liebknecht means: 1) to attack the main enemy in one's own country; 2) to expose and fight the social-patriots of one's own country (and not only of foreign countries, with all due respect, Comrade Grimm!), not to unite with them — with all due respect, Comrade Grimm! — against the left radicals; 3) to openly criticize not only the social-patriots, but also the social-pacifists and the "center people" in one's own country and expose their weaknesses; 4) to use the parliamentary tribune to call on the proletariat to revolutionary struggle, to turn weapons around; 5) to distribute uncensored leaflets and organize unauthorized meetings; 6) to arrange proletarian demonstrations, such as those on the Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, where Liebknecht was arrested; 7) to call for strikes by munitions workers, as the "International" group did by means of uncensored leaflets; 8) to openly prove the necessity of a complete "regeneration" of today's parties, which are limited to reformist activity, and to act in this sense, as Liebknecht did; 9) to unequivocally reject the defense of the fatherland in the imperialist war; 10) to fight against reformism and opportunism within social democracy along the entire front; 11) to proceed just as ruthlessly against the trade union leaders who, in all countries, especially in Germany, England, and Switzerland, formed the vanguard of social-patriotism and opportunism, and so on.
It is clear that from this point of view, much in the majority's draft would be subject to criticism. But this can only be discussed in a separate article. Now it is important to emphasize that the majority, in any case, proposes some steps in this direction, but Grimm attacks this majority not from the left, but from the right, not from the point of view of Liebknecht, but from the point of view of the center.
In his article, Grimm constantly confuses two fundamentally different questions: firstly, the question of when, at what moment, this or that revolutionary action should be carried out. To try to resolve this question in advance is nonsense, and Grimm's reproaches against the majority that stem from this are nothing more than throwing dust in the eyes of the workers.
The second question: how to transform and reshape the party, which is now incapable of waging a systematic, persistent, and, under any concrete circumstances, truly revolutionary struggle, into a party that would be capable of this.
This is the most important question! Here is the root of the entire dispute, the entire struggle of trends in the military question, as well as in the question of the defense of the country! And it is precisely this question that is hushed up, glossed over, obscured by Grimm. Moreover: Grimm's explanations boil down to the fact that this question is denied by him.
Everything remains as before — this is the red thread that runs through Grimm's entire article: this is the deepest basis for why this article represents the center. Everything remains as before: only the rejection of war credits and the civil peace! Every intelligent bourgeois cannot but admit that in the end this is not unacceptable to the bourgeoisie either; this does not yet threaten the rule of the bourgeoisie, it does not prevent it from waging war ("we submit" as a "minority in the country" — these words of Grimm have a very, very great political significance, much greater than it seems at first glance!).
And is it not an international fact that the bourgeoisie and its governments in the very warring countries, primarily in England and Germany, persecute only the supporters of Liebknecht and tolerate the representatives of the center?
Forward to the left, even if this is associated with the departure of some social-patriotic leaders! — this, in short, is the political meaning of the majority's proposals.

Back from Zimmerwald, to the right, to social-pacifism, to the position of the center, to "peace" with the social-patriotic leaders, no mass actions, no revolutionizing of the movement, no regeneration of the party! — this is Grimm's point of view.
Hopefully, it will finally open the eyes of the Swiss left radicals to his centrist position.
Lenin gives a detailed critique of Turati's speech in the Italian parliament on December 17, 1916, in his article: "Bourgeois Pacifism and Socialist Pacifism" (see Works, vol. XIX, p. 359).

The demonstration on Potsdamer Platz in Berlin, during which K. Liebknecht, who was distributing anti-war leaflets, was arrested, took place on May 1, 1916.

THE DEFENSE OF NEUTRALITY.
January 1917. Zurich.
The recognition of the proposition that the present war is an imperialist war, i.e., a war between two major predators for domination over the world and its plunder, does not yet prove that it is necessary to reject the defense of the Swiss fatherland. We, the Swiss, are defending precisely our neutrality, we have occupied our borders with troops precisely in order to avoid participating in this predatory war!
This is what the social-patriots, the Grütlians, within and outside the socialist party, say.
This argument is based on the following tacitly accepted or imperceptibly slipped-in premises:
Uncritical repetition of what the bourgeoisie says and what it must say in order to preserve its class rule.
Complete trust in the bourgeoisie and complete distrust towards the proletariat.
Ignoring the real, not fabricated, international situation, which has developed on the basis of imperialist relations between all European countries and the imperialist "interconnectedness" of the Swiss capitalist class.

Didn't the Romanian and Bulgarian bourgeoisies assure for months in the most solemn manner that their military preparations were dictated allegedly "only" by the defense of neutrality?
Are there serious, scientific grounds for drawing a fundamental distinction in this matter between the aforementioned bourgeoisies and the Swiss bourgeoisie?
Of course not! When it is pointed out that in Romania and Bulgaria the bourgeoisie is obsessed with a passion for conquests and annexations, and that this cannot be established in relation to the Swiss bourgeoisie, this cannot be considered a fundamental difference. Imperialist interests manifest themselves, as everyone knows, not only in territorial acquisitions, but also in financial ones. It must not be overlooked that the Swiss bourgeoisie exported capital of at least 3 billion francs, i.e., it imperialistically exploits backward peoples. This is a fact. It is also a fact that Swiss banking capital is most closely connected and intertwined with the banking capital of the great powers, that the "Fremdenindustrie" of Switzerland, etc., signifies the constant division of imperialist wealth between the great powers and Switzerland. In addition, Switzerland is at a much higher stage of development of capitalism than Romania and Bulgaria; there can be absolutely no talk of any "national" popular movement in Switzerland. This era of historical development ended for Switzerland many centuries ago, which cannot be said of any of the aforementioned Balkan states.
So: it behooves a bourgeois to strive to instill in the people, the exploited, trust in the bourgeoisie, and to try to cover up the real imperialist policy of "his" bourgeoisie with suitable phrases.
It behooves a socialist to do something completely different. Namely: to mercilessly expose, without allowing any illusions, the real policy of "his" bourgeoisie. Such a continuation of this real policy of the Swiss bourgeoisie as selling its people to one or another imperialist coalition of powers would be much more likely and much more "natural" (i.e., more in accordance with the nature of this bourgeoisie) than defending democracy in the true sense of the word, in contradiction with the interests of profit.
"To each his own": let the Grütlians, as servants and agents of the bourgeoisie, deceive the people with phrases about "defending neutrality."
And the socialists, the fighters against the bourgeoisie, must open the people's eyes to the real danger, proven by the entire history of Swiss bourgeois politics, of being sold by "their" bourgeoisie!

* TO THE ARTICLE: "HISTORY OF A SMALL PERIOD IN THE LIFE OF A SOCIALIST PARTY."
END OF FEBRUARY 1917.
* ARTICLE PLAN.
History of a small period of 35 days (7.1 - 11.1), in a small country.
(or the collapse of Zimmerwaldism in the Swiss Socialist Party).
7.1. - Socialist Grimm + social-patriots against socialist workers.
Protest Platten + Nobs + Naine.
Nobs + Platten surrender [o s J rec]; Affolter] und] Schmid] rejection of the defense of the fatherland.
23.1 - Referendum = platform of the left.
Furious attack of the center on the platform of the left. Howl, slop, slop, howl (Grimm + Schneider + L. Schmid at the head). Huber.
- Affolter and Schmid. Rejection of the defense of the fatherland. Reo.
- (Grimm + Schneider + Schmid at the head). Huber. Red.

HISTORY OF A SMALL PERIOD OF A SOCIALIST PARTY
* The nature of this bourgeoisie), than defending democracy in the true sense of the word, in contradiction with the interests of profit.
"To each his own": let the Grütlians, as servants and agents of the bourgeoisie, deceive the people with phrases about "defending neutrality."
And the socialists, the fighters against the bourgeoisie, must open the people's eyes to the real danger, proven by the entire history of Swiss bourgeois politics, of being sold by "their" bourgeoisie!
*22.1 - Yolksrecht | Ultimatum] G. Mügler (from Schulz)| Ultimatum] Greulich (in the article, No. 4; Large article about the majority] and *26.1 - article about the minority]
27.1 - (Nobs) "does not share the motivation" (of the referendum)
;>^ I - Nobs renounces the motives of the referendum!. Platten is silent.
31. 1.- printed 1.11. Geschäftsführung. Semi-concession.
I. II. - Olten (No. 1) (Nil*** in print).
I. II. - article 1) Platten in Yolksrecht
*>.11. - (article], 4) Scheidemann oder Liebknecht?
3. II. - Grimm "unites" Nobs + Platten (Olten No. 2)
'6.11. "Ultimatum" "Jak. Baumann". Platten is compromised (with social-patriots)
£7.11. nil.]
9.II. Publication of new theses. ((Fertig!)) *****
II.11. Cantonal party day. Apotheosis: erstklassige, feierliche Beerdigung des Zimmerwaldismus!!! ******
* - Large article. Red.
** - Party leadership. Red.
*’*— Nothing. Red.
*** This line is additionally written in pencil. Red.
'*** - Ready. Red.
’"*** - Apotheosis: first-class, solemn funeral of Zimmerwaldism. Red.

Platten in the 1st article on the Mil[tar|frage] (1. II):... "Certainly, one missed in the commission the clear head and fearless consistent fighter of Zimmerwald, who advocated putting the military question on the back burner until after the war"... "The military question is not only a struggle of opinions around this question, but also a certain direction in the further development of the party, the struggle against opportunism in the party, the opposition to reformists and for the revolutionary class struggle."
In the 4th article (6. II):... "Our party congresses must choose between the politics of Scheidemann and Karl Liebknecht......
II.
HISTORY OF A SMALL PERIOD OF A SOCIALIST PARTY.
7. I. 1917: Meeting of the Party Executive of the Socialist Party of Switzerland. The leader of the "Center," B. Grimm, unites with the social-patriotic leaders and postpones the party congress (which was to discuss the military question and which was scheduled for February 11, 1917) indefinitely.
Nobs, Platten, Naine, and others protest and vote against this.
Greatest indignation against this postponement in the circles of class-conscious workers.
9. I. 1917. Publication of the resolutions of the majority and the minority. In the draft of the majority, there is no clear statement against the defense of the fatherland (Affolter and Schmid were against this), but in § 3 it still contains the requirement: "Obligation of party representatives in parliament to reject all military demands and credits with principled motivation." This should be well remembered!
23. I. 1917. The Zurich "Volksrecht" prints the justification for the referendum. In this justification, the postponement is sharply, but completely correctly, characterized as a victory of the Grütlians over socialism.
A storm of indignation from the leaders against this referendum. Grimm in the "Berner Tagwacht," Jacques Schmid (Olten) in the "Neue Freie Zeitung," F. Schneider in the "Basler Vorwarts," then, in addition to these "centrists," the social-patriot Huber in the St. Gallen "Volksstimme," - they all shower the initiators of the referendum with abuse and threats.
R. Grimm stands at the head of this p