V. I.

Lenin

The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

APRIL 24–29, 1917

8

Speech in Favour of the Resolution on the War

April 27 (May 10)

Comrades, the original draft resolution on the war was read by
me at the City Conference. Because of the crisis that absorbed
the attention and energy of all our comrades in Petrograd, we
were unable to amend the draft. Since yesterday, however, the
committee working on it has made satisfactory progress: the
draft has been changed, considerably shortened and, in our
opinion, improved.

I wish to say a few words about the construction of this
resolution. It consists of three parts. The first is devoted to
a class analysis of the war; it also contains our statement of
principles explaining why our Party warns against placing any
trust in promises made by the Provisional Government, as well as
against any support for that government. The second part of the
resolution deals with the question of revolutionary defencism as
an extremely broad mass movement which has now united against us
the overwhelming majority of the nation. Our task is to define
the class significance of this revolutionary defencism, its
essence, and the real balance of forces, and find a way to fight
this trend. The third part of the resolution deals with the
question of how to end the war. This practical question, which
is of supreme importance to our Party, required a detailed
answer. We think that we have succeeded in meeting this
requirement satistactorily. The articles in Pravda and numerous articles on the war published in provincial newspapers
(the latter reach us very irregularly) because the postal
service is disorganised, and we have to take every convenient
opportunity of getting them for the Central Committee) reveal a
negative attitude towards the war and the loan. I think that the
vote against the loan settled the question as to our opposition
to revolutionary defencism. I do not think it is possible to go
into greater detail on this.

“ The present war is, on the part of both groups of the
belligerent powers, an imperialist war, i. e., one waged by the
capitalists for the division of the profits obtained from world
domination; for markets for finance (banking) capital, for the
subjugation of the weaker nationalities, etc.”

The primary and basic issue is the meaning of the war, a
question of a general and political character, a moot question
which the capitalists and the social-chauvinists carefully
evade. This is why we must put this question first, with this
addition to it:

“ Each day of war enriches the financial and industrial
bourgeoisie and impoverishes and saps the strength of the
proletariat and the peasantry of all the belligerents, as well
as of the neutral countries. In Russia, moreover, prolongation
of the war involves a grave danger to the revolution’s gains and
its further development.

“ The passing of state power in Russia to the Provisional
Government, a government of the landowners and capitalists, did
not and could not alter the character and meaning of the war as
far as Russia is concerned.”

The words I have just read to you are of great importance in all
our propaganda and agitation. Has the class character of the war
changed now? Can it change? Our reply is based on the fact that
power has passed to the landowners and capitalists, the same
government that had engineered this war. We then pass on to one
of the facts that reveal most clearly the character of the
war. Class character as expressed by the entire policy carried
on for decades by definite classes is one thing, the obvious
class character of the war is another.

“ This fact was most strikingly demonstrated when the new
government not only failed to publish the secret treaties
between Tsar Nicholas II and the capitalist governments of
Britain, France, etc., but even formally and without consulting
the nation confirmed these secret treaties, which promise the
Russian capitalists a free hand to rob China, Persia, Turkey,
Austria, etc. By concealing these treaties from the people of
Russia the latter are being deceived as to the true character of
the war.”

And so, I emphasise again, we are pointing out one particularly
striking confirmation of the character of the war. Even if there
were no treaties at all, the character of the war would be the
same because groups of capitalists can very often come to an
agreement without any treaties. But the treaties exist and their
implications are apparent. For the purpose of co-ordinating the
work of our agitators and propagandists, we think this fact
should be especially emphasised, and so we have made a special
point of it. The people’s attention is and should be called to
this fact, all the more so as the treaties were concluded by the
tsar, who has been overthrown. The people ought to be made aware
that the present governments are carrying on the war on the
basis of treaties concluded between the old governments. This, I
feel, makes the contradictions between the capitalist interests
and the will of the people stand out most strikingly, and it is
for the propagandists to expose these contradictions, to draw
the people’s attention to them, to strive to explain them to the
masses by appealing to their class-consciousness. The contents
of these treaties leave no room for doubt that they promise
enormous profits to the capitalists to be derived from robbing
other countries. That is why they are always kept secret. There
is not a republic in the world whose foreign policy is conducted
in the open. It is fatuous, while the capitalist system exists,
to expect the capitalists to open up their ledgers. While there
is private ownership of the means of production, there is bound
to be private ownership of shares and financial operations. The
corner-stone of contemporary diplomacy is financial operations,
which amount to robbing and strangling the weak nationalities. These, we believe, are the fundamental premises
upon which the evaluation of the war rests.

Proceeding from these premises we conclude that:

“ For this reason, no proletarian party that does not wish to
break completely. with internationalism, i. e., with the
fraternal solidarity of the workers of all countries in their
struggle against the yoke of capital, can support the present
war, or the present government, or its loans.”

This is our chief and basic conclusion. It determines our whole
tactics and sets us apart from all the other parties, no matter
how socialistic they claim to be. This proposition, which is
irrefutable to all of us, predetermines our attitude towards all
the other political parties.

The next point concerns the wide use which our government is
making of promises. These promises are the object of a prolonged
campaign by the Soviets, which have become muddled by these
promises, and which are trying the people’s patience. We,
therefore, consider it necessary to add to our purely objective
analysis of the class relations an analysis of those promises,
promises which in themselves have, of course, no significance to
a Marxist, but which mean a great deal to the people, and mean
even more in politics. The Petrograd Soviet has become muddled
by these promises, has given weight to them by promising its
support. This is the reason why we add the following statement
to this point:

“ No trust can be placed in the present government’s promises to
renounce annexations, i. e., conquests of foreign countries or
retention by force of any nationality within the confines of
Russia.”

“ Annexation” being a foreign word, we give it an exact political
definition, such as neither the Cadets nor the petty-bourgeois
democratic parties (the Narodniks and Mensheviks) can give. Few
words have been used so meaninglessly and slovenly.

“ For, in the first place, the capitalists, bound together by the
thousand threads of banking capital, cannot renounce annexations
in this war without renouncing the profits from the thousands of
millions invested in loans, concessions, war industries,
etc. And secondly, the new government, after renouncing
annexations to mislead the people, declared through Milyukov
(Moscow, April 9, 1917) that it had no intention of renouncing
them, and, in the Note of April 18 and its elucidation of April
22, confirmed the expansionist character of its policy.

“ Therefore, in warning the people against the capitalists’ empty promises, the Conference declares that it is
necessary to make a clear distinction between a renunciation of
annexations in word and a renunciation of annexations in deed,
i. e., the immediate publication and abrogation of all the
secret, predatory treaties and the immediate granting to all
nationalities of the right to determine by free voting whether
they wish to be independent states or to be part of another
state.”

We have found it necessary to mention this, because the question
of peace without annexations is the basic issue in all these
discussions of peace terms. All parties recognise that peace
will become the alternative, and that peace with annexations
will be an unheard-of catastrophe for all countries. In a
country where there is political liberty, the question of peace
cannot be placed before the people otherwise than in terms of
peace without annexations. It is therefore necessary to declare
for peace without annexations, and so the only thing to do is to
lie by wrapping up the meaning of annexations or evading the
question altogether. Rech , for instance, cries that the
return of Kurland means renunciation of annexations. When I was
addressing the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, a
soldier handed me a slip of paper with the following question:
“We have to fight to win back Kurland. Does winning back Kurland
mean that you stand for annexations?” I had to reply in the
affirmative. We are against Germany annexing Kurland, but we are
also against Russia holding Kurland by force. For example, our
government has issued a manifesto proclaiming the independence
of Poland. This manifesto, chock-full of meaningless phrases,
states that Poland must form a free military alliance with
Russia. These three words contain the whole truth. A free
military alliance of little Poland with huge Russia is, in point
of fact, complete military subjection of Poland. Poland May be
granted political freedom but her boundaries will be determined
by the military alliance.

If we fight for the Russian capitalists keeping possession of
the former annexed territories of Kurland and Poland, then the
German capitalists have the right to rob Kurland. They May argue
this way: we looted Poland together. at the end of the eighteenth century, when we began to tear Poland to pieces,
Prussia was a very small and weak country while Russia was a
giant, and therefore she grabbed more. Now we have grown and it
is our intention, if you please, to snatch a larger share. You
can say nothing against this capitalist logic. In 1863 Japan was
a mere nothing in comparison with Russia, but in 1905 Japan
thrashed Russia. From 1863 to 1873 Germany was a mere nothing in
comparison with Britain, but now Germany is stronger than
Britain. The Germans May argue: we were weak when Kurland was
taken from us, but we have now grown stronger than you, and we
wish to take it back. Not to renounce annexations means to
justify endless wars over the conquest of weaker nationalities. To renounce annexations means to let each nation
determine freely whether it wants to live separately or together
with others. Of course, for this purpose, armies must be with
drawn. To show the slightest hesitation on the question of
annexations means to justify endless wars. It follows that we
could allow no hesitation on this question. With regard to
annexations, our answer is that nations must be free to make
their own decisions. How can we secure economic freedom
alongside this political freedom? To accomplish this, power must
pass into the hands of the proletariat and the yoke of capital
must be overthrown.

I now pass on to the second part of the resolution.

“ The ’ revolutionary defencism ”, which in Russia has now permeated all the Narodnik parties (the Popular Socialists, Trudoviks, and
Socialist-Revolutionaries), the opportunist party of the
Menshevik Social-Democrats (the Organising Committee, Chkheidze,
Tsereteli, etc.), and the majority of the non-party revolutionaries, reflects, in point of class significance, the
interests and point of view of the well-to-do peasants and a
part of the small proprietors, who, like the capitalists, profit
by oppressing weak peoples. on the other hand, revolutionary
defencism is a result of the deception by the capitalists of a
part of the urban and rural proletariat and semi-proletariat,
who, by their class position, have no interest in the profits of
the capitalists and in the imperialist war.”

Consequently, our task here is to determine from what sections of
society this defencist tendency could emerge. Russia is the most
petty-bourgeois country in the world, and the upper sections of
the petty bourgeoisie are directly interested in continuing the
war. The well-to-do peasants, like the capitalists, are
profiting by the war. on the other hand, the mass of proletarians and semi-proletarians have no interest in
annexations because they make no profit on banking capital. How,
then, have these classes come to adopt the position of revolutionary defencism? Their attitude towards revolutionary
defencism is due to the influence of capitalist ideology, which
the resolution designates by the word “deception”. They are
unable to differentiate between the interests of the capitalists
and the interests of the country. Hence we conclude:

“ The Conference recognises that any concessions to revolutionary
defencism are absolutely impermissible and virtually signify a
complete break with internationalism and socialism. As for the
defencist tendencies among the broad masses, our Party will
fight against these tendencies by ceaselessly explaining the
truth that the attitude of unreasoning trust in the government
of the capitalists, at the moment, is one of the chief obstacles
to a speedy termination of the war.”

The last words express the specific feature that sharply
distinguishes Russia from the other Western capitalist countries
and from all capitalist democratic republics. For it cannot be
said of those countries that the trustfulness of the unenlightened masses there is the chief cause of the
prolongation of the war. The masses there are now in the iron
grip of military discipline. The more democratic the republic,
the stronger discipline is, since law in a republic rests on
“the will of the people”. Owing to the revolution there is no
such discipline in Russia. The masses freely elect representatives to the Soviets, which is something that does not
exist now anywhere else in the world. But the masses have
unreasoning trust, and are therefore used for the purposes of
the struggle. So far we can do nothing but explain. Our
explanations must deal with the immediate revolutionary tasks
and methods of action. When the masses are free, any attempts to
act in the name of a minority, without explaining things to the
masses, would be senseless Blanquism, mere adventurism. Only by
winning over the masses, if they can be won, can we lay a solid
foundation for the victory of the proletarian class struggle.

I now pass on to the third part of the resolution:

“ In regard to the most important question of all, namely, how to
end the present capitalist war as soon as possible, not by a
coercive peace, but by a truly democratic peace, the Conference
recognises and declares the following:

“ This war cannot be ended by a refusal of the soldiers of one
side only to continue the war, by a simple cessation of
hostilities by one of the belligerents.”

The idea of terminating the war in this way has been attributed
to us over and over again by persons who wish to win an easy
victory over their opponents by distorting the latter’s
views—a typical method used by the capitalists, who ascribe
to us the absurd idea of wishing to end the war by a one-sided
refusal to fight. They say “the war cannot be ended by sticking
your bayonet in the ground”, to quote a soldier, a typical
revolutionary defencist. This is no argument, I say. The idea
that the war can be terminated without changing the classes in
power is an anarchist idea. Either this idea is anarchistic, in
which case it has no meaning, no state significance, or it is a
hazy pacifist idea that fails completely to appreciate the
connection between politics and the oppressing class. War is an
evil, peace is a blessing.... Certainly this idea must be made
clear to the people, must be popularised. Incidentally, all our
resolutions are being written for leading Party members, for
Marxists, and do not make reading matter for the masses. But
they must serve as unifying and guiding political principles for
every propagandist and agitator. To meet this requirement, one
more paragraph was added to the resolution:

“ The Conference reiterates its protest against the base slander
spread by the capitalists against our Party to the effect that
we are in favour of a separate peace with Germany. We consider
the German capitalists to be as predatory as the Russian,
British, French, and other capitalists, and Emperor Wilhelm as
bad a crowned brigand as Nicholas II or the British, Italian,
Rumanian, and all other monarchs.”

On this point there was some disagreement in the committee, some
maintaining that in this passage our language became too
popular, others, that the British, Italian. and Rumanian
monarchs did not deserve the honour of being mentioned. After a
detailed discussion, however, we all agreed that, since our
present aim is to refute all the slanders which
Birzhevka [1] has tried to spread against us rather crudely, Rech more subtly, Yedinstvo by direct
implication, we must, on a question of this nature, come out
with a most sharp and trenchant criticism of these ideas, having
in mind the broadest masses of the people. Asked why we do not
help to over throw Wilhelm if we consider him a brigand, we can
say that the others, too, are brigands, that we ought to fight
against them as well, that one must not forget the kings of
Italy and Rumania, that brigands can also be found among our
Allies. These two paragraphs are intended to combat the slander,
which is meant to lead to riot-mongering and squabbling. This is
the reason why we must now pass on to the serious practical
question of how to terminate the war.

“ Our Party will patiently but persistently explain to the people
the truth that wars are waged by governments, that wars are
always indissolubly bound up with the policies of definite
classes, that this war can be terminated by a democratic peace
only if the entire state power, in at least several of the
belligerent countries, has passed to the class of the proletarians and semi-proletarians which is really capable of
putting an end to the oppressive rule of capital.”

To a Marxist these truths—that wars are waged by the capitalists and are bound up with the capitalists’ class
interests—are absolute truths. A Marxist need not dwell on
that. But as far as the masses are concerned, skilful agitators
and propagandists should be able to explain this truth simply,
without using foreign words, for with us discussions usually
degenerate into empty and futile squabbling. The explaining of
this truth is what we have been trying to do in every part of
the resolution. We say that in order to understand what the war
is about, you must ask who gains by it; in order to understand
how to put an end to the war, you must ask which classes do not
gain by it. The connection here is clear, hence we conclude:

“ In Russia, the revolutionary class, having taken state power,
would adopt a series of measures that would lead to the
destruction of the economic rule of the capitalists, as well as
measures that would render them completely harmless politically,
and would immediately and frankly offer to all nations a
democratic peace on the basis of a complete renunciation of
every possible form of annexation.”

Once we speak in the name of the revolutionary class, the people
have the right to ask: and what about you, what would you do in
their place to end the war? This is an inevitable question. The
people are electing us now as their representatives, and we must
give a very precise answer. The revolutionary class, having
taken power, would set out to undermine the rule of the
capitalists, and would then offer to all nations well-defined
peace terms, because, unless the economic rule of the capitalists is undermined, all we can have are scraps of
paper. Only a victorious class can accomplish this, can bring
about a change in policy.

I repeat: to bring this truth home to the uneducated mass, we
need intermediate links that would help to introduce this
question to them. The mistake and falsehood of popular literature on the war is the evasion of this question; it
ignores this question and presents the matter as if there had
been no class struggle, as if two countries had lived amicably
until one attacked the other, and the attacked has been
defending itself. This is vulgar reasoning in which there is not
a shadow of objective truth, and which is a deliberate deception
of the people by educated persons. If we approach this question
properly, anyone would be able to grasp the essential point; for
the interests of the ruling classes are one thing, and the
interests of the oppressed classes are another.

What would happen if the revolutionary class took power?

“ Such measures and such a frank offer of peace would bring about
complete confidence of the workers of the belligerent countries
in each other....”

Such confidence is impossible now, and the words of manifestos
will not create it. Where the philosopher once said that speech
has been given to man to enable him to conceal his thoughts, the
diplomats always say: “Conferences are held to deceive the
people.” Not only the capitalists, but the socialists too reason
this way. This particularly applies to the conference which
Borgbjerg is calling.

“... and would inevitably lead to uprisings of the proletariat
against those imperialist governments as might resist the
offered peace.”

Nobody now believes the capitalist government when it says: “We
are for peace without annexations.” The masses have the instinct
of oppressed classes which tells them that nothing has changed. Only if the policy were actually changed in one
country, confidence would appear and attempts at uprisings would
be made. We speak of “uprisings” because we are now discussing
all countries. To say “a revolution has taken place in one
country, so now it must take place in Germany”—is false
reasoning. There is a tendency to form an order of sequence, but
this cannot be done. We all went through the revolution of
1905. We all heard or witnessed how that revolution gave birth
to revolutionary ideas throughout the world, a fact which Marx
constantly referred to. Revolutions cannot be made, they cannot
be taken in turns. A revolution cannot be made to order—it
develops. This form of charlatanism is now frequently being
practised in Russia. The people are told: You in Russia have
made a revolution, now it is the Germans’ turn. If the objective
conditions change, then an uprising is inevitable, but we do not
know whose turn it will be, when it will take place, and with
what degree of success. We are asked: If the revolutionary class
takes power in Russia, and if no uprisings break out in other
countries, what will the revolutionary party do? What will
happen then? This question is answered in the last paragraph of
our resolution.

“ Until the revolutionary class in Russia takes the entire state
power, our Party will do all it can to support those proletarian
parties and groups abroad that are in fact, already during the
war, conducting a revolutionary struggle against their imperialist governments and their bourgeoisie.”

This is all that we can promise and must do now. The revolution
is mounting in every country, but no one knows to what extent it
is mounting and when it will break out. In every country there
are people who are carrying on a revolutionary struggle against
their governments. They are the people, the only people, we must
support. This is the real thing—all else is falsehood. And
so we add:

“ Our Party will particularly support the mass fraternisation of
the soldiers of all the belligerent countries that has already
begun at the front....”

This is to meet Plekhanov’s argument: “What will come of it?
Suppose you do fraternise, then what? Does this not suggest the
possibility of a separate peace at the front?” This is jiggery-pokery, not a serious argument. We want fraternisation
on all fronts, and we are taking pains to encourage it. When we
worked in Switzerland, we published an appeal in two languages,
with French on one side and German on the other, urging those
soldiers to do the same thing we are now urging the Russian
soldiers to do. We do not confine ourselves to fraternisation
between German and Russian soldiers, we call upon all to
fraternise. This, then, is what we mean by fraternisation:

“... endeavouring to turn this instinctive expression of
solidarity of the oppressed into a politically-conscious
movement as well organised as possible for the transfer of all
state power in all the belligerent countries to the revolutionary proletariat.”

Fraternisation, so far, is instinctive, and we must not deceive
ourselves on this score. We must admit this in order not to
delude the people. The fraternising soldiers are actuated not by
a clear-cut political idea but by the instinct of oppressed
people, who are tired, exhausted and begin to lose confidence in
capitalist promises. They say: “While you keep on talking about
peace—we have been hearing it now for two and a half years—we shall start things moving ourselves.” This is a
true class instinct. Without this instinct the cause of the
revolution would be hopeless. As you know, nobody would free the
workers if they did not free themselves. But is instinct alone
sufficient? You would not get far if you rely on instinct
alone. This instinct must be transformed into political
awareness.

In our “Appeal to the Soldiers of All the
Belligerent Countries” we explain into what this fraternisation should develop—into the passing of political
power to the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’
Deputies. [2]

Naturally, the German workers will call their Soviets by a different name, but this does not matter. The point is that
we undoubtedly recognise as correct that fraternisation is
instinctive, that we do not simply confine ourselves to
encouraging fraternisation, but set ourselves the task of
turning this instinctive fraternisation of workers and peasants
in soldiers’ uniforms into a politically-conscious movement,
whose aim is the transfer of power in all the belligerent
countries into the hands of the revolutionary proletariat. This
is a very difficult task, but the position in which humanity
finds itself under capitalist rule is tremendously difficult,
too, and leads to destruction. This is why it will call forth
that explosion of discontent which is the guarantee of proletarian revolution.

This is our resolution, which we submit for consideration to the Conference.

| A brief report published May 12 (April 29), 1917 in Pravda No. 44 | Published according to the typewritten copy of the Minutes |
| --- | --- |

---
Notes:
[1]


— Lenin

[2]


— Lenin