ARCHIVAL NOTE.
The manuscript consists of 3 sheets of notebook paper, with a print on the first two sheets: V/. Ulianoff.
There are almost no corrections or emendations in the manuscript.
BOURGEOIS PACIFISM AND SOCIALIST PACIFISM.
Article (or chapter) I.
A Turning Point in World Politics.
There are signs that such a turning point has arrived or is arriving.
Namely: this is a turn from an imperialist war to an imperialist peace.
Undeniable and severe exhaustion of both imperialist coalitions; difficulty continuing the war further; difficulty for capitalists in general and for Finance Capital in particular to skin the peoples for anything more than the two or more skins already stripped in the form of scandalous "war" profits; satiety of Finance Capital in neutral countries, the U.S., Holland, Switzerland, etc., which have made gigantic profits from the war and which find it not easy to continue this "profitable" enterprise further due to a shortage of raw materials and food supplies; intensified attempts by Germany to detach one or another ally from its main imperialist rival, England; pacifist pronouncements by the German government, followed by a number of governments of neutral countries - these are the main signs of this.
Are there chances for a quick end to the war or not?
It is very difficult to answer this question in the affirmative.
Two possibilities emerge, in our opinion, quite definitely: (bourgeois pacifism and socialist pacifism).
The first is a separate peace between Germany and Russia concluded, even if not in the usual form of a written formal treaty.
The second is that such a peace is not concluded, that England and its allies are actually capable of holding out for another year, two, etc. In the first case, the war will inevitably end not now, but in the near future, and no serious changes in its course should be expected.
In the second case, an indefinitely long continuation of it is possible.
Let us dwell on the first case.
That negotiations for a separate peace between Germany and Russia have been going on very recently, that Nicholas II himself or the most influential court clique are in favor of such a peace, that a turning point has emerged in world politics from an imperialist alliance of Russia with England against Germany to an equally imperialist alliance of Russia with Germany against England - all this cannot be subject to doubt.
The replacement of Stürmer by Trepov, the public statement by tsarism that Russia's "right" to Constantinople has been recognized by all the allies, the creation by Germany of a special Polish state - these signs seem to indicate that the negotiations for a separate peace have ended in failure.
Perhaps tsarism conducted these negotiations only in order to blackmail England, in order to obtain from it a formal and unambiguous recognition of Nicholas the Bloody's "rights" to Constantinople and certain "serious" guarantees of this right?
Since the main, fundamental content of this imperialist war is the division of spoils between the three main imperialist rivals, the three robbers, Russia, Germany, and England, there is nothing incredible in such a supposition.
On the other hand, the more clearly the factual, military impossibility of tsarism to return Poland, to conquer Constantinople, to break the iron German front, which Germany is magnificently leveling, shortening, and strengthening with its recent victories in Romania, the more tsarism is forced to conclude a separate peace with Germany, that is, to transition from an imperialist alliance with England against Germany to an imperialist alliance with Germany against England.
Why not? Russia was on the verge of war with England due to the imperialist competition between the two powers regarding the division of spoils in Central Asia!
Negotiations were indeed conducted between England and Germany for an alliance against Russia in 1898, and England and Germany

LENIN.---BOURGEOIS PACIFISM AND SOCIALIST PACIFISM. 299
secretly agreed at that time to divide the colonies of Portugal between themselves "in case" it did not fulfill its financial obligations. Î
The intensified desire of the leading imperialist circles of Germany for an alliance with Russia against England has already been determined several months ago.
The basis of the alliance will obviously be the division of Galicia (it is very important for tsarism to stifle the center of Ukrainian agitation and Ukrainian freedom), Armenia and, perhaps, Romania.
A "hint" slipped into one German newspaper that Romania could be divided between Austria, Bulgaria and Russia!
Germany could also agree to some other "concessions" to tsarism, if only to realize an alliance with Russia, and perhaps also with Japan, against England.
A separate peace could be concluded between Nicholas II and Wilhelm II secretly.
The history of diplomacy knows examples of secret treaties that no one knew about, even ministers, with the exception of 2-3 people. The history of diplomacy knows examples when "great powers" went to a "common European" congress, having previously secretly agreed on the main thing between the main rivals (e.g., the secret agreement of Russia with England regarding the robbery of Turkey before the Berlin Congress of 1878).
There would be absolutely nothing surprising if tsarism rejected a formal separate peace of governments, among other things, because of the consideration that in the current state of Russia, its government might then be composed of Milyukov with Guchkov or Milyukov with Kerensky, and at the same time concluded a secret, non-formal, but no less "solid" agreement with Germany that both "high contracting parties" will jointly pursue such-and-such a line at the future peace congress!
Whether this assumption is true or not cannot be decided.
But in any case, it contains a thousand times more truth, a characterization of what is, than the endless kind phrases about peace between the current and, in general, between bourgeois governments on the basis of the negation of annexations, etc. These phrases are either innocent wishes, or hypocrisy and lies, serving to conceal the truth.
The truth of this time, of this war, of this moment of attempts to make peace, consists in the division of imperialist spoils. This is the essence, and to understand this truth, to express it, to "express what

LENINIST COLLECTION.
"There is," such is the fundamental task of socialist policy, as opposed to bourgeois policy, for which the main thing is to hide, to obscure this truth.
Both imperialist coalitions have plundered a certain amount of loot, with the two main and most powerful predators, Germany and England, having plundered the most. England lost not an inch of its land and its colonies, "acquiring" German colonies and part of Turkey (Mesopotamia). Germany lost almost all of its colonies but acquired immeasurably more valuable territories in Europe, seizing Belgium, Serbia, Romania, part of France, part of Russia, and so on. The point is to divide this loot, with the "chieftain" of each robber gang, i.e. both England and Germany, having to compensate their allies to some extent, who, with the exception of Bulgaria and to a lesser extent Italy, have lost particularly much. The weakest allies have lost the most: in the English coalition, Belgium, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania have been crushed; in the German coalition, Turkey has lost Armenia and part of Mesopotamia.

So far, Germany's loot is undoubtedly and very significantly greater than England's loot. So far, Germany has won, proving to be immeasurably stronger than anyone had anticipated before the war. It is therefore understandable that it would be advantageous for Germany to conclude peace as soon as possible, because its rival could still, in the most advantageous case imaginable for it (although not very likely), put into action a larger reserve of recruits, etc.

Such is the objective situation. Such is the current moment of the struggle for the division of imperialist loot. It is quite natural that this moment has given rise to pacifist aspirations, statements, and speeches predominantly among the bourgeoisie and governments of the German coalition, then among neutral countries. It is just as natural that the bourgeoisie and its governments are forced to strive with all their might to deceive the peoples, covering up the disgusting nakedness of the imperialist world, the division of what has been plundered, with phrases, thoroughly deceitful phrases about a democratic peace, about the freedom of small nations, about the reduction of armaments, etc.

But if it is natural for the bourgeoisie to strive to deceive the peoples, how do socialists fulfill their duty? About this in the next article or chapter.

LENIN.---- BOURGEOIS PACIFISM AND SOCIALIST PACIFISM. 301
Article (or chapter) II: The Pacifism of Kautsky and Turati.
Kautsky is the most authoritative theorist of the Second International, the most prominent leader of the so-called "Marxist center" in Germany, the representative of the opposition that created a special faction in the Reichstag: the "Social-Democratic Labor Group" (Haase, Ledebour, etc.). A number of Social-Democratic newspapers in Germany now contain articles by Kautsky on the conditions of peace, paraphrasing the official statement of the "Social-Democratic Labor Group," with which it came out in response to the well-known note from the German government, proposing negotiations on peace. Demanding that the government propose specific conditions for peace, this statement, among other things, contains the following characteristic phrase:
... "In order for this note (from the German government) to lead to peace, it is necessary that in all countries the idea of annexing foreign territories, of the political, economic, or military subordination of any nation to another state power, be unequivocally rejected..."
Paraphrasing and concretizing this provision, Kautsky in his articles thoroughly "proves" that Constantinople should not go to Russia and that Turkey should not be anyone's vassal state.

Let us take a closer look at these political slogans and arguments of Kautsky and his like-minded people.
When it comes to Russia, i.e., Germany's imperialist rival, Kautsky puts forward not an abstract, not "general," but a completely concrete, precise, definite demand: Constantinople should not go to Russia. He thereby exposes the real imperialist designs... of Russia. When it comes to Germany, i.e., precisely the country whose bourgeoisie and government the majority of the party, which considers Kautsky its member (and appointed Kautsky as editor of its main, leading, theoretical organ "Neue Zeit"), helps to wage an imperialist war, then Kautsky does not expose the specific imperialist designs of his government, but limits himself to the "general" wish or provision: Turkey should not be anyone's vassal state!!

LENINIST COLLECTION.
What, in its actual content, is the difference between Kautsky's policy and the policy of the militant, so to speak, social-chauvinists (i.e., socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds) of France and England, who directly expose the specific imperialist steps of Germany, making do with "general" wishes or provisions regarding the countries or peoples conquered by England and Russia? They shout about the seizure of Belgium, Serbia, but are silent about the seizure of Galicia, Armenia, colonies in Africa?
In fact, the policy of Kautsky and Sembat-Henderson equally helps their imperialist government, turning the main attention to the malevolence of the rival and enemy, throwing a veil of vague, general phrases and kind wishes on the equally imperialist steps of "their own" bourgeoisie. And we would cease to be Marxists, we would cease to be socialists at all, if we limited ourselves to the Christian, so to speak, contemplation of the kindness of kind general phrases, without revealing their real political significance. Do we not constantly see that the diplomacy of all imperialist powers flaunts beautifully soulless "general" phrases and "democratic" statements, covering up with them the robbery, exploitation, and suffocation of small nations?
"Turkey should not be anyone's vassal state"... If I say only this, the appearance is created that I am a supporter of Turkey's complete freedom. But in fact, I am only repeating a phrase usually pronounced by German diplomats, who are known to lie and feign, covering up with this phrase the fact that Germany has now turned Turkey into its financial and military vassal! And if I am a German socialist, then German diplomacy only benefits from my "general" phrases, because their real meaning consists in embellishing German imperialism.
... "In all countries, the idea of annexations... of the economic subordination of any people should be rejected"!! What wishful thinking! Imperialists thousands of times "reject the idea" of annexations and the financial strangulation of weak nations, but should we not compare with this facts showing that any large bank in Germany, England, France, the United States keeps small nations in "subordination"? Can the current bourgeois government in fact—

LEIPN.---BOURGEOIS PACIFISM AND SOCIALIST PACIFISM. 303
of a wealthy country to reject annexations and economic
subjugation of foreign nations, when billions and billions have been invested
in railroads and other enterprises of weak nations?
Who is really fighting against annexations, etc. – he who
throws high-minded phrases to the wind, the objective significance
of which is entirely equivalent to Christian holy water, sprinkling crowned and capitalist robbers,
or he who explains to the workers the impossibility of stopping
annexations and financial strangulation without overthrowing
the imperialist bourgeoisie and its governments?
Here is another Italian illustration of the pacifism that
Kautsky preaches.
In the central organ of the Italian Socialist Party "Avanti!" (Forward) of December 25, 1916, the well-known reformist
Filippo Turati placed an article entitled "Abracadabra."
"On November 22, 1916," he writes, "the parliamentary socialist
group of Italy introduced a proposal on peace in parliament.
In this proposal, it stated the agreement of principles
proclaimed by representatives of England and Germany, principles
which should form the basis of a possible peace, and invited
the government to begin peace negotiations through the mediation
of the United] States and other neutral countries." This is how
Turati himself presents the content of the socialist proposal.
On December 6, 1916, the chamber "buries" the socialist
proposal, "postponing" its discussion. On December 12, the German chancellor
in the Reichstag, on his own initiative, proposes what the socialists
of Italy wanted.
On December 22, Wilson appears with his note, "rephrasing
and repeating," in the words of F. Turati, "the ideas and motives
of the socialist proposal."
On December 23, other neutral states enter the stage, rephrasing Wilson's note.
We are accused of selling ourselves to Germany, Turati exclaims.
Didn't Wilson and the neutral states sell themselves to Germany?
On December 17, Turati delivered a speech in parliament, one passage
of which caused an extraordinary—and deserved—sensation.
Here is this passage, according to the "Avanti!" report:
"...Let us assume that a discussion of this kind, which Germany
proposes to us, is capable of resolving, in its main outlines, questions
such as the evacuation of Belgium, France, the restoration
of Romania, Serbia and, if you wish, Montenegro; I will add
to you the correction of the Italian borders in relation to what
is indisputably Italian and meets the guarantees of a strategic
nature"... At this point, the bourgeois and chauvinistic
chamber interrupts Turati; cries are heard from all sides:
"Excellent!
So, you also want all this!
Long live Turati!
Long live Turati!"...
Turati, apparently sensing something amiss in this enthusiasm of the bourgeoisie, tries to "correct himself" or "explain himself":
"...Gentlemen," he says. "There is no need for inappropriate jokes. It is one
thing to admit the appropriateness and right of national unity, always
recognized by us; it is another thing to provoke or justify
a war for this purpose."
Neither this "explanation" by Turati, nor the articles in "Avanti!" in his
defense, nor Turati's letter of December 21, nor an article *) by a certain "vv"
in the Zurich "Volksrecht" in no way "correct" the situation
and do not eliminate the fact that Turati popped in—or rather,
not Turati got caught, but the whole of socialist pacifism got caught,
represented both by Kautsky and, as we shall see below, by the French
"Kautskyites."
The bourgeois press of Italy was right to seize on this passage
in Turati's speech and rejoice over it.
The aforementioned "vv" tries to defend Turati by saying that he
allegedly spoke only about the "right of nations to self-determination."
A poor defense! What does the "right of nations to self-determination"
have to do with it, which, as everyone knows, relates in the program of Marxists—
and has always related in the program of international democracy—to the defense of oppressed peoples? To an imperialist war,
i.e., to a war over the division of colonies, over the oppression of foreign
countries, to a war between predatory, oppressing powers
over who should oppress more foreign peoples?
To refer to the self-determination of nations to justify an imperialist,
and not a national, war—how does this differ from the speeches of Alexinsky, Hervé, Hyndman, who refer to
the republic in France, which opposes the monarchy in Germany,
although everyone knows that this war is not at all due to
a clash of republicanism with the monarchical principle, but because of
the division of colonies, etc. between two imperialist coalitions?
*) The following has been crossed out in ink in the manuscript: of some unreasonable friend of Turati. Ed.

LENIN.---BOURGEOIS PACIFISM AND SOCIALIST PACIFISM. 305
Turati explained himself and justified himself that he did not at all "justify"
wars.
Let us believe the reformist Turati, a supporter of Kautsky [—]
Turati, that his intention was not to justify the war.
But who does not know that in politics it is not intentions that are taken into account,
but deeds? not good wishes, but facts? not the imaginary,
but the real?
Let Turati not have wanted to justify the war, let Kautsky
not have wanted to justify Germany's establishment of vassal relations
of Turkey to German imperialism. But in fact, both kind pacifists ended up precisely justifying
the war!
That is the point.
If Kautsky had not, in a journal that is so boring that no one reads it, but from the rostrum of parliament,
before a lively, impressionable, bourgeois public with a southern
temperament, pronounced the victorious phrase:
"Constantinople must not go to Russia, Turkey must not be anyone's vassal state," there would be nothing
surprising in the exclamations of the witty bourgeois: "Excellent!
Correct! Long live Kautsky!"
Turati stood in fact—regardless of whether he wanted this, whether he was aware of this—on the point of view of a bourgeois
broker, offering an amicable deal between imperialist predators. The "liberation" of Italian lands belonging
to Austria would be, in fact, a cover for rewarding the Italian bourgeoisie for participating in the imperialist war
of a giant imperialist coalition, and would be an insignificant
appendage to the division of colonies in Africa, spheres of influence in Dalmatia and Albania. For the reformist Turati, it is perhaps natural to stand
on the bourgeois point of view, but Kautsky was, in fact, no different from Turati.
In order not to embellish the imperialist war, in order not to
help the bourgeoisie falsely pass off such a war as a national,
war for the liberation of peoples, in order not to find oneself
in the position of bourgeois reformism, one should not speak
as Kautsky and Turati speak, but as Karl
Liebknecht spoke, one should have declared to one's own bourgeoisie
that it is hypocritical to talk about national liberation, that democratic
peace is impossible in connection with this war, unless the proletariat
"turns its weapons" against its own governments.

LENIN MISCELLANY.
Such, and only such, could be the position of a real Marxist, a real socialist, and not a bourgeois reformer.

It is not he who repeats the general, empty, non-committal, kind wishes of pacifism who truly works for the benefit of the democratic world, but he who exposes the imperialist character of the present war, and the imperialist peace being prepared by it, who calls on the peoples to revolution against the criminal governments.

Some sometimes try to defend Kautsky and Turati by saying that legally one could not go further than a "hint" against the government, and such a "hint" exists among pacifists of this kind. But to this it should be answered, firstly, that the impossibility of speaking the truth legally is not an argument in favor of concealing the truth, but in favor of the necessity of illegal, i.e., free from police and censorship, organization and press; secondly, that there are historical moments when a socialist is required to break with all legality; thirdly, that even in serf Russia Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky knew how to speak the truth either by being silent about the manifesto of February 19, 1861, or by ridiculing and shaming the liberals of that time, who spoke exactly the same speeches as Turati and Kautsky.

In the next article we will turn to French pacifism, which found expression in the resolutions of the two recently held congresses of workers' and socialist organizations in France.

Article (or chapter): III.
Pacifism of French
Socialists and Syndicalists.

The congresses of the French C. G. T. (Confédération générale du Travail, the general union of professional workers' unions) and the French Socialist Party have just ended. The true meaning and true role of socialist pacifism at the present moment have become particularly clear here.

Here is a resolution of the syndical congress, unanimously adopted by everyone and by the majority of ardent chauvinists with the sadly notorious Jouhaux at the head, and the anarchist Brutshu, and... the "Zimmerwaldist" Merrheim:

"The conference of National Corporate Federations, unions of syndicates (professional) unions, labor exchanges, taking note of the note of the President of the United States, 'inviting all nations now at war with each other to publicly state their [aims] views on the conditions under which the war could be ended,'— asks the French government to agree to this proposal; invites the government to take the initiative in a similar statement before its allies, in order to hasten the hour of peace; declares that the Federation of Nations, which is one of the guarantees of a lasting peace, can only be ensured by the independence, territorial integrity, and political and economic freedom of all nations, both small and large.

The organizations represented at the conference undertake to support and disseminate this idea among the masses of workers, so that the indefinite, ambiguous situation, which is only beneficial to secret diplomacy, against which the working class has always rebelled, may cease."

Here is a sample of "pure" pacifism, fully in the spirit of Kautsky—pacifism approved by an official organization of workers, which has nothing in common with Marxism, and consists mostly of chauvinists. Before us is an outstanding, deserving of the most serious attention, document of the political unification of chauvinists and "Kautskyites" on the platform of empty pacifist phrases. If in the previous article we tried to show the theoretical basis of the unity of views of chauvinists and pacifists, bourgeois and socialist reformers, now we see this unity practically implemented in another imperialist country.

At the conference in Zimmerwald, 5–9. IX. 1915, Merrheim declared: "Le parti, les jouhaux, le gouvernement, ce ne sont que trois têtes sous un bonnet" ("the party, the Jouhauxs, the government, are just three heads under one cap," i.e., they are one and the same). At the conference of the C. G. T. on December 26, 1916, Merrheim votes, together with Jouhaux, for a pacifist resolution.

On December 23, 1916, one of the most frank and most extreme organs of German social-imperialists, the Chemnitz newspaper "Volksstimme," publishes an editorial: "The disintegration of bourgeois parties and the restoration of social-democratic unity." This article, of course, praises the peacefulness of Südekum, Legien, Scheidemann & Co., the entire majority of the German Social-Democratic Party, as well as the German government, and proclaims that "the first party congress convened after the war should restore party unity, with the exception of a few fanatics who refuse to pay party dues" (i.e., supporters of Karl Liebknecht!)—"party unity on the basis of the policy of the party leadership, the Social-Democratic faction of the Reichstag, and the trade unions."

Here the idea is expressed with perfect clarity, and the policy of "unity" of the frank social-chauvinists of Germany with Kautsky & Co., with the "Social-Democratic Labor Group," is proclaimed—unity on the basis of pacifist phrases—"unity" implemented in France on December 26, 1916, between Jouhaux and Merrheim!

The central organ of the Italian Socialist Party "Avanti!" writes in an editorial note on December 28, 1916:

"If Bissolati and Südekum, Bonomi and Scheidemann, Sembat and David, Jouhaux and Legien have gone over to the camp of bourgeois nationalism and betrayed (hanno tradito, committed treason) the ideological unity of internationalists, which they promised to serve faithfully, then we will remain with our German comrades, such as Liebknecht, Ledebour, Hoffmann, Meyer, with our French comrades, such as Merrheim, Blanc, Brizon, Raffin-Dugens, who have not changed and have not wavered."

See what confusion arises:

Bissolati and Bonomi were excluded, as reformists and chauvinists, from the Italian Socialist Party even before the war. "Avanti!" puts them on the same level as Südekum and Legien, and quite rightly, of course, but Südekum, David and Legien are at the head of the German allegedly - social - democratic, in fact social-chauvinist party, and the same "Avanti!" protests against their exclusion, against breaking with them, against the formation of the Third International. "Avanti!" declares, and quite rightly, that Legien and Jouhaux have gone over to the camp of bourgeois nationalism, opposing them to Liebknecht and Ledebour, Merrheim and Brizon. But we see that Merrheim votes together with Jouhaux, and Legien declares—through the mouth of the Chemnitz "People's Voice"—his confidence in the restoration

LENIN.---- BOURGEOIS PACIFISM AND SOCIALIST PACIFISM. 309
unity of the party "with the exclusion only of like-minded people of
Liebknecht, i.e., "unity" together with the "Social-Democratic
workers’ group" (including Kautsky), to which
Ledebour belongs!!
This confusion is caused by the fact that “Avanti!” mixes bourgeois
pacifism with revolutionary social-democratic internationalism, while such experienced politicians as Legien and Jouhaux
perfectly understood the identity of socialist and bourgeois
pacifism.
Indeed, how could Mr. Jouhaux and his chauvinist newspaper “La Bataille” not rejoice at Jouhaux’s “unanimity”
with Merrheim, when in the unanimously adopted resolution,
which we have given in full, there is in fact absolutely nothing but
bourgeois-pacifist phrases, there is not a shadow of revolutionary
consciousness, not a single socialist thought!
Isn't it ridiculous to talk about "economic freedom of all
nations, small and large," while keeping silent about the fact that until
bourgeois governments are overthrown and the bourgeoisie is expropriated,
this "economic freedom" is as much a deception of the people
as phrases about "economic freedom" of citizens in general, small
peasants and rich people, workers and capitalists in modern
society?
The resolution for which Jouhaux and Merrheim voted unanimously
is thoroughly and entirely permeated with the ideas of "bourgeois
nationalism," which "Avanti!" rightly notes in Jouhaux,
but which it, "Avanti!>" strangely does not see in Merrheim.
Bourgeois nationalists have always and everywhere flaunted "common"
phrases about a "Federation of Nations" in general, about the "economic
freedom of all nations, large and small." Socialists, unlike
bourgeois nationalists, have said and say: orating about the "economic freedom of large and small nations" is
disgusting hypocrisy, while some nations (e.g., England
and France) place abroad, i.e., lend at usurious interest to small and backward nations, tens
and tens of billions of francs of capital, and small and weak nations are in bondage to them.
Socialists could not leave without a decisive protest a single phrase in the resolution for which

LENINIST COLLECTION.
Jouhaux and Merrheim voted unanimously.
Socialists would declare, in direct opposition to this resolution, that Wilson's speech
is a blatant lie and hypocrisy, for Wilson is a representative
of the bourgeoisie, who have made billions on the war, is the head
of a government that has brought the arming of the United
States to a frenzy, clearly for the purposes of a second great imperialist war;—
that the French bourgeois government, bound hand and foot by financial capital, whose slave it is,
and secret imperialist, thoroughly predatory and reactionary
treaties with England, Russia, etc., is unable to say or do anything but the same lie on the question
of a democratic and "just" peace;— that the struggle for
such a peace consists not in repeating general, empty, meaningless, non-committal, in fact only
embellishing the imperialist abomination, kind and sweet pacifist phrases, but in declaring the truth to the peoples,
namely in declaring to the peoples: in order to obtain a democratic
and just peace, it is necessary to overthrow the bourgeois governments
of all the warring countries and use for this the armament
of millions of workers, as well as the general exasperation of the masses of the population,
the high cost of living and the horrors of the imperialist war.
That is what socialists should have said instead of the resolution
of Jouhaux and Merrheim.
The French Socialist Party at its congress, which took place in Paris at the same time as the C. G. T. congress,
not only did not say this, but adopted an even worse resolution,
by 2,838 votes to 109, with 20 abstentions, i.e., in bloc
with the social-chauvinists (Renaudel et C0, so-called “majoritaires,” supporters of the majority) and longuetists (supporters
of Longuet, French Kautskyites)!!
At the same time, the Zimmerwaldist
Bourderon and the Kienthalien (kinlhalien, participant in the Kienthal
conference) Raffin-Dugens voted for this resolution!!
We will not give the text of this resolution, for it is immeasurably long and completely uninteresting: in it, kind,
sweet phrases about peace are placed next to a declaration
of readiness to continue to support the so-called "defense of the fatherland"
in France, i.e., to support the imperialist war, which France is waging in alliance with the same even larger
and stronger robbers as England and Russia.

LENIN.---- BOURGEOIS PACIFISM AND SOCIALIST PACIFISM. 311
The unification of social-chauvinists with pacifists (or Kautskyites)
in France and with part of the Zimmerwaldists has, consequently, become a fact not only in the C. G. T., but also in the socialist
party.
Article (or chapter) IV.
Zimmerwald at the crossroads.
On December 28, French newspapers arrived in Bern with a report
on the C. G. T. congress, and on December 30, a new appeal
of the Bern I. S. K. ("Internationale Sozialistische Komission")
International Socialist Commission, the executive body of the Zimmerwald association, appeared in the Bern
and Zurich socialist newspapers.
In this appeal, marked at the end of December 1916, it speaks of the peace proposal on the part of Germany, as well as Wilson and other neutral countries,
whereby all these governmental statements are called— and, of course, are quite rightly called— "a comedy
game of peace," "a game to fool their own peoples," "hypocritical pacifist gesticulations of diplomats."
This comedy and lie is opposed, as the "only force" capable of realizing peace, etc., by the "firm will"
of the international proletariat "to turn the weapons of struggle not on its
brothers, but on the enemy in its own country."
The above quotations clearly prove to us two fundamentally
different policies, which until now had seemingly coexisted
together within the Zimmerwald association and which have finally
diverged now.
On the one hand, Turati says definitely and quite rightly that the proposal of Germany, Wilson, etc. was only
a "paraphrase" of Italian "socialist" pacifism; the statement
of the German social-chauvinists and the voting of the French shows that both have
perfectly appreciated the benefit of the pacifist cover for their policy.
On the other hand, the appeal of the International] Socialist]
Commission] calls the pacifism of all warring and neutral governments
a comedy and hypocrisy.
On the one hand, Jouhaux unites with Merrheim, Bourderon,
Longuet and Raffin-Dugens with Renaudel, Sembat and Thomas,
while the German social-chauvinists, Südekum, David, Scheidemann, proclaim

Leninist Collection.

:H2
LENIN'S COLLECTION.
the upcoming "restoration of social-democratic unity" with Kautsky and the social-democratic labor group.
On the other hand, the appeal of the International Socialist Commission calls on "socialist minorities" to vigorously fight "their governments" "and their social-patriotic mercenaries" (Söldlinge).
Either—or.
Expose the vacuity, absurdity, hypocrisy of bourgeois pacifism OR "paraphrase" it into "socialist" pacifism? Fight with Jouhaux and Renaudel, with Legien and David, as with "mercenaries" of governments, or unite with them on empty pacifist declamations of the French or German type?
The watershed between the Zimmerwald right, which always resisted with all its might a split with the social-chauvinists, and the Zimmerwald left, which even in Zimmerwald took care to publicly separate itself from the right, to come out both at the conference and after it in the press with a special platform, now runs along this line.
The approach of peace or at least the intensified discussion by some bourgeois elements of the question of peace has not accidentally, but inevitably caused a particularly striking divergence of both policies. For peace has always appeared and appears to bourgeois pacifists and their "socialist" imitators or paraphrasers as something fundamentally different in the sense that the idea: "war is a continuation of peaceful politics, peace is a continuation of war politics" – remained always incomprehensible to pacifists of both shades.
That the imperialist war of 1914-17 is a continuation of the imperialist policy of 1898-1914, if not an even earlier period, neither the bourgeois nor the social-chauvinists wanted and do not want to see.
That peace can now be, unless the bourgeois governments are overthrown revolutionarily, only an imperialist peace, continuing the imperialist war, neither bourgeois nor socialist pacifists see.
Just as they approached the assessment of this war with meaningless, vulgar philistine phrases about attack or defense in general, so they approach the assessment of peace with the same philistine commonplaces, forgetting about the concrete historical situation, about the concrete reality of the struggle between imperialist

LENIN.—BOURGEOIS PACIFISM AND SOCIALIST PACIFISM. 313 powers.
And it was natural for the social-chauvinists, these agents of governments and the bourgeoisie within the workers' parties, to seize especially on the approach of peace, even on talk about peace, in order to obscure the depth of their reformism, their opportunism, revealed by the war, in order to restore their undermined influence on the masses.
Therefore, the social-chauvinists, as we have seen, both in Germany and in France are making intensified attempts to "unite" with the wavering, unprincipled, pacifist part of the "opposition."
And within the Zimmerwald association, attempts will probably be made to obscure the divergence of the two irreconcilable lines of politics.
One can foresee two kinds of such attempts.
"Businesslike" reconciliation will consist simply in mechanically combining loud revolutionary phrases (such as, for example, the phrases in the appeal of the International Socialist Commission) with opportunistic and pacifist practice.
That was the case in the Second International.
The arch-revolutionary phrases in the appeals of Huysmans and Vandervelde and in some resolutions of congresses only concealed the arch-opportunistic practice of the majority of European parties, without changing it, without undermining it, without fighting against it. It is doubtful that this tactic could succeed again within the Zimmerwald association.
"Principled reconcilers" will try to present a falsification of Marxism in the spirit of, for example, such reasoning that reforms do not exclude revolution, that an imperialist peace (with certain "improvements" of borders of nationalities, or international law, or the expenditure budget for armaments, etc.) is possible alongside the revolutionary movement, as "one of the moments of unfolding" of this movement and so on and so forth.
That would be a falsification of Marxism.
Of course, reforms do not exclude revolution.
The point, however, is not about this now, but about revolutionaries not excluding themselves before reformists, i.e., that socialists do not substitute their revolutionary work with reformist work.
Europe is experiencing a revolutionary situation. War and high cost of living exacerbate it. The transition from war to peace does not necessarily eliminate it, for it does not follow from anywhere that millions of workers, now having excellent weapons in their hands, will necessarily and unconditionally allow
21 •

:И4
LENIN'S COLLECTION.
themselves to be "peacefully disarmed" by the bourgeoisie instead of fulfilling the advice of K. Liebknecht, i.e., turning weapons against their bourgeoisie.
The question is not as the pacifists, Kautskyites put it: either a reformist political campaign, or a rejection of reforms.
This is a bourgeois formulation of the question.
In fact, the question is: either a revolutionary struggle, the side product of which, in case of its incomplete success, is reforms (this has been proven by the entire history of revolutions in the whole world), or nothing but talk about reforms and promises of reforms.
The reformism of Kautsky, Turati, Bourderon, now appearing in the form of pacifism, not only leaves aside the question of revolution (this is already a betrayal of socialism), not only in practice refuses any systematic and persistent revolutionary work, but also goes so far as to declare that street demonstrations are an adventure (Kautsky in "Neue Zeit", November 26, 1915), goes so far as to defend and implement unity with outspoken and decisive opponents of revolutionary struggle, Südekums, Legiens, Renaudels, Thomases, etc., etc.
This reformism is absolutely irreconcilable with revolutionary Marxism, which is obliged to comprehensively use the present revolutionary situation in Europe for the direct preaching of the revolution to overthrow bourgeois governments, to seize power by the armed proletariat, without at all swearing off and without refusing to use reforms to develop the struggle for the revolution and in the course of it.
The near future will show how the course of events will unfold in Europe in general, the struggle of reformism-pacifism with revolutionary Marxism in particular, including the struggle of the two parts of the Zimmerwald association.
N. Lenin.
Zurich, Jan. 1, 1917.

V. 113 EMIGRATION TO RUSSIA
MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS
"V " MARCH —
APRIL 1917
WITH A FOREWORD AND INTRODUCTORY NOTES BY L. KAMENEV

H. P. Lenin on a truck during a rally on Red Square in Moscow
in 1919.
Hungarian communist Samuel is speaking.