Luiblanism- Blancism, Lenin
Luiblanism has now won a complete victory in the "Social Democracy" of the right flank, the OC party, in Russia. Chkheidze, Tsereteli, Steklov and many others, who are now leaders of the Petrograd Soviet of Soldiers' and Workers' Deputies, and who were also leaders of the All-Russian Conference of Soviets, which ended the other day, took exactly the position of Louis Blanc.
In all the main questions of modern political life, these leaders, who stand on the point of view of an approximately international trend of the "centre", Kautsky, Longuet, Turati and many others, found themselves precisely in the petty-bourgeois position of Louis Blanc. Take for instance the question of war.
The proletarian point of view consists in a clear class characterization of the war and in irreconcilable hostility to the imperialist war, i.e., to a war between groups of capitalists (no matter monarchical or republican) countries due to the division of capitalist booty.
The petty-bourgeois point of view differs from the bourgeois one (direct justification of war, direct "defense of the fatherland," i.e., defense of the "interests" of its capitalists, defense of their "rights" to annexations) in that the petty bourgeois "renounces" annexations, "condemns "imperialism" "demands" from the bourgeoisie that it ceases to be imperialist, remaining within the framework of world imperialist ties and the capitalist economic system. Limiting himself to this kind, harmless, empty declamation, the petty bourgeois in fact only helplessly trudges behind bourgeoisie, “sympathizing” with the proletariat in words in some ways, remaining dependent on the bourgeoisie in deeds, unable or unwilling to understand the path leading to the overthrow of the capitalist yoke, the only one capable of delivering humanity from imperialism.
To “demand” the bourgeois governments to make a “solemn declaration” in the spirit of the denial of annexations is the height of audacity for the petty bourgeois and an example of anti-imperialist, “Zimmerwaldist” consistency. It is not difficult to see that this is Louis Blancism of the worst type. First, any experienced bourgeois politician will never find it difficult to utter as many "brilliant", showy, resonant, saying nothing, non-committal phrases against annexations "in general". And when it comes down to business, you can at least focus on the way Rech did the other day, which had the melancholy courage to declare that Courland (now annexed by the predatory imperialists of bourgeois Germany) is not an annexation of Russia!!
This is the most outrageous trickery, the most intolerable deception of the workers by the bourgeoisie, for anyone who is at all politically literate will have to admit that Courland has always been an annexation of Russia.
We make an open and direct challenge to Rech:
1) let it present to the people such a political definition the concept of "annexation", which would refer to all annexations in the world, and German, and English, and Russian, and past and present, to all without exception;
2) let it say clearly and precisely what it means, in its opinion, to renounce annexations not in words but in deeds. Let her give such a political definition of the concept of "renunciation of annexations in deed" that (the definition) would apply not only to the Germans, but also to the British and to all peoples who have ever committed annexations in general.
We affirm that Rech will either evade our challenge or be exposed by us before the whole people. And it is precisely in view of the question of Courland touched upon by Rech that our dispute is not theoretical, but practical, the most urgent, the most vital, the most topical of the day.
Secondly. Let us even assume, if only for a moment, that the bourgeois ministers are the ideal of conscientiousness, that the Guchkovs, Lvovs, Miliukovs and Co. most sincerely believe in the possibility of renouncing annexations while preserving capitalism and want to renounce them.
Let's even allow this for a second, let's make this Louis Blanc assumption.
The question is, can an adult be satisfied with what people think of themselves without checking it with what they do? Can a Marxist fail to distinguish wishes and statements from objective reality?
No. Cannot.
Annexations are held together by the bonds of financial, banking, and imperialist capital. This is the modern, economic basis of annexations. Annexation is, on this side, a politically guaranteed profit from billions of capital "placed" in thousands and thousands of enterprises in the annexed countries.
It is impossible, even if desired, to renounce annexations without taking decisive steps towards overthrowing the yoke of capital.
Does that mean, as Yedinstvo, Rabochezya Gazeta, and the other “Louis Blancs” of our petty bourgeoisie are ready to conclude and actually do conclude, that we must not take any decisive steps towards overthrowing capitalism, that we must accept at least a modicum of annexations?
No. We must take decisive steps towards the overthrow of capital. They must be done skillfully and gradually, relying only on the consciousness and organization of the overwhelming majority of workers and the poorest peasants. But these steps must be taken. And the Soviets of Workers' Deputies in a number of places in Russia have already started doing them.
Next in the order of the day is a decisive, irrevocable demarcation with Louis Blanc, Chkheidze, Tsereteli, the Steklovs, the OK party, the S.-R. and so on and so forth. Explaining to the masses that the Louis Blancism is and will ruin the success of the further revolution, even the success of freedom, if the masses do not understand the harm of these petty-bourgeois illusions and do not join the class-conscious workers in their cautious, gradual, deliberate, but firm and immediate steps towards socialism.
Outside of socialism there is no salvation for mankind from wars, from famine, from the death of millions and millions more people.
Pravda, No. 27, April 8, 1917
Signed: Lenin
MLDG
.jpg)
No comments