V. I.

Lenin

By betraying socialism and going over to the side of “their own”
capitalists, the social-chauvinists have naturally split up in conformity with the capitalist
groupings in the war. The split itself, just as naturally, is a
temporary one. Plekhanov refuses to confer with Scheidemann, but
that does not prevent him from defending the “International” of
the social-chauvinists, which has betrayed socialism. In other
words, Plekhanov is for a split with the Scheidemanns during the time the capitalists, whose agents they
both are, are split up among themselves. Plekhanov is for unity
with the Scheidemanns when the “masters” (i.e., the capitalists
of both countries) are reconciled. There is no denying a certain
consistency in Plekhanov’s position—the consistency of betrayal of socialism, the consistency of willing and
faithful service to the capitalists.

No wonder the representatives of the international socialist
“Centre” (Kautsky and others), being as they are in favour of
“unity” with the social-chauvinists in general, agree to the
conference organised by that agent of
Scheidemann—Brogbjerg, or themselves organise (like the
Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet) an international
“socialist” conference together with the Scheidemanns and Plekhanovs. No wonder our Russian representatives of the
“Centre”, through their mouthpiece Rabochaya Gazeta , are so angered at our Party’s refusal to attend Borgbjerg’s
conference.

Yesterday evening we received a telegram from our Stockholm
correspondent:

“ Haase, Longuet attending conference. ‘Spartacus’ refused .”

The name " Spartacus " or “Internationale” is used in Germany for the group to which Karl Liebknecht belongs.

There has been a great hullabaloo lately, raised by people who
are particularly interested in upsetting the apple-cart, about
the Liebknecht group having supposedly united with the
Kautskyites in a new Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany . [1] As a matter of fact,
the Liebknecht group is only affiliated to the Kautskyites as an
independent organisation and merely entered into a temporary and
qualified bloc against the social-chauvinists.

The telegram quoted above is one more confirmation of this fact,
When things came to a practical point and a clear and definite
answer had to be given immediately on the question of making
common cause with Scheidemann and his agents, the alliance
between Liebknecht’s group and the Kautsky group crumbled at once.

Some comrades feared that our resolution concerning Borgbjerg
would “isolate” us.

No, comrades! It isolates us from the waverers. There is only one way of helping waverers, and that is by ceasing to
be a waverer yourself.

The correctness of our resolution against Borgbjerg has been
strikingly, fully and speedily confirmed by events. The
Kautskyites of Germany (Haase) and France (Longuet) are still
wavering. They have agreed to confer with the socialchauvinists and cannot make up their minds to dissociate
themselves from them.

In taking upon itself the initiative in bringing about such a
cleavage, our Party has already started to rally the elements of a Third International. The fact that our tactics
coincide with those of the Liebknecht group is no accident. It
is a step towards the inchoate Third International.

---
Notes:
[1]