W O R K E R S O F A L L C O U N T R I E S , U N I T E!

L E N I NCOLLECTED WORKS

2

A

THE RUSSIAN EDITION WAS PRINTEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION

OF THE NINTH CONGRESS OF THE R.C.P.(B.)AND THE SECOND CONGRESS OF SOVIETS

OF THE U.S.S.R.

CTTT C p K KCC

E

a u m p m o e

M

B . n . l d H n H

cOLLEcTED WORKS

V O L U M E2

February?uly 1918

PROGRESS PUBLISHERSM O S C O W

V. I. L E N I N

TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIANBY C L E M E N S D U T T

EDITED BY R O B E R T D A G L I S H

First printing 1965Second printing 1974

From Marx to Mao

ML

Digital Reprints2011

www.marx2mao.com

715

19

30

34

36

40

42

43

48

5 1

53

57

58

62

67

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

February-July 1918

THE REVOLUTIONARY PHRASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .THE SOCIALIST FATHERLAND IS IN DANGER! . . . . . . . .SUPPLEMENT TO THE DECREE OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLESCOMMISSARS: THE SOCIALIST FATHERLAND IS IN DANGER! . .THE ITCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .PEACE OR WAR? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SPEECH AT THE JOINT MEETING OF THE BOLSHEVIK AND LEFTSOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARY GROUPS OF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C.,FEBRUARY 23, 1918 Newspaper Report . . . . . . . . . . .

REPORT AT THE MEETING OF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C., FEBRUARY24, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WHERE IS THE MISTAKE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .AN UNFORTUNATE PEACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SPEECHES AT THE MEETING OF THE C.C. OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.),FEBRUARY 24, 1918. Minutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NOTE ON THE NECESSITY OF SIGNING THE PEACE TREATY . . .POSITION OF THE C.C. OF THE R.S.D.L.P. (BOLSHEVIKS) ON THEQUESTION OF THE SEPARATE AND ANNEXATIONIST PEACE . . .A PAINFUL BUT NECESSARY LESSON . . . . . . . . . . . .DRAFT DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLES COMMISSARSON THE EVACUATION OF THE GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . .

Page

CONTENTS8

STRANGE AND MONSTROUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ON A BUSINESSLIKE BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .DRAFT OF AN ORDER TO ALL SOVIETS . . . . . . . . . . .A SERIOUS LESSON AND A SERIOUS RESPONSIBILITY . . . . .EXTRAORDINARY SEVENTH CONGRESS OF THE R.C.P.(B.),MARCH 6-8, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. POLITICAL REPORT OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE ,MARCH 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. REPLY TO THE DEBATE ON THE POLITICAL REPORT OFTHE CENTRAL COMMITTEE, MARCH 8 . . . . . . . .

3. RESOLUTION ON WAR AND PEACE . . . . . . . . . .4. SPEECHES AGAINST TROTSKYS AMENDMENTS TO THE

RESOLUTION ON WAR AND PEACE, MARCH 8 (MORNING)

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. SPEECH AGAINST THE STATEMENT OF THE LEFT COM-MUNIST GROUP IN SUPPORT OF TROTSKYS AMEND-MENT, MARCH 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. ADDENDUM TO THE RESOLUTION ON WAR AND PEACE,MARCH 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. SPEECH AGAINST ZINOVIEVS AMENDMENT TO THEADDENDUM TO THE RESOLUTION ON WAR AND PEACE,MARCH 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE RESOLUTION ON WAR ANDPEACE, MARCH 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF THE PROGRAMME AND ONCHANGING THE NAME OF THE PARTY, MARCH 8 . . .

10. RESOLUTION ON CHANGING THE NAME OF THE PARTYAND THE PARTY PROGRAMME . . . . . . . . . . .

11. PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE REVISION OF THE PARTYPROGRAMME, MARCH 8 (EVENING) . . . . . . . . .

12. SPEECH ON MGELADZES PROPOSAL FOR DRAWING THECHIEF PARTY ORGANISATION INTO THE WORK OFDRAFTING THE PARTY PROGRAMME, MARCH 8(EVENING) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

76

78

79

85

87

110

118

120

120121

122

123

124

125

125125

126

140

142

144

9CONTENTS

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FOR

COMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

13. SPEECH AGAINST LARINS AMENDMENT TO THE NAMEOF THE PARTY, MARCH 8 (EVENING) . . . . . . . . .

14. SPEECH AGAINST PELSHES AMENDMENT TO THE RESO-LUTION ON THE PARTY PROGRAMME, MARCH 8 (EVENING)

15. SPEECH AGAINST BUKHARINS AMENDMENT TO THERESOLUTION ON THE PARTY PROGRAMME, MARCH 8 . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16. SPEECH ON THE QUESTION OF ELECTIONS TO THECENTRAL COMMITTEE, MARCH 8 (EVENING) . . . . . .

17. RESOLUTION ON THE REFUSAL OF THE LEFT COMMU-NISTS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

18. ROUGH OUTLINE OF THE DRAFT PROGRAMME . . . . .THE CHIEF TASK OF OUR DAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SPEECH IN THE MOSCOW SOVIET OF WORKERS, PEASANTS ANDRED ARMY DEPUTIES, MARCH 12, 1918. Verbatim Report . . . .EXTRAORDINARY FOURTH ALL-RUSSIA CONGRESS OF SOVIETS,MARCH 14-16, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON WILSONS MESSAGE . . . . . .2. REPORT ON RATIFICATION OF THE PEACE TREATY,

MARCH 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. REPLY TO THE DEBATE ON THE REPORT ON RATIFICA-

TION OF THE PEACE TREATY, MARCH 15 . . . . . . .4. RESOLUTION ON RATIFICATION OF THE BREST TREATY

COMMENT ON THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE LEFT COMMUNISTS . .ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE ARTICLE THE IMMEDIATE TASKSOF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT. Verbatim Report . . . . . .

Chapter X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chapter XI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chapter XII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chapter XIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCERNING THE DECREE ON REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNALS

A. To Members of the Collegium of the Commissariat forJustice, and a Copy to the Chairman of the C.E.C. . .

B. Draft Decision on the Council of Peoples Commissars

145

146

147

147148

149

151

152

159

164

169

17 1

172

191

200

202

203

203209213217

219

219

219

CONTENTS10

PREFACE TO THE COLLECTED ARTICLES AGAINST THE STREAM

THESES ON BANKING POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPEECH AT A MEETING IN THE ALEXEYEVSKY RIDING SCHOOL,APRIL 7, 1918. Newspaper Report . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DIRECTIVES TO THE VLADIVOSTOK SOVIET . . . . . . . . .

SPEECH ON THE FINANCIAL QUESTION AT THE SESSION OF THEALL-RUSSIA C.E.C., APRIL 18, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPEECH IN THE MOSCOW SOVIET OF WORKERS, PEASANTSAND RED ARMY DEPUTIES, APRIL 23, 1918. Verbatim Report . .

THE IMMEDIATE TASKS OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT . . . . .

The International Position of the Russian Soviet Republicand the Fundamental Tasks of the Socialist Revolution

The General Slogan of the Moment . . . . . . . . .The New Phase of the Struggle Against the BourgeoisieThe Significance of the Struggle for Country-wide Account-

ing and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Raising the Productivity of Labour . . . . . . . . . .The Organisation of Competition. . . . . . . . . . .Harmonious Organisation and Dictatorship . . . . . .The Development of Soviet organisation . . . . . . . .Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SESSION OF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C., APRIL 29, 1918 . . . .

1. REPORT ON THE IMMEDIATE TASKS OF THE SOVIETGOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. REPLY TO THE DEBATE ON THE REPORT ON THE IMME-DIATE TASKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SIX THESES ON THE IMMEDIATE TASKS OF THE SOVIETGOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BASIC PROPOSITIONS ON ECONOMIC AND ESPECIALLY ONBANKING POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DRAFT PLAN OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL WORK . . . . . .

TO THE C.C., R.C.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221

222

224

226

227

229

235

237243244

253257259263272275

279

281

306

314

318

320

322

11CONTENTS

LEFT-WING CHILDISHNESS AND THE PETTY- BOURGEOISMENTALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DECISION OF THE C.C. , R.C.P.(B.) ON THE INTERNATIONALSITUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MAIN PROPOSITIONS OF THE DECREE ON FOOD DICTATORSHIP

PROTEST TO THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE OCCU-PATION OF THE CRIMEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THESES ON THE PRESENT POLITICAL SITUATION . . . . . . .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REPORT ON FOREIGN POLICY DELIVERED AT A JOINT MEETINGOF THE ALL-RUSSIA CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND THEMOSCOW SOVIET, MAY 14, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REPORT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION TO THE MOSCOWREGIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE R.C.P.(B.), MAY 15, 1918. BriefNewspaper Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REPORT TO THE ALL-RUSSIA CONGRESS OF REPRESENTATIVESOF FINANCIAL DEPARTMENTS OF SOVIETS, MAY 18, 1918 . . . .

Centralisation of Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . .Income and Property Taxation . . . . . . . . . . .Labour Conscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE CONFERENCE OF REPRESENTA-TIVES OF ENTERPRISES TO BE NATIONALISED, MAY 18, 1918. . .

DRAFT OF A TELEGRAM TO THE PETROGRAD WORKERS

323

325329333339342351

355

356

358

360

360361361363363

365

382

383

384384385

388

MAY 21, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390ON THE FAMINE. A Letter to the Workers of Petrograd . . . 39 1

New Currency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

CONTENTS12

SPEECH AT THE SECOND ALL-RUSSIA CONGRESS OF COMMIS-SARS FOR LABOUR, MAY 22, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . .THE SOCIALIST ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES . . . . . . .

I. Draft Decision of the Council of Peoples CommissarsII. Directives for the Commission . . . . . . . . . .

THESES ON THE CURRENT SITUATION . . . . . . . . . . .SPEECH AT THE FIRST CONGRESS OF ECONOMIC COUNCILS,MAY 26, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .APPEAL TO RAILWAY, WATER TRANSPORT AND METALWORKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .JOINT SESSION OF THE ALL-RUSSIA CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COM-MITTEE, THE MOSCOW SOVIET OF WORKERS, PEASANTS ANDRED ARMY DEPUTIES AND THE TRADE UNIONS, JUNE 4, 1918

1. REPORT ON COMBATING THE FAMINE, JUNE 4, 1918 . . .2. REPLY TO THE DEBATE ON THE REPORT ON COMBATING

THE FAMINE, JUNE 4, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. DRAFT RESOLUTION ON THE REPORT ON COMBATING

THE FAMINE, JUNE 4, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . .SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE FIRST ALL-RUSSIA CONGRESS OFINTERNATIONALIST TEACHERS, JUNE 5, 1918. Brief Report . . .TELEGRAM TO J. V. STALIN AND A. G. SHLYAPNIKOV . . . . .FOOD DETACHMENTS. Speech at Workers Meetings in Moscow,June 20, 1918. Brief Newspaper Report . . . . . . . . . .SPEECH DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC MEETING IN THE SOKOLNIKICLUB, JUNE 21, 1918, Brief Newspaper Report . . . . . . . .ORGANISATION OF FOOD DETACHMENTS . . . . . . . . . . .FOURTH CONFERENCE OF TRADE UNION AND FACTORY COM-MITTEES OF MOSCOW, JUNE 27-JULY 2, 1918 . . . . . . . .

1. REPORT ON THE CURRENT SITUATION, JUNE 27, 19182. REPLY TO THE DEBATE ON THE CURRENT SITUATION,

JUNE 28, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. RESOLUTION ON THE REPORT ON THE CURRENT SITUA-

TION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SPEECH AT A PUBIC MEETING IN SIMONOVSKY SUB-DISTRICT, JUNE 28, 1918. Brief Newspaper Report . . . . . .PROPHETIC WORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

399404

404405

406

408

416

419421

440

444

445

447

448

450

454

457459

478

491

492

494

13CONTENTS

SPEECH DELIVERED AT A MEETING IN THE ALEXEYEVSKYRIDING SCHOOL, JULY 2, 1918. Brief Newspaper Report . . . .

SPEECH DELIVERED AT A MEETING OF THE COMMUNIST GROUPAT THE FIFTH CONGRESS OF SOVIETS, JULY 3, 1918. BriefNewspaper Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FIFTH ALL-RUSSIA CONGRESS OF SOVIETS OF WORKERS, PEA-SANTS, SOLDIERS AND RED ARMY DEPUTIES, JULY 4-10, 1918

1. REPORT OF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLES COMMISSARS,JULY 5, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. REPLY TO THE DEBATE, JULY 5, 1918 . . . . . . . .

TELEGRAM TO J. V. STALIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTERVIEW GRANTED TO AN IZVESTIA CORRESPONDENT INCONNECTION WITH THE LEFT SOCIALIST- REVOLUTIONARYREVOLT Brief Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TO THE WORKERS OF PETROGRAD . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPEECH AND GOVERNMENT STATEMENT AT THE SESSION OF THEALL-RUSSIA C.E.C., JULY 15, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPEECH DELIVERED AT A PUBLIC MEETING IN LEFORTOVODISTRICT, JULY 19, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TO ZINOVIEV, LASHEVICH AND STASOVA . . . . . . . . . .

REPORT DELIVERED AT A MOSCOW GUBERNIA CONFERENCEOF FACTORY COMMITTEES, JULY 23, 1918. Newspaper Report . .

CONVERSATION WITH J. V. STALIN BY DIRECT LINE, JULY 24,1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPEECH DELIVERED AT A MEETING IN KHAMOVNIKIDISTRICT, JULY 26, 1918. Brief Newspaper Report . . . . . .

BY DIRECT LINE TO ZINOVIEV, THE SMOLNY, PETROGRAD . . .

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Life and Work of V. I. Lenin. Outstanding Dates . . . .

500

502

505

507

529

533

534

536

538

542

544

545

549

551

552

553

615

CONTENTS14

18-19

. 31

140-41

239

I L L U S T R A T I O N S

Portrait of V. I. Lenin, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Decree The Socialist Fatherland Is in Danger! written byLenin on February 21, 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First page of the manuscript of Lenins Resolution on Chang-ing the Name of the Party and the Party Programme.March 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

First page of the manuscript of Lenins Theses on the Tasksof the Soviet Government in the Present Situation. March-April1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

PREFACE

Volume Twenty-seven contains the works of Lenin writtenbetween February 21 and July 27, 1918.

It includes reports, speeches and articles reflectingLenins work as leader of the Communist Party and the Sovietstate in the period of the struggle for peace, for Soviet Rus-sias revolutionary withdrawal from the imperialist war,for consolidation of Soviet power and for the developmentof socialist construction during the respite that followedthe conclusion of the Brest peace.

An important place in the volume is occupied by docu-ments aimed against the provocatory policy of Trotsky andthe Left Communists, a policy of involving the youngSoviet Republic, which as yet had no army, in war. Includedamong these documents are the articles: The RevolutionaryPhrase, Peace or War?, A Painful but Necessary Lesson,Strange and Monstrous, On a Businesslike Basis, ASerious Lesson and a Serious Responsibility, and also thereports and replies to debates on the question of peace atthe Seventh Party Congress and the Extraordinary FourthCongress of Soviets.

Lenins pamphlet Left-Wing Childishness and the Petty-Bourgeois Mentality sums up the results of the strugglewith the Left Communists over the Brest peace and domes-tic policy, and shows that the Left Communists expressedthe interests of the frenzied petty bourgeois and wereinstruments of imperialist provocation.

A large part of the volume is taken up by works devotedto socialist construction, the organisation of nation-wideaccounting and control, raising the productivity of labour,the development of socialist competition, and the inculca-tion of new, proletarian discipline. These works include

PREFACE16

Lenins famous The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Govern-ment, in which he outlined the programme of socialist con-struction and ways of creating new; socialist productionrelations.

Other documents, On the Famine. A Letter to theWorkers of Petrograd, the Report on Combating the Faminedelivered at the Joint Meeting of the All-Russia C.E.C., theMoscow Soviet of Workers, Peasants and Red ArmyDeputies and the Trade Unions on June 4, form part of agroup that shows the spread of the socialist revolution in therural areas, the struggle against the kulaks, the organisationof aid for the rural poor, and the establishment of the fooddictatorship.

A number of Lenins speeches and articles deal with thestruggle against internal and external counter-revolutionand the defence of the Soviet Republic. These documentsinclude: Speech Delivered at a Public Meeting in theSokolniki Club, June 21, Speech at a Public Meeting in theSimonovsky Sub-District, June 28, Interview Grantedto an Izvestia Correspondent concerning the Left S.R.insurrection, and the Report Delivered at a Moscow GuberniaConference of Factory Committees, July 23.

The present volume contains seventeen new documentspublished for the first time in the Collected Works. Most ofthese characterise Lenins work in organising the defenceof the Republic at the time of the offensive of the Germanimperialists and when foreign military intervention andcivil war were just beginning. These include: The SocialistFatherland Is in Danger!, Draft of an Order to AllSoviets, drawing attention to the need for defence in viewof the possibility of the Germans breaking off peacenegotiations, and Directives to the Vladivostok Sovietconcerning the Japanese landing in Vladivostok.

In the letter to Zinoviev, Lashevich and Stasova, andalso in the note By Direct Line. To Zinoviev, the Smoly,Petrograd, published in the Collected Works for the firsttime, Lenin exposes the disorganising and anti-state conductof Zinoviev, who held up dispatch of Petrograd workers tothe front to the detriment of the countrys defence.

Other works published in the Collected Works for the firsttime include: two documents concerning the foundation of

17PREFACE

a socialist academy; two documents on revolutionary tri-bunals, To Members of the Collegium of the Commissariatfor Justice and Draft Decision of the Council of PeoplesCommissars; the letter To the C.C., R.C.P. protestingagainst a mild sentence passed for bribery; Basic Proposi-tions on Economic and Especially on Banking Policy; andFood Detachments, a speech delivered at workers meetingsin Moscow on June 20.

The Protest to the German Government Against theOccupation of the Crimea, written on May 11, 1918, had notpreviously been published and appears for the first time inthe Collected Works.

V. I. LENIN1918

19

THE REVOLUTIONARY PHRASE1

When I said at a Party meeting that the revolutionaryphrase about a revolutionary war might ruin our revolution,I was reproached for the sharpness of my polemics. Thereare, however, moments, when a question must be raised sharp-ly and things given their proper names, the danger beingthat otherwise irreparable harm may be done to the Partyand the revolution.

Revolutionary phrase-making, more often than not, isa disease from which revolutionary parties suffer at timeswhen they constitute, directly or indirectly, a combination,alliance or intermingling of proletarian and petty-bourgeoiselements, and when the course of revolutionary events ismarked by big, rapid zigzags. By revolutionary phrase-making we mean the repetition of revolutionary slogansirrespective of objective circumstances at a given turn inevents, in the given state of affairs obtaining at the time.The slogans are superb; alluring, intoxicating, but thereare no grounds for them; such is the nature of the revolu-tionary phrase.

Let us examine the groups of arguments, the mostimportant of them at least, in favour of a revolutionarywar in Russia today, in January and February 1918, andthe comparison of this slogan with objective reality willtell us whether the definition I give is correct.

1

Our press has always spoken of the need to prepare fora revolutionary war in the event of the victory of socialismin one country with capitalism still in existence in theneighbouring countries. That is indisputable.

V. I. LENIN20

The question ishow have those preparations actuallybeen made since our October Revolution?

We have prepared in this way: we had to demobilise thearmy, we were compelled to, compelled by circumstancesso obvious, so weighty and so insurmountable that, far froma trend or mood having arisen in the Party against demo-bilisation, there was not a single voice raised against it.Anyone who wants to give some thought to the class causesof such an unusual phenomenon as the demobilisation of thearmy by the Soviet Socialist Republic before the war witha neighbouring imperialist state is finished will withoutgreat difficulty discover these causes in the social compo-sition of a backward country with a small-peasant economy,reduced to extreme economic ruin after three years of war.An army of many millions was demobilised and the creationof a Red Army on volunteer lines was begunsuch are thefacts.

Compare these facts with the talk of a revolutionary warin January and February 1918, and the nature of the revo-lutionary phrase will be clear to you.

If this championing of a revolutionary war by, say, thePetrograd and Moscow organisations had not been an emptyphrase we should have had other facts between October andJanuary; we should have seen a determined struggle on theirpart against demobilisation. But there has been nothingof the sort.

We should have seen the Petrograders and Muscovitessending tens of thousands of agitators and soldiers to thefront and should have received daily reports from thereabout their struggle against demobilisation, about the suc-cesses of their struggle, about the halting of demobilisation.

There has been nothing of the sort.We should have had hundreds of reports of regiments

forming into a Red Army, using terrorism to halt demobili-sation, renewing defences and fortifications against a pos-sible offensive by German imperialism.

There has been nothing of the sort. Demobilisation isin full swing. The old army does not exist. The new armyis only just being born.

Anyone who does not want to comfort himself with merewords, bombastic declarations and exclamations must see

21THE REVOLUTIONARY PHRASE

that the slogan of revolutionary war in February 1918 isthe emptiest of phrases, that it has nothing real, nothingobjective behind it. This slogan today contains nothingbut sentiment, wishes, indignation and resentment. And aslogan with such a content is called a revolutionary phrase.

Matters as they stand with our own Party and Sovietpower as a whole, matters as they stand with the Bolsheviksof Petrograd and Moscow show that so far we have not suc-ceeded in getting beyond the first steps in forming a volun-teer Red Army. To hide from this unpleasant factand factit isbehind a screen of words and at the same time notonly do nothing to halt demobilisation but even raise noobjection to it, is to be intoxicated with the sound ofwords.

A typical substantiation of what has been said is, for in-stance, the fact that in the Central Committee of our Partythe majority of the most prominent opponents of a separatepeace voted against a revolutionary war, voted against itboth in January and in February.2 What does that mean?It means that everybody who is not afraid to look truth inthe face recognises the impossibility of a revolutionarywar.

In such cases the truth is evaded by putting forward, orattempting to put forward, arguments. Let us examine them.

2

Argument No. 1. In 1792 France suffered economic ruinto no less an extent, but a revolutionary war cured every-thing, was an inspiration to everyone, gave rise to enthusi-asm and carried everything before it. Only those who donot believe in the revolution, only opportunists could op-pose a revolutionary war in our, more profound revolution.

Let us compare this reason, or this argument, with thefacts. It is a fact that in France at the end of the eighteenthcentury the economic basis of the new, higher mode of pro-duction was first created, and then, as a result, as a super-structure, the powerful revolutionary army appeared. Franceabandoned feudalism before other countries, swept it awayin the course of a few years of victorious revolution, and led

V. I. LENIN22

a people who were not fatigued from any war, who had wonland and freedom, who had been made stronger by theelimination of feudalism, led them to war against a numberof economically and politically backward peoples.

Compare this to contemporary Russia. Incredible fatiguefrom war. A new economic system, superior to the organisedstate capitalism of technically well-equipped Germany,does not yet exist. It is only being founded. Our peasantshave only a law on the socialisation of the land, but not onesingle year of free (from the landowner and from the tormentof war) work. Our workers have begun to throw the capital-ists overboard but have not yet managed to organise produc-tion, arrange for the exchange of products, arrange the grainsupply and increase productivity of labour.

This is what we advanced towards, this is the road wetook, but it is obvious that the new and higher economicsystem does not yet exist.

Conquered feudalism, consolidated bourgeois freedom,and a well-fed peasant opposed to feudal countriessuchwas the economic basis of the miracles in the sphere ofwar in 1792 and 1793.

A country of small peasants, hungry and tormented bywar, only just beginning to heal its wounds, opposed totechnically and organisationally higher productivity oflaboursuch is the objective situation at the beginning of1918.

That is why any reminiscing over 1792, etc., is nothingbut a revolutionary phrase. People repeat slogans, words,war cries, but are afraid to analyse objective reality.

3

Argument No. 2. Germany cannot attack, her growingrevolution will not allow it.

The Germans cannot attack was an argument repeatedmillions of times in January and at the beginning of Febru-ary 1918 by opponents of a separate peace. The more cau-tious of them said that there was a 25 to 33 per cent proba-bility (approximately, of course) of the Germans beingunable to attack.

23THE REVOLUTIONARY PHRASE

The facts refuted these calculations. The opponents ofa separate peace here, too, frequently brush aside facts, fear-ing their iron logic.

What was the source of this mistake, which real revolu-tionaries (and not revolutionaries of sentiment) should beable to recognise and analyse?

Was it because we, in general, manoeuvred and agitatedin connection with the peace negotiations? It was not. Wehad to manoeuvre and agitate. But we also had to chooseour own time for manoeuvres and agitationwhile it wasstill possible to manoeuvre and agitateand also forcalling a halt to all manoeuvres when the issue becameacute.

The source of the mistake was that our relations of revolu-tionary co-operation with the German revolutionary workerswere turned into an empty phrase. We helped and are help-ing the German revolutionary workers in every way wecanfraternisation, agitation, the publication of secrettreaties, etc. That was help in deeds, real help.

But the declaration of some of our comradesthe Ger-mans cannot attackwas an empty phrase. We have onlyjust been through a revolution in our own country. We allknow very well why it was easier for a revolution to startin Russia than in Europe. We saw that we could not check theoffensive of Russian imperialism in June 1917, althoughour revolution had not only begun, had not only overthrownthe monarchy, but had set up Soviets everywhere. We saw,we knew, we explained to the workerswars are conductedby governments. To stop a bourgeois war it is necessary tooverthrow the bourgeois government.

The declaration the Germans cannot attack was, there-fore, tantamount to declaring we know that the German Gov-ernment will be overthrown within the next few weeks.Actually we did not, and could not, know this, and forthis reason the declaration was an empty phrase.

It is one thing to be certain that the German revolutionis maturing and to do your part towards helping it mature,to serve it as far as possible by work, agitation and frater-nisation, anything you like, but help the maturing of therevolution by work. That is what revolutionary proletarianinternationalism means.

V. I. LENIN24

It is another thing to declare, directly or indirectly, openlyor covertly, that the German revolution is already mature(although it obviously is not) and to base your tactics on it.There is not a grain of revolutionism in that, there is nothingin it but phrase-making.

Such is the source of the error contained in the proud,striking, spectacular, resounding declaration theGermans cannot attack.

4The assertion that we are helping the German revolution

by resisting German imperialism, and are thus bringingnearer Liebknechts victory over Wilhelm is nothing buta variation of the same high-sounding nonsense.

It stands to reason that victory by Liebknechtwhichwill be possible and inevitable when the German revolutionreaches maturitywould deliver us from all internationaldifficulties, including revolutionary war. Liebknechtsvictory would deliver us from the consequences of any foolishact of ours. But surely that does not justify foolish acts?

Does any sort of resistance to German imperialism helpthe German revolution? Anyone who cares to think a little,or even to recall the history of the revolutionary movementin Russia, will quite easily realise that resistance to reactionhelps the revolution only when it is expedient. During a halfcentury of the revolutionary movement in Russia we haveexperienced many cases of resistance to reaction that werenot expedient. We Marxists have always been proud that wedetermined the expediency of any form of struggle by a pre-cise calculation of the mass forces and class relationships.We have said that an insurrection is not always expedient;unless the prerequisites exist among the masses it is a gamble;we have often condemned the most heroic forms of resistanceby individuals as inexpedient and harmful from the pointof view of the revolution. In 1907, on the basis of bitterexperience we rejected resistance to participation in theThird Duma as inexpedient, etc., etc.

To help the German revolution we must either limitourselves to propaganda, agitation and fraternisation aslong as the forces are not strong enough for a firm, serious,decisive blow in an open military or insurrectionary clash,

25THE REVOLUTIONARY PHRASE

or we must accept that clash, if we are sure it will not helpthe enemy.

It is clear to everyone (except those intoxicated withempty phrases) that to undertake a serious insurrectionaryor military clash knowing that we have no forces, knowingthat we have no army, is a gamble that will not help theGerman workers but will make their struggle more difficultand make matters easier for their enemy and for our enemy.

5

There is yet another argument that is so childishly ridic-ulous that I should never have believed it possible if I hadnot heard it with my own ears.

Back in October, didnt the opportunists say that wehad no forces, no troops, no machine-guns and no equipment,but these things all appeared during the struggle, when thestruggle of class against class began. They will also maketheir appearance in the struggle of the proletariat of Russiaagainst the capitalists of Germany, the German proletariatwill come to our help.

As matters stood in October, we had made a precise cal-culation of the mass forces. We not only thought, we knewwith certainty, from the experience of the mass elections tothe Soviets, that the overwhelming majority of the workersand soldiers had already come over to our side in Sep-tember and in early October. We knew, even if only from thevoting at the Democratic Conference3 that the coalitionhad also lost the support of the peasantryand that meantthat our cause had already won.

The following were the objective conditions for the Octo-ber insurrectionary struggle:

(1) there was no longer any bludgeon over the heads ofthe soldiersit was abolished in February 1917 (Germanyhas not yet reached her February);

(2) the soldiers, like the workers, had already had enoughof the coalition and had finished their conscious, planned,heartfelt withdrawal from it.

This, and this alone, determined the correctness of theslogan for an insurrection in October (the slogan wouldhave been incorrect in July, when we did not advance it).

V. I. LENIN26

The mistake of the opportunists of October4 was nottheir concern for objective conditions (only children couldthink it was) but their incorrect appraisal of factsthey gothold of trivialities and did not see the main thing, that theSoviets had come over from conciliation to us.

To compare an armed clash with Germany (that has notyet experienced her February or her July, to saynothing of October), with a Germany that has a monarch-ist, bourgeois-imperialist governmentto compare thatwith the October insurrectionary struggle against the ene-mies of the Soviets, the Soviets that had been maturing sinceFebruary 1917 and had reached maturity in September andOctober, is such childishness that it is only a subject forridicule. Such is the absurdity to which people are led byempty phrases!

6

Here is another sort of argument. But Germany willstrangle us economically with a separate peace treaty, shewill take away coal and grain and will enslave us.

A very wise argumentwe must accept an armed clash,without an army, even though that clash is certain to resultnot only in our enslavement, but also in our strangulation, theseizure of grain without any compensation, putting us in theposition of Serbia or Belgium; we have to accept that,because otherwise we shall get an unfavourable treaty,Germany will take from us 6,000 or 12,000 million intribute by instalments, will take grain for machines, etc.

O heroes of the revolutionary phrase! In renouncing theenslavement to the imperialists they modestly pass over insilence the fact that it is necessary to defeat imperialismto be completely delivered from enslavement.

We are accepting an unfavourable treaty and a separatepeace knowing that today we are not yet ready for a revolu-tionary war, that we have to bide our time (as we did whenwe tolerated Kerenskys bondage, tolerated the bondage ofour own bourgeoisie from July to October), we must waituntil we are stronger. Therefore, if there is a chance of ob-taining the most unfavourable separate peace, we absolutelymust accept it in the interests of the socialist revolution,

27THE REVOLUTIONARY PHRASE

which is still weak (since the maturing revolution in Ger-many has not yet come to our help, to the help of the Rus-sians). Only if a separate peace is absolutely impossibleshall we have to fight immediatelynot because it will becorrect tactics, but because we shall have no choice. If it provesimpossible there will be no occasion for a dispute over tac-tics. There will be nothing but the inevitability of the mostfurious resistance. But as long as we have a choice we mustchoose a separate peace and an extremely unfavourabletreaty, because that will still be a hundred times betterthan the position of Belgium.5

Month by month we are growing stronger, although weare today still weak. Month by month the internationalsocialist revolution is maturing in Europe, although it isnot yet fully mature. Therefore ... therefore, revolutionaries(God save us from them) argue that we must accept battlewhen German imperialism is obviously stronger than we arebut is weakening month by month (because of the slow butcertain maturing of the revolution in Germany).

The revolutionaries of sentiment argue magnificently,they argue superbly!

7

The last argument, the most specious and most widespread,is that this obscene peace is a disgrace, it is betrayal ofLatvia, Poland, Courland and Lithuania.

Is it any wonder that the Russian bourgeoisie (and theirhangers-on, the Novy Luch,6 Dyelo Naroda7 and NovayaZhizn8 gang) are the most zealous in elaborating this alleged-ly internationalist argument?

No, it is no wonder, for this argument is a trap into whichthe bourgeoisie are deliberately dragging the RussianBolsheviks, and into which some of them are fallingunwittingly, because of their love of phrases.

Let us examine the argument from the standpoint oftheory; which should be put first, the right of nations toself-determination, or socialism?

Socialism should.Is it permissible, because of a contravention of the right-

of nations to self-determination, to allow the Soviet Social-

V. I. LENIN28

ist Republic to be devoured, to expose it to the blows ofimperialism at a time when imperialism is obviously strongerand the Soviet Republic obviously weaker?

No, it is not permissiblethat is bourgeois and not social-ist politics.

Further, would peace on the condition that Poland,Lithuania and Courland are returned to us be less disgrace-ful, be any less an annexationist peace?

From the point of view of the Russian bourgeois, it would.From the point of view of the socialist-internationalist,

it would not.Because if German imperialism set Poland free (which at

one time some bourgeois in Germany desired), it wouldsqueeze Serbia, Belgium, etc., all the more.

When the Russian bourgeoisie wail against the obscenepeace, they are correctly expressing their class interests.

But when some Bolsheviks (suffering from the phrasedisease) repeat that argument, it is simply very sad.

Examine the facts relating to the behaviour of the Anglo-French bourgeoisie. They are doing everything they can todrag us into the war against Germany now, they are offeringus millions of blessings, boots, potatoes, shells, locomotives(on credit ... that is not enslavement, dont fear that! It isonly credit!). They want us to fight against Germany now.

It is obvious why they should want this; they want itbecause, in the first place, we should engage part of the Ger-man forces. And secondly, because Soviet power might col-lapse most easily from an untimely armed clash with Germanimperialism.

The Anglo-French bourgeoisie are setting a trap for us:please be kind enough to go and fight now, our gain will bemagnificent. The Germans will plunder you, will dowell in the East, will agree to cheaper terms in the West,and furthermore, Soviet power will be swept away... . Pleasedo fight, Bolshevik allies, we shall help you!

And the Left (God save us from them) Bolsheviks9 arewalking into the trap by reciting the most revolutionaryphrases....

Oh yes, one of the manifestations of the traces of the petty-bourgeois spirit is surrender to revolutionary phrases. Thisis an old story that is perennially new....

29THE REVOLUTIONARY PHRASE

8

In the summer of 1907 our Party also experienced anattack of the revolutionary phrase that was, in some respect,analogous.

St. Petersburg and Moscow, nearly all the Bolshevikswere in favour of boycotting the Third Duma; they wereguided by sentiment instead of an objective analysis andwalked into a trap.

The disease has recurred.The times are more difficult. The issue is a million times

more important. To fall ill at such a time is to risk ruiningthe revolution.

We must fight against the revolutionary phrase, we haveto fight it, we absolutely must fight it, so that at somefuture time people will not say of us the bitter truth thata revolutionary phrase about revolutionary war ruinedthe revolution.

Pravda No. 3 1 , February 2 1 , 1 9 1 8 Published according toSigned: Karpov the Pravda text, collated

with the Izvestia textIzvestia VTsIK No. 4 3 ,March 8 , 1 9 1 8

30

THE SOCIALIST FATHERLAND IS IN DANGER!10

In order to save this exhausted and ravaged country fromnew ordeals of war we decided to make a very great sacrificeand informed the Germans of our readiness to sign theirterms of peace. Our truce envoys left Rezhitsa for Dvinskin the evening on February 20 (7), and still there is no reply.The German Government is evidently in no hurry to reply.It obviously does not want peace. Fulfilling the task withwhich it has been charged by the capitalists of all countries,German militarism wants to strangle the Russian and Ukrai-nian workers and peasants, to return the land to the landown-ers, the mills and factories to the bankers, and power to themonarchy. The German generals want to establish theirorder in Petrograd and Kiev. The Socialist Republic ofSoviets is in gravest danger. Until the proletariat of Germanyrises and triumphs, it is the sacred duty of the workers andpeasants of Russia devotedly to defend the Republic ofSoviets against the hordes of bourgeois-imperialist Germany.The Council of Peoples Commissars resolves: (1) The coun-trys entire manpower and resources are placed entirely at theservice of revolutionary defence. (2) All Soviets and revolu-tionary organisations are ordered to defend every position tothe last drop of blood. (3) Railway organisations and theSoviets associated with them must do their utmost to preventthe enemy from availing himself of the transport system; inthe event of a retreat, they are to destroy the tracks andblow up or burn down the railway buildings; all rolling stockcarriages and locomotivesmust be immediately dis-patched eastward, into the interior of the country. (4) All grainand food stocks generally, as well as all valuable propertyin danger of falling into the enemys hands, must be uncon-

The Decree The Socialist Fatherland Is in Danger!written by Lenin on February 21, 1918

Reduced

The Decree The Socialist Fatherland Is in Danger!written by Lenin on February 21, 1918

Reduced

33THE SOCIALIST FATHERLAND IS IN DANGER

ditionally destroyed; the duty of seeing that this is done islaid upon the local Soviets and their chairmen are madepersonally responsible. (5) The workers and peasants ofPetrograd, Kiev, and of all towns, townships, villages andhamlets along the line of the new front are to mobilisebattalions to dig trenches, under the direction of militaryexperts. (6) These battalions are to include all able-bodiedmembers of the bourgeois class, men and women, under thesupervision of Red Guards; those who resist are to be shot.(7) All publications which oppose the cause of revolutionarydefence and side with the German bourgeoisie, or whichendeavour to take advantage of the invasion of the imperial-ist hordes in order to overthrow Soviet rule, are to be sup-pressed; able-bodied editors and members of the staffs of suchpublications are to be mobilised for the digging of trenchesor for other defence work. (8) Enemy agents, profiteers,marauders, hooligans, counter-revolutionary agitators andGerman spies are to be shot on the spot.

The socialist fatherland is in danger! Long live thesocialist fatherland! Long live the international socialistrevolution!

Council of Peoples Commissars

February 21, 1918Petrograd

Pravda No. 3 2 , Published according toFebruary 2 2 , 1 9 1 8 the Pravda text

34

SUPPLEMENT TO THE DECREEOF THE COUNCIL OF PEOPLES COMMISSARS:

THE SOCIALIST FATHERLAND IS IN DANGER!

For correct and strict implementation of the Decree ofthe Council of Peoples Commissars of February 21 it isdecided:

(1) Every worker, after an 8-hour working day, is obligedto work three hours daily (or 42 hours daily with every thirdday off) on war or administrative work.

(2) Everyone belonging to the rich class or well-off groups(income not less than 500 rubles per month, or owning notless than 1,500 rubles in cash) is obliged to provide himselfimmediately with a work book, in which will be entered weeklywhether he has performed his due share of war or adminis-trative work. The entries will be made by the trade union,Soviet of Workers Deputies or local Red Guard detachment,whichever he belongs to.

Work books for well-off persons will cost 50 rubles each.(3) Non-workers who do not belong to the well-off classes

are also obliged to have a work book, for which they willpay five rubles (or one ruble, at cost price).

The work books of the well-off will have columns for weeklyentry of income and expenditure.

Failure to possess a work book or the making of incorrect(and, still more, false) entries in it will be punished accord-ing to wartime laws.

All those who possess arms must obtain fresh permissionto do so (a) from the local house committee, (b) from thebodies mentioned in item 2. Without these two permissions

35SUPPLEMENT TO THE DECREE

possession of arms is forbidden; the penalty for violatingthis regulation is death by shooting.

The same penalty is incurred by concealing food.For correct organisation of food supplies all citizens are

obliged to join in consumers co-operative societies, house....*Written February 2 1 or 2 2 , 1 9 1 8

First published on December 2 2 , 1 9 2 7 Published according toin Pravda No. 2 9 3 the manuscript

* Here the manuscript breaks off.Ed.

36

THE ITCH 11

The itch is a painful disease. Ana when people are seizedby the itch of revolutionary phrase-making the mere sightof this disease causes intolerable suffering.

Truths that are simple, clear, comprehensible, obviousand apparently indisputable to all who belong to the workingpeople are distorted by those suffering from the above-mentioned kind of itch. Often this distortion arises fromthe best, the noblest and loftiest impulses, merely owing toa failure to digest well-known theoretical truths or a child-ishly crude, schoolboyishly slavish repetition of them irrel-evantly (people dont know whats what). But the itchdoes not cease to be harmful on that account.

What, for example, could be more conclusive and clearthan the following truth: a government that gave Sovietpower, land, workers control and peace to a people tor-tured by three years of predatory war would be invincible?Peace is the chief thing. If, after conscientious efforts toobtain a general and just peace, it turned out in actual factthat it was impossible to obtain this at the present time,every peasant would understand that one would have toadopt not a general peace, but a separate and unjust peace.Every peasant, even the most ignorant and illiterate, wouldunderstand this and appreciate a government that gave himeven such a peace.

Bolsheviks must have been stricken by the vile itch ofphrase-making to forget this and evoke the peasants mostlegitimate dissatisfaction with them when this itch has ledto a new war being launched by predatory Germany againstovertired Russia! The ludicrous and pitiful theoreticaltrivialities and sophistries under which this itch is dis-

37THE ITCH

guised I have pointed out in an article entitled The Revoluti-onary Phrase (Pravda, February 21 [8]).* I would not berecalling this if the same itch had not cropped up today (whata catching disease!) in a new place.

To explain how this has happened, I shall cite first of alla little example, quite simply and clearly, without anytheoryif the itch claims to be theory it is intolerableand without erudite words or anything that the masses can-not understand.

Let us suppose Kalyayev,12 in order to kill a tyrant andmonster, acquires a revolver from an absolute villain, ascoundrel and robber, by promising him bread, money andvodka for the service rendered.

Can one condemn Kalyayev for his deal with a robberfor the sake of obtaining a deadly weapon? Every sensibleperson will answer no. If there is nowhere else for Kalya-vev to get a revolver, and if his intention is really an honour-able one (the killing of a tyrant, not killing for plunder),then he should not be reproached but commended for acquir-ing a revolver in this way.

But if a robber, in order to commit murder for the sakeof plunder, acquires a revolver from another robber in returnfor money, vodka or bread, can one compare (not to speak ofidentifying) such a deal with a robber with the deal madeby Kalyayev?

No, everyone who is not out of his mind or infected bythe itch will agree that one cannot. Any peasant who sawan intellectual disavowing such an obvious truth by meansof phrase-making would say: you, sir, ought not to be manag-ing the state but should join the company of wordy buffoonsor should simply put yourself in a steam bath and get ridof the itch.

If Kerensky, a representative of the ruling class of thebourgeoisie, i.e., the exploiters, makes a deal with the Anglo-French exploiters to get arms and potatoes from them and atthe same time conceals from the people the treaties whichpromise (if successful) to give one robber Armenia, Galiciaand Constantinople, and another robber Baghdad, Syria andso forth, is it difficult to understand that this deal is a

* See this volume, pp. 19-29.Ed

V. I. LENIN38

predatory, swindling, vile deal on the part of Kerensky andhis friends?

No, this is not difficult to understand. Any peasant, eventhe most ignorant and illiterate, will understand it.

But if a representative of the exploited, oppressed class,after this class has overthrown the exploiters, and publishedand annulled all the secret and annexationist treaties, issubjected to a bandit attack by the imperialists of Germany,can he be condemned for making a deal with the Anglo-French robbers, for obtaining arms and potatoes from themin return for money or timber, etc.? Can one find such a dealdishonourable, disgraceful, dirty?

No, one cannot. Every sensible man will understand thisand will ridicule as silly fools those who with a lordly andlearned mien undertake to prove that the masses will notunderstand the difference between the robber war of theimperialist Kerensky (and his dishonourable .deals withrobbers for a division of jointly stolen spoils) and the Kalya-yev deal of the Bolshevik Government with the Anglo-French robbers in order to get arms and potatoes to repelthe German robber.

Every sensible man will say: to obtain weapons by pur-chase from a robber for the purpose of robbery is disgustingand villainous, but to buy weapons from the same robberfor the purpose of a just war against an aggressor is some-thing quite legitimate. Only mincing young ladies and affectedyouths who have read books and derived nothing but affec-tation from them can see something dirty in it. Apartfrom people of that category only those who have contractedthe itch can fall into such an error.

But will the German worker understand the differencebetween Kerenskys purchase of weapons from the Anglo-French robbers for the purpose of annexing Constantinoplefrom the Turks, Galicia from the Austrians and EasternPrussia from the Germansand the Bolsheviks purchaseof weapons from the same robbers for the purpose of repel-ling Wilhelm when he has moved troops against socialistRussia which proposed an honourable and just peaceto all, against Russia which has declared an end to the war?

It must be supposed that the German worker will under-stand this, firstly because he is intelligent and educated,

39THE ITCH

and secondly because he is used to a neat and cultured life,and suffers neither from the Russian itch in general, nor fromthe itch of revolutionary phrase-making in particular.

Is there a difference between killing for the purpose ofrobbery and the killing of an aggressor?

Is there a difference between a war of two groups of plun-derers for a division of spoils and a just war for liberationfrom the attack of a plunderer against a people that hasoverthrown the plunderers?

Does not the appraisal whether I act well or badly inacquiring weapons from a robber depend on the end andobject of these weapons? On their use for a war that is baseand dishonourable or for one that is just and honourable?

Ugh! The itch is a nasty disease. And hard is the occupa-tion of a man who has to give a steam bath to those infectedwith it....

P.S. The North Americans in their war of liberationagainst England at the end of the eighteenth century got helpfrom Spain and France, who were her competitors and justas much colonial robbers as England. It is said that therewere Left Bolsheviks to be found who contemplatedwriting a learned work on the dirty deal of theseAmericans....

Written on February 2 2 , 1 9 1 8Published on February 2 2 , 1 9 1 8 Published according

in the evening edition to the Pravda textof Pravda No. 3 3Signed: Karpov

40

PEACE OR WAR?

The Germans reply, as the reader sees, sets us peace termsstill more onerous than those of Brest-Litovsk. Neverthe-less, I am absolutely convinced that only complete intoxi-cation by revolutionary phrase-making can impel somepeople to refuse to sign these terms. It was precisely on thataccount that, by articles in Pravda (signed Karpov) on TheRevolutionary Phrase and on The Itch,* I began arelentless struggle against revolutionary phrase-making,which I saw and see now as the greatest menace to our Party(and, consequently, to the revolution as well). On manyoccasions in history revolutionary parties which wore strict-ly carrying out revolutionary slogans became infected withrevolutionary phrase-making and perished as a result.

Hitherto I have been trying to persuade the Party tofight against revolutionary phrase-making. Now I must dothis publicly. Foralas!my very worst suppositions haveproved justified.

On January 8, 1918, at a meeting of about 60 of the chiefParty workers of Petrograd I read out my Theses on theQuestion of the Immediate Conclusion of a Separate andAnnexationist Peace (17 theses, which will be publishedtomorrow). In these theses (paragraph 13) I declared waragainst revolutionary phrase-making, doing so in the mildestand most comradely fashion (I now profoundly condemn thismildness of mine). I said that the policy of refusing theproposed peace would, perhaps, answer the needs of someonewho is striving for an eloquent, spectacular and brillianteffect, but would completely fail to reckon with the objective

* See this volume, pp. 19-29, 36-39.Ed.

41PEACE OR WAR?

relationship of class forces and material factors at thepresent period of the socialist revolution that has begun.

In the 17th thesis I wrote that if we refuse to sign the pro-posed peace, very heavy defeats will compel Russia toconclude a still more unfavourable separate peace.

Things have turned out still worse, for our army, whichis retreating and demobilising, is refusing to fight at all.

Under such conditions, only unrestrained phrase-makingis capable of pushing Russia into war at the present timeand I personally, of course, would not remain for a secondeither in the government or in the Central Committee ofour Party if the policy of phrase-making were to gain theupper hand.

The bitter truth has now revealed itself with such terribleclarity that it is impossible not to see it. The entire bour-geoisie in Russia is rejoicing and gloating over the arrivalof the Germans. Only those who are blind or intoxicated byphrases can close their eyes to the fact that the policy of arevolutionary war (without an army. . . ) brings grist to themill of our bourgeoisie. In Dvinsk, Russian officers arealready going about wearing their shoulder-straps.

In Rezhitsa, the bourgeoisie exultantly welcomed theGermans. In Petrograd, on Nevsky Prospekt, and in bour-geois newspapers (Rech, Dyelo Naroda, Novy Luch, etc.),they are licking their lips with delight at the impendingoverthrow of Soviet power by the Germans.

Let everyone know: he who is against an immediate, eventhough extremely onerous peace, is endangering Sovietpower.

We are compelled to endure an onerous peace. It willnot halt the revolution in Germany and in Europe. We shallset about preparing a revolutionary army, not by phrasesand exclamations (after the manner of those who sinceJanuary 7 have done nothing even to halt our fleeing troops),but by organisational work, by deeds, by the creation of aproper, powerful army of the whole people.

Written in the morningof February 2 3 , 1 9 1 8

Published on February 2 3 , 1 9 1 8 Published according toin the evening edition the Pravda text

of Pravda No. 3 4Signed: Lenin

42

SPEECH AT THE JOINT MEETINGOF THE BOLSHEVIK AND LEFT

SOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARY GROUPSOF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C.

FEBRUARY 23, 1918 13

NEWSPAPER REPORT

Lenin spoke in defence of signing the German proposals.He began by saying that Soviet power must face up to thetruth, that it must acknowledge the total impossibility ofresistance to the Germans. He referred to the previousspeakers who rejected signature to the treaty, but the viewthat we could organise an army in the near future was whollywithout grounds; the army did not want to fight and no onecould compel it to do so; if, however, we were to startorganising an army, if we were to collect a small handful ofvaliant fighters whom we would throw into the jaws of im-perialism, we would thereby lose energetic and ideologicallyequipped fighters who had won us victory.

Further, Lenin said that our Russian proletariat was notat all to blame if the German revolution was delayed. Itwould come but it was not there yet, and for us the bestway out was to gain time; if we were to sign a peace treatyat the present moment, we could subsequently, by energetic,organised work, by railway construction and by puttingfood matters in order, create a strong and stable army forthe defence of our revolution, and before that time thesocialist revolution in Germany would certainly arrive.

Published on February 2 4 , 1 9 1 8 in Published according toIzvestia of the Soviets of Workers, the newspaper textSoldiers and Peasants Deputies of

the City of Moscow and MoscowRegion No. 3 2

43

REPORT AT THE MEETINGOF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C.

FEBRUARY 24, 1918 14

Comrades, the terms put to us by the representativesof German imperialism are unprecedentedly severe, immeas-urably oppressive, predatory terms. The German imperial-ists, taking advantage of the weakness of Russia, havetheir knee on our chest. Not to conceal from you the bittertruth of which I am deeply convinced, the situation beingwhat it is, I must tell you that we have no other way outthan to subscribe to these terms. And that any other proposalmeans to incur, either voluntarily or involuntarily, stillworse evils and further (if one can speak here of degrees)complete subjection of the Soviet Republic, its enslavementto German imperialism, or it is a pitiful attempt at usingwords to evade a terrible, immeasurably cruel, but undeni-able reality. Comrades, you all know very well, and manyof you know it from personal experience, that the burdenRussia had to bear in the imperialist war was for indispu-table reasons that everyone can understand more terrible andsevere than that endured by other countries. You know,therefore, that our army was martyrised and tortured bythe war as was no other, that all the slanders cast at us bythe bourgeois press and the parties which supported it, orwhich were hostile to the Soviet government, alleging thatthe Bolsheviks were demoralising the troops, are nonsense.I shall remind you once again of the proclamation whichKrylenko, while still an ensign under Kerensky, distributedto the troops when he left for Petrograd, and which wasreprinted in Pravda, and in which he said: we do not urgeupon you any kind of mutiny, we urge upon you organised

V. I. LENIN44

political actions; strive to be as organised as possible.15Such was the propaganda of one of the most ardent representa-tives of the Bolsheviks, one who was most closely connectedwith the army. Everything that could be done to hold to-gether this unprecedentedly, immeasurably fatigued army,and to make it stronger, was done. And if we see now, thoughI have entirely refrained, during the last month, for exam-ple, from setting out my view, which could seem pessimistic,if we have seen that, as regards the army during the pastmonth, we have said all that could be said, and done allthat could be done, to ease the situation, reality has shownus that after three years of war our army is altogether unableand unwilling to fight, That is the basic cause, simple,obvious, and in the highest degree bitter and painful, butabsolutely clear, why, living side by side with an imperialistplunderer, we are compelled to sign peace terms when heputs his knee on our chest. That is why I say, fully consciousof the responsibility I bear, and repeat that no single memberof the Soviet government has the right to evade this respon-sibility. Of course, it is pleasant and easy to tell the workers,peasants and soldiers, as it has been pleasant and easy toobserve, how the revolution has gone forward after the Octo-ber uprising, but when we have to acknowledge the bitter,painful, undeniable truththe impossibility of a revolu-tionary warit is impermissible now to evade this respon-sibility and we must shoulder it frankly. I consider myselfobliged, I consider it essential to fulfil my duty and stateplainly how things are, and therefore I am convinced thatthe class of toilers of Russia, who know what war is, what ithas cost the working people and the degree of exhaustionto which it has led them, thatI do not doubt it for amomentthey along with us recognise the unprecedentedseverity, grossness and vileness of these peace terms and nev-ertheless approve our conduct. They will say: you undertookto propose the terms of an immediate and just peace, youshould have utilised every possibility of delaying peace inorder to see whether other countries would join in, whetherthe European proletariat, without whose help we cannotachieve a lasting socialist victory, would come to our aid.We did everything possible to protract the negotiations, wedid even more than was possible; what we did was that after

45MEETING OF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C.

FROM MARX

TO MAO

NOT FOR

COMMERCIAL

DISTRIBUTION

the Brest negotiations we declared the state of war at an end,confident as many of us were that the situation in Germanywould not allow her to make a brutal and savage attack onRussia.

This time we have had to endure a heavy defeat, and wehave to be able to look the defeat straight in the face. Yes,hitherto the revolution has proceeded along an ascendingline from victory to victory; now it has suffered a heavydefeat. The German working-class movement, which beganso rapidly, has been interrupted for a time. We know thatits main causes have not been abolished, and that they willgrow and will inevitably extend because the excruciatingwar is being drawn out, because the bestiality of imperialismis being exposed ever more fully and obviously, and isopening the eyes of masses of people who might seem to bemost remote from politics or incapable of understandingsocialist policy. That is why this desperate, tragic situationhas arisen, which compels us to accept peace now and willcompel the masses of the working people to say: yes, theyacted correctly, they did all they could to propose a justpeace, they had to submit to a most oppressive and unfor-tunate peace because the country had no other way out.Their situation is such that they are forced to wage a life-and-death struggle against the Soviet Republic; if they areunable now to continue their intention of advancing againstPetrograd and Moscow it is only because they are tied upin a bloody and predatory war with Britain, and becausethere is an internal crisis as well. When it is pointed out tome that the German imperialists may present us with stillworse conditions tomorrow or the day after, I say that wemust be prepared for that; naturally, living side by sidewith bestial plunderers, the Soviet Republic must expectto be attacked. If at present we cannot reply by war it isbecause the forces are lacking, because war can be wagedonly together with the people. If the successes of the revo-lution cause many comrades to say the opposite, that isnot a mass phenomenon, it does not express the will andopinion of the real masses. If you go to the class of real toil-ers, to the workers and peasants, you will hear only oneanswer, that we are quite unable to wage war, we lack thephysical strength, we are choked in blood, as one of the sol-

V. I. LENIN46

diers put it. These masses will understand us and approveof our concluding this forced and unprecedentedly onerouspeace. It may be that the respite needed for an upswing of themasses will take no little time, but those who had to livethrough the long years of revolutionary battles in the periodof the upswing of the revolution and the period when therevolution fell into decline, when revolutionary calls tothe masses obtained no response from them, know that allthe same the revolution always arose afresh. Therefore wesay: yes, at present the masses are not in a state to wage war,at present every representative of the Soviet governmentis obliged to tell the people to its face the whole bitter truth.The time of unheard-of hardship and of three years of warand of the desperate disruption left by tsarism will passaway, and the people will recover its strength and find itselfcapable of resistance. At present the oppressor confrontsus; it is best, of course, to answer oppression by a revolu-tionary war, by an uprising, but, unfortunately, history hasshown that it is not always possible to answer oppression byan uprising. But to refrain from an uprising does not meanrefraining from the revolution. Do not succumb to the pro-vocation coming from the bourgeois newspapers, the enemiesof Soviet power. Indeed, they have nothing except talkabout an obscene peace and cries of shame! about thispeace, but in fact this bourgeoisie greets the German con-querors with delight. They say: Now, at last, the Germanswill come and restore order, that is what they want and sothey bait us with cries of an obscene peace, a shamefulpeace. They want the Soviet government to give battle, anunheard-of battle, knowing that we lack strength, and theyare dragging us into complete enslavement to the Germanimperialists in order to do a deal with the German gendarmes,but they express only their own class interests, because theyknow that the Soviet government is growing stronger. Thesevoices, these cries against peace, are in my view the bestproof of the fact that those who reject this peace have notonly been consoling themselves with unjustified illusionsbut have succumbed to provocation. No, we must look thedisastrous truth squarely in the face: before us is the oppres-sor with his knee on our chest, and we shall fight with allthe means of revolutionary struggle. At present, however,

47MEETING OF THE ALL-RUSSIA C.E.C.

we are in a desperately difficult situation, our ally cannothasten to our aid, the international proletariat cannot comejust now, but it will come. This revolutionary movement,which at present has no possibility of offering armedresistance to the enemy, is rising and it will offer resistancelater, but offer it it will. (Applause.)

A brief report of this speechwas published on February 2 6 , 1 9 1 8

in Pravda No. 3 5First published in full in 1 9 2 6 Published according to

in N. Lenin (V. Ulyanov), the verbatim reportCollected WorksVol. XX, Part, II

48

WHERE IS THE MISTAKE? 16

The outstanding and most responsible opponents of theconclusion of a separate peace on the Brest terms have setout the essence of their arguments in the following form:

...

...

Here are advanced the most concentrated, the mostimportant arguments, set out almost in the form of a resolu-tion. For convenience in analysing the arguments, we havenumbered each proposition separately.

When one examines these arguments, the authors mainerror immediately strikes the eye. They do not say a wordabout the concrete conditions of a revolutionary war at thepresent moment. The chief and fundamental considerationfor the supporters of peace, namely, that it is impossiblefor us to fight at the present time, is altogether evaded. Inreplyin reply, say, to my theses,* well-known to the auth-ors since January 8they put forward exclusively generalconsiderations, abstractions, which inevitably turn intoempty phrases. For every general historical statementapplied to a particular case without a special analysis ofthe conditions of that particular case becomes an emptyphrase.

* See present edition, Vol. 26, pp. 442-50.Ed.

49WHERE IS THE MISTAKE?

Take the first proposition. Its whole point is a reproach,an exclamation, a declamation, an effort to shame theopponent, an appeal to sentiment. See what bad people youare, they say: the imperialists are attacking you, proclaim-ing as their aim the suppression of the proletarian revo-lution, and you reply by agreeing to conclude peace! Butour argument, as the authors are aware, is that by rejectingan onerous peace we actually make it easier for the enemyto suppress the proletarian revolution. And this conclusionof ours is reinforced (for example, in my theses) by a number-of very concrete indications about the state of the army, itsclass composition, etc. The authors have avoided everythingconcrete and the result they arrive at is an empty phrase.For if the enemy are proclaiming that their aim is to suppressthe revolution, then he is a bad revolutionary who by choos-ing an admittedly impossible form of resistance helps toachieve a transition from the proclamation to the realisa-tion of the enemys aims.

Second argument: reproaches are being intensified.You, they say, agree to peace at the first onslaught of theenemy... . Do the authors seriously suppose that this can beconvincing for those who ever since January, long beforethe onslaught, analysed the relationship of forces and theconcrete conditions of the war at that time? Is it not phrase-making if reproach is regarded as argument againstanalysis??

Agreeing to peace under the present conditions, we aretold, is a surrender of the foremost contingent of the inter-national proletariat to the international bourgeoisie.

Again an empty phrase. General truths are inflated insuch a way that they become untrue and are turned intodeclamation. The German bourgeoisie is not international,for the Anglo-French capitalists welcome our refusal to con-clude peace. Surrender, generally speaking, is a bad thing,but this praiseworthy truth does not decide every indivi-dual proposition, for refusal to fight under obviously unfa-vourable conditions can also be called surrender, but suchsurrender is obligatory for a serious revolutionary. Agreeingto enter the Third Duma, the concluding of peace withStolypin, as the Left declamationists called it at thattime, wag also, generally speaking, a surrender.

V. I. LENIN50

We are the foremost contingent in the sense of the revolu-tionary beginning, that is indisputable, but in order to bethe foremost contingent in the sense of a military clash withthe forces of foremost imperialism, that....*Written February 2 3 or 2 4 , 1 9 1 8

First published in 1 9 2 9 Published according toin Lenin Miscellany XI the manuscript

* Here the manuscript breaks off.Ed.

51

AN UNFORTUNATE PEACE

Trotsky was right when he said: the peace may be a triplyunfortunate peace, but the peace ending this hundredfoldobscene war cannot be an obscene, disgraceful, dirty peace.

It is incredibly, unprecedentedly hard to sign an unfor-tunate, immeasurably severe, infinitely humiliating peacewhen the strong has the weak by the throat. But it is imper-missible to give way to despair, impermissible to forgetthat history has examples of still greater humiliations,still more unfortunate, onerous peace terms. Yet even so,the peoples crushed by bestially cruel conquerors were ableto recover and rise again.

Napoleon I crushed and humiliated Prussia immeasurablymore heavily than Wilhelm is now crushing and humiliat-ing Russia.17 For a number of years Napoleon I was com-pletely victorious on the continent; his victory over Prussiawas much more decisive than Wilhelms victory over Rus-sia. Yet after a few years Prussia recovered and in a war ofliberation, not without the aid of robber states that wagedagainst Napoleon by no means a war of liberation but animperialist war, threw off the Napoleonic yoke.

Napoleons imperialist wars continued for many years,took up a whole epoch and exhibited an extremely complexnetwork of imperialist* relationships interwoven withnational liberation movements. And as a result, through allthis epoch, unusually rich in wars and tragedies (tragedies ofwhole peoples), history went forward from feudalism tofree capitalism.

* I call here imperialism the plunder of foreign countries ingeneral and an imperialist war the war of plunderers for the divisionof such booty.

V. I. LENIN52

History is now advancing still more swiftly, the tragediesof whole nations that are being crushed or have been crushedby imperialist war are immeasurably more terrible. Theinterweaving of imperialist and national liberation trends,movements and aspirations is also in evidence, with theimmense difference that the national liberation movementsare immeasurably weaker and the imperialist ones immeas-urably stronger. But history goes steadily forward, and inthe depths of all the advanced countries there is maturingdespite everythingthe socialist revolution, a revolutioninfinitely deeper, closer to the people and more powerfulthan the previous bourgeois revolution.

Hence, again and yet again: of all things the most imper-missible is despair. The peace terms are intolerably severe.Nevertheless history will come into its own; to our aid willcomeeven if not so quickly as we should likethe steadilymaturing socialist revolution in other countries.

The plunderer has besieged us, oppressed and humiliateduswe are capable of enduring all these burdens. We arenot alone in the world. We have friends, supporters, veryloyal helpers. They are lateowing to a number of conditionsindependent of their willbut they will come.

Let us work to organise, organise and yet again organise!The future, in spite of all trials, is ours.

Pravda No. 3 4 , Published according toFebruary 2 4 , 1 9 1 8 the Pravda text

53

SPEECHES AT THE MEETING OF THE C.C.OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

FEBRUARY 24, 1918

MINUTES

1

The question of sending a delegation to Brest to sign the peacetreaty was discussed.

Lenin considered that it was necessary to preserve conti-nuity with the preceding delegation and since it would notbe enough for Comrade Karakhan to go alone, it was verydesirable that Comrades Joffe and Zinoviev should go.

2

A. A. Joffe categorically refused to go, declaring that concludingpeace is the death of the whole Brest policy.

Lenin said that he did not insist on Joffe going as aplenipotentiary for signing the treaty, but he consideredComrade Joffe should go as a consultant. Undoubtedly, theGermans had sent their answer in the form of an ultimatum,fearing opposition on our part, but if they saw our willingnessto sign the peace treaty they might agree also to negotia-tions. In view of this a consultant who knew the whole mat-ter was essential. If it turned out that it was only necessaryto sign, then, of course, there would be nothing to talk about,and the consultant would not even appear at the meeting.

V. I. LENIN54

3

Lenin said that Radek, though opposed to concludingpeace, had nevertheless agreed to go, but the Poles hadforbidden him to do so.

4

In further discussion L. D. Trotsky declared that in Brest it wouldonly be necessary to sign the peace treaty and A. A. Joffe would notbe necessary there, since in the Germans reply there was already aformulation on the chief questions.

Lenin considered that he was wrong, since experts wereundoubtedly required at the signing of the treaty and wehad none, even for a trade treaty. Krasin could have gone,but he had gone to Stockholm for a time. We were going tosign the treaty with clenched teeth, about which the delega-tion had made its declaration, but we did not know thesituation, we did not know what might happen by the timethe delegation arrived in Brest, and therefore Joffe asa consultant was essential. In general it must be bornein mind that we empowered the delegation to enter intonegotiations if there was any possibility of doing so.

5

In further discussion the candidatures of G. Y. Zinoviev andG. Y. Sokolnikov were put forward.

Lenin considered that both should be sent, and that ifit was only a question of signing the peace treaty, theycould both leave at once, having reached agreement withChicherin about further developments.

6

G. Y, Sokolnikov declared that he would not go to Brest and ifthe Central Committee insisted he would resign from the CentralCommittee.

Lenin asked the comrades not to get excited and pointedout that Comrade Petrovsky could go in the delegation asPeoples Commissar.

55MEETING OF THE C.C. OF THE R.S.D.L.P.(B.)

7

L. D. Trotskys statement about his resigning the post of PeoplesCommissar for Foreign Affairs was discussed.

Lenin pointed out that this was unacceptable, that achange of policy was a crisis. That a questionnaire on policyhad been distributed in the provinces,18 and that to pole-mise a little was not at all harmful.

He made a practical proposal: the Central Committeewould ask Comrade Trotsky to postpone his statement untilthe next meeting of the C.C., until Tuesday. (Amendmentuntil the return of the delegation from Brest.)

8

Lenin proposed that the following declaration shouldbe put to the vote: the C.C., considering it impossible toaccept the resignation of Comrade Trotsky at the presenttime, requests him to postpone his decision until the returnof the delegation from Brest or until a change in the actualstate of affairs.

Adopted with three abstaining.9

L. D. Trotsky declared that since his statement had not been accept-ed he would be compelled to give up appearing in official institutions.

Lenin moved that it should be voted: the Central Commit-tee, having heard Comrade Trotskys statement, while fullyagreeing to Comrade Trotskys absence during decisionson foreign affairs in the Council of Peoples Commissars,requests Comrade Trotsky not to keep aloof from otherdecisions.

Adopted.10

The C.C. discussed the statement of A. Lomov, M. S. Uritsky,V. M. Smirnov, G. L. Pyatakov, D. P. Bogolepov and A. P. Spundeabout their resignation from posts in the Council of Peoples Commis-sars. M. S. Uritsky expressed the hope that their statement concerningtheir resignation from responsible Party and Soviet posts would bepublished.

Lenin moved that it be adopted: the C.C. requests thecomrades who submitted the statement to postpone their

V. I. LENIN56

decision until the return of the delegation from Brest andto discuss this decision of the C.C. in the group.

11

Lenin moved two proposals:1) While recognising the legitimate demand of the four,

the C.C. requests them to discuss the proposal of the C.C.and to postpone their statement both in view of the near-ness of the Congress and in view of the complexity of thepolitical situation.

2) While guaranteeing the comrades the publication oftheir statement in Pravda, the C.C. requests them to revisetheir decision and to discuss whether they do not find itpossible to remain both in responsible posts and in the C.C.19

Lenins proposals were accepted.

First published in full Published according toin 1 9 2 8 in the magazine the text of the book:

Proletarskaya Revolutsia Minutes of the C.C. ofNo. 2 (7 3 ) the R.S.D.L.P.,

August 1917-February 1918, 1 9 2 9

57

NOTE ON THE NECESSITYOF SIGNING THE PEACE TREATY

Not to conclude peace at the present moment meansdeclaring an armed uprising or a revolutionary war againstGerman imperialism. This is either phrase-making or aprovocation by the Russian bourgeoisie, which is thirstingfor the arrival of the Germans. In reality we cannot fightat the present time, for the army is against the war andis unable to fight. The week of war against the Germans,in face of whom our troops simply ran away, from February 18to 24, 1918, has fully proved this. We are prisoners of Ger-man imperialism. Not empty phrases about an immediatearmed uprising against the Germans, but the systematic,serious, steady work of preparing a revolutionary war, thecreation of discipline and an army, the putting into orderof the railways and food affairs. That is the point of viewof the majority of the C.E.C., including Lenin (and themajority of the C.C., Bolsheviks), and of Spiridonova andMalkin (the minority of the C.C., Left Socialist-Revolu-tionaries).

Written February 2 4 , 1 9 1 8First published in 1 9 2 9 Published according to

in Lenin Miscellany XI the manuscript

58

POSITION OF THE C.C.OF THE R.S.D.L.P. (BOLSHEVIKS)

ON THE QUESTION OF THE SEPARATEAND ANNEXATIONIST PEACE 20

Dear Comrades,The Organising Bureau of the Central Committee considers

it essential to submit to you an explanation of the motivesthat led the Central Committee to agree to the peace termsproposed by the German Government. The OrganisingBureau is addressing this explanation to you, comrades, inorder that all Party members should be thoroughly informedof the point of view of the Central Committee which, in theperiod between Congresses, represents the entire Party. TheOrganising Bureau considers it essential to state that theCentral Committee was not unanimous on the question ofsigning the peace terms. Since the decision has been made,however, it must be supported by the whole Party. A PartyCongress is due in a few days, and only then will it be pos-sible to decide the question of the extent to which the Cen-tral Committee rightly expressed the actual position of thewhole Party. Until the Congress, all Party members, inpursuance of their duty to the Party and for the sake of themaintenance of unity in our Party ranks, will carry out thedecisions of their central leading body, the Central Commit-tee of the Party.

The absolute necessity of signing, at the given moment(February 24, 1918), an annexationist and unbelievablyharsh peace treaty with Germany is due primarily to thefact that we have no army and cannot defend ourselves.

59R.S.D.L.P.(B.) ON THE QUESTION OF THE SEPARATE PEACE

Everybody knows why since October 20, 1917, since thevictory of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poorpeasantry, we have all become defencists, we are all for thedefence of the fatherland.

From the point of view of defending the fatherland, itis impermissible for us to allow ourselves to be drawn intoan armed conflict when we have no army and the enemy isarmed to the teeth and excellently prepared.

The Soviet Socialist Republic cannot wage a war when theobviously overwhelming majority of the masses of workers,peasants and soldiers who elect deputies to the Soviets areagainst the war. It would be a rash gamble. It will be adifferent thing if an end is put to this war, excessively harshthough the terms of peace may be, and German imperialismagain decides to start an aggressive war against Russia.Then the majority of the Soviets will most certainly be infavour of war.

To wage war today would amount objectively to fallingfor the provocation of the Russian bourgeoisie. They knowfull well that at the moment Russia is defenceless andwould be crushed by even insignificant German forces, whichwould have only to cut the main railway lines to starvePetrograd and Moscow into surrendering. The bourgeoisiewant war, because they want the overthrow of Soviet powerand an agreement with the German bourgeoisie. The jubila-tion of the bourgeoisie when the German troops arrived inDvinsk and Rezhitsa, Venden and Gapsal, Minsk and Drissaconfirms this as clearly as can be.

Defence of revolutionary war at the present moment isnothing but an empty revolutionary phrase. It is impossiblefor a ruined peasant country to wage a modern war againstadvanced imperialism without an army and without the mostserious economic preparation. It is beyond all doubt thatGerman imperialism must be resisted, for it will crush usand hold us prisoner. It would, however, be empty talk todemand resistance specifically by means of armed uprising,especially now, when such resistance is obviously hopelessfor us, and obviously to the advantage of the German andRussian bourgeoisie.

It is equally empty talk to argue in favour of revolution-ary war at this moment on the grounds of support for the

V. I. LENIN60

international socialist movement. If we make it easierfor German imperialism to crush the Soviet Republic by ouruntimely acceptance of battle, we shall harm and not helpthe German and international working-class movement andthe cause of socialism. We must help only the revolutionaryinternationalists in all countries by all-round, persistentand systematic work; but to undertake the gamble of launch-ing an