Lenin To Inessa Armand - Letters 1916
Dear Friend,
As regards rewording for the French, I would not under take it. Perhaps you will try?
They were written for the Swiss: the “military part” here is a special one (for a small state), the inner-party situation is different, etc., etc. Besides, I would not be able to find concrete material about France.
I should be heartily glad to do something for the French Left, but somehow contacts don’t get established. Grisha writes long but exceptionally meaningless letters, full of water, chews old stuff, nothing business-like, tells us nothing precise about the French Left, and establishes no, absolutely no contact with them.
As regards the fatherland, you evidently want to establish a contradiction between my writings previously (when? 1913? where precisely? what precisely?) and now. I don’t think there are any contradictions. Find the exact texts, then we shall look at it again.
Of course, there were always differences between the orthodox and the opportunists as to the conception of fatherland (cf. Plekhanov 1907 or 1910, Kautsky 1905 and 1907, and Jaurès: L’armée nouvelle). I entirely agree with this: here the divergence was a radical one. I don’t think I have ever said anything against that.
That the defence of the fatherland is admissible (when it is admissible) only as the defence of democracy (in the appropriate epoch), is my opinion too.
Of course, proletarians should never “merge” with the general democratic movement. Marx and Engels did not “merge” with the bourgeois-democratic movement in Germany in 1848. We Bolsheviks did not “merge” with the bourgeois-democratic movement in 1905.
We Social-Democrats always stand for democracy, not “in the name of capitalism”, but in the name of clearing the path for our movement, which clearing is impossible without the development of capitalism.
Best greetings.
Yours, Lenin
P.S. If you need books, write.
---------------------------
November 30, 1916
Dear Friend
As regards “defence of the fatherland” I don’t know whether we differ or not. You find a contradiction between my article in the collection of articles To the Memory of Marx and my present statements, without quoting either precisely. I cannot reply to this. I haven’t got the collection To the Memory of Marx. Of course, I cannot remember word for word what I wrote in it. Without precise quotations, then and now, I am not able to reply to such an argument on your part.
But generally speaking, it seems to me that you argue somehow in a somewhat one-sided and formalist manner. You have taken one quotation from the Communist Manifesto (the working men have no country) and you seem to want to apply it without any reservations, up to and including the repudiation of national wars.
The whole spirit of Marxism, its whole system, demands that each proposition should be considered (α) only historically, (β) only in connection with others, (γ) only in connection with the concrete experience of history.
The fatherland is an historical concept. The fatherland in an epoch or, more precisely, at the moment of struggle for the overthrow of national oppression, is one thing. At the moment when national movements have been left far behind, it is another thing. For the “three types of countries” (§ 6 of our theses on self-determination ) there cannot be a proposition about the fatherland, and its defence, identically applicable in all conditions.
In the Communist Manifesto it is said that the working men have no country.
Correct. But not only this is stated there. It is stated there also that when national states are being formed the role of the proletariat is somewhat special. To take the first proposition (the working men have no country) and forget its connection with the second (the workers are constituted as a class nationally, though not in the same sense as the bourgeoisie) will be exceptionally incorrect.
Where, then, does the connection lie? In my opinion, precisely in the fact that in the democratic movement (at such a moment, in such concrete circumstances) the proletariat cannot refuse to support it (and, consequently, support defence of the fatherland in a national war).
Marx and Engels said in the Communist Manifesto that the working men have no country. But the same Marx calledfor a national war more than once: Marx in 1848, Engels in 1859 (the end of his pamphlet Po and Rhine, where the national feeling of the Germans is directly in flamed, where they are directly called upon to wage a national war). Engels in 1891, in view of the then threatening and advancing war of France (Boulanger) +Alexander III against Germany, directly recognised “defence of the fatherland”.
Were Marx and Engels muddlers who said one thing today and another thing tomorrow? No. In my view, admission of “defence of the fatherland” in a national war fully answers the requirements of Marxism. In 1891 the German Social-Democrats really should have defended their fatherland in a war against Boulanger + Alexander III. This would have been a peculiar variety of national war.
Incidentally, in saying this, I am repeating what I said in my article against Yuri. For some reason you don’t mention it. It seems to me that on the question raised here there are precisely in that article a number of propositions which make clear completely (or nearly so) my understanding of Marxism.
As to Radek—my “quarrel” (???!!!) with Radek. I had an argument last spring with Grigory, who had no under standing at all of the political situation at that time, and reproached me for breaking with the Zimmerwald Left. That is nonsense.
The connection with the Zimmerwald Left is also a conditional thing. First of all, Radek is not the Zimmerwald Left. Secondly, there was no “break” with Radek in general, but only in a particular sphere. Thirdly, it is stupid to conceive of the connection with Radek in such a way that our hands should be tied in the necessary theoretical and practical struggle.
Ad 1 (to point 1). I never, anywhere, took a single step, not a suspicion of it, not merely towards a break, but even towards weakening the ties with the “Zimmerwald Left”. Nobody has ever pointed one out to me, or will be able to point it out. Neither with Borchardt, nor with the Swedes, nor with Knief, etc., etc.
(Radek very meanly threw us out of the editorial board of Vorbote. Radek behaves in politics like a Tyszka huckster, impudent, insolent, stupid. Grigory wrote to me in the spring of 1916, when I was already in Zurich, that he had no“team work” with Radek. Radek has moved away— that is the fact. He moved away on account of Vorbote, both from me and from Grigory. On account of the impudence and huckster-like meanness of one person, the Zimmerwald Left does not cease to be Left, and there is no purpose in dragging it into the affair: it’s not sensible, not correct.
Gazeta Robotnicza, in the number for February 1916, is a pattern of such a Tyszka-like rotten servile “game” (Radek follows in his footsteps). Anyone who forgives such things in politics I consider a donkey or a scoundrel. I shall never forgive them. For such things you punch men’s faces or turn away.
Of course I did the second. And I don’t repent. We did not lose a single hair of our ties with the Left Germans. When the problem arose of marching together with Radek in practice (the Zurich Congress of November 4–5, 1916, we went ahead together. All Grigory’s silly phrases about my break with the Zimmerwald Left proved to be a stupidity, which they always were.)
Ad 2—the “sphere” of the break with Radek, therefore, were (α) Russian and Polish affairs. The resolution of the Committee of Organisations Abroad confirmed this. (β) The affair with Yuri and Co. Radek even now is writing (I can send you them if you wish) the most impudent letters to me (and Grigory) on the theme that, “we” (he + Bukharin + Yuri and Co.) “see things” in such-and-such a way!! Only a donkey and a scoundrel, who wants to invent an “intrigue”, squeezing through the crack of differences between us and Yuri and Co., can write in this way. If Radek did notunderstand what he was doing, then he is a donkey. If he did understand, then he is a scoundrel.
The political task of our Party was clear: we could not tie our hands by equality in the editorial board with N. I. + Yuri + E. B. (Grigory did not understand this, and drove me to a direct ultimatum: I declared that I would resign from Kommunist if we did not break with it. Kommunist was a good thing, so long as there was no separate programme of the trio who composed 1/2 the editorial board). To grant equality to a group consisting of Bukharin + Yuri + E. B. would be idiocy and the ruin of all the work. Neither Yuri, quite a little pig, nor E. B. has a drop of brains, and if they had allowed themselves to descend to group stupidity with Bukharin, then we had to break with them, more precisely withKommunist. And that was done.
The polemics over self-determination are only beginning as yet. Here they are in complete confusion—as in the whole question about the attitude to democracy. To grant “equality” to little pigs and fools—never! They didn’t want to learn peaceably and in comradely fashion, so let them blame themselves. (I pestered them, provoking conversations about it in Berne: they turned up their noses! I wrote them letters, tens of pages long, to Stockholm—they turned up their noses! Well, if that’s how it is, let them go to the devil. I did everything possible for a peaceable out come. If you don’t want it, I will punch your faces and expose you as idiots before the whole world. That, and only that, is the way to treat them.) But where does Radek come in, you may ask.
Because lie was the “heavy artillery” of this “group”, artillery hidden in the bushes on one side. Yuri and Co. were quite skilful in their calculations (E. B. is capable as an intriguer, it turned out that she was not leading Yuri to us, but setting up a group against us). Their calculation was: we shall start the war, but it’s Radek who will fight for us!! Radek will fight for us, while Lenin will have his hands tied.
But it didn’t come off, my dear little pigs! I will not let my hands be tied in politics. If you want to fight, come out openly. But the role of Radek—secretly inciting young pigs, but himself hiding behind the “Zimmerwald Left”—is the height of scoundrelism. The most lousy ... of the Tyszka swamp could not have been playing the huckster, the lackey and the intriguer behind one’s back in dirtier fashion.
Ad 3—I have already stated clearly. The question of the relationship of imperialism to democracy and the minimum programme is arising on an ever wider scale (see the Dutch programme in No. 3 of the Bulletin the American S.L.P. have thrown out the whole minimum programme. Entwaffnungsfrage ). On this Radek has absolute confusion in his head (this is clear from his theses; it was also shown by the question of indirect and direct taxes raised in my theses). I will never let my hands be tied in explaining this most important and fundamental question. I cannot. The question has to be cleared up. There will be dozens of “falls” over it yet (they will stumble for certain).
Anyone who understands the “connection” with the Zimmerwald Left in such a way that we should let our hands be tied in the theoretical struggle against “imperialist Economism” (that international disease; Dutch-American-Russian, etc.), understands nothing. To learn by heart the words “Zimmerwald Left” and to kowtow before the utter theoretical confusion in Radek’s head, that I don’t accept.
The results: after Zimmerwald manoeuvres were more difficult. It was necessary to take the essential from Radek, E. B. and Co., without allowing one’s hands to be tied. I consider that I was successful in this. After Bukharin’s departure to America and, above all, after Yuri had sent us his article and after he had accepted (he accepted! he had to accept) my reply, their affairs, as a “group”, were finished. (Yet Grigory wanted to perpetuate that group, granting it equality: we would give it equality!!)
With Radek we parted company on the Russo-Polish arena, and did not invite him into our Sbornik. It had to be that way.
And now he can do nothing which could spoil the work. He was obliged at the Zurich Congress (November 5, 1916) to go together with me, as now, against Grimm.
What does this mean? It means that I succeeded in dividing the questions: not in one iota is the internationalist pressure on the Kautskians (Grimm y compris weakened, and at the same time I am not subjected to “equality” with Radek’s stupidity!
Strategically I now consider the cause to have been won. It is possible that Yuri + Co. + Radek + Co. will abuse me. Allez-y, mes amis! Now the odium will fall on you, not on us. But you will now not injure the cause, and for us the road has been cleared. We have disentangled our selves from the dirty (in all senses) muddle with Yuri and Radek, without in one iota weakening the “Zimmerwald Left”, and possessing the requisites for the struggle against stupidity on the question of the attitude to democracy.
Voilà. I apologise for this long letter and for the abundance of sharp words: I can’t write otherwise when I am speaking frankly. Well, after all, this is all entrenous, and perhaps the unnecessary bad language will pass.
Best greetings.
Yours, Lenin
In general, both Radek and Pannekoek are incorrect in the way they approach the question of the struggle against Kautskianism. This N.B.!!
------------------
December 23, 1916
Dear Friend,
About Radek. You write: “I told him at Kienthal that he had behaved badly.”
Is that all? Only that! What about the political conclusion?? Or was his action only an accident?? Only his personal affair?? Nothing of the kind! There is the source of your political mistake. You do not assess what is going on politically. Yet really this is a question of politics, however strange it might seem at first sight.
As regards defence of the fatherland. It would be most unpleasant for me if we differed on this. Let us try once more to come to agreement.
Here is some “material for reflection”:
War is the continuation of politics.
Everything depends on the system of political relations before the war and during the war.
The main types of these systems are (a) the relation of the oppressed nation to the oppressing, (b) the relation between two oppressing nations on account of the loot, its division, etc., (c) the relation of a national state which does not oppress others to one which oppresses, to a particularly reactionary state.
Think over this.
Caesarism in France + tsarism in Russia against non-imperialist Germany in 1891—that was the historical situation in 1891.
Think over that! And I was writing of 1891 in No. 1 of Sbornik as well.
How glad I am that you have had a talk with Guilbeaux and Levi! It would be a good thing to do this more frequently, or at any rate from time to time. As for the Italian, he is lying! Turati’s speech is a model of rotten Kautskianism (he has dragged “droits nationaux” into the imperialist war!!). And the article by bb about this speech in Volksrecht is rotten too.
Oh, how I would like to write about this, or to have a talk with the Italian!!
How stupid that Levi is attacking parliamentarism!! Stupid!! And a “Left”, too!! God, how much muddle there is in people’s heads.
Yours,
Lenin
-------------------------
December 25, 1916
Dear Friend,
About Radek you, following Grigory, seem to have got confused between personal impressions and sadness over the “dark” political picture in general and politics. You are sorry, you regret, you sigh—and nothing more. No other policy than that which was followed could have been pursued. We could not renounce correct views and surrender to “Tyszka’s methods”. The picture is “dark” not because of this, and the Lefts are weak not because of this, and Vorbote is not appearing not because of this—but because the revolutionary movement grows extremely slowly and with difficulty. This has to be put up with; rotten blocs with a certain person (or with E. B. + Kii) would only interfere with performing the difficult task of standing fast in difficult times.
As regards “imperialist Economism”, it somehow turns out that we are “talking past each other”. You evade the definition I gave, pass it by and put the question again.
The “Economists” did not “renounce” political struggle (as you write)—that is inaccurate. They defined it wrongly. The “imperialist Economists” do the same.
You write: “Would even the complete rejection of democratic demands mean rejecting the political struggle? Is not the direct struggle for the conquest of power political struggle?”
The whole point is that with Bukharin (and partly with Radek as well) this is just the kind of thing you get and it is wrong. “The direct struggle for the conquest of power” while “completely rejecting democratic demands” is something unclear, unthought-out, confused. This is just what Bukharin is confused about.
More precisely, you approach the question from rather a different point of view, when you see a contradiction between §§ 2 and 8.
In § 2 there is a general statement: the socialist revolution is impossible without the struggle for democracy. This is unquestionable, and this is just the weakness of Radek + Bukharin that they, while disagreeing (like you), don’t venture to challenge it!!
But further, in a certain sense for a certain period, all democratic aims (not only self-determination! Note that! You have forgotten that!) are capable of hindering the socialist revolution. In what sense? At what moment? When? How? For example, if the movement has already developed, the revolution has already begun, we have to seize the banks, and we are being appealed to: wait, first consolidate, legitimise the republic, etc.!
An example: in August 1905, the boycott of the Duma was correct, and was not rejection of political struggle.
((§ 2 in general, refusal to participate in representative institutions is an absurdity; § 8 there are cases when we have to refuse; there is a visual comparison for you which makes clear that there is no contradiction between § 2 and § 8.))
Against Junius. The situation is the imperialist war. The remedy for it? Only a socialist revolution in Germany. Junius did not draw this conclusion, and took democracy without the socialist revolution.
One should know how to combine the struggle for democracy and the struggle for the socialist revolution, subordinating the first to the second. In this lies the whole difficulty; in this is the whole essence.
The Tolstoyans and the anarchists throw out the first. Bukharin and Radek have become confused, failing to combine the first with the second.
But I say: don’t lose sight of the main thing (the socialist revolution); put it first (Junius has not done this); put all the democratic demands, but subordinating them to it, co-ordinating them with it (Radek + Bukharin unwisely eliminate one of them), and bear in mind that the struggle for the main thing may blaze up even though it has begun with the struggle for something partial. In my opinion, only this conception of the matter is the right one.
A war of France + Russia against Germany in 1891. You take “my criterion”, and apply it only to France and Russia!!!! For pity’s sake, where is the logic here? That’s just what I say, that on the part of France and Russia it would have been a reactionary war (a war in order to turn back the development of Germany, to return her from national unity to dismemberment). But on the part of Germany? You are silent. Yet that is the chief thing. For Germany in 1891, the war did not, and could not, have an imperialist character.
You have forgotten the main thing—that in 1891 no imperialism existed at all (I have tried to show in my pamphlet that it was born in 1898–1900, not earlier), and there was no imperialist war, there could not be, on the part of Germany. (By the way, there was no revolutionary Russia then either; that is very important.)
Furthermore, you write: “The ‘possibility’ of the dismemberment of Germany is not excluded in the 1914–17 war either”, simply sliding away from the assessment of what exists to what is possible.
That is not historical. It is not political.
What exists today is an imperialist war on both sides. This we have said 1,000 times. This is the essence.
And the “possible”!!?? All kinds of things are “possible”!
It is ridiculous to deny the “possibility” of transforming the imperialist war into a national war (though Usiyevich was horrified at the idea!). What is not “possible” on this earth! But so far it has not been transformed. Marxism buttresses its policy on the actual, not on the “possible”. It is possible that one phenomenon will change into an other—and our tactics are not fossilised. Parlez-moi de la réalité et non pas des possibilités!
Engels was right. In my day I have seen an awful lot of hasty charges that Engels was an opportunist, and my attitude to them is supremely distrustful. Try, I say and prove first that Engels was wrong!! You won’t prove it!
Engels’s foreword to The Class Struggles in France? Don’t you know that it was distorted in Berlin against his will? Is that serious criticism?
His statement about the Belgian strike? When? Where? What? I don’t know it.
No. No. Engels was not infallible. Marx was not infallible. But if you want to point out their “fallibility” you have to set about it differently, really, quite differently. Otherwise you are 1,000 times wrong.
Very, very best greetings.
Yours, Lenin
.jpg)
