## 1. Protocol Record

Comrades, I read the initial draft of the resolution on war at the all-city conference. Due to the crisis that has occupied the attention and energies of all comrades in Petrograd, we were unable to revise this draft. But yesterday and today a commission worked successfully, and it underwent changes, was considerably 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 class analysis of the war with the addition of our principled position on why the party warns against any trust in government promises and any support whatsoever for the Provisional Government. The second part of the resolution is devoted to the question of revolutionary defensism, as an extraordinarily broad mass current that has now united against us the enormous majority of the people. The task consists in determining the class significance of this revolutionary defensism, what its essence is, what the actual correlation of forces is, and how we are to struggle against this current. The third part of the resolution concerns the question of how to end the war. To this practical question, which is of greatest importance for the party, it was necessary to respond in detail, and we believe we have managed to give a satisfactory answer to this question. In a series of articles in *Pravda* and provincial newspapers (which reach us extremely irregularly: the mail does not work and we must use informal channels to obtain local papers for the Central Committee), where there was a large number of articles on the war, a negative attitude toward the war and toward the question of the loan was clarified. I think that the voting against the loan settled the question of our negative attitude toward revolutionary defensism. It is not possible for me to dwell on this in greater detail.

"The present war on the part of both groups of belligerent powers is an imperialist war, that is, one conducted by capitalists for the division of the spoils of dominion over the world, for markets of financial (banking) capital, for the subjugation of weak peoples, etc."

The fundamental and first proposition is the question concerning the character of the war, a question of general and political character, a disputed question, which capitalists and social-chauvinists carefully avoid. Therefore we must place it first and make an addition:

"Each day of the war enriches the financial and industrial bourgeoisie and ruins and exhausts the forces of the proletariat and peasantry of all belligerent, and subsequently neutral, countries. In Russia, moreover, the prolongation of the war carries the greatest danger to the conquests of the revolution and its further development.

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

This phrase, which I have just read, has great significance for us in 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 landowners and capitalists, the very same government that prepared this war. Further, we move to one of the facts that most vividly demonstrate the character of the war. One thing is the class character, expressed in all the policy that certain classes have pursued over decades, and another thing is the vivid class character of the war.

"This fact was especially vividly revealed in the fact that the new government not only did not publish the secret treaties concluded by Tsar Nicholas II with the capitalist governments of England, France, etc., but formally confirmed, without consulting the people, these secret treaties, promising Russian capitalists the plundering of China, Persia, Turkey, Austria, etc. By concealing these treaties, the Russian people are deceived regarding the true character of the war."

So, I emphasize once more that we point to especially vivid confirmation of the character of the war. Even if there were no treaties at all, the character of the war would not change in the least, because agreement between groups of capitalists can be reached very often without any treaties whatsoever. But they exist, their significance is especially vivid, and we, for the purpose of unifying the work of agitators and propagandists, consider it especially necessary to emphasize this fact and have decided to single out this point. The attention of the people is directed toward this fact, and it must be directed there, especially since the treaties were concluded by the tsar in our country, who has been overthrown, so that the people's attention must be fixed on the fact that wars are conducted by governments according to treaties concluded by old governments. I believe that here the contradictions between the interests of the capitalists and the will of the people are exposed in the most vivid form, and the task of agitators, exposing these contradictions, is to direct the people's attention toward them, to try to clarify the consciousness of the masses by appealing to their class consciousness. The content of these treaties is such that there can be no doubt that they promise enormous profits to the capitalists through the plundering of other countries, insofar as 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 capitalists to open their account books. Once there is private property in the means of production, it includes private property in shares and in financial operations. The chief basis of present-day diplomacy is precisely financial operations, which amount to the plundering and strangulation of weak peoples. From our point of view, these are the fundamental propositions from which flows the entire evaluation of the war. From them we draw the conclusion:

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

This is our main, fundamental conclusion, determining all our tactics and distinguishing us from all other parties, whatever socialist names they may give themselves. By this proposition, which is indisputable for all of us, the question of our relation to all other political parties is settled.

Further comes discussion of the fact that our government has posed the question of promises in an especially broad way. Around these promises there is a protracted campaign of the Soviets, entangled in these promises and testing the people. Therefore we consider it necessary to add to the purely objective analysis of the class situation an evaluation of the promises, promises which, of course, for a Marxist have no significance in themselves. But for the broad masses this signifies much, and for politics even more. The Petrograd Soviet has become entangled in these promises and attaches weight to them, promising its support. This is why we add to this point the following formulation:

"The promises of the present government deserve no trust, promises to renounce annexations, that is, the conquest of foreign lands, or the forcible retention within the borders of Russia of any peoples."

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

"For, first, capitalists, bound together by thousands of threads of banking capital, cannot renounce annexations in this war without renouncing profits amounting to billions, invested in loans, in concessions, in 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 its note of April 18 and its clarification of April 22, it confirmed the annexationist character of its policy.

Warning the people against empty promises of capitalists, the conference therefore declares that one must strictly distinguish between the renunciation of annexations in words and the renunciation of annexations in deed, that is, the immediate publication and annulment of all secret predatory treaties and the immediate granting to all peoples of the right to decide freely by vote whether they wish to be independent states or to be part of whatever state."

We consider it necessary to point this out because the question of peace without annexations is a fundamental question in all these discussions concerning the terms of peace. All parties recognize that peace will become an alternative and that peace with annexations will be an unprecedented catastrophe for all countries. And before a people, in whose country there is political freedom, one cannot pose the question of peace otherwise than as peace without annexations. One must therefore declare oneself for peace without annexations, and there remains only to lie through obscuring the concept of annexation or to evade this question. *Rech'*, for example, shouts that the return of Courland constitutes a renunciation of annexations. When I spoke before the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, a soldier handed me a note with the question: "must we fight to recapture Courland. Does it really mean being in favor of annexations to recapture Courland?" I had to answer affirmatively.[64] We are against Germany being able to annex Courland by force, but also against Russia holding Courland by force. For example, our government issued a manifesto concerning the independence of Poland, filling it with meaningless phrases. They wrote that Poland should be in a free military union with Russia. In these three words lies the only truth. A free military union of little Poland with enormous Russia is in fact the complete military enslavement of Poland. Politically it may grant freedom, but all the same its borders will be determined by the military union.

If we fight for Russian capitalists to control Courland and Poland within former boundaries, then German capitalists have the right to plunder Courland. They can object: we plundered Poland together. When we began to tear Poland apart at the end of the eighteenth century, Prussia was a very small and weak power, and Russia was enormous, and Russia plundered more. Now we have become stronger, and allow us to take a larger portion. There is no way to object to this logic of 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 can object: we were weak when our Courland was taken from us, now we have developed stronger than you and want to take it back. Not to renounce annexations means justifying endless wars over the seizure of weak peoples. Renouncing annexations means granting to each people the freedom to decide whether it wishes to live separately or together with another. Of course, for this it is necessary to withdraw troops. To allow the slightest hesitation on the question of annexations means justifying endless wars. Consequently, on this question we could not allow any hesitation. Our answer regarding annexations is the free determination of peoples. How to make it so that this political freedom is also economic freedom? For this a transition of power into the hands of the proletariat and the overthrow of the yoke of capital are necessary.

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

"The so-called 'revolutionary defensism,' which has now embraced in Russia all the Populist parties (People's Socialists, Laborites, Socialist-Revolutionaries) and the opportunist party of Menshevik Social-Democrats (OK, Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), as well as the majority of unaffiliated revolutionaries, represents from the point of view of its class significance, on the one hand, the interests and viewpoint of well-to-do peasants and part of petty proprietors, who, like capitalists, extract profits from violence against weak peoples. On the other hand, revolutionary defensism is the result of capitalists deceiving part of the proletariat and semi-proletariat of city and countryside, who by their class position are not interested in the profits of capitalists and in imperialist war."

Thus, our task here is to determine from what strata defensive sentiment could arise and has arisen. Russia is the most petty-bourgeois country, and the upper strata of the petty bourgeoisie are directly interested in the continuation of this war. Well-to-do peasantry, like capitalists, receives profit from it. On the other hand, the mass of proletariat and semi-proletariat is not interested in annexations, since they do not receive profits from banking capital. How could these classes take the standpoint of revolutionary defensism? This attitude of these classes toward revolutionary defensism is the result of the influence of capitalist ideology, which in the resolution is expressed by the word "deception." They do not know how to distinguish the interests of capitalists from the interests of the country. From this we draw the conclusion:

"The conference recognizes as absolutely impermissible and signifying in fact a complete break with internationalism and socialism any concessions to revolutionary defensism. As for the defensive sentiments of broad popular masses, our party will struggle against these sentiments with patient but persistent explanation of the truth that unconsciously credulous trust in a capitalist government is at the present moment one of the principal obstacles to the speedy ending of the war."

Here in the last words is expressed that peculiarity which sharply distinguishes Russia from all other capitalist Western countries and from all capitalist-democratic republics. For there one cannot say that the credulity of unconscious masses is the chief cause of the continuation of the war. There the masses are now squeezed in an iron grip of military discipline, and the more democratic the republic, the more the discipline, for in the latter law is based on the "will of the people." In Russia, by virtue of the revolution, there is no such discipline. The masses freely choose representatives to the Soviets—a phenomenon which cannot now be observed anywhere else in the world. But they are unconsciously credulous, and from this flows a particular use of them for struggle. Besides explanations, nothing else can be done here. The explanations must concern here direct revolutionary tasks and methods of action. When the masses are free, attempts to do something in the name of a minority without explaining to the masses would be absurd Blanquism—a mere adventuristic attempt. Only by winning over the masses—if it can be won over—only thus do we create a firm basis for the victory of proletarian class struggle.

I move on to the third part of the resolution:

"As for the most important question of how to end as quickly as possible, and moreover through a non-violent, truly democratic peace, this capitalist war, the conference recognizes and resolves:

It is impossible to end this war through the refusal of soldiers of only one side to continue the war, through a simple cessation of military operations by one of the belligerent sides."

This idea of such an ending of the war is very often imposed upon us by people who wish to facilitate the struggle with their opponent by distorting his views—the usual practice of capitalists who attribute to us a senseless ending of the war through unilateral refusal. And they object: "it is impossible to end the war by sticking a bayonet into the ground," as one soldier, who is a typical revolutionary defensist, formulated it. This is not an objection, I say. This is an anarchistic idea, that one can end the war without a change in ruling classes; this is an idea either anarchistic, which has no significance, state significance, or vaguely pacifist, and does not at all understand the connection between politics and the oppressing class. War is evil, and peace is good… Of course, this idea must be explained, popularized to the masses. And generally speaking, 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 unified guidance of all policy for any propagandist and agitator. For this, one more paragraph has been added:

"The conference protests again and again against the base slander spread by capitalists against our party, namely, that we sympathize with a separate peace with Germany. We consider German capitalists to be the same brigands as Russian, English, French and other capitalists, and Emperor Wilhelm to be the same crowned brigand as Nicholas II and the monarchs of England, Italy, Romania, and all the others."

Regarding this point, there were some disputes in the commission, on the one hand, over the fact that we supposedly crossed over here to an overly popular style, and on the other hand, that the English, Italian, and Romanian monarchs did not deserve the honor of being inserted here. But after thorough discussion we came to unanimous agreement that at the present moment, when we have set ourselves the goal of refuting the slanders which *Birzhevka* attempted mostly coarsely, *Rech'* subtly, and *Yedinstvo* through direct hints to bring against us—on such a question one must come forward with the most vivid and sharp criticism of these concepts, with the broadest masses in mind. And since we are told: if you consider Wilhelm a brigand, help us overthrow him, then we can answer that all the others are also brigands, and we must struggle against them too, so that we should not forget the kings of Italy and Romania either; there will be such as these among our allies as well. These two paragraphs contain a rebuttal against slanders which strive to reduce the matter to pogroms and quarreling. This is why we must further move on to the serious practical question of how to end this war.

"Our party will patiently but insistently explain to the people the truth that wars are conducted by governments, that wars are always inseparably connected with the policy of certain classes, that this war can be ended by a democratic peace only through the transition of all state power, at least in several belligerent countries, into the hands of the class of proletarians and semi-proletarians, which is truly capable of putting an end to the oppression of capital."

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

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

If we speak in the name of a revolutionary class, the people have the right to ask: well, and what would you do in their place to end the war? This is an inevitable question. The people now choose us as their representatives, and we must give a completely precise answer. A revolutionary class, having taken power, would begin by undermining the dominance of capitalists, and would offer to all peoples precise conditions of peace, because if there is no undermining of the economic dominance of capitalists, then only papers will result. Only a victorious class can do this, can bring about a change in policy.

Once again I repeat: for underdeveloped popular masses this truth requires intermediate links, which would introduce unprepared people into the question. All the error and all the falsehood in popular literature about the war consists in the fact that this question is evaded, silence is kept on it, the matter is depicted as if class struggle did not exist, as if two countries lived in peace, and one attacked the other and the latter is defending itself. This is vulgar reasoning, in which there is not a shadow of objectivity,—conscious deception of the people by educated people. If we manage to approach this question correctly, then every representative of the people will grasp the essence; for one thing is the interests of ruling classes, and another thing is the interests of oppressed classes.

What would it be if a revolutionary class took power?

"These measures and this open proposal for peace would create complete trust among the workers of the belligerent countries in each other…"

Now such trust cannot exist; by words of manifestoes we will not create such trust. If one thinker said that language was given to man in order to conceal his thoughts, then diplomats constantly say: "conferences are assembled in order to hoodwink the popular masses." Not only capitalists but also socialists reason this way. In particular, this can be said of the conference called by Borgbjerg.

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

When a capitalist government now says: "we are for peace without annexations," no one believes it. The popular masses have the instinct of oppressed classes, which tells them that nothing has changed. Only when in one country the policy actually changed would trust appear and an attempt at uprising. We speak of "uprisings" because the question concerns all countries. "In one country a revolution has occurred, now it must occur in Germany"—this reasoning is false. They try to establish a sequence, but one cannot act this way. We have all lived through the revolution of 1905, we have all been able to hear or see how it caused a growth of revolutionary ideas throughout the world, about which Marx always spoke. A revolution cannot be either made or put in sequence. One cannot order a revolution—revolution grows. This is sheer charlatanry, which is now being applied especially often in Russia. The people are told: you have made a revolution in Russia, now it is Germany's turn. If objective conditions change, then uprising is inevitable. But in what sequence, at what moment, and with what success—we do not know. We are told: if a revolutionary class in Russia takes state power into its own hands, but there are no uprisings in other countries, what then is the revolutionary party to do? What then? To this question the last point of our resolution gives an answer.

"Until such time as the revolutionary class in Russia has not taken all state power into its own hands, our party will in every way support those proletarian parties and groups abroad which are actually conducting revolutionary struggle during the war against their imperialist governments and their bourgeoisie."

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 conducting revolutionary struggle against their governments. Them and only them must we support. This is the work, while everything else is only lies. And we add:

"In particular, the party will support the beginning mass fraternization of soldiers of all belligerent countries at the front…"

This remark is in response to an objection by Plekhanov: "What will come of this?"—says Plekhanov.—"Well, you fraternize, but what then? 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 worked in Switzerland, we published the text of a proclamation in two languages: on one side in French, on the other in German, and we called for what we are leading Russian soldiers toward. We do not limit ourselves to fraternization only between Russia and Germany; we call for fraternization of all. Now, how should we understand fraternization?

"…striving to turn this spontaneous manifestation of the solidarity of the oppressed into a conscious and organized as much as possible movement toward the transition of all state power in all belligerent countries into the hands of the revolutionary proletariat."

Now fraternization is spontaneous, and we must not deceive ourselves on this score. This must be acknowledged so as not to mislead the people. There is no clear political thought among fraternizing soldiers. This speaks the instinct of oppressed people, who are tired, exhausted, and cease to believe capitalists: "while you talk about peace there, we have been hearing this for two and a half years already, we will begin ourselves." This is the correct class instinct. Without such instinct the cause of revolution would be hopeless. For, you know, no one would have liberated workers if they had not liberated themselves. But is such an instinct sufficient? One cannot go far on instinct alone. And therefore a transition of this instinct into consciousness is necessary.

In the proclamation "To the Soldiers of All Belligerent Countries" we give an answer to the question: into what should this fraternization be transformed?—into the transition of political power into the hands of Soviets of workers' and soldiers' deputies.[65] Of course, German workers will call their Soviets by other names; this is not important. But the point is that we recognize undoubtedly correctly that it is spontaneous and that we do not limit ourselves to encouraging it, but set ourselves the task of transforming this spontaneous rapprochement of workers and peasants dressed in soldiers' greatcoats of all countries—into a conscious movement whose goal is the transition of power in all belligerent countries into the hands of the revolutionary proletariat. This task is very difficult, but the situation in which humanity has been placed by the power of capitalists is also unprecedentedly difficult and leads humanity straight to destruction. Therefore it will call forth that explosion of indignation which is the pledge of proletarian revolution.

Here is our resolution, which we submit for the consideration of the conference.

*First published in 1921 in Collected Works of N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), vol. XIV, part II*

*Printed from a typewritten copy of the protocol record*

## 2. Newspaper Report

Comrade Lenin came forward as speaker to substantiate the first resolution, pointing to the necessity of dividing the resolution into three parts: the first, containing class analysis of the war; the second, devoted to the so-called "revolutionary defensism," and the third, providing an answer to the question of how to end the war. The first part of the resolution exposes the motive forces of the imperialist war, establishes their connection with a definite period of capitalist development, clarifies the annexationist strivings of the ruling classes of all countries. The second part provides a characterization of a peculiar current. The third part outlines the path of ending the war, refuting the absurd slander about a "separate" peace, the path of revolutionary class struggle for power.

*Pravda*, No. 44, May 12 (April 29), 1917

*Printed according to the text of the newspaper Pravda*