Much in this 1908 essay from Lenin surveying the application of the Stuttgart anti-war resolution by Socialists, the anti-militarist work of Belgium’s Young Guards, Hervé’s ‘general strike against war,’ and Rosa Luxemburg’s critique of Jaures’ peace proposals.

‘Militant Militarism and the Anti-Militarist Tactics of Social Democracy’ (1908) by V.I. Lenin from Selected Works. Vol 4. International Publishers. New York, 1939.

I.

THE diplomatists are in a state of agitation. “Notes,” “dispatches,” “declarations” are coming down like hail; the Ministers are whispering behind the backs of the crowned dummies who are “consolidating peace” with glasses of champagne. But the “subjects” know full well that when ravens flock together there is a corpse about. And the Conservative Lord Cromer declared in the British Parliament that “we are living in a time when national” (?) “interests are at stake, when passions are inflamed and there is the danger and possibility of a conflict, however peaceful” (!) “the intentions of the rulers may be.”

Sufficient inflammable material has been accumulating of late and it is still mounting up. The revolution in Persia threatens to break down all the partitions, the “spheres of influence” set up there by the European Powers. The constitutional movement in Turkey threatens to wrest this appanage from the clutches of the European capitalist robbers; furthermore, the ancient “questions”—the Macedonian, the Central Asiatic, the Far Eastern etc., etc.—have now been raised in an acute and threatening manner.

Meanwhile, with the network of existing open and secret treaties, agreements, etc., the slightest fillip by any “Power” will be sufficient to “fan the spark into a flame.”

And the more formidably the governments brandish their weapons at each other, the more ruthlessly do they suppress the anti-militarist movement in their respective countries. The persecution of anti-militarists is growing in extent and in intensity. The “Radical-Socialist” Cabinet of Clemenceau-Briand does not lag behind the Junker-Conservative Cabinet of Bulow in the matter of oppression. The dissolution of the “youth organisations” throughout Germany, which followed the introduction of the new law on unions and meetings prohibiting the attendance of persons under twenty years of age at political meetings, has extremely hampered anti-militarist agitation in Germany.

As a consequence, the controversy over the anti-militarist tactics of the Socialists, which subsided after the Stuttgart Congress, is now being revived in the Party press.

What at first sight seems a strange phenomenon presents itself: in spite of the obvious importance of this question, in spite of the clear, strikingly manifest harmfulness of militarism, it is difficult for the proletariat to find another question on which there is so much vacillation, so much discord among the Western Socialists as in the controversy over anti-militarist tactics.

The principles of the premises for the correct solution of this problem were laid down quite firmly long ago, and they do not give rise to any differences of opinion. Contemporary militarism is the result of capitalism; it is the “living manifestation” of capitalism in both its forms: as a military force used by the capitalist states in their external conflicts (Militarismus nach aussen as the Germans put it) and as a weapon in the hands of the ruling classes for the suppression of all movements (economic and political) of the proletariat (Militarismus nach innen). A number of International congresses (the Paris Congress in 1889, the Brussels Congress in 1891, the Zurich Congress in 1893 and finally the Stuttgart Congress in 1907) in their resolutions gave a fully formulated expression of this view. The connection between militarism and capitalism was most fully explained in the Stuttgart resolution, although in accordance with the agenda (“On International Conflicts”) the Stuttgart Congress was more concerned with that aspect of militarism which the Germans call “Militarismus nach aussen.” The following is the passage of that resolution bearing on it:

“Wars between capitalist states are, as a rule, the result of their competition on the world market, because every state strives not only to safeguard its old markets, but to win new markets, and in this connection the subjugation of foreign nations and countries plays the principal part. These wars are also caused by continuous rivalry in armaments, called forth by militarism, which is the principal weapon of the class rule of the bourgeoisie and of the economic and political subjugation of the working class.

“Wars are facilitated by nationalist prejudices, which are systematically fostered in the civilised countries in the interests of the ruling classes for the purpose of diverting the proletarian masses from their own class tasks and forcing them to forget their duty of international class solidarity.

“Thus, wars are rooted in the very nature of capitalism; they will cease only when the capitalist system is abolished, or when the enormity of human and monetary sacrifices, caused by the development of military technique, and the outburst of popular indignation called forth by armaments bring about the abolition of that system. The working class, from which the soldiers are mainly drawn and by whom the material sacrifices are mainly borne, is particularly a natural enemy of war, since wars conflict with the aim it pursues, namely, the creation of an economic system based on the principles of socialism, a system that will really bring about the solidarity of nations.”

II.

Thus, the connection between the principles of militarism and of capitalism has been firmly established among Socialists, and there are no differences of opinion on that point. However, the recognition of this connection does not concretely define the anti-militarist tactics of the Socialists and does not solve the practical problem of how the struggle against the burden of militarism is to be carried on and how wars are to be prevented. And it is precisely in the answers to this question that one notes considerable divergence in the views of the Socialists. At the Stuttgart Congress these differences could be observed in a particularly palpable manner.

At one extreme we find German Social-Democrats of the Vollmar type. They argue that since militarism is the child of capitalism, since wars are a necessary concomitant of capitalist development, there is no need for any special anti-militarist activity. That is exactly what Vollmar declared at the Essen Parteitag. On the question of what the Social-Democrats are to do in the event of a declaration of war, the majority of the German Social-Democrats—with Bebel and Vollmar at their head—persistently maintain that Social-Democrats must defend their fatherland from attacks, that they are in duty bound to take part in a “defensive” war. This postulate led Vollmar to declare in Stuttgart that “all our love for humanity cannot prevent us from being good Germans,” and led the Social-Democratic deputy, Noske, to proclaim in the Reichstag that in the event of a war against Germany “the Social-Democrats will not lag behind the bourgeois parties and will shoulder the rifle.” From this position Noske had to take only one step more to declare: “We want Germany to be as well-armed as possible.”

The other extreme is represented by the small group of followers of Hervé. The Hervéists argue that the proletariat has no fatherland. Hence, all wars are waged in the interests of the capitalists; hence, the proletariat must fight against every kind of war. The proletariat must reply to every declaration of war by declaring a military strike and insurrection. This is what the anti-militarist propaganda must amount to in the main. Hence, in Stuttgart, Hervé proposed the following draft resolution:

“The congress demands that every declaration of war, from whatever quarter it may emanate, be answered by a military strike and insurrection.”

Such are the two “extreme” positions on this question held among the Western Socialists. The two diseases, which still cripple the activity of the socialist proletariat in the West, are reflected in them “like the sun in a drop of water”: opportunist tendencies on one side, anarchist phrasemongering on the other. First of all, a few remarks about patriotism. That the “proletarians have no fatherland” is actually stated in The Communist Manifesto; that the position of Vollmar, Noske and Co. is a “flagrant violation” of this fundamental proposition of international socialism is equally true. But it does not follow from this that Hervé and the Hervéists are right when they assert that it is immaterial to the proletariat in which fatherland it lives: whether it lives in monarchist Germany, republican France or despotic Turkey. The fatherland, i.e., the given political, cultural and social environment, is the most powerful factor in the class struggle of the proletariat, and if Vollmar is wrong in establishing a kind of “truly German” attitude of the proletariat towards the “fatherland,” Hervé is not less wrong in treating such an important factor of the proletarian struggle for emancipation in an unpardonably uncritical fashion. The proletariat cannot treat the political, social and cultural conditions of its struggle with indifference or equanimity, consequently, it cannot remain indifferent to the destiny of its country. But it is interested in the destiny of its country only in so far as it affects its class struggle, and not by virtue of some bourgeois “patriotism,” which sounds altogether indecent on the lips of a Social-Democrat.

The other question is more complicated—the altitude towards militarism and war. It is obvious at the very first glance that Hervé confuses these two questions unpardonably and forgets the cause and effect as between capitalism and war; if the proletariat had adopted Hervé’s tactics it would have condemned itself to futile work: it would have used all its fighting preparedness (he talks of insurrection, does he not?) to fight the consequences (war), while allowing the cause (capitalism) to continue.

The anarchist method of reasoning is revealed here in full measure. The blind faith in the miraculous power of every “action directe,” the abstraction of this “direct action” from the general social and political situation without analysing it in the least—in a word, “the arbitrary mechanical conception of social phenomena” (according to K. Liebknecht’s expression) is obvious.

Hervé’s plan is “very simple”: on the day of the declaration of war the Socialist soldiers desert, and the reservists declare a strike and stay at home.

“But ‘a reservists’ strike is not passive resistance: the working class would soon pass on to open resistance, to insurrection, and this latter would have more chances of success, because the active army would be on the frontier of the country.” (G, Hervé, Leur Patrie.)

Such is this “effective, direct and practical plan,” and, certain of its success, Hervé proposes to reply toevery declaration of war by a military strike and insurrection.

As is clearly seen from the above, the question here is not whether the proletariat should, when it deems it expedient, reply to a declaration of war by a strike and insurrection. The controversy centres round the question as to whether the proletariat should be bound by an obligation to reply to every war by insurrection. To adopt the latter policy means depriving the proletariat of the choice of the moment for the decisive battle and leaving that choice to its enemies. It is not the proletariat that is to choose the moment of struggle in accordance with its own interests, when its general socialist class consciousness is at its height, when it is well organised, when the ground is favourable, etc., etc.; no, the bourgeois governments could provoke it to an uprising even when the conditions were unfavourable for it, e.g., by a declaration of such a war as is specially capable of calling forth patriotic and chauvinist sentiments among broad strata of the population; a war that would isolate the rebellious proletariat. Moreover, one must not forget that the bourgeoisie—which in every country. from monarchist Germany down to republican France and democratic Switzerland, fiercely persecutes antimilitarist activities in peace-time—would come down ruthlessly on any attempt at a military strike in the event of war, at a time when a state of war, martial law, courts martial, etc., are in force.

Kautsky is right when he says of Hervé’s idea: “The idea of a strike against war was prompted by ‘good’ motives, it is noble and heroic, but it is heroic folly.”

The proletariat may reply to the declaration of war by a military strike if it finds it expedient and appropriate; it may, among other methods of achieving the social revolution, resort also to a military strike; but it is not in the interests of the proletariat to bind itself down to this “tactical recipe.”

That is precisely the way the Stuttgart International Congress answered this controversial question.

III.

But while the views of the Hervéists are “heroic folly.” the position of Vollmar, Noske and their adherents of the “Right wing” is, on the other hand, opportunist cowardice. Since militarism is the offspring of capital and will fall with it—they argued in Stuttgart, and especially in Essen—there fs no need for special anti-militarist agitation: no such agitation should be carried on. But—was the rejoinder made to them in Stuttgart—the radical solution of the labour and woman’s problems. for instance. is also impossible so long as the capitalist system prevails: nevertheless, we are fighting for labour legislation. for the extension of civil tights to women, etc. Special anti-militarist propaganda must be conducted all the more energetically because cases of the intervention of military forces in the struggle between labour and capital become increasingly frequent, and the importance of militarism not only during the present struggle of the proletariat, but also in the future, at the moment of the social revolution, becomes increasingly obvious.

The need for special anti-militarist propaganda is supported not only by proof based on principles but also by important historical experience. Belgium in this respect is in advance of all the other countries. The Belgian Labour Party, apart from the general propaganda of the ideas of anti-militarism, has organised groups of socialist youth, the “Young Guard” (“Jeunes Gardes”). The groups of the same district form the District Federation; all the district federations, in their turn, are united in a National Federation with the “General Council” at their head. The organs of the “Young Guard” (La Jeunesse—c’est V’avenir, De Caserne, De Loteling, and others) have a circulation of tens of thousands! The Walloon Federation, consisting of 62 local groups with 10,000 members, is the strongest of all the federations; in all the “Young Guard” now consists of 121 local groups.

Simultaneously with agitation in the press, intense oral agitation is carried on: in January and September (the months when recruits are called up) popular meetings and processions are organised in the principal cities of Belgium; at open air meetings outside the premises of the mairies, Socialist speakers explain the meaning of militarism to the young recruits. The “General Council” of the “Young Guard” has set up a “Grievances Committee” the function of which is to collect information concerning all cases of injustice in the barracks. This information is published daily in the central organ of the Party, Le Peuple, under the heading “From the Army.” Anti-militarist propaganda does not stop at the doorstep of the barracks; the Socialist soldiers form groups for the purpose of carrying on propaganda in the army. At the present time there are about fifteen such groups (“Soldiers’ Unions”).

Following the Belgian model, anti-militarist propaganda is being carried on in France,1 Switzerland, Austria and other countries, such propaganda varying in intensity and in form of organisation.

Thus, special anti-militarist activity is not only particularly necessary, but practically expedient and useful. Therefore, inasmuch as Vollmar opposed it, pointing to the impossible police conditions in Germany and to the danger of the Party organisations being smashed on this account, the question was reduced to a concrete analysis of the conditions in the given country, to a question of fact and not to a question of principle. Although, in this connection, too, Jaurés was quite justified in saying that as German Social-Democracy, in its youth, had survived the hard times of the Anti-Socialist Law and the iron hand of Prince Bismarck and has now become incomparably bigger and stronger, it need no longer fear persecution by the present rulers. But Vollmar is doubly wrong when he tries to argue that special anti-militarist propaganda is inexpedient in principle.

Not less opportunistic is the conviction of Vollmar and his followers that it is the duty of Social-Democrats to take part in a defensive war. Kautsky’s brilliant criticism completely demolished these views. Kautsky pointed out that sometimes, especially in a moment of patriotic intoxication, it is utterly impossible to be clear as to whether the given war was called forth by defensive or offensive aims (the example quoted by Kautsky: did Japan attack or defend herself at the beginning of the Russo-Japanese war?). Social-Democrats would be entangled in the meshes of diplomatic negotiations if they took it into their heads to determine their attitude towards war on the basis of such a criterion. Social-Democrats may even find themselves in the position of having to demand aggressive wars. In 1848 (the Hervéists, too, would do well to remember this) Marx and Engels considered a war on the part of Germany against Russia to be necessary.” Later on they attempted to influence public opinion in England in order to induce England to go to war against Russia. Incidentally, Kautsky constructs the following hypothetical instance:

“Let us assume,” he says, “that the revolutionary movement gains a victory in Russia and that under the influence of this victory power passes into the hands of the proletariat in France; on the other hand, let us assume that a coalition of European monarchs is formed against the new Russia. Will international Social-Democracy protest if the French Republic then comes to the assistance of Russia?” (K. Kautsky, Our Views on Patriotism and War.)

Obviously, in this question (as also in views on “patriotism”) it is not the offensive or defensive character of the war, but the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat, or rather, the interests of the international movement of the proletariat that represent the only possible point of view from which the question of the attitude of Social-Democracy towards a given phenomenon in international relations can be considered and solved.

To what lengths opportunism is capable of going in these questions too is shown by the recent utterance of Jaurés. In expressing his views on the international situation in an obscure German liberal bourgeois newspaper, he defends the alliance of France and England with Russia against the accusation of anti-pacific intentions and considers this alliance to be a “guarantee of peace”; he welcomes the fact that “we have now lived to see an alliance of England and Russia, two ancient enemies.”

In her “Open Letter” in the latest issue of Die Neue Zeit, Rosa Luxemburg gives an excellent appraisal of this view and a sharp retort to Jaurés.

First of all R. Luxemburg states that to talk of an alliance between “Russia” and “England” means “talking in the language of bourgeois politicians,” for the interests of the capitalist states and the interests of the proletariat in foreign politics are diametrically opposed to each other, and it is impossible to speak of harmony of interests in the domain of foreign relations. If militarism is the offspring of capitalism, then wars, too, cannot be eliminated by the intrigues of rulers and diplomats, and the task of the Socialists is not to create illusions on this score, but, on the contrary, always to expose the hypocrisy and the impotence of diplomatic “peace measures,”

The main point of the “Letter,” however, is the appraisal of the alliance of England and France with Russia, which Jaurés praises so much. The European bourgeois enabled tsarism to repel the revolutionary onslaught.

“In trying now to transform the temporary victory over the revolution into a final victory, absolutism is resorting above all to the tried method of all tottering despotic governments—to successes in foreign politics.”

All the alliances of Russia at the present time mean:

“…the Holy Alliance of the bourgeoisie of Western Europe with Russian counter-revolution, with the stranglers and executioners of Russian and Polish fighters for freedom; they mean the strengthening of the bloodiest reaction, not only in Russia, but also in international relations…That is why the most elementary task of the Socialists and proletarians of all countries is to oppose the alliance with counter-revolutionary Russia with all their might…

“How is one to explain,” asks R. Luxemburg, addressing herself to Jaures, “the fact that you who once delivered brilliant speeches in the French Chamber opposing the Russian loan, you who but a few weeks ago published in your newspaper l’Humanité an ardent appeal to public opinion against the bloody work of the courts martial in Russian Poland, will strive ‘in a most energetic fashion’ to make the government of the bloody executioners of the Russian revolution and of the Persian uprising an influential factor in European politics, to make the Russian gallows the pillars of international peace? How is it possible to reconcile your peaceful plans based on the Franco-Russian and Anglo-Russian alliances with the protest recently made by the French Socialist parliamentary fraction and by the Administrative Committee of the National Council of the Socialist Party aguinst Falliéres’ visit to Russia, with the protest which fervently defends the interests of the Russian revolution and bears your own signature? If the President of the French Republic wanted to refer to your ideas about the international situation, he would declare in reply to your protest: whoever approves of the aim must approve of the means, whoever regards the alliance with tsarist Russia as a guarantee of international peace must accept everything that strengthens that alliance and fosters friendship,

“What would you have said if Socialists and revolutionaries had been found in Germany, in Russia and in England, who ‘in the interests of peace’ had recommended an alliance with the government of the restoration or the government of Cavaignac, or the government of Thiers and Jules Favre, and had lent such an alliance their moral authority?!!…”

This letter speaks for itself, and the Russian Social-Democrats can only congratulate Comrade R. Luxemburg on this protest of hers and on the defence of the Russian revolution before the international proletariat.

August [July] 1908.

1. An interesting feature of the work carried on by the French is the organisation of the so-called “soldier’s sou”; every week a worker pays one sou to the secretary of his union; the sums gathered in this way are sent to the soldiers “as a reminder of the fact that even while in soldier’s uniform they belong to the exploited class and that they must not forget this under any circumstances.”

PDF of full book: https://archive.org/download/selected-works-vol.-4/Selected%20Works%20-%20Vol.%204.pdf