The Burning Questions of the Day

 Introduction

This article, published in Spartakusbriefe, no. 6 in August 1917 is not signed, but Rosa Luxemburg is identified as the author in Spartakusbundes im Krieg, a collection of the illegal leaflets of the Spartacus League written during the war, edited by Ernest Meyer in 1927. Paul Frölich, a prominent Luxemburg biographer, has likewise attributed this work to her in his 1928 Rosa Luxemburg; her life and work.

Rosa Luxemburg — The Burning Questions of the Day

I: War and Peace

The Russian Revolution [2] was the first conclusive expression of the proletarian class policy since the bankruptcy of international socialism at the outbreak of the World War, and thus the first advance for peace of world-historical importance. On the very next day after the victory over the old regime, the action of the Russian proletariat against the war began. It was initially focused on removing the character from imperialistic wars as they had been waged by the Tsarist regime and the Russian bourgeoisie. After few vehement struggles, the Russian proletarian masses have proven themselves victorious in the recognition of the following formulae for war objectives by the provisional government: no annexations, no reparations, peace based on the self-determination of nations. [3] At first sight, proletarian policies seemed to have brought a complete and decisive victory. It seemed that a clear path for peace and revolution had been created. In reality, however, the Russian proletariat was only confronted with new difficulties and problems as a result of its victory.

The peace formula has been found, but there is still a long way to go until peace. How is that peace to be achieved? — that is the question now. A separate peace — as all socialist currents in Russia have probably recognised — would not be the end but only the reignition of a new world war. Every separate peace cannot be proletarian in itself, but a purely bourgeois policy, since it amounts to a unilateral national solution to the war problem, because it ignores the fate of the European proletariat as a whole, in order to free just one country from the clutches of war. In this case, a separate peace would be even more: It would be an invaluable service to German imperialism, to the strongest bulwark of the reaction in Europe and the biggest enemy of the German proletariat — thus the most dangerous adversary of the Russian revolution the day after the war ends.

But a general peace cannot be brought about by Russia alone. The Russian proletariat can suppress the resistance of its own ruling classes, but it is incapable of exerting decisive influence on the imperialist governments of England, France and Italy, since the decisive pressure must come here from within, naturally, as in Russia; come from the English, French and Italian proletariat. In reality, in spite of the powerful and victorious peace action of the Russian masses, neither a separate peace nor a general peace can be practically achieved for the time being. As long as this situation continues, the war goes on and the Russian proletariat is faced with the inevitable question: How are they supposed to act in this war?

The peace formula officially recognized by the Russian Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils seemingly strips the war — at least in Russia — of the character of an imperialist war for annexation and reduces it to pure national defense. And in this case, it is so indeed in the only true sense of the word, because it is the defense of the achievements of the revolution under the sovereign leadership of the revolutionary masses. However, in military terms, political defense cannot be separated from offense. Whoever conducts a war at all, whatever its aims, must take on the military offense as much as possible, bearing in mind the tried and true maxim of every battle that a forceful blow has always been the best parry. Evidently compelled by this logic of things, the Russian minister of war — Kerensky, as well as the majority of the proletarian and soldier masses decided to go on the offensive.

However, all further active warfare, every new military offensive by the Russians, does not — according to the logic of the objective state of affairs at the moment — serve the defence of the Russian Revolution, but rather the interests of Entente imperialism. No peace formulae, however radical and democratic they may be, can eliminate the conspicuous fact that every military action undertaken by Russia benefits the imperialist war aims of England, France and Italy, i.e., although the Russian Republic proclaims to be fighting a purely defensive war, in reality it participates in an imperialist one, and, while it appeals to the right of nations to self-determination, in practice it is aiding and abetting the rule of imperialism over foreign nations.

But, what is the situation now that Russia refuses to undertake any offensive and limits herself militarily — as in the first months after the outbreak of the revolution — to a passive, wait-and-see attitude, merely remaining on stand-by alert just to ward off possible German attacks? With this passivity — which is in itself only a half-measure, a way of avoiding the war problem and not of ending it — Russia has rendered incalculable services to German imperialism by permitting it to concentrate its main forces against the Western front, and, to a certain extent, covering its rear in the East. Thus the Russian Republic finds itself between Scylla and Charybdis. If it wants to pull itself out of the genocidal snare through a separate peace, then it will betray the international proletariat and its own fate to German imperialism. But if it is unable to achieve a general peace on its own, then the only choice left is between active warfare, with with it caters to the interests of Entente-imperialism, and passive warfare, i.e., military inactivity, with which it is sure to promote the affairs of German imperialism.

This is the actual state of affairs in the Russian republic — a tragic situation in which the beautiful formula of peace, which everyone welcomed like a redeeming magic word, does not change the slightest. And this state of affairs determines that the Russian proletariat, in spite of all its heroic struggle and victories, in spite of its display of power against the war and imperialism, is in reality condemned today to be a plaything of imperialism, and that every tactic that it may adopt ultimately benefits imperialism. There is simply — as paradoxical as this may sound — no correct tactic that the Russian proletariat could follow today: whichever it chooses, it will be wrong. And there is a very good, deep reason for that. By reason of its historical character and its objective causes, the present world war is an international contest between the imperialist powers, which cannot be transformed in one corner, in one country, by one participant, even with the best of intentions, into its opposite — a democratic national defense war. Caught by the wheel of the world imperialist catastrophe, the Russian Republic cannot evade the consequences of this catastrophe on its own; not only can it not extricate itself from the wheel on its own, but also even the wheel cannot come to a standstill by itself. Only a proletarian world revolution can liquidate the imperialist world war. The contradictions in which the Russian Revolution is inextricably involved are nothing but the practical expression of the fundamental antithesis between the revolutionary policy of the Russian proletariat and the grovelling policies (Kadaverpolitik) of the European proletariat, between the class-conscious action of the masses of the people in Russia and the treachery of the German, English, and French working masses to their own class interests and to socialism.

Those who calm themselves with the formation of oppositional minority groups or parties and with corresponding individual advances in parliaments and thereby deem the honor of international socialism to be saved, always forget that the real fate of socialism can be decided not by conventions and in parliamentary gossip chambers, but only by the great action of the popular masses. As long as the masses do not move, as is the case to this day, all “independent” conventicles, including their resolutions, conferences and memoranda, weigh as much as the chaff in the wind.

II: The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat

But the fate of the Russian revolution is even more fatally interlinked with the world war than a superficial glance at the present affairs would indicate. The overthrow of the Tsarist regime, which according to the liberal view was the entire content of the Russian revolution, only makes for its brief prologue. As the fruit of the whole capitalistic development, the revolution in its further logical progression does not think of leaving it at these accomplishments, at which the cretinism of the “public opinion” of Europe, the one of Social Democracy included, would like it to come to a halt.

Its natural tendency leads to a general confrontation of the classes in the bosom of Russian society, where the leading role must naturally fall to the most advanced and most radical class, the industrial proletariat. The goal, towards which this development is headed, is inevitably the dictatorship of the socialist proletariat. Precisely because the fight against imperialism and for peace became from the first moment the axis of political revolution, did the the flagbearer of this fight, the socialist working class, move at once to the foreground and has through the coalition ministry [4] already seized half of the administrative helm.

Only the coalition ministry is in itself a half-measure which burdens socialism with all of the responsibility, without giving it the full possibility to realise its programme. It is a compromise, which, like all compromises, is doomed to eventual fiasco. The new coalition ministry will sooner or later, by virtue of the inner logical development, have to be replaced by a purely socialist government, i.e. the actual and formal dictatorship of the proletariat. But here begins the fate of the Russian revolution. The dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia — in case the international proletarian does not back it in time — is doomed to a deafening defeat, which will easily eclipse even the fate of the Paris Commune.

Above all, the Russian revolution unravels social and political problems, which in themselves cannot be solved other than on an international scale. The inevitable disruption of the bourgeois forms of ownership by the imminent solution of the Agrarian Question, the shaking of the capitalistic forms of exploitation by a radical restructuring of labour relations, which must be strived towards by the Russian working class, the disruption of the bourgeois state by a true people’s rule — all of this is impossible to fit into the framework of modern Europe, into the framework of the most extreme military reaction, as it has come to power unchecked and unrestrained in all countries since the outbreak of the world war.

The closer the dictatorship of the proletariat draws in Russia, the more the inevitable relapse of the Russian bourgeoisie into the arms of counter-revolution ripens. The Russian bourgeoisie now endures the yoke of popular sovereignty only with deeply concealed resentment and hate, and only for as long as the war lasts, i.e. for as long as the masses are armed and have the fate of the country in their hands. Once the war is over, the thrust of the Milyukovs, Rodziankos and cohorts from the left to the furthest right immediately follows, and there can be no doubt that both strata — the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry — which follow the urban proletariat today, will then for the most part stab it in the back, reinforced by the lumpenproletariat and all elements of the deposed Tsarist regime that are still suppressed today. Even the willingness with which the liberal bourgeoisie accepted the dominant position of the socialists and demanded their participation in the government, certainly corresponds not merely to the predicament, but also to the calculation and the intention to burden the socialists with a part of the responsibility and possibly soon the entire responsibility for the government affairs with all their insurmountable difficulties, in order to compromise socialism like so and to evoke all counterrevolutionary elements in resistance against it.

Finally, the nearer the dictatorship of the proletariat draws in Russia, the more the crusade of the whole European Bourgeoisie against the Russian republic prepares itself. In the Entente countries it is already well underway and finds its expression in the mudslide of defamation of the revolution, which rolls through the bourgeois presses of these countries: Matin, Morning Post, Stampa, Corriere della Sera, which report tales about murder, arson, plunder, anarchy, bankruptcy and liquidation daily. Through the slander campaign, which is wholly reminiscent of the behavior of the European bourgeois press towards the Paris Commune, the public opinion of Europe is being systematically incited against the Russian revolution, mobilising and preparing all bourgeois instincts for the crusade against Russia.

For now the official Germany and Austria constitute an exception, whose behavior is reservedly benevolent — due to very clear reasons: For them, the Russian revolution is the most important card in the current war situation. The Central Powers regard it as a convenient object for exploitation and speculation, both due to the military restraints of Russia itself, as well as the pressure which Russia exerts on the Entente countries in the direction towards peace and the diminishing of the war objectives. But with that, the favorably reserved disposition of official Germany towards the revolution persists for only as long as the war lasts. As soon as the war is over, whatever its outcome — and especially if the outcome is halfway favorable for the German position of power — the natural antagonism between the Prussian-German military and police state and the Russian republic will break through with all of its restrained violence. The Central Powers have far more valid reasons for their struggle against revolutionary Russia than England, France or Italy. Above all because Germany, as well as Austria, as the most regressive states of Europe, have safeguarded the largest inventory of reaction against revolutionary threats; furthermore, because they are in the immediate vicinity of the revolution; finally, because if a European revolution broke out, Germany would in accordance with its leading capitalist position — as the ruling classes instinctively sense — become the center of the international revolution.

From this it follows that the period for the unhindered development of the Russian revolution is as long as the war lasts. The continuance of the war is its historic reprieve, and the Russian proletariat thus basically struggles, by struggling for the general peace, for the noose around its own neck. If peace comes about as a bad concoction, as a result of an understanding between the capitalist governments and not as the work of the European uprising of the proletariat, then it will free the hands of the Russian bourgeoisie, the Entente powers, and especially Germany, so that all of them can descend on the Russian proletariat on the next day and drown the common enemy of “order” in Europe in rivers of blood. The Entente press already prepares the pretexts, the slogans and the psychological atmosphere for this turnaround. The Stockholm Socialist International [5] however, which as negotiator for the imperialist governments prepares a “mutual peace” between them, acts, without suspecting it, as the accomplice of the prospective black international, which on the day after the conclusion of peace will deal the fatal blow to the Russian revolution.

III: Stockholm

If the first precondition for the resurrection of international socialism is the reckoning with the policies of the 4th of August [On August 4th, 1914, the German Reichstag voted to grant war bonds, permitting Germany to join the first World War — ed.] in all countries and the return to active class struggle, then the Stockholm Conference with all its bells and whistles is the surest means to prevent it. The renunciation of governmental socialism requires a thorough and sweeping process of self-critique, the clarification and distinction of genuinely socialist elements from the bourgeois policies conducted under the guise of socialism. This process, which has already started in all countries and has made certain progress, but which is by large only in its infancy, is now once again completely halted by the Stockholm “deliberations.” Here, the most heterogeneous elements and tendencies congregate under a common slogan of peace and jointly work on its preparation. Social-imperialists of the Scheidemannian tendency and the opposition of Haase-Ledebourian observance, warmongers and proponents of an unbridled submarine war [6] from the General Commission of German Trade Unions and representatives of the Russian workers’ and soldiers’ council, socialist ministers in bourgeois and imperialist governments à la Stauning and Albert Thomas and socialist ministers in the revolutionary council, minority-socialist from the Entente countries and majority-socialists from the Central Powers, speculations of the German government and fiery slogans of the Russian Revolution meet here in a great mess, an utter confusion, where any clarification and separation is hopelessly drowned out by the hokum of “preparation of peace.”

What is really being prepared in all this muddle is not peace, but mutual reconciliation between the “neutral” and the “belligerent” socialists, mutual absolution and a general amnesty for past sins, and the restoration of the old International as a maison de tolerance for socialist treachery. The opposition of Haase-Kautskyan tendency, eveready to sacrifice the ongoing, fundamental interests of socialism in favour of an immediate opportunity lying right in front of their noses, now blindly chases after the fascinating phantom of “peace,” and is ready to “participate in every conference” for its sake, to make “peace” together with the Devil and Beelzebub, of course, under copious “care” and “reservations” against the governmental socialism, which have just as much relevance as the famous “reservations” as a principled nature coupled with voting for the budget or war credits. The fact, that governmental socialists of all countries, i.e. people who in reality wage the war, are being admitted to this “peace effort” in itself converts this whole initiative into a worthy continuation of the prostitution of socialism conducted for three years by the war policies of August 4th.

But the immediate result of the Stockholm hokum is another disastrous misdirection of the masses, who, instead of learning again and again to understand its own revolutionary action in all countries as the only real factor for peace, are conversely fobbed off to hope and abide on the gibberish of their so-called leaders in Stockholm, on the “memorandums”, “negotiations”, “agreements” of a few dozen pothouse politicians, who in reality represent nothing but the howling wretchedness of their political bankruptcy in their own countries. Thus, the working masses of Europe are once again being distracted from the sense of their own responsibility and from their own initiative and being lulled into passivity.

But that’s not all. Contentwise, the Stockholm peace farce has — and this is where its focus lies — shaped itself into a preparatory work for the future diplomatic congress of the governments. Socialist peacework will consist of the negotiation about the future political map of Europe, of the question of annexations, reparations etc. Instead of discussing the duties of class struggle, the ways and means to bring about peace through the proletariat’s own initiative, instead of creating a program for the composition of socialist and political conditions by the revolutionary proletariat in the sense of socialism, here, the representatives of the proletariat work for the bourgeoisie. Socialists here, in the sweat of their brow, are proceeding to prepare the agreement between capitalist governments, in complete blindness to the fact that every “agreed peace” of the present governments must be a peace and agreement against the proletariat and at its own expense, must be a trade in which its own skin is put at stake [seine Haut zu Markte tragen].

What helps in evoking the superficial appearance of socialist policies at the Stockholm show and therefore contributes most to the deception of the masses is the formula raised by the Russian workers’ and soldiers’ council: peace without annexations and reparations on the basis of the right to the self-determination of nations.

With the Russian proletariat, the focus lies of course not in this formula, but in the fact that it has imposed its own peace policy on the bourgeoisie of its country in general. The actual factor of peace in Russia is the completed revolution and the position of power of the socialist workforce, which stands behind this peace formula.

Concerning the magic formula itself, having been taken up with jubilation by socialists in the rest of Europe, it has nothing in common with socialist policy. It is the formula of a negative outcome of the world war, a failed, drawn trial of strength of imperialism, it is the formula of the postponed decision, the resting period of the military powers until the next dance. This formula actually also corresponds for the main part to the present situation and the needs of German imperialism, which already accepted that its plans for global domination will not prevail this time, and is only concerned with getting themselves off the hook as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Entente governments who are still waiting for decisive military success are not interested in this formula for now. With the factual unsolvability of the bloody conflict by military means, the formula nevertheless objectively corresponds to the interests of the ruling classes of all countries and leads in its positive content to a restoration of the status quo.

But what does the return to the pre-war state of affairs mean? It is a restoration of the balance of power before the outbreak of the world war, therefore a restoration of old state borders, i.e. the old annexations, the past colonial possessions, the former hegemony of the great military states, their past economic rule over the “spheres of interest,” in short, the restoration of all the conditions created by the long string of past wars and the most recent imperialist developments. And this status quo obviously includes together with the old state borders and old outwardly power structures the old internal balance of power: the bourgeois class society, the capitalist state and imperialism as omnipotent power, as a general foundation.

This is the positive content of the charming negative formula. The obviousness with which socialist parties take up this peace formula as their own here, which means nothing but the conservation and reinforcement of capitalist class rule, as the creation of a modus vivendi [an agreement that allows conflicting parties to coexist in peace — ed.] for the imperialism gone wild, this self-evidence is distinctive for the appalling confusion that has taken place in socialist circles of all countries since the outbreak of the war. In reality, the Stockholm “preparation for peace” under the slogan of “no annexations, no reparations” is a direct continuation of the policies of August 4th, i.e. the resignation of the proletariat as a class with its own policies and action, continuation of the dogsbody services to the ruling classes and to imperialism.

Certainly, this slogan is wrapped in a very radical and socialist-sounding principle: the right to self-determination of nations. Supposedly, herein shall persist the new, the democratic in the order of things to be restored. It suffices to merely pose the question of practical viability of this principle, to unmask it as an empty buzzword. How and for whom shall this self-determination of nations be realized now at the conclusion of the peace agreement anyway? Only for the peoples of the currently militarily occupied territories? That would mean to legitimize all of the previous land grabs committed under the rule of capitalism, all its haggling and colonial politics, excluding its victims from the principle of self-determination! Or shall any and all oppressed and annexed nations and countries of the earth in all states henceforth be brought to the voting box and asked about their desired destiny? Whoever asks or expects such from today’s governments should first of all have their mental sanity examined — apart from the whole idea of a “referendum” of nations on the question of their state affiliation in itself being a pipe dream that does not take class contradictions and a thousand other real circumstances into account at all.

With the principle of national self-determination, socialists are propelling just as crude a nonsense as the capitalist governments with their “liberation of nations” and “national defense.” As little as an imperialist war constitutes national defense or national liberation, just as little can the right to self-determination of nations be realized in the framework of and under the reign of capitalist states. The only actual requirement for the self-determination of nations is the socialist revolution, i.e. the political and economic self-determination of the working classes as the real masses of every nation. As long as capitalist class rule persists, however — and the essence of the peace formula “no annexations, no reparations” indeed assumes the immovability of this class rule — the self-determination of nations remains a crude mystification, just good enough to misdirect the proletarian masses of all nations.

Indeed, in the fog of this phrase, the Entente governments, who pretend to protect “small nations” and only continue the genocide for their sake, encounter president Wilson, who plunged the United States into a war at the behest of his capital magnates exclusively for the rights of nations, Milyukov, the liberal gusher and poet of Russian imperialism, Kautsky, the substitute theoretician of the Haasian stand-in position, Schiedemann, the has-been errand boy of Bethmann-Hollweg and any and all lousy musicians of socialism in neutral countries.

Certainly, the Russian workers’ and soldiers’ council as well, and the Russian socialist parties too! Here alone, if ever, the phrase applies: If two do the same, then it is not the same. The Russian proletariat has done its duty, and continues to do so; it put its peace policy into practice by making a revolution, and is in the act of taking the reigns into its own hands. It can not do more for peace, as the proletarian masses of other countries have the floor now. As long as they don’t move, continuing to starve, murder and be murdered unshakably under the command of imperialism, the Russian proletariat has simply no choice but to spin around in a circle of irreconcilable contradictions and to cling to the straws of a socialist shimmering phraseology. The first call by the Petersburg workers’ and soldiers’ council “To the Peoples of the World” on March 27th corresponds to real socialist peace policy. [7] The current peace formula is merely the concession of the Russian working class to the unfortunate fact that this call has so far remained a voice in the desert.

IV: The Alternative

The Stockholm-style peace action, which consists in bringing about an understanding between the belligerent governments, paving the way for them through a common formula of war objectives and preventing a shift in the position of power of the imperialist states, is therefore purely bourgeois politics. Proletarian class policy must push the peace action onto entirely different tracks.

International socialism does not have to see to it that the imperialist governments come to an understanding amongst themselves and make peace on their own, but conversely has to mobilize all its might to prevent peace from happening this way, i.e. as a deed of capitalist governments. The only task and the vital interest of international socialist currently is to achieve that peace through the work of the international proletariat and its revolutionary action, to acquire it in the struggle against the capitalist governments as the product of the position of power of the proletariat and to bring about a radical shift in the social and political conditions of the capitalist states. From the standpoint of the proletarian class, there is simply no other means to stop the imperialist genocide than open resistance of the popular masses, which at the same time has to itself grow into the struggle for political power in the state. It is exactly the same alternative that international socialism faced on August 4th, 1914, and it is only when one has understood and grasped the complete inevitability of this world-historical decision that the tragic fate of socialism in the world war ceases to be an incomprehensible riddle.

Only political innocence of the type of the Haase opposition can persuade itself that the entire problem of socialism on the 4th of August would be exhausted in the question of whether or not social-democratic parliamentarians would vote for war credits. According to this banal view, peculiar to parliamentary cretinism, socialism would be saved if 110 men in the Reichstag denied to grant the credits, but otherwise advised the working masses to fulfill their “civic duty,” i.e. to calmly play the role of cannon fodder in the imperialist genocide. The socialist virtue thereby should have been upheld in a cheap way while also avoiding any risk. But history does not make it so comfortable for socialism, and the problem did not lie in the vote of a handful of social-democratic parliamentarians in the formerly leading country of socialism — Germany. The vote for or against the war credits by the parliamentarians was important only as a signal to the masses to adopt this or that tactic, as a prelude to the development of the positive program of class struggle in the war. The refusal of credit on the 4th of August would have only made sense as a declaration of war against the war and imperialism all along the line — tied in with an open unravelling of a revolutionary program of action and an appeal to the masses to, through its uprising, take the organization of national defense, i.e. the political power, into its own hands. Another way to oppose the outbreak of the war in earnest — through deeds and not through phrases — did not exist back then, as there is none today.

However, if one shied away from this only viable path of struggle, then there would be nothing left but a complete abandonment of any struggle and any policy of one’s own, i.e. political resignation. The war budget approval and the policies of August 4th were then the only logical consequences that imposed themselves with compelling force, since there was no middle course in that world-historical situation. International socialism faced an either/or. Either struggle for political power or swing back into the ruling government policy in bankruptcy. The same situation persists since the outbreak of the war, and today, in the face of the peace problem, history holds the same certificate of debt in front of the European working class with the relentlessness of a usurer: “Ay, his breast, so says the bond!” [The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1 — ed.] Only with its chest in the great open power struggle of the proletarian masses is socialism able to banish the world war. If socialism does not do that, then it remains — despite, or in fact precisely because all the babble about peace, that strives for a settlement between the belligerent powers — the stooge of imperialism, the footstool of bourgeois class rule, thus the direct opposite of itself and can then, after achieving such a peace, abdicate as a historical factor for a decade.

The seemingly sore point of real socialist policy in war is that revolutions can not be made on command. This argument is intended to serve as an excuse for both the position of the proletariat at the outbreak of the genocide and for its current position on the question of peace and as a cover for socialist self-prostitution. However, the seemingly sweeping “practical” objection is nothing but an excuse. Of course, revolutions can not be made on command. But this is not the task of the socialist party at all. The only duty is to fearlessly “speak out what is happening” at all times, i.e. to clearly and precisely show the masses their tasks at the given historical moment, to proclaim the political program of action and the slogans that result from the situation. Socialism must confidently leave the concern of whether and when the revolutionary mass uprising attaches itself to the task to history itself. If socialism fulfils its duty in this sense, then it acts as a powerful factor in unleashing the revolutionary elements of the situation and contributes to the acceleration of the outbreak of mass actions. But even in the worst case, if it initially seems like a call in the desert, which the masses refuse to follow, socialism creates itself, as it always and inevitably turns out at the end of the calculation, as a moral and political position, the fruits of which it later reaps with interest on interest when the hour of historical fruition strikes. The current Russian revolution, in which the socialists occupy an unprecedented position of power, is only a receipt for the decades-long unwavering calling in the desert by the Russian social-democracy for a mass revolution in what seemed to be a completely hopeless situation under the banner of proletarian class policy as the only way out of the shackles of absolutism.

Conversely, when the socialist parties deny the class struggle, as they have done since August 4th to this day, they transform themselves into the most effective means of paralyzing the masses, that is, into a counter-revolutionary factor. International socialism indeed functions, since the outbreak of the world war, as the most reliable guardian of bourgeois class rule. And it stays true to this function in this moment in particular, by using, under the banner of the Stockholm conference, its whole strength for the accommodation of the imperialist governments, thus for the restoration of imperialism into its position of power before the war.

In reality, with this, international socialism is not preparing the end of the war, but a burial shroud after the conclusion of peace, first for the Russian revolution and then for itself as a factor in modern world history. Today, just as three years ago, there is only the alternative: war or revolution! Imperialism or socialism! To proclaim this loudly and clearly and to draw from it, each in his own country, the revolutionary consequences — that is the only proletarian-socialist peace work which is possible today.

Footnotes

[1] Paul Frölich — Rosa Luxemburg; her life and work, pp. 206–207

[2] The February 1917 revolution was a bourgeois-democratic revolution, through which Tsarism was overthrown. Since no class held all of the power, a dual power developed. The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry was realized by the Petrograd Soviet of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, whose chairman was the Menshevik N.S. Chkheidze, and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the form of the Provisional Government was led by Prince G.J. Lvov. To it belonged the leader of the Cadets, P.N. Milyukov as foreign minister, and as minister of war and the navy A.I. Guchkov — the leader of the Octobrists.

The domestic and foreign policy of the Provisional Government was oriented towards the consolidation of the foundations of capitalism and the continuation of the war, intensifying the class conflicts.

[3] In an appeal to the citizens of Russia on March 28, 1917, the Provisional Government tried to disguise its imperialist policy by declaring that the goal of Russia was not ruling over other peoples and the conquest of foreign territories, but peace on the basis of the right of self-determination of nations. But at the same time, it was stressed that Russia would keep all of the commitments made by Tsarism towards the imperialist states of England and France.

[4] Due to its imperialist policy, the Provisional Government got into a crisis in April 1917. Powerful demonstrations by workers and soldiers forced it to maneuver. In order to maintain the previous counter-revolutionary character of government policy, a coalition government was formed in May 1917, where not only the representatives of the bourgeoisie but also the representatives of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks took part.

[5] A Dutch-Scandinavian committee of the International Socialist Bureau had invited all socialist workers’ parties and organizations of the warring countries to a conference in Stockholm in May 1917 “for the purpose of examining the international situation.” While the parties from the Entente countries declined, the SPD, with the approval and active support of German government agencies, sent a delegation to the preparatory meetings in June, among which were, from the party executive and others, Friedrich Ebert, Hermann Müller and Philipp Scheidemann. The Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik-led Petrograd Soviet of the Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, which had also been invited, initially did not accept the proposal of the Dutch-Scandinavian committee, but instead invited the socialists of all countries who were against the war and for a democratic peace without annexations and contributions out of tactical considerations — hoping for the participation of the Entente-socialists — to a conference in Stockholm in July 1917. After a discussion between the Russian representatives and representatives of the Dutch-Scandinavian committee, which had to postpone the conference, it was decided to organize a joint peace conference. The Zimmerwald Left, especially the Bolsheviks and the Spartacus Group, protested against a conference with the participation of the social-chauvinists and caused the International Socialist Commission, as organ of the Zimmerwald movement, to refuse to sign the invitation to the right-socialist conference. Since the English and and French governments refused to allow delegates from their countries to travel to Stockholm, the conference did not take place.

[6] Germany declared the unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1st, through which all ships in a specified sea area around England and France were threatened by torpedoing without warning.

[7] The Petersburg workers’ and soldiers’ council [the Petrograd Soviet] called on the peoples of the world to take the decision over war and peace in their own hands and to conduct joint actions for peace in an appeal on March 27th 1917. The German proletariat in particular was called upon to shake off the yoke of absolutism and refuse to be exploited for the war.