In accordance with a decision of the ninth congress of the r
Download 4.26 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
|
112 TO ARTHUR SCHMID 262
Dear Comrade, Will you allow me to suggest an amicable agreement? I must admit that yesterday I paid insufficient attention to one very important point in your arguments. 2 6 3 Namely, the idea that the peculiarity of Switzerland lies, among other things, in her greater degree of democracy (the referen- dum), and that this peculiarity should be made use of also for propaganda purposes. This idea is very important and, in my opinion, completely correct. Could we not apply this idea in such a way that our differences (which are probably very insignificant) should disappear? For example: If we put the question for the referendum only in this way—for complete elimination or against?—we shall get a mixture of pacifist (bourgeois-pacifist, etc.) and socialist votes for it, i.e., we shall get not a clarification of a social- ist consciousness but a darkening of it, not the application of the idea and the policy of class struggle to this particu- lar question (namely, the question of militarism) but the renunciation of the point of view of the class struggle on the question of militarism. But if we put the question for the referendum in this way-for the expropriation of large capitalist enterprises in industry and agriculture, as the only way of completely eliminating militarism, or against expropriation? If we put it like that, we shall be saying in our practical policy the same thing that we all recognise theoretically,
257 TO ARTHUR SCHMID namely, that the complete elimination of militarism is thinkable and realisable only in connection with the elimi- nation of capitalism. Consequently there should be approximately the follow- ing formulation: (1) we demand the immediate expropria- tion of large enterprises, perhaps in the form of a direct Federal property and income tax, with such high, revolu- tionarily-high, rates for large properties that the capi- talists will, in fact, be expropriated. (2) We declare that such a socialist transformation of Switzerland is economically possible already today, directly, and, in consequence of the unbearably high cost of living, is urgently necessary as well, and that for the political effecting of such a transformation Switzerland needs not a bourgeois but a proletarian government, which would rely not on the bourgeoisie but on the broad masses of hired workers and small people, and that the revolutionary mass struggle which we see beginning, for example, in the mass strikes and street demonstrations in Zurich, and which is recognised by the Aarau decision, 2 6 4 pursues exactly that purpose—to put a real end in that way to the intoler- able position of the masses. (3) We declare that such a transformation of Switzerland
lute enthusiastic support on the part of the working class and the mass of the exploited in all civilised countries, and that only in connection with such a transformation will the complete elimination of militarism for which we strive, and for which at present particularly wide masses in Europe are instinctively thirsting, become not an empty phrase, not an amiable wish, but a genuine, practically achievable and politically self-explanatory measure.
What do you think of this? Do you not consider that, if the question is put in this way (both in practical agitation and in parliamentary speeches and proposals for a legislative initiative and for a referendum), we shall avoid the danger that bourgeois and “socialist” pacifists will falsely understand and mis- interpret our anti-militarist slogan in the sense that we suppose it possible to completely abolish militarism in V. I. L E N I N 258
bourgeois Switzerland, in her imperialist environment, without a socialist revolution (which, of course, is nonsense that we all unanimously repudiate). With Party greetings,
Wl. Uljanow. Spiegelgasse 14 II (bei Kammerer). Zürich I. Written in German on December 1 , 1 9 1 6 Sent to Winterthur (Switzerland) First published in 1 9 3 1 Printed from a typewritten copy in Lenin Miscellany XVII 259 113 TO INESSA ARMAND Dear Friend, Another letter has arrived today from St. Petersburg— they have been attentive in their writing lately. Apart from the letter from Guchkov, 2 6 5
which is going into No. 57 of the Central Organ (being set), and which probably Grigory showed you in Berne, letters from Lvov and Chelnokov 2 6 6 have been received, all on the same subject, the country’s bitter indignation (against the traitors carrying on negotiations for a separate peace), etc. The mood, they write, is supremely revolutionary. My manuscript about imperialism has reached Petersburg, and now they write today that the publisher (and this is Gorky! oh the calf!) is dissatisfied with the sharp passages against . . . who do you think? . . . Kautsky! He wants to get in touch with me about it!!! Both laughable and disap- pointing. There it is, my fate. One fighting campaign after another- against political stupidities, philistinism, opportunism and so forth. It has been going on since 1893. And so has the hatred of the philistines on account of it. But still, I would not exchange this fate for “peace” with the philistines. Now there is Radek as well. No. 6 of Jugend-Internation- ale (have you seen it?) contains the article by Nota Bone. We (Grigory and I) at once recognised Bukharin. I replied to his exceptional stupidities in No. 2 of Sbornik. * (You haven’t seen it? It was ready a few days ago.) * The reply was in the article “The Youth International” (see present edition, Vol. 23, pp. 163- 66).—Ed. V. I. L E N I N 260
Today Grigory sends me No. 25 of Arbeiterpolitik. There is the same article in it (with cuts, obviously made by the
censors), signed
by Bukharin. (We have
received one more number of Novy Mir, from New York, containing a criticism—alas, alas! A correct one: that is the tragedy, that a Menshevik is right against Bukharin!!— a criticism evidently of the same article (in a number which we haven’t got) by Bukharin in
And Radek—“Tyszka’s methods”, Grigory writes to me today-publishes in No. 25 of Arbeiterpolitik praise of Bukharin (“a young force”) and a little note, in passing, about the “three editors of Kommunist”! He squeezes into the crack of the differences between us: the time-honoured policy of riffraff and scoundrels, incapable of arguing with us straightforwardly and resorting to intrigues, double-dealing, baseness. There is a picture for you of what is, and of what Radek does (a man is judged not by what he says or thinks about himself, but by what he does—do you remember that Marxist truth?).
This is the kind of “environment” one has to fight with!! And what theoretical disgrace and nonsense in Radek’s “theses”.... I have been reading the Plaidoirie 2 6 7 by Humbert-Droz. My God, what a philistine of Tolstoyism!! I have written again to Abramovich. Is he really hopeless after all? I am wondering whether there are not in Switzerland bacilli of petty-bourgeois (and petty-state) thick-wittedness, Tol- stoyism, and pacifism, which destroy the best people? I am sure there must be! I have read the second pamphlet by P. Golay (L’Anti-
with the first (Le Socialisme qui meurt), and into the same swamp.... All the very best, Yours,
261 P.S. Do you ski? You really should! Learn the trick, get yourself skis and go off to the mountains—you must. It’s good in the mountains in winter! It’s delightful, and smells of Russia. Written on December 1 8 , 1 9 1 6 Sent from Zurich to Clarens (Switzerland) First published in 1 9 4 9 Printed from the original in Bolshevik No. 1 262 114 TO M. N. POKROVSKY December 21, 1916 Dear M. N., I have received your postcard of December 14, 1916. If they write to you that the publisher owes me “in addition to the 500 rubles another 300 rubles”, I must say that I consider he owes me more, because he accepted (1) my work on the agrarian question, Part 1 * and (2) my wife’s booklet on an educational subject. 2 6 8
And I consider that there is an obligation to pay for what has been accepted, once the manuscript has been delivered. I wrote about this to Petersburg, but my contacts with Petersburg are exceptionally weak and intolerably slow. You “thought it possible” to throw out the criticism of Kautsky in my pamphlet 2 6 9
. . . . Sad! Really, really sad. Why? Would it not be better to ask the publishers: print outright, gentlemen, that we—the publishers—have eli- minated criticism of Kautsky. Really, that is how it should have been done. . . . Of course, I am obliged to submit to the publisher, but let the publisher not be afraid to say what he wants and what he doesn’t want; let the publisher answer for the cuts, not I. You write: “You won’t thrash me, will you?”, i.e., for agreeing to throw out this criticism?? Alas, alas, we live in too civilised an age to settle questions so simply. . . . * The work was New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture. Part I (see present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 13-102).—Ed. 263 TO M. N. POKROVSKY Joking aside, it is sad, devil take it. . . . Well, I shall settle accounts with Kautsky in another place. I shake your hand and send my best greetings.
Sent from Zurich to Sceaux (Seine) (France) First published in full in 1 9 3 2 Printed from the original in the second edition of Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. XXIX 264 115 TO INESSA ARMAND Dear Friend, About Radek. You write: “I told him at Kienthal that he had behaved badly.” Is that all? Only that! What about the political conclu- sion?? Or was his action only an accident?? Only his personal affair?? Nothing of the kind! There is the source of your political mistake. You do not assess what is going on poli- tically. Yet really this is a question of politics, however strange it might seem at first sight. As regards defence of the fatherland. It would be most unpleasant for me if we differed on this. Let us try once more to come to agreement. Here is some “material for reflection”: War is the continuation of politics. Everything depends on the system of political relations before the war and during the war. The main types of these systems are (a) the relation of the oppressed nation to the oppressing, (b) the relation between two oppressing nations on account of the loot, its division, etc., (c) the relation of a national state which does not oppress others to one which oppresses, to a partic- ularly reactionary state. Think over this. Caesarism in France & tsarism in Russia against non-
situation in 1891. Think over that! And I was writing of 1891 in No. 1 of
* * See “The
Discussion on
Self- Determination Summed
Up” (present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 320- 60).—Ed. 265 TO INESSA ARMAND How glad I am that you have had a talk with Guilbeaux and Levi! It would be a good thing to do this more frequently, or at any rate from time to time. As for the Italian, he is lying! Turati’s speech is a model of rotten Kautskianism (he has dragged “droits nationaux” into the
in Volksrecht is rotten too. Oh, how I would like to write about this, or to have a talk with the Italian!! How stupid that Levi is attacking parliamentarism!! Stupid!! And a “Left”, too!! God, how much muddle there is in people’s heads. Yours,
Lenin Written later than December 2 3 , 1 9 1 6 Sent from Zurich to Clarens First published in 1 9 4 9 Printed from the original in Bolshevik No. 1 266 116 TO INESSA ARMAND Dear Friend, About Radek you, following Grigory, seem to have got confused between personal impressions and sadness over the “dark” political picture in general and politics. You are sorry, you regret, you sigh-and nothing more. No other policy than that which was followed could have been pursued. We could not renounce correct views and surrender to “Tyszka’s methods”. The picture is “dark” not because of this, and the Lefts are weak not because of this, and Vorbote is not appearing not because of this—but because the revo- lutionary movement grows extremely slowly and with diffi- culty. This has to be put up with; rotten blocs with a certain person (or with E. B. & Kii) would only interfere with performing the difficult task of standing fast in difficult times.
As regards “imperialist Economism”, it somehow turns out that we are “talking past each other”. You evade the definition I gave, pass it by and put the question again. The “Economists” did not “renounce” political struggle (as you write)—that is inaccurate. They defined it wrongly. The “imperialist Economists” do the same. You write: “Would even the complete rejection of demo- cratic demands mean rejecting the political struggle? Is not the direct struggle for the conquest of power political struggle?” The whole point is that with Bukharin (and partly with Radek as well) this is just the kind of thing you get, and it is wrong. “The direct struggle for
267 TO INESSA ARMAND the conquest of power” while “completely rejecting demo- cratic demands” is something unclear, unthought-out, confused. This is just what Bukharin is confused about. More precisely, you approach the question from rather a different point of view, when you see a contradiction between §§ 2 and 8. In §2 there is a general statement: the socialist revolution is impossible without the struggle for democracy. This is unquestionable, and this is just the weakness of Radek & Bukharin that they, while disagreeing (like you), don’t venture to challenge it!! But further, in a certain sense for a certain period, all democratic aims (not only self-determination! Note that! You have forgotten that!) are capable of hindering the socialist revolution. In what sense? At what moment? When? How? For example, if the movement has already developed, the revolution has already begun, we have to
consolidate, legitimise the republic, etc.! An example: in August 1905, the boycott of the Duma was correct, and was not rejection of political struggle. ((§ 2= in general, refusal to participate in representative institutions is an absurdity; § 8= there are cases when we have to refuse; there is a visual comparison for you which makes clear that there is no contradiction between §2 and § 8.)) Against Junius. The situation is the imperialist war. The remedy for it? Only a socialist revolution in Germany. Junius did not draw this conclusion, and took democracy without the socialist revolution. One should know how to combine the struggle for demo- cracy and the struggle for the socialist revolution, sub-
difficulty; in this is the whole essence. The Tolstoyans and the anarchists throw out the first. Bukharin and Radek have become confused, failing to com- bine the first with the second. But I say: don’t lose sight of the main thing (the socialist revolution); put it first (Junius has not done this); put all the democratic demands, but subordinating them to it, co-ordinating them with it (Radek & Bukharin unwisely
V. I. L E N I N 268
eliminate one of them), and bear in mind that the struggle for the main thing may blaze up even though it has begun with the struggle for something partial. In my opinion, only this conception of the matter is the right one. A war of France & Russia against Germany in 1891. You take “my criterion”, and apply it only to France and Russia!!!! For pity’s sake, where is the logic here? That’s just what I say, that on the part of France and Russia it would have been a reactionary war (a war in order to turn back the development of Germany, to return her from national unity to dismemberment). But on the part of
Germany in 1891, the war did not, and could not, have an imperialist character. You have forgotten the main thing—that in 1891 no imperialism existed at all (I have tried to show in my pamphlet that it was born in 1898-1900, not earlier), and there was no imperialist war, there could not be, on the part of Germany. (By the way, there was no revolutionary Russia then either; that is very important.) Furthermore, you write: “The ‘possibility’ of the dis- memberment of Germany is not excluded in the 1914-17 war either”, simply sliding away from the assessment of what exists to what is possible. That is not historical. It is not political. What exists today is an imperialist war on both sides. This we have said 1,000 times. This is the essence. And the “possible”!!?? All kinds of things are “possible”! It is ridiculous to deny the “possibility” of transforming the imperialist war into a national war (though Usiyovich was horrified at the idea!). What is not “possible” on this earth! But so far it has not been transformed. Marxism buttresses its policy on the actual, not on the “possible”. It is possible that one phenomenon will change into an- other-and our tactics are not fossilised. Parlez-moi de la réalité et non pas des possibilités! * Engels was right. In my day I have seen an awful lot of hasty charges that Engels was an opportunist, and my attitude to them is supremely distrustful. Try, I say, * Talk to me of reality and not of possibilities!—Ed. 269 TO INESSA ARMAND and prove first that Engels was wrong!! You won’t prove it! Engels’s foreword to The Class Struggles in France 270
? Don’t you know that it was distorted in Berlin against his will? Is that serious criticism? His statement about the Belgian strike 271 ? When? Where? What? I don’t know it. No. No. Engels was not infallible. Marx was not infalli- ble. But if you want to point out their “fallibility” you have to set about it differently, really, quite differently. Otherwise you are 1,000 times wrong. Very, very best greetings. Yours,
Written on December 2 5 , 1 9 1 6 Sent from Zurich to Clarens First published in 1 9 4 9 Printed from the original in Bolshevik No. 1 |
