V. I.

Lenin

134

To:   J. S. HANECKI [4]

March 30, 1917

Dear Comrade, I thank you with all my heart for the trouble you are taking and for
your help. I cannot, of course, make use of the services of people who are
connected with the publisher of Die Glocke . [5] I cabled you today that the only hope of breaking out
of here is by an exchange of emigrants in Switzerland for German
internees. Britain will on no account let me through, or any
internationalists at all, neither Martov and his friends nor Natanson and
his friends. The British sent Chernov back to France, although he had all
his papers for transit!! It is clear that the Russian proletarian
revolution has no more malignant enemy than the British imperialists. It is
clear that Milyukov (and Co.), agents of Anglo-French imperialist capital,
and Russian imperialists themselves, are capable of everything—deception,
treachery, and everything else—in order to prevent the internationalists
returning to Russia. The least confidence in this respect either in
Milyukov or in Kerensky (an empty chatterer, an agent of the Russian
imperialist bourgeoisie in his objective role) would be simply ruinous for
the working-class movement and for our Party, and would border on betrayal
of internationalism. The only—without exaggeration, the only—hope for
us to get to Russia is to send as soon as possible a reliable person to
Russia, to secure from the government, by pressure from the
“Soviet of Workers’ Deputies”, an exchange of all the emigrants
in Switzerland for interned Germans. It is necessary to act with the
maximum

energy, making a record of every step, not sparing expense on telegrams,
and collecting documents against Milyukov and Co., who are capable of
dragging matters out, feeding us with promises, swindling, etc. You can
imagine what torture it is for all of us to be sitting here at such a time.

Furthermore, the dispatch of a reliable person to Russia is still more necessary for reasons of principle. The latest information in the
foreign press gives clearer and clearer indications that the government,
with the direct help of Kerensky and thanks to the (putting it mildly)
unforgivable wobblings of Chkheidze, is swindling—and swindling not without success —the working class, representing the imperialist war
as a “defensive” one. Judging from the telegram of the St. Petersburg
Telegraph Agency of March 30, 1917, Chkheidze has allowed himself to be
completely deceived by this slogan, adopted also by the Soviet of Workers’
Deputies—if this source, generally unreliable of course, is to be
believed. At all events, even if the report is untrue, the danger
of such a deception is all the same undoubtedly vast . All the
efforts of our Party must be concentrated on fighting it. Our Party would
disgrace itself for ever, commit political suicide, if it tolerated such a
deception. To judge from one report, Muranov returned from Kronstadt
together with Skobelev . If Muranov went there on behalf
of the Provisional Government of the Guchkovs and Milyukovs, I very much
ask you to pass on (through someone reliable), and to print , that
I absolutely condemn this , that any rapprochement with those who
are wobbling in the direction of social-patriotism and have taken up the
profoundly mistaken, profoundly harmful social-pacifist, Kautskian,
position of Chkheidze and Co. is, I am deeply convinced, harmful
for the working class, dangerous , inadmissible .

I hope you have received my “Letters from Afar”
Nos. 1–4, [1] in which I developed the theoretical and political foundation for these
views. If these letters have been lost, or did not reach Petrograd, please
cable me, and I will send you copies.

There is no doubt that in the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’
and Soldiers’ Deputies there are numerous, even, it seems,
a majority of (1) supporters of Kerensky, a most dangerous
agent of the imperialist bourgeoisie, pursuing imperialism, i.e., the defence and justification of a plundering war
of conquest on Russia’s part , under cover of an ocean of
sounding phrases and empty promises, (2) supporters of
Chkheidze, who is wobbling hopelessly in the direction of
social-patriotism and sharing all (he philistinism and stupidity of Kautskianism. Our Party is obliged to carry on the
most stubborn, the most highly principled, the most pressing and most merciless struggle against both currents. And
I personally will not hesitate for a second to declare, and to
declare in print, that I shall prefer even an immediate split
with anyone in our Party, whoever it may be, to making concessions to the social-patriotism of Kerensky and Co. or the
social-pacifism and Kautskianism of Chkheidze and Co.

I must at all costs demand the republication in Petrograd
—if only under the title: From the History of the Last Years of Tsarism —of the Sotsial-Demokrat published here, of the
pamphlet by Lenin and Zinoviev on the war and socialism, [6]
of Kommunist and Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata . But most of
all, and first of all, the theses in No. 47 of Sotsial-Demokrat
(of October 13, 1915). [2]

These theses are now exceptionally important.

These theses say directly, clearly, precisely how we should
act in a revolution in Russia, and they do it 1 1/2 years before
the revolution.

These theses have boon remarkably, literally confirmed by the revolution.

The war has not ceased, and cannot cease , to be imperialist on the part of Russia, so long as
(1) the landowners and capitalists, representatives of the bourgeois class , are in
power; (2) so long as such direct agents and servants of that
bourgeoisie as Kerensky and the other social-patriots are
in power; (3) so long as the treaties between tsarism and the
Anglo-French imperialists remain in force (the Guchkov–
Milyukov government has openly declared abroad —I don’t know whether it has done so in Russia—that it is loyal to
these treaties). They are robber treaties, for the seizure of
Galicia, Armenia, Constantinople, etc., etc.; (4) so long as
these treaties have not been published and not annulled;
(5)
so long as the whole alliance between Russia and the
Anglo-French bourgeois, imperialist governments has not been
broken off altogether; (6) so long as state power in Russia has
not passed from the imperialist bourgeoisie (mere promises
and “pacifist” declarations, however much the stupid
Kautsky, Chkheidze and Co. believe in them, do not transform the
bourgeoisie into a non -bourgeoisie) into the hands of the
proletariat, which alone is capable, on condition that it is
supported by the poorer section of the peasantry, of breaking
not merely in words but in deeds with the interests of capital,
with imperialist policy, with the plundering of other countries, of emancipating the peoples oppressed by the Great
Russians completely , withdrawing the troops from Armenia
and Galicia at once , etc.; (7) only the proletariat is capable,
if it rids itself of the influence of its national bourgeoisie,
of winning the genuine confidence of the proletarians of all
the belligerent countries, and entering into peace negotiations with them ;
(8) these proletarian peace terms are set forth precisely and clearly both in No 47 of Sotsial– Demokrat and in my letter No. 4 .

Hence it is clear that the watchword: “We are now defending the Republic in Russia, we are now carrying on a ‘
defensive war’, we shall fight Wilhelm , we are lighting for the
overthrow of Wilhelm” is the greatest deception, the greatest
swindling of the workers!! For Guchkov-Lvov-Milyukov and Co. are landowners and capitalists, representatives
of the class of landowners and capitalists, imperialists who
are fighting for the same robber ends, on the basis of the same
robber treaties concluded by tsarism, in alliance with the
same imperialist robber bourgeoisie of Britain, France and
Italy.

The appeal to the Germans by the bourgeois and imperialist republic in Russia—“Overthrow Wilhelm”—is a
repetition of the lying slogan of the French social– chauvinists, traitors to socialism, Jules Guesde, Sembat and Co.

In a very popular way, very clearly, without learned words,
it must be explained to the workers and soldiers that it is not only Wilhelm who has to be overthrown, but also the
kings of Great Britain and Italy. That is first of all. And
secondly, and most important , the bourgeois governments must
be overthrown, beginning with Russia —for otherwise peace
cannot be won. It may be that we cannot immediately “overthrow” the government of Guchkov-Milyukov. That
may be so. But that is not an argument for telling an untruth !! The workers must be told the truth . We have to say
that the government of Guchkov-Milyukov and Co. is an imperialist government, that the workers and peasants
must first of all (now or after elections to the Constituent
Assembly, if it is not used to deceive the people, if the
elections are not postponed until after the war—the question of
choice of moment cannot be decided from here), first of all
must transfer all state power into the hands of the working
class, the enemy of capital, the enemy of imperialist war,
and only then will they have the right to appeal for the
overthrow of all kings and all bourgeois governments.

For God’s sake try and deliver all this to Petrograd and
to Pravda , to Muranov and Kamenev and the others. For
God’s sake make every effort to send this with a most reliable person. It would be best of all if a reliable sensible chap
like Kuba went (he would perform a great service to the whole
world working-class movement) and helped our friends in
Petrograd!! I hope you will do this!! Do everything in your
power.

Conditions in Petrograd are exceptionally difficult. The
republican patriots are straining every effort. They are
trying to drown our Party in slander and dirt (the
Chernomazov “affair”: I am sending a document about it [3]

),

etc., etc.

There cannot be any confidence in Chkheidze and Co., or
Sukhanov or Steklov and the like. No rapprochement with
other parties, any of them! Not a shadow of confidence in or
support for the government of Guchkov-Milyukov and Co.!!
The most irreconcilable propaganda of internationalism and
of struggle with republican chauvinism and social– chauvinism everywhere, both in the press and within the Soviet of
Workers’ Deputies: the organisation of our Party: this is the essential. Kamenev must realise that he bears a world–
historic responsibility. [7]

Don’t grudge money on communications between
Stockholm and Petrograd!!

I beg you very much, dear comrade, to cable me on receipt of this letter, and generally to keep me au courant in
every respect. I hope the Swedish friends will also help in
this.

All the best.

Yours, Lenin

---
Notes:
[1]
See present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 295–342.— Ed .

[2]
Reference is to Lenin’s article “Several Theses” (see present
edition, Vol. 21, pp. 401–04).— Ed .

[3]
Reference is to Lenin’s article “Tricks of the Republican
Chauvinists” (see present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 362–64).— Ed .

[4]
Hanecki, J. S. (1879–1937)—prominent figure in the Polish
and Russian revolutionary movements; in 1917, a member of the Bureau Abroad
of the C.C. of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.). After the bourgeois democratic
revolution of February 1917 he took up residence in Stockholm.

[5]
Die Glocke (The Bell)—fortnightly magazine published in
Munich and from 1915 to 1925 in Berlin, by Parvus (Helfand), a member of
the German Social-Democratic Party, social-chauvinist, and agent of the
German imperialists.

[6]
The pamphlet Socialism and War ( The Attitude of the R.S.D.L.P. Towards the War ) was published on the eve of the Zimmerwald
Conference and distributed to the delegates.

In 1918 it was republished by the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Red
Army Deputies (see present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 295–338).

[7]
Lenin stresses the responsibility borne by Kamenev because Kamenev, who
had returned to Petrograd from exile on March 12 1917, had become one of
the editors of Pravda and a representative of the Bolshevik Party
in the Petrograd Soviet.

Kamenev, however, adopted a semi-Menshevik position on certain vital
aspects of Party policy. In articles published in Pravda he argued
that the Bolsheviks should give the Provisional Government conditional
support, while exerting pressure to make it open peace negotiations at
once. In his assessment of the war Kamenev leaned towards
defencism. Kamenev’s position was sharply criticised by Lenin in his
pamphlet Letters on Tactics (see present edition, Vol. 24,
pp. 42–54).