Part of Lenin’s genius was his ability to do fierce political combat and ‘patiently explain’ in the same sentence. Lenin shared exile during World War One in Switzerland with many other Socialists from across Europe, and the country–home to the village of Zimmerwald–became the center of a new International in the conflict. Included among those exiles were young people escaping the drafts in their various countries whose opposition to the war challenged the responsibility of every Social Democratic party. As such, Zurich became home to the International Union of Socialist Youth Organizations, and its anti-war magazine, reviewed by Lenin below, Jugend-Internationale, edited by future leader of the Third International Willi Münzenberg.

‘The International of Youth’ (1916) by V.I. Lenin from Young Worker. Vol. 7 No. 2. February 1, 1929.

SINCE September 1, 1915, “A militant propagandist organ of the International League of Socialist Youth organization”, having the above title, has been published in Switzerland in the German language. Altogether six numbers have been published, which generally, should be noted and strongly recommended to the attention of all the members of our Party having possibilities of contact with social-democratic parties abroad and with youth organizations.

The majority of official social-democratic parties in Europe now occupy the most degrading and treacherous position of social chauvinism and opportunism. Such parties are the German Party, the French Party, the Fabian Society, the British Labor Party, the Swedish Party, the Dutch Party (Troelstra), the Danish Party, the Austrian Party, etc. The Swiss Party, in spite of the fact that the extreme opportunists have formed a separate non-Party “Gruthli League” (to the great benefit of the labor movement) there have remained numerous opportunist leaders of the social chauvinist and Kautsky persuasion, who have enormous influence in the affairs of the Party.

In view of the state of affairs in Europe, to the League of Socialist Youth organizations falls the enormous, noble, but at the same time difficult task, of fighting for revolutionary internationalism, for true socialism against the reigning opportunism which has gone over to the side of the imperialist bourgeoise. “The International Youth” contains a number of good articles defending revolutionary internationalism and all the numbers are imbued with an excellent spirit of burning hatred towards the betrayers of socialism, the “defenders of the fatherland” in the present war, and by a most sincere striving to purge the international labor movement of the chauvinism and opportunism which is consuming it.

Of course, the organ of the youth still lacks theoretical clearness and firmness, and perhaps it will never have that, precisely because it is an organ of seething, bubbling, inquiring youth. But one must regard the lack of theoretical hotch-potch in the heads of, and the absence of revolutionary competency in the hearts of aour “O.K.ists,” “Socialist revolutionists” Tolstoyan, anarchists, European Kautskyians (“the Center”), etc. Grown up persons pretending to lead and to teach, whereas a matter of fact they are sowing mental confusion among the proletariat is one thing: these people must be fought ruthlessly. Youth organizations who openly declare that they are still learning and that their fundamental task is to train workers for the socialist Party, is quite another thing. Such people must be given every assistance; the greatest possible tolerance must be shown for their errors which must be rectified gradually by CONVINCING and not by fighting them. Frequently representatives of the generation of the middle-aged and old do not know properly how to approach the youth, who of necessity are compelled to progress towards socialism by other paths, in other forms and under other circumstances than did their fathers. For that reason, we must unconditionally support THE ORGANIZATIONAL INDEPENDENCE of the youth leagues, not merely because the opportunists are afraid of this independence, but because it is necessary in itself; for without complete independence the youth will be UNABLE either to train themselves for the purpose of carrying socialism further.

We must stand for the complete independence of the youth leagues, but we must also stand for the complete freedom to criticize their mistakes in a comradely manner. We must not flatter the youth.

The following are the three principle mistakes we have observed in the excellent organ referred to:

1. On the question of disarmament a wrong position has been taken up which we criticize in a separate article. There are grounds for believing that this error was caused exclusively by the laudable desire to emphasize the necessity for striving for the “complete abolition of militarism” (which is quite correct) forgetting, however, the role of civil war in socialist revolution.

2. A serious error is committed in the article by Com. NOTA BENE (No. 6) dealing with the distinction between socialists and anarchists and their attitude towards the state (and also on a number of other questions dealing with the MOTIVES of our opposition to the slogans of “national defense”). The author of this article desires to give “a clear presentation of state in general” (parallel with a presentation of imperialistic predatory states) He quotes several statements from Marx and Engels, and among others comes to the following two conclusions:

(a) “…It is quite erroneous to seek the difference between socialists and anarchists in that the former are the supporters and the latter the opponents of the state. The difference between them really lies in, that revolutionary social democracy desires to organize the new form of social production as a centralized form, i.e., technically the most progressive, whereas the decentralized system of production advocated by the anarchists would mean merely a step backward to the old technique, to the old form of production.”

This is not true. The author gives the question of the difference in the attitude of the socialists and the anarchists respectively towards the STATE, and gives a reply to an entirely DIFFERENT question, namely, the difference in the attitude of the socialists and anarchists respectively to the economic basis of future society. The latter, of course, is a very important and necessary question, but that does not mean that we can allow ourselves to forget the PRINCIPAL difference in the attitude of the socialists towards the state as compared with that of the anarchists. The socialists are in favor of utilizing the modern state and its institutions in the fight for the emancipation of the working class and also recognizes the necessity for utilizing the state as a peculiar transitional form from capitalism to socialism. Such a transitional form, WHICH IS ALSO A STATE, is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The anarchists desire to “abolish” the state, to “blow it up” (“sprengen”) as Com. Nota-Bene expresses it in one place erroneously ascribing this view to the socialists. Unfortunately, the author of the article did not quote in full Engels reference to this matter. Socialists hold that after the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, the state “will gradually die out.”

(b) “For social democracy, which is or at all events should be, the teacher of the masses, it is now more than ever necessary to emphasize their hostility to the state on principle…The present war has shown how deeply the roots of the state have penetrated into the souls of the workers,” writes Com. Nota-Bena. In order to “emphasize hostility to the state on principle” it is indeed necessary “clearly” to understand what is the state, and the author lacks this clearness. The Passage concerning the “roots of the state” are altogether confusing, un-Marxian and not socialistic. It is not the “state” that has come into conflict with the denial of the state, but opportunist policy (i.e., the opportunist, reformist, bourgeois attitude towards the state) has come into conflict with revolutionary social democratic policy (i.e., with revolutionary social-democratic attitude towards the bourgeois state and towards utilizing the rate against the bourgeoisie for its overthrow). These two things are altogether different. We hope to return to this important question in a separate article.

3. In the “statement of principles of the International League of Socialist Youth Organization,” published in No. 6 as the “Secretariat draft”, there are numerous inexactitudes and a complete lack of WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT: a clear comparison of the three main tendencies (social chauvinism, “the center” and the left wing) which are now fighting within the socialist movement in all countries.

To repeat: these errors must be refuted and explained; at the same time, all efforts must be exerted in order to establish contact and to approach closely to the youth organizations and assist them in every way: but they must be approached PROPERLY.

The Young Worker was produced by the Young Workers League of America beginning in 1922. The name of the Workers Party youth league followed the name of the adult party, changing to the Young Workers (Communist) League when the Workers Party became the Workers (Communist) Party in 1926. The journal was published monthly in Chicago and continued until 1927. Editors included Oliver Carlson, Martin Abern, Max Schachtman, Nat Kaplan, and Harry Gannes.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/youngworker/v07b-n02-feb-01-1929-YW-grn.pdf