Among the pacifists, there is something of a holiday atmosphere on the streets. The virtuous bourgeois of the neutral countries are jubilant: “We have warmed our hands enough on war profits and the high cost of living; isn’t that enough? any more, perhaps, and you won’t get any profit anyway, while the people may not endure it to the end...”

How can they fail to jubilate when “His Excellency” Wilson himself “paraphrases” the pacifist statement of the Italian Socialist Party, which has just adopted, in Kienthal, an official and solemn resolution on the complete bankruptcy of social-pacifism?

Is it surprising that Turati exults in *Avanti!* over this paraphrasing by Wilson of their, the Italian “also-socialist,” pacifist phrases? Is it surprising that the French social-pacifists and Kautskyites lovingly “unite” in their *Le Populaire*{118} with Turati and with Kautsky, who has come out in the German Social-Democratic press with five especially stupid pacifist articles, also, of course, “paraphrasing” the chatter about a nice, kind, democratic peace which events have placed on the agenda?

This chatter, however, indeed differs from the previous kind precisely in that it now possesses a certain objective basis. Such a basis has been created by the turn in world politics from the imperialist war, which has rewarded the peoples with the greatest calamities and the greatest betrayal of socialism by Messrs. Plekhanov, Albert Thomas, Legien, Scheidemann and Co., to an imperialist peace, which is to reward the peoples with the greatest deception of nice, kind phrases, half-reforms, half-concessions, etc.

This turn has arrived.

It is impossible to know at the present moment—and the leaders of imperialist politics themselves, the financial kings and the crowned brigands, are also unable to determine this with precision—exactly when this imperialist peace will come, what changes in the war will occur before then, what the details of this peace will be. But this is not important. What is important is the fact of the turn towards peace, the fundamental character of this peace, and these two circumstances have already been sufficiently clarified by the preceding development of events.

Over 29 months of war, the resources of both imperialist coalitions have been sufficiently determined; all, or almost all, possible allies from among the nearest “neighbours” who represent a serious quantity have been drawn into the slaughter; the strength of the armies and fleets has been tested and retested, measured and remeasured. Finance capital has amassed billions: the mountain of war debts shows the magnitude of the tribute that the proletariat and the propertyless masses “must” now pay over decades to the international bourgeoisie for having most graciously permitted them to slaughter millions of their brothers in wage-slavery in the war for the division of the imperialist spoils.

To flay even more hides from the oxen of wage-labour with the aid of this war is, perhaps, already impossible—this is one of the profound economic bases of the turn now observed in world politics. It is impossible because resources in general are becoming exhausted. The American billionaires and their junior brothers in Holland, Switzerland, Denmark, and other neutral countries are beginning to notice that the golden spring is running dry—this is the source of the growth of neutral pacifism, not the noble humanitarian feelings, as the naïve, pitiful, ridiculous Turati, Kautsky and Co. imagine.

Moreover, the discontent and indignation of the masses are growing. In the previous issue, we cited the testimony of Guchkov and Helfferich{119}, showing that both fear revolution. Is it not time to end the first imperialist slaughter?

The objective conditions compelling a cessation of the war are thus supplemented by the action of the class instinct and the class calculation of a bourgeoisie that has gorged itself on war profits.

The political turn, based on this economic turn, proceeds along two main lines: victorious Germany is detaching the allies of its chief enemy, England, from it, on the one hand, by the fact that the heaviest blows have been dealt (and may still be dealt) precisely not to England, but precisely to these allies, and, on the other hand, by the fact that German imperialism, having plundered a very great deal indeed, is in a position to offer England’s allies half-concessions.

It is possible that a separate peace between Germany and Russia has been concluded after all. Only the form of the political deal between these two brigands has been changed. The tsar could have said to Wilhelm: “If I openly sign a separate peace, then tomorrow, O my most august counterpart, you may well have to deal with a government of Milyukov and Guchkov, if not Milyukov and Kerensky. For the revolution is growing, and I cannot vouch for the army, whose generals are in correspondence with Guchkov, and whose officers are now mostly yesterday’s schoolboys. Is it to our advantage to risk my losing the throne and you losing a good counterpart?”

“Of course, it is not to our advantage,” Wilhelm must have replied, if such a thing was said to him directly or indirectly. “And indeed, why do we need an open separate peace or anything written on paper at all? Cannot the same be achieved by another, more subtle path? I will openly address all humanity with a proposal to bless them with the boons of peace. Under the cover of this, I will wink at the French that I am ready to give back all or almost all of France and Belgium for ‘divine’ concessions of their colonies in Africa—and at the Italians, that they may count on a ‘little piece’ of the Italian lands of Austria, plus pieces in the Balkans. I am in a position to ensure that my proposals and plans become known to the peoples: will the English then be able to hold their West European allies any longer? And you and I will divide up Romania, Galicia, Armenia—as for Constantinople, O my most august brother, you won’t see it any more than you’ll see your own ears! And Poland, O my most august brother, you won’t see that either, any more than your ears!”

Whether such a conversation took place cannot be known. Nor is it essential. What is essential is that affairs have proceeded precisely in this way. If the tsar did not agree to the arguments of the German diplomats, then the “arguments” of Mackensen’s army in Romania must have had a more persuasive effect.

And the plan for dividing Romania between Russia and the “Quadruple Alliance” (i.e., Germany’s allies, Austria and Bulgaria) is already being openly discussed in the German imperialist press! And the talkative Hervé has already blabbed: we will not be able to force the people to fight if they learn that we could right now get Belgium and France back. And the pacifist simpletons from the neutral bourgeoisie have already been put “to work”: Wilhelm has loosened their tongues! And the pacifist... sages among the socialists, Turati in Italy, Kautsky in Germany, and so on and so forth, are straining every nerve, applying their humanity, their love of mankind, their unearthly virtue (and their high intellect) to the embellishment of the impending imperialist peace!

How well everything is arranged, after all, in this best of all possible worlds! We, the financial kings and the crowned brigands, got entangled in the politics of imperialist plunder, we had to wage war—well, what of it? We will profit from the war no less than from peace, even much better! And lackey servitors to proclaim our war a “liberation” war—all these Plekhanovs, Albert Thomases, Legiens, Scheidemanns and Co.—we have as many as you like! If the time comes to conclude an imperialist peace?—well, what of it? War debts, after all, are obligations guaranteeing our sacred right to levy a hundredfold tribute upon the peoples, are they not? And simpletons to embellish this imperialist peace, to dupe the peoples with sugary speeches, we have as many as you like, just take Turati, Kautsky, and the other “leaders” of world socialism!

The tragicomedy of Turati’s and Kautsky’s pronouncements consists precisely in the fact that they do not understand the actual, objective, political role they are playing: the role of little priests consoling the peoples instead of rousing them to revolution; the role of bourgeois lawyers who, with high-flown phrases about all sorts of good things in general and about a democratic peace in particular, obscure, cover up, embellish, clothe the disgusting nakedness of an imperialist peace that traffics in peoples and carves up countries.

The fundamental unity of the social-chauvinists (the Plekhanovs and the Scheidemanns) and the social-pacifists (Turati and Kautsky) consists precisely in the fact that both objectively represent lackeys of imperialism: the former “serve” it by embellishing the imperialist war by applying to it the concept of “defence of the fatherland”; the latter serve that same imperialism by embellishing the ripening and being prepared imperialist peace with phrases about a democratic peace.

The imperialist bourgeoisie needs lackeys of both types or shades: the Plekhanovs—to encourage the prolongation of the slaughter by shouting “Down with the conquerors”; the Kautskys—to console and calm the excessively embittered masses by singing sugary praises of peace.

Therefore, the general unification of the social-chauvinists of all countries with the social-pacifists—that general “conspiracy against socialism” of which one address of the International Socialist Commission in Berne{120} speaks, that “general amnesty” of which we have often spoken—will not be an accident, but merely a manifestation of the fundamental unity of both these trends of world “also-socialism.” It is no accident that Plekhanov, at one and the same time, frenziedly shouts about Scheidemann’s “treachery” and hints at peace and unity with these gentlemen when the time comes.

But—the reader might object—can it be forgotten that an imperialist peace is “still better” than an imperialist war? That if not entirely, then “as far as possible,” “in parts,” the programme of a democratic peace can be realised? That an independent Poland is better than a Russian Poland? That the annexation of the Italian lands of Austria to Italy constitutes a step forward?

It is with such considerations that the defenders of Turati and Kautsky cover themselves, not noticing that in doing so they are turning from revolutionary Marxists into ordinary bourgeois reformists.

Is it possible, without going mad, to deny that Bismarck’s Germany and its social laws are “better” than Germany before 1848? That the Stolypin reforms are “better” than Russia before 1905? Does it follow from this that the German Social-Democrats (they were still Social-Democrats at that time) voted for Bismarck’s reforms? Were the Stolypin reforms embellished or even supported by the Russian Social-Democrats—except, of course, for Messrs. Potresov, Maslov and Co., from whom even Martov, a member of their own party, now turns away with contempt?

History does not stand still even during counter-revolutions. History moved forward even during the imperialist slaughter of 1914–1916, which was a continuation of the imperialist politics of the preceding decades. World capitalism, which in the 1860s and 1870s was the advanced and progressive force of free competition, and which at the beginning of the 20th century outgrew itself into monopoly capitalism, i.e., imperialism, took a considerable step forward during the war, not only towards an even greater concentration of finance capital, but also towards transformation into state capitalism. The strength of national cohesion, the significance of national sympathies, was revealed in this war by the conduct, for example, of the Irish in one imperialist coalition and of the Czechs in the other. The conscious leaders of imperialism tell themselves: we cannot, of course, achieve our aims without the strangulation of small nations, but there are, after all, two methods of strangulation. There are cases when it is more reliable—and more profitable—to obtain sincere, conscientious “defenders of the fatherland” in an imperialist war by creating politically independent states, whose financial dependence “we” will take care of already! It is more profitable to be the ally (in a serious war between imperialist powers) of an independent Bulgaria than the master of a dependent Ireland! Completing the unfinished business in the field of national reforms can sometimes internally strengthen an imperialist coalition—this is correctly taken into account, for example, by one of the especially vile lackeys of German imperialism, K. Renner—who, of course, stands steadfastly for the “unity” of Social-Democratic parties in general, and for unity with Scheidemann and Kautsky in particular.

The objective course of things takes its toll, and just as the stranglers of the revolutions of 1848 and 1905 were, in a certain sense, the executors of their testaments, so the conductors of the imperialist slaughter are compelled to carry out certain state-capitalist and certain national reforms. And besides, the masses, embittered by the war and the high cost of living, must be calmed with little concessions: why not promise (and partially carry out—this commits one to nothing, after all!) a “reduction of armaments”? In any case, war is such “a branch of industry” that resembles forestry: decades are needed for sufficiently large trees to grow up... that is, for sufficiently abundant and adult “cannon-fodder.” And in decades, we hope, in the bosom of the “united” international Social-Democracy, new Plekhanovs, new Scheidemanns, new sugary conciliators, Kautskys, will grow up...

Bourgeois reformists and pacifists are people who, as a general rule, are paid in one form or another to strengthen the rule of capitalism through patching it up, to lull the popular masses and divert them from the revolutionary struggle. When such “leaders” of socialism as Turati and Kautsky—whether through direct statements (one such “slipped out” from Turati in his notorious speech of 17 December 1916{121}) or through omissions (of which Kautsky is such a master)—instil in the masses the idea of the possibility of a democratic peace growing out of the present imperialist war, with the preservation of bourgeois governments, without a revolutionary uprising against the entire network of imperialist global relations—then we are obliged to declare that such preaching is a deception of the people, that it has nothing in common with socialism, that it reduces itself to painting over the imperialist peace.

We are for a democratic peace. And it is precisely for this reason that we do not wish to lie to the peoples, as Turati and Kautsky lie—of course, with the best of intentions and the most virtuous of motives! We shall speak the truth: that a democratic peace is impossible unless the revolutionary proletariat of England, France, Germany, and Russia overthrows the bourgeois governments. We consider it the greatest absurdity if revolutionary Social-Democrats were to renounce the struggle for reforms in general, including for “state construction.” But it is precisely now that Europe is experiencing a moment when, more than is ordinarily the case, one must bear in mind the truth that reforms are a by-product of the revolutionary class struggle. For what is placed on the agenda—not by our will, not by virtue of anyone’s plans, but by virtue of the objective course of things—is the resolution of great historical questions by the direct violence of the masses, creating new foundations, and not by deals based on the decayed and dying old order.

Precisely now, when the ruling bourgeoisie is preparing to peacefully disarm millions of proletarians and safely transfer them—under the cover of a respectable ideology and, without fail, after sprinkling them with the holy water of sugary pacifist phrases!—from the dirty, stinking, foul trenches, where they were engaged in slaughter, to the penal servitude of the capitalist factories, where they must, by “honest labour,” work off the hundreds of billions of the state debt—precisely now, the slogan which our Party addressed to the peoples in the autumn of 1914 acquires even greater significance than at the beginning of the war: transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war for socialism![83] Karl Liebknecht, sentenced to penal servitude, aligned himself with this slogan when he said from the rostrum of the Reichstag: turn your weapons against your class enemies within your own country! The extent to which modern society has ripened for the transition to socialism has been proved precisely by the war, when the exertion of the people’s forces compelled the transition to the regulation of all economic life, from a single centre, covering more than fifty million people. If this is possible under the leadership of a handful of Junkers—little noblemen—in the interests of a tiny clique of financial magnates, it is certainly no less possible under the leadership of class-conscious workers in the interests of nine-tenths of the population, exhausted by famine and war.

But in order to lead the masses, class-conscious workers must understand the utter rottenness of such leaders of socialism as Turati, Kautsky and Co. These gentlemen imagine themselves to be revolutionary Social-Democrats and are deeply indignant when told that their place is in the party of Messrs. Bissolati, Scheidemann, Legien and Co. But Turati and Kautsky have absolutely no understanding of the fact that only a revolution of the masses is capable of resolving the great questions placed on the agenda; they have not a drop of faith in revolution, not a drop of attention or interest in how it is ripening precisely in connection with the war in the consciousness and mood of the masses. Their attention is entirely absorbed by reforms, by deals between sections of the ruling classes; it is to these they turn, these they “persuade,” to these they wish to adapt the working-class movement.

Yet the whole point now is for the conscious vanguard of the proletariat to direct its thoughts and gather its forces for a revolutionary struggle to overthrow its governments. There are no such revolutions as those that Turati and Kautsky are also “ready” to recognise—precisely those where one could say in advance exactly when the revolution will break out and how great the chances of its victory are. The revolutionary situation in Europe is at hand. The greatest discontent, ferment and embitterment of the masses are at hand. Revolutionary Social-Democrats must direct all their forces towards the intensification of this current. The share of the “promised” reforms that will be actually realised and bring at least some benefit to the further struggle of the working class will depend on the strength of the revolutionary movement, should its success be small. The victory of socialism in Europe and the realisation, not of an imperialist armistice between the struggle of Germany against Russia and England, and the struggle of Russia with Germany against England, or the struggle of the United States against Germany and England, etc., but of a truly lasting and truly democratic peace, will depend on the strength of the revolutionary movement, should it succeed.

*Sotsial-Demokrat* No. 58, 31 January 1917

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Sotsial-Demokrat*