Date: 1917
Source: ru:PSS/v31

The French socialist Louis Blanc infamously distinguished himself during the Revolution of 1848 by shifting, from a standpoint rooted in class struggle, to one characterized by petty-bourgeois illusions cloaked in ostensibly “socialist” rhetoric—illusions that, in reality, served only to reinforce the bourgeoisie’s influence over the proletariat. Louis Blanc looked to the bourgeoisie for assistance, nurturing and stoking hopes that the bourgeoisie might aid the workers in the “organization of labor”—a vague term meant to mask “socialist” aspirations.

Louis Blancism has now achieved complete triumph within the right-wing “social-democratic” faction of the OK Party in Russia. Chkheidze, Tsereteli, Steklov, and many others—who today stand as leaders of the Petrograd Soviet of Soldiers’ and Workers’ Deputies, having also presided over the All-Russian Congress of Soviets that concluded only days ago—have adopted precisely the position of Louis Blanc.

On all the major questions of contemporary political life, these leaders, who occupy a position roughly aligned with the international “center” represented by Kautsky, Longo, Turati, and numerous others, have in fact embraced the petty-bourgeois stance of Louis Blanc. Take, for example, the question of war.

The proletarian standpoint consists in a clear, class-based characterization of war—and in an uncompromising hostility toward imperialist war, that is, toward war waged between groups of capitalist (whether monarchical or republican) states over the division of capitalist spoils.

The petty-bourgeois standpoint differs from the bourgeois standpoint—not in its outright justification of war, nor in its direct “defense of the fatherland,” i.e., the defense of its capitalists’ “interests,” the defense of their “rights” to annexation—but rather in the petty bourgeois “renouncing” annexations, “condemning” imperialism, and “demanding” that the bourgeoisie cease being imperialist while still remaining within the framework of global imperialist relations and the capitalist mode of production. By confining itself to this well-meaning, harmless, empty rhetoric, the petty bourgeois in practice merely trails helplessly behind the bourgeoisie, “sympathizing” in words with the proletariat on certain issues while, in reality, remaining dependent upon the bourgeoisie—unable, or unwilling, to grasp the path that leads to the overthrow of the capitalist yoke, the only path capable of liberating humanity from imperialism.

To “demand” that bourgeois governments issue a “solemn declaration” in the spirit of rejecting annexations—that is considered, for the petty bourgeois, the height of boldness and the epitome of anti-imperialist, “Zimmerwaldian” consistency. It is not difficult to see that this is Louis Blancism of the worst kind. For one thing, any seasoned bourgeois politician will never find it hard to utter as many “brilliant,” “effusive,” “sonorous,” yet utterly empty and noncommittal phrases as one pleases against annexations “in general.” But when it comes to action—take, for instance, the way “Retch” recently engaged in a particularly lamentable act of bravado by declaring that Courland (now annexed by the predatory imperialists of bourgeois Germany) was not, in fact, an annexation of Russia!!

This is the most outrageous form of political trickery, the most intolerable deception perpetrated by the bourgeoisie against the working class—because any person with even a modicum of political awareness must recognize that Courland has always been an annexation of Russia.

We issue an open and direct challenge to “Retch”: first, let it present to the people a political definition of “annexation” that would apply to all annexations throughout the world—German, English, Russian, past and present, without exception; second, let it clearly and precisely explain what, in its view, it means to renounce annexations not in words alone, but in deeds. Let it offer a political definition of “renouncing annexations in deed” that would apply not only to the Germans, but also to the British—and to every nation that has ever undertaken annexations, period.

We assert that “Retch” will either evade our challenge or be exposed before the entire people by us. And precisely because of the question of Courland raised by “Retch,” our dispute is not theoretical—it is practical, urgent, pressing, and acutely relevant.

Second: Even if we were to grant, however briefly, that bourgeois ministers are paragons of integrity—if figures like Guchkov, Lvov, Miliukov, and their ilk truly believed, with the utmost sincerity, that it was possible to renounce annexations while preserving capitalism, and if they genuinely wished to do so—let us assume this for a moment, let us make this Louis Blanc–style assumption.

The question arises: Can a mature person be satisfied with what people say about themselves, without verifying those claims through their actual actions? Can a Marxist fail to distinguish between mere wishes and declarations and objective reality?

No. He cannot.

Annexations are sustained by the intricate web of financial, banking, and imperialist capital. This is the modern, economic foundation of annexations. From this perspective, annexation represents a politically guaranteed profit derived from billions of dollars of capital “invested” in the thousands upon thousands of enterprises across annexed territories.

Even if one desired to do so, it is impossible to renounce annexations without taking decisive steps toward the overthrow of the capitalist yoke.

Does this mean—as the “Unity” group, the “Workers’ Gazette”{77}, and other petty-bourgeois “Louis Blancs” among us are quick to conclude, and indeed do conclude—that we should refrain from taking decisive steps toward the overthrow of capital? That we should simply come to terms—even with a small portion—of annexations?

No. We must take decisive steps toward the overthrow of capital. These steps must be carried out skillfully and gradually, relying solely on the consciousness and organized strength of the overwhelming majority of workers and the poorest peasants. But such steps must be taken—and in several places across Russia, the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies have already begun to take them.

The task at hand is to resolutely and irrevocably break with the Louis Blancs, with Chkheidze, Tsereteli, Steklov, with the OK Party, with the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, and with all the rest—those who, time and again, have sought to obscure the true nature of revolution under the guise of petty-bourgeois illusions. It is imperative to explain to the masses that Louis Blancism will destroy—and will ultimately doom—the success of the ongoing revolution, even the very prospect of freedom, unless the masses understand the harm wrought by these petty-bourgeois illusions and join with the conscious workers in their cautious, gradual, deliberate, yet firm and immediate steps toward socialism.

Without socialism, there is no salvation for humanity from war, from famine, from the looming threat of yet more millions and millions of deaths.

“Pravda,” No. 27, April 8, 1917. Signed: N. Lenin

Printed according to the text of the newspaper “Pravda.”