Lenins struggle against imperialist war

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

The central thesis is that Lenin's struggle against imperialist war — particularly during the First World War — provides the essential method for revolutionaries today. The argument is not merely historical. It claims that the betrayal of the Second International in 1914, when socialist parties voted for war credits and entered governments of national unity, is being repeated in the present conjuncture by organisations that call themselves communist but have adopted social-chauvinist positions. The only consistent response to imperialist war is the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, not pacifism, not "critical support" for one side, and not a call for peace that leaves the capitalist state intact. Lenin's method — implacable struggle for principle combined with flexible agitation to win the masses — is presented as the template for the current period.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on several interconnected Marxist concepts:

The Marxist theory of war. The article distinguishes between progressive wars (national liberation, revolutionary civil war, defence of a workers' state) and reactionary imperialist wars. This is not pacifism but a class analysis of each conflict's character. The key theoretical move is Lenin's application of Clausewitz's formulation — war is the continuation of politics by other means — to determine whether a war serves the interests of the working class or the ruling class.

Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. Lenin's 1916 work is central. The super-profits extracted from colonial exploitation create a labour aristocracy, which provides the social base for reformism and social-chauvinism. This explains why the SPD and other mass parties collapsed in 1914: their leading layers had been bought off.

Revolutionary defeatism. This is the most carefully handled concept in the article. The author argues it was a polemical weapon aimed at the vanguard, not a slogan for mass agitation. The article provides evidence that Bolshevik leaflets inside Russia between 1915 and February 1917 never used the phrase "the defeat of Russia is the lesser evil." After the February Revolution, Lenin dropped it entirely and distinguished between "honest defencism" among workers and peasants and the reactionary defencism of the bourgeoisie. This is presented as a model of dialectical method: bend the stick to clarify principle, then adapt agitation to the actual consciousness of the masses.

The critique of centrism. Lenin's sharpest attacks were reserved not for the open social-patriots but for Kautsky and the Zimmerwald centre — those who opposed the war "in words" but refused to break organisationally with the betrayers. The article treats this as a permanent lesson: verbal opposition without organisational rupture is a form of capitulation.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article is explicitly framed as a weapon for the present. The opening paragraph lists Ukraine, Gaza, Congo, and Sudan as the current bloody conflicts of the imperialist epoch. The argument connects to the present in several specific ways:

The betrayal of "communist" parties. The article states that "many in the workers' movement, including some who call themselves 'communists' have taken a social-chauvinist position of support for their own ruling class." This is a direct reference to the position of the Communist Party of China and other parties that have refused to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or have offered "critical support" to one imperialist camp against another.

The return of the labour aristocracy. The material basis for reformism — super-profits from imperialist exploitation — has not disappeared. The article implies that the same dynamic is at work today, with the privileged layers of the working class in imperialist countries being bought off and thus incapable of leading a revolutionary struggle against war.

The inadequacy of pacifism. The article argues that calling for peace without calling for revolution is a dead end. An imperialist peace is merely the prelude to the next imperialist war. This is a direct polemic against the "peace movement" in its current form, which the RCI sees as incapable of breaking with bourgeois politics.

The question of national defence. The article's treatment of Serbia in 1914 — where even a genuinely national war was subsumed by the imperialist character of the overall conflict — provides a framework for analysing conflicts like Ukraine, where the question of national defence is used by both imperialist camps to mobilise workers behind their own bourgeoisie.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is the introduction to a published collection of Lenin's writings, so it functions as a gateway to the primary texts. The argument continues in several directions:

The primary source collection itself. Lenin: Selected Writings on Imperialist War (Wellred Books, 2024) contains the full texts referenced here, including Socialism and War, the Zimmerwald and Kienthal documents, and Lenin's post-February 1917 writings on war and defencism.

The specific question of Serbia. Footnote 9 directs readers to an IDOM article from 2023 on the position of Serbian socialists during WWI, which is clearly intended as a parallel to contemporary Balkan questions.

The broader IDOM corpus on imperialism and war. The RCI's theoretical journal regularly covers Ukraine, Gaza, and the geopolitical rivalry between the US and China, applying the same framework of revolutionary defeatism and the critique of social-chauvinism.

Against the Stream episodes. The RCI's weekly video programme has covered the current war in Ukraine extensively, applying Lenin's method to the question of whether revolutionaries should support Ukraine's "national defence" against Russia.

The question of the new international. The article treats the Zimmerwald Left's struggle for a clean break as unfinished business. The RCI's own project of building the Revolutionary Communist International is presented as the contemporary continuation of that struggle.

Connections

Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). The theoretical foundation for the entire analysis. Should be read alongside this article to understand the economic basis of social-chauvinism.

Lenin, The Junius Pamphlet (1916). Lenin's critique of Rosa Luxemburg's pamphlet on the war, referenced in the article. Important for understanding the debate on the national question in the epoch of imperialism.

Trotsky, The War and the International (1914). Trotsky's own early response to the collapse of the Second International, written from a position close to Lenin's but with differences on organisational questions.

Rosa Luxemburg, The Crisis of German Social Democracy (the Junius Pamphlet, 1915). The most important document from the German left opposition, praised by Lenin despite its errors on the national question.

Karl Kautsky, The Road to Power (1909). Useful for understanding what centrism looked like before 1914 — a formally revolutionary position that refused to draw the practical conclusions.

Robert B. McKean, St. Petersburg Between the Revolutions (1990). Cited in the article as evidence that Bolshevik agitation before February 1917 did not use the slogan of revolutionary defeatism. A useful historical corrective to schematic accounts.

The IDOM article "The position of Serbian socialists during WWI" (2023). Directly referenced as a companion piece on the question of national defence in imperialist war.

Key Quotes

1. "The essential thing is not merely to prevent war, but to utilise the crisis created by war in order to hasten the overthrow of the bourgeoisie."

2. "Marxists are not pacifists. The Marxist approach to war starts from the understanding that war is the continuation of politics by other means, and therefore it must also be approached from the point of view of the interests of the working class."

3. "When the masses say they don't want conquest, I believe them. When Guchkov and Lvov say they don't want conquest, they are swindlers. When the worker says that he wants to defend the country, he voices the oppressed man's instinct."

4. "We were defeatists at the time of the tsar, but at the time of Tsereteli and Chernov we were not defeatists."

5. "Our original stand at the beginning of the war was correct: it was important then to form a definite and resolute core. Our subsequent stand was correct too. It proceeded from the assumption that the masses had to be won over."

6. "The defence potential, the military might, of a country whose banks have been nationalised is superior to that of a country whose banks remain in private hands. The military might of a peasant country whose land is in the hands of peasant committees is superior to that of a country whose land is in the hands of landowners."