The Collapse of the Second International/Chapter 4

by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

CHAPTER IV.

Socialist Jingoism : Can the War be Justified from a Working-class Point of View.

What is the explanation of the betrayal of Socialism by the “leaders” of the Second International The two chief apologists for Socialist jingoism are Plek­hanov and Kautsky. Plekhanov repeats the bourgeois arguments of Hyndman, etc., but Kautsky is more subtle. Theoretically, Kautsky’s arguments appear better founded. The most hackneyed apology for the betrayal of Socialism in the crude excuse of defence against “oppression.” “We were attacked and are defending ourselves,” therefore, it is argued, that “the interests of the proletariat demand that we oppose those who violate the peace of Europe.” This is but a re-hash of the declarations of every government and of the vapourings of the yellow press. “We must find the aggressor and make short shrift of him, postponing all other questions until a further occasion,” says Plek­hanov in his pamphlet “On War,” Paris 1914, and Axelrod echoes this in the Golos, No.’s 86 and 87. Plekhanov substitutes sophistry for dialectics. One can find “arguments” to prove anything under the sun, Hegel has rightly said. Sophistry picks out one plausible argument and parades it, but dialectics demand a many-sided investigation of any given subject. To get at the truth we must investigate social phenomena in the course of its development: seek beneath the exter­nal surface manifestations of the driving forces, and examine their relations to the productive forces and the class struggle.

Plekhanov picks out a quotatios from the German S.D. press and draws attention to the fact that the Germans themselves, before the war, regarded Austria and Germany as the aggressors―this, in his eyes, caps the argument. He passes over in silence the fact that Russian Socialists have repeatedly exposed the plans of conquest of Tsarism in regard to Galicia, Armenia, and so forth. He makes no attempt to touch upon the economic and diplomatic history of the last three decades. The history of this period proves irrefutably that it was the seizure of colonies, the plunder of foreign lands, and the struggle between competitors for markets that formed the main pivot upon which turned the policy of the two groups of powers at present at war ^[1]

As applied to wars, the fundamental proposition of dialectics, so shamelessly distorted by Plekhanov to please the bourgeoisie, consists in that "war is merely a continuation of politics by other (namely by violent) means.” Thus it is formulated by Clausewitz,^[2] one of the great writers on questions of military history, whose ideas have been fructified by Hegel. Such was always the point of view of Marx and Engels, who regarded every war as a continuation of the policy of certain interested powers―and of divers classes within it―at a given time.

Plekhanov’s coarse jingoism occupies the same posi­tion as the more refined conciliatory jingoism of Kautsky, when the latter blesses, by the following argument, the passage of the Socialists of all countries over to the side of “their” capitalists.

Everyone has the right, and is bound, to defend his country; true internationalism consists in recognising that the Socialists of all nations, including the nations at war with mine, have this right (see “Neue Zeit,” October 2nd, 1914, and other writings of the same author).

This argument, of which there is no like, is such a vulgar mockery of Socialism that the best answer to it would be to strike a medal with the heads of William II. and Nicholas II. on the one side, and of Plekhanov and Kautsky on the other. True internationalism, then, lies in justifying French workmen when they fire at German workmen, and the German workmen when they fire at the French―in the name of "national defence"!

Yet, if we take a closer look at the theoretical premises of Kautsky’s arguments we arrive at the view which was laughed out of court by Clausewitz 80 years ago. Kautsky’s argument amounts to this: "When a war begins the political relations between nations and classes, evolved historically, cease to exist, and quite a different situation arises! There are simply those who attack and those who defend themselves." The oppres­sion of a whole series of nations, which form more than half the population of the world, by the Great Imperialist Powers, competition between the bourgeoise of these countries arising out of a division of the booty, the attempt of capital to split and crush the labour movement―all these facts have suddenly vanished from Plekhanov and Kautsky’s field of vision, though they themselves, in the course of decades before the war, outlined a policy based upon these facts.

Slanderous references to Marx and Engels constitute the "chief" arguments of these two leaders of Socia­list jingoism. Plekhanov recalls the national war of Prussia in 1813, and of Germany in 1870; Kautsky proves, with a learned mien, that Marx weighed the question as to which bourgeoise side was more desirable in the wars of 1854-1855, 1859, and 1870-1871. Kautsky also proves that the Marxist reflected likewise regard­ing the wars of 1876-1877 and 1897. The method of all sophists, at all times, has been to quote examples which unmistakably refer to cases different in principle. The former wars pointed out to us were a "continua­tion of the policy" pursued during many years by the nationalist movement of the bourgeoisie against foreign oppression by some other nationality and against absolutism (Turkish and Russian.) Apart from the question as to whether the success of one or the other bourgeoisie was preferable there could have been no other. There was no reason why Marxists should not have appealed to nations beforehand to take part in wars of a similar type by inflaming national hatred, as did Marx in 1848 and, later, in the war against Russia; and as Engels incited the national hatred of the Germans in 1859 against their oppressors Napoleon III. and Russian Tsarism.^[3]

To compare a "continuation of the policy" of the bourgeois struggle against feudalism and absolutism― the policy of the bourgeoisie which is liberating itself― with the "continuation of the policy" of a decrepit reactionary imperialist bourgeoise which has plundered the whole world, and which in close alliance with the feudal elements crushes the proletariat, is like comparing yards with hundredweights. It is like comparing Robespierre, Garibaldi, and Zhelabov, who were representatives of the bourgeoisie," with Millerand, Salandra, and Guchkov, who are also "representatives of the bourgeoisie." One cannot be a Marxist and fail to cherish the deepest regard for the great bourgeois revolutionaries who had a historical right to speak in the name of their bourgeois "fatherlands," which were raising new nations―comprising millions and tens of millions of men―to a civilised level of existence and sending them to battle against feudalism. And one cannot be a Marxist without feeling contempt for the sophistry of Plekhanov and Kautsky, who speak of "national defence" in connection with the throttling of Belgium by German imperialists, or in connection with the deals of the imperialists of England, France, Russia, and Italy concerning the plundering of Austria and Turkey. Socialist jingoism has another "Marxian" theory to the effect that Socialism is based on a speedy develop­ment of capitalism, that "my country’s development will accelerate the evolution which will hasten the advent of Socialism, whereas my country’s defeat would retard its economic development and likewise the inauguration of Socialism." Such a theory à la Struve, is being developed amongst us Russians by Plekhanov, and among the Germans by Lensch and others. Kautsky argues against this crude theory, in opposition to Lensch, who defends it openly, and against Cunow, who supports it in a more guarded way. But Kautsky argues merely to the end that he may bring about the reconciliation of the Socialist jingoes of all countries on the basis of a more refined and a still more jesuitical jingoistic theory.

We need not tarry over the examination of this crude theory. Struve’s "Critical Notes" appeared in 1894, and in the course of twenty years the Russian Socialists had ample time to acquaint themselves with this "method" whereby educated Russians of the middle class propagate their views and desires under the guise of "Marxism" purged of its revolutionary features. Struvism^[4] is not only a Russian, but, as recent events have shown most clearly, it is an international striving of bourgeois theoreticians, to kill Marxism "by kind­ness"; to strangle it in an embrace and by a would-be recognition of "all the truly scientific" aspects and elements of Marxism, save its "demagogic Utopian-Blanquist propaganda" aspect. To put it in other words, from Marxism is to be taken everything that is accep­table to the Liberal bourgeoisie, including the fight for reforms and the class struggle (without the dictatorship of the proletariat), including a "general" recognition of "Socialist ideals" and the substitution of a "new system" for capitalism. This means the destruction of the living soul of Marxism, its revolutionary charac­ter.

Marxism is a theory of the proletariat’s march to freedom. It is clear, therefore, that class-conscious workers must pay great attention to the process by which Struvism is being substituted for Marxism. The motive powers of this process are manifold and varied. We shall note the three principal:—

1. The development of science furnishes more and more material to prove that Marxism is right. There­fore, capitalism is obliged to fight it hypocritically, without openly opposing its basis and by pretending to recognise, by means of sophisms, its contentions. By thus castrating Marxism and transforming it into a "holy image," they hope to render it harmless to the bourgeosie.

2. The development of opportunism amongst social democracy upholds precisely such a "modification" оf Marxism and makes it serve the end of justifying all sorts of concessions to opportunism.

3. The period of imperialism means the division of the world between the "great" privileged nations which oppress all the others. Undoubtedly, certain crumbs from the plunder, arising out of these privileges and this oppression, fall to the lot of certain sections of the lower middle class, aristocracy, bureaucracy, and a privileged minority of the working class. This last section, which constitutes an infinitesimal section of the labouring class, has a leaning towards "Struvism," for it justifies their union with the national bourgeoisie as opposed to the oppressed masses of all nations. We shall have to come back to this question again when we discuss the causes of the collapse of the International.

1. "The War of Steel and Gold" by Brailsford (London, 1914. The book bears the date March, 1914), the English pacifist who is even prone to masquerade as a Socialist, is very instructive. The author recognises clearly that in a general way nationalist questions occupy a secondary place, and that they have already been solved (p. 35); that they do not constitute the main point and that "the typical question for contemporary diplomacy" (p. 36) is the Bagdad railway, furnishing it with rails, mines in Morocco, and so forth. The author rightly regards as one of the "most instructive" incidents in the latest history of European diplomacy the struggle of the French patriots and English imperialists against the attempts of Caillaux (in 1911 and 1913) to become reconciled to Germany on the bases of an agreement concerning the demarkation of colonial spheres of interest and concerning the admission of German securities to the Paris Stock Exchange. The English and French bourgeoisie rendered this attempt abortive (pp. 38-40). The object of imperialism is to export capital to the weaker countries (p.74). In 1899 the profits on this capital in England amounted to £90,000,000-£100,000,000 (Giffen), and to £140,000,000 in 1909 (Paish). Lloyd George, in a recent speech, reckoned these profits, let us add, at £200,000,000. Shady dealings with, and bribery of, Turkish nobility, soft jobs for sons in India and Egypt―these are things that matter (pp. 85-87). An insignificant majority derives gain from from armaments and wars, but it is supported by society and by financiers, whereas the adherents of peace are supported by a a divided population (p. 93). A pacifist who, to-day, talks of peace and disarmament, to-morrow turns out to be a member of a party which is completely dependent upon war contractors (p.161). If the Triple Entente turns out to be the more powerful it will capture Morocco and divide Persia; if the Triple Alliance turns out to be the more powerful it will take Tripoli, consolidate its position in Bosnia, and subdue Turkey (p. 167). London and Paris advanced millions to Russia in 1906, and thus assisted Tsarism to crush the liberation movement (pp. 225-8); at the present time England helps Russia to throttle Persia (p. 229). Russia instigated the Balkan war (p. 230). Of course there is nothing fresh in all this. These facts are known to all and have been repeated a thousand times in the Socialist Press of the whole world. On the eve of the war and English bourgeois sees all these things with surprising clearness. In the face of these simple and commonly known facts, what indecent nonsense, what unbearable hypocrisy, what sickening falsehoods are Plekhanov and Petresov's theories concerning the culpability of Germany, or the theories of Kantsky concerning "possibilities" of disarmament and a lasting peace under capitalism.
2. Carl von Clausewitz. "Voin Kriege," works. vol. i., p. 28. See vol. iii., pp. 139-140: "Everyone knows that wars are provoked only by the political relations which exist between governments and nations; generally people imagine that when war begins these relations cease, and that quite a different situation arises, subject to its own special laws. We assert the reverse: war is but a continuation of the political relations; through the employment of other means.
3. By the way. Mr. Gardenin, in the Zhizn, calls it "revolutionary Chauvinism" on the part of Marx who, in 1848, was in favour of a revolutionary war against the European nations, which by their action had proved counter-revolutionary―namely, the Slavs, and the Russians in particular. The fact that Marx is thus reproached merely proves the opportunism (or perhaps, more correctly, complete want of seriousness) of this Socialist Revolutionary of the "Left wing." We Marxists have always been, and still are, in favour of a revolutionary war against counter-revolutionary nations. For instance, if Socialism became victorious in Europe or America, and Japan and China made a move against us we should be in favour of waging an offensive revolutionary war upon these countries. Does this strike you as strange, Mr. Gardenin? You are a revolutionary of the type of Ropshin!
4. The teaching of Professor Struve, a well-known Russian Liberal.―Trans.