Lenin CW-Vol. 23.pdf - From Marx to Mao

OPEN LETTER TO B. SOUVARINE199Should you object that this is utopian, I will answer thatthe bourgeoisie of France, England, etc., do not, apparently,subscribe to that opinion. They would not play sovile and ridiculous a role, going to the length of jailing orconscripting “pacifists”, had they not felt and foreseen theinevitable and steady rise of revolution and its early approach.This leads me to the question of a split, raised also bySouvarine. A split! That is the bogy with which the socialistleaders are trying to frighten others, and which theythemselves fear so much! “What useful purpose could nowbe served by the foundation of a new International?”—Souvarine asks. “Its activity would be blighted by sterility,for numerically it would be very weak.”But the day-to-day facts show that, precisely because theyare afraid of a split, the “activity” of Pressemane and Longuetin France, Kautsky and Ledebour in Germany, isblighted by sterility! And precisely because Karl Liebknechtand Otto Rühle in Germany were not afraid of a split, openlydeclaring that a split was necessary (cf. Rühle’s letter inVorwärts, January 12, 1916), and did not hesitate to carryit out—their activity is of vast importance for the proletariat,despite their numerical weakness. Liebknecht andRühle are only two against 108. But these two representmillions, the exploited mass, the overwhelming majority ofthe population, the future of mankind, the revolution thatis mounting and maturing with every passing day. The 108,on the other hand, represent only the servile spirit of a handfulof bourgeois flunkies within the proletariat. Brizon’sactivities, when he shares the weaknesses of the Centre orthe marsh, are blighted by sterility. And, conversely, theycease to be sterile, help to awaken, organise and stimulatethe proletariat, when Brizon really demolishes “unity”, whenhe courageously proclaims in parliament “Down with thewar!”, or when he publicly speaks the truth, declaring thatthe Allies are fighting to give Russia Constantinople.The genuine revolutionary internationalists are numericallyweak? Nonsense! Take France in 1780, or Russia in1900. The politically-conscious and determined revolutionaries,who in France represented the bourgeoisie—therevolutionary class of that era—and in Russia today’srevolutionary class—the proletariat, were extremely weak