Revisionism in Russia Trotsky against the Bolsheviks Part Two: 1914 to 1917 - CL
Communist League
The First Imperialist War
In August 1914, the First Imperialist War began.
Almost from the outset, three trends manifested themselves in the labour movements of the belligerent countries:
'In the course of the two and half years of war the international Socialist and labour movement in every country has evolved three tendencies.
The three tendencies are:
1) The social-chauvinists, i.e., Socialists in words and chauvinists in action, people who are in favour of 'national defence' in an imperialist war. . .
These people are our class enemies. They have gone over to the bourgeoisie. .
2) The second tendency is what is known as the 'Centre', consisting of people who vacillate between the social-chauvinists and the true internationalists.
All those who belong to the 'Centre' swear that they are Marxists and internationalists, that they are in favour of peace, of bringing every kind of 'pressure' to bear upon the governments, of 'demanding' that their own governments should 'ascertain' the will of the people for peace', that they favour all sorts of peace campaigns, that they are for a peace without annexations, etc., etc. -- and for peace with the social-chauvinists.
The 'Centre' is for 'unity', the 'Centre' is opposed to a split.
The 'Centre' is a realm of honeyed petty-bourgeois phrases of internationalism in word and cowardly opportunism and fawning on the social-chauvinists in deed.
The fact of the matter is that the 'Centre' does not preach revolution; it does not carry on a wholehearted revolutionary struggle; and in order to evade such a struggle it resorts to the tritest ultra-'Marxist' excuses. . . . .
3) The third tendency, the true internationalists, is most closely represented by the 'Zimmerwald Left' . . . .
It is characterised mainly by its complete break with both social-chauvinism and 'Centrism', and by its relentless war against its own imperialist government and against its own imperialist bourgeoisie".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution" in: "Selected Works', Volume 6; London; l946; p. 63, 64, 65-66).
Trotsky's "The War and the International"
On the outbreak of war, Trotsky was forced to leave Vienna and for two months he settled in Zurich, where he wrote "The War and the International', which was published in November in "Golos" (The Voice), a Menshevik paper published in Paris.
In this work Trotsky put forward the view that "the main obstacle to economic development' was the existence the national state":
"The old national state .. has outlived itself, and is now an intolerable hindrance to economic development. . . .
The outlived and antiquated national 'fatherland' has become the main obstacle to economic development . . . .
The national states have become a hindrance to the development of the forces of production".
(L. Trotsky: Preface to "The War and the International"; London; 1971; p. vii, x, xii).
Thus, declared Trotsky, the aim of the working class should be the creation of a 'republican United States of Europe":
"The task of the proletariat is to create a far more powerful fatherland, with far greater power of resistance - the republican United States of Europe".
Lenin at first (in one document only) accepted the slogan of a "United States of Europe":
"The immediate political slogan of the Social-Democrats of Europe must be the formation of a republican United States of Europe".
(V. I. Lenin: 'The War and Russian Social-Democracy' in: "Selected Works;' Volume 5; Moscow; 1935; p. 129).
By August 1915, however, the Bolsheviks, on Lenin's initiative had decisively rejected this slogan, firstly, because it could, under capitalist society, only be reactionary:
"From the point of view of the economic conditions of imperialism, . . the United States of Europe is either impossible or reactionary under capitalism. A United States of Europe under capitalism is equivalent to an agreement to divide up the colonies. Under capitalism, however, . . no other principle of division . . . . is possible except force. . . Division cannot take place except 'in proportion to strength', And strength changes in the course of economic development.
Of course, temporary agreements between capitalists and between the powers are possible. In this sense, the United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists. . but what for? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America. . . Under capitalism, the United States of Europe would mean the organisation of reaction to retard the more rapid development of America".
(V. I. Lenin: 'The United States of Europe Slogan', in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London 1935; p. 139, 140, l41).
and secondly because if regarded as a socialist slogan, it suggests that_the victory of socialism was possible only on an all European scale:
"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible, first in a few or even in one single capitalist country".
(V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p.141).
Lenin concludes:
"It is for those reasons and after repeated debates that the editors of the central organ have come to the conclusion that the United States of Europe slogan is incorrect'".
(V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 141).
That Trotsky did, in fact, link the Slogan of "a United States of Europe" with the concept, inherent in his "theory of permanent revolution", that proletarian revolution could only be successful an an international scale, is shown by his reply to Lenin's article:
"The only more or less concrete historical argument advanced against the slogan of a United States of Europe was formulated in the Swiss 'Sotsial-Demokrat' in the following sentence:
'Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism'.
From this the 'Sotsial-Domokrat' draws the conclusion that the victory of socialism is possible in one country, and that therefore there is no reason to make the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country contingent upon the establishment of a United States of Europe. That capitalist development in different countries is uneven is an absolutely incontrovertible argument. But this unevenness is itself extremely uneven. The capitalist level of Britain, Austria, Germany or France is not identical. But in comparison with Africa and Asia all these countries represent capitalist 'Europe', which has grown ripe for the social revolution. That no country in its struggle must 'wait' for others, is an elementary thought which it is useful and necessary to reiterate in order that he idea of concurrent international action may not be replaced by the idea of temporising international inaction.
Without waiting for the others, we begin and continue the struggle nationally, in the full confidence that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle in other countries; but if this should not occur, it would be hopeless to think -- as historical experience and theoretical considerations testify -- that, for example, a revolutionary Russia could hold out in the face of a conservative Europe".
(L. Trotsky: Article in "Nashe Slovo" (Our Word), No. 87; April 12th., 1916, cited in: J. V. Stalin: "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists", in: 'Works", Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 390-1).
In the autumn of 1916 Lenin reiterated his opposition to Trotsky's slogan of a United States of Europe:
"As early as 1902, he (i.e., the British econornist John Hobson -- Ed.) had an excellent insight into the meaning and significance of a 'United States of Europe'' (be it said for the benefit of Trotsky the Kautskyian!) and of all that is now being glossed over by the hypocritical Kautskians of various countries, namely, that the opportunists (social-chauvinists) are working hand in hand with the imperialist bourgeoisie precisely towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa".
(V. I. Lenin: 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism", in: "Selected Works", Volume 11; London; l943; p. 752).
Trotsky, however, continued -- even after the Russian October Revolution of 1917 -- to hold that the construction of socialism in Europe was possible only on an all-European basis. In the postscript to a collection of articles published in 1922 under the title of "A Peace Programme", he wrote:
"The assertion reiterated several times in the 'Peace Programme' that a proletarian revolution cannot culminate victoriously within national bounds may perhaps seem to some readers to have been refuted by the nearly five years' experience of our Soviet Republic. But such a conclusion would be unwarranted. . . We have not arrived, or even begun to arrive, at tho creation of a socialist society. . . Real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries." (L. Trotsky: Postscript to 'A Peace Programme , cited by: J. V. Stalin: "The Social-Democratic Deviation in our Party; in: "Works", Volume 8; Moscow; l954; p. 271-2).
"Our Word"
In November l914, Trotsky left Switzerland for Paris to take up the post of war correspondent of the newspaper "Kievskaya Mysl" (Kievan Thought), which supported the war effort of the tsarist government.
Settled in Paris, he joined the editorial staff of "Golos" (The Voice) , a newspaper published by a group of Mensheviks headed by Yuli Martov who, unlike the official Menshevik leadership which supported the war effort of the tsarist government, had adopted an attitude of verbal opposition to the war without seeking to organise active revolutionary struggle against the tsarist regime. "Golos" had commenced publication in September l914, and, when it was suppressed by the French government in January l9l5, it was replaced by "Nashe Slovo" (Our Word), on the editorial staff of which Trotsky continued to serve.
The chief organiser of the paper was Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko (a former tsarist officer who after the October Revolution became Director of the Political Administration of the Red Army) . Its Paris staff included, in addition to Trotsky, Anatoly Lunacharsky (who later became Commissar for Education), David Ryazanov (later director of the Marx-Engels Institute), Solomon Lozovsky (later head of the Red International of Labour Unions), Dmitri Manuilsky (later head of the Communist International) Grigori Sokolnikov (later Commissar for Finance), and the historian Mikhail Pokrovsky (later director of the Soviet State Archives). Its foreign correspondents included Grigori Chicherin (later Commissar for Foreign Affairs), Aleksandra Kollontai (later Commissar of Social Welfare), Karl Radek (later to hold a leading position in the Communist International), Moissei Uritsky, Khristian Rakovsky (the son of a Bulgarian landlord, later to become Prime Minister of the Soviet Ukraine), Ivan Maisky (later Soviet Ambassador to Britain), and the Anglo-Russian historian Theodore Rothstein (later Soviet Ambassador to Persia)
1915 - 1916: The Three Trends in the Russian Labour Novement
The three trends described in an earlier section were represented in the Russian labour movement as follows:
1) The social-chauvinist trend was represented by:
a) a group of Mensheviks headed by Aleksandr Potresov, around the journal "Nasha Zarya" (Our Dawn), published in St. Petersburg. "Nasha Zaraya" was suppressed by the tsarist government in October l914, and its place was taken in January 1915 by 'Nashe Dyolo" (Our Cause).
"In Russia the fundamental nucleus of opportunism, the Liquidationist 'Nasha Zarya', became the fundamental nucleus of chauvinism".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Collapse of the Second International", in: 'Collected Works', Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 308).
b) a group of Mensheviks headed by Grigori Plekhanov and Grigori Alexinsky around the journal "Prizyv" (The Call) published in Paris.
"The main theories of the social-chauvinists. . . are represented by Plekhanov". (V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 282).
"Plekhanov has sunk into-nationalism, hiding his Russian chauvinism under Francophilism; so has Alexinsky".
(V. I. Lenin: "Position and Tasks of the Socialist International", in: ibid.; p. 85-86).
2) The "Centrist" trend was represented by:
a) The Menshevik "Organisation Committee"(O.C), headed by Pavel Axelrod, which in February 19l5 began publication of "Izvestia" (News) of the Foreign Secretariat of the Organisation Committee.
"This Centrist tendency includes . . the party of the Organisation Committee . . and others in Russia".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution", in: "Selected Works", Volume 6; London; 1935; p. 65).
"Take . .the . manifesto of the 0.C (Organisation Committee-Alliance Editor). . . .
1) The manifesto does not contain a single statement which in principle repudiates national defence in the present war;
2) there is absolutely nothing in the manifesto which in principle would be inacceptible to the 'defencists' or social chauvinists;
3) there are a number of statements in the manifesto which are completely'identical' with 'defencism': 'The proletariat cannot remain indifferent to the impending defeat'; . . 'the proletariat is vitally interested in the self-preservation of the country'".
(V. I. Lenin: "Have the O.C. and the Chkheidze Fraction a Policy of Their Own?", in "Collected Works", Viume 19; London; l942; p. 36, 37)
"To cover up this political reality (i.e., social-chauvinism -- Ed.) by Leftt phrases and quasi-Social-Democratic-ideology, is the actual political meaning of the . . activities of the Organisation-Committee. In the realm of idelogy -- the 'Neither- victory nor defeat' slogan; in the realm of practice -- an anti-'split' struggle -- this is the business-like . . programme of 'peace', with the 'Nashe Dyelo' and Plekhanov".
(V. I. Lenin: State of Affairs within Russian Social Democracy', in: Collected Works", Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 204.)
b) the Menshevik Duma fraction, headed by Nikolai Chkheidze.
"This Centrist tendency includes . . Chkheidze and others in Russia".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution", in: "Selected Works', Volume 6; London; l946; p. 65).
"Chkheidze's group confined itself to the parliamentary field. It did not vote appropriations, since it would have roused a storm of indignation among the workers. . . Neither did it protest against social-chauvinism".
(V. I. Lenin: "Socialism and War", in: ibid.; p. 240).
"Chkheidze uses the same chauvinist phrases about the 'danger of defeat', stands for . . 'the struggle for peace', etc., etc."
(V. I. Lenin: "Have the 0.C. and the Chkheidze Fraction a Policy of Their Own?", in 'Collected Works", Volume 19; London; 19~2; p. 39).
"(1) The 'save the country" formula employed by Chkhejdze differs in no material respect from defencism;
2) the Chkheidze fraction never opposed Nr. Potresov and Co. .
3) the decisive fact: the fraction has never opposed participation in the War Industries Committees'.
(V. I. Lenin: "The Chkheidze Fraction and its Role', in: ibid.; p. 325).
"To cover up this political reality (i.e., social-chauvinism -- Ed.) by 'Left 'phrases and quasi-Social-Democratic ideology, is the actual political meaning of the legal activities of Chkheidze's fraction".
(V. I. Lenin: "State of affairs within Russian Social-Democracy, in: "Collected "Works", Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 204).
c) the group, headed by Trotsky, around "Nashe_Slovo", the policy of which will be discussed in the next sections.
3). The revolutionary, international trend was represented by the Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, headed by Lenin.
The theses which Lenin put forward in September 194 from Berne (Switzerland), on the other hand, called on the work in classes of all belligerent countries actively to oppose the war and to seek to transform it into a civil war against " their own" imperialists.
"Transform the present imperialist war into civil war -- is the only correct proletarian slogan"'.
(V. I. Lenin: "The War and Russian Social Democracy"', in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 130).
The "Peace" Slogan-The First of Trotsky's Two Slogans
The policy put forward by Trotsky in the pages of "Nashe Slovo" in relation to the imperialist war may be summarised in two slogans:
firstly, that of "revolutionary struggle for peace" (or "revolutionary struggle against the war", called by Lenin the "peace slogan":
"Phrase-mongers like Trotsky (See No. 105 of the 'Nashe Slovo') defend, in opposition to us, the peace slogan".
(V. I. Lenin: 'The 'Peace' Slogan Appraised", in: "Collected Works"", Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 262).
'Revolutionary struggle against the war ' . . is an example of the high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism".
(V. I. Lenin: "Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist Uar", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London 1935; p. 3142).
Lenin opposed the "peace" slogan throughout the war:
"The peace slogan is in my judgment incorrect at the present moment. This is a philistine's, a preacher's, slogan. The proletarian slogan must be civil war".
(V. I. Lenin: Letter to A. G. Shlyapnikov, October 17th., 19314, in: "Collected Works', Volume 18; n.d.; p. 75).
"Propaganda of peace at the present time, if not accompanied by a call for revolutionary mass action, is only capable of spreading illusions, of demoralising the proletariat by imbuing it with belief in the humanitarianism of the bourgeoisie, and of making it a plaything in the hands of the secret diplomacy of the belligerent countries. In particular, the ilea that a so-called democratic peace is possible without a series of revolutions is profoundly mistaken."
(V. I. Lenin: Conference of the Sections of the RSDLP Abroad," in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London 1935; p. 135).
"To accept the peace slogan per Se, and to repeat it, would be encouraging the 'pompous air of powerless (what is worse hypocritical) phrasemongers'; that would mean deceiving the people with the illusion that the present governments, the present ruling 'classes, are capable before they are . . eliminated by a number of revolutions of granting a peace even half way satisfactory to democracy and the working class. Nothing is more harmful than such a deception."
(V. I. Lenin: 'The Peace Question', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 266).
In September 1915 Trotsky carried forward his opposition to the Leninist policy towards the war at the International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwald (Switzerland). The Bolshevik resolution was rejected by a majority of the delegates, including Trotsky. As he expresses it himself:
"Lenin was on the extreme left at the Conference. In many questions he was in a minority of one, even within the Zimmerwald left wing, to which I did not formally belong."
(L. Trotsky: "My Life"; New York; 1970; p. 250).
In these circumstances, the Bolsheviks agreed to sign a compromise manifesto drafted by Trotsky:
"The revolutionary wing, led by Lenin, and the pacifist wing, which comprised the majority of the delegates, agreed with difficulty on a conmon manifesto of which I had prpared the draft".
(L. Trotsky: ibid p. 250).
The central point of this manifesto was "the struggle for peace":
"It is necessary to take up this struggle for peace, for a peace without annexations or war indemnities. . . .
It is the task and the duty of the Socialists of the belligerent countries to take up this struggle with full force".
Manifesto Of the International Specialist Conference, Zimmerwald, cited in: V. I Lenin: Collected Works', Vo1ume 18; London; Ibid.; p. 475).
Lenin commented on this manifests after the conference:
"Passing to 'the struggle for peace' . .here also we find inconsistency, timidity, failure to say everything that ought to be said. . . It does not name directly, openly and clearly the revolutionary methods of struggle".
(V. I. Lenin: 'The First Step', in: "Collected Works", Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 343).
"Neither Victory nor Defeat"- Trotsky's Second Slogan
Secondly, in opposition to Lenin's declaration that a revolutionary struggle against "one's own imperialists in wartime was facilitated by, and facilitated, the military defeat of "one's own" imperialists in the war, Trotsky put forward the slogan of "Neither victory nor defeat!":
"'Bukvoyed (i.e., Ryazonov -- Ed.) and Trotsky defend the slogan 'Neither victery nor defeat!"
(V. I. Lenin: "Defeat Of One's Own Governrnent in the Imperialist War", in: Selected Works', Volume 5; London l935; p. 145-6).
In an Open Letter addressed to the Bolsheviks in "Nashe Slovo" in the summer of l9l5, Trotsky denounced Lenin's policy of "revolutionary defeatism" as:
"An uncalled-for and unjustifiable concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism which substitutes for the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions that cause it, what, under present conditions, is an extremely arbitrary orientation towards the lesser evil".
(L. Trotsky: in: "Nashe Slovo", No. 105, cited in V. I. Lenin: "Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War", in: 'Selected Works", Volume 5; London; l935; p. 142).
Lenin replied to Trotsky's Open Letter in August l9l5, in his article "Defeat of One's Government in the Imperialist War":
"This is an example of the high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism.
Making shift with phrases, Trotsky has lost his way amidst three pine trees. It seems to him that to desire Russia's defeat means desiring Germany's victory. . .
To help people who are unable to think, the Berne resolution made it clear that in all imperialist ceuntries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government. Bukvoyed and Trotsky preferred to evade this truth. . Had Bukvoyed and Trotsky thought a little, they would have realised that they adopt the point 'of view of a war of governments and the bourgeoisie, i.e., that they cringe before the 'political methodology of 'social-patriotism', to use Trotsky's affected language.
Revolution in wartime is civil war; and the transformation of war between governments into civil war is, on the one hand, facilitated by military reverses ('defeats') of governments; on the other hand, it is impossible really to strive for such a transformation without thereby facilitating defeat.
The very reason the chauvinists. . .repudiate the 'slogan' of defeat is that this slogan alone implies a consistent appeal for revolutionary action against one's own government in wartime. Without such action, millions of the r-r-revolutionary phrases like war against 'war and the conditions, and so forth' are not worth a penny. . . .
To repudiate the 'defeat' slogan means reducing one's revolutionary actions to an empty phrase or to mere hypocrisy. .. .
The slogan "Neither victory nor defeat" . . is nothing but a paraphrase of the 'defence of the fatherland' slogan. . . . .
On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean 'civil peace', renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent 'countries, since class struggle is impossible without . . facilitating the defeat of one's own country. Those who accept the slogan 'Neither victory nor defeat', can only hypocritically be in favour of the class struggle, of 'breaking civil peace'; those in practice, renounce an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding imperialist governments against defeat. .
Those who are in favour of the slogan 'Neither victory nor defeat' are consciously or unconsciusly chauvinists, at best they are conciliatory petty bourgeois; at all events they are enemies of proletarian policy, partisans of the present governments, of the present ruling classes. . . .
Those who stand for the slogan 'Neither victory nor defeat' are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they 'do not believe' in the possibility of international revolutionary action of the working class against its own governments, and they do not wish to help the development of such action which, though no easy task, it is true, is the only task worthy of a proletarian, the only socialist task'."
(V. I. Lenin: "Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; 1935; p. l42-3, l45, 146-7).
In April 1915 Rosa Luxemburg, in prison, wrote, under the pseudonym "Junius", a pamphlet entitled 'The Crisis of German Social Democracy. ' It was published a year later, in April 1916. Rosa Luxemburg, like Trotsky opposed Lenin's policy of "revolutionary defeatism":
"What shall be the practical attitude of social democracy in the present war? Shall it declare: since this is an imperialist war, since we do not enjoy in our country any socialist self-determination, its existence or non-existence is of no consequence to us, and we will surrender it to the enemy? Passive fatalism can never be the role of a revolutionary party like social democracy. . . .
Yes, socialists should defend their country in great historical crises".
(R.Luxemburg: "The Crisis of German Social Democracy", in: "Rosa Luxemburg Speaks'; Now York; 1970; p. 311, 3l4,).
and like Trotsky, she put forward the slogan of "Neither victory nor defeat":
"Here lies the great fault of German social democracy..... . . It was their duty . to proclaim to the people of Germany that in this war victory and defeat would be equally fatal".
(R. Luxemburg: ibid.; p. 314).
suggesting that the defence of the country "against defeat" should be carried on under the slogan she had consistently opposed as a leader of the Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, the Slogan of "national self-determination":
"Instead of covering this imperialist war with a lying mantle of national self-defence, social democracy should have demanded the right of national self-determination seriously".
(R. Luxemburg: ibid.; p. 311-12).
Lenin replied to Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet in his article "The Pamphlet by Junius", published in August 1916:
"We find the same error in Junius' arguments about which is better, victory or defeat? His conclusion is that both are equally bad. . . This is the point of view not of the revolutionary proletariat, but of the pacifist petty bourgeois.. . .
Another fallacious argument advanced by Junius is in connection with the question of defence of the fatherland.
Junius . . falls into the very strange error of trying to drag a national programme into the present non-national war. It sounds almost incredible, but it is true.
He proposes to 'oppose' the imperialist war with a national programme".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Pamphlet by Junius"; in: "Collected 'Works', Volume 19; London; l942; p. 212, 207, 209).
True, Rosa Luxemburg, unlike the open social-chauvinists, supported the concept of class struggle apainst one's own government during the war, not, however, in relation to the slogan of "turn the imperialist war into civil war", but as 'the best defence against a foreign enemy":
"The centuries have proven that not the state of siege, but relentless class struggle . . is the best protection and the best defence against a foreign enemy".
(R. Luxemburg: ibid.; p. 304).
Lenin commented:
"In saying that class struggle is the best means of defence against invasian, Junius applied Marxian dialectics only half way, taking one step on the right road and immediately deviating from it. . . Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle, and only this form of class struggle would have saved Europe (the whole of Europe, not only one country) from the peril of invasion.
Junius came very close to the correct solution of the problem and to the correct slogan: civil war against the bourgeoisi for socialism; but, as if afraid to speak the whole truth, he turned back to the phantasy of a 'national war' in 1914, 1915 and 1916. . ..
Junius has not completely rid himself of the 'environment' of the German Social-Democrats, even the Lefts, who are afraid to follow revolutionary slogans to their logical conclusion."
(V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 210, 212).
The Struggle against National Self-Determination
The manifesto drafted by Trotsky which was adopted by the International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwa1d (Switzerland) in September l915, recognised the right of self-determination of nations as an "indestructible principle":
"The right of self-determination of nations must be the indestructible principle in the system of national relationships of peoples".
(Manifesto of the International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwald, September 1915, in: V. I. Lenin: "Collective Works" , Volume l8, London; n .d.; p. 475)
The Polish delegation at the conference (consisting of Karl Radek, Adolf Warski and Jacob Ganetsky) opposed recognition of the right of self determination of nations, but submitted a declaration on the national question which, in fact, recognised the right of self-determination of Poland, since it declared that the international working class:
"Will break the fetters of national oppression and abolish all forms of foreign domination, and secure for the Polish people the possibility of all-sided, free development as an equal member in a League of Nations".
(Bulletin of the International Socialist Committee in Berne, No. 2; September 27th., 1915; p. 15).
Lenin commented on this declaration:
"There is no material difference between these postulates and the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination, except that their political formulation is still more diffuse and vague than the majority of the programmes and resolutions of the Second International. Any attempt to express these ideas in precise political formulae . . will prove still more strikingly the error committed by the Polish Social-Democrats in repudiating the self-determination of nations"
(V. I. Lenin: "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination"; in: "Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 279-80).
In October 1915 Karl Radek (under the pseudonym "Parabellum' wrote an article in the "Berner Tagwacht" (Berne Morning Watch entitled "Annexations and Social-Democracy", in which, on behalf of the leadership of the Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, he declared that:
"We are opposed to annexations."
(K. Radek: "Annexations and Social-Democracy; cited in: V. I. Lenin: "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 282).
but denounced the:
"Struggle for the non-existent right to self-determination".
(K. Radek: ibid; p. 282).
Lenin replied to Radek in November 1915 in his article "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination:
"Our 'struggle against annexations' will be meaningless and not at all terrifying to the social-patriots if we do not declare that the Socialist of an oppressing nation who does not conduct propaganda, both in peace time and war time, in favour of the freedom of secession for the oppressed nations is not a Socialist and not an internationalist, but a chauvinist."'
(V. I. Lenin: "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", in: 'Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 287).
In November 1915 Nikolai Bukharin and Grigori Pyatakov sent to the Central Committee of the RSDLP the theses, "The Slogan of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", written by Bukharin. The theses concluded:
"We do not under any circumstances support the government of the Great Power that suppresses the rebellion or the outburst of indignatien of an oppressed nation; but at the same time, we ourselves do not mobilise the proletarian forces under the slogan 'right of nations to self-determination'. In such a case, our task is to mobilise the forces of the proletariat of both nations (jointly with others) under the slogan 'civil class war for socialism', and conduct propaganda against the mobilisation of the forces under the slogan 'right of nations to self-determination'".
(N. Bukharin: "The slogan of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", cited in: V.I. Lenin: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 379-80).
Lenin replied to Bukharin's theses in March 1916 with theses of his own, entitled "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination";
"Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e. the right to free political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of free union -- a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession -- such parties are committing treachery to socialism".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935 p. 267).
Rosa Luxemburg, writing under the psedonym "Junius" in the pamphlet, "The Crisis of German Social-Democracy", published in April 1916, declared that wars of national liberation were impossible under imperialism:
"In the present imperialistic milieu there can be no wars of national self-defence".
(R. Luxemburg: 'The Crisis of German Social-Democracy", in: "Rosa Luxemburg Speaks"; New York; 1970; p. 305).
Lenin commented in "The Pamphlet by Junius", published in August 1916:
"National wars waged by colonial and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism.
National wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism even in Europe.
The postulate that 'there can be no more national wars' is obviously fallacious in theory. . . But this fallacy is also very harmful in a practical political sense; it gives rise to the stupid propaganda for 'disarmament', as if no other war but reactionary wars are possible; it is the cause of the still more stupid and downright reactionary indifference towards national movements. Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of 'Great' European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that 'there can be no more national wars.'''
(V. I. Lenin: "The Pamphlet by Junius", in: "Collected Works", Volume 19; London l942; p. 204, 205, 206).
In August 1916 Grigori Pyatakov wrote, under the pseudonyn "P. Kievsky", an article entitled: "The Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination. In this article, which was not published, Pyatakov denounced the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination on the grounds that:
"This demand leads directly to seocial-patriotism".
(G. Pyatakov: "The Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self Determination, cited in: V. I. Lenin: "A Caricature of Marxism and ‘Imperialist Economism’" in Ibid; "Collected Works", Volume 19; London l942; p. 216).
Lenin replied to Pyatakov’s argument in a long article "A Caricature of Marxism and ‘lmperialist Economics’, written in October 1916 but not published until l924:
"In the present imperialist war, . . phrases about defence of the fatherland are deception of the people, for this war is not a national war. In a truly national war the words 'defence of the fatherland’ are deception, and we are not opposed to such a war".
(V. I. Lenin: "Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperielist Economism", in ibid.; p. 217).
Pyatakov insisted:
"With regard to the colonies, we confine ourselves to a negative slogan, i.e., . . "Get out of the colonies'.
(G. Pyatakov: ibid.; p. 25l)
And Lenin replied:
"Both the political and the economic content of the slogan ‘Get out of the colonies!" amounts to one thing. . Only: freedom of secession for the colonial nations; freedom to establish a separate state."
(V. I. Lenin: ibid; p. 252).
The theoretical basis of Pyatakov's opposition to national self-determination is summarised in his declaration that:
". . dualistic propaganda is substituted for the monistic action of the International".
(G. Pyatakov: ibid.; p. 24l).
To which Lenin replied:
"Is the actual condition of the workers in the oppressing nations the same as that of the workers in the oppressed nations from the standpoint of the national problem?
No, they are not the same. . .
That being the case, what is to be said about P. Kievsky's phrase: the ‘monistic’ action of the International?
It is an empty, sonorous phrase, and nothing more.
In order that the action of the International, which in real life consists of workers who are divided into those belonging to oppressing nations and those belonging to oppressing nations, may be monistic action, propaganda must be carried on differently in each case."
(V. I. Lenin: Ibid; p. 242-3)
This "dualistic propaganda’ had already been described by Lenin:
"The Social-Democrats of the oppressing notions must demand the freedom of secession for the oppressed notions,
. . The Social-Democrats of the opressed nations, however, must put in the forefront the unity and the fusion of the workers of the oppressed nations with the workers of the oppressing nations".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Revolutionary Proletariat And the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London 1935; p. 284)
Lenin’s summary of Pyatakov's article was devastating:
"P. Kievsky. . totally fails to understand Marxism.
Kievsky does not advance a single correct argument. The only thing that is correct in his article, that is, if there are no mistakes in the figures, is the footnote in which he quotes some statistics about banks".
(V. I. Lenin: A Caricature of Marxism and ‘Imperialist Economism'", in: "Collected Works", Volume 19; London; l942; p. 218, 262).
In this struggle between the advocates of the right of self-determination of nations and its opponents, Trotsky adopted a characteristically centrist position: hypocritical support for the slogan but without support for its essential content, the right of secession:
"Trotsky . . is body and soul for self-determination, but in his case too it is an idle phrase, for he does not demand freedom of secession for nations oppressed by the "fatherland" of the socialist of the given nationality."
(V. I. Lenin: "The ‘Peace Programme", in "Collected Works", Volume 19 London l942; p. 66).
"The Kautskyists hypocritically recognise self-determination - -in Russia this is the road taken by Trotsky and Martov. In words, both declare that they are in favour of self-determination, as Kautsky does. But in practice? Trotsky engages in his customary eclecticism. . . The prevailing hypocrisy remains unexposed, . .. namely, the attitude to be adopted towards the nation that is oppressed by 'my' nation. . . .
A Russian Social-Democrat who 'recognises' self-determination of nations . . without fighting for freedom of Secession for the notions oppressed by tsarism is really an imperialist and a lackey of tsarism.
Whatever the subjective ‘well-meaning’ intentions of Trotsky and Martov may be, they, by their evasions, objectively support Russian social-imperialism".
(V. I. Lenin: ‘The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 19; London; 1942; p. 305)
The First Imperialist War
In August 1914, the First Imperialist War began.
Almost from the outset, three trends manifested themselves in the labour movements of the belligerent countries:
'In the course of the two and half years of war the international Socialist and labour movement in every country has evolved three tendencies.
The three tendencies are:
1) The social-chauvinists, i.e., Socialists in words and chauvinists in action, people who are in favour of 'national defence' in an imperialist war. . .
These people are our class enemies. They have gone over to the bourgeoisie. .
2) The second tendency is what is known as the 'Centre', consisting of people who vacillate between the social-chauvinists and the true internationalists.
All those who belong to the 'Centre' swear that they are Marxists and internationalists, that they are in favour of peace, of bringing every kind of 'pressure' to bear upon the governments, of 'demanding' that their own governments should 'ascertain' the will of the people for peace', that they favour all sorts of peace campaigns, that they are for a peace without annexations, etc., etc. -- and for peace with the social-chauvinists.
The 'Centre' is for 'unity', the 'Centre' is opposed to a split.
The 'Centre' is a realm of honeyed petty-bourgeois phrases of internationalism in word and cowardly opportunism and fawning on the social-chauvinists in deed.
The fact of the matter is that the 'Centre' does not preach revolution; it does not carry on a wholehearted revolutionary struggle; and in order to evade such a struggle it resorts to the tritest ultra-'Marxist' excuses. . . . .
3) The third tendency, the true internationalists, is most closely represented by the 'Zimmerwald Left' . . . .
It is characterised mainly by its complete break with both social-chauvinism and 'Centrism', and by its relentless war against its own imperialist government and against its own imperialist bourgeoisie".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution" in: "Selected Works', Volume 6; London; l946; p. 63, 64, 65-66).
Trotsky's "The War and the International"
On the outbreak of war, Trotsky was forced to leave Vienna and for two months he settled in Zurich, where he wrote "The War and the International', which was published in November in "Golos" (The Voice), a Menshevik paper published in Paris.
In this work Trotsky put forward the view that "the main obstacle to economic development' was the existence the national state":
"The old national state .. has outlived itself, and is now an intolerable hindrance to economic development. . . .
The outlived and antiquated national 'fatherland' has become the main obstacle to economic development . . . .
The national states have become a hindrance to the development of the forces of production".
(L. Trotsky: Preface to "The War and the International"; London; 1971; p. vii, x, xii).
Thus, declared Trotsky, the aim of the working class should be the creation of a 'republican United States of Europe":
"The task of the proletariat is to create a far more powerful fatherland, with far greater power of resistance - the republican United States of Europe".
Lenin at first (in one document only) accepted the slogan of a "United States of Europe":
"The immediate political slogan of the Social-Democrats of Europe must be the formation of a republican United States of Europe".
(V. I. Lenin: 'The War and Russian Social-Democracy' in: "Selected Works;' Volume 5; Moscow; 1935; p. 129).
By August 1915, however, the Bolsheviks, on Lenin's initiative had decisively rejected this slogan, firstly, because it could, under capitalist society, only be reactionary:
"From the point of view of the economic conditions of imperialism, . . the United States of Europe is either impossible or reactionary under capitalism. A United States of Europe under capitalism is equivalent to an agreement to divide up the colonies. Under capitalism, however, . . no other principle of division . . . . is possible except force. . . Division cannot take place except 'in proportion to strength', And strength changes in the course of economic development.
Of course, temporary agreements between capitalists and between the powers are possible. In this sense, the United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists. . but what for? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America. . . Under capitalism, the United States of Europe would mean the organisation of reaction to retard the more rapid development of America".
(V. I. Lenin: 'The United States of Europe Slogan', in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London 1935; p. 139, 140, l41).
and secondly because if regarded as a socialist slogan, it suggests that_the victory of socialism was possible only on an all European scale:
"Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible, first in a few or even in one single capitalist country".
(V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p.141).
Lenin concludes:
"It is for those reasons and after repeated debates that the editors of the central organ have come to the conclusion that the United States of Europe slogan is incorrect'".
(V.I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 141).
That Trotsky did, in fact, link the Slogan of "a United States of Europe" with the concept, inherent in his "theory of permanent revolution", that proletarian revolution could only be successful an an international scale, is shown by his reply to Lenin's article:
"The only more or less concrete historical argument advanced against the slogan of a United States of Europe was formulated in the Swiss 'Sotsial-Demokrat' in the following sentence:
'Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism'.
From this the 'Sotsial-Domokrat' draws the conclusion that the victory of socialism is possible in one country, and that therefore there is no reason to make the dictatorship of the proletariat in each separate country contingent upon the establishment of a United States of Europe. That capitalist development in different countries is uneven is an absolutely incontrovertible argument. But this unevenness is itself extremely uneven. The capitalist level of Britain, Austria, Germany or France is not identical. But in comparison with Africa and Asia all these countries represent capitalist 'Europe', which has grown ripe for the social revolution. That no country in its struggle must 'wait' for others, is an elementary thought which it is useful and necessary to reiterate in order that he idea of concurrent international action may not be replaced by the idea of temporising international inaction.
Without waiting for the others, we begin and continue the struggle nationally, in the full confidence that our initiative will give an impetus to the struggle in other countries; but if this should not occur, it would be hopeless to think -- as historical experience and theoretical considerations testify -- that, for example, a revolutionary Russia could hold out in the face of a conservative Europe".
(L. Trotsky: Article in "Nashe Slovo" (Our Word), No. 87; April 12th., 1916, cited in: J. V. Stalin: "The October Revolution and the Tactics of the Russian Communists", in: 'Works", Volume 6; Moscow; 1953; p. 390-1).
In the autumn of 1916 Lenin reiterated his opposition to Trotsky's slogan of a United States of Europe:
"As early as 1902, he (i.e., the British econornist John Hobson -- Ed.) had an excellent insight into the meaning and significance of a 'United States of Europe'' (be it said for the benefit of Trotsky the Kautskyian!) and of all that is now being glossed over by the hypocritical Kautskians of various countries, namely, that the opportunists (social-chauvinists) are working hand in hand with the imperialist bourgeoisie precisely towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa".
(V. I. Lenin: 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism", in: "Selected Works", Volume 11; London; l943; p. 752).
Trotsky, however, continued -- even after the Russian October Revolution of 1917 -- to hold that the construction of socialism in Europe was possible only on an all-European basis. In the postscript to a collection of articles published in 1922 under the title of "A Peace Programme", he wrote:
"The assertion reiterated several times in the 'Peace Programme' that a proletarian revolution cannot culminate victoriously within national bounds may perhaps seem to some readers to have been refuted by the nearly five years' experience of our Soviet Republic. But such a conclusion would be unwarranted. . . We have not arrived, or even begun to arrive, at tho creation of a socialist society. . . Real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after the victory of the proletariat in the major European countries." (L. Trotsky: Postscript to 'A Peace Programme , cited by: J. V. Stalin: "The Social-Democratic Deviation in our Party; in: "Works", Volume 8; Moscow; l954; p. 271-2).
"Our Word"
In November l914, Trotsky left Switzerland for Paris to take up the post of war correspondent of the newspaper "Kievskaya Mysl" (Kievan Thought), which supported the war effort of the tsarist government.
Settled in Paris, he joined the editorial staff of "Golos" (The Voice) , a newspaper published by a group of Mensheviks headed by Yuli Martov who, unlike the official Menshevik leadership which supported the war effort of the tsarist government, had adopted an attitude of verbal opposition to the war without seeking to organise active revolutionary struggle against the tsarist regime. "Golos" had commenced publication in September l914, and, when it was suppressed by the French government in January l9l5, it was replaced by "Nashe Slovo" (Our Word), on the editorial staff of which Trotsky continued to serve.
The chief organiser of the paper was Vladimir Antonov-Ovseenko (a former tsarist officer who after the October Revolution became Director of the Political Administration of the Red Army) . Its Paris staff included, in addition to Trotsky, Anatoly Lunacharsky (who later became Commissar for Education), David Ryazanov (later director of the Marx-Engels Institute), Solomon Lozovsky (later head of the Red International of Labour Unions), Dmitri Manuilsky (later head of the Communist International) Grigori Sokolnikov (later Commissar for Finance), and the historian Mikhail Pokrovsky (later director of the Soviet State Archives). Its foreign correspondents included Grigori Chicherin (later Commissar for Foreign Affairs), Aleksandra Kollontai (later Commissar of Social Welfare), Karl Radek (later to hold a leading position in the Communist International), Moissei Uritsky, Khristian Rakovsky (the son of a Bulgarian landlord, later to become Prime Minister of the Soviet Ukraine), Ivan Maisky (later Soviet Ambassador to Britain), and the Anglo-Russian historian Theodore Rothstein (later Soviet Ambassador to Persia)
1915 - 1916: The Three Trends in the Russian Labour Novement
The three trends described in an earlier section were represented in the Russian labour movement as follows:
1) The social-chauvinist trend was represented by:
a) a group of Mensheviks headed by Aleksandr Potresov, around the journal "Nasha Zarya" (Our Dawn), published in St. Petersburg. "Nasha Zaraya" was suppressed by the tsarist government in October l914, and its place was taken in January 1915 by 'Nashe Dyolo" (Our Cause).
"In Russia the fundamental nucleus of opportunism, the Liquidationist 'Nasha Zarya', became the fundamental nucleus of chauvinism".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Collapse of the Second International", in: 'Collected Works', Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 308).
b) a group of Mensheviks headed by Grigori Plekhanov and Grigori Alexinsky around the journal "Prizyv" (The Call) published in Paris.
"The main theories of the social-chauvinists. . . are represented by Plekhanov". (V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 282).
"Plekhanov has sunk into-nationalism, hiding his Russian chauvinism under Francophilism; so has Alexinsky".
(V. I. Lenin: "Position and Tasks of the Socialist International", in: ibid.; p. 85-86).
2) The "Centrist" trend was represented by:
a) The Menshevik "Organisation Committee"(O.C), headed by Pavel Axelrod, which in February 19l5 began publication of "Izvestia" (News) of the Foreign Secretariat of the Organisation Committee.
"This Centrist tendency includes . . the party of the Organisation Committee . . and others in Russia".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution", in: "Selected Works", Volume 6; London; 1935; p. 65).
"Take . .the . manifesto of the 0.C (Organisation Committee-Alliance Editor). . . .
1) The manifesto does not contain a single statement which in principle repudiates national defence in the present war;
2) there is absolutely nothing in the manifesto which in principle would be inacceptible to the 'defencists' or social chauvinists;
3) there are a number of statements in the manifesto which are completely'identical' with 'defencism': 'The proletariat cannot remain indifferent to the impending defeat'; . . 'the proletariat is vitally interested in the self-preservation of the country'".
(V. I. Lenin: "Have the O.C. and the Chkheidze Fraction a Policy of Their Own?", in "Collected Works", Viume 19; London; l942; p. 36, 37)
"To cover up this political reality (i.e., social-chauvinism -- Ed.) by Leftt phrases and quasi-Social-Democratic-ideology, is the actual political meaning of the . . activities of the Organisation-Committee. In the realm of idelogy -- the 'Neither- victory nor defeat' slogan; in the realm of practice -- an anti-'split' struggle -- this is the business-like . . programme of 'peace', with the 'Nashe Dyelo' and Plekhanov".
(V. I. Lenin: State of Affairs within Russian Social Democracy', in: Collected Works", Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 204.)
b) the Menshevik Duma fraction, headed by Nikolai Chkheidze.
"This Centrist tendency includes . . Chkheidze and others in Russia".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution", in: "Selected Works', Volume 6; London; l946; p. 65).
"Chkheidze's group confined itself to the parliamentary field. It did not vote appropriations, since it would have roused a storm of indignation among the workers. . . Neither did it protest against social-chauvinism".
(V. I. Lenin: "Socialism and War", in: ibid.; p. 240).
"Chkheidze uses the same chauvinist phrases about the 'danger of defeat', stands for . . 'the struggle for peace', etc., etc."
(V. I. Lenin: "Have the 0.C. and the Chkheidze Fraction a Policy of Their Own?", in 'Collected Works", Volume 19; London; 19~2; p. 39).
"(1) The 'save the country" formula employed by Chkhejdze differs in no material respect from defencism;
2) the Chkheidze fraction never opposed Nr. Potresov and Co. .
3) the decisive fact: the fraction has never opposed participation in the War Industries Committees'.
(V. I. Lenin: "The Chkheidze Fraction and its Role', in: ibid.; p. 325).
"To cover up this political reality (i.e., social-chauvinism -- Ed.) by 'Left 'phrases and quasi-Social-Democratic ideology, is the actual political meaning of the legal activities of Chkheidze's fraction".
(V. I. Lenin: "State of affairs within Russian Social-Democracy, in: "Collected "Works", Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 204).
c) the group, headed by Trotsky, around "Nashe_Slovo", the policy of which will be discussed in the next sections.
3). The revolutionary, international trend was represented by the Central Committee of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, headed by Lenin.
The theses which Lenin put forward in September 194 from Berne (Switzerland), on the other hand, called on the work in classes of all belligerent countries actively to oppose the war and to seek to transform it into a civil war against " their own" imperialists.
"Transform the present imperialist war into civil war -- is the only correct proletarian slogan"'.
(V. I. Lenin: "The War and Russian Social Democracy"', in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 130).
The "Peace" Slogan-The First of Trotsky's Two Slogans
The policy put forward by Trotsky in the pages of "Nashe Slovo" in relation to the imperialist war may be summarised in two slogans:
firstly, that of "revolutionary struggle for peace" (or "revolutionary struggle against the war", called by Lenin the "peace slogan":
"Phrase-mongers like Trotsky (See No. 105 of the 'Nashe Slovo') defend, in opposition to us, the peace slogan".
(V. I. Lenin: 'The 'Peace' Slogan Appraised", in: "Collected Works"", Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 262).
'Revolutionary struggle against the war ' . . is an example of the high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism".
(V. I. Lenin: "Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist Uar", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London 1935; p. 3142).
Lenin opposed the "peace" slogan throughout the war:
"The peace slogan is in my judgment incorrect at the present moment. This is a philistine's, a preacher's, slogan. The proletarian slogan must be civil war".
(V. I. Lenin: Letter to A. G. Shlyapnikov, October 17th., 19314, in: "Collected Works', Volume 18; n.d.; p. 75).
"Propaganda of peace at the present time, if not accompanied by a call for revolutionary mass action, is only capable of spreading illusions, of demoralising the proletariat by imbuing it with belief in the humanitarianism of the bourgeoisie, and of making it a plaything in the hands of the secret diplomacy of the belligerent countries. In particular, the ilea that a so-called democratic peace is possible without a series of revolutions is profoundly mistaken."
(V. I. Lenin: Conference of the Sections of the RSDLP Abroad," in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London 1935; p. 135).
"To accept the peace slogan per Se, and to repeat it, would be encouraging the 'pompous air of powerless (what is worse hypocritical) phrasemongers'; that would mean deceiving the people with the illusion that the present governments, the present ruling 'classes, are capable before they are . . eliminated by a number of revolutions of granting a peace even half way satisfactory to democracy and the working class. Nothing is more harmful than such a deception."
(V. I. Lenin: 'The Peace Question', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 266).
In September 1915 Trotsky carried forward his opposition to the Leninist policy towards the war at the International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwald (Switzerland). The Bolshevik resolution was rejected by a majority of the delegates, including Trotsky. As he expresses it himself:
"Lenin was on the extreme left at the Conference. In many questions he was in a minority of one, even within the Zimmerwald left wing, to which I did not formally belong."
(L. Trotsky: "My Life"; New York; 1970; p. 250).
In these circumstances, the Bolsheviks agreed to sign a compromise manifesto drafted by Trotsky:
"The revolutionary wing, led by Lenin, and the pacifist wing, which comprised the majority of the delegates, agreed with difficulty on a conmon manifesto of which I had prpared the draft".
(L. Trotsky: ibid p. 250).
The central point of this manifesto was "the struggle for peace":
"It is necessary to take up this struggle for peace, for a peace without annexations or war indemnities. . . .
It is the task and the duty of the Socialists of the belligerent countries to take up this struggle with full force".
Manifesto Of the International Specialist Conference, Zimmerwald, cited in: V. I Lenin: Collected Works', Vo1ume 18; London; Ibid.; p. 475).
Lenin commented on this manifests after the conference:
"Passing to 'the struggle for peace' . .here also we find inconsistency, timidity, failure to say everything that ought to be said. . . It does not name directly, openly and clearly the revolutionary methods of struggle".
(V. I. Lenin: 'The First Step', in: "Collected Works", Volume 18; London; n.d.; p. 343).
"Neither Victory nor Defeat"- Trotsky's Second Slogan
Secondly, in opposition to Lenin's declaration that a revolutionary struggle against "one's own imperialists in wartime was facilitated by, and facilitated, the military defeat of "one's own" imperialists in the war, Trotsky put forward the slogan of "Neither victory nor defeat!":
"'Bukvoyed (i.e., Ryazonov -- Ed.) and Trotsky defend the slogan 'Neither victery nor defeat!"
(V. I. Lenin: "Defeat Of One's Own Governrnent in the Imperialist War", in: Selected Works', Volume 5; London l935; p. 145-6).
In an Open Letter addressed to the Bolsheviks in "Nashe Slovo" in the summer of l9l5, Trotsky denounced Lenin's policy of "revolutionary defeatism" as:
"An uncalled-for and unjustifiable concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism which substitutes for the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions that cause it, what, under present conditions, is an extremely arbitrary orientation towards the lesser evil".
(L. Trotsky: in: "Nashe Slovo", No. 105, cited in V. I. Lenin: "Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War", in: 'Selected Works", Volume 5; London; l935; p. 142).
Lenin replied to Trotsky's Open Letter in August l9l5, in his article "Defeat of One's Government in the Imperialist War":
"This is an example of the high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism.
Making shift with phrases, Trotsky has lost his way amidst three pine trees. It seems to him that to desire Russia's defeat means desiring Germany's victory. . .
To help people who are unable to think, the Berne resolution made it clear that in all imperialist ceuntries the proletariat must now desire the defeat of its own government. Bukvoyed and Trotsky preferred to evade this truth. . Had Bukvoyed and Trotsky thought a little, they would have realised that they adopt the point 'of view of a war of governments and the bourgeoisie, i.e., that they cringe before the 'political methodology of 'social-patriotism', to use Trotsky's affected language.
Revolution in wartime is civil war; and the transformation of war between governments into civil war is, on the one hand, facilitated by military reverses ('defeats') of governments; on the other hand, it is impossible really to strive for such a transformation without thereby facilitating defeat.
The very reason the chauvinists. . .repudiate the 'slogan' of defeat is that this slogan alone implies a consistent appeal for revolutionary action against one's own government in wartime. Without such action, millions of the r-r-revolutionary phrases like war against 'war and the conditions, and so forth' are not worth a penny. . . .
To repudiate the 'defeat' slogan means reducing one's revolutionary actions to an empty phrase or to mere hypocrisy. .. .
The slogan "Neither victory nor defeat" . . is nothing but a paraphrase of the 'defence of the fatherland' slogan. . . . .
On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean 'civil peace', renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent 'countries, since class struggle is impossible without . . facilitating the defeat of one's own country. Those who accept the slogan 'Neither victory nor defeat', can only hypocritically be in favour of the class struggle, of 'breaking civil peace'; those in practice, renounce an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding imperialist governments against defeat. .
Those who are in favour of the slogan 'Neither victory nor defeat' are consciously or unconsciusly chauvinists, at best they are conciliatory petty bourgeois; at all events they are enemies of proletarian policy, partisans of the present governments, of the present ruling classes. . . .
Those who stand for the slogan 'Neither victory nor defeat' are in fact on the side of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists, for they 'do not believe' in the possibility of international revolutionary action of the working class against its own governments, and they do not wish to help the development of such action which, though no easy task, it is true, is the only task worthy of a proletarian, the only socialist task'."
(V. I. Lenin: "Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; 1935; p. l42-3, l45, 146-7).
In April 1915 Rosa Luxemburg, in prison, wrote, under the pseudonym "Junius", a pamphlet entitled 'The Crisis of German Social Democracy. ' It was published a year later, in April 1916. Rosa Luxemburg, like Trotsky opposed Lenin's policy of "revolutionary defeatism":
"What shall be the practical attitude of social democracy in the present war? Shall it declare: since this is an imperialist war, since we do not enjoy in our country any socialist self-determination, its existence or non-existence is of no consequence to us, and we will surrender it to the enemy? Passive fatalism can never be the role of a revolutionary party like social democracy. . . .
Yes, socialists should defend their country in great historical crises".
(R.Luxemburg: "The Crisis of German Social Democracy", in: "Rosa Luxemburg Speaks'; Now York; 1970; p. 311, 3l4,).
and like Trotsky, she put forward the slogan of "Neither victory nor defeat":
"Here lies the great fault of German social democracy..... . . It was their duty . to proclaim to the people of Germany that in this war victory and defeat would be equally fatal".
(R. Luxemburg: ibid.; p. 314).
suggesting that the defence of the country "against defeat" should be carried on under the slogan she had consistently opposed as a leader of the Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, the Slogan of "national self-determination":
"Instead of covering this imperialist war with a lying mantle of national self-defence, social democracy should have demanded the right of national self-determination seriously".
(R. Luxemburg: ibid.; p. 311-12).
Lenin replied to Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet in his article "The Pamphlet by Junius", published in August 1916:
"We find the same error in Junius' arguments about which is better, victory or defeat? His conclusion is that both are equally bad. . . This is the point of view not of the revolutionary proletariat, but of the pacifist petty bourgeois.. . .
Another fallacious argument advanced by Junius is in connection with the question of defence of the fatherland.
Junius . . falls into the very strange error of trying to drag a national programme into the present non-national war. It sounds almost incredible, but it is true.
He proposes to 'oppose' the imperialist war with a national programme".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Pamphlet by Junius"; in: "Collected 'Works', Volume 19; London; l942; p. 212, 207, 209).
True, Rosa Luxemburg, unlike the open social-chauvinists, supported the concept of class struggle apainst one's own government during the war, not, however, in relation to the slogan of "turn the imperialist war into civil war", but as 'the best defence against a foreign enemy":
"The centuries have proven that not the state of siege, but relentless class struggle . . is the best protection and the best defence against a foreign enemy".
(R. Luxemburg: ibid.; p. 304).
Lenin commented:
"In saying that class struggle is the best means of defence against invasian, Junius applied Marxian dialectics only half way, taking one step on the right road and immediately deviating from it. . . Civil war against the bourgeoisie is also a form of class struggle, and only this form of class struggle would have saved Europe (the whole of Europe, not only one country) from the peril of invasion.
Junius came very close to the correct solution of the problem and to the correct slogan: civil war against the bourgeoisi for socialism; but, as if afraid to speak the whole truth, he turned back to the phantasy of a 'national war' in 1914, 1915 and 1916. . ..
Junius has not completely rid himself of the 'environment' of the German Social-Democrats, even the Lefts, who are afraid to follow revolutionary slogans to their logical conclusion."
(V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 210, 212).
The Struggle against National Self-Determination
The manifesto drafted by Trotsky which was adopted by the International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwa1d (Switzerland) in September l915, recognised the right of self-determination of nations as an "indestructible principle":
"The right of self-determination of nations must be the indestructible principle in the system of national relationships of peoples".
(Manifesto of the International Socialist Conference at Zimmerwald, September 1915, in: V. I. Lenin: "Collective Works" , Volume l8, London; n .d.; p. 475)
The Polish delegation at the conference (consisting of Karl Radek, Adolf Warski and Jacob Ganetsky) opposed recognition of the right of self determination of nations, but submitted a declaration on the national question which, in fact, recognised the right of self-determination of Poland, since it declared that the international working class:
"Will break the fetters of national oppression and abolish all forms of foreign domination, and secure for the Polish people the possibility of all-sided, free development as an equal member in a League of Nations".
(Bulletin of the International Socialist Committee in Berne, No. 2; September 27th., 1915; p. 15).
Lenin commented on this declaration:
"There is no material difference between these postulates and the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination, except that their political formulation is still more diffuse and vague than the majority of the programmes and resolutions of the Second International. Any attempt to express these ideas in precise political formulae . . will prove still more strikingly the error committed by the Polish Social-Democrats in repudiating the self-determination of nations"
(V. I. Lenin: "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination"; in: "Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 279-80).
In October 1915 Karl Radek (under the pseudonym "Parabellum' wrote an article in the "Berner Tagwacht" (Berne Morning Watch entitled "Annexations and Social-Democracy", in which, on behalf of the leadership of the Social-Democratic Party of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania, he declared that:
"We are opposed to annexations."
(K. Radek: "Annexations and Social-Democracy; cited in: V. I. Lenin: "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 282).
but denounced the:
"Struggle for the non-existent right to self-determination".
(K. Radek: ibid; p. 282).
Lenin replied to Radek in November 1915 in his article "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination:
"Our 'struggle against annexations' will be meaningless and not at all terrifying to the social-patriots if we do not declare that the Socialist of an oppressing nation who does not conduct propaganda, both in peace time and war time, in favour of the freedom of secession for the oppressed nations is not a Socialist and not an internationalist, but a chauvinist."'
(V. I. Lenin: "The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", in: 'Selected Works, Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 287).
In November 1915 Nikolai Bukharin and Grigori Pyatakov sent to the Central Committee of the RSDLP the theses, "The Slogan of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", written by Bukharin. The theses concluded:
"We do not under any circumstances support the government of the Great Power that suppresses the rebellion or the outburst of indignatien of an oppressed nation; but at the same time, we ourselves do not mobilise the proletarian forces under the slogan 'right of nations to self-determination'. In such a case, our task is to mobilise the forces of the proletariat of both nations (jointly with others) under the slogan 'civil class war for socialism', and conduct propaganda against the mobilisation of the forces under the slogan 'right of nations to self-determination'".
(N. Bukharin: "The slogan of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", cited in: V.I. Lenin: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 379-80).
Lenin replied to Bukharin's theses in March 1916 with theses of his own, entitled "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination";
"Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e. the right to free political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of free union -- a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession -- such parties are committing treachery to socialism".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935 p. 267).
Rosa Luxemburg, writing under the psedonym "Junius" in the pamphlet, "The Crisis of German Social-Democracy", published in April 1916, declared that wars of national liberation were impossible under imperialism:
"In the present imperialistic milieu there can be no wars of national self-defence".
(R. Luxemburg: 'The Crisis of German Social-Democracy", in: "Rosa Luxemburg Speaks"; New York; 1970; p. 305).
Lenin commented in "The Pamphlet by Junius", published in August 1916:
"National wars waged by colonial and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism.
National wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism even in Europe.
The postulate that 'there can be no more national wars' is obviously fallacious in theory. . . But this fallacy is also very harmful in a practical political sense; it gives rise to the stupid propaganda for 'disarmament', as if no other war but reactionary wars are possible; it is the cause of the still more stupid and downright reactionary indifference towards national movements. Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of 'Great' European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that 'there can be no more national wars.'''
(V. I. Lenin: "The Pamphlet by Junius", in: "Collected Works", Volume 19; London l942; p. 204, 205, 206).
In August 1916 Grigori Pyatakov wrote, under the pseudonyn "P. Kievsky", an article entitled: "The Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination. In this article, which was not published, Pyatakov denounced the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination on the grounds that:
"This demand leads directly to seocial-patriotism".
(G. Pyatakov: "The Proletariat and the Right of Nations to Self Determination, cited in: V. I. Lenin: "A Caricature of Marxism and ‘Imperialist Economism’" in Ibid; "Collected Works", Volume 19; London l942; p. 216).
Lenin replied to Pyatakov’s argument in a long article "A Caricature of Marxism and ‘lmperialist Economics’, written in October 1916 but not published until l924:
"In the present imperialist war, . . phrases about defence of the fatherland are deception of the people, for this war is not a national war. In a truly national war the words 'defence of the fatherland’ are deception, and we are not opposed to such a war".
(V. I. Lenin: "Caricature of Marxism and 'Imperielist Economism", in ibid.; p. 217).
Pyatakov insisted:
"With regard to the colonies, we confine ourselves to a negative slogan, i.e., . . "Get out of the colonies'.
(G. Pyatakov: ibid.; p. 25l)
And Lenin replied:
"Both the political and the economic content of the slogan ‘Get out of the colonies!" amounts to one thing. . Only: freedom of secession for the colonial nations; freedom to establish a separate state."
(V. I. Lenin: ibid; p. 252).
The theoretical basis of Pyatakov's opposition to national self-determination is summarised in his declaration that:
". . dualistic propaganda is substituted for the monistic action of the International".
(G. Pyatakov: ibid.; p. 24l).
To which Lenin replied:
"Is the actual condition of the workers in the oppressing nations the same as that of the workers in the oppressed nations from the standpoint of the national problem?
No, they are not the same. . .
That being the case, what is to be said about P. Kievsky's phrase: the ‘monistic’ action of the International?
It is an empty, sonorous phrase, and nothing more.
In order that the action of the International, which in real life consists of workers who are divided into those belonging to oppressing nations and those belonging to oppressing nations, may be monistic action, propaganda must be carried on differently in each case."
(V. I. Lenin: Ibid; p. 242-3)
This "dualistic propaganda’ had already been described by Lenin:
"The Social-Democrats of the oppressing notions must demand the freedom of secession for the oppressed notions,
. . The Social-Democrats of the opressed nations, however, must put in the forefront the unity and the fusion of the workers of the oppressed nations with the workers of the oppressing nations".
(V. I. Lenin: "The Revolutionary Proletariat And the Right of Nations to Self-Determination", in: "Selected Works", Volume 5; London 1935; p. 284)
Lenin’s summary of Pyatakov's article was devastating:
"P. Kievsky. . totally fails to understand Marxism.
Kievsky does not advance a single correct argument. The only thing that is correct in his article, that is, if there are no mistakes in the figures, is the footnote in which he quotes some statistics about banks".
(V. I. Lenin: A Caricature of Marxism and ‘Imperialist Economism'", in: "Collected Works", Volume 19; London; l942; p. 218, 262).
In this struggle between the advocates of the right of self-determination of nations and its opponents, Trotsky adopted a characteristically centrist position: hypocritical support for the slogan but without support for its essential content, the right of secession:
"Trotsky . . is body and soul for self-determination, but in his case too it is an idle phrase, for he does not demand freedom of secession for nations oppressed by the "fatherland" of the socialist of the given nationality."
(V. I. Lenin: "The ‘Peace Programme", in "Collected Works", Volume 19 London l942; p. 66).
"The Kautskyists hypocritically recognise self-determination - -in Russia this is the road taken by Trotsky and Martov. In words, both declare that they are in favour of self-determination, as Kautsky does. But in practice? Trotsky engages in his customary eclecticism. . . The prevailing hypocrisy remains unexposed, . .. namely, the attitude to be adopted towards the nation that is oppressed by 'my' nation. . . .
A Russian Social-Democrat who 'recognises' self-determination of nations . . without fighting for freedom of Secession for the notions oppressed by tsarism is really an imperialist and a lackey of tsarism.
Whatever the subjective ‘well-meaning’ intentions of Trotsky and Martov may be, they, by their evasions, objectively support Russian social-imperialism".
(V. I. Lenin: ‘The Discussion on Self-Determination Summed Up', in: 'Collected Works', Volume 19; London; 1942; p. 305)
NEXT >>> Trotsky's Conciliation-ism
.jpg)
