The world situation today is characterised by the opening up of a whole series of bloody conflicts: in Ukraine, in Gaza, in Congo, in Sudan. In the epoch of imperialism, the capitalist system which has outlived itself would sooner drown humanity in a sea of blood than peacefully go into the dustbin of history. On the other side, the world situation is characterised by revolutionary anger against war and imperialism.
This year, we published a brand new selection of Lenin on imperialist war, as a weapon for a new generation of communist fighters. We publish the introduction by Jorge Martín here, and urge our readers to get their copy of Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war now from Wellred Books. Available in paperback, ebook and audiobook formats.
This introduction places this invaluable collection of writings in its context, explaining how Lenin and the Bolsheviks fought against imperialism, before, during and after the First World War and the seizure of power by the working class of Russian in October 1917, and how they connected the revolutionary programme of communism with the masses at each step.
This volume is a collection of Lenin’s writings on the crucial question of the position of revolutionary Marxists towards war, specifically in relation to the First World War. The study of these texts is important today, when the question of war is again on the agenda and, disgracefully, many in the workers’ movement, including some who call themselves ‘communists’ have taken a social-chauvinist position of support for their own ruling class.
The Marxist position on war was developed by Marx and Engels, at a time when capitalism still played a relatively progressive role and the bourgeoisie had conducted a series of progressive and even revolutionary wars. Lenin explained how, in the period between the Great French Revolution of 1789 and the Paris Commune of 1871, most wars in Europe were “wars of a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberating character” and as a consequence:
“… all honest and revolutionary democrats, as well as all socialists, always wished success to that country (i.e. that bourgeoisie) which had helped to overthrow or undermine the most baneful foundations of feudalism, absolutism and the oppression of other nations.”[1]
The twentieth century announced the beginning of a completely different period, that of imperialism. This had implications for the position of Marxists. By this time, Europe was dominated by imperialist powers and the idea of ‘national defence’ or of a just ‘national war’ no longer applied. Rather, wars were now being fought by different sets of slave-owners fighting each other “for a more ‘just’ redistribution of slaves”, as Lenin put it. [2]
The Second International, which formally based itself on Marxism, had discussed the coming outbreak of war between imperialist powers and had taken a clear position against it. The Stuttgart Conference of the Socialist International in 1907 had adopted a resolution explaining clearly that wars “are part of the very nature of capitalism; they will cease only when the capitalist system is abolished”. [3]
The main body of the resolution had been drafted by August Bebel, and it reflected the Marxist view on war in general terms, but lacked any concrete detail about action the workers must take against war and militarism. The Russian delegation (Lenin and Martov) drafted a number of amendments together with Rosa Luxemburg. These were put to the committee on ‘Militarism and International Conflicts’, which accepted them. Lenin explained:
“These amendments (1) stated that militarism is the chief weapon of class oppression; (2) pointed out the need for propaganda among the youth; (3) stressed that Social-Democrats should not only try to prevent war from breaking out or to secure the speediest termination of wars that have already begun, but should utilise the crisis created by the war to hasten the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.”[4]
In the committee discussing war and militarism at the Stuttgart Congress, Lenin and Luxemburg were also able to answer the semi-anarchist ideas of the French ultra-left Gustave Hervé, and in doing so they stressed the basic Marxist position on war:
“The notorious Hervé, who has made such a noise in France and Europe, advocated a semi-anarchist view by naively suggesting that every war be ‘answered’ by a strike and an uprising. He did not understand, on the one hand, that war is a necessary product of capitalism, and that the proletariat cannot renounce participation in revolutionary wars, for such wars are possible, and have indeed occurred in capitalist societies. He did not understand, on the other hand, that the possibility of ‘answering’ a war depends on the nature of the crisis created by that war. The choice of the means of struggle depends on these conditions; moreover, the struggle must consist (and here we have the third misconception, or shallow thinking of Hervéism) not simply in replacing war by peace, but in replacing capitalism by socialism. The essential thing is not merely to prevent war, but to utilise the crisis created by war in order to hasten the overthrow of the bourgeoisie.” [5]
Ironically, Hervé, who did not base himself on a materialist understanding of the question, and who was obsessed with the struggle against militarism and war in general, swung violently in the opposite direction and joined the chauvinist ‘national defence’ camp in 1914.
A similar resolution to that of Stuttgart was approved by the Copenhagen Congress of the Socialist International in 1910 and at the Basel Congress in 1912. The Socialist International had clearly declared that the forthcoming war was an imperialist one, and that the duty of the Socialist parties was to oppose it by all means at their disposal.
The betrayal of 1914
However, when the war broke out in 1914, the Socialist International betrayed its own resolutions and gave wholehearted support to the imperialist slaughter. One after another, in Germany, France, Belgium and Britain, the same socialist parties which had voted for the resolutions against the imperialist war now voted for war credits, declared a truce in the class struggle between labour and capital, entered governments of national unity with the ruling class, and succumbed to social-chauvinism.
This came as a big shock, including to Lenin, who initially thought that the issue of the German Social Democratic Party’s (SPD) paper, Vorwärts, which announced support for war credits was a forgery by the general staff of the German army. In fact, while nominally still defending Marxist ideas and programme, the main parties of the Second International, including the large and influential SPD, had become thoroughly infected with reformism. Having developed in a period of prolonged economic upswing of capitalism, the top layers of the socialist organisations had been co-opted by capitalism. In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), Lenin explained the social roots of chauvinism and revisionism, which he linked to the rise of imperialism. The super-profits derived from the exploitation of the colonies allowed the ruling class in the imperialist countries to buy off the top layer of the working class and its organisations, creating a labour aristocracy. They had become nothing more than “labour lieutenants of the capitalist class”, as Lenin put it.[6]
Those who remained loyal to the internationalist, anti-imperialist principles of the movement were in a small minority, chiefly amongst them the Russian Bolsheviks and the Serbian party, which were the only ones not to vote for war credits, as well as prominent but initially isolated individuals, such as Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg in Germany, James Connolly in Ireland, John Maclean in Scotland, Eugene V Debs in the US, and the great Balkan Marxist Christian Rakovsky. Others who opposed the war did so from a hopeless pacifist or neutral position, such as the British Independent Labour Party and the Italian Socialist Party.
In this initial period, Lenin was isolated in exile (originally in Austrian-occupied Galicia, then in the safer neutral Switzerland), with very few means to maintain contact and correspondence with Bolsheviks inside Russia. He launched himself into a decisive battle to defend the principles of Marxism on the all-important question of the war. He saw as his main task that of establishing firm theoretical clarity and a clear line of demarcation, not only between the revolutionaries and the social-patriots, but also between the revolutionaries and the wavering elements (represented by Karl Kautsky), and with anyone who was not prepared to carry out a clean break with them.
The main ideas he fought for were that the war was an imperialist war and had to be opposed by the working class in all countries; that the leaders of the Social-Democracy had betrayed the movement; that the Second International was dead and a new international had to be built; and that the only way to end the war was through revolution. He also took a firm position against pacifism, explaining that an imperialist peace would be just the prelude to a new imperialist war.
Zimmerwald
Over a period of time, as the war – which everyone thought was only going to last a few months at most – became prolonged and more deadly, the voices within the labour movement opposed to the imperialist slaughter started to get a bigger echo. A conference of socialists opposed to the war was formally called by the Swiss and Italian parties. It took place in Zimmerwald, Switzerland, from 5-8 September 1915.
In preparation for the conference, Lenin wrote a pamphlet spelling out the position of the Bolsheviks regarding all important aspects of the opposition to the imperialist war. The pamphlet Socialism and War, which was co-signed by Zinoviev, was printed in German and given out to all Zimmerwald attendees. [7]
The document was a summary of the main ideas Lenin had been defending since the beginning of the war. He explained that Marxists are not pacifists. The Marxist approach to war starts from the understanding that war is the continuation of politics by other means, and therefore it must also be approached from the point of view of the interests of the working class. Marxists do not oppose all wars, but start from an analysis of the character of each war. Their attitude towards a war is not determined by who fired the first shot or who is ‘the aggressor’, as imperialist powers will always find or fabricate an excuse to justify a war. There are reactionary imperialist wars, which Marxists oppose, but there are also progressive wars. Revolutionaries are in favour of wars of national liberation and wars against imperialism by oppressed nations. Revolutionaries are also in favour of class war of the oppressed classes against the ruling class.
As Lenin later added, commenting on the position of German Internationale group of Luxemburg, Liebknecht and Zetkin, Marxists are also in favour of wars waged by a victorious proletarian state against attempts by the bourgeoisie to crush it.[8]
Marxists are opposed to the idea of ‘national defence’ in an imperialist war, as what this really means is the right of one group of robbers to plunder the colonial countries at the expense of an opposing group of robbers. The rights of small nations are used as an excuse by the imperialist powers.
In fact, in regards to the First World War, Lenin argued that the only instance in which the war could be considered to have a ‘national’ character, and therefore to be progressive, was in the case of Serbia, which had been attacked by Austria-Hungary. But even here, the national considerations were superseded by the general imperialist character of the war, and the fact that behind Serbia stood the interests of Russian imperialism. Most interestingly, Lenin’s appraisal was emphatically shared by the Serbian Marxists – their understanding of the revolutionary position towards war in the imperialist epoch was sharpened by the Balkan Wars that preceded the First World War, and they therefore took a principled position. [9]
In times of war, as in times of peace, the working class must maintain its class independence in defence of its own interests and not enter into any coalitions or agreements with the capitalist class. Marxists oppose ‘national unity’ or a ‘social truce’ in the name of ‘national defence’.
Lenin reserved some of his strongest language for his attacks on the opportunists, chiefly represented by Kautsky / Image: public domain
Lenin reserved some of his strongest language for his attacks on the opportunists, chiefly represented by Kautsky. They ‘in general’ and ‘in principle’ opposed the war, but then made excuses for those who had voted for the war credits and succumbed to social-chauvinism. Opposing the war in words, they refused to struggle in practice against it. They also wavered on the question of the need for a clean break with the social-chauvinists.
For Lenin, this too was a crucial point. The Second International had betrayed the cause of the working class and a new international was needed.
How was the struggle against the imperialist war to be conducted? Lenin’s starting point was that the only way to put an end to the war was by turning it into a civil war, a revolutionary war to overthrow the capitalist system. An imperialist peace would be merely the continuation of imperialist war, and would prepare for new predatory wars of conquest. The only consistent struggle against war was the struggle to bring the working class to power.
Additionally, Lenin highlighted cases of fraternisation between soldiers of different countries and stressed the need to carry out systematic work in that direction. In the conditions of curtailment of democratic rights in all the belligerent countries, he argued for the supplementing of legal and parliamentary work with underground and illegal work. More generally, he advocated support for all kinds of revolutionary mass action by the proletariat.
The participants in the Zimmerwald Conference fell mostly into three groups. The right wing opposed the war, but mostly from a pacifist, not a revolutionary, position, and were against a clear break with the social-chauvinists. The Left wing around Lenin and the Bolsheviks, in addition to opposing the war, insisted that those socialists who had supported the war must be denounced; they demanded that socialist deputies should vote against war credits; they explained that the war could only be ended by revolutionary means; and they put forward the need for a clean break and the formation of a new international. Between these two groups stood a centre grouping, which sided with the Left on several key questions, but not completely.
It soon became clear that the Left was in a minority. One of the German delegates, Georg Ledebour, threatened to walk out if a call for socialist deputies to vote against the war credits was included in the final resolution.
In the end, a joint statement, including the most important ideas proposed by the Left, was agreed. It had been drafted by Trotsky, who, while not formally part of the Zimmerwald Left, sided with it on all the fundamental questions.
The Zimmerwald Manifesto declared that the war was imperialist and had to be opposed. It argued that the International and the parties which had voted for the war credits, which had joined national unity governments and had advocated social peace, had failed the working class. Finally, it reminded workers that war had to be opposed by the methods outlined in resolutions at previous socialist conferences.
However, it was clear that a number of crucial questions were left out, and therefore two additional statements were made at the conference by the Left, pointing out the shortcomings of the main manifesto.[10] The first statement explained that the manifesto did not contain any criticism of the opportunists. The second statement protested that the inclusion of the demand that socialist deputies should vote against war credits was blocked by the threat of a walkout by some German delegates.
The Left therefore made it clear that, while the manifesto was a step forward, there were a number of points which should have been made more clearly or more forcefully. They had therefore made a partial compromise on political clarity for the sake of maintaining unity with the centre, while preserving their freedom to explain their position fully and agitate for it publicly.
As we can see, even amongst those opposing the war, there was still confusion, and many had not drawn all the necessary conclusions, particularly in regards to the need for a clean break with opportunism and the need to found a new international.
Seven months after the Zimmerwald Conference, a follow up meeting was held in Kienthal, Switzerland, on 24-30 April 1916, with the participation of forty-three delegates. Of those, twelve supported the Zimmerwald Left led by Lenin, an increase of four since the previous conference. Working-class public opinion on the war had shifted even further, giving the Left a stronger position at Kienthal. On some issues, the Left managed to get twenty votes. Even the right wing of the anti-war socialists was coming under pressure from below to adopt a more radical stance, at least in words. The approved manifesto was thus a step forward in relation to Zimmerwald in two important aspects: it included an explicit criticism of the social-patriotic leaders of the Socialist International, and it openly called for socialist deputies to vote against war credits and break with governments of national unity.[11]
The main debate at Kienthal centred on the question of how the crisis of the socialist movement was to be resolved. The Zimmerwald Left openly called on workers “to create the theoretical and organisational preconditions for preparing the launching of a new International”, while the Right and the Centre wanted the International to reconvene its leading body, the International Socialist Bureau, so as to wage a struggle there.
Revolutionary defeatism
It is in this context that Lenin adopted a position of ‘revolutionary defeatism’:
“… to us Russian Social-Democrats there cannot be the slightest doubt that, from the standpoint of the working class and of the toiling masses of all the nations of Russia, the defeat of the tsarist monarchy, the most reactionary and barbarous of governments, which is oppressing the largest number of nations and the greatest mass of the population of Europe and Asia, would be the lesser evil.”[12]
Here Lenin stressed that the defeat of the tsarist monarchy was the lesser evil from the point of view of the Russian workers. The German social-chauvinists justified support for their own ruling class on the basis of the war aims of Germany being somehow ‘progressive’, as it was fighting the most reactionary force in Europe: Russian autocracy. But, of course, Lenin insisted that the German workers’ main task was that of fighting their own ruling class.
In raising the idea that the defeat of one’s own government is the lesser evil, Lenin was addressing the cadres, the most advanced layers of revolutionary Social-Democracy, and in so doing he used the sharpest formulations in order to straighten out any vacillation and to draw a line which excluded the confused elements. On important occasions, Lenin would ‘bend the stick’ in the opposite direction to his opponents to emphasise a point. This was a clear instance of that. As a result, the slogan of revolutionary defeatism is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted of Lenin’s formulations.
First of all, Lenin clarified that this did not mean carrying out of acts of sabotage or adventurist actions:
“… this does not mean ‘blowing up bridges’, organising unsuccessful strikes in the war industries, and in general helping the government defeat the revolutionaries.”[13]
Secondly, the slogan was used mainly between 1914 and 1916 in the context of polemics against the waverers and the centrists. In fact, the slogan was not used in any of the agitation carried out by the Bolsheviks in Russia during that period. In the classic work, St. Petersburg Between the Revolutions, Robert B McKean says:
“A textual analysis of forty-seven leaflets and appeals published illegally by Bolshevik militants between January 1915 and 22 February 1917 is most illuminating. Not a single leaflet mentioned the essential Leninist slogan of the defeat of Russia being the lesser evil…”[14]
Most of the Bolshevik agitation before the revolution was centred on attacking the policies of the government against the working class, and advocating for revolutionary struggle against it as the only way to end the war, stressing the slogans of a democratic republic, the eight-hour day and the distribution of the land. This was the concrete practical meaning of ‘the defeat of one’s own government’ – the continuation of the revolutionary agitation against the government, even during wartime, regardless of the fact that such agitation was bound to weaken that government in relation to the war effort.
That can also be seen in the draft resolution of the Left delegates to the Zimmerwald Conference, written by Karl Radek, but presented jointly with Lenin, with whom he collaborated closely in Switzerland. The resolution insisted on the need for revolutionary struggle against the capitalist governments, the need to use:
“… all the struggles, all the reforms demanded by our minimum programme for the purpose of sharpening this war crisis as well as every social and political crisis of capitalism of extending them to an attack upon its very foundations.” [15]
It concludes by quoting the words of Liebknecht’s letter to the conference: “‘Civil war, not “civil peace”’ – that is the slogan!”[16] The resolution did not, however, contain any mention of the defeat of one’s own government being the lesser evil.
Lenin also drafted his own resolution for the Left delegates. In it he explained that socialists should use “the masses’ growing desire for peace” in order to intensify their revolutionary agitation and should not be “shying away in that agitation from considerations of the defeat of their ‘own’ country”. It should also be noted here how, in this resolution, Lenin – who had energetically rejected pacifist illusions and even the use of the ‘peace’ slogan – made a point of recognising the need to base revolutionary agitation on the desire for peace amongst the masses. He explained that this was an expression of their rejection “of the bourgeois lie regarding the defence of the fatherland, and the awakening of their revolutionary consciousness”.[17] Again, in Lenin’s text there is no mention of the defeat of one’s government being the lesser evil.
Lenin was taking aim at the opportunists, who everywhere capitulated to their own government and attempted to put a halt to the class struggle, to create ‘social peace’, in order to help the war effort. Lenin therefore posed the question in the negative: revolutionary agitation should not be constrained by the fact that it might lead to the weakening and defeat of the government. Quite the contrary.
After the February Revolution
Once the revolution broke out in Russia in February 1917, and Lenin was able to return to the country in April, he completely dropped the idea that the defeat of one’s own government would be the lesser evil, because he was now addressing the masses in the context of a revolution. In all his writings and speeches after the February Revolution, we can see how he recognised the difference between the ‘honest defencist’ mood which existed amongst the mass of workers and peasants who had carried out the revolution, and the reactionary defencism of the ruling class, echoed by the social-chauvinists. As a result, he stressed the need to patiently explain the programme of the Bolsheviks using slogans which serve to raise the level of understanding of these layers.
Here we can see Lenin’s consistent revolutionary method / Image: public domain
“The masses take a practical and not a theoretical approach to the question. We make the mistake of taking the theoretical approach. […]
In view of the undoubted existence of a defencist mood among the masses, who recognise the war only of necessity and not for the sake of conquest, we must explain to them most circumstantially, persistently and patiently that the war cannot be ended in a non-rapacious peace unless capital is overthrown. […] The soldiers want a concrete answer: how to end the war. […] We must base ourselves only on the political consciousness of the masses. […] When the masses say they don’t want conquest, I believe them. When Guchkov and Lvov say they don’t want conquest, they are swindlers. When the worker says that he wants to defend the country, he voices the oppressed man’s instinct.”[18]
Here we can see Lenin’s consistent revolutionary method. The conclusion he drew from this was not to fall into defencism, but rather to explain that only when the workers take power can a genuine defencist position be adopted.
In fact, on a number of occasions between February and October 1917, the Bolsheviks were at pains to defend themselves against the slanderous allegations of the Provisional Government that they were for the disorganisation of the army, or for a separate peace with Germany.
“This war cannot be ended by a refusal of the soldiers of one side only to continue the war, by a simple cessation of hostilities by one of the belligerents.
The Conference reiterates its protest against the base slander spread by the capitalists against our Party to the effect that we are in favour of a separate peace with Germany. We consider the German capitalists to be as predatory as the Russian, British, French and other capitalists, and Emperor Wilhelm as bad a crowned brigand as Nicholas II or the British, Italian, Romanian and all other monarchs.”[19]
In June 1917, Lenin reproduced a leaflet distributed by Bolshevik agitators in the army:
“… beware of those who, posing as Bolsheviks, will try to provoke you to riots and disturbances as a screen for their own cowardice! […]
The real Bolsheviks call you to conscious revolutionary struggle, and not to riots.”[20]
In fact, there was a period just before the October Revolution in which the army high command and sections of the ruling class were openly working for a military defeat of Russia in order to drown the revolution in blood. In effect, they were putting their class interests before the national interest. At this point, Lenin developed his arguments further, explaining the measures that would be necessary to turn the capitalist imperialist war into a just war:
“The defence potential, the military might, of a country whose banks have been nationalised is superior to that of a country whose banks remain in private hands. The military might of a peasant country whose land is in the hands of peasant committees is superior to that of a country whose land is in the hands of landowners.”[21]
The fundamental argument is the same: the workers must take power. But the way the argument is presented is different, taking into account the audience the Bolsheviks were addressing and the concrete mood of the masses at the time.
During a debate at the Extraordinary Fourth All-Russia Congress of Soviets about the ratification of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty with Germany in March 1918, Lenin spelled out the change:
“We were defeatists at the time of the tsar, but at the time of Tsereteli and Chernov we were not defeatists.”[22]
That is, while the tsarist autocracy was in power, the Bolsheviks were revolutionary defeatists, but they ceased to be so when tsarism was overthrown and the Provisional Government was established.
Lenin himself explained the meaning of this change in a discussion during the Third Congress of the Comintern in 1921:
“At the beginning of the war we Bolsheviks adhered to a single slogan – that of civil war, and a ruthless one at that. We branded as a traitor everyone who did not support the idea of civil war. But when we came back to Russia in March 1917 we changed our position entirely. When we returned to Russia and spoke to the peasants and workers, we saw that they all stood for defence of the homeland, of course in quite a different sense from the Mensheviks, and we could not call these ordinary workers and peasants scoundrels and traitors. We described this as ‘honest defencism’. […] Our original stand at the beginning of the war was correct: it was important then to form a definite and resolute core. Our subsequent stand was correct too. It proceeded from the assumption that the masses had to be won over.”[23]
Here we see the extraordinary skill of Lenin. First, he waged an implacable struggle for principles, not just against the open betrayers, but also against those who were willing to make compromises or were not prepared to draw all the necessary conclusions from the political break that had taken place.
He not only struggled against those to his right, but also against those who made left-wing, or more precisely ‘ultra-left’, mistakes. This was the case for instance in his criticism of the Junius Pamphlet.[24] He praised the text as an important breakthrough, as it showed the existence of an internationalist and revolutionary wing in the German Social-Democracy, where the betrayal had been most damaging. But at the same time, he insisted on pointing out certain shortcomings of the document, which unbeknownst to him had been written by Rosa Luxemburg (under the pseudonym Junius), and subjecting them to detailed criticism. One of those mistakes was related to the national question and the possibility of national wars in the epoch of imperialism, on which Luxemburg had a different position to Lenin.
Having thus established a principled position through an implacable struggle with other trends, and having won over the vanguard to a correct position, Lenin then, without changing his principles one iota, undertook the second part of the task: that of winning over the masses to that position. And that required being able to explain those same ideas in a way that the mass of workers and peasants would be able to understand, and which connected with their experiences and consciousness.
There was general political agreement between Lenin and Trotsky regarding the struggle against the imperialist war / Image: public domain
It is in this context that Lenin’s criticism of Trotsky in ‘The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War’, written in 1915, needs to be understood.[25]
Trotsky was at the time editing a daily anti-war newspaper in Paris, Nashe Slovo, and therefore his audience was different from that which Lenin was addressing. The slogan of the ‘defeat of one’s country being the lesser evil’ could not be used in a paper which aimed to reach wider layers.
There was general political agreement between Lenin and Trotsky regarding the struggle against the imperialist war, as witnessed by their close collaboration at Zimmerwald and Kienthal, but Trotsky had illusions in the possibility of re-establishing the unity of the party, which Lenin adamantly opposed. On this question, Lenin was right.
The Bolsheviks in power
One last observation. The Russian Revolution, as is known, was fought on the basis of the slogan ‘Peace, Bread and Land’, which the Bolsheviks argued could only be achieved through the workers and peasants coming to power, hence the slogan ‘All Power to the Soviets’. Upon coming to power after the October Revolution, the Decree on Peace was one of the first passed by the Soviet Government.[26] In it, the Bolsheviks fulfilled their promises, offering a genuine democratic peace, without annexations, to all belligerent countries.
In addition, the Bolsheviks in power repudiated all secret treaties, which they made public, to the great embarrassment of the imperialist powers. These included, for instance, the Treaty of London, by which Britain, France and Russia promised territorial concessions to Italy to be carved out of Austria-Hungary in exchange for Italian support in the war; and the Constantinople and Sykes-Picot agreements between Britain, France and Russia for the division of the Ottoman Empire, even though they had promised the Arabs self-rule in exchange for rising up against the Turks.
Lenin put forward the idea that, if this proposal for a democratic peace were to be rejected, then Soviet power would wage a genuine defensive war, a revolutionary war against Germany and other imperialist powers that threatened the new workers’ state. This was not to be. In fact, such was the state of demoralisation in the Russian Army that a strong tendency towards disintegration set in as the revolution triumphed.
During the peace negotiations at Brest-Litovsk in early 1918 between the Soviets, led by Trotsky, and the Central Powers, the Bolsheviks were barely able to hold the line at the front. They were stalling and hoping that revolution would break out in Germany. Revolution did break out in Germany, although not until November of that year. The German high command was fully aware of the dire situation of the Russian Army and extracted an onerous peace from the Soviets. Starting in February 1918, a whole new army had to be created, the Red Army of Workers and Peasants, tasked with defending the Revolution and Soviet power. But that falls beyond the scope of this volume.
Lenin’s writings on the struggle against the imperialist war are a treasure trove for revolutionaries today. Much can be learned from a detailed study of the principles he defended – which were a development of those outlined by Marx and Engels, in new conditions – and also of the way he then applied those principles in his practical agitation aimed at winning over the masses. We hope that this selection, though by no means exhaustive, will help revolutionary communists today in that endeavour.
References
[1] VI Lenin, Socialism and War, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 64.
[2] Ibid., p. 65.
[3] ‘Resolution of the Seventh International Socialist Congress at Stuttgart’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 368.
[4] Lenin, ‘The International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 7.
[5] Ibid., p. 6, emphasis added.
[6] Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Wellred Books, 2019, p. 8.
[7] Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 57.
[8] See Lenin, ‘The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution’ on p. 199 and ‘The Junius Pamphlet’ on p. 173.
[9] See ‘The position of Serbian socialists during WWI’, In Defence of Marxism, 2023
[10] See ‘Two Declarations of the Zimmerwald Left’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 395.
[11] The ‘Kienthal Manifesto’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 397
[12] Lenin, ‘The War and Russian Social-Democracy’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 16.
[13] Lenin, ‘The Defeat of One’s Own Government in the Imperialist War’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 43.
[14] Robert B McKean, St. Petersburg Between the Revolutions, Yale, 1990, p. 361.
[15] ‘Draft Resolution and Manifesto Submitted by the Left Wing Delegates at Zimmerwald’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 389, emphasis in original.
[16] Ibid., p. 390, emphasis in original.
[17] Lenin, ‘The Draft Resolution of the Left Wing at Zimmerwald’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war. p. 112, both quotes.
[18] Lenin, ‘Report at a Meeting of Bolshevik Delegates to the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 271, emphasis in original.
[19] ‘Resolution on the War at the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the RSDLP(B)’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 295.
[20] Lenin, ‘Bolshevism and ‘Demoralisation’ of the Army’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 313.
[21] Lenin, ‘The Struggle Against Economic Chaos – and the War’, from ‘The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 327.
[22] Lenin, ‘Reply to the Debate on the Report on Ratification of the Peace Treaty’, Extraordinary Fourth All-Russia Congress Of Soviets, 14-16 March 1918, Lenin Collected Works, Vol. 27, Progress Publishers, 1960, p. 193.
[23] Lenin, ‘Speeches at a Meeting of Members of the German, Polish, Czechoslovak, Hungarian and Italian Delegations, 11 July’, ibid., Vol. 42, p. 325
[24] See Lenin, ‘The Junius Pamphlet’, this volume, p. 173.
[25] See this volume, p. 43.
[26] See ‘Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies’, Lenin: selected writings on imperialist war, p. 351.