The Collapse of the Second International/Chapter 2

by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

CHAPTER II.

The Betrayal of Socialism by the Socialist Parties

Is there evidence that the principal Socialist parties of Europe have betrayed all their convictions and duties? The traitors, and those who know or vaguely guess that they will have to be friends with the former in the future, do not care to discuss the matter at all. But however disagreeable it may prove to various "authorities” of the second International, or to their friends amongst the Russian social democrats, we, who care more for socialism than anything else, must face the question squarely, must call things by their true names, and must not be afraid to tell the workers the truth.

Is there any material evidence showing how the socialist parties viewed their duties and tactics before the present war broke out, or even in anticipation of a world war? Certainly. We have the famous resolu­tion^[1] passed by the International Socialist Congress at Basle in 1912. We reprint that resolution, together with one passed at Chemnitz in the same year by the German Social Democrats.^[2]

The Basle resolution is a reminder of the forgotten words of International Socialism. It sums up the con­tents of an enormous quantity of propagandist litera­ture circulated in every country prior to the war. It represents a most complete and formal statement of the Socialist view of war, and of Socialist tactics in relation to war. We cannot help characterising as a betrayal the fact that not one of the authorities of the Inter­national of yesterday, who are the Socialist jingoes of to-day—men like Guesde, Kautsky, Hyndman and Plekhanov—dare remind his readers of the Basle reso­lution. They either pass it over in silence, or they only quote passages of secondary importance, and leave everything out that is essential, as is done by Kautsky. The fact that the most radical and revolutionary resolutions have been shamelessly forgotten, or repudiated, is the most striking; sign of the collapse of the second International. It is also a most striking proof that only men who are either hopelessly vain, or who desire to preserve the old hypocritical attitude, can now believe in merely “correcting socialism,” or in a policy of "straightening its line."

When, before the war—we can almost say yesterday—Hyndman took up the defence of imperialism, every "decent" Socialist regarded him as a crank and spoke of him with undisguised contempt. Today the most prominent leaders of social democracy in all countries have sunk to Hyndman’s level, the difference between them and the latter being but one of degree and tem­perament. It is impossible to use parliamentary lan­guage when criticising and condemning the lack of moral courage of the men who write in the Nashe Slovo and who speak contemptuously of "Mr." Hyndman, but who pass over in silence the utterances of Comrade Kautsky. Is this attitude towards Kautsky one of veneration—or is it servility? If we are convinced that Hyndman’s crude jingoism is as false as it is dan­gerous, then we should be more critical and more severe in our indictment of Kautsky in so far as his subtle and clever apology for imperialism is much more ruinous than the clumsy defence put forward by Mr. Hyndman.

In a pamphlet by Charles Dumas, entitled What Kind of Peace do we Desire, the views of Guesde^[3] are set forth in great detail by one of his disciples, who desig­nates himself as the "head of Jules Guesde’s Bureau." This author naturally enough “quotes” former patriotic declarations of Socialists. Likewise, the German Socialist-jingo, David, also “quotes” imperialis­tic statements, in his pamphlet on National Defence, which have been uttered by Socialists. But these writers never “quote” the famous Basle manifesto. Plekhanov, too, passes over the Basle manifesto and soothes himself by quoting, with an air of self-satisfaction, disgusting jingo banalities. And Kautsky follows Plekhanov’s example. When either Kautsky or Plekhanov do quote the Basle manifesto, they omit the essential paragraphs of that historic document, which emphasises the true revolutionary position. They may probably plead that these significant passages are omitted out of deference to the censor! Thus the police and military authorities render timely assistance to the traitors of Socialism in issuing their censorial decrees, which forbids one to speak of the class struggle and of revolutionary activity.

Perhaps, it may be stated, the Basle manifesto is merely a rhetorical appeal without substance and devoid of either historical significance or tactical value. The reverse is the case. In the Basle resolution there is less rhetoric and more concrete substance than in any other Socialist resolution. In it are references to the war which is now upon us. It speaks definitely of the imperialist conflicts which afterwards burst into open war in 1914-15. It critically examines the Austro-Serbian conflict over Albania. It deals with the Anglo-German struggle for markets and colonies. It analyses the Russo-Turkish quarrel over Armenia and Constan­tinople. The Basle resolution emphatically refers to the present war between the “great powers of Europe.’’ And it also distinctly points out that such a war cannot be justified by Socialist principles, nor by the supine plea that it is being waged in the interests of the people.

Let us take Plekhanov and Kautsky, two of the most typical Socialist authorities nearest at hand. The former writes in Russian and the latter’s works are translated into Russian by our opportunists. They both search— with the assistance of Axelrod—for sundry "national justifications" of the war. These declarations are, to speak more correctly, mere vulgar justifications culled from the capitalist gutter press. With learned mien, backed up by a series of distorted quotations from Marx to serve as “ examples,’’ Plekhanov and Kautsky set forth their case. Plekhanov uses Marx where he refers to the wars of 1813 and 1870. Kautsky likewise utilises Marx’s references to the wars of 1854, 1871, 1876-7 and 1889. Only men who are devoid of all Socialist conviction and conscience could seriously put forth such arguments. One cannot help protesting against such unheard of jesuitism, hypocrisy and general prostitution of Socialism.

Let the Executive Committee of the German S.D.P. hurl anathema against the Internazionale, the new paper issued by Mehring and Rosa Luxemburg, because it exposes Kautsky in his true colours. Let Vandervelde, Hyndman, Plekhanov and Co., with the assistance of the Triple Entente, treat their opponents in a similar fashion. In answer, we retaliate by reprinting the Basle Manifesto,^[4] which exposes the change of front by the leaders of Socialism, which can only be designated by one word—treason.

The Basle resolution does not speak of a national, or of a people’s war. We have examples of such wars during the period 1789-1871. The Basle resolu­tion does not speak of a revolutionary war, which has never been repudiated by Social democrats. It deals with wars such as the present one, waged by both groups of the warring powers in the interest of capi­talist imperialism and dynasties. Both the Austro-German and the Anglo-Franco-Russian group pursue a policy of conquest. Kautsky, Plekhanov and Co. practice downright deception on the workers when they repeat the interested lies spread by the bourgeoisie of every country, which does its best to represent this preda­tory imperialist colonial war as a people’s defensive war—defensive in some way or other. Kautsky and Plekhanov also practice deception when they seek to justify this war by referring to historical examples of wars of a non-imperialist nature.

The purely predatory imperialist and anti-working class nature of the present war has long since ceased to be a purely theoretical question. Imperialism has been denounced in its main features as the struggle of a perishing, decrepit, and rotten bourgeoisie for the division of the world and seeking to enslave “small” nations, this argument has been presented thousands of times in the vast newspaper press of the Socialist movement in every country. In his pamphlet, The Impending War, the Frenchman, Delaise, who represents a nation allied to us, explained in a popular way' the predatory nature of this war and of the part to be played by the French bourgeoisie. More than that, representatives of the working class parties in every land unanimously and formally expressed their firm conviction that the impending war would be of an imperialistic character, and accordingly drew certain tactical deductions therefrom.

We must reject, therefore, as sophisms statements to the effect that the difference between national and international tactics has not been sufficiently discussed by the Socialist movement.^[5] This is, we repeat, a mere sophism. A many-sided and scientific discussion of imperialism had begun. The discussion upon imperialism and its relation to capitalism is as endless as the general discussion upon any scientific pheno­mena. But the discussion regarding the foundation of Socialist tactics against capitalist imperialism is a different matter, because such tactics had already been explained and stated in millions of copies of Socialist newspapers and in the decisions of the International. The Socialist parties are not mere glorified debating clubs, but are the fighting organisations of the prole­tariat. When a number of battalions pass over to the enemy we cannot term them anything else than traitors. We must not be misled with fallacy that everyone views imperialism from a different standpoint. It is only jingoes like Kautsky and Cunow who can write learned volumes on the subject and plead that “the question has not yet been sufficiently discussed.” The study of capitalism in all the ramifications of its historic development, and its national peculiarities, will never be exhausted. Learned men, and particularly pedants, will never cease to discuss the present mode of produc­tion in all its little details. But it would be more than ridiculous for Socialists to renounce their struggle against capitalism because many details of the system are capable of standing further discussion. Neverthe­less, so far as imperialism is concerned, that is exactly what Kautsky, Cunow and Axelrod are doing. And since the war began, none of the critics have attempted to critically analyse the Basle resolution, or to show wherein it errs.

1. This historic document will be found as an appendix at end of the book on page —.
2. This appears on page 72 as No. 2 appendix.
3. Jules Guesde, the pre-war leader of Revolutionary Socialism in France, who has since gone over to the imperialists and joined the government.
4. See appendix, page 66
5. See latest interview with Axelrod in Nashe Slovo, Nos. 87 and 90.