In accordance with a decision of the ninth congress of the r
Download 4.26 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
103 TO G. Y. ZINOVIEV Bukharin’s article is beyond question unsuitable. 242 There is not any shadow of a “theory of the imperialist state”. There is a summary of data about the growth of state capi- talism, and nothing else. To fill an illegal journal with this most legal material would be absurd. It must be rejected (with supreme politeness, promising every assistance in getting it published legally). * But perhaps we had better wait for Yuri’s article, and not write to Bukharin for the time being. We should wait, too, with the letter to Bukharin about their “faction”, otherwise he will think that we have rejected it out of “factionalism”. To pose the question of the “epoch” and the “present
by falling into eclecticism. Just as though our aim were to strike the “happy mean” between “extremes”!!! The problem is to give a correct definition of the relation- ship of the epoch to the present war. This has been done both in the resolutions and in my articles: “the present im- perialist war is not an exception, but a typical phenomenon in the imperialist epoch.” The typical is not the unique. One cannot understand the present war without under- standing the epoch. When people say this about the epoch, this is not just a phrase. It is correct. And your quotations from my old articles say only that. They are correct. * Privately, in my own name, I will advise Bukharin to change the title and retain only the economic part. For the political part is quite incomplete, not thought out, useless. 229 TO G. Y. ZINOVIEV But when people draw from this the conclusion, as they
error—historical and political and logical (for an epoch is a sum of varied phenomena, in which in addition to the typi- cal there is always something else). And you repeat this error, when you write in your re- marks:
“Small countries cannot in the present epoch defend their fatherland.” [=the vulgarisers] Untrue!! This is just the error of Junius, Radek, the “disarmers” and the Japanese!! One should say: “Small countries, too, cannot in imperial- ist wars, which are most typical of the current imperialist epoch, defend their fatherland.” That is quite different. In this difference lies the whole essence of the case against the vulgarisers. And it’s just the essence which you haven’t noticed.
Grimm repeats the error of the vulgarisers, and you indulge him by providing a wrong formulation. On the contrary, it is just now that we must (both in talks and in articles) refute the vulgarisers for Grimm’s benefit. We are not at all against “defence of the fatherland” in general, not against “defensive wars” in general. You will never find that nonsense in a single resolution (or in any of my articles). We are against defence of the fatherland and a defensive position in the imperialist war of 1914-16 and in other imperialist wars, typical of the imperialist epoch. But in the imperialist epoch there may be also “just”, “defen- sive”, revolutionary wars namely (1) national, (2) civil, (3) socialist and suchlike . Written in August 1 9 1 6 Sent from Flums to Hertenstein (Switzerland) First published in 1 9 3 2 Printed from the original in Bolshevik No. 2 2 N.B.
230 104 TO N. I. BUKHARIN Dear Com., Unfortunately we cannot print the article “On the Theory of the Imperialist State”. As it turns out, so much space is occupied with material from Russia that all other subjects are restricted, and there is not enough money. Things are difficult. But the main thing is not that. The main thing is some defects in the article. The title does not correspond to the contents. The article consists of two parts, the combination of which has been insufficiently thought out: (1) about the state in general, and (2) about state capitalism and its growth (especially in Germany). The second part is good and useful, but nine- tenths legal. We would advise you to print it in one of the legal reviews (if not in Letopis), after very little alteration, and would be ready to do everything we can to help such publication. The first part touches on a subject of tremendous impor- tance in principle, but that’s just it—it only touches on it. We cannot, when publishing a review once a year, print on such a basic question of theory an article which has been in- sufficiently thought out. Leaving aside the polemic against Gumplowicz, etc. (that would also be better worked over and developed into a legal article), we must point out a num- ber of extremely inexact formulations by the author. Marxism is a “sociological” (???) “theory of the state”; the state=the “general”(?) organisation of the ruling classes; the quotations from Engels are broken off just at those
231 TO N. I. BUKHARIN points which are particularly important, if you are discussing this subject. The distinction between the Marxists and the anarchists on the question of the state (pp. 15-16) has been defined absolutely incorrectly: if you are to deal with this sub- ject, you must speak not in that way; you must not speak in that way. The conclusion (the author gives it in italics): “Social-Democracy must intensively underline its hostility in principle to the state power” (p. 53)—[compare: the pro- letariat creates “its provisional state organisation of power” (p. 54) (“state organisation of power”!?)]—is also either supremely inexact, or incorrect. Our advice is to work up into legal articles ( α ) the section about state capitalism and ( β ) the polemic with Gumplowicz and Co. Leave the rest to mature. That is our conviction. Written at the end of August and beginning of September 1 9 1 6 Sent from Flums (Switzerland) to Christiania (Oslo) First published in 1 9 3 2 Printed from the original in Bolshevik No, 2 2 232 105 TO A. G. SHLYAPNIKOV Dear Friend, Evidently Belenin’s decision about his “trip” has already been taken, judging by the letter which Grigory has sent me today. And the time is quite short! Yet we have particular reason to exchange letters and come to an understanding with him: this is now incredibly important. Therefore I most earnestly request you to take all possible steps to see Be- lenin personally, to pass on to him all that follows, and frank-
stand, i.e., whether or not there are differences, divergen- cies, etc., between us and Belenin, and what they are (and how to eliminate them, if they exist). The elimination of James 243
(I earnestly ask you not to say one word about this elimination to a single person abroad: you cannot imagine how dangerous in all respects is chatter abroad on these subjects, and in connection with such events)—the elimination of James makes the position critical and once again raises the question of the general plan of work. In my convinced opinion, this plan is composed, first, of the theoretical line, secondly, of the most immediate
(1) On the first point, the order of the day now is not only the continuation of the line we have endorsed (against tsar- ism, etc.) in our resolutions and pamphlet * (this line has * The resolutions of the Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. Groups Abroad and the pamphlet Socialism and War (see present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 158-64, 295-338).—Ed. 233 TO A. G. SHLYAPNIKOV been remarkably confirmed by events, by the split in Brit- ain,
2 4 4 etc.), but also cleansing it of the stupidities which have accumulated, and the muddle about rejecting democra- cy (this includes disarmament, repudiation of self-determi- nation, the theoretically wrong rejection “in general” of defence of the fatherland, the wobblings on the question of the role and significance of the state in general, etc.). It will be an extreme pity if Belenin does not receive my article in reply to Kievsky (just yesterday it was sent to be transcribed, and will he ready only in a few days). What are we to do? Don’t neglect the necessity of coming to an understanding on theoretical questions: really and truly, it is essential for work in such difficult times. Think over whether we could not put into effect the following plan (or something similar); I am beginning to realise that Bele- nin’s wife is not in America, as I thought, but in Spain, through which Belenin will of course travel now. Could we not organise the copying and passing on of manuscripts to his wife in Spain? In that case perhaps my article, too, even if sent in a week from now, would reach Belenin in time, because he will certainly spend a few days in Spain. Think it over; apart from this special case, regular corres- pondence with Belenin’s wife, and with Spain in general, is extremely important. Spain is a supremely important point just now, because it is still more convenient to work there than in Britain and elsewhere. I cannot dwell more fully on theoretical agreement. The enemy has already seized on the stupid repudiation of the significance of democracy (Potresov 245
in No. 1 of Dyelo). Bazarov has made a fool of himself in Letopis. Bogdanov is talking another kind of balderdash, but also balderdash in
and the O.C.-ists has come into being there. A shameful bloc! It’s hardly likely that we can break it up. . . . Should we perhaps try a bloc with the Machists against the O.C.- ists? Hardly likely to succeed!! Gorky is always supremely spineless in politics, a prey to emotion and passing moods. The legal press in Russia is acquiring exceptional impor- tance, and therefore the question of the correct line, too, becomes still more and more important, because it is easier for the enemy to “bombard” us in this field. V. I. L E N I N 234
The best thing would be, probably, if Belenin could have a “base” in Spain and receive our letters and manuscripts there: we could continue our discussion, exchange letters, Belenin could return there soon after his short trip further on (for the danger is very great, and it would be much more useful for our cause if Belenin made brief trips round a few cities and then returned to Spain, or to where he is now, or to a neighbouring country to consolidate contacts, etc.). On the second point. The main thing now, I think, is to publish popular leaflets and manifestos against tsarism. Con- sider whether this could be organised in Spain? If not, we shall prepare them here and send them on. For this the most efficient transport contacts are essential. You were quite right: the Japanese have proved absolutely useless. Best of all would be foreigners, with whom we could corres- pond in English or some other foreign language. I will not dwell on the question of transport, because you yourself realise and know this. The trouble is that there is no money, but they should collect some in Petersburg. The main Party question in Russia has been and remains the question of “unity”. Trotsky in the 500 or 600 issues of his paper has not managed to speak out, or to think out, fully whether there is to be unity with Chkheidze, Sko- belev and Co., or not. I think there are still some “unifiers” in Petersburg as well, though very weak (was it not they who published Rabochiye Vedomosti in Petersburg?). 246 “Makar”, they say, is in Moscow and also playing the conciliator. Conciliationism and unificationism is the most harmful thing for the workers’ party in Russia—not just idiocy, but the destruction of the Party. For in practice “unifica- tion” (or conciliation and the like) with Chkheidze and Sko- belev (they are the key point, because they give themselves out to be “internationalists”) is “unity” with the O.C., and through it with Potresov and Co., i.e., in practice it is play- ing the lackey to the social-chauvinists. If Trotsky and Co. have not understood this, so much the worse for them. Dyelo No. 1 and—especially—the participation of the work- ers in the war industries committees, prove that this is so. Not only in elections to the Duma the day after peace is signed, but in general on all questions of Party practice, “unity” with Chkheidze and Co. is the essential question
235 TO A. G. SHLYAPNIKOV today. We can rely only on those who have understood just how deceptive the idea of unity is and how necessary it is to break with that fraternity (Chkheidze and Co.) in Russia. Belenin ought to rally only such people as leaders. By the way, a split on the international scale is also due. I consider it quite timely now that all class-conscious lead- ing workers in Russia should understand this, and should adopt resolutions in favour of an organisational break with the Second International, with the International Bureau of Huysmans, Vandervelde and Co., in favour of building a Third International only against the Kautskians of all countries (Chkheidze and Co., also Martov and Axelrod= the Russian Kautskians), only in rapprochement with people who take the stand of the Zimmerwald Left. On the third point. The most pressing question now is the weakness of contacts between us and leading workers in Russia!! No correspondence!! No one but James, and now he has gone!! We can’t go on like that. We cannot organise either the publication of leaflets or transport, either agree- ment about manifestos or sending over their drafts, etc., etc., without regular secret correspondence. That is the key question! This Belenin did not do on his first visit (probably he couldn’t at the time). Convince him, for Christ’s sake, that this must be done on the second visit! It must be done!! The immediate success of the visit, really and truly, must be measured by the number of contacts!! (Of course the per- sonal influence of Belenin is still more important, but he will not be able to stop anywhere for long without destroy- ing himself and harming the cause.) The number of contacts in each city will be the measure of the success of his visit!! Two-thirds of the contacts, as a minimum, in each city, should be with leading workers, i.e., they should write themselves, themselves master secret correspondence (artists are made, not born), should themselves each train up 1-2 “heirs” in case of arrest. This should not be entrusted to the intelligentsia alone. Certainly not. It can and must be done by the leading workers. Without this it is impossible to establish continuity and purpose in our work—and that is the main thing. That’s all, I think.
V. I. L E N I N 236
As regards legal literature, I will also add: it is important to ascertain whether they will accept my articles in Letopis (if the O.C.-ists cannot be thrown out by means of a bloc with the Machists). With restrictions? Which? We must find out in greater detail about Volna. 247 As regards myself personally, I will say that I need to earn. Otherwise we shall simply die of hunger, really and truly!! The cost of living is devilishly high, and there is nothing to live on. The cash must be dragged by force * out of the publisher of Letopis, to whom my two pamphlets ** have been sent (let him pay at once and as much as possible!). The same with Bonch. The same as regards translations. If this is not organised I really will not be able to hold out, this is absolutely serious, absolutely, absolutely. I shake you firmly by the hand and send a thousand best wishes to Belenin. Drop me a line that you have received this immediately, just two words. Yours,
P.S. Write frankly, in what state of mind Bukharin is leaving? Will he write to us or not? Will he carry out our requests or not? Correspondence (with America) is possible only through Norway. Tell him this and arrange it. Written later than October 3 , 1 9 1 6 Sent from Zurich to Stockholm First published in 1 9 2 4 Printed from the original in Lenin Miscellany II * About cash Belenin will have a talk with Katin, and with Gorky himself, of course if it is not inconvenient. ** Reference is to New Data on the Laws Governing the Develop- ment of Capitalism in Agriculture and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (see present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 13-102, 185-304).—E d . 237 106 TO FRANZ KORITSCHONER 248
October 25, 1916 Dear Friend, We regret very much that you haven’t written a single line to us so far. One must hope that the big events in Vienna will stimulate you at long last to write to us in detail.
that at a war factory in Speyer (Austria) there was a strike of 24,000 workers, that Czech soldiers opened fire, and that 700 (seven hundred!) workers were killed! How much truth is there in this? Please let us know about it in as much detail as you can. As regards the act of Friedrich Adler, 2 4 9
I would beg you to let us know the details. The papers here (Berner Tagwacht and Volksrecht—do you get them both, or neither?) extol this act. Avanti! (does Avanti! reach you?) states that Friedrich Adler was the author of the famous manifesto of the Austrian interna- tionalists. Is that true? And is it now convenient to speak about this openly? (1) Did Friedrich Adler tell anyone about his plan? (2) Did he give any friend any documents, letters, statements to be published later? (3) Is it true, as the Vienna Arbeiter
and in other places) he was in a minority (and how big was that minority?), (4)——that his position in the organisa- tion had become “unbearable” (?)—(5)—that at the last party conference he received only seven votes?—(6) that at the last two meetings of trusted agents he attacked the V. I. L E N I N 238
party extremely sharply and demanded “demonstrations”? (What kind precisely?) Please write us in as much detail as possible about all these questions, and in general give us more information and details about Friedrich Adler. Unless you give us special instructions to the contrary, we shall print in our papers everything that we get from you (and will also pub- lish them—as material from our editorial office—in the local German-language press). As regards the political assessment of the act, we main- tain, of course, our old conviction, confirmed by decades of experience, that individual terrorist acts are inexpe- dient methods of political struggle. “Killing is no murder,” * wrote our old Iskra about ter- rorist acts; we are not at all opposed to political killing (in this sense the servile writings of the opportunists in Vorwärts and the Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung are simply revolt- ing), but as revolutionary tactics individual attacks are inex- pedient and harmful. Only the mass movement can be con- sidered genuine political struggle. Only in direct, immediate connection with the mass movement can and must individ- ual terrorist acts be of value. In Russia the terrorists (against whom we always struggled) carried out a number of individual attacks; but in December 1905, when matters at last reached the stage of a mass movement, insurrection— when it was necessary to help the masses to use violence— then just at that moment the “terrorists” were missing. That is where the terrorists make their mistake. Adler would have been of much greater help to the revo- lutionary movement if, without being afraid of a split, he had systematically gone over to illegal propaganda and agitation. It would be very good if some Left group were found to publish a leaflet in Vienna which would inform the workers of its view; if it branded in the sharpest possible way the servile behaviour of the Vienna Arbeiter
ing is no murder”), but as a lesson for the workers declared: not terrorism but systematic, prolonged, self-sacrificing activity in revolutionary propaganda and agitation, demon- * These words were written by Lenin in English.—Ed. 239 strations, etc., etc., against the lackey-like opportunist party, against the imperialists, against one’s own govern- ments, against the war—that is what is needed. Tell us also, please, how right it would be to regard Adler’s act as a gesture of despair? I think that politically it is so. He had lost his faith in the party, he could not bear the fact that it was impossible to work with this party, that it was impossible to work with Victor Adler, he could not accept the idea of a split and take upon himself the burdensome task of a struggle against the party. And as a result of his despair came this attempt. An act of despair of a Kautskian (Volksrecht writes that Adler was not a supporter of the Zimmerwald Left, but rather a Kautskian). But we revolutionaries cannot fall into despair. We are not afraid of a split. On the contrary, we recognise the necessity of a split, we explain to the masses why a split is inevitable and necessary, we call for work against the old party and for revolutionary mass struggle. What trends (resp. what individual shades of opinion) exist in Vienna and in Austria in assessing Adler’s act? I am afraid that the Vienna Government will declare Friedrich Adler insane, and not let matters come to a trial. But if they do, it will certainly be essential to organise the distribution of leaflets. Write more and in greater detail, and observe exactly all technical precautions. Best greetings! Yours,
Written in German Sent from Zurich to Vienna First published in Pravda No. 6 0 , Printed from the original March 1 , 1 9 3 2 |
