V. I.

Lenin
Theses for an Appeal to the International
Socialist Committee and All Socialist
Parties [7]

ROUGH DRAFT

Published: First published in 1931 in Lenin

Miscellany XVII. Written before December 25,
1916 (January 7, 1917). Published according to the
manuscript.
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Progress
Publishers, 1964, Moscow, Volume 23, pages 205-
216.
Translated: M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and
and Others
Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala
Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive 2002
(2005). You may freely copy, distribute, display and
perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial
works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your
source. • README

1. The turn in world politics, from imperialist war to

open appeals by a number of bourgeois governments for
an imperialist peace, coincides with a turn in the
development of world socialism.

2. The first turn has produced a spate of pious and

sentimental pacifist phrases, promises and pledges, with
which the imperialist bourgeoisie and the imperialist
governments seek to deceive the peoples and “peacefully”
condition them to obediently bear the whole cost of the
predatory war, peacefully disarm the millions of
proletarians and cover up, by paltry concessions, the
preparation for a deal to divide up the colonies and
financially (also politically if possible) strangle weak
nations. This deal comprises the sum and substance of
the projected imperialist peace and is a direct
continuation of the existing secret predatory agreements,
particularly those concluded during the war,
between all the powers of both warring imperialist
coalitions.

3.[1] The second turn consists in a “reconciliation”

between the social-chauvinists, who have betrayed
socialism and defected to bourgeois nationalism or
imperialism, and the Zimmerwald Right wing, as
represented by Kautsky and Co. in Germany, Turati and
Co. in Italy, Longuet Pressemane-Merrheim in France,
etc. By uniting on a basis of empty, meaningless and non-
committal pacifist phrases, which in practice serve
to disguise imperialist policy and imperialist
peace, embellish them instead of exposing them, these
two trends are taking a decisive step towards the greatest
deception of the workers, towards consolidating the
domination in the labour movement of a bourgeois
labour policy veiled by socialist phraseology, the
domination of leaders and privileged sections of the
working class that have helped the governments and The
bourgeoisie wage this predatory imperialist war on the
plea of “defending the fatherland”.

4. Social-pacifist policy, or the policy of social-pacifist

phraseology, now predominates in the socialist parties of
the chief European countries (see Kautsky’s five pacifist
articles in the German Social-Democratic press and,
appearing at the same time, the statement of the social-
imperialist leaders in the Chemnitz Volksstimme that
they are fully prepared for peace and unity with the
Kautskyites on a basis of pacifist phrases; the
January 7,1917 pacifist manifesto of the German
Kautskyite opposition; the Longuetists and Renaudel and
Co. voting together at the French Socialist Party
Congress, and Jouhaux and Merrheim, also Broutchoux,
at the General Confederation of Labour
Congress, for resolutions composed of misleading
pacifist phrases; a similar pacifist statement by Turati on
December 17, 1916, and the defence of his position by the
entire Socialist Party of Italy). Whatever the terms of the
peace now being prepared between the present,
i.e., bourgeois, governments of both imperialist
coalitions, this policy signifies the conversion of socialist
and syndicalist (Jouhaux and Merrheim) organisations
into a tool of government intrigue and secret imperialist
diplomacy.

5. The possible terms of the peace now being prepared

by the bourgeois governments of both imperialist
coalitions are in reality determined by
the altered balance of forceswhich the war has already
produced and might still produce. In their basic and
principal features the changes are as follows: (a) the
German imperialist coalition has up to now proved much
stronger than its adversary. The territories occupied by
German and German-allied forces are its guarantee in a
new imperialist division of the world (colonies, weak
countries, finance capital’s spheres of influence, etc.),
which will merely be formalised by the peace treaty; (b)
the British imperialist coalition hopes to improve its
military position in the spring; but (c) the exhaustion
caused by the war and, chiefly, the fact that it is hard for
the financial oligarchy to rob the peoples still morethan it
has already done through unparalleled “war profits”, is
giving rise, in connection with the fear of proletarian
revolution, to attempts by some bourgeois circles to end
the war as soon as possible through a deal between the
two groups of imperialist freebooters; (d) there is a
noticeable shift in world politics from the Anglo-Russian
coalition against Germany towards a coalition (just as
imperialist in nature) of Germany and Russia against
England. The basis for this is that tsarism has not the
strength to seize Constantinople, promised it in the
secret treaties with France, England, Italy, etc., and is
therefore seeking compensation in a division of Galicia,
Armenia and, possibly, Rumania, etc., and also in an
alliance with Germany against England for the plunder of
Asia; (e) another major change in world politics is the
tremendous enrichment, at Europe’s expense, of United
States finance capital, which has latterly increased its
armaments (just like Japanese imperialism, which is
much weaker) to unprecedented proportions, and which
would be only too glad to divert the attention of “its”
workers from these armaments by cheap pacifist
phraseology ... relating to Europe!

6. Out of fear of proletarian revolution, the bourgeoisie

finds itself compelled in every possible way to conceal
and embellish this objective political situation, this
imperialist reality. It Is trying to dupe the workers, divert
their attention, and the best means to that end is the
customary diplomatic duplicity of non-committal,
hypocritical phrases about a “democratic” peace, freedom
for small nations “in general”, “armaments restriction”,
etc. This duping of the people comes all the easier to the
imperialist bourgeoisie because, when it speaks of, say,
“peace without annexations” every bourgeoisie has in
view annexations by its adversary, and is “modestly
reticent” about annexations it itself has already made.
The Germans “forget” that they have factually annexed
not only Constantinople, Belgrade, Bucharest, Brussels,
but also Alsace-Lorraine, part of Schleswig, Prussian
Poland, etc. Tsarism and its flunkeys, the Russian
imperialist bourgeois (Plekhanov, Potresov and their ilk
included, i.e., the majority of the Organising Committee
party in Russia), “forget” that Russia has annexed not
only Erserum and part of Galicia, but also Finland, the
Ukraine, etc. The French bourgeoisie “forgets” that,
together with the English, it has robbed Germany of her
colonies. The Italian bourgeoisie “forgets” that it is
robbing Tripoli, Dalmatia, Albania, and so on without
end.

7. That being the objective state of affairs, it is the

obvious and imperative task of every sincere socialist
policy, every honest proletarian policy (not to speak of
conscious Marxist policy) first of all and above all
consistently, systematically, boldly and unreservedly
to expose the pacifist and democratic hypocrisy of one’s
own government and one’s own bourgeoisie. Lacking
that, all talk of socialism, syndicalism, internationalism is
a sheer deception of the people. For exposure of
annexations by one’s imperialist rivals (regardless of
whether they are named or merely implied, by
denouncing annexations “generally” or by similar
“diplomatic” methods of concealing one’s thoughts) Is
the direct concern, the direct business, of all venal
journalists, all imperialists, including those that parade,
as socialists, such as Scheidemann and Co., Sembat and
Co., Plekhanov and Co., etc.

8. Turati and Co., Kautsky and Co., Longuet and

Merrheim and Co. utterly fail to understand that this is
their direct duty. They represent a definite trend in
international socialism and, objectively, in practice—
regardless of how supremely virtuous their intentions
may be—are simply helping their “own” imperialist
bourgeoisie to dupe the people, embellish its imperialist
aims. These social-pacifists, i.e., socialists in words and
vehicles of bourgeois-pacifist hypocrisy in deeds, now
play exactly the same part as the Christian priests, who
for centuries sought to embellish the policy of the
oppressing classes—the slave-owners, feudals and
capitalists—and make their rule acceptable to the
oppressed classes by preaching Christian love of one’s
neighbour and Christ’s commandments.

9. A policy designed not to mislead the workers, but to

open their eyes to reality, should consist in the following:

(a) Socialists in every country must now, when the

question of peace is so directly posed, unfailingly and
more vigorously than usual expose their own government
and their own bourgeoisie. They must expose the secret
agreements they have concluded, and are concluding,
with their imperialist allies for the division of colonies,
spheres of influence, joint financial undertakings in other
countries, buying up of shares, monopoly arrangements,
concessions, etc.

For in this, and in this alone, lies the real, not

deceptive, basis and substance of the imperialist peace
now being prepared. Everything else is meant to deceive
the people. Those who vow and swear by these
catchwords are not really supporting a democratic peace
without annexations, etc., for real support means
exposing, in practice, one’s own bourgeoisie, which by
its actions is destroying these great principles of true
socialism and true democracy.

For every member of parliament, every editor, every

secretary of a labour union, every journalist and public
leader can always gather the information kept secret by
the government and the financiers that reveals
the truth about the real basis of imperialist deals. A
socialist’s failure to fulfil this duty is a betrayal of
socialism. There need be no doubt that no government
will allow, especially now, free publication of exposures
of its real policy, its treaties, financial deals, etc. That is
no reason to renounce such exposures. Rather it is a
reason to renounce servile submission to the censorship
and publish the facts freely, i.e., uncensored, illegally.

For the Socialist of another country cannot expose the

government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his
own” nation, and not only because he does not know that
country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but
also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue,
and not an internationalist duty.

He is not an internationalist who vows and swears by

internationalism. Only he is an internationalist who in a
really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie,
his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites.

(b) In every country the Socialist must above all

emphasise in all his propaganda the need to distrust not
only every political phrase of his own government, but
also every political phrase of his own social-chauvinists,
who in reality serve that government.

(c) In every country the Socialists must above all

explain to the masses the indisputable truth that a
genuinely enduring and genuinely democratic peace
(without annexations, etc.) can now be achieved only if it
is concluded not by the present bourgeois governments,
or by bourgeois governments in general, but
by proletariangovernments that have overthrown the
rule of the bourgeoisie and are proceeding to expropriate
it.

The war has reaffirmed clearly enough and in a very

practical way a truth which prior to the war was repeated
by all the socialist leaders who have now gone over to the
bourgeoisie, namely, that modern capitalist society,
particularly[2] in the advanced countries, has fully
matured for the transition to socialism, if, for instance,
Germany can direct the economic life of 66 million
people from a single centre, and strain the people’s
energies to wage a predatory war in the interests of 100
or 200 financial magnates or aristocrats, the monarchy,
etc., then the same can be done, in the interests of nine-
tenths of the population, by the non-propertied masses if
their struggle is directed by class-conscious workers,
liberated from social-imperialist and social-pacifist
influence.

All propaganda for socialism must be refashioned from

abstract and general to concrete and directly practical:
expropriate the banks and, relying on the masses, carry
out in their interests the very same thing the W.U.M.B.A.
[3]
is carrying out in Germany!

(d) In every country the socialist must explain to the

masses the indisputable truth that, if the phrase
“democratic peace” is to be taken seriously, sincerely and
honestly, and not merely used as a false Christian phrase
meant to conceal an imperialist peace, then the workers
have only one means of really achieving such a
peace right now. That means is to turn their weapons
against their own government (i.e., follow the advice of
Karl Liebknecht, for which he has been sentenced to
hard labour. He urged, in other words, what our Party
manifesto of November 1, 1914[4] defined as turning the
imperialist war into a civil war of the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie and for socialism).

The Basle Manifesto of November 24, 1912, signed

by all the socialist parties, had in view the very war that
is now raging. And when it threatened the governments
with “proletarian revolution” in connection with the
imminent war, when it referred to the Paris Commune, it
spoke the truth, a truth from which the betrayers of
socialism are now cowardly retreating. For if in 1871 the
Paris workers could utilise the excellent weapons given
them by Napoleon III in pursuance of his ambitious
plans, to make their heroic attempt, admired by socialists
the world over, to over throw bourgeois rule and capture
power for the introduction of socialism—then a similar
attempt is a thousand times more achievable, possible
and likely to succeed now, when a much larger number of
better organised and more class-conscious workers of
several countries are in possession of much better
weapons, and when with every passing day the course of
the war is enlightening and revolutionising the masses.
In all countries the chief obstacle to initiating systematic
propaganda and agitation in this spirit is definitely not
the “fatigue of the masses”, as the Scheidemanns plus
Kautsky, etc., falsely plead. The “masses” are not yet tired
of shooting and will continue to shoot even more in the
spring, unless their class enemies come to some
arrangement about dividing up Turkey, Rumania,
Armenia, Africa, etc. The chief obstacle is the faith part of
the class-conscious workers have in the social-
imperialists and social-pacifists. Today’s major task must
be to destroy the faith in these trends, ideas, methods
of policy.

To what extent such an attempt is feasible, from the

standpoint of the sentiment of the broad masses, can
only be proved by launching this type of agitation and
propaganda everywhere and in the most resolute and
energetic way; by giving the most sincere and devoted
support to all revolutionary manifestations of the
mounting mass resentment, to the strikes and
demonstrations that are forcing the Russian bourgeoisie
frankly to admit that the revolution is on the march, and
have forced Helfferich to declare in the Reichstag: “Better
to keep the Left Social-Democrats in prison than to have
Potsdam Square littered with corpses,” i.e., to admit that
the masses are responding to agitation by the Left.

In any case, the alternative which socialists must

clearly place before the masses is this: either continue to
kill each other for capitalist profits, put up with the high
cost of living, hunger, the burden of a debt running into
billions, and accept the farce of an
imperialist truce veiled by democratic and reformist
promises, or rise in revolt against the bourgeoisie.

A revolutionary party which openly, before the whole

world, threatened the governments with “proletarian
revolution” in the event of such a war as is now being
waged, would be committing moral suicide if it did not
urge the workers, and the masses generally, to direct all
thought and effort towards revolt, now that the masses
are so excellently armed, so excellently trained in the art
of warfare, and fed up with the absurdity of this criminal
imperialist shambles, which up to now they have been
helping.

(e) Socialists must centre their activity on the struggle

against reformism, which has always corrupted the
revolutionary labour movement by injecting bourgeois
ideas, and has now assumed a somewhat special form,
namely: “reliance” on the reforms the bourgeoisie is
supposed to carry out after the war! Reformists argue
that in urging, popularising and preparing the socialist
revolution of the proletariat, we are “losing sight” of the
“practical” aspect, “forfeiting” our chances to win
reforms.

That argument, customary both to social-chauvinists

and supporters of Kautsky, who has even denounced
street demonstrations as “adventuristic”, is thoroughly
unscientific, fundamentally false, a bourgeois lie.

In the course of the war world capitalism has taken a

forward step not only towards concentration in general,
but also towards transition from monopoly in general
to state capitalism on a much broader scale than before.
Economic reforms in this direction are inevitable.

In the political sphere, the imperialist war has

demonstrated that from the imperialists’ standpoint it
is sometimes much more advantageous to have as war
ally a politically independent but financially dependent
small nation rather than risk Irish or Czech “incidents”
(i.e., uprisings or the defection of whole regiments)
during a war. It is quite possible, therefore, that parallel
with its policy of strangling small nations—a policy it can
never wholly abandon—imperialism will in individual
cases follow a policy of “voluntary” alliance (i.e., resulting
exclusively from financial strangulation) with new small
national states, or with mongrel states, such as Poland.

However, it does not follow from this that Social-

Democrats can, without betraying their cause, “vote” for
or support such imperialist “reforms”.

Only bourgeois reformism, which in substance is the

position of Kautsky, Turati and Merrheim, poses the
question thus: either renunciation of revolution and that
means reforms, or no reforms at all.

Yet all the experience of world history, like the

experience of the 1905 Russian Revolution, teaches us
the very opposite: either revolutionary class struggle, of
which reforms are always a by-product (when the
revolution is not completely successful), or no reforms at
all.

For the only effective force that compels change is

popular revolutionary energy, providing it does not
remain on paper, as has been the case in the Second
International, but finds expression in comprehensive
mass revolutionary propaganda, agitation and
organisation conducted by parties marching at the head
of the revolution, not limping along in its tail.

Only by openly proclaiming revolution, by purging the

workers’ parties of all who oppose revolution or
“sceptically” accept it—only by giving every aspect of
party activity a revolutionary content, can Social-
Democracy, in such “critical” eras of world history as the
present one, guarantee the masses either complete
success of their cause if the revolution is supported by
very broad masses, or reforms, i.e., concessions by the
bourgeoisie, if the revolution is only partially successful.

Otherwise, if the Scheidemann and Kautsky policy

prevails, there is no guarantee that the reforms will not
be reduced to naught, or carried out with police and
reactionary restrictions that will rule out the very
possibility of the proletariat using them in a repeated
fight for the revolution.

(f) Socialists must make a serious effort to bring to

reality Karl Liebknecht’s slogan. The popularity that
name enjoys among the masses is a guarantee that
revolutionary activity is both possible and likely to
succeed. The attitude of Scheidemann and Co., Kautsky
and Co. towards that name is an example of hypocrisy: in
words they swear by the “Liebknechts of all
countries”; in deeds they combat Liebknecht’s tactics.

Liebknecht broke not only with the Scheidemanns

(Renaudels, Plekhanovs, Bissolatis), but also with the
Kautsky trend (Longuet, Axelrod, Turati).

Liebknecht declared, as early as October 2, 1914, in his

letter to the Party Executive:

“Ich habe erklärt, dass die deutsche Partei, nach

meiner innersten überzeugung, von der Haut bis zum
Mark regeneriert werden muss, wenn sie das Recht nicht
verwirken will, sich sozialdemokratisch zu nennen, wenn
sie sich die jetzt gründlich verscherzte Achtung der Welt
wiedererwerben will.” (Klassenkampf gegen den
Krieg! Material zum “Fall Liebknecht”. Seite 22.)
(Geheim gedruckt in Deutschland: “Als Manuskript
gedruckt”.)[5]

All parties should take up Liebknecht’s slogan and it

would certainly be ridiculous to even think of being able
to turn it into effect without ridding the party of the
Scheidemanns, Legiens, Renaudels, Sembats,
Plekhanovs, Vanderveldes and Co., or without
denouncing the policy of concessions to the trend
represented by Kautsky, Turati, Longuet and Merrheim.
* *
*

10. We therefore suggest a conference of Zimmerwald

supporters to discuss the following proposals:
 (1) Socialist pacifism of a definite trend—Longuet-
Merrheim, Kautsky, Turati, et .,—already rejected in
principle at Kienthal, and its concrete defence by these
representatives of the afore-mentioned trends should be
decisively and unconditionally rejected as bourgeois
reformism (on the basis of the theses formulated above).

(2) A similarly decisive organisational break with

social-chauvinism.

(3) Explain to the working class its immediate and

urgent revolutionary tasks, precisely in connection with
the fact that the masses have lost patience with the war
and the lying milk-and-water pacifist phrases of the
bourgeoisie.

(4) Openly brand as a complete break with the spirit

and decisions of Zimmerwald and Kienthal, and
condemn as such, the policy of the Italian Socialist Party,
which is following a patently pacifist path, and the policy
of the Swiss Social-Democratic Party, which on
November 4, 1916 in Zurich voted to permit indirect
taxes, and on January 7, 1917, through an alliance
between the “Centrist” R. Grimm and the social-patriots
Greulich, G. Müller and Co., secured indefinite
postponement of the special party congress called for
February 11, 1917 to discuss the war issue, and which now
meekly accepts the outright ultimatum of these same
social-patriot leaders, who openly threaten to resign from
parliament if the party rejects fatherland defence.

The sad experience of the Second International has

clearly demonstrated the immense damage caused by
combining, in actual practice, “general” revolutionary
decisions, formulated in general phrases, with reformist
actions—when professions of internationalism are
attended by refusal jointly to discuss, in a truly
internationalist manner, fundamental problems of the
tactics of each individual party as a component part of
the international union.

Prior to the Zimmerwald Conference and at the

Conference itself, our Party considered it its duty to
acquaint the comrades with our irrevocable
condemnation of pacifism and abstract preachment of
peace as a bourgeois deception (a German translation of
our Party’s resolution, in the pamphlet Socialism and
War,[6] and a French translation, in a separate leaflet,
were circulated at the Conference). The Zimmerwald
Left, in whose organisation we shared, was formed as a
separate group at the Conference for the express purpose
of showing that we support the Zimmerwald
group insofar as it combats social-chauvinism.

It has now been definitely established—of this we are

profoundly convinced—that the Zimmerwald majority, or
the Zimmerwald Right, has made a roundabout turn not
towards struggle against social-chauvinism, but towards
complete surrender to it, towards merger with it on a
platform of empty pacifist phrases. And we consider it
our duty openly to state that to support, in these
circumstances, the illusion of Zimmerwald unity and
Zimmerwald struggle for the Third International would
cause the greatest damage to the labour movement. We
declare, not as a “threat” or “ultimatum”, but as an open
notification of our decision, that unless the situation
changes we shall not remain a member of the
Zimmerwald group.

Notes
 [1] Combine with § 4. —Lenin

[2] In the manuscript, the words “at any rate” are written
over the word “particularly”.—Ed.

[3] Waffen- und Munitionsbeschaffungsamt—Weapons

and Ammunition Supply Department.—Ed.

[4] [PLACEHOLDER FOOTNOTE.] —Lenin

[5] “I have declared my deep conviction that, if it does

not want to forfeit the right to call itself a Social-
Democratic party, if it wants to restore its prestige in the
eyes of the world, now so thoroughly under mined, the
German party must be regenerated from top to bottom.”
(Class Struggle Against the War! Materials in the
“Liebknecht Case”, p. 22.) (Printed secretly in Germany:
Published as a manuscript.)—Ed.

[6] [PLACEHOLDER FOOTNOTE.] —Lenin

[7] This “rough draft” was written early in January 1917.

The manuscript bears this note by Lenin: “(for the I.S.C.
and publication in the press)”.

On January 7, 1917, Robert Grimm, the Kautskyite

Chairman of the International Socialist Committee,
induced the Swiss Social-Democratic Party Executive to
postpone indefinitely the emergency party congress on
the war issue, despite objections from the Left. On the
same day the Centrist opposition in the German Social-
Democratic Party held a conference in Berlin and
adopted a pacifist manifesto framed by Kautsky, “Ein
Friedensmanifest der deutschen Parteiopposition”
(“Peace Manifesto of the German Party Opposition”),
later published in a number of German newspapers and
in the Swiss Socialist Volksrecht of January 11. Since this
signified an open alliance of the Right Zimmerwaldists
with the social-chauvinists, Lenin altered his draft but
decided to postpone its publication. The manuscript
bears his note: “Written before January 7, 1917 and
therefore partly obsolete.” Later, using the draft as a
basis, Lenin wrote his appeal “To the Workers Who
Support the Struggle Against the War and Against the
Socialists Who Have Sided with Their Governments” (see
pp. 229–35 of this volume).

< backward forward >

Works Index | Volume 23 | Collected Works | L.I.A. Index