Date: 1917
Source: ru:PSS/v31

Source: PSS vol 31

We have defined the political line much more accurately than other parties, and this was enshrined in resolutions. Life has given us a completely new situation. The main mistake revolutionaries make is that they look back at old revolutions. Life, however, provides too much new that needs to be incorporated into the general chain of events.

We have correctly identified the driving forces of the revolution. Events have justified our old Bolshevik positions, but our misfortune is that comrades wanted to remain "old" Bolsheviks. The movement of the masses was only in the proletariat and peasantry. The Western European bourgeoisie has always been against the revolution. This is the situation we are accustomed to. It turned out differently. The imperialist war split the European bourgeoisie, and this created a situation where Anglo-French capitalists, due to their imperialist goals, became supporters of the Russian revolution. British capitalists even conspired directly with Guchkov, Milyukov, and the top military command. The Anglo-French capitalists sided with the revolution. European newspapers report a series of cases of trips by envoys from England and France for negotiations with "revolutionaries" like Guchkov. This is an unexpected ally of the revolution. This led to the revolution unfolding in a way no one expected. We gained allies not only in the form of the Russian bourgeoisie but also the Anglo-French capitalists. When I said the same thing in a lecture abroad, a Menshevik told me that we were wrong because, apparently, it turned out that the bourgeoisie was necessary for the success of the revolution. I replied that it was "necessary" only for the revolution to win in eight days. After all, Milyukov had stated even before the revolution that if victory lay through revolution, he would be against victory. We must not forget these words of Milyukov.

Thus, the revolution in its first stage developed in a way no one expected. The Bolsheviks gave an answer to the question of the possibility of "defending the fatherland": if a bourgeois-chauvinist revolution wins (No. 47 of "Sotsial-Demokrat"), then defending the fatherland is impossible even in such a case. The originality of the situation lies in the dual power. Abroad, where no newspaper to the left of "Rech" reaches and where Anglo-French bourgeois newspapers speak of the full authority of the Provisional Government and "chaos" in the form of the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, no one has an accurate understanding of dual power. Only here, on the spot, have we learned that the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies handed over power to the Provisional Government. The Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies is the realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat and soldiers; among the latter, the majority are peasants. This is the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. But this "dictatorship" entered into an agreement with the bourgeoisie. Here, a revision of "old" Bolshevism is needed. The situation that has arisen shows that the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry is intertwined with the power of the bourgeoisie. The situation is astonishingly unique. There have never been such revolutions where representatives of the revolutionary proletariat and peasantry, being armed, entered into an alliance with the bourgeoisie, having power, and ceded it to the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie has the power of capital and the power of organization. It is still surprising that the workers turned out to be sufficiently organized. The bourgeois revolution in Russia is completed since power has come into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Here, the "old Bolsheviks" object: "it is not completed – there is no dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry." But the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies is precisely this dictatorship.

The agrarian movement can go in two directions. The peasants will seize the land, and the struggle between the rural proletariat and the well-to-do peasant will not flare up. But this is unlikely, as class struggle does not wait. To repeat now what we said in 1905 and not to speak about the class struggle in the countryside is a betrayal of the proletarian cause.

Already now, we see in the decisions of a number of peasant congresses the idea of waiting for the resolution of the agrarian question until the Constituent Assembly – this is the victory of the well-to-do peasantry, which is leaning towards the Cadets. The peasants are already taking the land. The Socialist-Revolutionaries are holding them back, proposing to wait until the Constituent Assembly. We need to combine the demand to take the land immediately with the propaganda for the creation of councils of farm laborers' deputies. The bourgeois-democratic revolution is completed. The agrarian program must be carried out in a new way. The same struggle of large property owners with small ones for power, which is happening here now, will also occur in the countryside. Land alone is not enough for the peasants. The number of those without horses has greatly increased. We alone are currently developing the agrarian revolution, telling the peasants to take the land right now. The land must be taken in an organized manner. Property should not be destroyed. The agrarian movement, therefore, is only a foresight but not a fact. The task of Marxists is to explain the agrarian program to the peasants; the center of gravity of this program must be shifted to the council of farm laborers' deputies. But we must be prepared that the peasantry may unite with the bourgeoisie, as the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies did. Therefore, the agrarian movement still needs to be developed. The well-to-do peasantry will naturally lean towards the bourgeoisie, towards the Provisional Government. They may turn out to be more right-wing than Guchkov.

For now, the victory of the bourgeois power has been achieved. The economic position of the peasants separates them from the landlords. The peasants do not need rights to the land. They need councils of farm laborers' deputies. Those who advise the peasants to wait for the Constituent Assembly are deceiving them.

Our task is to distinguish the class line from the petty-bourgeois swamp: the bourgeoisie is doing its job excellently, giving any promises, but in practice, carrying out its class policy.

In the Councils of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, the relationship is such that power is transferred to the Provisional Government, and the socialists themselves are limited to "contact commissions." This government, indeed, consists of the best trusted people of their class, but it is still a specific class. The petty bourgeoisie has completely surrendered to it. If we do not separate the proletarian line, we will betray the cause of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie dominates either by deception or by force. Now, flattery and deception dominate, and this lulls the revolution. Concessions they make are in secondary matters. In the main (the agrarian revolution), they do nothing. Whoever does not see that, except for the Bolsheviks, there is a solid revolutionary defensism in Russia, which has triumphed everywhere, does not see the facts, and such revolutionary defensism is a surrender of all socialist principles in the name of the predatory interests of big capital, covered by the phrase "defense of the fatherland," a surrender of the position of the petty bourgeoisie. When I spoke about the "sincere" revolutionary-defensive mass, I meant not a moral category but a class definition. The classes represented in the Councils of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies are not interested in a predatory war. In Europe, it is different. There, the people are oppressed, and the most opportunist pacifists are often persecuted more than us, the Pravdists. Here, the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies conducts its revolutionary-defensive position not by force but by the trust of the masses. Europe is a continuous military prison. Capital rules there cruelly. Throughout Europe, the bourgeoisie must be overthrown, not persuaded. In Russia, the soldiers are armed: they themselves allowed themselves to be deceived peacefully, agreeing to supposedly "defend" themselves from Wilhelm. There, in Europe, there is no "sincere" revolutionary defensism, as in Russia, where the people, out of ignorance, inertia, out of the habit of enduring the stick, out of tradition, handed power to the bourgeoisie. Steklov, Chkheidze – in words, leaders, but in reality, tails of the bourgeoisie, regardless of their virtues, knowledge of Marxism, etc., they are politically dead. We have power in the hands of soldiers, who are defensively minded. The objective class position of the capitalists is one. They are waging war for themselves. The soldiers – these are proletarians and peasants. This is another. Do they have an interest in conquering Constantinople? No, their class interests are against the war! This is why they can be enlightened, convinced. The crux of the political situation at this moment is to be able to explain the truth to the masses. We cannot consider that we "rely" on the revolutionary mass, etc. – we cannot, until we explain to the soldiers or the unconscious masses the meaning of the slogan "down with the war."

u – to be able to explain the truth to the masses. We cannot say that we "rely" on the revolutionary mass, etc. – we cannot, until we explain to the soldiers or the unenlightened masses the meaning of the slogan "down with the war."

What is a Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies? Its class significance is direct power. Of course, there is no complete political freedom for us. But such freedom as exists in Russia is nowhere else at present. "Down with the war" does not mean throwing down the bayonet. It means the transfer of power to another class. The crux of the entire current position is to explain this. Blanquism consisted in its striving for the seizure of power, relying on a minority. With us, it is quite different. We are still in the minority, we recognize the necessity of winning the majority. Unlike the anarchists, we need a state for the transition to socialism. The Paris Commune gave us an example of a state of the type of a Council of Workers' Deputies – the direct power of organized and armed workers, the dictatorship of the working people and peasants. The role of the Councils, the significance of such a dictatorship, is organized violence against the counter-revolution, the protection of the conquests of the revolution in the interests of the majority, relying on the majority. There can be no dual power in the state. A council of deputies is a type of state where a police force is impossible. Here, the people themselves govern, here a return to monarchy is impossible. The army and the people must merge – that is the victory of freedom! Everyone must possess weapons. To retain freedom, it is necessary to have universal arming of the people – that is the essence of the commune. We are not anarchists who deny the organization of the state, i.e., violence in general and especially the state of the organized and armed workers, the organization of the state through their Councils. Life has intertwined the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry with the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The next stage is the dictatorship of the proletariat, but it is not yet sufficiently organized and enlightened; it needs to be enlightened. Such councils of workers and other deputies are needed throughout the state; this is a requirement of life. There is no other way. This is the Paris Commune! A Council of Workers' Deputies is not a professional organization, which the bourgeoisie wants. The people see it differently and more correctly: they see in it power. They see that the way out of the war is the victory of the Councils of Workers' Deputies. This is the type of state under which one can move towards socialism. When a group seizes power – that is still little. The Russian revolution has risen higher: there can be no other power than the Council, and the bourgeoisie fears this. Until the Councils seize power, we will not take it. The Councils must be pushed to power by a living force. Otherwise, we will not get out of the war, which the capitalists are waging by deceiving the people. All countries stand on the brink of destruction; this must be recognized; there is no way out except through a socialist revolution. The government must be overthrown – but not everyone understands this correctly. If the power of the Provisional Government rests on the Council of Workers' Deputies, then it cannot be overthrown "simply." It can and must be overthrown by winning the majority in the Councils. Either forward, to the all-powerful Councils of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, or backward, to the imperialist war – there is no other way. Kautsky denied the possibility of a revolution during the war. Life has already disproved him.

Regarding the nationalization of banks and control over them, this is economically possible; economically, nothing stands in the way if power is in the hands of the workers. It is clear that with such views on the tasks of the proletariat, talk of uniting with the "defensists" is out of the question.

On the new name of the party: the word "social-democracy" is incorrect, scientifically wrong; Marx and Engels repeatedly acknowledged this. If they "tolerated" this word, it was because after 1871 there was a special situation: a slow preparation of the masses was required, and the revolution was not on the agenda. Democracy is also a state, and the Paris Commune had already risen above it. Now the whole world is faced with the practical question of the transition to socialism. Social democrat Plekhanov and other social-chauvinists around the world have betrayed socialism. We should call ourselves the "Communist Party."

Comrades, I have to, on the question of the current moment, on its assessment, to take up an extremely broad topic, which, as far as I can judge, breaks down into three parts: first, the assessment of the actual political situation in our country, in Russia, the attitude toward the government and the dual power that has been created; second, the attitude toward the war; and third, the international situation of the labor movement, which, speaking on a global scale, has placed it directly before the socialist revolution.

I think that I will have to touch on some points only briefly. On the other hand, I have to present to you a draft resolution on all these questions, but with the proviso that, due to the extreme lack of forces among us, as well as due to the political crisis that has arisen here in Petrograd, we were unable to not only discuss the resolution but also to inform the localities about it in a timely manner. Thus, I repeat, these are only preliminary drafts, facilitating work in the commission and allowing it to focus on some of the most essential questions.

I start with the first question. If I am not mistaken, the Moscow conference adopted the same resolution as the Petrograd city-wide one. (Voices from the floor: "With amendments.") I have not seen these amendments and cannot judge. But since the Petrograd resolution was printed in Pravda, if there are no objections, I can consider it known to all. I submit this resolution as a draft to the present All-Russian Conference.

The majority of the parties of the petty-bourgeois bloc, which dominates the Petrograd Soviet, represents our policy, in contrast to its own, as a policy of hasty steps. Our policy is distinguished by the fact that we demand, first of all, a precise class characterization of what is happening. The main sin of the petty-bourgeois bloc is that it hides from the people the truth about the class character of the government with phrases.

If the comrades from Moscow have amendments, they could read them now{144}.

(Reads the resolution of the Petrograd city-wide conference on the attitude toward the Provisional Government.)

"Recognizing:

1) that the Provisional Government, in terms of its class character, is an organ of the domination of the landowners and the bourgeoisie;

2) that it and the classes it represents are inextricably linked economically and politically with Russian and Anglo-French imperialism;

3) that even the program it has announced is being implemented incompletely and only under the pressure of the revolutionary proletariat and, to some extent, the petty bourgeoisie;

4) that the organizing forces of the bourgeois and landowner counter-revolution, hiding behind the banner of the Provisional Government, with the obvious connivance of the latter, have already begun an attack against the revolutionary democracy;

5) that the Provisional Government is delaying the appointment of elections to the Constituent Assembly, obstructing the universal arming of the people, opposing the transfer of all land to the people, imposing a landowner method of solving the agrarian question, slowing the introduction of the eight-hour working day, conniving at counter-revolutionary agitation (Guchkov and Co.) in the army, organizing the upper echelons of the army command against the soldiers, etc..."

On the agrarian question, it delays the introduction of the 8-hour working day, tolerates counter-revolutionary agitation (Guchkov and Co.) in the army, organizes the upper echelons of the army command against the soldiers, etc...

I have read the first part of the resolution containing the class characterization of the Provisional Government. The disagreements with the resolution of the Muscovites, as far as one can judge from the text of the resolution alone, are hardly significant, but I would consider the general characterization of the government as counter-revolutionary to be incorrect. If we speak generally, we must clarify which revolution we are talking about. From the standpoint of the bourgeois revolution, this cannot be said, as it has already ended. From the standpoint of the proletarian-peasant revolution – it is premature to say this, as we cannot be certain that the peasantry will necessarily go further than the bourgeoisie, and to express confidence in the peasantry, especially now when it has turned towards imperialism and defense, i.e., support for the war, seems to me unfounded. At present, it has entered into a series of agreements with the Cadets. Therefore, I consider this point of the Muscovite comrades' resolution to be politically incorrect. We want the peasantry to go further than the bourgeoisie, to take the land from the landlords, but at present, nothing definite can be said about its future behavior.

We carefully avoid the phrase "revolutionary democracy." When it comes to an attack by the government, then one can speak of this, but now this phrase conceals the greatest deception, because it is very difficult to separate the classes that have merged in this chaos. Our task is to liberate those who are lagging behind. For us, the Soviets are not important as a form; what is important is which classes these Soviets represent. Therefore, prolonged work is necessary to clarify proletarian consciousness...

(Continues reading the resolution.)

"...6) that at the same time, this government currently relies on the trust and, to some extent, on direct agreement with the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which currently unites the obvious majority of workers and soldiers, i.e., the peasantry;

7) that every step of the Provisional Government, both in foreign and domestic policy, will open the eyes not only of the urban and rural proletariat and semi-proletariat, but also of broad layers of the petty bourgeoisie, to the true nature of this government;

the conference resolves that:

1) for the transfer of all state power to the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies or other bodies directly expressing the will of the people, prolonged work is necessary to clarify class proletarian consciousness and to unite the urban and rural proletariat against the vacillations of the petty bourgeoisie, as only such work serves as a real guarantee of the successful forward movement of the entire revolutionary people;

2) for such activity, comprehensive work within the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies is necessary, increasing their number, strengthening their power, uniting the proletarian internationalist groups of our party within them;

3) intensified organization of our Social-Democratic forces so that the new wave of the revolutionary movement is carried out under the banner of revolutionary Social-Democracy."

Here is the crux of our entire policy. The petty bourgeoisie is now wavering and covering up its vacillation with the phrase "revolutionary democracy," and we must counterpose the proletarian line to these vacillations. The counter-revolutionaries wish to sabotage this by a premature action. Our tasks are to increase the number of Soviets, to strengthen their power, and to unite within our party.

The Muscovites add control in the third point. This control is represented by Chkheidze, Steklov, Tsereteli, and other leaders of the petty-bourgeois bloc. Control without power is the emptiest of phrases. How am I to control England? To control it, one must seize its fleet. I understand that the undeveloped mass of workers and soldiers may naively and unconsciously believe in control, but it is enough to think about the basic moments of control to understand that this belief is a departure from the fundamental principles of class struggle. What is control? If I write a note or a resolution, they will write a counter-resolution. To control, one must have power. If this is not understood by the broad masses of the petty-bourgeois bloc, we must have patience to explain it to them, but in no case should we tell them a lie. And if I obscure this fundamental condition with control, I am telling a lie and playing into the hands of the capitalists and imperialists. – "Please, you control me, and I will keep the guns. Be content with control," – they say. They know that it is impossible to refuse the people now. Without power, control is a petty-bourgeois phrase that brakes the progress and development of the Russian revolution. For this reason, I object to the third point of the Muscovite comrades.

Regarding this peculiar intertwining of two powers, when the Provisional Government, without having power, guns, soldiers, and an armed mass of people, relies on the Soviets, which, trusting in promises for now, pursue a policy of supporting these promises, if you want to participate in this game, you will suffer a fiasco. Our task is not to participate in this game; we will continue to work to explain to the proletariat the complete untenability of this policy, and each step of actual life will show how right we are. We are now in the minority, and the masses do not yet believe us. We can wait: they will come over to our side when the government shows itself to them. The vacillations of the government may push them away from it, and they will flow to our side, and, taking into account the balance of forces, we will then say: our time has come.

Now I move on to the question of the war, which practically united us when we spoke out against the loan, the attitude toward which immediately showed how political forces are divided. As *Rech* wrote, everyone except *Edinstvo* is wavering, the entire petty-bourgeois mass is for the loan with reservations. The capitalists make a sour face, smile, put the resolution in their pocket, and say: "you can talk, but we will still act." In the whole world, all those who vote for the loan now are called social-chauvinists.

I will proceed directly to reading the resolution on the war. It is divided into three parts: 1) the characterization of the war from the standpoint of its class significance, 2) the revolutionary defensism of the masses, which does not exist in any country, and 3) how to end the war.

Many, including myself, have had to speak, especially before soldiers, and I think that if everything is explained from a class standpoint, what is most unclear in our position for them is precisely how we want to end the war, how we consider it possible to end it. There is a great deal of misunderstanding and complete incomprehension of our position among the broad masses, so we must be the most popular here.

(Reads the draft resolution on the war.)

"The contemporary war, on the part of both groups of warring states, is an imperialist war, i.e., waged by capitalists for world domination, for the division of the spoils of the capitalists, for advantageous markets for financial and banking capital, for the strangulation of weak peoples.

The transition of state power in Russia from Nicholas II to the government of Guchkov, Lvov, and others, to the government of the landlords and capitalists, did not change and could not change the class character and significance of the war on the part of Russia.

It became particularly evident that the new government is waging the same, such an imperialist, i.e., predatory, robber war, in the following circumstance: the new government not only did not publish the secret treaties concluded by the former tsar, Nicholas II, with the capitalist governments of England, France, and others, but formally confirmed these treaties. This was done without consulting the people and with the clear aim of deceiving them, for it is well known that these secret treaties of the former tsar are thoroughly predatory, promising the Russian capitalists the plunder of China, Persia, Turkey, Austria, and so on.

and with the clear aim of deceiving him, for it is well known that these secret treaties of the former tsar are thoroughly robber-like, promising the Russian capitalists the plunder of China, Persia, Turkey, Austria, and so on.

Therefore, the proletarian party cannot support either the present war or the present government or its loans, no matter how grandiloquent the names given to these loans, without completely breaking with internationalism, i.e., with the fraternal solidarity of the workers of all countries in the struggle against the yoke of capital.

The promise of the present government to renounce annexations, i.e., the conquest of foreign lands or the forcible retention within Russia of any peoples, also deserves no trust. For, first, the capitalists, interwoven by a thousand threads of banking capital, Russian and Anglo-French, defending the interests of capital, cannot renounce annexations in this war without ceasing to be capitalists, without renouncing profits on the billions invested in loans, concessions, military enterprises, etc. Second, the new government, renouncing annexations to deceive the people, declared through Milyukov on April 9, 1917, in Moscow, that it does not renounce annexations. Third, as *Delo Naroda* (a newspaper in which Minister Kerensky participates) has revealed, Milyukov did not even send his declaration of renunciation of annexations abroad.

Warning the people against the empty promises of the capitalists, the conference declares, therefore, that it is necessary to strictly distinguish between renunciation of annexations in words and renunciation of annexations in deed, i.e., the immediate publication of all secret, predatory treaties, all acts of foreign policy, and the immediate start of the most complete liberation of all peoples oppressed or forcibly attached to Russia or kept in an unequal position by the class of capitalists, continuing the shameful policy for our people of the former Tsar Nicholas II.

The second half of this part of the resolution speaks about the promises that the government gives. Perhaps for a Marxist, this part would be superfluous, but it is important for the people. Therefore, it is necessary to add why we do not believe these promises, why we should not trust the government. The promises of the present government to renounce imperialist policy deserve no trust. Here our line should consist not in pointing out that we demand from the government the publication of the treaties. This would be an illusion. To demand this from a capitalist government is the same as if we demanded the disclosure of commercial frauds. If we say that it is necessary to renounce annexations and contributions, then we must indicate how this is to be done; and if we are asked who will do this, we will say that this is, in essence, a revolutionary step, a step that can only be taken by the revolutionary proletariat. Otherwise, these will be just empty promises, wishes, with which the capitalists lead the people by the nose.

(Continues reading the draft resolution.)

"So-called 'revolutionary defensism,' which now encompasses almost all the narodnik parties (People's Socialists, Trudoviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries) and the opportunist party of Menshevik social democrats (OK, Chkheidze, Tsereteli, and others), as well as the majority of non-partisan revolutionaries, represents, in terms of its class significance, on the one hand, the interests and viewpoint of the petty bourgeoisie, small proprietors, and well-to-do peasants, who, like the capitalists, derive profit from violence over weak peoples, and on the other hand, is the result of the deception of the masses by the capitalists, who do not publish the secret treaties and get away with promises and demagogy.

It is necessary to recognize that very broad masses of 'revolutionary defensists' are sincere, i.e., they truly do not want annexations, seizures, and violence over weak peoples, and they truly strive for a democratic, non-violent peace among all warring countries. This must be recognized because the class position of the urban and rural proletarians and semi-proletarians (i.e., people who live entirely or partially by selling their labor power to the capitalists) makes these classes uninterested in the profits of the capitalists.

Therefore, while recognizing as absolutely unacceptable and signifying in practice a complete break with internationalism and socialism any concessions whatsoever to 'revolutionary defensism,' the conference at the same time declares that as long as the Russian capitalists and their Provisional Government limit themselves to threats of violence against the people (for example, the sadly famous Guchkov decree, threatening punishment for soldiers' unauthorized removal of officers), and as long as the capitalists have not resorted to violence against the freely organizing and freely replacing and electing all kinds of authorities—Soviets of workers', soldiers', peasants', farm laborers', and other deputies—our party will preach a refusal of violence in general, fighting against the deep and fatal error of 'revolutionary defensism' exclusively through methods of comradely persuasion, by explaining the truth that the unconscious and trusting attitude of the broad masses toward the government of the capitalists, the worst enemies of peace and socialism, is at the present moment in Russia the main obstacle to the rapid end of the war."

A part of the petty bourgeoisie is interested in this policy of the capitalists, there is no doubt about that, and therefore it is impermissible for the proletarian party to place hopes on the commonality of interests with the peasantry. We fight to bring the peasantry to our side, but to some extent, they consciously stand on the side of the capitalists.

There is no doubt that the proletariat and semi-proletariat, as a class, are not interested in the war. They go under the influence of traditions and deception. They do not yet have political experience. Hence, our task is prolonged explanation. We make no slightest principled concessions to them, but we cannot approach them as social chauvinists. These elements of the population have never been socialist, they have no concept of socialism, they are only awakening to political life. But their consciousness is growing and expanding with extraordinary speed. We must know how to approach them with explanations, and this is the most difficult task, especially for a party that was underground until yesterday.

Some think, have we not renounced ourselves: after all, we propagated the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war, and now we are speaking against ourselves. But in Russia, the first civil war has ended, and we are now moving to a second war—between imperialism and the armed people, and in this transitional period, while the armed force is with the soldiers, while Milyukov and Guchkov have not yet resorted to violence, this civil war turns for us into a peaceful, prolonged, and patient class propaganda. If we speak of civil war before people understand its necessity, then we undoubtedly fall into Blanquism. We are for civil war, but only when it is waged by a conscious class. One can overthrow those who are known to the people as oppressors. Now, however, there are no oppressors, the cannons and rifles are with the soldiers, not with the capitalists, and the capitalists are not taking power by violence now, but by deception, and to shout about violence now is nonsense. We must know how to stand on the standpoint of Marxism, which says that this transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war is based on objective conditions, not subjective ones. We are temporarily abandoning this slogan, but only temporarily. The weapons are now with the soldiers and workers, not with the capitalists. As long as the government has not started a war, we preach peace.

Conditions, not subjective ones. We are currently refraining from this slogan, but only for now. The weapons are now in the hands of soldiers and workers, not capitalists. As long as the government has not started a war, we preach peace.

It was to the government's advantage that the first careless step towards an uprising be taken by us; it is to their advantage. They feel resentment because our party gave the slogan of a peaceful demonstration. To the petty bourgeoisie, who are now waiting, we must not give up a jot of our principles. There is no more dangerous mistake for a proletarian party than to base its tactics on subjective desires where organization is needed. To say that the majority is with us – that cannot be; in this case, distrust, distrust, and distrust are necessary. To base proletarian tactics on this would mean to kill them.

The third point concerns the question of how to end the war. The Marxist viewpoint is known, but the difficulty lies in how to convey it to the masses in the clearest form. We are not pacifists, and we cannot abstain from revolutionary war. How does the latter differ from a capitalist war? First of all, by which class is interested in it and what policy the interested class pursues in this war... When speaking to the masses, specific answers must be given. So, the first question: how to distinguish a revolutionary war from a capitalist war? The rank-and-file do not understand the difference here, that this is about the difference between classes. We must not only speak theoretically, but we must also practically show that we will then lead a truly revolutionary war when power is in the hands of the proletariat. It seems to me that such a formulation of the question gives a more vivid answer to the question of what kind of war it is and who is waging it.

In *Pravda*, a draft appeal to the soldiers of all warring countries[54] was published. We have information that fraternization is taking place at the front, but it is still half-spontaneous. What is lacking in fraternization is a clear political thought. Soldiers instinctively felt that action must come from below; their class instinct, as revolutionarily minded people, suggested to them that this is the true path. But this is not enough for a revolution. We want to give a clear political answer. For the war to end, power must pass into the hands of the revolutionary class. I would propose, on behalf of the conference, to compose an appeal to the soldiers of all warring countries and to print this appeal in all languages. If, instead of all these clichés about peace conferences, where half of the participants are secret or direct agents of imperialist governments, we send out this appeal, it will bring us to our goal a thousand times faster than all the peace conferences. We do not want to deal with German Plekhanovs. When we were traveling in a carriage through Germany, these social-chauvinist gentlemen, the German Plekhanovs, tried to get into our carriage, but we told them that not a single socialist among them would enter, and if they did, we would not let them out without a big scandal. If, for example, Karl Liebknecht had been allowed to join us, we would have talked to him. When we issue an appeal to the workers of all countries and in it give our answer to the question of how to end the war, and when the soldiers read our answer, which provides a political way out of the war, then fraternization will take a giant step forward. This is necessary so that fraternization rises from the stage of instinctive horror at the war to a clear political consciousness of how to get out of it.

I will move on to the third question, namely, the assessment of the current moment from the standpoint of the situation of the international labor movement and the state of international capitalism. From a Marxist point of view, it is absurd to focus only on the situation of one country when talking about imperialism, while capitalist countries are so closely linked to each other. And now, during the war, this connection is immeasurably stronger. All of humanity is entangled in one bloody mass, and there can be no individual exit from it. If there are more and less developed countries, the present war has tied them together with such threads that the exit of only one country appears impossible and absurd.

We all agree that power should be in the hands of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. But what can and should they do if power passes to them, i.e., is in the hands of the proletariat and semi-proletariat? A complex and difficult situation arises. And if we talk about the transfer of power, then there is a danger, one that played a significant role in previous revolutions, namely: the revolutionary class takes state power into its own hands and does not know what to do with it. Examples of revolutions that failed precisely for this reason exist in the history of revolutions. The Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which now cover all of Russia with their network, stand at the center of the entire revolution; however, it seems to me that they are not sufficiently understood and studied by us. If they take power into their own hands, it will no longer be a state in the usual sense of the word. Such a state power, which has lasted for a long time, has never existed in the world, but the entire labor movement of the world has been moving towards it. This will be a state of the type of the Paris Commune. Such power is a dictatorship, i.e., it relies not on law, not on the formal will of the majority, but directly and immediately on violence. Violence is the instrument of power. In what way will the Soviets apply this power? Will they return to the old administration through the police, will they manage through the old organs of power? In my opinion, they cannot do this, and in any case, the immediate task before them is to establish a non-bourgeois state. I used the comparison of this state with the Paris Commune among the Bolsheviks in the sense that it broke the old organs of management and replaced them with completely new, direct, and immediate organs of the workers. I am accused of using, at the present moment, the word most frightening to the capitalists, as they began to interpret it as a desire for the immediate introduction of socialism. But I used it only in the sense of replacing the old organs with new, proletarian ones. Marx said that in this lies the greatest step forward of the entire world proletarian movement{145}. The question of the social tasks of the proletariat has enormous practical significance for us, on the one hand, because we are now connected with all other countries, and it is impossible to break out of this tangle: either the proletariat will break out as a whole, or it will be strangled; on the other hand, the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies are a fact. There is no doubt for anyone that they cover all of Russia, they are the power, and there can be no other power. If this is so, then we must clearly understand how they can use this power. It is said that this power is the same as in France and America, but there is nothing like it there, such direct power does not exist.

but to imagine how they can use this power. They say that this power is the same as in France and America, but there is nothing like it there; such direct power does not exist.

The resolution on the current moment is divided into three parts. The first characterizes the objective situation created by the imperialist war, the position in which world capitalism has found itself; the second – the conditions of the international proletarian movement, and the third – the tasks of the Russian working class when power passes into its hands. In the first part, I formulate the conclusion that during the war, capitalism has developed even more than before the war. It has already taken entire areas of production into its hands. Back in 1891, 27 years ago, when the Germans adopted their Erfurt Program, Engels said that it was no longer possible to interpret capitalism as a lack of planning{146}. This is already outdated: if there are trusts, then there is no lack of planning. Especially in the 20th century, the development of capitalism has moved forward with giant strides, and the war did what had not been done in 25 years. The nationalization of industry has advanced not only in Germany but also in England. From monopoly, in general, they have moved to state monopoly. The objective situation shows that the war accelerated the development of capitalism, and it moved forward from capitalism to imperialism, from monopoly to nationalization. All of this has brought the socialist revolution closer and created the objective conditions for it. Thus, the socialist revolution has been brought closer by the course of the war.

England, before the war, was a country of maximum freedom, as politicians of the type of the Cadet party always point out. There was freedom there because there was no revolutionary movement. The war changed everything at once. A country where for decades there is no recollection of an example of an attack on the freedom of the socialist press immediately moved to purely tsarist censorship, and all prisons were filled with socialists. The capitalists there had learned over centuries to manage the people without violence, and if they resorted to violence, it means they felt that the revolutionary movement was growing, that it was impossible to act otherwise. When we pointed out that Liebknecht represents the masses, although he is alone and against him are a hundred German Plekhanovs, they told us that this was utopia, illusion. Meanwhile, anyone who has ever attended workers' meetings abroad has seen that the sympathy of the masses for Liebknecht is an undeniable fact. Even his most ardent opponents had to be cunning before the masses; and if not pretending to be supporters, then at least no one dared to come out against him. Now, however, things have gone even further. Now we are dealing with mass strikes and fraternization at the front. In this regard, making predictions would be the greatest mistake, but the fact that sympathy for the International is growing and that revolutionary ferment is beginning in the German army – this is still a fact showing that a revolution is ripening there.

Now, what are the tasks of the revolutionary proletariat? The main defect and the main error in all the discussions of socialists is that the question is posed too generally – the transition to socialism. However, one must speak about specific steps and measures. Some of them have matured, others have not. Right now, we are experiencing a transitional moment. We have clearly put forward forms that do not resemble the forms of bourgeois states: the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies – this is a form of state that exists in no other state and has never existed. This is a form that represents the first steps towards socialism and is inevitable at the beginning of a socialist society. This is a decisive fact. The Russian revolution has created the Soviets. In no bourgeois country in the world are there such state institutions, nor can there be, and no socialist revolution can operate with any power except this. The Soviets of W. and S. D. must take power not to create an ordinary bourgeois republic or an immediate transition to socialism. This cannot be. For what, then? They must take power to make the first specific steps towards this transition, which can and should be taken. Fear is the main enemy in this respect. The masses must be preached that these steps must be taken now, otherwise, the power of the Soviets of W. and S. D. will be meaningless and will give nothing to the people.

I am trying to answer the question of what specific steps we can propose to the people without contradicting our Marxist beliefs.

Why do we want power to pass into the hands of the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies?

The first measure they must implement is the nationalization of the land. All peoples talk about it. They say that this measure is the most utopian, and yet everyone comes to it precisely because Russian land ownership is so tangled that there is no other way out except to divide all the land and turn it into state property. Private property on the land must be abolished. This is the task that stands before us because the majority of the people stand for it. For this, we need the Soviets. This measure cannot be carried out with the old state bureaucracy.

The second measure. We cannot stand for "introducing" socialism – this would be the greatest absurdity. We must preach socialism. The majority of the population in Russia are peasants, small owners, who cannot even think about socialism. But what can they say against having a bank in every village that would give them the opportunity to improve their economy? They can say nothing against this. We must propagate these practical measures to the peasants and strengthen in them the consciousness of their necessity.

Another matter is the sugar refinery syndicate, which is a fact. Here, our proposal must be directly practical: these already matured syndicates must be transferred to state ownership. If the Soviets want to take power, then only for such purposes. There is no other reason for them to take it. The question is: either the further development of these Soviets, or they will die a disgraceful death, as happened with the Paris Commune. If a bourgeois republic is needed, the Cadets can do that.

I will conclude with a reference to one speech that made the greatest impression on me. One coal miner gave a remarkable speech, in which, without using a single bookish word, he told how they made the revolution. For them, the question was not whether they would have a president, but he was interested in the question: when they took the mines, they had to guard the ropes so that production would not stop. Then the question of bread, which they did not have, arose, and they also agreed on how to obtain it. This is the real program of the revolution, not read from a book. This is the real seizure of power on the spot.

The bourgeoisie has nowhere become so formalized as in Petrograd, and the capitalists here hold power, while in the localities, the peasants, without setting themselves any socialist plans, undertake purely practical measures. I think that this program of the revolutionary movement correctly indicates the true path of the revolution. We are for approaching these measures with the greatest caution and prudence, but they must be carried out, and only in this direction must we look ahead, otherwise, there is no way out. Otherwise, the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies will be dispersed and will die a disgraceful death, and if power really is in the hands of the revolutionary proletariat, then only to move forward. And moving forward means undertaking specific steps, not just ensuring a way out of the war with words. The full success of these steps is only possible with a world revolution, if the revolution strangles the war and if the workers of all countries support it, therefore, taking power is the only specific measure, the only way out.

First published in 1921 in the Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Volume XIV, Part II

Printed from a typescript copy of the stenographic record

The only way out is this concrete measure.

First published in 1921 in the Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Volume XIV, Part II

Printed from a typescript copy of the minutes

Comrades, I read the initial draft of the resolution on war at the city-wide conference. Due to the crisis that occupied the attention and efforts of all comrades in Petrograd, we were unable to revise this draft. But yesterday and today, the commission worked successfully, and it underwent changes, was significantly shortened, and, in our opinion, improved.

I want to say a few words about the structure of this resolution. It is divided into three parts: the first part is devoted to the class analysis of the war with an addition in the form of our principled stance, why the party warns against any trust in government promises and any support for the Provisional Government. The second part of the resolution is dedicated to the question of revolutionary defensism, as an extraordinarily broad mass movement that has now united a huge majority of the people against us. The task is to determine the class significance of this revolutionary defensism, its essence, what the real balance of forces is, and how we should fight against this trend. The third part of the resolution concerns the question of how to end the war. This practical question, which is of the greatest importance for the party, needed to be answered in detail, and we believe that we have managed to give a satisfactory answer to this question. In a number of articles in "Pravda" and provincial newspapers (which reach us extremely irregularly: the post does not work, and one must use opportunities to take local leaflets for the Central Committee) where there were many articles about the war, the negative attitude towards the war and the issue of the loan became clear. I think that voting against the loan decided the question of the negative attitude towards revolutionary defensism. I do not see the possibility of going into more detail on this.

"The present war, on the part of both groups of warring states, is an imperialist war, i.e., one waged by capitalists for the division of the benefits of world domination, for markets of financial (banking) capital, for the subjugation of weak nationalities, and so on."

The basic and primary point is the question of the content of the war, a general and political question, a contentious one, which capitalists and social-chauvinists carefully avoid. Therefore, we must place it first and add:

"Every day of the war enriches the financial and industrial bourgeoisie and impoverishes and depletes the forces of the proletariat and peasantry of all the warring, and then neutral, countries. In Russia, prolonging the war, in addition, poses the greatest danger to the gains of the revolution and its further development.

The transfer of state power in Russia to the Provisional Government, the government of landlords and capitalists, did not and could not change the character and significance of the war on the part of Russia."

This phrase, which I just read, is of great importance for all our propaganda and agitation. Has the class character of the war changed now, and can it change? Our answer is based on the fact that power has passed into the hands of landlords and capitalists, the same government that prepared this war. Further, we move on to one of the facts that most clearly show the character of the war. One thing is the class character, expressed in the entire policy that certain classes have pursued for decades, and another is the vivid class character of the war.

"This fact is particularly evident in that the new government not only did not publish the secret treaties concluded by Tsar Nicholas II with the capitalist governments of England, France, and so on, but also formally confirmed, without consulting the people, these secret treaties, promising Russian capitalists the plunder of China, Persia, Turkey, Austria, and so on. By concealing these treaties, the Russian people are being deceived about the true nature of the war."

So, I emphasize once again that we point to a particularly vivid confirmation of the character of the war. Even if there were no treaties at all, the character of the war would not have changed in the slightest, because agreements between groups of capitalists can often be reached without any treaties. But they exist, their significance is especially vivid, and we, for the unification of the work of agitators and propagandists, consider it especially necessary to highlight this fact and decided to single out this point. The people's attention is focused on this fact, and it should be, especially since these treaties were concluded by a tsar who has been overthrown, so the people's attention should be drawn to the fact that the war is being waged by governments on the basis of treaties concluded by old governments. I think that here the contradictions between the interests of the capitalists and the will of the people are revealed in the most striking form, and the task of the agitators, in revealing these contradictions, is to direct the people's attention to them, to try to clarify the consciousness of the masses, appealing to their class consciousness. The content of the treaties is such that there can be no doubt that they promise huge profits to the capitalists through the plunder of other countries, since these treaties always remain secret in all countries. There is not a single republic in the world that conducts foreign policy openly. As long as the capitalist system exists, one cannot expect the capitalists to open their business books. If there is private ownership of the means of production, then it includes private ownership of shares and financial operations. The main basis of current diplomacy is financial operations, which amount to plunder and strangulation of weak nationalities. These, from our point of view, are the basic positions from which the entire assessment of the war follows. From them, we draw the conclusion:

"Therefore, the proletarian party cannot support either the present war or the present government or its loans without completely breaking with internationalism, i.e., with the fraternal solidarity of the workers of all countries in the struggle against the yoke of capital."

This is our main, fundamental conclusion, which determines our entire tactics and separates us from all other parties, however socialist they may call themselves. This position, which is indisputable for all of us, pre-determines the question of our attitude towards all other political parties.

Further, it is said that our government has particularly widely raised the question of promises. Around these promises, a prolonged campaign of the Soviets, entangled in these promises and testing the people, is going on. Therefore, we consider it necessary to add to the purely objective analysis of the class situation an evaluation of the promises, promises that, of course, for a Marxist, have no value in themselves. But for the broad masses, this means a lot, and for politics even more. The Petrograd Soviet is entangled in these promises and gives them weight, promising its support. For this reason, we add the following formulation to this point:

"No trust can be placed in the promises of the present government to renounce annexations, i.e., the conquests of foreign countries, or the forcible retention within Russia of any nationalities."

Since the word "annexation" is foreign, we give it a precise political definition, which neither the Social Democratic Party nor the parties of petty-bourgeois democrats (the populists and Mensheviks) can provide. There are no words that are used so senselessly and carelessly.

"For, first, the capitalists, bound by thousands of threads of banking capital, cannot renounce annexations in the present war without renouncing profits of billions invested in loans, concessions, military enterprises, etc.; second, the new government, renouncing annexations to deceive the people, declared through Milyukov on April 9, 1917, in Moscow, that it does not renounce annexations, and by the note of April 18 and its clarification on April 22, it confirmed the predatory nature of its policy.

declared through the mouth of Milyukov on April 9, 1917, in Moscow, that it does not renounce annexations, and by a note of April 18 and its clarification on April 22, it confirmed the predatory character of its policy.

Warning the people against the empty promises of the capitalists, the conference declares, therefore, that it is necessary to strictly distinguish between renunciation of annexations in words and renunciation of annexations in practice, i.e., the immediate publication and annulment of all secret predatory treaties and the immediate granting to all peoples the right to freely decide by vote whether they wish to be independent states or to join any state they choose.»

We found it necessary to point this out because the question of peace without annexations is the fundamental issue in all these discussions about the terms of peace. All parties recognize that peace is an alternative and that a peace with annexations would be an unheard-of catastrophe for all countries. And before the people, in a country where there is political freedom, the question of peace cannot be posed other than as a peace without annexations. Therefore, one has to speak out for a peace without annexations, and only lies can be told by obscuring the concept of annexation or evading this question. For example, "Rech" shouts that the return of Kurland is a renunciation of annexations. When I spoke before the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, a soldier passed me a note with the question: "We must fight to recapture Kurland. Does recapturing Kurland mean being for annexations?" I had to answer affirmatively[64]. We are against Germany being able to forcibly annex Kurland, but we are also against Russia holding Kurland by force. For instance, our government issued a manifesto on the independence of Poland, stuffing it with meaningless phrases. They wrote that Poland should be in a free military alliance with Russia. In these three words alone lies the truth. A free military alliance of small Poland with huge Russia is, in fact, complete military subjugation of Poland. Politically, it may give freedom, but still, its boundaries will be determined by the military alliance.

If we were to fight for Russian capitalists to regain control of Kurland and Poland within their former borders – it means German capitalists have the right to plunder Kurland. They could object: we plundered Poland together. When we began to tear apart Poland at the end of the 18th century, Prussia was a very small and weak state, while Russia was enormous, and Russia plundered more. Now we have become stronger, and allow us to seize a larger part. There is no way to argue against this logic of the capitalists. Japan in 1863 was nothing compared to Russia, but in 1905 it defeated Russia. Germany in 1863-1873 was nothing compared to England, but now it is stronger. They could object: we were weak when you took Kurland, now we have developed more strongly than you and want to take it back. Not to renounce annexations means justifying endless wars over the seizure of weaker peoples. Renunciation of annexations means giving each people the right to freely decide whether they wish to live separately or together with another. Of course, for this, troops must be withdrawn. To allow the slightest wavering on the question of annexations means justifying endless wars. Therefore, in this respect, we could not allow any wavering. Our response regarding annexations is the free decision of the peoples. How to make this political freedom also economic? For this, it is necessary for power to pass into the hands of the proletariat and to overthrow the yoke of capital.

Now I move on to the second part of the resolution.

"So-called 'revolutionary defensism,' which now encompasses all the Narodnik parties (Narodnik Socialists, Trudoviks, SRs) and the opportunist party of Menshevik Social Democrats (OK, Chkheidze, Tsereteli, and others), as well as the majority of non-partisan revolutionaries, represents, in terms of class significance, on the one hand, the interests and viewpoint of the well-off peasants and a part of the small proprietors, who, like the capitalists, derive profits from violence over weak peoples. On the other hand, revolutionary defensism is the result of the capitalists deceiving a part of the urban and rural proletariat and semi-proletariat, who, by their class position, are not interested in the profits of the capitalists and in the imperialist war."

Thus, our task here is to determine from which strata the defensist mood could arise and has arisen. Russia is the most petty-bourgeois country, and the upper layers of the petty bourgeoisie are directly interested in the continuation of this war. The well-off peasantry, like the capitalists, profit from it. On the other hand, the mass of the proletariat and semi-proletariat are not interested in annexations, as they do not receive profits from financial capital. How could these classes adopt the standpoint of revolutionary defensism? Such an attitude of these classes towards revolutionary defensism is the result of the influence of capitalist ideology, which in the resolution is expressed by the word "deception." They are unable to distinguish the interests of the capitalists from the interests of the country. From this, we draw the conclusion:

"The conference considers absolutely unacceptable and signifying, in fact, a complete break with internationalism and socialism, any concessions to revolutionary defensism. As for the defensist moods of the broad masses of the people, our party will combat these moods with unceasing explanation of the truth that the unconscious, trusting attitude towards the government of the capitalists is, at the present moment, one of the main obstacles to the speedy end of the war."

Here, in the last words, is expressed that particularity which sharply distinguishes Russia from all other Western capitalist countries and from all capitalist-democratic republics. For there, it cannot be said that the trust of the unconscious masses is the main cause of the continuation of the war. There, the masses are currently squeezed by the iron grip of military discipline, and the greater the discipline, the more democratic the republic, since in the latter, authority rests on the "will of the people." In Russia, due to the revolution, this discipline does not exist. The masses freely elect representatives to the Soviets – a phenomenon that cannot be observed anywhere else in the world at present. But they are unconsciously trusting, and from this, a certain use of them for the struggle. Besides explanations, nothing can be done here. Explanations must concern direct revolutionary tasks and methods of action. When the masses are free, attempts to do anything on behalf of the minority, without explaining to the masses, would be absurd Blanquism – a simple adventurist attempt. Only by winning over the masses – if they can be won over – can we create a solid foundation for the victory of the proletarian class struggle.

I move on to the third part of the resolution:

"As for the most important question of how to end this war of the capitalists as quickly as possible, and not by force, but by a truly democratic peace, the conference recognizes and resolves:

It is impossible to end this war by soldiers on only one side refusing to continue the war, by simply ceasing hostilities on the part of one of the warring sides."

The conference recognizes and resolves:

This war cannot be ended by the soldiers of only one side refusing to continue the war, by a simple cessation of hostilities by one of the warring parties.

This idea about such an end to the war is often imposed on us by people who want to ease the struggle against their opponents by distorting their views—a common tactic of the capitalists, who attribute to us the meaningless ending of the war through a unilateral refusal. And they object: "You cannot end the war by sticking a bayonet into the ground," as one soldier, who is a typical revolutionary defender, put it. This is not an objection, I say. It is an anarchist idea that the war can be ended without a change in the ruling classes; it is either an anarchist idea, which has no state significance, or a vague pacifist one, and does not understand the connection between politics and the oppressing class. War is evil, and peace is good... Of course, this idea must be explained and popularized among the masses. In general, all our resolutions are written for the leading strata, for Marxists; they are in no way suitable for reading by the masses but should provide a unifying guidance for the entire policy for any propagandist and agitator. For this purpose, another paragraph has been added:

"The conference protests once again against the vile slander spread by the capitalists against our party, namely, that we sympathize with a separate (individual) peace with Germany. We consider the German capitalists to be the same robbers as the Russian, English, French, etc., capitalists, and Emperor Wilhelm to be the same crowned robber as Nicholas II and the monarchs of England, Italy, Romania, and all the others."

Regarding this point, some disputes arose in the commission, on one hand, about whether we had adopted too popular a style here, and on the other, about whether the English, Italian, and Romanian monarchs deserved to be included. But after thorough discussions, we came to a unanimous agreement that at the moment, when we have set ourselves the goal of refuting the slanders that the "Birzhevka" tried to raise mostly crudely, "Rech" subtly, and "Edinstvo" with direct hints, on such a question, we must come out with the most vivid and sharp criticism of these concepts, keeping in mind the broadest masses. And since they say to us: if you consider Wilhelm a robber, help us overthrow him, then we can answer that all the others are also robbers, and we must fight them too, so do not forget the kings of Italy and Romania, there will be such even among our allies. These two paragraphs contain a rebuttal against the slanders that seek to reduce the matter to a pogrom and a quarrel. That is why we must move on to the serious practical question of how to end this war.

"Our party will patiently but persistently explain to the people the truth that wars are waged by governments, that wars are always inextricably linked with the policies of certain classes, and that this war can only be ended by a democratic peace through the transfer of state power, at least in several warring countries, into the hands of the class of proletarians and semi-proletarians, who are truly capable of putting an end to the oppression of capital."

For a Marxist, these truths—that wars are waged by capitalists and that they are linked to their class interests—are absolute truths. A Marxist does not need to dwell on this. But for the broad masses, all skilled propagandists and agitators must be able to explain this truth without foreign words, because our debates usually turn into empty quarrels, yielding nothing. And we approach this in all parts of the resolution. We say: to understand the war, one must ask who benefits from it; to understand how to end the war, one must ask which classes it does not benefit. The connection here is clear, and from this follows the next conclusion:

"A revolutionary class, having taken state power into its own hands in Russia, would take a series of measures aimed at destroying the economic dominance of the capitalists and measures leading to their complete political disempowerment, and would immediately and openly propose a democratic peace to all peoples on the basis of a complete renunciation of any annexations."

If we speak on behalf of the revolutionary class, the people have the right to ask: well, what would you do in their place to end the war? This is an inevitable question. The people are now choosing us as their representatives, and we must give a completely precise answer. The revolutionary class, having seized power, would begin by undermining the dominance of the capitalists and would propose specific peace terms to all peoples, because without undermining the economic dominance of the capitalists, it would only result in paper documents. Only a victorious class can do this, can bring about a change in policy.

I repeat again: for the undeveloped masses, this truth requires intermediate links that would introduce unprepared people to the issue. The entire error and falsehood of popular literature about the war lies in the fact that this question is avoided, it is kept silent, depicting the situation as if there was no class struggle, as if two countries lived in harmony, and one attacked the other, which defends itself. This is a vulgar argument, devoid of any objectivity—a conscious deception of the people by educated people. If we can approach this question, then every representative of the people will grasp the essence; for one thing is the interests of the ruling classes, and another is the interests of the oppressed classes.

What would happen if the revolutionary class took power?

"These measures and this open proposal for peace would create complete trust among the workers of the warring countries..."

There can be no such trust now; manifestos will not create this trust. If one thinker said that language is given to man to hide his thoughts, then diplomats constantly say: "conferences are convened to deceive the masses." Not only capitalists but also socialists reason this way. In particular, this can be said about the conference called by Borgbjerg.

"...and would inevitably lead to uprisings of the proletariat against those imperialist governments that would oppose the proposed peace."

When a capitalist government now says: "we are for peace without annexations," no one believes it. The masses have the instinct of the oppressed classes, which tells them that nothing has changed. Only when the policy in one country actually changes, would trust and attempts at uprisings appear. We speak of "uprisings" because we are talking about all countries. "A revolution happened in one country, now it must happen in Germany"—this reasoning is false. They try to establish an order, but this cannot be done. We have all experienced the 1905 revolution, we have all heard or seen how it led to the growth of revolutionary ideas around the world, as Marx always said. A revolution cannot be made or ordered; a revolution grows. This is sheer charlatanism, which is now especially often applied in Russia. They tell the people: you in Russia have made a revolution, now it's the Germans' turn. If objective conditions change, then an uprising is inevitable. But in what order, at what moment, and with what success, we do not know. They ask us: if the revolutionary class in Russia takes power into its own hands, and there is no uprising in other countries, what should the revolutionary party do then? How should it act? The last point of our resolution answers this question.

"While the revolutionary class in Russia has not yet taken full state power into its own hands, our party will do everything possible to support those proletarian parties and groups abroad that are already conducting a revolutionary struggle against their imperialist governments and their bourgeoisie during the war."

"will do everything to support those proletarian parties and groups abroad which are already waging a revolutionary struggle against their imperialist governments and their bourgeoisie during the war."

This is all that we can immediately promise and must do. Revolution is growing in all countries, but when and to what extent it is growing—no one knows. In all countries there are people who are waging a revolutionary struggle against their governments. It is they and only they whom we must support. This is the real thing, and everything else is just lies. And we add:

"Especially, the party will support the beginning mass fraternization of soldiers from all warring countries at the front..."

This remark is in response to Plekhanov's objection: "What will come of this?—says Plekhanov. Well, you will fraternize, and then what? This means the possibility of a separate peace at the front." This is trickery, not a serious argument. We want fraternization on all fronts, and we are concerned with this. When we were working in Switzerland, we published an appeal in two languages: French on one side, and German on the other, and we called for what we are leading the Russian soldiers to. We do not limit ourselves to fraternization only between Russia and Germany; we call for fraternization among all. Now, how should fraternization be understood?

"...seeking to transform this spontaneous manifestation of solidarity of the oppressed into a conscious and as organized as possible movement towards the transfer of all state power in all warring countries to the hands of the revolutionary proletariat."

Currently, fraternization is spontaneous, and we must not deceive ourselves about this. This must be acknowledged so as not to mislead the people. There is no clear political thought among the fraternizing soldiers. This is the instinct of oppressed people who are tired, exhausted, and have stopped believing the capitalists: "While you talk about peace—we have been hearing this for two and a half years—we will start ourselves." This is a true class instinct. Without such an instinct, the cause of the revolution would be hopeless. For, as you know, no one would liberate the workers if they did not liberate themselves. But is this instinct enough? You cannot go far on instinct alone. Therefore, it is necessary to transform this instinct into consciousness.

In the appeal "To the Soldiers of All Warring Countries," we give an answer to the question: What should this fraternization turn into?—into the transfer of political power to the hands of the Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies[65]. Of course, German workers will call their Soviets by other names, but this is not important. The essence is that we recognize it as undoubtedly correct that it is spontaneous, and that we do not limit ourselves to encouraging it, but set as our task the transformation of this spontaneous rapprochement of workers and peasants in soldiers' uniforms from all countries into a conscious movement, the goal of which is the transfer of power in all warring countries to the hands of the revolutionary proletariat. This task is very difficult, but the situation in which humanity is placed by the power of the capitalists is also unprecedentedly difficult and leads humanity straight to destruction. Therefore, it will provoke an explosion of indignation, which is the guarantee of the proletarian revolution.

Here is our resolution, which we propose for the attention of the conference.

First published in 1921 in Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Vol. XIV, Part II

Printed from a typescript copy of the minutes

Comrades, the agrarian question was discussed so thoroughly by our party during the first revolution that, I think, there is now sufficient preparation for it, and indirect confirmation of this is that the section of the conference, composed of comrades closely familiar with this issue and interested in it, agreed on the proposed draft resolution without fundamental amendments. Therefore, I will confine myself to the briefest remarks. Since the draft, distributed in proof form, is available to all members, there is no need to read it in full.

The growth of the agrarian movement throughout Russia is currently the most obvious and indisputable fact for everyone. The program of our party, adopted at the Stockholm Congress in 1908 and proposed by the Mensheviks, was already disproven by the course of the first Russian revolution. At this congress, the Mensheviks passed their municipalization, the essence of which boils down to the following: peasant lands, both communal and individual, remain the property of the peasants. Landlord lands pass from their owners to the organs of local self-government. One of the main arguments of the Mensheviks in favor of such a program was that the peasants would never understand the transfer of peasant land into the hands of anyone other than the peasantry. Those who have studied the protocols of the Stockholm Congress will recall that this argument was particularly emphasized by the rapporteur Maslov and Kostrov. It should not be forgotten, and this is often forgotten now, that this was before the First Duma, when there were no objective facts about the character and strength of the peasant movement. Everyone knew that Russia was burning with the fire of agrarian revolution, but how the agrarian movement would be organized, and what the movement of the peasant revolution would be like, no one knew. It was impossible to verify how seriously this congress represented the actual, businesslike opinion of the peasants themselves, and this is why these Menshevik arguments played such a role. Soon after our Stockholm Congress, we received for the first time impressive confirmation of how the peasant masses viewed this issue. In both the First and Second Dumas, the labor "project of 104" was put forward by the peasants themselves. I specifically studied the signatures under this project, familiarized myself in detail with the opinions of the deputies and to which class they belonged, and to what extent they could be called peasants. With complete definitiveness, I asserted in the book that was burned by the tsarist censorship and which I will still republish, that the vast majority of these 104 signatures were those of the peasants themselves. This project demanded the nationalization of the land. The peasants said that all the land should go into the hands of the state.

Thus, the question is, how to explain that in the Dumas, convened twice, representatives of the peasants of all Russia preferred nationalization to the measure that the Mensheviks proposed in both Dumas from the point of view of peasant interests. The Mensheviks proposed that the peasants keep their land in their own possession and only the landlord land should be given to the people, but the peasants said that they would transfer all the land to the people. How is this to be explained? The Socialist-Revolutionaries explain this by saying that the Russian peasants, due to their community spirit, sympathize with socialization, with the labor principle. There is not the slightest sound sense in all this phraseology; it is just empty words. But how is this to be explained? I think that the peasants came to this conclusion because all Russian land ownership, both peasant and landlord, both communal and individual, is permeated with the conditions of old semi-serfdom, and from the point of view of market conditions, the peasants had to demand the transfer of the land to the hands of the entire people. The peasants say that the confusion of the previous agrarian life can only be untangled through nationalization. Their view is bourgeois: equal land use they understand as taking land from the landlords, but not as equalizing individual owners. Nationalization means putting all lands under a new distribution. This is the greatest bourgeois project. No peasant spoke of equalization and socialization, but all said that it is no longer possible to wait, that it is necessary to redistribute all the land, i.e., it is impossible to conduct farming in the old way in the conditions of the 20th century. The Stolypin reform has since further complicated the land question. This is what the peasants mean by demanding nationalization. This means putting all lands, in general, under a new distribution. There should be no variety of forms of land ownership. There is absolutely no socialization here. This demand of the peasants is called equalizing because, as the brief summary of the 1905 land ownership statistics shows, for 300 peasant families and one landlord family, there are 2,000 desyatins of land; in this sense, it is, of course, equalizing, but this does not mean that it means equalizing all small farms with each other. The project of 104 says the opposite.

The landlord has 2,000 desyatin of land; in this sense, it is certainly equalizing, but this does not mean that it aims to equalize all small holdings with each other. The project of the 104 [delegates] says the opposite.

This is the main point that needs to be said to scientifically substantiate the view that, from the standpoint of bourgeois democracy, nationalization in Russia is necessary. But it is also necessary because it represents a gigantic blow to private property in the means of production. To think that after the abolition of private property in land in Russia everything will remain as before is simply absurd.

Further, in the draft resolution, practical conclusions and demands are made. Among the minor amendments, I note the following: in the first point, it is said, "The party of the proletariat supports with all its might the immediate and complete confiscation of all landed estates...” – instead of “supports,” it should read “fights for...” We do not see it as a matter of peasants having too little land and needing more. This is a common view; we say that the landed estate system is the basis of oppression that strangles the peasantry and makes it backward. It is not about whether the peasants have little land or not; away with serfdom – this is how the question is posed from the standpoint of revolutionary class struggle, not from the standpoint of officials who reason about how much land they have and according to what norms it should be distributed. I propose to switch points 2 and 3, because for us, the revolutionary initiative is important, and the law should be its result. If you wait for the law to be written while not developing revolutionary energy, then you will have neither the law nor the land.

It is often objected against nationalization that it presupposes a gigantic bureaucratic apparatus. This is true, but state ownership means that every peasant is a tenant of the state. Subleasing is prohibited. But to what extent the peasant rents, what land he takes – this is entirely decided by the corresponding democratic body, not a bureaucratic one.

Instead of "hired laborers," the term "agricultural workers" is inserted. Several comrades stated that the word "hired laborer" is offensive, and objections were raised against this word. It should be removed.

It is not appropriate to speak now of proletarian-peasant committees or Soviets in resolving the land question, for, as we see, the peasants have created soldiers' deputies' councils, and thus there is already a division between the proletariat and the peasantry.

As is known, the petty-bourgeois defensive parties stand for postponing the land question until the Constituent Assembly. We advocate for the immediate transfer of land to the peasants with maximum organization. We are absolutely against anarchic seizures. You propose to the peasants to agree with the landlords. We say that the land must be taken immediately and sown to combat the lack of bread, to save the country from the collapse that is approaching with colossal speed. It is impossible now to accept the recipes of Shingarev and the Cadets, who propose waiting for the Constituent Assembly, the date of which is unknown, or to negotiate with the landlords about leasing. The peasants are already seizing the land without payment or paying a quarter of the rent.

A comrade brought a resolution from the field, from Penza Province, which states that the peasants take the landlords' inventory but do not divide it among households, but turn it into communal property. They establish a certain order, a rule, to use this inventory to cultivate all the land. By resorting to these measures, they are guided by the interests of increasing agricultural production. This fact has a gigantic principled significance, contrary to the landlords and capitalists who shout that this is anarchy. If you keep talking and shouting that this is anarchy, and the peasants will wait, then there will be real anarchy. The peasants show that they understand economic conditions and public control better than officials and apply it a hundred times better. Such a measure, which, of course, is easily implemented in a small village, inevitably pushes towards broader measures. If the peasant learns this, and he has begun to learn, no skill of bourgeois professors is needed here; they themselves will come to the conclusion that the inventory must be used not only for small farms but for cultivating all the land. How they do it is not important: whether they combine plots for joint plowing and sowing, we do not know, and it is not important if they do it differently. The important thing is that, fortunately, they do not have a large number of petty-bourgeois intellectuals in front of them, who call themselves Marxists, social democrats, and with a serious air teach the people that the time for a socialist revolution has not yet come and therefore the peasants cannot take the land now. Fortunately, there are few such gentlemen in Russian villages. If the peasants limited themselves to taking the land by agreement with the landlords but did not apply their experience collectively, then the collapse would be inevitable, and then the peasant committees would turn out to be a toy, a draw. For this reason, we propose adding an eighth point to the draft resolution[66].

Since we know that the local peasants themselves have initiated this, it is our duty, our obligation, to say that we support and recommend this initiative. Only in this lies the guarantee that the revolution will not be limited to formal measures, that the struggle against the crisis will not remain a subject of discussion in offices and Shingarev's scribblings, but that in reality, they will go forward in an organized way in the struggle against the lack of bread and for the increase of production.

First published in 1921 in Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Vol. XIV, Part II

Published from a typescript copy of the minutes

Since 1903, when our party adopted the program, we have always encountered desperate opposition from Polish comrades. If you study the protocols of the Second Congress, you will see that even then they presented the same arguments that we encounter now, and the Polish Social Democrats left the congress, finding the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination unacceptable for them. And since that time, we have repeatedly stumbled upon the same question. In 1903, imperialism already existed, but at that time, the arguments did not mention imperialism; then, as now, the position of Polish Social Democracy remains a strange, monstrous error: these people want to reduce the position of our party to that of chauvinists.

Polish policy is entirely national, due to long-term oppression by Russia, and the entire Polish people are permeated with the single thought of revenge on the Muscovites. No one has oppressed the Poles as much as the Russian people. The Russian people served as the executioner of Polish freedom under the tsars. There is no people so permeated with hatred for Russia, no people who hate Russia as terribly as the Poles, and from this arises a strange phenomenon. Poland is an obstacle to the socialist movement due to the Polish bourgeoisie. Let the whole world burn in fire, as long as Poland is free. Of course, such a formulation is a mockery of internationalism. Of course, now violence reigns over Poland, but for Polish nationalists to count on its liberation by Russia is a betrayal of the International. And Polish nationalists have so imbued the Polish people with their views that this is how they look at it.

The great, historical merit of the Polish Social Democratic comrades is that they put forward the slogan of internationalism and said: the most important thing for us is the fraternal union with the proletariat of all other countries, and we will never go to war for the liberation of Poland. This is their merit, and for this reason, we have always considered only these Polish Social Democratic comrades as socialists. The others are patriots, Polish Plekhanovs. But because of this unique position, when people had to fight against rabid, sick nationalism to save socialism, a strange phenomenon arose: comrades come to us and say that we must renounce the freedom of Poland, its separation.

and socialism, we had to fight against the frenzied, sick nationalism, a strange phenomenon emerged: comrades come to us and say that we must renounce the freedom of Poland, its secession.

Why should we, the Great Russians, who oppress more nations than any other people, renounce recognizing the right of Poland, Ukraine, Finland to secede? They propose that we become chauvinists because this would ease the position of social-democrats in Poland. We do not claim to liberate Poland because the Polish people live between two states capable of fighting. But instead of saying that Polish workers should reason like this: only those social-democrats remain democrats who believe that the Polish people should be free, for there is no place for chauvinists in the ranks of the socialist party, Polish social-democrats say: precisely because it is advantageous for us to ally with Russian workers, we are against the secession of Poland. This is their full right. But people do not want to understand that to strengthen internationalism, one does not need to repeat the same words, but in Russia, one must emphasize the freedom of secession of oppressed nations, and in Poland, the freedom of union. The freedom of union presupposes the freedom of secession. We, the Russians, must emphasize the freedom of secession, and in Poland, the freedom of union.

Here we see a series of sophisms leading to a complete rejection of Marxism. Comrade Pyatakov's viewpoint is a repetition of Rosa Luxemburg's...[67] (the example of Holland)...[68] Comrade Pyatakov reasons this way, and thus he defeats himself, for in theory, he stands for the negation of the right to secession, but to the people, he says: whoever denies the right to secession is not a socialist. What Comrade Pyatakov said here is an incredible muddle. In Western Europe, countries predominate where the national question has long been resolved. When they say that the national question is resolved, they mean Western Europe. Comrade Pyatakov transfers this to where it does not apply, to Eastern Europe, and we find ourselves in a ridiculous position.

Think about what a terrible mess this is! After all, Finland is right next to us. Comrade Pyatakov does not give a specific answer regarding it, and he is completely confused. In "Rabochaya Gazeta" yesterday, you read that separatism is growing in Finland. Finns come and say that separatism is increasing because the Cadets do not give Finland full autonomy. There, a crisis is brewing, dissatisfaction with Governor-General Rodichev, and "Rabochaya Gazeta" writes that the Finns should wait for the Constituent Assembly, as an agreement between Finland and Russia will be reached there. What does agreement mean? The Finns should say that they have the right to decide their fate in their own way, and any Great Russian who would deny this right would be a chauvinist. It is another matter if we were to say to the Finnish worker: how it is beneficial for you to resolve...[69]

Comrade Pyatakov only negates our slogan, saying that this means not giving a slogan for the socialist revolution, but he himself did not provide a corresponding slogan. The method of the socialist revolution under the slogan "away with borders" is complete confusion. We were unable to print the article in which I called this view "imperialist economism"[70]. What does it mean – "method" of the socialist revolution under the slogan "down with borders"? We stand for the necessity of the state, and the state implies borders. The state can, of course, accommodate a bourgeois government, but we need Soviets. But for them, too, the question of borders arises. What does "away with borders" mean? Here begins anarchy... The "method" of the socialist revolution under the slogan "away with borders" is simply a mess. When the socialist revolution ripens, when it happens, it will spread to other countries, and we will help it, but how, we do not know. The "method of the socialist revolution" is a phrase devoid of content. As long as there are remnants of questions unresolved by the bourgeois revolution, we stand for their resolution. We are indifferent, neutral, to the separatist movement. If Finland, if Poland, Ukraine separate from Russia, there is nothing bad in this. What is bad about it? Whoever says this is a chauvinist. One must go mad to continue the policy of Tsar Nicholas. After all, Norway separated from Sweden... Once, Alexander I and Napoleon exchanged peoples, once, tsars traded Poland. And we will continue this tactic of the tsars? This is a rejection of the tactics of internationalism, this is the worst kind of chauvinism. If Finland separates, what is bad about it? After separation, the trust between the proletariat of Norway and Sweden strengthened. Swedish landlords wanted to go to war, but Swedish workers opposed this and said: we will not go to this war. The Finns now only want autonomy. We are for Finland being given full freedom, then trust in Russian democracy will increase, precisely then they will not separate, when this is implemented. When Mr. Rodichev comes and haggles over autonomy, Finnish comrades come to us and say: we need autonomy. And against them, they open fire from all guns, saying: "wait for the Constituent Assembly." We, on the other hand, say: "a Russian socialist who denies Finland's freedom is a chauvinist."

We say that borders are determined by the will of the population. Russia, do not dare to wage war over Kurland! Germany, withdraw your troops from Kurland! This is how we resolve the question of secession. The proletariat cannot resort to violence, for it must not hinder the freedom of peoples. Then the slogan "away with borders" will be true when the socialist revolution becomes a reality, not a method, and we will say then: comrades, come to us...

It is quite a different matter – the question of war. If necessary, we will not refuse a revolutionary war. We are not pacifists... When Milyukov sits with us and sends Rodichev to Finland, who shamelessly haggles with the Finnish people there, we say: no, do not dare, Russian people, to violate Finland: a people cannot be free if it itself oppresses other peoples{156}. In the resolution on Borgbjerg, we say: withdraw the troops and let the nation decide the question independently. If tomorrow the Soviet takes power into its hands, this will not be a "method of the socialist revolution," we will then say: Germany, withdraw your troops from Poland, Russia, withdraw your troops from Armenia – otherwise, it will be deception.

About his oppressed Poland, Comrade Dzerzhinsky tells us that everyone there is a chauvinist. But why has no one from Poland said a word about what to do with Finland, what to do with Ukraine? We have argued so much about this since 1903 that it becomes difficult to talk about it. Go wherever you want... Whoever does not stand on this point of view is an annexationist, a chauvinist. We want a fraternal union of all peoples. If there is a Ukrainian republic and a Russian republic, there will be more connection, more trust between them. If the Ukrainians see that we have a Soviet republic, they will not separate, but if we have a Milyukov republic, they will separate. When Comrade Pyatakov, in complete contradiction to his views, said: we are against forcibly holding within borders – this is recognition of the right of a nation to self-determination. We absolutely do not want the Khivan peasant to live under the Khivan Khan. Through the development of our revolution, we will influence the oppressed masses. Agitation among the oppressed masses must be conducted in this way.

But any Russian socialist who does not recognize the freedom of Finland and Ukraine will slide into chauvinism. And no sophisms and references to their "method" will ever justify them.

First published in 1921 in the Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), Volume XIV, Part II

Printed from a typescript copy of the protocol record

Comrade Zinoviev himself acknowledged that our visit to Stockholm would be the last and that we would be there for informational purposes.

. Ulyanova), Vol. XIV, Part II

Printed from a typescript copy of the minutes

Comrade Zinoviev himself acknowledged that our visit to Stockholm would be the last and that we would go there for informational purposes.

When Grimm summoned the conference, I did not go, as I saw that it was impossible to speak with people who support social-chauvinism. We say: "no participation with social-chauvinists." We come and appeal to the left Zimmerwald faction. Grimm had both the moral and formal right to write today's resolution. His right was based on Kautsky in Germany and Longuet in France. Formally, the matter stands as follows: Grimm printed, "we will dissolve our bureau as soon as Huysmans' bureau convenes." When we said that such a decision was not made in Zimmerwald, he agreed but stated that "the majority views it this way," and this was true.

Regarding the visit: "there will be information, we will contact the left Zimmerwald faction." It is unlikely hope to think that we will attract anyone else. There is no point in making illusions: first, the visit will not take place; second, it will be the last; third, we cannot technically attract elements that want to break with social-chauvinists. But let Comrade Nogin make the first, and Comrade Zinoviev the last, visit to Stockholm. From my side, it is a legitimate wish that the experience with the last visit be carried out as quickly and successfully as possible.

First published in 1925 in the book "The Petrograd Citywide and All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP(b) in April 1917"

Printed from a handwritten copy of the minutes