V. I. Lenin

Source: ru:PSS/v31; en:CW/CW36;es:MT
Translated: machine translation (DeepSeek) from the Russian; AI-translated.

I have outlined several theses, which I will provide with some comments. For lack of time, I was unable to present a detailed, systematic report.

The fundamental question is the attitude to the war. The main thing that stands out when one reads about Russia and sees things here is the victory of defencism, the victory of the betrayers of socialism, the deception of the masses by the bourgeoisie. It is striking that in Russia, in the socialist movement, the situation is the same as in other countries: defencism, “defence of the fatherland”. The difference is that nowhere is there such freedom as we have, and therefore the responsibility before the entire international proletariat falls on us. The new government is imperialist, just like the old one, despite the promise of a republic—it is thoroughly imperialist.

“I. In our attitude to the war, which on the part of Russia and under the new government of Lvov & Co. unquestionably remains a predatory, imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of this government, not the slightest concession to ‘revolutionary defencism’ is permissible.

The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which alone can justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that power passes to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasantry adjoining it; (b) that all annexations are renounced in deed, not in word; (c) that a complete break is made in deed with all interests of capital.

In view of the undoubted good faith of the broad sections of the mass representatives of revolutionary defencism, who recognise the war only as a necessity, and not for the sake of conquest, in view of their being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain to them their error, to explain the inseparable connection between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic, non-coercive peace without the overthrow of capital.

Organisation of the broadest propaganda of this view in the army at the front.

Fraternisation.”

—In our attitude to the war, even under the new government, which remains imperialist, not the slightest concession to defencism is permissible. The masses look at the matter practically, not theoretically. They say: “I want to defend the fatherland, not to seize other people’s lands.” When can a war be considered one’s own? When there is a complete renunciation of annexations.

The masses approach the question not theoretically, but practically. Our mistake is a theoretical approach. The class-conscious proletarian can give his consent to a revolutionary war, which alone can justify revolutionary defencism. With representatives of the soldier masses, the question must be put practically, otherwise it is impossible. We are not pacifists at all. But the fundamental question is: which class is waging the war? The class of capitalists, linked with the banks, can wage no other war but an imperialist one. The working class can. Steklov, Chkheidze have forgotten everything. When you read the resolution of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, you are amazed that people who declare themselves socialists could have passed such a resolution.{64}

What is peculiar in Russia is the gigantically rapid transition from savage violence to the most subtle deception. The basic condition: renunciation of annexations not in word, but in deed. *Rech* howls about the statement of *Sotsial-Demokrat* that the incorporation of Courland into Russia is an annexation. But an annexation is the incorporation of any country distinguished by national features, any incorporation of a nation—regardless of whether it differs in language, if it feels itself a different people—against its will. This is a Great Russian prejudice, fostered for centuries.

The war can be ended only by a complete break with international capital. The war was engendered not by individuals, but by international finance capital. To break with international capital is no easy thing, but neither is ending the war an easy thing. It is childishness, naivety to suppose that the war can be stopped by one side… Zimmerwald, Kienthal{65}… The duty to uphold the honour of international socialism rests more on us than on anyone else. The difficulty of approach…

In view of the undoubted existence of a defencist mood among the broad masses, who recognise the war only as a necessity, and not for the sake of conquest, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain to them that it is impossible to end the war by a non-coercive peace without the overthrow of capital. This idea must be developed widely, on the broadest scale. The soldiers demand a concrete answer—how to end the war. But to promise people that we can end the war by the mere good will of individuals is political charlatanism. The masses must be warned. Revolution is a difficult thing. Mistakes are unavoidable. The mistake is that we (did not expose?) revolutionary defencism in all its depth. Revolutionary defencism is a betrayal of socialism. It is not enough to confine ourselves… We must admit the mistake. What is to be done?—Explain. How to give… those who do not know what socialism is… We are not charlatans. We must base ourselves only on the consciousness of the masses. Even if we have to remain in the minority—so be it. It is worth temporarily renouncing a leading position; we must not be afraid to remain in the minority. When the masses declare that they do not want conquests—I believe them. When Guchkov and Lvov say they do not want conquests, they are deceivers. When a worker says he wants to defend the country, it is the instinct of an oppressed person speaking in him.

“II. The specific feature of the present situation in Russia is that it represents a transition from the first stage of the revolution, which placed power in the hands of the bourgeoisie owing to the insufficient class-consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, to its second stage, which must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry.

This transition is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of legality (Russia is now the freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the other hand, by the absence of violence against the masses, and, finally, by their trustful and unenlightened attitude towards the government of the capitalists, the worst enemies of peace and socialism.

This specific feature demands of us an ability to adapt ourselves to the special conditions of Party work among the unprecedentedly broad masses of the proletariat who have just awakened to political life.”

—Why did they not take power? Steklov says: for such and such reasons. That is nonsense. The fact is that the proletariat is insufficiently class-conscious and insufficiently organised. This must be admitted; material force is in the hands of the proletariat, but the bourgeoisie proved to be class-conscious and prepared. This is a monstrous fact, but it must be frankly and directly admitted and declared to the people that they did not take power because they were unorganised and unenlightened… The ruin of millions, the death of millions. The most advanced countries are perishing, and therefore the question will thus confront them…

The transition from the first stage to the second—the transfer of power to the proletariat and the peasantry—is characterised, on the one hand, by a maximum of legality (Russia is now the freest, the most advanced country in the world); on the other hand, by the trustful and unenlightened attitude of the masses towards the government. Even our Bolsheviks display trustfulness towards the government. This can only be explained by the intoxication of the revolution. This is the ruin of socialism. You, comrades, are trustful towards the government. If so, we are not on the same path. Let me rather remain in the minority. One Liebknecht is worth more than 110 defencists of the Steklov and Chkheidze type. If you sympathise with Liebknecht and extend even a finger (to the defencists), that will be a betrayal of international socialism. If we abandon those people… every oppressed person will come to us, because the war will bring him to us; he has no other way out.

One must approach the people without Latin words, simply, understandably. He has the right…—we must adapt… make the transition, but it is necessary. Our line will prove correct.

“III. No support for the Provisional Government; exposure of the utter falsity of all its promises, especially concerning the renunciation of annexations. Exposure, instead of the inadmissible, illusion-breeding ‘demand’ that this government, a government of capitalists, should cease to be imperialist.”

—*Pravda* demands that the government renounce annexations. To demand of a government of capitalists that it renounce annexations is nonsense, a glaring mockery of…

From a scientific point of view, this is such a depth of deception that the entire international proletariat, all… It is time to admit the mistake. Enough of greetings, resolutions; it is time to get down to business. We must proceed to practical, sober…

“IV. Recognition of the fact that in the majority of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a minority, and so far in a weak minority, as against the bloc of all the petty-bourgeois, opportunist elements who have succumbed to the influence of the bourgeoisie and are carrying its influence to the proletariat—from the Popular Socialists, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, down to the O.C. (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), Steklov, etc., etc.

Explanation to the masses that the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is the only possible form of revolutionary government and that therefore our task, as long as this government is under the influence of the bourgeoisie, can only be a patient, systematic, persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation adapted especially to the practical needs of the masses.

As long as we are in the minority, we carry on the work of criticising and exposing errors, at the same time preaching the necessity of transferring the entire state power to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the masses may by experience free themselves from their errors.”

—We Bolsheviks are accustomed to taking a maximum of revolutionism. But that is not enough. We must analyse.

The real government is the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies. To think otherwise is to fall into anarchism. It is a recognised fact that in the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in the minority. We must explain to the masses that the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is the only possible government, a government unprecedented in the world except for the Commune. What if the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies in its majority stands on a defencist point of view? Nothing can be done. We can only patiently, persistently, systematically explain the erroneousness of their tactics.

As long as we are in the minority, we carry on the work of criticism, to free the masses from deception. We do not want the masses to take us at our word. We are not charlatans. We want the masses to free themselves from their errors by experience.

The appeal of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies—there is not a single word in it imbued with class consciousness. It is all phrase-mongering! The one thing that has ruined all revolutions is phrase-mongering, flattery of the revolutionary people. All Marxism teaches not to succumb to revolutionary phrase-mongering, especially at a moment when it is particularly in vogue.

“V. Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies would be a step backward—but a republic of Soviets of Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom.

Abolition of the police, the army, the bureaucracy.[15]

Payment for all officials, who shall be elected and subject to recall at any time, at a rate not exceeding the average wage of a good worker.”

—This is the lesson taught by the French Commune, which Kautsky forgot and which the workers learned in 1905 and 1917. The experience of these years teaches us not to allow the restoration of the police, not to allow the restoration of the old army.

The programme must be changed; it is outdated. The Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies is a step towards socialism. No police, no army, no bureaucracy. The convocation of the Constituent Assembly—but by whom? Resolutions are written to be shelved or sat upon. I would be glad if the Constituent Assembly were convened tomorrow, but to believe that Guchkov will convene the Constituent Assembly is naive. All the talk about forcing the Provisional Government to convene the Constituent Assembly is empty talk, sheer deception. Revolutions were made, but the police remained; revolutions were made, but all the officials, etc., remained. This is the cause of the ruin of revolutions. The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is the only government that can convene this assembly. We all seized upon the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, but did not understand them. We are pulling back from this form to the International, which trails behind the bourgeoisie.

A bourgeois republic cannot solve the question (of the war), for it can be solved only on an international scale. We do not promise to liberate… but we say that only in this form (Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies) is it possible. No government except the Soviet of Workers’ and Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies. To speak of the Commune—they will not understand. But to say that instead of the police—a Soviet of Workers’ and Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies, learn to govern—no one can hinder us—(this they will understand).

The art of governing cannot be learned from any books. Try, make mistakes, learn to govern.

“VI. In the agrarian programme, the centre of gravity must be shifted to the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.

Confiscation of all landed estates.

Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. Formation of Soviets of Deputies from the poorest peasants. Creation of model farms out of every large estate (ranging in size from about 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other conditions, and to the determination of local bodies) under the control of the Soviet of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies and at public expense.”

—What is the peasantry? We do not know; there are no statistics, but we know that it is a force.

If they take the land, rest assured that they will not give it back to you; they will not ask us. The axis of the programme has shifted; the centre of gravity is the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies. If the Russian peasant does not decide the revolution, the German worker will.

The Tambov peasant…

For the first dessiatine no payment is needed, for the second—1 ruble, for the third—2 rubles. We will take the land, and the landlord will no longer be able to take it back.

Farming on common principles.

It is necessary to form a Soviet of Deputies from the poorest peasants. There is a rich peasant, there is an agricultural labourer. Even if you give him land, he will still not be able to create a farm. It is necessary to create model farms from the large estates, with farming on common principles, and the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies must manage them.

There are large estates.

“VII. Immediate amalgamation of all banks in the country into one national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.”

—The bank is “a form of public book-keeping” (Marx).—The war teaches economy; everyone knows that the banks are plundering the people’s forces. The banks are the nerve, the focus of the national economy. We cannot take the banks into our own hands, but we preach their amalgamation under the control of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.

“VIII. Not the ‘introduction’ of socialism as our immediate task, but the immediate transition merely to control by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies over social production and the distribution of products.”

—Life and the revolution are relegating the Constituent Assembly to the background. Laws are important not because they are written on paper, but because of who implements them. The dictatorship of the proletariat exists, but they do not know what to do with it. Capitalism has developed into state capitalism… Marx… only what has practically matured…

“IX. Party tasks:

(1) immediate Party congress;
(2) alteration of the Party programme, mainly:
   (a) on imperialism and the imperialist war,
   (b) on the attitude to the state and our demand for a ‘commune state’,[16]
   (c) correction of the out-of-date minimum programme;
(3) change of the Party’s name.[17]

X. Renovation of the International.

Initiative in creating a revolutionary International, an International against the social-chauvinists and against the ‘centre’.”[18]

—General summary.

The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies has been created; it enjoys enormous influence. Everyone instinctively sympathises with it. This institution combines far more revolutionary thought than all revolutionary phrases. If the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies can take the administration into its own hands, the cause of freedom is assured. If you write the most ideal laws, who will implement them? The same officials, but they are linked with the bourgeoisie.

Do not say “introduce socialism” to the masses, but—carry out (?). Capitalism has advanced; war capitalism is not what it was before the war.

On the basis of the tactical conclusions, it is necessary to proceed to practical steps. It is necessary to immediately convene a Party congress; it is necessary to revise the programme. Much in it is outdated. It is necessary to change the minimum programme.

Personally, I propose to change the name of the Party, to call it the Communist Party. The name “Communist” the people will understand. The majority of official Social-Democrats have betrayed, have sold out socialism… Liebknecht is the only Social-Democrat… You are afraid to change old memories. But to change one’s linen, one must take off the dirty shirt and put on a clean one. Why discard the experience of the world struggle? The majority of Social-Democrats throughout the world have betrayed socialism and gone over to the side of their governments (Scheidemann, Plekhanov, Guesde). How to make Scheidemann agree… This point of view is the ruin of socialism. To send a radiotelegram to Scheidemann about ending the war…—deception.

The word “Social-Democracy” is inexact. Do not cling to an old word that is thoroughly rotten. You want to build a new Party… and all the oppressed will come to you.

In Zimmerwald and Kienthal the centre gained predominance… *Rabochaya Gazeta*. We will prove to you that all experience has shown… We declare that we have formed a left wing and broken with the centre. Either you speak of the International, then carry out… or you…

The left Zimmerwald trend exists in all countries of the world. The masses must understand that socialism has split throughout the world. The defencists have renounced socialism. Only Liebknecht… The whole future is with him.

I hear that in Russia there is a uniting tendency, a unification with the defencists. That is a betrayal of socialism. I think it is better to remain alone, like Liebknecht: one against 110.