The Collapse of the Second International/Chapter 3

by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

CHAPTER III.

The Revolutionary Situation.

Did sincere Socialists stand up for the Raise resolu­tion because they foresaw that the war would create a revolutionary situation? Has the trend of events proved that these Socialists have been wrong?

Cunow, in his pamphlet, Has the Party Collapsed? and in a series of articles, tries to justify his passing over to the bourgeois camp by means of arguing from the above proposition. Most of the Socialist jingoes, led by Kautsky, attempt to reinforce their case by a similar line of reasoning. Cunow contends that the expectation that a revolution would break out proved to be an illusion, and it is not the duty of Marxians to defend illusions. Nevertheless, this adherent of Struve^[1] does not say a word about the “illusions” of the men who signed the Basle manifesto; like an “honourable” man he seeks to put the blame on men of the extreme left like Pannehoek and Radek.

Let us examine the argument that the authors of the Basle manifesto sincerely believed in the coming of a revolution, which the actual trend of events did not justify. The Basle manifesto says: (1) That the war will create an “economic and political crisis,” (2) that the workers will regard as a crime the participation in the war and “shooting at one another” to swell the profits of the capitalists and to satisfy the ambitions of dynasties, or to carry out the secret diplomatic treaties. The manifesto further says that the war would provoke “indignation and revolt” amongst the work­ing class, (3) that the Socialists must make use of the crisis and of the mental conditions of the workers indi­cated to “incite the people” and to hasten the downfall of capitalism, (4) that no Government, without excep­tion, could begin the war without imperilling its posi­tion, (5) that all Governments fear the oncoming approach of the proletarian revolution, (6) that the Paris Commune and the Russian revolution of 1905 must be borne in mind by the governments. All these thoughts are perfectly clear, though they contain no guarantee that the revolution will break out. The manifesto lays stress on clearly defined facts and tendencies. Those who, when referring to these thoughts and arguments portrayed in the manifesto, say that the expected revolution proved illusory, revealed not a Marxian, but a Struvist and reactionary police attitude towards the revolution. It is plain to Marxists that a revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation. But every revolutionary situation does not lead directly to a revolution.

What are, as a rule, the symptoms of a revolutionary situation? We shall certainly be on the right track in pointing out three main symptoms: (1) A ruling class finds it impossible to retain its domination intact, due to its passing through a crisis which stimulates the oppressed class to revolt against its rule. For revolu­tion to break out it is not enough for those at the bottom to be content to live as they did before, they must also see to it that it becomes impossible for those at the top to continue their old policy; (2) want and suffering are experienced by the oppressed class in a more intense degree than ordinarily; (3) the causes indicated compel increased activity amongst the masses. During "times of peace" they calmly allow them­selves to be fleeced, but in times of stress they are stimulated by the staging of the crisis, together with the action of those at the top, to enter the arena as an independent historical force. Without these objective changes independent of the will, not only of the separate groups and parties, but even of separate classes—revolution is, as a rule, impossible. Taken in the sum, these objective changes constitute what is called a revolutionary situation. Such a situation existed in Russia in 1905, and in all the revolutionary periods in the west. Such was also the situation in Germany in the sixties of the 19th century, and in 1859-1861 and 1879-1880 in Russia, though no revolution took place in these cases. And for what reason? Because a revolution is not produced by every revolu­tionary situation; it is produced when, in addition to the objective changes enumerated above, certain subjec­tive changes take place, viz., when a revolutionary class shows ability to take revolutionary mass action sufficiently forceful to break, or at least to damage, the existing government. Even in times of crisis, govern­ments do not "tumble down of their own accord," but require a force to "overthrow" them.

Such is the Marxian view of revolution, elaborated time after time and recognised as indisputable by all Marxists. The correctness of this view was, for us Russians, clearly confirmed by the experiences of 1905. The question now arises as to what was anticipated in this respect by the Basle manifesto in 1912 and what actually took place in 1914 and 1915.

A revolutionary situation was anticipated which was briefly described as an “economic and political crisis.” Did such a crisis arise? Undoubtedly it did. Lensch, the Socialist jingo (who is more honest and straight­ forward in his defence of jingoism than such hypocrites as Cunow, Kautsky, Plekhanov and Co), went as far as to say that “we are passing through a revolu­tion of a peculiar kind” (see his pamphlet “German Social-Democracy and the War,” p. 6, Berlin, 1915). The existence of a political crisis cannot be denied: not one of the governments was sure of the morrow; not one of them felt secure against financial collapse, or loss of territory, or even expulsion―as instance the Belgian Government―from its own country. The Governments to-day live on the top of a volcano and they all appeal to the self-activity and heroism of the masses. The political regime of the whole of Europe rocks on its foundations, and he must be blind who would deny that we have entered a period of great social upheavals.^[2]

Kautsky, two months after the outbreak of war, wrote in the Neue Zeit, October 2nd, 1914, that “a government is never so strong, nor the parties so feeble as at the beginning of a war.” This is one of the instances of Kautsky’s falsification of historical science in order to please the opportunists. A government is never so much in need of agreement amongst the parties of the ruling class and never so much in need of the submission of the oppressed classes as during the period of war. That is the first point. The second is, that a government only appears to be all-powerful at the outbreak of war, and this is largely due to the fact that the revolutionary situation does not arise simultaneously with the outbreak of war.

The present European war is a bigger affair than any in the past. The misery of the masses is greater, and the toll of life and suffering is frightful. The reper­cussion of these experiences tend to convulse the political foundations of Europe. Governments and Socialist opportunists alike pass over these facts in silence. Unrest and a vague desire for peace begins to manifest itself amongst the masses, and the longer the war lasts and the fiercer its character becomes, the quicker will develop the revolutionary activity of the working class―the class that is called upon to make the greatest efforts of self-sacrifice. The experiences of the war, even as the experience of some calamity in a man's life generally tends to stimulate him and make him wiser, will, in the long run, steel, strengthen, and enlighten the majority of the toilers.

The coming of "peace" will not put an end to these intensified antagonisms, but, on the contrary, it will bring home with awful vividness to the most backward section of the population the terrific calamities bred by imperialism and war. In a word, a revolutionary situation is present in most of the progressive countries of Europe. In this respect the anticipation of the Basle manifesto is fully justified. The jingo Socialists pass over this in silence, a thing tantamount to intent to deceive and mislead the working class.

How long is this revolutionary situation going to last, and how much more acute is it going to become? This we know not. It will only be by experience in the measure that the foremost class―the working class―evolves revolutionary methods and passes to revolutionary action. We internationalists have no illusions on the question of the outbreak of immediate revolution, and do not offer to guarantee the happenings of either to-day or to-morrow. But we realise that the fundamental duty of all Socialists is to point out to the workers the presence of a revolutionary situation, to explain its nature, and to awaken by insistent propaganda the revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat. Nor do we stop short at theorising, but advocate and help the workers to take up revolutionary action, building up for that purpose an organisation corresponding to the needs of the time.

Without illusions, the Basle manifesto lays down the correct attitude and duty of the Socialist Parties of all lands. That duty is to incite and stir up the working class to a consciousness of its deplorable position in society; not to lull it to sleep by means of jingoism, as has been done by Plekhanov and Axelrod in Russia, Kautsky and Cunow in Germany, Hyndman in England, and Thomas in France, etc., etc. It is the imperative duty of all Socialists to make use of the crisis to accelerate the collapse of capitalism. Guided by the example of the Paris Commune of 1871 and the Russian revolution of 1905, we must urge on the uprising of the oppressed of all lands. Those “Socialist” parties who have failed in this are guilty of the betrayal of Socialism, and have signed their own political death warrant. Their action constitutes their renunciation of international principles, and signifies their passing over to the side of the master class.

1. Prof. Strave, a professor of economics at Petrograd and a political opportunist.
2. I am writing this on the day of Italy’s declaration of war.