page 151

    The extraordinary congress of the Party, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party (Bolsheviks), called by the Central Committee for October 17, has on the agenda the revision of the Party programme. The Conference of April 24-29[67] passed a resolution on the necessity for such a revision and indicated in eight points the direction which this revision should follow.[*] Then, later, pamphlets were published in Petrograd[**] and Moscow,[***] which took up the question of revision, and on August 10 the Moscow journal Spartak [68] No. 4 published an article by Comrade N. I. Bukharin devoted to the same subject.

    Let us examine the points raised by the Moscow comrades.

    For the Bolsheviks, who all agree on the need to "evaluate imperialism and the epoch of imperialist wars in connection with the approaching socialist revolution" (Clause 1 of the resolution adopted by the Conference of April 24-29), the main question in the revision of the Party programme is that of formulating a new programme. Should we round out the old programme by adding a characterisation of imperialism (I advocated this opinion in the Petrograd pamphlet), or should we change the whole text of the old programme? (This opinion was expressed by the group which was formed at the April Conference, and is now being advocated by the

page 152

Moscow comrades.) This is primarily the question confronting our Party.

    We have two drafts. The one I proposed complements the old programme by adding a characterisation of imperialism[*]; the second, proposed by Comrade V. Sokolnikov, and based on the remarks of a committee of three (this committee was elected by the group formed at the April Conference), changes the entire general part of the programme.

    I also had occasion to express my opinion (in the above mentioned pamphlet, p. 11[**]) concerning the theoretical incorrectness of the plan of revision indicated by the group. Let us see now how this plan is carried out in Comrade Sokolnikov's draft.

    Comrade Sokolnikov has divided the general part of our programme into ten sections, giving each a number (see pp. 11-18 of the Moscow pamphlet). We will adhere to his numerical scheme so as to enable the reader to find the relevant passages.

    The first section of the present programme consists of two clauses. The first declares that the labour movement has become international because of the development of exchange; the second, that the Russian Social-Democratic Party considers itself one of the contingents of the army of the world proletariat. (Further on in the second section the common ultimate aim of all Social-Democrats is mentioned.)

    Comrade Sokolnikov leaves the second clause intact, while he replaces the first by a new one, adding to the point about the development of exchange an allusion to the "export of capital" and the growth of the struggle of the proletariat into "a world-wide socialist revolution".

    The immediate result is inconsistency, a mixture of subjects, a confusion of two types of programme structure. One of the two: either we must begin with the characterisation of imperialism as a whole -- and in that case we must not single out only the "export of capital", or leave in, as Comrade Sokolnikov does, the analysis of "the process of development" of bourgeois society in the second section; or we must leave the type of programme structure unchanged,

page 153

i.e., first explain why our movement has become international, what its common ultimate goal is, how the "process of development" of bourgeois society is leading to this goal.

    To make the inconsistency and lack of logic in Comrade Sokolnikov's formulation of the programme more evident, we will quote in full the opening sentences of the old programme:

    "The development of exchange has established such close ties between all the nations of the civilised world that the great movement of the proletariat towards emancipation was bound to become -- and has long since become -- international."

    Here Comrade Sokolnikov is dissatisfied with two points -- (1) speaking of the development of exchange, the programme describes an antiquated "period of development"; (2) after the word "civilised" he puts an exclamation mark and says that "the close ties between metropolis and colony" are "not taken cognisance of" in our programme.

    "Can protectionism, tariff wars, imperialist wars sever the ties of the proletarian movement?" queries Comrade Sokolnikov? and he himself answers: "If we are to believe the text of our programme, they can, for they sever the ties established by exchange."

    Rather strange criticism. Neither protectionism, nor tariff wars "sever" exchange; they only change it temporarily or interrupt it at one point, permitting its continuation at another. Exchange has not been eliminated by the present war, it has only been made difficult in some places and has shifted to other places, but it still remains an international tie. The most obvious proof is the course of exchange. This is the first point. And secondly, we read in Comrade Sokolnikov's draft: "The development of productive forces, which, on the basis of the exchange of goods and the export of capital, draws all peoples into one world economy", etc Imperialist war (in one place, for a time) also interrupts the export of capital, as well as exchange; therefore, Comrade Sokolnikov's "criticism" may be turned against him.

    Thirdly, the old programme showed why the labour movement "has long since become " international. It had unquestionably become international before the export of capital, which is the highest stage of capitalism.

page 154

    To sum up: Comrade Sokolnikov inserted a bit of the definition of imperialism (the export of capital) in a place where it is obviously incongruous.

    Moreover, the words "the civilised world" do not appeal to Comrade Sokolnikov, for, in his opinion, they refer to something peaceful and harmonious, and leave the colonies out.

    Quite the contrary. Speaking of the "civilised world", the programme points out the disharmony, the existence of uncivilised countries (this is a fact ), while in Comrade Sokolnikov's draft things appear much more harmonious, for it speaks simply of "drawing all peoples into one world economy"! As if all peoples were equally drawn into this one world economy! As if there existed no relationship of bondage between the uncivilised and the "civilised" peoples precisely on the basis of "all peoples" being drawn "into one world economy".

    Comrade Sokolnikov has really weakened the old programme on the two points he mentions. He has put less emphasis on internationalism. It is very important for us to point out that it emerged long ago, long before the era of finance capital. His wording gives the impression of a greater "harmony" in respect of the colonies. It is nevertheless unfortunately true that so far the labour movement has affected only the civilised countries, and to ignore this fact is not proper.

    I would be ready to agree with Comrade Sokolnikov had he demanded a clearer exposition of the exploitation of the colonies. That is a really important component of the concept "imperialism". But in the first section of Comrade Sokolnikov's draft, there is no mention of it. He scatters the various component parts of the concept "imperialism" over several places to the detriment of consistency and clarity.

    We shall soon see how Comrade Sokolnikov's entire draft suffers from this looseness and inconsistency.

    Comrade Sokolnikov suggests that the word "overproduction" is made "the basis of the explanation" of crises in the old programme and that "such a view is more in keeping with the theory of Rodbertus[69] who explains crises as being due to under-consumption by the working class".

    A comparison of the old text with the new one proposed by Comrade Sokolnikov will show how unsuccessful his hunt for theoretical heresy has been, and how Rodbertus has been dragged in by the hair.

    The old text contains the following, after mention (in the fourth section) of "technical progress", intensified exploitation of labour, and relatively lower consumption by the workers: "This state of affairs in the bourgeois countries, etc., makes it more and more difficult for them to market commodities produced in ever-increasing quantities. Overproduction, manifesting itself in . . . crises . . . and periods of stagnation . . . is an inevitable consequence. . . ."

    It is clear that here overproduction is by no means used as the "basis of the explanation" of crises, but that this is only a description of the origin of crises and periods of stagnation. In Comrade Sokolnikov's draft we read the following:

    "The development of the productive forces assuming these contradictory forms, in which the conditions of production come into conflict with the conditions of consumption and the conditions for the realisation of capital with those for its accumulation -- this development, whose sole motive force is the pursuit of profit, has as its inevitable consequence acute industrial crises and depressions which signify the cessation of the sale of commodities, anarchically produced in ever-increasing quantities."

    Comrade Sokolnikov said exactly the same thing, because "the cessation of the sale of commodities" produced in "ever increasing quantities", is exactly what we call overproduction. There is no need for him to fear this word, there is nothing inaccurate in it. It is useless for Comrade Sokolnikov

page 159

to write that instead of "overproduction", "underproduction might be used, with much the same or even more reason" (page 15 of the Moscow pamphlet).

    Well, just try calling the "cessation of the sale of commodities", "produced in ever-increasing quantities", "underproduction"! It cannot be done.

    Rodbertus's theory is not merely a matter of using the word "overproduction" (which alone exactly describes one of the profoundest contradictions of capitalism), but of explaining crises merely as the result of insufficient consumption by the working class. The old programme does not deduce crises from insufficient consumption. It bases its explanation on "this state of affairs in the bourgeois countries", as has been described in the preceding section of the programme and which consists in "technical progress" and "the relatively lower demand for human labour-power". Alongside of this the old programme speaks of "the ever-growing competition on the world market".

    Here something basic is said about the conflict between the conditions for accumulation and the conditions for realisation, and is said much more clearly. The theory has not been "changed" here at all, "to win popularity", as Comrade Sokolnikov erroneously thinks, but is presented clearly and popularly, which is a good point.

    Of crises, to be sure, one could write volumes, one might give a more concrete analysis of the conditions of accumulation, mention the role of the means of production, of the exchange of surplus value and variable capital expressed in the means of production for constant capital expressed in articles of consumption, of the depreciation of constant capital due to new inventions, and so on, and so forth. But Comrade Sokolnikov makes no attempt to do this! His supposed correction of the programme consists only in the following:

    1. Having preserved the plan of transition from the fourth to the fifth section, from the reference to technical progress, etc., to crises, he weakened the connection between the two sections by leaving out the words, "this state of affairs".

    2. He added theoretical-sounding phrases about the conflict between the conditions of production and the conditions of consumption, and between the conditions for realisation

page 160

and the conditions for accumulation -- phrases which are quite correct but which do not express any new idea, for the preceding section gives the substance of all this more clearly.

    3. He adds "the pursuit of profit" -- an expression hardly suited to the programme, and which is used here, we suspect, precisely "to win popularity", for the same idea is expressed several times in the phrases about "conditions for realisation", commodity production, etc.

    4. He substitutes "depression" for "stagnation"; an unfortunate change.

    5. He adds the word "anarchically" to the old text ("commodities, anarchically produced in ever-increasing quantities"). This addition is theoretically wrong, for "anarchy" or "absence of planning" using an expression from the Erfurt Programme and contested by Engels, does not exactly characterise trusts.[*]

    Here is how Comrade Sokolnikov puts it:

    "Commodities are anarchically produced in ever-increasing quantities. Efforts of capitalist associations (trusts and the like) to prevent crises by limiting production end in failure," etc.

    But it is by trusts that commodities are not produced anarchically, but according to a plan. Trusts do not merely "limit" production. They do not make any efforts to prevent crises, nor can they make any such "efforts". Comrade Sokolnikov is guilty of a number of inaccuracies. What he should have said was: although trusts produce commodities not anarchically but according to a plan, crises nevertheless cannot be averted because of the above-mentioned characteristics of capitalism which are also inherent in the trusts. And if trusts, in periods of the greatest prosperity and speculation, limit production in the sense of being careful "not to go too far", then at best they only succeed in saving the largest enterprises; but crises come just the same.

    Summarising all that has been said on the question of crises, we come to the conclusion that Comrade Sokolnikov

page 161

has not improved upon the old programme. On the contrary, the new draft contains inaccuracies. The need to correct the old programme has not been proved.

    First, he does not give an appreciation of the present war. He says that the imperialist epoch generates imperialist wars. This is correct and should, of course, be stated in the programme. But this is not enough. Besides this it is necessary to say that the present war of 1914-17 is imperialist. The German Spartacus group in their "theses" published in German in 1915 advanced the proposition that in an era of imperialism national wars are impossible.[71] This is obviously a wrong assertion, for imperialism makes the oppression of nations more acute and, as a result, national revolts and national wars (attempts to draw a line of demarcation between revolts and wars are doomed to failure) are not only possible and probable but absolutely inevitable.

    Marxism demands a very precise assessment of each separate war on the basis of concrete data. To evade the question of the present war by resorting to general discussions is wrong in theory and inadmissible in practice. This method is used as a screen by the opportunists, they use it for evasion. They say that imperialism is, in general, an epoch of imperialist wars, but this particular war is not wholly imperialist (thus argued, for instance, Kautsky).

    Secondly, Comrade Sokolnikov links "crises and wars", as if they were a two-in-one companion of capitalism in general, and of modern capitalism in particular. On pages 20 and 21 of the Moscow pamphlet, he repeats the "crises and wars" combination in his draft three times. Here it is not only a question of the undesirability of repetitions in the programme. It is also a question of incorrectness in principle.

    Crises in the shape of overproduction, or "cessation of the sale of commodities", if Comrade Sokolnikov insists on banishing the word overproduction, are phenomena exclusive to capitalism. But wars are also characteristic of the slave-

page 162

owning and serf systems of economy. Imperialist wars also occurred in the period of slavery (the war between Rome and Carthage was on both sides an imperialist war), as well as in the Middle Ages and in the epoch of mercantile capitalism. A war is certainly imperialist if both warring sides oppress foreign countries or nationalities, and are fighting for their share of the loot and for the right to "oppress and rob" more than the others.

    If we were to say that only modern capitalism, only imperialism, has brought imperialist wars in its wake, it would be correct, for the preceding stage of capitalism, the stage of free competition, or the stage of pre-monopoly capitalism, was characterised in Western Europe mainly by national wars. But if we were to say that in the preceding stage there were no imperialist wars at all, it would be incorrect. It would mean that we had forgotten the "colonial" wars, which are also imperialist. This is the first point.

    And secondly, the linking up of "crises and wars" is particularly incorrect, for these are quite different phenomena of different historical origin and different class significance. For instance, it would be wrong to say, as Comrade Sokolnikov says in his draft, that "both crises and wars, in turn, mean still greater ruin for the small producers and increase the dependence of hired labour on capital. . .". For there could possibly be wars fought for the emancipation of hired labour from capital. In the course of the struggle of wage-workers against the capitalist class, wars of a revolutionary and not only of a reactionary-imperialist nature are possible. War is the continuation of the politics of this or that class; and in every class society, slave-owning, feudal, or capitalist, there have been wars which continued the politics of the oppressor classes and also wars which continued the politics of the oppressed classes. This is exactly why it would be wrong to say, as Comrade Sokolnikov does, that crises and wars show that the capitalist system is changing from a form of the development of productive forces into a hindrance to it".

    It is true that the present imperialist war, by its reactionary character and the hardships it entails, revolutionises the masses and accelerates the revolution, and this must be stated. It is also true that imperialist wars in general are

page 163

typical of an imperialist epoch, and this may be mentioned. But it would be wrong to say this about all "wars" in general, and, moreover, under no circumstances should crises and wars be tied up together.

    From this point of view let us examine the two drafts of the new programme. In my draft five basic distinguishing features of imperialism are presented: (1) capitalist monopoly associations; (2) the fusion of banking and industrial capital; (3) the export of capital to foreign countries; (4) the territorial partition of the globe, already completed; (5) the partition of the globe among international economic trusts. (In my pamphlet Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, which came out after the Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme, these five distinguishing features of imperialism are cited on p. 85.*) In Comrade Sokolnikov's draft we actually find the same five basic features, so that on the question of imperialism there is apparently complete agreement in principle within our Party -- as was to be expected, for the practical propaganda of our Party on this question, both oral and printed, has long since, from

page 164

the very beginning of the revolution, shown the complete unanimity of all the Bolsheviks on this fundamental question.

    What remains to be examined is the differences in the way the definition and characterisation of imperialism are formulated. Both drafts point specifically to the time when capitalism may be properly regarded as having become transformed into imperialism. The necessity for such a statement in the interests of precision and correct historical evaluation of economic development would hardly be denied. Comrade Sokolnikov says: "during the last quarter of a century"; I say: "about the beginning of the twentieth century". In the above-mentioned pamphlet on imperialism (on pp: 10 and 11, for instance[*]) I cited the testimony of an economist who has made a special study of cartels and syndicates. According to him, the turn towards the complete victory of the cartels in Europe came with the crisis of 1900-03. That is why, it seems, it would be more accurate to say: "about the beginning of the twentieth century" than "during the last quarter of a century". It would be more correct for still another reason. The above-mentioned specialist and all other European economists, generally work with data supplied by Germany, and Germany is far ahead of other countries in the formation of cartels.

    Furthermore, speaking of monopolies my draft says: "Monopolist associations of capitalists have assumed decisive importance." Comrade Sokolnikov calls attention to monopoly associations several times. Only once is he fairly definite:

    "During the last quarter of a century the direct or indirect control of production organised on capitalist lines has passed into the hands of all-powerful, interlocking banks, trusts and syndicates which have formed world-wide monopoly associations under the direction of a handful of magnates of finance capital."

    Here, it appears, there is too much "propaganda". "To win popularity" something that has no place there is injected into the programme. In newspaper articles, in speeches, in

    I would therefore suggest that the point on this exploitation of a number of weak countries by the richest should be inserted in that section of my draft where social-chauvinism is described (page 22 of the pamphlet[*]). The relevant passage in the draft would then assume the following form (the additions are in italics):

    "Such a perversion is, on the one hand, the social-chauvinist trend, socialism in word and chauvinism in deed, the use of the 'defence of the fatherland' slogan to hide the predatory interests 'their own' national bourgeoisie pursues in an imperialist war and to maintain the privileged position of citizens of rich nations which make enormous profits by pillaging colonies and weak nations. Another such perversion, on the other hand, is the equally wide and international movement of the 'Centre', etc."

    It is necessary to add the words "in an imperialist war" for greater accuracy. "Defence of the fatherland" is nothing but a slogan to justify the war, the recognition of it as legitimate and just. There are different kinds of wars. There may also be revolutionary wars. We must therefore say precisely what we mean: imperialist war. This is of course implied, but to avoid misinterpretation, it must not be implied, but stated directly and clearly.

    From the general or theoretical part of the programme we shall now turn to the minimum programme. Here we at once encounter the ostensibly "very radical" but really very groundless proposal of Comrades N. Bukharin and V. Smirnov to discard the minimum programme in toto. The division into maximum and minimum programmes is out of date, they claim. Since we speak of a transition to socialism there is no need for it. No minimum programmes; our programme must indicate measures for the transition to socialism.

page 170

    Such is the proposal of these two comrades. For some reason, they have not ventured to offer their own draft (although, since the revision of the Party programme was on the agenda of the next congress of the Party, they were really under an obligation to work out a draft). It is possible that the authors of the ostensibly "radical" proposal have themselves halted in indecision. . . . Be that as it may, their opinion should be examined.

    War and economic ruin have forced all countries to advance from monopoly capitalism to state monopoly capitalism. This is the objective state of affairs. In a revolutionary situation, during a revolution, however, state monopoly capitalism is directly transformed into socialism. During a revolution it is impossible to move forward without moving towards socialism -- this is the objective state of affairs created by war and revolution. It was taken cognisance of by our April Conference, which put forward the slogans, "a Soviet Republic" (the political form of the dictatorship of the proletariat), and the nationalisation of banks and syndicates (a basic measure in the transition towards socialism). Up to this point all the Bolsheviks unanimously agree. But Comrades Smirnov and Bukharin want to go farther, they want to discard the minimum programme in toto. This is contrary to the wise counsel of the wise proverb, "Do not boast when riding to battle ; boast when you return from it ".

    We are riding to battle, that is, we are fighting for the conquest of political power by our Party. This power would be the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poor peasants. In taking power, we are not at all afraid of stepping beyond the bounds of the bourgeois system; on the contrary, we declare clearly, directly, definitely, and openly that we shall step beyond those bounds, that we shall fearlessly march towards socialism, that our road shall be through a Soviet Republic, through nationalisation of banks and syndicates, through workers' control, through universal labour conscription, through nationalisation of the land, confiscation of the landowners' livestock and implements, etc. In this sense we drafted our programme of measures for transition to socialism.

    But we must not boast when riding to battle, we must not discard the minimum programme, for this would be an

page 171

empty boast: we do not wish to "demand anything from the bourgeoisie", we wish to realise everything ourselves, we do not wish to work on petty details within the framework of bourgeois society.

    This would be an empty boast, because first of all we must win power, which has not yet been done. We must first carry out the measures of transition to socialism, we must continue our revolution until the world socialist revolution is victorious, and only then, "returning from battle ", may we discard the minimum programme as of no further use.

    Is it possible to guarantee now that the minimum programme will not be needed any more? Of course not, for the simple reason that we have not yet won power, that socialism has not yet been realised, and that we have not achieved even the beginning of the world socialist revolution.

    We must firmly, courageously, and without hesitation advance towards our goal, but it is ludicrous to declare that we have reached it when we definitely have not. Discarding the minimum programme would be equivalent to declaring, to announcing (to bragging, in simple language) that we have already won. No, dear comrades, we have not yet won.

    We do not know whether our victory will come tomorrow or a little later. (I personally am inclined to think that it will be tomorrow -- I am writing this on October 6, 1917 -- and that there may be a delay in our seizure of power; still, tomorrow is tomorrow and not today.) We do not know how soon after our victory revolution will sweep the West. We do not know whether or not our victory will be followed by temporary periods of reaction and the victory of the counter-revolution -- there is nothing impossible in that -- and therefore, after our victory, we shall build a "triple line of trenches" against such a contingency.

    We do not know and cannot know anything of this. No one is in a position to know. It is therefore ridiculous to discard the minimum programme, which is indispensable while we still live within the framework of bourgeois society, while we have not yet destroyed that framework, not yet realised the basic prerequisites for a transition to socialism, not yet smashed the enemy (the bourgeoisie), and even if we have smashed them we have not yet annihilated them. All this

page 172

will come, and perhaps much sooner than many people think (I personally think that it will begin tomorrow), but it has not yet come.

    Take the minimum programme in the political sphere. This programme is limited to the bourgeois republic. We add that we do not confine ourselves to its limits, we start immediately upon a struggle for a higher type of republic, a Soviet Republic. This we must do. With unshakable courage and determination we must advance towards the new republic and in this way we shall reach our goal, of that I am sure. But the minimum programme should under no circumstances be discarded, for, first of all, there is as yet no Soviet Republic; secondly, "attempts at restoration" are not out of the question, and they will first have to be experienced and vanquished; thirdly, during the transition from the old to the new there may be temporary "combined types" (as Rabochy Put correctly pointed out a day or two ago) -- for instance, a Soviet Republic together with a Constituent Assembly. Let us first get over all that -- then it will be time to discard the minimum programme.

    The same in the economic sphere. We all agree that the fear of marching towards socialism is the most contemptible treason to the cause of the proletariat. We all agree that the most important of the first steps to be taken must be such measures as the nationalisation of banks and syndicates. Let us first realise this and other similar measures, and then we shall see. Then we shall be able to see better, for practical experience, which is worth a million times more than the best of programmes, will considerably widen our horizon. It is possible, and even probable, nay, indubitable, that without transitional "combined types" the change will not take place. We shall not, for instance, be able to nationalise petty enterprises with one or two hired labourers at short notice or subject them to real workers' control. Their role may be insignificant, they may be bound hand and foot by the nationalisation of banks and trusts, but so long as there are even odds and ends of bourgeois relations, why abandon the minimum programme? As Marxists, advancing boldly to the world's greatest revolution, but at the same time taking a sober view of the facts, we have no right to abandon the minimum programme.

page 173

    By abandoning it we should prove that we have lost our heads before we have won. And we must not lose our heads either before our victory, at the time of victory, or after it; for if we lose our heads, we lose everything.

    Comrade Bukharin actually proposed nothing concrete; he only repeated what had been said long before concerning the nationalisation of banks and syndicates. Comrade Smirnov in his article offered a very interesting and instructive series of tentative reforms that may be reduced to the regulation of production and consumption of commodities. In a general way all this is contained in my draft, followed by an "etc.". To go further, to venture into a discussion of separate and concrete measures, seems to me inexpedient. Many things will become clearer after the basic measures of the new type have been carried out, after the nationalisation of banks, after the introduction of workers' control; experience will tell us a lot more, for it will be the experience of millions, the experience in building a new system of economy with the conscious participation of millions. It stands to reason that to indicate the new, develop plans, evaluate them, analyse the local and partial experiences of various Soviets or supply committees, etc., is all very useful work to be done in articles, pamphlets and speeches. But to inject into the programme an overdose of detail is premature and may become even harmful by tying our hands with petty matters. Our hands must be free so that we may build the new with greater vigour, once we have fully entered upon the new path.

to Comrade Bukharin's correct expression) for a new programme (the "Tribunists"[72] in Holland, the Lefts in Germany. The Socialist Propaganda League in America[73] has already been mentioned by Comrade Bukharin; we may also mention the American Socialist Labour Party[74] and its demand that "the political state give way to industrial democracy").

    Comrade Bukharin has pointed out a flaw in my draft which I must acknowledge to be absolutely correct. He cites a passage in the draft (page 23 of the pamphlet[*]) where I discuss the present situation in Russia, the capitalist Provisional Government, etc. Comrade Bukharin is right in criticising this passage and saying that it should be transferred to the resolution on tactics or to the platform. I therefore propose either to leave out the last paragraph on page 23 altogether, or to put it as follows:

    "Striving for a political system which would best ensure economic progress and the rights of the people in general, and, in particular, make the transition to socialism as painless as possible, the party of the proletariat cannot rest content", etc.

    Finally, I must answer one question raised by a few comrades, but as far as I know, not yet discussed in the press. This is the question of Clause 9 of our political programme on the right of nations to self-determination. This clause consists of two parts: the first part is a new statement on the right to self-determination; the second contains not a demand but a declaration. I am asked whether a declaration is in place here. Generally speaking, there is no place for declarations in a programme, but I think an exception to the rule is necessary here. Instead of the word self-determination, which has given rise to numerous misinterpretations, I propose the perfectly precise concept: "the right to free secession". After six months' experience of the 1917 Revolution, it is hardly possible to dispute that the party of the revolutionary proletariat of Russia, the party which uses the Great Russian language, is obliged to recognise the right to secede. When we win power, we shall immediately and unconditionally recognise this right for Finland, the Ukraine, Armenia, and any other nationality oppressed by tsarism (and the

page 176

Great-Russian bourgeoisie). On the other hand, we do not at all favour secession. We want as vast a state, as close an alliance of the greatest possible number of nations who are neighbours of the Great Russians; we desire this in the interests of democracy and socialism, to attract into the struggle of the proletariat the greatest possible number of the working people of different nations. We desire proletarian revolutionary unity, unification, and not secession. We desire revolutionary unification; that is why our slogan does not call for unification of all states in general, for the social revolution demands the unification only of those states which have gone over or are going over to socialism, colonies which are gaining their freedom, etc. We want free unification; that is why we must recognise the right to secede (without freedom to secede, unification cannot be called free). The more so must we recognise the right of secession, because tsarism and the Great-Russian bourgeoisie have by their oppression left great bitterness and distrust of the Great Russians generally in the hearts of the neighbouring nations, and these must be eradicated by deeds and not by words.

    But we want unification, and this must be stated; it is so important to state it in the programme of a party of a heterogeneous state that it is necessary to abandon custom and to incorporate a declaration. We want the republic of the Russian (I am even inclined to say Great-Russian, for this is more correct) people to attract other nations to it. But how? Not by violence, but solely by voluntary agreement. Otherwise the unity and the brotherly ties of the workers of all countries are broken. Unlike the bourgeois democrats, we call for the brotherhood of workers of all nationalities, and not the brotherhood of nations, for we do not trust the bourgeoisie of any country, we regard them as our enemies.

    This is why we should here allow an exception to the rule by inserting in Clause 9 a declaration of principles.

  [67] The reference is to the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.), held in Petrograd on April 24-29 (May 7-12), 1917.    [p. 151]

  ^[68] Spartak (Spartacus) -- a theoretical journal of the Moscow Regional Bureau, of the Moscow Committee and (from No. 2) of the Moscow District Committee of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.); published in Moscow from May 20 (June 2) to October 29 (November 11), 1917.    [p. 151]

  ^[69] Rodbertus-Jagetzow, Johann Karl (1805-1875) -- a German vulgar economist, politician and champion of Prussian Junker development along bourgeois lines.
    He believed that the contradictions between labour and capital could be resolved through reforms carried out by the Prussian Junker state. He did not understand the origin of surplus value and the essence of the basic contradictions of capitalism and maintained economic crises all came from low national consumption. He said the fact that agriculture did without expenditure on raw materials gave rise to ground rent.    [p. 158]

  ^[70] See Frederick Engels, Contribution to the Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Programme, 1891.    [p. 160]

  ^[71] Spartacus Group (International ) -- a revolutionary organisation of German Left-wing Social-Democrats formed at the beginning of the First World War by Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Clara Zetkin, Julian Marchlewski, Leo Joguiches (Tyszka) and Wilhelm Pieck.
    The Theses on the Tasks of International Social-Democracy were written by Rosa Luxemburg, with the participation of Karl Liebknecht, Franz Mehring and Clara Zetkin, and were adopted by the all-Germany Conference of Left-wing Social-Democrats in January 1916, where the group set up a formal organisation and adopted the name of International.
    From 1916, the International group, apart from political leaflets published in 1915, began the illegal publication and circulation of Political Letters, which were signed "Spartacus" (they were issued regularly until October 1918). In view of this the International group, too, assumed the name of Spartacus. They carried on revolutionary propaganda in the masses, organised massive anti-war manifestations, directed strikes, and exposed the imperialist character of the world war and the treachery of the opportunist leaders of Social-Democracy. But the Spartacus group made some grave errors on important questions of theory and policy: they denied the possibility of national-liberation wars in the epoch of

page 546

imperialism, they were inconsistent on the slogan of turning the imperialist war into a civil war; they underrated the role of the proletarian party as the vanguard of the working class, and were afraid of breaking with the opportunists. Lenin repeatedly criticised their mistakes and helped them to take a correct attitude (see The Junius Pamphlet, The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution, etc., in Vols. 22 and 23 of the present edition).
    In April 1917, the Spartacus group were affiliated to the Centrist Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany, but remained organisationally independent. During the November 1918 revolution in Germany they broke with the Independents and formed the Spartacusbund, issuing their own programme on December 14, 1918. At their Constituent Congress, December 30, 1918-January 1, 1919, they set up the Communist Party of Germany.    [p. 161]

  ^[72] Tribunists -- members of the Social-Democratic Party of Holland, whose organ was the newspaper Tribune. They were led by Wijnkoop, Gorter, Pannekoek and Roland-Holst. They were not a consistently revolutionary party but were on the Left wing of the working-class movement in Holland, and on the whole took an internationalist attitude during the First World War.
    In 1918, they formed the Communist Party of Holland.    [p. 175]

  ^[73] The Socialist Propaganda League was formed in Boston, U.S.A., in 1915, as an independent group within the Socialist Party. It adopted the platform of the Zimmerwald Left, and rallied the revolutionary elements of the Socialist Party. After the October Revolution the League set up a Committee for Bolshevik Information, which exposed the lies and slander of bourgeois and reformist periodicals about the Soviet Republic. During the Allied armed intervention against Russia the League campaigned under the slogan of "Hands Off Soviet Russia!".    [p. 175]

  ^[74] Socialist Labour Party of America -- set up in Philadelphia in 1876 at the unifying congress of the American sections of the First International and other Socialist organisations. The overwhelming majority of the party consisted of foreign-born Americans who had few ties with native workers. In its first few years, it was led by the Lassalleans, who made sectarian and dogmatic errors. Some of the party's leaders believed it should concentrate on parliamentary activity and underestimated the importance of leading the massive economic struggle; others slid down to trade-unionism and anarchism. These ideological and tactical mistakes on the part of the leadership weakened the party and led to splits. Marx and Engels sharply criticised the sectarian tactics of the U.S. Socialists.

    By the nineties, the Left wing led by Daniel de Leon, assumed leadership of the party. But they, too, made mistakes of an anarchist and syndicalist nature. They refused to fight for the partial demands of the working class, and shied away from activity in

page 547

reformist trade unions, and this lost them what ties they had with the mass labour movement. During the First World War, the Socialist Labour Party inclined to internationalism. Under the influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution, its more revolutionary members took part in setting up the Communist Party of the United States. At present, the Socialist Labour Party is a small group without any influence on the U.S. labour movement.    [p. 175]