Dear friend! Regarding "defense of the fatherland," I do not know whether there are disagreements between us or not. You find a contradiction between my article in the collection "In Memory of Marx"** and my present statements, without citing precisely either those or these. It is impossible for me to answer this indication. I do not have the collection "In Memory of Marx." To remember literally what I wrote there, I could not, of course. Without precise citations, both those from then and those from now, I am not in a position to answer such an argument on your part.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that you reason somewhat one-sidedly and formalistically. You took one citation from the *Communist Manifesto* (workers have no fatherland) and want, as it were without reservations, to apply it, right up to denying national wars.

The entire spirit of Marxism, its whole system, requires that each position be examined only (.) historically; (.) only in connection with others; (.) only in connection with concrete historical experience.

The fatherland is a historical concept. One thing is the fatherland in the epoch or, more precisely: at the moment of struggle for the overthrow of national oppression. Another thing it is at the moment when national movements are far behind. For "3 types of countries" (§ 6 of our theses on self-determination),* the position concerning the fatherland and its defense cannot be applied uniformly under all conditions.

In the *Communist Manifesto* it is said that workers have no fatherland.

That is correct. But it is said there not only this. It is also said there that in the formation of national states the role of the proletariat is somewhat special. If one takes the first position (workers have no fatherland) and forgets its connection with the second (workers constitute themselves as a class nationally, but not in the sense in which the bourgeoisie does), then this would be utterly incorrect.

What, then, does this connection consist in? In my view, precisely in this: that in the democratic movement (at such a moment, in such concrete circumstances) the proletariat cannot refuse to support it (consequently, and to defend the fatherland in a national war).

Marx and Engels said in the *Communist Manifesto* that workers have no fatherland. But that same Marx

* See "Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" (Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 27, pp. 260-261). Ed.

called for national war more than once: Marx in 1848, Engels in 1859 (the end of his pamphlet "Po and Rhine," where German national feeling is directly incited, where they directly call them to national war). Engels in 1891, in view of the war that threatened and was looming then between France (Boulanger) + Alexander III against Germany, directly recognized "defense of the fatherland"402.

Were Marx and Engels muddlers, saying one thing today and another tomorrow?

No. In my view, the recognition of "defense of the fatherland" in a national war fully corresponds to Marxism. In 1891 the German Social Democrats truly should have defended the fatherland in a war against Boulanger + Alexander III. This would have been a peculiar variant of national war.

By the way: in saying this, I repeat what was said in the article against Yuri*. You remain silent about it for some reason. It seems to me that on the question raised here there are precisely in this article a series of positions that clarify fully (or almost fully) my understanding of Marxism.

Regarding Radek — regarding the "quarrel" (???!!!) with Radek. I already had a dispute in spring with Grigory, who completely failed to understand the then-political situation and reproached me for breaking with the Zimmerwald Left. This is nonsense.

Connection with the Zimmerwald Left is also a conditional thing. First, Radek ≠ Zimmerwald Left. Second, with Radek there was no "break" at all, but only in a certain sphere. Third, it is absurd to understand connection with Radek in such a way that it would tie our hands in necessary theoretical and practical struggle.

Ad 1 (to point 1). Not a single step, not even the shadow—not only of a break, but even of a weakening of connection with the "Zimmerwald Left"—have I ever made anywhere. No one has indicated it to me, and no one will. Neither with Borhardt, nor with the Swedes, nor with Knieff, etc., etc. (Radek most basely shoved us out of the editorial board of *Vorbote*. Radek conducts himself in politics like a Tyshka-like peddler, insolent, impudent, stupid. Grigory wrote

* See "A Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperialist Economism'" (Collected Works, 5th ed., vol. 30, pp. 77-130). Ed.

me in spring of 1916, when I was already in Zurich, that he had no kind of "collegial work" with Radek. Radek withdrew — there is the fact. He withdrew because of *Vorbote* both from me and from Grigory. Because of the insolence and peddlerly baseness of one person, the Zimmerwald Left did not cease to be left, and there is no point in dragging it into this—not clever, not correct.

"Gazeta Robotnicza" no. from February 1916 is a specimen of such Tyshka-like (Radek follows in his footsteps) vile-lackey "play." Whoever forgives such things in politics, him I consider a fool or a scoundrel. I will never forgive them. For this one beats [them] in the face or turns away.

I did, of course, the second. And I do not repent. We have not lost a hair's connection with the German Left. When the task arose in practice to go together with Radek (Zurich congress 4-5. XI. 1916403), we went together. All of Grigory's silly little phrases about my break with the Zimmerwald Left turned out to be silliness, as they always were.)

Ad 2 — the "sphere" of break with Radek was thus (.) Russian and Polish affairs. The resolution of the KZO confirmed this. (.) The story with Yuri and Co. Radek even now writes (I can send it to you if you wish) impudent letters to me (and Grigory) on the theme that "we" (he + Bukharin + Yuri with Co.) "see" thus and so!! Only a fool and a scoundrel, desiring to fabricate an "intrigue," creeping into the crack of disagreement between us and Yuri with Co., can write thus. If Radek did not understand what he was doing, then he is a fool. If he understood, then he is a scoundrel.

The political task of our party was clear: we could not tie our own hands by equality in the editorial board with N. I. + Yuri + E. B. (Grigory did not understand this and drove me to a direct ultimatum: I declared that I would withdraw from *Kommunist* if we did not break with him. *Kommunist* was good, so long as the trio composing half the editorial board had no special program). To give equality to a group of Bukharin + Yuri + E. B. would have been idiocy and spoiling of all the work. Not a grain of brains does Yuri, a complete little piglet, have, and E. B. has none, and if they let themselves be driven to group foolishness with Bukharin, then it was necessary to break with them, or more precisely: with *Kommunist*. This was done.

The polemic over self-determination is only just beginning. Here they have a complete mess — and on the whole question of attitude toward democracy. Here to give "equality" to piglets and fools — never! They did not want to learn peacefully and comradely, so blame yourselves. (I pestered them, calling forth discussions about this in Berne: they turned their noses away! I wrote them letters of dozens of pages to Stockholm — they turned their noses away! Well, if so, go to the devil. I did everything possible for a peaceful outcome. You don't want it—so I'll beat your faces in and brand you as fools before all the world. That is how, and only how, one must act.) What has Radek to do with this? you might ask.

This: that he was the "heavy artillery" of this "group," artillery hidden in the bushes to the side. Yuri and Co. calculated not badly (E. B. has intriguing abilities; it turned out she was not leading Yuri to us, but creating a group against us). They calculated: we will open war, and Radek will do the fighting for us!! Radek, they thought, will fight for us, while Lenin will be tied down.

Not a chance, my dear piglets! I will not allow myself to be tied down in politics. Want to fight? Go openly. And Radek's role — to subtly incite little piglets from the sidelines while hiding himself behind the "Zimmerwald Left" — is the height of baseness. The maniest bastard from the Tyshka bog could not peddle, grovel, and intrigue behind one's back more basely.

Ad 3 — it is already stated clearly. The question of the relationship of imperialism to democracy and the minimum program is arising ever more broadly (see the Dutch program in no. 3 of the bulletin404; the American S.L.P.* threw out the entire minimum program. Entwaffnungsfrage**). With Radek there is an absolute mess in his head (this is clear from his theses; this was also shown by the question of indirect and direct taxes, raised by my theses). I will not allow myself to be tied down in clarifying this most important and fundamental question, never. I cannot. The question must be clarified. There will still be dozens of "falls" (they will stumble) on it.

Whoever understands "connection" with the Zimmerwald Left in such a way that we will allow our hands to be tied in theoretical struggle against "imperialist economism" (this is an international disease: Dutch-American-Russian, etc.), understands nothing. To memorize "Zimmerwald Left" by heart and bang one's forehead on the floor before complete chaos in Radek's theory — I will not go along with this.

Conclusions: After Zimmerwald, maneuvers were more difficult. It was necessary to take what was needed from Radek and E. B. with Co., without allowing oneself to be tied down. I consider that I succeeded in this. After Bukharin's departure to America, and, most importantly, after Yuri's article was sent to us and he accepted (he accepted! had to accept) my response — their affair, as a "group," is finished. (And Grigory wanted to perpetuate this group by giving it equality: we would have given it equality!!)

With Radek we parted ways on the Russian-Polish arena and did not invite him to our Collection*. That was how it had to be.

And he cannot now do anything that damages the work. He was compelled at the congress in Zurich (5. XI. 1916) to go together with me, as now, against Grimm.

What does this mean? It means that I succeeded in separating** the questions: not by a jot has the international onslaught on the Kautskyans (Grimm included***) been weakened, and at the same time I am not subordinated to "equality" with Radek's foolishness!

Strategically, I now consider the matter won. It is possible that Yuri + Co. + Radek + Co. will curse.

* This refers to the "Collection of 'Social Democrat'". Ed.

** This was very difficult!!

*** - that is, including. Ed.

Allez-y, mes amis!* Now the odium** will fall on you, not on us. But you will not damage the cause now, and our road is cleared. We have extricated ourselves from the dirty (in every sense) confusion with Yuri and Radek, without weakening by a jot the "Zimmerwald Left," and we have the premises for struggle against foolishness on the question of attitude toward democracy.

Voila***. I apologize for the long letter and for an abundance of sharp words: I cannot write otherwise when I speak frankly. Well, this is all entre nous****, it will do, I suppose, and extra cursing won't hurt.

Best regards! Your Lenin

Generally both Radek and Pannekoek pose the question of struggle with Kautskyanism incorrectly.

This NB!!

In Claran (Switzerland)

Written November 30, 1916

Sent from Zurich

First published in 1949 in the journal "Bolshevik" no. 1

Printed from the manuscript