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 quot-

* - “Send the book.” Ed.

** See “Marxism and Revisionism” (Collected Works, 5th ed., Vol. 17, pp. 15-26). Ed.

ing either the former or the latter precisely. It is impossible for me to reply to this observation. I do not have the *In Memory of Marx* collection. I could not, of course, have remembered literally what I wrote there. Without
precise quotations, from then and from now, I am in no position to answer such an argument from
you.

Generally speaking, it seems to me that you are reasoning in a somewhat one-sided and
formalistic way. You have taken one quotation from the *Communist Manifesto* (the workers have no
fatherland) and want, it seems, to apply it without reservations, even to the point of negating
national wars.

The whole spirit of Marxism, its entire system, demands that each proposition be considered only (.) historically; (.) only in connection with others; (.) only in connection with the concrete
experience of history.

The fatherland is a historical concept. It is one thing in the epoch, or more precisely: at the
moment of struggle for the overthrow of national oppression. It is another thing at a moment when national movements are long past. For the “3 types of countries” (§ 6 of our theses on self-determination),* the proposition
on the fatherland and its defense cannot be applied in the same way under all conditions.

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

True. But that is not all it says. It also says that with the formation
of national states, the role of the proletariat is somewhat special. If one takes the first proposition (the workers have no fatherland) and forgets its connection with the second (the workers constitute themselves as a class nationally, but not in the same sense as the bourgeoisie), that will be
utterly wrong.

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

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

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

called for a national war more than once: Marx in 1848, Engels in 1859 (the end of his pamphlet *Po and Rhine*, where the national feeling of the Germans is directly stoked, where they are directly called
to a national war). In 1891, in view of the then threatening and approaching
war of France (Boulanger) + Alexander III against Germany, Engels directly recognized “defen-
se of the fatherland” 402.

Were Marx and Engels muddle-heads, saying one thing today and another tomorrow?

No. In my opinion, recognition of “defense of the fatherland” in a national war is fully consistent with
Marxism. In 1891 the German Social-Democrats would really have had to defend their fatherland in a war against Boulanger + Alexander III. This would have been a peculiar
variant of a national war.

Incidentally: in saying this, I am repeating what was said in the article against Yuri.* For some reason you are silent about it. It seems to me that on the question raised here, it is precisely in this
article that there are a number of propositions which clarify my understanding of Marxism to the end (or almost).

About Radek—about the “quarrel” (???!!!) with Radek. I already had a dispute in the spring with Grigory, who completely failed to understand the political situation at the time and reproached me for a break
with the Zimmerwald Left. This is nonsense.

The connection with the Zimmerwald Left is also a conditional thing. Firstly, Radek is not = the Zimmerwald Left. Secondly, there was no “break” with Radek in general, but only in a certain
sphere. Thirdly, it is absurd to understand the connection with Radek in such a way that our hands would be tied in the necessary theoretical and practical struggle.

Ad 1 (to point 1). I have never and nowhere made a single step, or the shadow of one, not only towards a break, but even towards a weakening of the connection with the “Zimmerwald Left.” No one has pointed
one out to me, nor will they. Not with Borchardt, not with the Swedes, not with Knief, etc., etc.
(Radek very despicably kicked us out of the editorial board of *Vorbote*. In politics Radek behaves
like a Tyszka-ite huckster, insolent, impudent, stupid. Grigory wrote

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

to me in the spring of 1916, when I was already in Zurich, that he had no “collegial
work” whatsoever with Radek. Radek moved away—that’s a fact. He moved away because of *Vorbote*,
both from me and from Grigory. Because of the insolence and huckster-like baseness of one individual,
the Zimmerwald Left did not cease to be Left, and it is not worth dragging it into this, it is not clever,
not right.
*Gazeta Robotnicza* No. of February 1916 is a sample of such a Tyszka-ite (Radek is following in his
footsteps) vilely lackey-like “game.” Anyone who forgives such things in politics I
consider a fool or a scoundrel. I will never forgive them. For this one gets a punch in the face
or one turns one’s back.

I, of course, did the latter. And I do not regret it. We have not lost one iota
of our ties with the German Lefts. When the task arose of actually going together with Radek (the Zurich Congress
of 4-5.XI.1916 403), we went together. All of Grigory’s silly little phrases about my
break with the Zimmerwald Left turned out to be stupidity, which they always were.)
Ad 2—the “sphere” of the break with Radek was, then, (.) Russian and Polish affairs. The resolution of the KZO confirmed this. (.) The business with Yuri and Co. Radek is even now writing (I can
send them to you if you like) extremely insolent letters to me (and Grigory) on the theme that,
you see, “we” (he + Bukharin + Yuri and Co.) “look” at it this way!! Only a little fool and a scoundrel, wanting to cook up an “intrigue” by squeezing into the crack of disagreements
between us and Yuri and Co., could write like that. If Radek did not understand what he was doing, then he is a little fool.

If he did understand, then he is a scoundrel.

The political task of our Party was clear: we could not tie our hands by having equality on 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 leave *Kommunist* if we did not break with
it. *Kommunist* was good as long as the trio that made up 1/2 of the editorial board did not have a special program). To give equality to the group of Bukharin + Yuri + E. B. would have been
idiocy and would have ruined all the work. Neither Yuri, a complete little piglet, nor E. B. have a drop of brains, and if they allowed themselves to be led
by Bukharin into this group folly, then it was necessary to break with them, or more precisely: with *Kommunist*.
And this was done.

The polemic over self-determination is only just beginning. They have a complete muddle there—and
on the whole question of the attitude to democracy. To give “equality” to piglets and fools here—never! They did not want to learn peacefully and in a comradely way, so they have only themselves to blame. (I
pestered them, trying to start conversations about this in Berne: they turned up their noses! I wrote them letters
tens of pages long in Stockholm—they turned up their noses! Well, if that’s how it is, go to the
devil. I did everything possible for a peaceful outcome. You don’t want it—then I’ll smash your faces in
and disgrace you as fools before the whole world. That and only that is the way to act.) What has Radek got to do with it? you may ask.

He is involved in that he was the “heavy artillery” of this “group,” artillery hidden in the bushes off to the side. Yuri and Co. calculated not badly (E. B. has a talent for intrigue; it
turned out she was not leading Yuri to us, but was creating a group against us). They
calculated: we will start the war, and Radek will do the fighting for us!! Radek, you see, will fight for us, and Lenin will be tied.

They were sadly mistaken, my dearest little piglets! I will not let myself be tied in politics. You want to fight? Come out and fight openly. But Radek’s role—to sic the young piglets on us on the
sly, while he himself hides behind the “Zimmerwald Left”—is the height of baseness. The mangiest
... from the Tyszka swamp could not have been more vile in his huckstering, his servility, and his back-room intrigues.

Ad 3—has already been stated clearly. The question of the relationship of imperialism to democracy and the minimum program is arising more and more broadly (see the Dutch program in No. 3 of the *Bulletin* 404;
the American S.L.P.* has thrown out the entire minimum-program. *Entwaffnungsfrage***). Radek has an absolute muddle in his head on this (this is clear from his thes-

* - Socialist Labour Party. Ed.

** - The question of disarmament. Ed.

sov; this was also shown by the question of indirect and direct taxes, raised by my theses). I will never allow my hands to be tied in clarifying this most important and fundamental question. I cannot. The question must be clarified. There will be dozens more "falls" (stumbles) on it.

Whoever understands the "link" with the Zimmerwald Left to mean that we will allow our hands to be tied in the theoretical struggle against "imperialist economism" (this is an international malady: Dutch-American-Russian, etc.) understands nothing. To learn "Zimmerwald Left" by rote and beat one's forehead on the ground before the utter theoretical muddle of Radek—I will not go for that.

The upshot: after Zimmerwald, manoeuvres were more difficult. It was necessary to take what was needed from Radek and E. B. & Co. without allowing one's hands to be tied. I believe I succeeded in this. After Bukharin's departure for America and, most importantly, after Yuri sent us his article and accepted (he accepted! he had to accept) my reply—their affair, as a "group", is finished. (And Grigory wanted to immortalise this group by granting it equality: as if *we* would grant it equality!!)
We parted company with Radek on the Russo-Polish scene and did not invite him to our *Sbornik*.* It had to be done.

And now he can do nothing to spoil the work. He was forced at the congress in Zurich (5.XI.1916) to go along with me, as he is now, against Grimm.

What does this mean? It means that I have succeeded in separating** the issues: the international onslaught against the Kautskyites (Grimm *y compris***) has not been weakened one iota, and at the same time I am not subordinated to "equality" with Radek's stupidism!

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

* This refers to "*Sbornik Sotsial-Demokrata*". Ed.

** This was very difficult!!

*** —including. Ed.

*Allez-y, mes amis!* Now the *odium*** will fall on *you*, not on us. But you can no longer harm the cause, and the way is cleared for us. We have extricated ourselves from the dirty (in every sense) muddle with Yuri and Radek, without weakening the "Zimmerwald Left" one iota and having the prerequisites for a struggle against stupidism on the question of the attitude to democracy.

*Voila***. I apologise for the long letter and the abundance of harsh words: I cannot write otherwise when I am speaking frankly. Well, it's all *entre nous****, I suppose, so the extra cursing will pass.

Best greetings! Yours, Lenin

In general, both Radek and Pannekoek pose the question of the struggle against Kautskyism incorrectly, This is NB!!

---

Written on November 30, 1916

Sent from Zurich to Clarens (Switzerland)

First published in 1949 in the journal *Bolshevik* No. 1

Printed according to the manuscript