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

20V. I. LENINYou do not agree with that?Then say so!!You have not properly thought out the question of whySocial-Democrats are against “defence of the fatherland”.We are not against it for the reasons you believe, becauseyour presentation of the question (vain efforts, not reallya presentation) goes against history. That is my reply tothe author.To describe as “sophistry” the fact that while justifyingwars for the elimination of national oppression, we do notjustify the present imperialist war, which on both sidesis being waged to increase national oppression—is to use“strong” words without giving the matter the least bit ofthought.The author wants to pose the question of “defence of thefatherland” from a more “Left” position, but the result (fora whole year now) is utter confusion!§7. The author criticises: “The question of ‘peace terms’is not touched upon at all.”Strange criticism: failure to deal with a question we didnot even raise!!But what is “touched upon” and discussed is the questionof annexations, on which the imperialist Economistsare utterly confused, this time together with the Dutch andRadek.Either you reject the immediate slogan against old andnew annexations—(no less “unachievable” under imperialismthan self-determination, in Europe as well as in the colonies)—andin that case you pass from concealed to openapology for imperialism.Or you accept the slogan (as Radek has done in the press)—and in that case you accept self-determination of nationsunder a different name!!§8. The author proclaims “Bolshevism on a West-Europeanscale” (“not your position,” he adds).I attach no importance to this desire to cling to the word“Bolshevism”, for I know such “old Bolsheviks” from whomGod save us. I can only say that the author’s proclamationof “Bolshevism on a West-European scale” is, I am deeplyconvinced, neither Bolshevism nor Marxism, but a minorvariant of the same old Economism.