# The Proletarian Revolution in Russia/Part 2/Chapter 6

Published in Kommunist No. 1–2. 1915
VI
SOCIALISM AND THE WAR
[This article was published early in 1915, but its analysis is enduring. Karl Kautsky, whose tendency is indicted herein, subsequently "seceded" with others from the Social-Democratic Party and organized in the Independent Socialist Party. While against the war the Kautsky-Haase Independents pursued a petty bourgeois policy, attacked the Bolsheviki; and during the German Revolution adopted a Menshevik, essentially counter-revolutionary policy. This chapter should be considered in connection with the final chapter of Part Two—"International Socialism."—L. C. F.]
The collapse of the International is sometimes looked upon purely from its formal side, as a rupture of the international, tie between the Socialist parties of the belligerent countries—the impossibility to convene either an International Socialist Conference or the International Socialist Bureau, etc. This point of view has been adopted by the Socialists of the small neutral countries, perhaps even by the majority of their official parties, also by opportunists and their defenders.
For class-conscious workingmen Socialism is an earnest conviction and not a convenient cover for bourgeois-conciliatory and nationally-conflicting aims. By the collapse of the International they understand the flagrant treason of the majority of the official Social-Democratic parties to their convictions, to their most solemn declarations expressed in the speeches at the Stuttgart and Basel International Congresses, and in the resolutions at said Congresses, etc. Only those will not see such treason as do not want to see it, those to whom it will be disadvantageous to see it. To formulate the matter in a scientific way, i. e., from the standpoint of the relations of classes in modern society, we must state that the majority of the Socialist parties, at the head of which was the largest and most influential party of the Second International—the German party—placed themselves at the side of their general staffs, their governments, and their bourgeoisie, against the proletariat. This was an event of world-historical significance and it is impossibles to pass it without a more exhaustive analysis. It has long ago been ​recognized that wars with all the horrors and misery they bring, are of more or less benefit in mercilessly exposing and destroying a great deal of the rotten, defunct and the cadaverous in human institutions. The European war of 1914–15 is beginning to bring undoubted benefit, in revealing to the most advanced class of civilized countries, that in its parties has ripened a sort of disgusting, purulent abscess, and from somewhere there is being emitted an unbearable, cadaverous odor.
I
Is the treason to all their convictions and problems of the chief Socialist parties of Europe evident? It is to be understood that neither the traitors nor those who well know or vaguely guess that they will be obliged to make peace and friends with them—like to speak of this. But no matter how unpleasant it may be to various "authorities" of the Second International or their party friends among the Russian Social-Democrats, we must look things straight tn the face, give them their own names, in short tell the truth to the workers.
Are there any real data as to the position taken prior to this war and in expectation of it, by the Socialist parties? Undisputably there are. They are the resolutions of the Basel International Congress of 1912, together with the resolution of the Chemnitz German Social Democratic Convention, of the same year, which live as a remembrance of "the forgotten words" of Socialism.
Summing up the propagandist and agitational literature of all countries against war the Basel resolution represents the most correct and full, the most solemn and formal exposition of Socialist views on war and of the tactics in relation to war. We can not call by any other name than treason the fact that no one of the authorities of the International of yesterday and of the social-patriotism of to-day—neither Hyndman, nor Cheidse, nor Kautsky, nor Plekhanov, dare to remind their readers of this resolution, and are either altogether silent about it or they cite (as does Kautsky) the unimportant, while they pass over the important parts of it. The most "extreme," arch-revolutionary resolutions and the most shameless neglect or repudiation of them—such is one of the striking manifestations of the collapse of the International—and at the same time of the striking proofs that to believe in "the reformation" of Socialism and in the "straightening of its line" by means of resolutions alone is a belief only of people in whom an unexampled naivete is ​combined with a cunning desire to perpetuate the former hypocrisy.
The views of Guesde have lately been expressed by the Guesdist, Charles Dainas, who cites the former Socialist declarations of patriotic context (as does the German Social-Chauvinist David in his last pamphlet, on the defence of the fatherland), but who does not cite the Basel manifesto. About this manifesto Plekhanov is completely silent while offering up with an especially smug air, his chauvinistic commonplaces. Kautsky is like Plekhanov; in citing the Basel manifesto he skips all the revolutionary places (that is all which are substantial) very likely under the pretext of prohibition by the censor. The police and the military heads with their censorial prohibition against mentioning the revolution and the class struggle, have been very "handy" in helping the traitors of the Revolution. But perhaps the Basel manifesto presents some sort of an empty appeal, which has no definite content, neither historical nor factional—which may directly refer to this present war?
On the contrary the Basel resolution contains less than others of declamation, and more concrete substance. The Basel resolution deals specifically with the very same war which did come and especially of those same imperialisitic conflicts of Austria and Serbia because of the Balkans, of Austria and Italy because of Albania, etc., of England and Germany because of markets and colonies in general, of Russia with Turkey, etc., because of Armenia and Constantinople—that is what the resolution of Basel, foreseeing the present war, deals with specifically. Precisely of the present war between "the great Powers of Europe" the Basel resolution states that such war "can not be justified under any pretext whatsoever of national interest" !
And if now Plekhanov and Kautsky—to take only two of the typical Socialists of authority—are searching for all sorts of "national justifications" for the war, if they, with learned air and with a stock of false citations from Marx, refer for "examples" to the wars of 1813 and 1870 (Plekhanov) or 1854, 1871, 1876–77 and 1897 (Kautsky)—then, in truth, only people without a shadow of Socialistic convictions, without the least bit of Socialistic conscience, can take such proof seriously, and not style them as unmitigatied Jesuitism, hypocricy and prostitution of Socialism. Let the German "Vorstand" of the party deliver unto damnation the new magazine of Mehring and Rosa Luxembourg (Intemazionale) for its correct estimation of Kautsky. Let Vandervelde, Plekhanov, Hyndman & Co., with the help of the police of the "Triple Entente" treat ​their opponents in the same way we will reply simply by reprinting the Basel manifesto, which convicts these leaders of their change and for which there is no other word but treason.
The Basel resolution treats not of a national, not of a people's war, examples of which have occured in Europe, which even were typical of the period between 1789 and 1871, and not of a revolutionary war which Socialists have never renounced, but of the present war on the basis of "capitalistic Imperialism" and "dynastic interests" on the basis of "a policy of conquest" of both the belligerent groups, Austro-German as well as Anglo-French-Russian. Plekhanov, Kautsky & Co. are plainly deceiving the workers in repeating the selfish falsehoods of the bourgeoisie of all lands who strive with all their power to represent the imperialistic colonial predatory war—as a national and self-defensive war (no matter for whom), and in searching justifications for it from the sphere of historical examples of non-imperialistic wars.
The question as to the imperialistic, predatory, anti-proletarian character of this war has long ago passed from the purely theoretical stage. Not only has Imperialism been theoretically appraised in all its main characteristics as the struggle of a perishing, rotting, decrepit bourgeoisie for the partition of the world and the enslavement of "small" nations; not only have these conclusions been repeated in all the vast literature of the Socialists of all countries; not only has, for example, the Frenchman, Deleze, a representative of one of our "Allied" countries, in the pamphlet "The Inevitable War" (in the year 1911!), popularly exposed the predatory character of the present war even from the standpoint of the French bourgeoisie. That isn't enough. The representatives of the proletarian parties of all countries unanimously and formally declared at Basel their firm conviction that a war was imminent precisely of an Imperialistic character and drew tactical conclusion because of that. Therefore, in passing, all allusions as to failure to define the difference between international and national tactics must be repudiated as sophistry (cf. the last interview of Axelrod in Nos. 87 and 90 of Nasche Slovo), It is sophistry because a many-sided, scientific, analysis of Imperialism is one thing—an analysis which eventually is as endless as science itself, and another thing—the principles of Socialst tactics against capitalistic Imperialism explained in millions of copies of Social-Democratic papers and in decisions of the International.
Socialist parties are not debating clubs but organizations of a ​fighting proletariat and when a number of battalions have gone over to the enemy they must be named and discredited as traitors, without any one being deceived by hypocritical phrases to the effect that not everybody comprehends Imperialism "in the same manner," that Chauvinist Cunow, and Chauvinist Kautsky are capable of writing volumes about it, that the question has not been efficiently discussed, etc., etc. Capitalism in all manifestations of its rapine; in all the smallest ramifications of its historical development and its national peculiarities, will never be learnt through and through. About details savants (and pedants especially) will never cease to dispute. "On this basis" to renounce the Socialist struggle against Imperialism and also the opposition to those who have been treasonable to this conflict would have been ridiculous. Yet what else do Kautsky, Cunow, Axelrod, etc., propose? No one has as yet attempted to dissect now, after the war, the Basel resolution, and prove its incorrectness!
II
But perhaps sincere Socialists favored the Basel resolution in the expectation that the war would create a revolutionary situation, but the events refuted their reasoning and the revolution became impossible.
Precisely with this sort of sophistry Cunow (in his pamphlet, "The Collapse of the Party," and in many articles) attempts to justify his entry into the bourgeois camp, and we meet hints of similar "conclusions" almost in all the Socialist Chauvinists, with Kautsky at the head. Hopes of a revolution turned out to be illusions and to defend illusions is not a function of a Marxist, reasons Cunow. At the same time he does not say a word about the Basel manifesto, but as a highy honorable man he tries to shift the responsibility on those of the extreme left, such as Pannekoek and Radek.
Let us examine the substance of the argument that the authors of the Basel resolution sincerely expected the advent of the revolu-tion but that events refuted them. The Basel manifesto declares: (1) That the war will create an economic and political crisis; (2) that the workers will look upon their participation in it as a crime—as an iniquitous shooting at each other for the sake of Capitalist profits, the vanity of dynasties, the fulfilment of secret diplomatic agreements, that the war calls forth "indignation and revulsion" among the workers; (3) that the said crisis and the said psychological condition of the workers. Socialists should take advantage of "to rouse the people, and hasten the downfall of Capitalism"; ​(4) that all "governments," without exception, can not begin the war "without danger to themselves"; (5) that the governments "fear a proletarian revolution"; (6) that the governments should remember the Paris Commune (1. e., a civil war), the revolution of 1905 in Russia, etc., etc. All these are very clear ideas. There is no guarantee in them that the revolution will take place. In them is emphasized the precise consideration of facts and tendencies. Any one who on the basis of these ideas and arguments states that the expected advent of the revolution turned out to be an illusion, exhibits not a Marxist but a Struvist and a renegade police relation to the revolution.
For a Marxist there is no doubt that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation, and moreover not every revolutionary situation leads to a revolution. What are the signs of a revolutionary situation? We will probably not err, if we cite the following three leading signs:
(1) The impossibility of the ruling classes to preserve their domination without change of form; one or another crisis "at the top," a political crisis of the ruling class, creating a breach through which the indignation and dissatisfaction of the masses bursts through. For the approach of the revolution it is insufficient that only "those on the bottom" did not want to, but also that those "on the top" no longer can live as before.
(2) The more than usual increase of the needs and misery of the exploited classes.
(3) The marked growth, because of mentioned causes, of the activity of the masses who in "peaceful periods" permit themselves to be robbed in quiet—and in stormy ones are drawn to independent, historical action, under the influence of those "at the top" as well as the entire atmosphere of crises, without these objective changes, independent of the will not only of separate groups and and parties, but of separate classes as well, revolution, according to general conceptions, is impossible. The conjunction of all these objective changes is what is called a revolutionary situation. There was such a situation in Russia in 1905 and during all revolutionary periods in the West. But there was the same revolutionary situation in the sixties of the last century in Germany and in 1859–1861and 1879–1880 in Russia although no revolutions occurred at the time. Why? Because not from every revolutionary situation there arises a revolution—but only from such in which there is joined with the objective changes a subjective change as well, viz, the ​capacity of the revolutionary class to effect revolutionary mass actions, sufficiently powerful to break down or undermine the old government which will never "fall," not even in periods of crises, if it is not "overthrown."
Such is the Marxist attitude toward revolution, which was very often expressed and acknowledged and confirmed for us Russians by the experiences of the year 1905. The question is what was expected in this connection by the Basel manifesto in 1912 and what did take place in 1914–15.
A revolutionary situation was expected, briefly described by the phrase "an economic and a political crisis." Did it take place? Undoubtedly, yes. The Socialist-Chauvinist, Lensch (who was much more honest in expressing his views, than the hypocrites Cunow, Kautsky, Plekhanov & Co.), even said that we are living through a peculiar revolution (vide page 6 of his pamphlet, "German Social-Democracy and the War," Berlin, 1915). The political crisis was self-evident. Not one of the governments was sure of the next day, not one was free from the danger of a financial collapse, loss of territory or expulsion from its own country (as, for instance, the Belgian government was expelled). All the governments are living at the edge of a volcano; all are making appeals to the heroism of the masses.
The political regime of Europe is completely shaken and no one will deny that we have entered (and entering further still—I am writing this on the day when Italy has entered the war.) into an epoch of great political disturbances. If Kautsky two months after the declaration of war wrote (Oct. 2, 1914, The Neue Zeit) that never is the government so strong and the parties so weak as at the commencement of a war, it is but one of the samples of the counterfeit historical science of Kautsky for the benefit of Sudekum and other opportunists. Never does a government require the agreement of all the parties of the ruling classes and the ""peaceful subservience" to their "rule" of the exploited classes, as in times of war. "At the commencement of war," especially in a country expecting a quick victory, the government "appears" all-powerful, yet nobody, at no time, and nowhere in the world, connected the expectation of a revolutionary situation exclusively with the moment of commencement of the war, and therefore never idenified "the appearance" with the actuality.
That the European war will be burdensome, beyond comparison with others, everybody knew and acknowledged. The experiences ​of the war confirms this more and more. The misery of the masses is terrible, and the efforts of the governments, bourgeoisie and opportunists to conceal the misery meet with frequent disaster. The profits of certain groups of Capitalists are scandalously high.
The intensification of contradictions is enormous. Suppressed indignation of the masses, vague longing of the stupified and lowest strata of society for kindly ("democratic") peace, the beginning of revolt "below"—all these are evident. And the more war is prolonged and intensified the more governments develop and are obliged to develop the activity of the masses, call them to exceptional, extraordinary efforts and sacrifices. The experiences of war like the experiences of every crisis in history, of every misery and catastrophe in the life of man, stupifies and breaks down some, but at the same time hardens and enlightens others. In general besides, in the world's history, the numbers and strength of the latter exceeds the former, with the exception of certain instances of breakdown and destruction of this or that government. The conclusion of peace not only is unable "at once" to put an end to these miseries and to all this intensification of contradictions, but on the contrary in many respects makes the misery even more burdensome, and especially more evident for the most backward masses of the people. In a word, a revolutionary condition in the majority of the leading countries and great powers of Europe is at hand. In this respect the expectations of the Basel manifesto have been fully realized. To deny this truth directly or indirectly or to be silent about it as do Cunow, Plekhanov, Kautsky & Co. means to be telling the greatest untruth, to deceive the working class and to serve the bourgeoisie.
III
How did it come to pass that the most eminent representatives and leaders of the Second International betrayed Socialism? We shall discuss this question at greater length when we review the various attempts which were made to justify that betrayal. Let us analyze the social-patriotic theory whose exponents are: Plekhanov, who like to repeat the arguments presented by the Anglo-French chauvinists, Hyndman, and his new school, and Kautsky, whose arguments are extremely "thin" but give the appearance of great theoretical strength.
All of them resort to the argument of self-defense. We were attacked, we are defending ourselves; the cause of the proletariat de​mands that we resist those who have disturbed the peace of Europe. This is a re-hash of the declarations made by all the governments, and of the rant published in all the bourgeois sheets of the entire world. Plekhanov even improves upon his usual Jesuitism, and says that when facing concrete facts we must first of all determine the guilty party and settle accounts with him, putting off till some other time the solution of all other problems. (See Plekhanov's pamphlet on The War, Paris, 1914, and a reprint of its conclusion in Axelrod's Golos, Nos. 86 and 87.) When it corner to sophistic dialectic Plekhanov beats all records. Sophists always manage to spirit away some of the evidence and even Hegel confessed once that one could build up an argument about anything on earth. Intellectual honesty demands that one investigates all the sides of every social phenomenon and every stage of its development, and all the visible manifestations of the various forces at work and of the class struggle. Plekhanov falls back upon a quotation from the German press saying that even the Germans recognized the guilt of Austria and Germany. And that sort of evidence is perfectly satisfactory to him.
He remains absolutely quiet on the Czarist plans of conquest in Galicia, Armenia and other parts of the world, plans which have been exposed many times by the Russian Socialists.
He does not make the slightest effort to look into the diplomatic history of even the last thirty years; that history proves incontrovertibly that the two groups of belligerents had set as their main object the seizure of colonies, the annexation of foreign lands, and the destruction of their successful competitors.
​A logical analysis of war (one which is not distorted by Plekhanov's shameless bourgeois slant) leads to the conclusion that war is simply "the continuation of politics by other means" (of a violent nature). This is the definition given by Clausewitz, one of the leading authorities on the history of wars, writing under the inspiration of the Hegelian theories.
And this was also the opinion of Marx and Engels who regarded war as the continuation of the politics of certain interested powers and of various classes within the various nations, at a certain time.
Plekhanov's primitive chauvinism stands exactly on the same theoretical plane as Kautsky's more subtle, opportunistic and watery chauvinism, when the latter approves the attitude of the Socialists of every country going over to the camp of "their" own capitalists in the following statement:
"It is everybody's right and duty to defend his country. True intemationlism grants that right to the Socialists of every country, and among them to those who are at war with my country." {Neue Zeit, October 2, 1914, passim.)
This incredible statement is such a base betrayal of Socialism, that the only way to answer it would be to have a medal coined with, on one side, the portraits of William II and Nicholas II and on the other side those of Plekhanov and Kautsky. True internationalism would then justify the French workers in shooting the ​German workers and the German workers in shooting the French workers.
If we examine the premises from which Kautsky draws his conclusions, we find the belief, whose absurdity Clausewitz demonstrated eighty years ago, that at the beginning of a war all the historical relations between nations and classes are obliterated and that an entirely new order of things is ushered in. There are people who were attacked and who are defending themselves, who are "simply" repelling the "enemies of their country." The oppression of a large number of nations, of over one-half of the population of the globe, by the imperialists of the great powers, the competition between the bourgeoisies of those nations for the division of profits, the endeavor of capitalists to break up and crush out the labor movements, all of those things on which Plekhanov and Kautsky wrote extensively for ten years preceding the war, seem to have disappeared entirely from their field of vision.
The two leaders of the social-patriots insult Marx by invoking him as their authority in this connection. Plekhanov points to the national wars waged by Prussia in 1813, by Germany in 1870, and Kautsky shows that Marx settled the question as to the nation, that is the bourgeoisie, whose victory was not to be wished for in the wars of 1854–5, 1859, 1870–71, and that the Marxists did the same in the wars of 1876–7 and 1897. Sophists of all times have always resorted to the same tricks: they use examples which do not apply to the case in point. The previous wars of which they speak were the continuation of a policy of many years standing, a movement of the bourgeoisie against foreign domination and against Turkish and Russian absolutism. No question could be raised then except as to the desirability of the victory of one bourgeoisie or another. In these wars, Marxists could call upon the nations to act, inflame national hatred, as Marx did in 1848, and later in the war with Russia, as Engels did in 1859 when he excited the Germans' national hatred against their oppressors, Napoleon III and the Russian Czar.
​To compare a continuation of the policy of struggle against feudalism and absolutism, the policy of the bourgeoisie that strives to free itself, with the continuation of the policy of a decrepit bourgeoisie, imperialist, predatory and reactionary, allied with feudal elements which are trying to oppress the proletariat is to compare an inch with a ton.
One might just as well compare Robespierre, Garibaldi and Zheliabo with Millerand, Salandra and Gutchkof, and say that they were all "representatives of the bourgeoisie." No Marxist can help feeling the deepest regard for the great bourgeois revolutionists who had the historical right to speak in the name of bourgeois society, and who urged millions of people in new nations to conquer a share of civilization by fighting the feudal system. Neither can a Marxist help feeling scorn for sophists like Plekhanov and Kautsky, who speak of "defending the fatherland" when the German imperialists are strangling Belgium or when the French, English, Russian and Italian imperialists are trying to rob Austria and Turkey.
Here is another social-patriot interpretation of Marxism: "Socialism will result from the rapid evolution of capitalism. The triumph of my country would hasten the evolution of Capitalism and hence the coming of Socialism in my country. Defeat of my country's arms would delay her economic development and therefore the coming of Socialism."
Struvism is not only a Russian but, as recent developments have proved, an international endeavor of the bourgeois theorists to kill Marxism with tenderness, to strangle it in a loving embrace, by accepting its "really scientific side" but discarding its elements of "agitation" of "demagogy" of "Blanquist Utopia"; in other words, to take every part of the Marxian lore which is helpful to the liberal bourgeoisie in its fight for reform, everything which helps in the class war (stopping short of a dictatorship of the proletariat), to accept all the "socialist ideals" and the overthrow of Capitalism in favor of "new social strata" and to discard "merely" the live part of Marxism, its revolutionary spirit.
Marxism is the theory of the emancipation movement of the proletariat. Class conscious workers must therefore watch very carefully the process whereby Marxism is being transformed into Struvism.
The forces tending to bring about that process are many and varied. We shall only mention three of them:
​The development of science offers more and more evidence favorable to Marxism. And, therefore, the fight against Marxism has to be waged in a hypocritical fashion. One cannot attack it openly but one can accept it, adulterating its essential points by sophistry, and transforming it into some sacred "ikon" which is not dangerous for the bourgeoisie.
The growth of opportunism among the Socialist parties favors this distortion of Marxism, which is only one of the many concessions made by the opportunists.
In our imperialistic times, the world is being divided up among the large privileged powers which are enslaving all the others. Some crumbs from the feast arc being picked up by certain groups of bourgeois, aristocrats, office holders and even workingmen. The latter class of the people, an insignificant minority of the proletariat and of the laboring masses, gravitate toward Struvism, for it gives them an excuse for joining hands with "their" own bourgeoisie against the exploited masses or "all" nations. We shall come back to this later, when we discuss the reasons for the collapse of the International.
IV
Kautsky's theory of "ultra Imperialism" is simply a subtle form of social-patriotism attired in scientific and international trappings, Here is a clear, precise and new analysis of it by its own author:
"The weakening of the protectionist movement in England, the adoption of lower tariff duties in America, the movement toward disarmament, the decreases in the export of capital from France and Germany in the years immediately preceding the war, finally, the closer international relations which had been establishing themselves between the various groups to financiers and capitalists, caused me to wonder whether our present-day imperialism was not in the process of being displaced by a new (system, ultra-Imperialism, which in place of the strife waged among national groups of capitalists, would usher in a general exploitation of the entire world by an international alliance of capitalists. This new development of capitalism can very well be imagined. Whether it is realizable or not, we cannot very well say at the present time. Neue Zeit, No. 5, 30, IV, 1915, page 144.)
"The course and the outcome of the present war may supply an answer to that question. It may annihilate the weak germs of ultra-Imperialism by fostering an extreme hatred between national ​groups of financiers and capitalists, bringing about an increase in armaments and the determination of certain groups to destroy certain other groups, in other words, making another world war unavoidable. Then the prophecy I made in my pamphlet, The Road to Power, would realize itself in terrible fashion, class antagonisms would become more acute and the moral decay of Capitalism would be at hand."
Let us notice that by that artificial expression, Abwirtschaftung, Kautsky simply means the hostility to Capitalism manifested by the "intermediary strata separating the proletariat from the capitalists, that is the professional classes, the small bourgeois and even some small capitalists." … "But the war may have different results. It may strengthen those weak germs of ultra-Imperialism. The lessons it will teach us [save the mark] may hasten developments which were overdue at the time when the war broke out. If things go that far, as far as an agreement among nations, as far as disarmament, as far as the establishment of a lasting peace, then the factors which until the outbreak of the war were the most potent in the decay of capitalism may be eliminated."
This new development, naturally, would bring in its wake, "new and perhaps worse forms of suffering for the proletariat," but "in time," ultra-Imperialism might "usher in an era of new hopes and expectations within the boundaries of capitalism" (page 145).
How does this theory justify social-patriotism?
In the following way, which to a logical mind is rather strange: The German Socialists of the left wing say that Imperialism and the wars it causes are not a fortuitous accident but a necessary result of capitalism which has enthroned financial capital. Therefore the masses must engage in a revolutionary struggle, for the era of relatively peaceful development is at an end.
The Socialist of the right wing simply say: since Imperialism is unavoidable let us all be imperialists.
Kautsky playing the part of a centre party reconciles them all:
"The extreme radicals," he writes in his pamphlet National Power, Imperialist Power and Powers' Combines (Nuremberg, 1915), wish to oppose Socialism to Imperialism which is inevitable, in other words, they want to oppose Imperialism not only by means of the propaganda which for half a century we have conducted against every form of capitalistic domination, but by the immediate establishment of a Socialist system. This seems very radical, but ​likely to drive those who do not believe in the possibility of the immediate establishment of Socialism, into the imperialistic camp" (page 17.) (Italics mine.)
Speaking of the immediate establishment of Socialism, Kautsky takes advantage of the fact that the military censorship does not allow any talk about revolutionary activities. He knows very well that the left-wing Socialists demand from the party immediate propaganda and the preparation for revolutionary action, and not "the immediate establishment of the Socialist system."
From the inevitability of Imperialism, the left wing Socialists deduce the necessity of revolutionary action. The theory of ultra-Imperialism, is used by Kautsky to justify the opportunists, to throw such a light upon their behavior that they no longer seem to have gone over to the bourgeois camp; they were simply people who did not believe in the feasibility of establishing immediately the Socialist system, and who expected the future to bring us an era of disarmament and lasting peace.
His theory is purely and simply a means of justifying by the expectation of a new peaceful era of Capitalism the alliance of the opportunists and official Social-Democrats with the bourgeois, and their refusal to adopt a revolutionary, that is proletarian, attitude, when the actual storm broke out, in spite of the solemn promises of the Basel resolution.
Notice that Kautsky does not state that a new era shall result from certain conditions; he simply says: "whether there will be such a new era, I cannot state at present."
At the same time let us look at the tendencies to which Kautsky is pointing and which may bring about the new era. It is quite amazing to find among them economic facts cited by Kautsky, the trend toward disarmament Which means that, Kautsky, unable to make certain positive facts chime with his contradictory theory, takes refuge in bourgeois babble and dreams. Kautsky's ultra-Imperialism, a word which by the way does not express accurately what he means, simply designates the blunt contradictions of Capitalism.
Kautsky writes about "The weakening of the protectionist movement in England and America;" but how does this reveal in the slightest way the coming of a new era? Having reached its climax, protectionism in America is loosing its strength, but protectionism remains, as does the privileged position granted to England by the colonial custom tariffs. Let us not forget what condi​tioned the transition from yesterday's "peaceful" Capitalism to to-day's Imperialism: the fact that unrestricted competition has been replaced by monopolistic alliances of capitalists and that the entire world has been divided up among them. It is obvious that those facts and factors have a world-wide significance. Unrestricted commerce and world-wide competition were possible and necessary when capital could without much difficulty establish new colonies and seize land in Africa and in other unoccupied parts of the world, and when at the same time the concentration of capital was only in its embryonic stage and there were no monopolistic concerns, powerful enough to dominate one entire branch of any industry.
The appearance and growth of those monopolistic concerns (a process which is still going on in England and in America, and I wonder whether Kautsky would deny that the war has hastened that process?) makes the former competition impossible, tears the ground from under it, and the division of the earth among those large monopolies brings unavoidably in its wake an armed conflict for the division of colonies and spheres of influence.
It is ridiculous to think that the weakening of the protectionist movement in two countries could change this in any way.
Kautsky also mentions a decrease in the export of capital by two countries in the past few years. Those two countries, France and Germany, exported, according to statistics for 1912, some 35 billion marks each and England alone twice as much.
The increase in the export of capital never was and never could be regular under Capitalism. Whether the accumulation of capital has decreased or whether the capacity of the home market has increased owing to an amelioration in the condition of the masses, Kautsky does not try to decide. Such being the case it is impotssible to predict the coming of the new era from the decrease in the export of capital in two countries.
Then Kautsky tells us about "the closer relations which are being established between groups of financiers and capitalists."
This is indeed the only general and positive tendency we have observed not for a few years only, nor for just two nations, but ​the world over, as far as Capitalism is concerned. But why should this bring about disarmament instead of more armaments, as it has done thus far? Let us consider any of the concerns which manufacture guns and other implements of warfare, such as the Armstrong firm. The English Economist stated, in a recent issue (Vol. 1, 1915), that the profits of that firm, which had been 606,000 pounds sterling for 1905–06, had grown to 856,000 pounds in 1913 and to 940,000 pounds in 1914. In this field of industry we observe closer and closer relations among financiers and capitalists. German capitalists are interested in English firms; English firms build submarines for Austria, etc. International combinations of capital derive a large amount of business from armaments and wars.
To conclude, from the gradual blending of the various national capitalist groups into a single international unit, that disarmament is coming is to encourage the good old bourgeois delusion that social antinomies may grow less instead of more acute.
V
Kautsky speaks of the lessons of the war in a perfectly philistine spirit, taking those lessons to be the moral horror inspired by the sufferings due to the war. This is what he has to say on the subject: "No evidence is needed to prove that certain classes of the population are vitally interested in peace and disarmament: little bourgeois, farmers and also many capitalists and professional men whose interest in Imperialism would be more than offset by the harm caused to them by war and armaments. (Page 21).
This was written in April, 1915. We have seen all the property-owning classes, including the little bourgeois and the professional classes, flocking over to the imperialist camp, but Kautsky simply dismisses actual acts with fatuous phraseology. He determines the interests of the bourgeoisie, not from the bourgeoisie's own actions, but from statements made by a few bourgeois, statements which stand in absolute disaccord with their actions. It is as though we should gauge the real interests of the bourgeoisie not by the bourgeoisie's actual deeds, but by the unctuous sermons of some bourgeois priests who swear to us that the modern world is pervaded by Christian ideals.
Kautsky edits Marxism in such a way that it loses all its substance, and only preserves some supra-real, spiritualistic interest, as it deals no longer with economic facts, but merely voices harmless wishes for the welfare of mankind.
​Marxism draws its-conclusions as to the "interests" of the various classes from class antagonisms and the class struggle revealed by innumerable acts of our every-day life. The little bourgeois blabbers sentimentally about allaying class antagonisms and brings "proofs" that their accentuation would have "harmful consequences."
Imperialism is simply the subjugation of all the propertied classes by financial capital and the partition of the world among the five or six great powers, most of whom are now engaged in the war. That partition of the world by the great powers means that all their propertied classes are interested in the conquest of colonies, in spheres of influence, in the oppression of other nations, in the more or less profitable positions and privileges, which redound from belonging to a great power and to a nation capable of oppressing others.
We can no longer live as we did in the past, in a quiet, cultured, peaceful environment, with Capitalism developing itself smoothly and spreading gradually over new parts of the earth, for we have entered a new era.
Financial capital is removing and will remove completely certain countries from the ranks of the great powers, taking away their colonies and their spheres of influence (as Germany's threat is in her war with England), despoiling the small bourgeois of his "great-power" privileges and his income. This is one of the things the war has taught us. This has been brought about by the accentuation of antinomies whose reality everybody admitted long ago, even Kautsky in his Road to Power.
And at the very time when a war is being waged for the privileges redounding from "great powerdom," Kautsky tells capitalists and petty bourgeois that war is an awful thing, that disarmament is ​a fine thing, and he accomplishes about as much as the priest who from his pulpit tells capitalists that love of one's neighbor is God's behest, a source of bliss for our soul and the moral law of civilization. What Kautsky calls the economic trend to ultra-Imperialism is a petty bourgeois attempt to tell the financiers they should not do wrong.
The export of capital? But capital is being exported in larger quantities to independent countries like the United States than into colonial lands.
To seize colonies ? But they have almost all been seized and almost all of them are trying now to free themselves. "India may cease to be an English dependency, but she will never submit as an independent empire to the domination of any other nation" (page 49). Every effort made by a commercial capitalist government to create a colonial empire in order to free itself from all dependence from any other power for its supply of raw materials, is bound to unite against that government all the other capitalist governments and to drag it into endless, exhausting wars, which will not bring it any nearer to its goal. Such a policy is the shortest road to economic bankruptcy (pages 72–73).
Isn't this objurgation to the financiers to avoid Imperialism pure philistine piffle? To warn capitalists against bankruptcy is like warning brokers not to gamble in stocks, for "many have in that way lost everything they had." Capital has everything to gain from bankruptcy of competing capitalists and competing nations, for this bankruptcy will cause an even more powerful concentration. And, therefore, the sharper and the more ruthless economic competition, that is, the economic urge toward bankruptcy, grows, the more eager capitalists are to drive their competitors into bankruptcy by means of a war. The fewer countries there are left into which one can export capital profitably, such as colonies and dependent nations, like Turkey (for in such cases the financier makes larger profits than by exporting capital into independent and civilized nations like the United States), the more bitter the fight is for the subjugation and the partition of Turkey, China and other countries.
Thus speak those who are observing this era of financial capital and of Imperialism. Thus speak the facts. But Kautsky injects into the whole thing his bourgeois morality: There is no use getting heated up and fighting over Turkey or India, for this thing wilt not last long and it is so much better to develop capital in a peaceful way.
​Of course, it should be possible to develop Capitalism and to increase the markets by raising wages. This is perfectly "feasible"; one might give that advice to financiers and it would make a fine subject for a sermon. Poor Kautsky all but tells German financiers that it isn't worth their while to fight England for her colonies, as those colonies are bound very soon to regain their freedom. …
The amount of the Anglo-Egyptian export-import trade grew much more slowly from 1872 to 1912 than the general export-import trade of England with other nations. The conclusion which the "Marxist" Kautsky draws from that fact is the following: "We have no reason to suppose that, without a military occupation of Egypt, commercial relations with that country would have been less important if left to the sole influence of economic factors (72).
"Capital's efforts to increase its share of activity are beeter rewarded by avoiding the violent methods of imperialism and only resorting to peaceful democratic means" (70).
What a wonderfully earnest, scientific, marxist analysis! Kautsky improves upon this stupid story by "proving" that the English should not have taken Egypt from the French, that German financiers should not have started the war and organised the Turkish campaign, and other operations to drive the English out of Egypt. All this is rot. The English would never suspect that it would have been better for them, not to use violence in Egypt, but to resort (in order to develop the exportation of capital in true Kautskian style) to peaceful democracy.
"The bourgeois free-traders would be greatly mistaken if they thought that free trade would eliminate the economic antagonisms created by Capitalism. Neither free trade nor democracy could do away with them. But at any rate we are interested in seeing those antagonisms disappear in a struggle such as will impose upon the working class the smallest amount of suffering and sacrifice." (73)
Lord have pity on us! "What is a philistine?" Lassalle once asked. He answered the question by quoting the well known verse: "a philistine is an empty piece of gut, filled with fear and with the hope that God will take pity on him."
Kautsky has gone to an incredible length in prostituting Marxism and has made himself the priest of that new religion. He preaches to the capitalists the necessity of resorting to peaceful democracy and this is the way he builds up his argument: If in the beginning there was free trade, and then monopoly and Imperialism, why not have ultra-Imperialism and after that, free trade? ​In his preacher-like way he consoles the oppressed masses by describing all the blessings of ultra-Imperialism, although he doesn't dare to affirm that there will be such a thing. Feuerbach showed clearly to those who defended religion on the ground that it offered a consolation to men, the actual reactionary meaning of such a consolation: "Whoever," he said, '"consoles a slave instead of inciting him to revolt against slavery offers help to the slaveholder."
The exploiting classes in order to retain their domination need the services of two retainers: the hangman and the priest. The hangman crushes out the protests and the revolt of the oppressed; the priests depict to them the beautiful state of affairs (and he does that the more successfully if he doesn't insist on the possibility of such a state of affairs) which will diminish their sufferings and their sacrifice while the class domination is maintained; he reconciles them with this domination, he coaxes them away from revolutionary activity, he saps their revolutionary strength, he destroys their revolutionary determination. Kautsky has transformed Marxism into the same immoralizing kind of counter-revolutionary theory, into miserable priestlike rant.
In 1909, in his pamphlet The Road to Power he admits a fact which no one has ever tried to refute, that is, the constant, exacerbation of capitalist antagonisms, the approach of an era of war and revolutions, of a "new revolutionary era."
There cannot be, he says, a premature revolution, and it would be an absolute betrayal of our cause to refuse to count on the possibility of victory at the time of an uprising although, before the struggle begins, one cannot deny the possibility of defeat."
The war broke out. Antagonisms became even more violent. The destitution of the masses assumed terrific proportions. The war drags on and spreads more and more, and Kautsky writes pamphlet after pamphlet, meekly submitting to the pleasure of the censor, avoiding all allusions to conquest and to the horrors of war, to the scandalous profiteering of the dealers in army supplies, to the high cost of living, to the military slavery of the mobilized workers; but he keeps on consoling and consoling the proletariat, by reminding it of other wars in which the bourgeoisie showed itself revolutionary or progressive, when Marx himself wished for the victory of this or that bourgeoisie; and he offers still more consolation in the shape of columns of figures, proving the possibility of a Capitalism without colonies and without exploitation, without war and without armaments, the best evidence that "peaceful democracy" is preferable.
​Not daring to deny that the sufferings of the masses are becoming more and more acute and that we are in reality facing a truly revolutionary situation (for the censor would not let him speak of such things), Kautsky toadies before the bourgeoisie and he depicts a "perspective" (about whose possibility he does not comment himself) of a form of struggle in the new era, entailing less suffering and fewer sacrifices. Franz Mehring and Rosa Luxemburg were well justified in calling Kautsky a prostitute (Madchen fur alle).
In August 1915 a revolutionary crisis arose in Russia. The Czar promised to the Duma "consolations" for the suffering masses. The regime which followed could be designated as "ultra-autocracy" if we can designate by the word ultra-Imperialism the refusal of the capitialists to go in for armaments and their decision to agree among themselves to insure a durable peace.
Let us suppose that tomorrow some hundred of the world's largest financiers, interested in hundreds of interlocking enterprises of colossal size should promise to the nations that they will insist on disarmament after the war. Let us suppose that for a minute so as to follow better the stupid arguments of Kautsky's theory. Even then it would be a betrayal of the proletariat to advise them against revolutionary activities, for without that activity all these promises and all this beautiful perspective would be simply an idle dream.
The war has brought to the capitalists not only huge profits and the promise of new lands to exploit in Turkey, in China, etc., of new orders and of new loans at a higher rate of interest, but it has also brought to them greater political advantages, for it has divided the proletariat against itself, it has corrupted it. Kautsky has lent his help to that perversion, he has sanctioned that schism of the struggling proletarians, in the name of a union with the opportunists of his country, with the Sudekums of every water. And there are people who cannot understand that unity among the old parties simply means the alliance of the national proletariat with its national bourgeoisie and the division of the proletariat into several nations.
VI
The preceding chapter had been written when the Neue Zeit for May 28, 1918, came off the press, containing Kautsky's concluding remarks on the "Bankruptcy of the Social-Democracy."
​Kautsky sums up all the worn out sophisms (and a new one which he brings in) intended to defend social-patriotism, in the following paragraph"
"It is not true that the war is purely an imperialistic war, and that the alternative when the war broke out was: either Imperialism or Socialism. It is not true that the Socialist parties and the proletarian masses of Germany and France and, in many respects, those of England, listened stupidly to the call of a handful of parliamentarians, threw themselves into the arms of the imperialists, betrayed Socialism and thus brought about a failure without precedent in history."
A new sophism, a now lie to deceive the workers. The war, if you please was not a "purely'" imperialistic war.
Kautsky is terribly unsteady whenever he discusses the actual character of the present war and he dodges the precise and formal declarations of the Basel and Chemnitz conferences as carefully as a thief avoids the scene of his last robbery. In his pamphlet on National Power, etc., written in February, 1915, Kauttsky states that "in the last analysis war is imperialistic'" (page 64). Now he makes a new reservation; not "purely imperialistic." What is it then?
Well, it is "nationalistic." And Kautsky comes to that conclusion by resorting to the following Plekhanovian logic:
"The present war is a child not only of Imperialism but of the Russian Revolution." Kautsky himself foresaw as early as 1904 that the Russian Revolution would give birth to a new form of Pan-Slavism, that "democratic Russia would unavoidably arouse the desire of the Austrian and Turkish Slaves for their independence. … Then the Polish question would become a burning one… Then Austria would collapse, for with the fall of Czarism the iron yoke would be removed which holds together many elements eager to draw away one from the other" (Kautsky himself cites the previous sentence from his article written in 1904). … The Russian Revolution … would give a new impetus to the nationalist aspirations of the East, and add Asiatic problems to the European problems. … All those problems are revealing their existence through violent symptoms during the present war and are exerting a powerful influence upon the temper of the popular masses, especially of the proletarian masses at a time when the ruling classes are dominated by imperialistic tendencies" (page 273, italics mine).
There is prostitution of Marxism for you! Since "'democratic Russia" would arouse the desires of the Eastern-European nations ​for freedom (and we will not controvert this) then, the present war, which will not free any nation whatever, but will cause the exploitation of many nations, whatever its issue may be, is not a "purely" imperialistic war. Since the failure of Czarism would bring about the disruption of Austria and of her undemocratic national structure, then a counter-revolutionary Czarism, having temporarily strengthened itself, conquering Austria and imposing an even heavier yoke upon the various Austrian nationalities would not give to this war an imperialist but to a certain degree a nationalistic character.
Since the ruling classes fool dull shopkeepers and brutalized peasants by yams about the nationalistic aims of an imperialistic war, then, a scientific man, an authority on Marxism, and a representative of the Second International, is justified in reconciling the masses with that deception by means of this "formula:" the ruling classes have imperialistic tendencies, but the popular classes have nationalistic aspirations.
Logic is here replaced by the lowest, most lying form of sophistry.
In the present war the nationalist element is only found in the war waged by Servia against Austria. And by the way mention of this is made in the resolution of the Berne conference. It is only in Servia and among the Servians that we find a movement for national emancipation dating back to many years ago and affecting millions of people, and of which the war waged by Servia against Austria is merely the "continuation."
If that war could be isolated, if it was not so intimately connected with the covetous and thievish plans of England, Russia and other nations, then all the Socialists would be "obliged" to wish for the triumph of the Servian bourgeoisie. This is the only just and unavoidable deduction based upon nationalist aspirations in the present war. But Kautsky never once dares to draw that conclusion.
Let us go further. The Marxist form of reasoning forbids us to study a subject isolated from the environment, that is to study it from a one-sided, incomplete point of view. The nationalist factor in the Servian- Austrian war cannot and could not seriously modify the character of this Pan-American war. If Germany should win she would strangle Belgium, seize a part of Poland and probably a part of France. If Russia should win she would take Galicia and a part of Poland and Armenia. In case of a draw the oppression of nationalities will go on as formerly. For Servia, ​that is for about one hundredth of the peoples engaged in the present war, this war is really "the continuation" of the bourgeois emancipation movement. For the remaining 99 per cent. the war is a continuation of the politics of the imperialistic and decaying bourgeoisie, capable of corrupting but not of emancipating any nation.
The Triple Entente, while "emancipating" Servia, betrays the interests of Servian freedom when it helps Italy to rob Austria.
This is common knowledge, but Kautsky distorts it all in order to justify opportunism. There is no phenomenon, in nature or in society which is "purely" something and nothing else; this is revealed to us by the application of the Marxist form of reasoning which shows us that the very idea of that "purity" comes from a narrow, one-sided view of things, which does not follow all the threads to their very end and with all their intricacy. There cannot be any "pure" Capitalism showing absolutely no alloy of feudalism or commercialism.
And therefore, to come and tell us that the war is not "purely" imperialistic when we see the imperialists fooling the popular masses and carefully concealing their crudely thievish aims under "nationalistic" phrases, is to betray either infinite pedantry and stupidity or chicanery and deceitfulness. The real fact of the matter is that Kautsky actually abets the imperialists in their attempts at deceiving the nation, when he states that "for the popular masses, among them the proletarian masses, the most important factors are nationalistic problems, while for the ruling masses, imperialistic tendencies are foremost," (page 273) and when he strengthens that statement by mentioning "the infinite variety of activities" on page 274. Of course, activities are extremely varied, this is gospel truth. But it is nevertheless true that in that great variety there are two main currents: in its concrete essence the war is "a continuation" of the policy of Imperialism, that is the exploitation of foreign nations by the decaying bourgeoisie and the governments of the great powers; and abstract ideology amounts to "nationalistic" phrases scattered about to satisfy the masses.
The old sophism, reiterated by Kautsky, that at the beginning of the war, the only alternative according to the left-wing Socialists was: Imperialism or Socialism, has already been shot to pieces.
This presupposes a shameful mental reservation, for Kautsky knows too well that the left-wing faced an entirely different alternative: either join hands with the imperialist thieves and deceivers, or preach and prepare revolutionary action. Kautsky also knows that it is only the censor who prevents the left-wing Socialists from ​exposing the miserable lies which he is spreading while toadying to all the Sudekums.
Regarding the relations between "the proletarian masses" and "a handful of parliamentarisms," Kautsky advances one of the most threadbare arguments:
"Let us not speak of the German Socialists, so that we shall not seem to be pleading our own cause; but who would seriously pretend that men like Vaillant and Guesde, Hyndman and Plekhanov turned imperialists all of a sudden and betrayed Socialism?
Let us leave aside the parliamentarians and "competent parties" (Kautsky obviously alludes to the flood of deserved scorn which the magazine Internationale published by Rosa Luxemburg and Franz Mehring poured upon the "competent parties," that is the leaders of the German Social-Democratic party, its executive committee, its parliamentary faction, etc., "Who would pretend that four millions of class-conscious German proletarians would at the call of a handful of parliamentarians make in twenty four hours a complete round about face to the right, and turn their backs upon all their previous aims. If that was true, it would show the terrible failure, not only of our party, but of the masses (italics mine). If the masses are so completely lacking in character then we might as well go and bury ourselves." (page 274.)
Karl Kautsky the great political and scientific authority had, for that matter, already buried himself under a mound of lamentable evasions. Whoever fails to see this is hopeless as a Socialist; the only attitude to assume toward Kautsky is the infinite scorn which Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring and other contributors to the Internationale expressed toward him.
Just think: in regard to the war, the only people who could express themselves with a certain freedom (that is because they had not been seized and led to the barracks, and were not in immediate danger of being shot) were exclusively that "handful of parliamentarians" (they could vote freely, they could vote against the war, for even in Russia a man did not get beaten, nor threatened, nor arrested for that) and a handful of officials and journalists. Now Kautsky blames the masses for all the treachery and lack of character of that group of the population, which Kautsky himself had for many years described as being bound up with the tactics and the ideology of opportunism.
The first and fundamental rule of scientific research in general, and of Marxian discussion in particular, is to examine closely the relations between the present strife among the various Socialist ​factions (the faction which howls "betrayal" and rings the alarm bell, and the faction which is unable to see any betrayal) and the strife which went on in former years. Kautsky never says a word about it; he refuses to consider factions and tendencies. There used to be diverging tendencies hitherto. Now there are not any more. Now we only hear about big names, authorities, to whom every lackey kowtows. How handy it is for all of them to "pass the buck" to the other fellow. "What is that opportunism," Martov cried in Berne (see No. 36 of the Social Democrat), "when … Guesde, Plekhanov, Kautsky. …" "We must not be so ready to bandy accusations of opportunism against men like Guesde," writes Axelrod (Golos No. 86 and 87). "I shall not defend myself," writes Kautsky, but … Vaillant and Guesde, Hyndman and Plekhanov. …"
In the ardor of his slavish zeal, Kautsky went as far as paying homage to Hyndman, whom he not so long ago had described as standing on the side of Imperialism.
How many times had Kautsky assailed Hyndman's Imperialism in his own Neue Zeit and in all the papers of the Socialist party. If Kautsky would pay some attention to the political biographies of the various men he mentions by name, he would find in those biographies a mass of facts which would show that their right-about-face toward Imperialism was not accomplished in a day, but had been prepared for years. Wasn't Vaillant trailing after the Jauresista, and wasn't Plekhanov trailing after the Mensheviki and "liquidators"? Did he not see Guesdism die out before his very eyes in the columns of Guesde's paper, Socialism, a lifeless arid organ, unable to take any definite stand on any question? Did not Kautsky himself (we add this for those who very justly place him in the same class with Hyndman and Plekhanov) show his lack of principles in regard to Millerandism and when the; struggle against Bersteinism began?
But I do not see any scientific interest in studying the biographies of those leaders. Little we care whether in order to defend themselves they use their own arguments or the arguments generally used by opportunists and bourgeois. What gave the conduct of those leaders a serious political importance? Their own activities Or the fact that they united themselves to a really active group, supported by the military organizations, that is the bourgeoisie? Kautsky doesn't even try to investigate that side of the problem. The only thing he cares for is to throw dust into people's eyes, to ​din into their ears big-sounding names and to prevent them from asking him unpleasant questions.
"… Four million people turned right-about-face at the command of a handful of politicians. …"
This is an untruth. The German party organization did not have four million members, but one million. Furthermore, the wishes of that mass were expressed, as they are in each and every organization by its center, the handful of men who betrayed Socialism. The handful of men was asked questions, was called upon to pass resolutions; it did pass them, it wrote articles, etc. … The masses were never asked for their opinion. They were not allowed to vote; they were divided up and pursued, not by a handful of parliamentarians, but by the military authorities. The military machine was united and did not have traitors in its ranks. It called upon the masses to unite by giving them this ultimatum: Fight (as your leaders advise you to do) or be shot. The masses could not act as an organization, for their organization was represented by that handful of men, Legien, Kautsky, Scheidemann, who had already betrayed the masses. It takes time to perfect a new organization; it takes a good deal of strength to discard the old one when it is rotten and worn out.
Kautsky tries to answer his adversaries of the left by charging them with thoughtlessness. The masses should, in answer to the declaration of war, have started a revolution in 24 hours, and raised Socialism against Imperialism. Having failed to do that the masses have been guilty of betrayal and showed their lack of character. This is the worst rot, the kind of rot used against revolutionists by stupid bourgeois and secret service publications. Kautsky's opponents of the left wing know Very well that one does not start a revolution, that revolutions grow out of certain crises when a certain point is reached (this independently of party and ​class desires), that masses without organization have no will of their own and that the struggle against the powerful, terroristic, military organization of perfectly centralized powers is a long and arduous fight. Betrayed by their leaders at a critical moment the masses could not do anything. But that handful of men could have and should have voted against war credits, voiced their desire for the defeat of their government, opposed the national party truce and all attempts to justify the war, prepared an international organization for propaganda in the trenches, produced masses of "illegal" literature showing the necessity of revolutionary action, etc.
Kautsky knows very well that the left wing of the German party has more or less similar plans, but cannot speak of them openly while there is a military censorship. In his desire to defend his opportunism, Kautsky is despicable enough to perch himself on the back of the censor and from that safe point of vantage, to charge the left wing men with all sorts of obvious nonsense.
VII
A serious question, a scientific and political question, which Kautsky consciously dodges by resorting to all sorts of legerdemains (an evasion which fills the opportunists with joy), is, how could the representatives of the Second International betray Socialism?
When I ask this question I dismiss all thought of those men's political biographies. Their biographers will have to treat the question from this point of view, but the Socialist movement doesn't care about it just now. What it wants to know is the historical origin, the significance and the strength of the social-chauvinist movement.
Where does social-patriotism come from? What gave it its strength? How can we fight it? These are the only questions we should ask. To let the discussion stray into personalities is pure sophistry.
​In order to answer the first question we must find out whether the essential political thought of social chauvinism is not bound up with some previous tendency observable in the Socialist movement. We must besides ask ourselves whether there is not some relation between the present day division of Socialists into partisans and opponents of chauvinism and the various schisms which have taken place in the history of the movement.
By social-patriotism we mean the willingness to defend one's country in this imperialistic war, to justify the alliance of the Socialists with the bourgeoisie and the governments of their own country, and the refusal to preach and support the revolt of the proletarians against their national bourgeoisie. It is obvious that in its essential traits, politically and intellectually, chauvinism is identical with opportunism. Both represent one and the same tendency. Opportunism placed in the special environment of the present war becomes social-chauvinism. The main idea of opportunism is that of the co-operation of all classes. The war enforces that idea to the limit, not only by the usual method of action, but by extraordinary methods as well, forcing, as it does, the disorganized masses of the population to co-operate with the bourgeoisie by threats and violence. This circumstance naturally increases the number of the partisans of opportunism, and explains why so many of the radicals of yesterday have gone over to the opposite camp.
Opportunism sacrifices the working class interests of the masses to the temporary interests of a small minority. In other words, it bands a part of the working class with the bourgeois as against the proletariat. Opportunism began to grow in the past decade, a period of capitalistic development, when the relatively peaceful and civilized existence enjoyed by privileged classes of workers, made bourgeois out of them, fed them crumbs from the profits made by their national capital, and rendered them indifferent to the sufferings and the revolutionary bitterness of the exploited and pauperized masses. This imperialistic war is the continuation and the climax of that process, for it is being waged to conquer privileges for certain great powers, to allow them to divide up colonial territories among themselves and to rule over the rest of the world.
When the upper middle class and the aristocracy and bureaucracy of the working class make a stand to strengthen their privileged position, we behold a furtherance of the little bourgeois-opportunists' aspirations, and of the corresponding political activi​ties up to the time when war broke out. Here is the economic basis of the present day's social-chauvinism.
Naturally, the force of habit, the routine of peaceful evolution, national prejudices, the fear of violent change and misgivings about them, all these things were the added factors which strengthened opportunism, and caused hypocrites and cowards to reconcile themselves to it, were it only for special reasons and motives. The war brought to the surface the opportunism which had been developing for years, raised it aloft, multiplied its degrees and varieties, increased the number of its partisans, added to its arguments a few sophisms, let many rivulets, so to speak, flow into the main stream of opportunism.
Social-patriotism is opportunism grown so ripe that the growth of that bourgeois abscess would have previously been impossible within the body of Socialism.
People who refuse to see the close and solid bonds which unite social-patriotism to opportunism, drag in "special cases"—an opportunist becoming internationalist or a radical becoming chauvinist. But this is not a serious way of discussing the evolution of ​that tendency. First of all, opportunism and chauvinism in the labor movement have the same cause: the alliance between shopkeepers and the upper crust of labor, gathering in a few crumbs from the banquet at which sit their national capitalists, against the overworked and oppressed masses of the proletariat.
In the second place, both tendencies are moved by the same thoughts and ideas. Thirdly, the division of the Socialists into opportunists and revolutionary groups, which was already observable at the time of the Second International, corresponds perfectly to their new division into chauvinists and internationalists.
To realize the truth of the forgoing one must remember that social science, like science in general, deals with mass phenomena, not with isolated cases. Take ten European nations: Germany, England, Russia, Italy, Holland, Sweden, Bulgaria, Switzerland, France, Belgium. In the first eight nations the new split upon the question of internationalism is the same as the old split upon the question of opportunism. In Germany that citadel of opportunism, the Soz. Monatshefte, has become the fortress of chauvinism. The internationalist idea is only defended by the extreme left. In England, according to the last estimates, only three-sevenths of the members of the British Socialist Party are internationalists (66 for, to 84 against the internationalist resolution). In the opportunist bloc, that is, the Labour Party, the Fabians and the Independent Labour Party, less than one-seventh of the membership is internationalist.
In Russia the center of opportunist propaganda, Nasha Zona, organ of the liquidators, became the organ of the chauvinists. Plekhanov and Alexinsky make much noise, but we know from what we observed in the years 1910–1914 that they are unable to conduct a systematic propaganda among the Russian masses. The stronghold of internationalism in Russia was "pravdism" and the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, representing the advanced workers, and organized in January, 1912.
In Italy, the party of Bissolatti & Go., purely opportunist, turned chauvinist. Internationalism was represented by the Labor Party. The masses of the workers were behind that party. The oppor​tunists, the parliamentary party and the petty bourgeois were all for chauvinism. For several months, every one in Italy had a chance to make his choice, and people chose not in any haphazard way, but along the lines of class cleavage, according to whether they were proletarians or petit bourgeois.
In Holland, the opportunist Troelstra faction stand on good terms with the chauvinists. We must not be deceived by the fact that in Holland the lower, as well as the upper, middle classes hate Germany, which is in a position to swallow them. The only consistent, sincere, fiery and convinced internationalists are the Marxists led by Horter and Pannekoek. In Sweden the opportunist leader Branting is indignant when the German Socialists call him a traitor, but the leader of the left wing, Hoglund, tells us that among his followers there are men who hold the same opinion (see S-D No. 36).
In Bulgaria, the foes of opportunism, "the narrow ones," have accused the German social-democrats in their organ, Novoe Vremya, of "a filthy deed." In Switzerland, the followers of the opportunist Greulich are inclined to justify the German social-democrats (see their paper, the National, of Zurich), but the group led by the much more radical, R. Grimm, has opened the columns of its paper, the Berner Tagwacht, to the German left wing.
In the only two exceptions to that rule France and Belgium, two countries out of ten, there is a number of internationalists, but (for reasons easily understood) they are weak and crushed down. Vaillant himself confessed in his paper, l'Humanite, that he had received from his readers many letters inspired by an internationalist spirit, but he did not print a single one of them in its entirety.
A glance at the situation in every country is sufficient to convince us that the opportunist wing of European Socialism betrayed Socialism and went over to the chauvinist camp. What gave that power, that seemingly irresistible power to the official parties? Kautsky, who knows perfectly how to approach a historical question, when discussing ancient Rome or a similar subject, not too close to our present-day life, pretends hypocritically that this passes his understanding. But the whole thing is as clear as daylight. The opportunists derived their giant strength from their alliance with the bourgeoisie, the governments and the general staffs. We often forget that fact and we imagine that the opportunists are actually part and parcel of the Socialist party, that Socialist parties have always had and will always have two extreme wings, that the whole ​thing was due to a desire to avoid extremes etc., as all the philistine scribes are writing in their sheets.
In reality, the mere fact that opportunists formally belong to a labor party doesn't change that other fact, that they are obviously a section of the bourgeoisie, spreading its influence, acting as its agents in the labor movement. When the opportunist Sudekum started to demonstrate that social, class truth, some good people howled. The French Socialists and Plekhanov pointed an accusing finger at Sudekum. Now Vandervelde, Sembat and Plekhanov could stand in front of a mirror and they would see there the image of Sudekum. The German Vorstand, which sings Kautsky's praise and whose praise Kautsky sings, hastened to declare in guarded, modest and polite terms, that they did not agree with Sudekum, whom they did not designate by name.
This is ridiculous, for at the crucial moment, Sudekum showed himself a hundred times stronger than Haase and Kautsky, just as Nasha Zarya was stronger that the Brusselian bloc which was afraid of a split.
Why? Because back of Sudekum there stands the bourgeoisie, the government and the general staff of a great power. They back his policy in a thousand ways, while they oppose his adversaries in a thousand ways, too, including jail sentences and the firing squad. The voice of Sudekum is carried afar on the wings of the bourgeois papers, with their millions of copies (and so do the voices of Vandervelde Sembat and Plekhanov), while the voice of his opponents can never be heard in the "lawful" press, for there is a military censorship.
Opportunism is not a chance phenomenon, a crime, a low deed or an act of betrayal on the part of a few individuals, but the social product of a whole period of history. But not everybody tries to realize the meaning of this fact. The labor parties between 1889 and 1914 had to take advantage of what was declared permissible by the bourgeoisie. When the crisis came their only hope lay in "unlawful" activity. This could not be done without an enormous amount of energy and determination, besides resorting to a number of tricks of warfare. One Sudekum was enough to prevent that change of tactics, for back of that one man there was all the old system of society, historically and philosophically speaking, for that Sudekum had always betrayed and will always betray to the bourgeoisie the war plans of the bourgeoisie's enemy, to use practical and political parlance.
​It is a fact that the entire Social-Democratic part of Germany does only what is agreeable to Sudekum or, at least, what Sudekum can abide. Nothing else can be done in a lawful way.
Whatever honorable, really Socialist, action is taken by the German party, is against the wishes of its center, without the consent of its leaders, in violation of the discipline of the party, by factions, in behalf of the anonymous center of a new party, like, for instance, the anonymous appeal from the German "left" printed in the Berner Tagewacht for May 31 of this year. A new party is indeed in the process of organization and growth, a real labor party, a genuine social-democratic party, very different from the old and rotten national liberal party of Legien, Sudekum, Kautsky, Haase, Scheidemann and others.
It was a deep historical truth whkh the hopeless conservative, who signs himself Monitor, expressed in the Prussian Yearbook, when he said that it would fare badly with the opportunists (read bourgeoisie) if the present-day social democracy should mend its ways, for the workers would get out of it. Opportunists and bourgeois need the party as it is now, "uniting" the right and left wings and officially represented by Kautsky, who knows how to reconcile all the factions by his smooth, "Marxist" phrases.
In appearance it represents Socialism and the revolutionary spirit of the nation, the masses, the workers; in reality, it is pure Sudekumism, always ready to ally itself with the bourgeoisie whenever a serious crisis arises.
I said "whenever a crisis arises," for it is not only in wartimes, but whenever a serious political strike takes place that feudal Germany and "free-parliamentary" England and France adopt under this or that name military measures of repression. No one who is of sane mind and has a good memory can gainsay this.
​How can we answer the third question: How shall we fight social-chauvinism? Social-chauvinism is opportunism so developed and so strengthened in the course of a period of relatively peaceful capitalism, so settled in its ideas and its policies, so closely allied to the bourgeoisie and the government that its presence within a workers' party is absolutely intolerable.
One may wear thin soles while walking along the sidewalks of a town, but when you climb mountains you need strong hobnailed boots. European Socialism has grown beyond the narrow confines of peaceful activity and nationalism. The war has led it into the arena of revolutionary action, and it is time it should break entirely with opportunism and drive it out of the workers' party.
Merely to mention the duties which Socialism will have to fulfill at this new stage of its world evolution, is not to decide how soon or in what way the revolutionary Socialist parties of workers in every country are going to rid themselves of all the petty bourgeois opportunists within their ranks. But we realize clearly that henceforth that process of elimination is essential and that all the policies of the workers' party will have to be shaped from that point of view. The war of 1914 marks such a turning point in the history of the world that the relations of the party to opportunism cannot remain unchanged any longer. We cannot undo what was done, we cannot blot out of the consciousness of the workers, nor out of the memory of the bourgeois, nor out of the record of our times the fact that, in a crisis, the opportunists proved to be the group around which rallied all the elements from the working class who deserted into the bourgeois camp. As far as the whole of Europe is concerned, opportunism was only in its adolescence before the war broke out. When it did break out, opportunism reached its manhood state and it will be unable to regain its youth and its innocence. There has matured a whole group of parliamentarians, journalists, bureaucrats of the labor movement, privileged employes and even a few proletarians, who cast in their lot with the pourgeoisie, and whom the bourgeoisie knew how to appreciate and to make use of.
We cannot go back or turn backward the wheels of history, we must and we can go ahead fearlessly, away from artificial, lawful, slavish opportunism and toward the sort of labor organization which will be revolutionary, which will not confine itself to so-called lawful action and will know how to rid itself of the opportunist treachery, the sort of labor organization that will set out to conquer power and to overthrow the bourgeoisie.
​We see what a distorted view of the whole thing those men have who are trying to deaden their conscience and the conscience of the workers, men like the recognized leaders of the Second International, the Guesdes, the Plekhanovs, the Kautskys and their ilk.
One thing is beyond cavil: if those men cannot understand the new duties of the party they must stay out of it, or surrender to the opportunists who hold them prisoners now. If those men break their chains there will be few obstacles to their readmission to the ranks of the revolutionists.
VIII
Lawful mass organizations of the working class were one of the distinctive traits of the Socialist parties at the time of the Second International. In the German party especially they were very strong and hence the war of 1914 marks a sudden turning point, and made the problems more acute than ever.
Any revolutionary action on their part at the time would have meant the crushing out of all lawful organizations by the policy, and therefore the old crowd from Legien to Kautsky, inclusive of the latter, sacrificed the old revolutionary objects of the proletariat to the preservation of the existing lawful organizations. They waste their time denying it. They sold the revolutionary rights of the proletariat for the mess of pottage of police toleration.
Open a pamphlet by Legien, the leader of the German trade unionists, entittled Why Trades Union Officials Should Take a More Active Part in the Inner Life of the Party (Berlin, 1915). This is a report read by the author on January 27, 1915, before a meeting of the leaders of the trade union movement. Legien incorporated in his printed report one interesting document which might otherwise have been suppressed by the military censorship. That document called Materials for the Delegates from the Neiderbarnim District (a suburb of Berlin), presents the views of the left-wing social-democrats, their protest against the action of the party. The revolutionary social-democrats say in that document: that did not and could not foresee that:
"All the organized forces of the German social-democratic party and of the trade unions stood by the government which was conducting the war, and that all those forces were being used in order to crush out the revolutionary energies of the masses" (page 34 of Legien's pamphlet).
​This is the absolute truth. And the following statement is just as true:
"The vote taken on August 4 by the social-democratic faction meant that the opposite view, however deeply shared by the masses, could not make itself heard through the instrumentality of the party, but against the wishes of the party's leaders, against the insuperable opposition of the party and of the trade unions" (ibidem).
This is true beyond doubt.
"If the social-democratic faction had fulfilled its duty on August 4, the outward form of the organization would have been destroyed, but its spirit would have lived, that spirit which kept the party alive at the time of the laws of exception and helped it to brook all hardships" (ibidem).
Legien's pamphlet mentions that that assemblage of "leaders" before whom he delivered his report, and who were the organizers and the officials of the trade union movement, laughed when they heard that.
It seemed to them absurd that there could and should be an unlawful revolutionary organization in existence in a crisis. Legien, the faithful watchdog of the bourgeoisie, beat his chest and shouted:
"This is a purely anarchistic thought: to destroy an organization in order to leave a decision to the masses. To my mind there is no doubt but this is an anarchistic idea."
"Correct" shouted in chorus those lackeys of the bourgeoisie who style themselves the leaders of the working class (page 37).
What an edifying picture. Men so completely perverted and dulled by bourgeois legalism, that they can no longer understand the necessity of different organizations, of unlawful ones. Men have gone so far that they imagine that lawful organizations, existing with the approval of the police, are the limit which must not be crossed, and that such organizations should be saved at the time of a crisis. There is the live logic of opportunism. The pure and simple growth of lawful unions, the pure and simple routine of stupid, though well-meaning, philistines keeping their little union books, has led those well-meaning philistines when a crisis arose, to betray, to sell and to strangle the revolutionary energy of the masses. And this is not due to mere chance happenings.
Revolutionary forms of organization are necessary, a changing historical situation demands them, this period of revolutionary action on the part of the proletariat demands them, but they can only ​be brought into life over the dead bodies of the former leaders, over the dead body of the old party, over the ruins of that party.
The counter-revolutionary philistine naturally will shout: anarchy, as the opportunist Ed. Davis did when alluding to Liebknecht. The only German Socialist leaders who have any decency left are those whom the opportunists are branding as anarchists.
Consider the army of today. There is one of the most perfect examples of organization. And that organization is perfect for the simple reason that it is flexible and knows how to inspire one single desire to the millions of which it consists. Today those millions of people are sitting in their homes, in various parts of the country, tomorrow the mobilization orders are sent out, and they all gather at the points designated to them. They stand in the trenches, perhaps months at a time. They charge the enemy. They do wonders under a hail of bullets and shrapnel. Their advanced troops may sink mines into the ground. They may rush ahead several miles under the direction of their flyers.
This is real organization, through which millions of men, lured to the same goal, moved by one single will, change their form of association and of action, change the scene and the objects of their activity, change their tools and their weapons as the changing necescities of warfare may require.
This is the way the working class should fight the bourgeois. To-day there may not be a situation favorable to a revolution, we may not see the conditions that would leaven up the masses and increase their activities. To-day they may give you a ballot at the polls. Cast it so as to beat your enemies and not to secure a nice little job in parliament for some coward afraid of going to jail. Tomorrow they may take that ballot away from you, give you arms and a big quick firing gun of the latest type. … Take those instruments of death and destruction, and don't listen to sentimentalists who are afraid of war. There are too many things left on earth which should be destroyed by fire and steel before the working class can be emancipated. And if bitterness and desperation grow among the masses, if a really revolutionary crisis arises, then be ready to organize in a new way and to use the instruments of death and destruction against your own government and your own bourgeoisie. This is not an easy task. This requires difficult preparations. This requires heavy sacrifices. This is the new view of organization and struggle which we must all take. But we shall not acquire this new point of view without committing ​many mistakes without occasionally going down to defeat. This view of the class struggle stands to the electoral campaigns in the same relation as a real charge stands to mere military manoeuvres, as an ordinary regimental hike stands to life in the trenches. That view of the struggle does not come up frequently in history, because its significance and its consequences make themselves felt for entire decades. The days, however, when we will be able and obliged to resort to that form of struggle will count more than any other twenty years of past history.
Let us examine Legien and Kautsky together. This is what Kautsky has to say:
"As long as the party was small, every protest against war constituted a good bit of virile propaganda. The attitude of our Servian and Russian comrades in the recent events received general commendation. But the larger the party comes to be, the more it must take into account in its decisions the practical consequences of such decisions, the more difficult it becomes to weigh properly the various motives and to choose between them. And, therefore, the stronger we become, the more easily differences of opinion may arise among us whenever we face a new, complex situation." Internationalism and war (page 50).
This statement of Kautsky's differs from Legien's statements only by its hypocrisy and cowardice. Kautsky really approves of and justifies Legien's low abstention from revolutionary activity, but he does it on the sly, without committing himself, by way of allusions, paying homage now to Legien, now to the revolutionists of Russia. We Russians were accustomed to observe that attitude only among liberals. Liberals are always willing to recognize the virile stand taken by the revolutionists, but never do they depart from their arch-opportunistic tactics. Self-respecting revolutionists will not accept Kautsky's expressions of approval but reject with disgust this way of presenting the question. If the situation was not favorable for a revolution, if it was not a clear duty to preach revolutionary action, then the attitude of the Servian and Russian revolutionists would be out of place and their tactics faulty. Why can't those great fighters, Kautsky and Legien, have the courage of their opinions and speak it out frankly?
If the attitude of the Russian and Servian Socialists deserves approval then it is not permissible, it is criminal to justify the attitude of strong parties like the German and the French.
By using a very confusing expression "practical consequences" Kautsky tries to conceal the fact that the large parties were afraid ​of having their organization crushed out, their funds seized, their leaders thrown into jail by the government. In other words, Kautsky justifies the betrayal of Socialism by the fear of the unpleasant consequences revolutionary tactics might bring about. Isn't this a pure and simple prostitution of Marxism.
"They would arrest us," said one of the men who voted for the credits on August 4 at a workingmen's meeting in Berlin. And the workingmen shouted back to him: "Well, what of it?"
The best thing on earth to inspire the workers of Germany and France with a revolutionary spirit and show them the necessity of preparing for revolutionary activity, would be the arrest of a representative for making a daring speech. This would be the best appeal to united revolutionary action addressed to the proletarians of all nations. That unity of action is not an easy thing to bring about. This made it the more imperative for those that stood at the bead of the movement, and who were shaping its policies to assume the initiative.
It is not only in war times but whenever the political situation takes a critical turn that governments will threaten to crush out organized bodies, to seize their cash and jail their leaders, and to let them bear other practical consequences for their actions. What of it? Is this a valid ground to excuse the opportunists, as Kautsky does? This really amounts to transforming the Social-Democratic party into a national liberal party.
Socialists can only come to one conclusion: pure legalism, the legalism of the European parties has outlived its usefulness, and owing to the entrance of Capitalism into its imperialistic stage of development, has become simply a bourgeois labor policy. It must be supplemented by the adoption of an extra legal basis, by extra legal organization, extra legal Social-Democratic action, without however surrendering any of the legal positions occupied. How that can be done, experience will teach us, provided there is a firm desire for that sort of action and provided we realize clearly its absolute necessity. The revolutionary Social-Democrats of Russia showed in 1912–13 and 14 that it could be done. The labor deputy Muranof, hauled into court and sent by Czarism to Siberia, showed better than any one else that besides respectable parliamentarism of the ministerial timber (Henderson, Sembat, Vandervelde, Sudekum and Scheidemann are made of ministerial timber, but they are not allowed to take such lofty positions) there is also a revolutionary and extra legal variety of parliamentarism. The Kosovskys and Potresoffs may kowtow as much as they want to European ​parliamentarism, but we shall never tire of repeating to the working class that sort of legalism, the brand of Social-Democracy exemplified by Kautsky, Legien and Scheidemann, deserves nothing but scorn.
{{c|XI
Let us sum up. The collapse of the Second International revealed itself clearly in the betrayal of the Social-Democratic parties of Europe by the majority of their officials embodied in their declarations and their solemn resolutions of the Basel and Stuttgart congresses. But this bankruptcy which leaves opportunism victorious and has transformed the Social-Democratic party into a national liberal labor party, is simply the product of the entire period during which the Second International was in existence, the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries.
The material conditions obtaining in that period the transition between the bourgeois and national revolutions of Western Europe and the dawn of social revolution, fostered the growth of opportunism.
In some European countries we observe in the labor and Socialist movements a cleavage along opportunist lines (in England, Italy, Holland, Bulgaria, Russia) in others we witness a longdrawn and stubborn struggle along the same line (in Germany, France, Belgium, Sweden, Sitzerland). The crisis brought about by the great war, tore off all the veils, pricked the pus pockets, ready to break out and showed up opportunism in its real colors, an ally of the bourgeoisie. It has become absolutely necessary to remove entirely and systematically this element from the labor movement. In imperialistic times there cannot co-exist within one party champions of the revolutionary proletariat and semi-bourgeois aristocrats of the labor movement fed on crumbs of the "greatpowerdom" enjoyed by their country. Opportunism which was once considered as a mere emergency measure, has become the most dangerous means of deceiving the workers and the great obstacle in the path of the labor movement. Frank opportunism is not so very dangerous for the laboring masses steer clear of it, but the theory of the golden mean, which justifies by Marxist quotations opportunistic practices, and which by dint of sophistry proves that the time has not come for revolutionary action, this is the real danger. The eminent exponent of this doctrine and the leader of the Second International, Kautsky, has shown himself to be a first-class hypocrite and a virtuoso in the art of prostituting Marxism. Among the million ​members of the Social-Democratic party there isn't a decent, conscious and revolutionary Social-Democrat who does not reject with indignation that "leader" who has been profusely defended by Sudekum and Scheidemann.
The proletarian masses who lost about nine-tenths of their leaders to the bourgeois camp, found themselves isolated and impotent before rampant chauvinism, military measures and the censorship. But the revolutionary situation created by the war and which is steadily becoming more acute and more widespread will unavoidably foster a revolutionary spirit which will stiffen up and enlighten the proletarians of the better type, the class conscious ones. There may and there probably will develop in the mentality of the masses a state of mind similar to that which we could observe in Russia at the beginning of 1905 at the time of the Gapon incident, when out of the backward proletarian masses, there grew in a few months or even a few weeks, an army of millions of men, the vanguard of the proletariat. We cannot tell whether a powerful revolutionary movement will start soon after this war or during this war, but it is only agitation conducted with that purpose which deserves to be called Socialist agitation. The only thing that will give that agitation a center and a direction, that will unite and blend all the elements the proletariat needs in its fight against its government and its bourgeoisie is a civil war.
In Russia the entire history of the labor movement has prepared the exclusion of the petit bourgeois opportunist elements from the revolutionary Social-Democratic elements. It is a very bad service to render to the labor movement to ignore that history and to declaim against "factionism." One thus deprives himself of the opportunity of understanding the actual growth of the labor movement in Russia, which has been for years and years waging a stubborn fight against all opportunistic tendencies.
Among all the great powers engaged in the war, Russia only has recently lived through a revolution; its bourgeois character, taking into account the decisive part played by the proletariat, could not but create a cleavage between the bourgeois and the proletarian elements in the labor party. In the twenty years from 1894 to 1914, during which the Russian Social Democracy existed as an organization, connected with the labor movement (we do not allude simply to the ideas current from 1883 to 1894) a struggle went on between the petit bourgeois opportunists and the proletarian revolutionary wing. The "economism" of the years 1894–1903 was nothing but opportunism. All its theories and arguments ​were only a struvist distortion of Marxism, references to the mass to justify opportunism, and all that phraseology of theirs reminds us of the degenerated form of Marxism propounded at present by Kautsky, Cunow, Plekhanov and others. It might be a good idea to remember the attitude assumed in those days by papers like the Rabotshy Mysl and the Rabotshy Dielo and to compare that attitude with the one assumed nowadays by Kautsky.
The Menshevism of the next period, 1903–1908, was not only in its theory but in its organization the heir of economism. At the time of the Russian revolution it introduced tactics which subjected the proletariat to the control of the liberal bourgeoisie and which reflect a purely bourgeois opportunist tendency.
When in the following periods the main current of Menshevism gave birth to the "Liquidation," that class bias of the party was so obvious that the best representatives of Menshevism always protested against the policy of the group centering around Nasha Zarya.
But that group, the only one which conducted among the masses a systematic agitation against the revolutionary Marxist party in the following five or six years, revealed itself when the war broke out as made up of Social chauvinists.
And in a nation where autocracy was in power, where the bourgeoisie had not as yet completed its revolution where 43 per cent of the population oppress the rest of the population made up of people from other racial stocks, Russia could not escape the "European" type of evolution which enables certain strata of the petit bourgeoisie, especially the professional classes, and an insignificant minority of the workers' aristocracy to enjoy the advantages of "greatpowerdom" pertaining to their own country.
The working class and the Socialist worekers' party of Russia have been prepared by their entire history to assume an internationalistic, that is a really consistent revolutionary attitude.
* ↑ See the very interesting book, The War of Steel and Gold, by the English pacifist, H. N. Brailsford, who leans strongly toward Socialism. The book was published in March, 1914. The author realizes clearly that national questions are of secondary importance, that nobody bothers much with them and that the problems which interested diplomacy most were the Bagdad railroad, the supplying of rails for that road, the Moroccean ore deposits etc. (pages 35 and 36). One of the most illuminating incidents in the history of latter day diplomacy is the fight waged by the French patriots and the English imperialists to defeat Caillaux' attempts at a rapprochement with Germany in 1911, 1912 and 1913, on the basis of a division of spheres of influence and the listing of German securities on the Paris Exchange. The English and French bourgeoisie broke that agreement (pages 38–40. The aim of Imperialism is to export capital into weaker countries (page 74). The profits derived from that source in England were 90 or 100 million pounds sterling for 1899, 140 million pounds in 1909 (we may add that Lloyd-George in a recent address estimated those profits at 200 million pounds). To obtain that object, Turkish leaders are bribed, the sons of important Hindoos and Egyptians supplied with nice little berths (pages 85–87). An insignificant minority fattens on armaments and wars, but it is backed by society and finance while the unorganized population is vainly striving for peace. (93) The pacifist who yesterday were talking for peace and disarmament, will join tomorrow a party absolutely dominated by the war contractors. (161). As soon as the Triple Entente was concluded it seized Morocco and proceeded to dismember Persia. The Triple Alliance took Tripoli, entrenched itself in Bosnia, and dominated Turkey. (167). London and Pans gave billions to Russia in March, 1906, thus enabling Czarism to crush all the revolutionary movements (225–228). Now England is helping Russia to strangle Persia. (229). Russia lit the fires of the Balkan war. (230). This is not new. This is an old story, which has been told a thousand times in the Socialist papers of the entire world. At the eve of the war, this was very obvious to an English bourgeois. But think of what rot, what hypocrisy, what miserable lies such facts reveal in the statements of Plekhanov and Potresof on Germany's guilt, or in Kautsky's "prospect" of disarmament and lasting peace under a capitalistic form of government.
* ↑ Carl von Clausewitz, Von Kriege, Vol. I. page 28, of his complete works. "Everybody knows that wars are caused simply by political relations between governments and between nations; but we generally imagine that at the beginning of a war those relations are interrupted and that an entirely different state of affairs obtains, regulated only by its own laws. We wish to repeat on the contrary that war is nothing but a continuation of those political relations with the introduction of different means."
* ↑ G. Gardenin, writing in Zishn, charges Marx with revolutionary chauvinism for favoring in 1848 a war against nations which he had proved to be counter-revolutionary, the Slav and Russian nations. Such a charge shows opportunism or superficiality or both. We Marxists have always favored war against counter-revolutionary nations. For instance, if Socialism should triumph in the United States or in Europe in, let us say, 1920, and if Japan and China should then mobilize against them their Bismarcks, even only on the diplomatic field, we should join hands with the Socialistic counitries in a revolutionary war. Does that seem strange to you, Mr. Gardenin?
* ↑ Conf. Bernard Harms: Probleme der Weltwirtschaft, Jena, 1912 Geoge Paish: "Great Britain's Capital Invesments in Colonies," in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol LXXV, 1910–1911, p. 167. Lloyd-George in an address delivered at the beginning of 1915, estimates the amount of English capital invested abroad at four billion pounds sterling.
* ↑ E. Schultze states that in 1915 the total value of all the stocks and bonds in the whole world was 7.32 billion francs, including the loans of governments and cities, mortgages and stocks of commercial and financial enterprises. Of this amount England's share was 130 billion francs. The United States' 115, France's 100, Germany's 75; in other words, these four powers held some 420 billions or over one half of all the paper in existence. We can estimate from these data the advantages and privileges enjoyed by the large powers of the first rank, which are able to dominate, subjugate and exploit the other nations. (Dr. Emil Schultze Das Franzosische Kapital in Russland in Finanz. Archiv Berlin 1915, Vol. 38, page 127), The so-called "defense of the fatherland" when great powers are concerned is simply one defense of the right to plunder other nations. In Russia, as everybody knows, capitalist Imperialism is less powerful, but military-feudal Imperialism is stronger on that account.
* ↑ Kautsky's references to Vaillant, Guesde, Hyndman and Plekhanov are typical from another point of view. Outspoken imperialists, like Lentsch or Haenish (not to speak of the opportunists) always refer to Hyndman and Plekhanov when they wish to justify their attitude. And they are right in referring to them, they speak the actual truth when they say that their attitude is similar to Hyndman's and Plekhanov's. Kautsky speaks scornfully of Lentsch and Haenish, of those radicals who have gone over to the imperialist camp. Kautsky thanks the Lord that he is not like those publicans, that he does not agree with them, that he has remained a revolutionist. … Don't laugh. … But in reality, Kautsky stands exactly where those men do. He is merely a hypocritical, soft-spoken chauvinist; much more repellant than pure and simple chauvinists like Lentsch, Haenish, David and Heine.
* ↑ It was not necessary for every Socialist to cease publication in answer to the censor's order forbidding any mention of class hatred and the class struggle. It was low cowardice on the part of the Vorwaerts to accept such conditions. The Vorwaerts is politically dead, killed by its submissiveness. Martov was right when he pointed that out. It would have been possible to keep "lawful" papers going, by declaring that they were not party papers not Socialist papers, but devoted themselves to the technical needs of the workers, and were not therefore political papers. Why was it not possible to have "unlawful" Socialist literature discussing the war and "lawful" workingmen's literature barring all discussion of the war. printing no untruth but silent about the truth?
* ↑ Here are a few illustrations of the importance which imperialist and bourgeois attach to national and "great power" privileges as a means for dividing the workers among themselves and luring them away from Socialism. The English imperialist Lucas in his book Great Rome and Great Britain (Oxford 1912) admits the inequality between white and colored men in the British Empire. "In our Empire," he writes, "when colored laborers are working side by side with white laborers, they are not fellow workers, for the white man soon becomes the colored man's boss." (98.) Ervin Belger, former secretary of the Imperial union against Socialism, writing on "Social-Democracy after the war" (1915), praises the stand of the Social-Democrats, showing that they must remain a purely working class party, (43) the national German workingmen's party, (45) and give up all internationalist, Utopian, revolutionary ideas. (44) The German imperialist Sartorious von Waltershausen in his book on Foreign Investments (1907) berates the German Socialists for not realizing what is good for the country, (438) that is the conquest of colonies, and he praises the English workers for their "sense of realities," for instance, for their fight against immigration. The German diplomat Rudorfer in his book on The Basis of World Politics, emphasizes the well known fact that the internationalizatk>n of capital does not decrease the bitterness of the struggle between capitalists of the various nations for power, influence, stock majority, (161) and he mentions that the workingmen too, are getting entangled in that bitter fight. (175) The book was published in October 1913 and the author says very frankly that the interests of Capitalism are the motives of contemporary wars, that the question of "national tendencies" is a nail impaling Socialism, and that governments need not feel nervous about internationalist manifestations which will assume a more and more national character. (103, 110, 176) International Socialism will win if it draws the workingmen away from nationalism, for isolated efforts do not accomplish anything; it will go down in defeat if the national feeling gains the upper hand. (173–4.)
* ↑ People generally compare the Independent Labour Party with the British Socialist Party. This as not fair. It is not the form of an organization that counts but the work it does. Take the matter of daily papers. There were two of them. The Daily Herald, the organ of the British Socialist Party alone, and the Daily Citizen which did service for all the opportunist groups. It is its daily newspapers which are the best evidence of the propaganda, agitation and organization work done by a party.
* ↑ What took place before the famous vote of August 4 is very characteristic The official party threw over the affair the veil of its official hypocrisy. The majority ruled and the party voted like one man for the war. But Strebel in the review Die Internationle unveiled that hypocrisy and told the truth. There were in the Social-Democratic faction two groups ready with their ultimatums, that is with their dissenting resolutions. One group of opportunists numbering some 30 men, had decided to vote yes in any case. Another group, the left group, with some 15 men, had decided, less resolutely however, to vote no. When the center or "frog pond" which did not stand on firm ground, cast its votes with the opportunists the left wing saw itself beaten and submittted. The so-called unity of the German Social-Democratic party is a piece of low hypocrisy, an attempt at concealing the fact that the whole party (had to submit to the ultimatum presented by the opportunists.