The Collapse of the Second International

Front matter

BY ULYANOV-LENIN.

TRANSLATED BY A. SIRNIS.

PRICE ONE SHILLING.

Foreword

PUBLISHERS’ FOREWORD.

We gladly reproduce this little work of Lenin’s as a valuable contribution to the literature of International Socialism, especially since discussion upon the causes which led to "the collapse of the second international" have taken place, particularly amongst the "extremeists," ever since the war broke out and drove the various Socialist parties back to the confines of their national boundaries. Such a work as the following, coming as it does from the representative head of the proletarian dictatorship, which is extending its grip over Europe, will prove not only interesting because of the person­ality of the writer, but will provoke discussion upon the tactics as presently pursued by the various sections of International Socialism. It will also aid considerably towards an understanding as to why the second inter­national collapsed.

Undoubtedly, the marvellous capacity of our Russian comrades, not only to maintain their social revolution at home, but to extend it in spite of the tremendous forces of bourgeois reaction and intrigue, will go down in history as one of the world’s achievements.

That men and women going through the stress and strain of such a herculean task of social revolution should find time, besides attending to the actual machinery of administration, to make provision for the minutest detail in social life, will assuredly command the admiration and respect of all Socialists whether of the "Right" or "Left," and prove a source of inspiration to International Socialism generally.

To Lenin and Trotsky, as well as the vast numbers of the proletariat in Russia, the Socialist movement is not a mere playground for intellectual dilletantes nor an avenue for unscrupulous place-hunters to achieve a political career. On the contrary, it represents the systematic opposition to all forms of bourgeois institu­tions and ought to assume the responsibility for social revolution as offered by opportunity.

"Socialist parties are not mere glorified debating clubs, but are fighting organisations of the proletariat," says Lenin, and on this ground his criticism of the leaders of the “Second International” in general and the German S.D.P. in particular is perfectly justified. Every crisis, he maintains, whether of a political or economic character, provides a “revolutionary situa­tion” and should be the signal for energetic action on the part of the Socialist parties to damage or bring about the downfall of their respective bourgeois Govern­ments.

Consequently the great betrayal of the “second international” is seen to consist in a positive failure to take such “energetic action,” likewise a failure to adhere to the actual terms of the Basle resolution of 1912 and use the war situation for purposes of prole­tarian conquest. This failure was a clear indication that the several parties had not yet shed themselves of that “opportunism born of a belief in the bourgeois parliamentarism.”

Even yet, particularly here in Great Britain, there is a hesitation to throw off this faith in parliamentarism or “national assemblies.” This was conspicuous in the recent attempt made by the S.L.P. to bring about unity between the three parties (S.L.P., B.S.P. and I.L.P.) on the basis of revolutionary mass action.

The decision of the I.L.P. representatives to adhere to parliamentary constitutionalism and moribund craft organisation on the industrial field proves that party to be still wrapped up in the bourgeois opportunist policy which has been characteristic of the I.L.P. since its inception—a policy which has been largely responsible for the creation of the reactionary Labour Party and providing one of the strongest bulwarks in this country against revolutionary Socialism.

Such a policy of “Evolutionary Socialism” is easily understood, especially where no effort is made to encourage Bolshevism, either at home or abroad. But what reason, we ask, is there for the continued existence of an entity like the B.S.P., whose policy, as stated at the Unity Conference, notwithstanding its pose as being Bolshevic, is identical with the Independent Labour Party?

The Socialist Labour Party has perceived for some time now that “Socialism in Europe has entered the stage of revolutionary action; and that it is high time that complete rupture with opportunism be effected and the latter turned out of the workers’ parties.”

Such indeed was the spirit in which we entered the discussion upon unity. We have found both the I.L.P. and the B.S.P. are still in “bondage” to bourgeois opportunism and wallowing in the slough of ministerial parliamentarism. We had hoped to create a movement which would be capable of releasing the forces of revo­lution in this country while building up the machinery of fulfilment. We now know that so far as the “leaders” of these parties are concerned that that time is not yet.

Nevertheless we have faith in the disturbing periods which lie before us that the very intensity of the struggle will submerge or sweep aside all the forces or parties which cross the path of the oncoming militant proletariat and will create a “situation" favourable to social revolution.

Meanwhile the S.L.P. will help forward the growth of revolutionary mass action, and by combating the “bourgeois Labour opportunism” outside its ranks will seek to bring into line and harness the elements of revolution here in Great Britain towards the triumph of International Socialism.

In conclusion we have to acknowledge our indebted­ness to our late comrade, Alexander Sirnis, for this translation, which was somewhat interrupted by his unexpected decease.

S.L. Press.

Chapter 1: Introductory

The Collapse of the SecondInternational.

CHAPTER I.

Introductory.

By the collapse of the International is sometimes meant the interruption of the intercourse between the Socialist parties of the warring countries, the suspension of the meetings of the International Socialist bureau, Inter­national Congresses, and so forth. This is the viewpoint of some Socialists, perhaps of the majority of the offcial parties and especially of the opportunists and their supporters.

In the Russian press (vide: The Information Leaflet of the "Bund") Kossovsky takes up the defence of this view with a frankness that deserves our heartfelt gratitude. Nevertheless, the editors fail to indicate their disagreement with the author’s viewpoint. Kos­sovsky went so far as to justify the German Social-Democrats who voted the war-credits. Let us hope that his defence of Nationalism will open the eyes of many workmen as to the capitalist-nationalist outlook of the "Bund."

Tо class-conscious workers, Socialism is a serious conviction and is not a cloak to cover up conciliatory middle-class aspirations or opposition to the Government along Nationalist lines. By the collapse of the International, these workers mean the scandalous betrayal by a majority of the official Social-Democratic parties of their convictions and solemn declarations made at the International Socialist Congresses of Stutt­gart and Basle, and embodied in resolutions passed at these congresses. Only those fail to see this treason who do not wish to see it. Only those refuse to observe this betrayal whose interests are bound up in not recognising it.

Looking at the matter scientifically, i.e., from the viewpoint of the relationship of the different classes in modern society, we are obliged to say that the majority of the social democratic parties went over to the side of the rulers’ general staffs and governments in opposition to the working class. The lead in this direc­tion was given by the German social democracy, which was the largest and most influential party in the second International. This event is of world-historic impor­tance, and we propose to subject it to a searching analysis.

We recognise that wars, despite the horrors and calamities which they breed, are more or less useful in so far as they reveal and make for the destruction of much that is rotten and obsolete within social insti­tutions. Further, the European war has done mankind a service, because it has revealed the undoubted weak­nesses inherent in organisations of the working class. And the European war has already demonstrated that a loathsome cancer is gnawing at the very vitals of the Labour movement—a cancer as dangerous as it is evil smelling.

Chapter 2: The Betrayal of Socialism by the Socialist Parties

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 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.

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 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, 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. 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.

Chapter 3: The Revolutionary Situation

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 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.

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.

Chapter 4: Socialist Jingoism : Can the War be Justified from a Working-class Point of View

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

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, 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.