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

A CARICATURE OF MARXISM31The resolution explains that the “basis” of these “genuinely”national wars was a “long process of mass national movements,of a struggle against absolutism and feudalism, theoverthrow of national oppression”....Clear, it would seem. The present imperialist war stemsfrom the general conditions of the imperialist era and isnot accidental, not an exception, not a deviation from thegeneral and typical. Talk of defence of the fatherland istherefore a deception of the people, for this war is not anational war. In a genuinely national war the words “defenceof the fatherland” are not a deception and we are not opposedto it. Such (genuinely national) wars took place “especially”in 1789-1871, and our resolution, while not denying by asingle word that they are possible now too, explains howwe should distinguish a genuinely national from animperialist war covered by deceptive national slogans.Specifically, in order to distinguish the two we must examinewhether the “basis” of the war is a “long process of mass nationalmovements”, the “overthrow of national oppression”.The resolution on “pacifism” expressly states: “Social-Democratscannot overlook the positive significance of revolutionarywars, i.e., not imperialist wars, but such as were conducted,for instance [note: “for instance”], between 1789and 1871 with the aim of doing away with national oppression....”Could our 1915 Party resolution speak of the nationalwars waged from 1789 to 1871 and say that we do not denythe positive significance of such wars if they were not consideredpossible today too? Certainly not.A commentary, or popular explanation, of our Party resolutionsis given in the Lenin and Zinoviev pamphlet Socialismand War. It plainly states, on page 5, that “socialistshave regarded wars ‘for the defence of the fatherland’, or‘defensive’ wars, as legitimate, progressive and just” onlyin the sense of “overthrowing alien oppression”. It cites anexample: Persia against Russia, “etc.”, and says: “Thesewould be just, and defensive wars, irrespective of who wouldbe the first to attack; any socialist would wish the oppressed,dependent and unequal states victory over the oppressor,slave-holding and predatory ‘Great’ Powers.”** See present edition, Vol. 21, pp. 300-01.—Ed.