V. I.

Lenin

Many people are taking an interest again in the Stockholm
Conference. The question of its significance has been discussed at
length in the newspapers. It is inseparable from an appraisal of
the very principles of the whole of present-day socialism,
particularly concerning the attitude to the imperialist war. This
is why the Stockholm Conference should be dealt with in some
detail.

From the outset the revolutionary Social-Democrats, i.e., the
Bolsheviks, were against participating in the conference, as a
matter of principle. Everyone knows that on the attitude to the
war socialists in all countries, belligerent and neutral alike,
are split into two large, main divisions. Some took the side of
their governments, of their bourgeoisie. These we call social-chauvinists, i.e., socialists in words and chauvinists in
action. A chauvinist is one who conceals defence of the predatory
interests of “his own” ruling classes with the concept “defence of the fatherland”. In the present war, the
bourgeoisie of both belligerent coalitions are pursuing predatory
aims: the German bourgeoisie are fighting to plunder Belgium,
Serbia, etc., the British and French bourgeoisie are fighting to
plunder the German colonies, etc., and the Russian bourgeoisie are
fighting to plunder Austria (Lvov) and Turkey (Armenia,
Constantinople).

Hence, those socialists who have come down on the side of their
bourgeoisie in the war have ceased to be socialists, have betrayed
the working class and have, in effect, deserted to the camp of the
bourgeoisie. They have become class enemies of the proletariat. The history of European and American socialism,
particularly during the time of the Second international, i.e.,
from 1889 to 1914, shows us that this desertion of certain
socialists, particularly most leaders and members of parliament,
to the bourgeoisie is no accident. In all countries, the
opportunist wing of socialism provided the main recruits for
social-chauvinism. Regarded scientifically, which means not
singling out individuals but taking the whole international trend
in its process of development, the sum total of its social ties,
social-chauvinism is opportunism carried to its logical
conclusion.

Everywhere the workers are showing, in a more or less clear and
sharp form, that they realise the social-chauvinists are betraying
socialism, that they hate and despise the more prominent
social-chauvinists such as Plekhanov in Russia, Scheidemann in
Germany, Guesde, Renaudel and Co. in France, Hyndman and others in
Britain, etc.,etc.

A revolutionary internationalist trend has arisen in all
countries during the war, despite the gagging and ruthless
persecution by the bourgeoisie. This trend has remained loyal to
socialism. It has not yielded to chauvinism, has not allowed
chauvinism to be covered up by lying phrases about defence of the
fatherland. It has exposed the utterly fraudulent nature of these
phrases and the absolutely criminal nature of the war, which the
bourgeoisie of both coalitions pursue for purposes of plunder. This trend includes, for example, MacLean in Britain, who
has been sentenced to eighteen months’ hard labour for opposing
the predatory British bourgeoisie, and Karl Liebknecht in Germany,
who has been sentenced to penal servitude by the German
imperialist robbers for the “crime” of calling for a revolution in Germany and exposing the predatory character of the
war waged by Germany. The Bolsheviks in Russia also belong to
this trend and are persecuted by the agents of Russian republican-democratic imperialism for a “crime” similar to
the one for which MacLean and Karl Liebknecht are being
persecuted.

This is the only trend loyal to socialism. It is the only trend
that has not failed the solemn declaration of convictions, the
solemn pledge made in November 1912 in the Basle Manifesto which
was unanimously signed by the socialists of the world, of every
country without exception. The Manifesto speaks not of war in
general—there are wars and wars—but of the war which everyone in 1912 clearly saw was being prepared, and which broke
out in 1914, the war between

Germany and Britain and their allies for world domination. With this war in the offing, the Basle
Manifesto does not say a word about the duty or right of
socialists to “defend their fatherland” (i.e., to justify
their participation in the war). What it does say, very
explicitly, is that this war must lead to the “proletarian
revolution”. The betrayal of socialism by the social-chauvinists of all countries is perfectly evident from the
cowardly manner in which all of them now avoid, like thieves
avoiding the scene of their crime, the passage in the Basle
Manifesto which speaks of the connection between this particular
war and the proletarian revolution.

The impassable gulf that separates the socialists, who remained
loyal to the Basle Manifesto and “responded” to the war by
advocating and preparing for the proletarian revolution, from the
social-chauvinists, who responded to the war by supporting
“their” national bourgeoisie, is obvious. It is also obvious
how helpless, naive and hypocritical are the attempts to
“reconcile” or “unite” the two trends.

It is this kind of attempt that is evident in all its wretchedness on the part of the third trend in world socialism,
the so-called “Centre” or “Kautskian” trend (named after the most prominent “Centrist”, Karl
Kautsky). Throughout the three years of the war this trend has
shown its complete lack of principle and its helplessness in all
countries. In Germany, for example, events compelled the
Kautskyites to break away from the German Plekhanovs and form a
separate, so-called Independent Social-Democratic
Party [1] .
All the same, this party is afraid of drawing the necessary
conclusions, it preaches “unity” with the social-chauvinists
on an international scale, continues to deceive the mass of
workers with the hope of restoring this unity in Germany, and
hinders the only correct proletarian tactics of revolutionary
struggle against “one’s own” government, a struggle to be
waged in war-time as well, a struggle which may and must vary in
form but which cannot be put off.

This is the state of affairs in international socialism. Without making a clear appraisal of this situation,
without having a principled opinion about all the trends in
international socialism, it is impossible so much as to approach
practical questions like that of the Stockholm Conference. Yet the
Bolshevik Party was the only party that gave a principled
appraisal of all trends in international socialism in the detailed
resolution which it adopted at its conference held between April
24 and 29, 1917, and which was endorsed by our Sixth Party
Congress in August. To ignore this principled appraisal and
discuss Stockholm without reference to it means taking an entirely
unprincipled stand.

As an example of the lack of principle prevailing among the
petty-bourgeois democrats, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and
Mensheviks, we may quote an article from
Novaya Zhizn of August
10. The article is worthy of attention because it brings together,
in a newspaper belonging to the extreme Left wing of the
petty-bourgeois democrats, the most widespread errors, prejudices
and lack of principle over Stockholm.

“ One is free,” we read in the leader of
Novaya Zhizn , “to take a dim view of the Stockholm Conference, for one reason
or another. One is free, as a matter of principle, to condemn
attempts to bring about agreement among the ‘defencist majorities’. But why deny what is strikingly obvious? After all,
following the well-known decision of the British workers, which
sparked off a political crisis in the country and caused the first
deep crack in British ‘national unity’, the conference acquired
a new significance.”

This argument is a perfect example of lack of principle. Indeed, how is it possible to draw the conclusion, from
the indisputable fact that owing to the Stockholm Conference a
deep crack has occurred in British “national unity”, that it
is our duty to patch up this crack rather than widen it? The
fundamental alternative is to break with the defencists
(social-chauvinists) or to agree with them. There can be no other
choice. The Stockholm Conference was just one of numerous attempts
to reach agreement. It failed. Its failure was due to the
unwillingness of the Anglo-French imperialists to hold peace
negotiations now , while the German imperialists are willing. The
British workers have become more aware of being deceived by the
British imperialist bourgeoisie.

Then what use should be made of this? We revolutionary internationalists say that it should be used for widening the
breach between the workers and their social-chauvinists, for
making this breach complete, for removing every hindrance to the
development of the revolutionary struggle of the masses against
their governments, against their bourgeoisie. Acting in this way,
we, and we alone, can widen the crack and force a complete
break.

What is actually achieved by those going to Stockholm, or
rather, by those preaching to the people that it is necessary to
go there, now that reality has “squashed” the idea? All they
manage is to patch up the crack, for the Stockholm Conference is
admittedly being convened and supported by people who are
supporting their own governments, by the ministerialist Chernovs
and Tseretelis, the Staunings, Brantings and Troelstras, not to
speak of the Scheidemauns.

This is what is “strikingly obvious”, this is what the opportunists of
Novaya Zhizn forget, or gloss over, when they argue absolutely without any regard for principles, without a
general appreciation of social-chauvinism as a trend. The
Stockholm Conference is a colloquy of ministers of imperialist
governments.
Novaya Zhizn cannot evade this fact however hard it tries. To call upon the workers to go to Stockholm, to tell them
to wait for Stockholm, to call upon them to place any hopes
whatever in Stockholm means saying to them: “You can, you must,
expect good to come from an agreement between the petty-bourgeois
parties and imperialist government ministers, those who support
imperialist governments.”

It is this unprincipled and most harmful propaganda that
Novaya Zhizn is unwittingly carrying on.

Owing to the conflict between the Anglo-French social-chauvinists and their governments, the paper forgets that
the Chernovs, Skobelevs, Tseretelis, Avksentyevs, Brantings,
Staunings and Scheidemanns are also social-chauvinists supporting
their governments. Isn’t this lack of principle?

Instead of saying to the workers: see, the Anglo-French
imperialists have not even allowed their social-chauvinists to go
and talk with the German social-chauvinists; that shows that
Britain and France are also waging a predatory war and that there
is no salvation except through a complete rupture with all the
governments, with all the social-chauvinists, Novaya Zhizn
consoles the workers with illusions.

“ In Stockholm,” it writes, “they are going to reach an
agreement on peace and to jointly draw up a general plan of
struggle : refusal to vote credits, renunciation of ‘national unity’, recall of ministers
from the governments, etc.”

The only thing which is supposed to make this thoroughly
fraudulent sentence sound convincing is that the word “struggle” is printed in bold type. A wonderful device, I
must say!

After three years of war, efforts are still being made to feed
the workers with the emptiest promises: “In Stockholm they are
going” to renounce national unity.

Who plans that? The Scheidemanns, Chernovs, Skobelevs, Avksentyevs, Tseretelis, Staunings and Brantings, i.e., the very
people (and parties) who for several years and for several months
have been pursuing a national unity policy. No matter how sincere
Novaya Zhizn’s faith in such a miracle may be, no matter how
conscientiously it may hold the conviction that it is possible, we
must say, nevertheless, that it is spreading the greatest piece of
deception among the workers.

Novaya Zhizn is deceiving the workers by inspiring them with
confidence in the social-chauvinists. It implies, that, although
so far the social-chauvinists have been Cabinet members and have
pursued a national unity policy, they will soon reach agreement
among themselves in Stockholm, they will come to an understanding
and cease to act in that way. They will begin to fight for peace,
they will refuse to vote credits, etc., etc.

All that is nothing but deception, the greatest deception. It
is reactionary talk designed to console and reassure the workers,
to inspire them with confidence in the social-chauvinists. But the
socialists who “fight for peace”—not in words, not to deceive themselves or the workers—started their fight long ago,
without waiting for any international conferences. They started
their fight by renouncing national unity, precisely in the way it
was done by MacLean in Britain, Karl Liebknecht in Germany and the
Bolsheviks in Russia.

“ We quite understand the legitimate and healthy scepticism
of the Bolsheviks towards the Renaudels and Scheidemanns,”
writes
Novaya Zhizn , “but the publicists of
Rabochy i Soldat , like doctrinaires, just cannot see the wood for the trees; they do
not take into account the changes in the mood of the masses on which Renaudel and Scheidemann have relied.”

It is not a matter of scepticism, gentlemen; it is in your
midst that intellectual scepticism, which conceals and expresses lack of principle, is the dominant mood. We are not sceptical of
the Renaudels and the Scheidemanns, we are their enemies. There is
a world of difference between these two things. We have broken
with them, and we call upon the masses to break with them. It is
we, and we alone, who “take into account” the change in the
mood of the masses, as well as something besides, something far
more important and more profound than moods and changes in moods,
namely, the fundamental interests of the masses, the fact that
these interests cannot be reconciled with the social-chauvinist
policy represented by the Renaudels and Scheidemanns. In
Stockholm, the
Novaya Zhizn people and the ministers of the
Russian imperialist government, will meet none other than the
Scheidemanns and Renaudels (for there is no real difference
between Stauning and Troelstra, let alone between Avksentyev and
Skobelev, on the one hand, and Renaudel, on the other). But we
turn our backs on the Stockholm comedy played between the
social-chauvinists, among the social-chauvinists, in order to open
the eyes of the masses , so as to express their interests, call
them to revolution, and use their change of mood not to pander to
a given mood in an unprincipled manner, but to wage a struggle on
principle for a complete rupture with social-chauvinism.

“ The Bolsheviks,” writes
Novaya Zhizn , “like to taunt the internationalists going to Stockholm with having compromised with
the Scheidemauns and Hendersons, ‘without noticing’ that their
attitude to the conference puts them in the same category as the
Plekhanovs, Guesdes and Hyndmans—for profoundly different
reasons, of course.”

It is not true to say that our attitude to the conference puts
us in the same category as the Plekhanovs! That is obviously
absurd. Our position coincides with that of the Plekhanovs in
refusing to go to a milk-and-water conference with a group of
social-chauvinists. But both in principle and in practice, our
attitude towards the conference differs from that of the
Plekhanovs. Meanwhile, you who call yourselves internationalists
are really going to the conference together with the Scheidemanns, Staunings and Brantings; you are really
compromising with them. Isn’t that a fact? You describe as “the
great cause of uniting the international proletariat” what is
the petty, miserable business—largely an intrigue which is
dependent upon the imperialists of one of the coalitions— of uniting the social-chauvinists . That is a fact.

You would-be internationalists cannot urge the masses to take
part in the Stockholm Conference (it is very probable that things
will go no further than urging, for the conference will not take
place; but the ideological significance of the urging remains);
you cannot urge the masses to participate in the Stockholm
Conference without uttering a pile of lies, without sowing
illusions, without whitewashing the social-chauvinists, without
rousing hopes among the masses that the Staunings and Brantings,
the Skobelevs and Avksentyevs are capable of renouncing
“national unity” in earnest.

Meanwhile, in our propaganda against Stockholm, we Bolsheviks
tell the masses the whole truth. We continue to expose the
social-chauvinists and the policy of compromise with them, and
lead the masses towards a complete rupture with them. Since
matters have reached a point where the German imperialists
consider the situation appropriate for participation in the
Stockholm Conference and are sending their Scheidemann agents to
it, while the British imperialists consider the situation
inappropriate and do not even want to talk about peace, we expose
the British imperialists and take advantage of the conflict
between them and the British workers to promote the latter’s
class-consciousness, to carry on vigorous propaganda for
internationalism, and explain the need for a complete rupture with
social-chauvinism.

The would-be internationalists of
Novaya Zhizn are behaving like intellectual impressionists, i.e., like people who
spinelessly yield to the moods of the moment and forget the
fundamental principles of internationalism. The
Novaya Zhizn people reason as follows: since British imperialism is
opposed to the Stockholm Conference, we must be for it; it shows that the
conference has acquired a significance it has not had so far.

To reason like that actually means abandoning principles, for
German imperialism is at present in favour of the Stockholm
Conference because of its own selfish and predatory imperialist
interests. What is the value of the “internationalism” of
“internationalists” who are afraid of openly admitting this
indisputable and obvious fact, who have to hide from it? What
guarantee have you, gentlemen, that by taking part in the
Stockholm Conference together with the Scheidemanns, Staunings and
Co. you will not virtually become a plaything, a tool in the hands
of the secret diplomats of German imperialism? You cannot have
any such guarantee. There is none. Even if it does take place,
which is very improbable, the Stockholm Conference will be an
attempt by the German imperialists to explore the possibilities of
such and such an exchange of annexations. That will be the true,
the actual significance of the eloquent speeches of the
Scheidemanns, Skobelevs and Co. And if the conference does not
take place, your preaching to the masses, rousing false hopes in
them in regard to the social-chauvinists, hopes for their speedy,
possible and probable “reformation”, will acquire real significance.

In either case, you may wish to be internationalists but you
will actually turn out to be accomplices of the social-chauvinists,
now of one coalition, now of both coalitions.

We, however, take into account all the ups and downs and all
the particulars of politics and remain consistent internationalists advocating the fraternal alliance of the
workers, rupture with the social-chauvinists and work for the
proletarian revolution.

---
Notes:
[1]
The Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany was a Centrist
party founded in April 1917 by the congress in Gotha, in an
atmosphere of revolutionary upswing, which was greatly stimulated
by the February revolution in Russia. The opportunist leadership
of the German Social-Democratic Party was losing ground among
the rank and file and the party was threatened with a break-away
of Left-wing elements. To avert a split and the formation of a
revolutionary party of the working class, the Centrist leaders set up the
so-called Independent Party which, they hoped, would help them
retain their influence. The Independents disguised themselves with
Centrist talk in advocating unity with the social-chauvinists, and tended to renounce the class struggle. The Labour Community,
a Kautskyite organisation active in the Reichstag, formed the
bulk of the Independent Party.

In October 1920 a split occurred in the Independent
Social-Democratic Party at the Halle Congress. In December 1920
a sizable number of Independents joined the Communist Party of
Germany. The Right-wing elements founded a separate party and
took the party’s former name, Independent Social-Democratic Party
of Germany. This party existed till 1922.