Muddleheadedness More on the subject of annexations
Core Argument¶
Lenin's central thesis is that the petty-bourgeois definition of "annexation" — reducing it to the forcible seizure of territory that belonged to another state on the day war was declared — is theoretically incoherent and politically reactionary. The article argues that a proper Marxist definition must rest on the concept of an alien people held by force against its will, irrespective of pre-war borders. More fundamentally, Lenin insists that the slogan "peace without annexations" is meaningless and deceptive unless it is inseparably linked to the conquest of political power by the proletariat. So long as the capitalist class rules, any peace will merely be "an exchange of annexations" — a redivision of spoils among imperialist predators. The question of annexations cannot be resolved within the framework of capitalism; it can only be resolved through proletarian revolution.
Theoretical Grounding¶
The analysis is grounded in the Marxist theory of the state and class struggle as developed by Marx and Engels, particularly their writings on national oppression. Lenin explicitly invokes Marx and Engels on Ireland, the Danish territories, and the colonies to establish that the criterion for annexation is the will and distinctive existence of the oppressed people, not the accident of pre-war borders. The article draws on the Leninist theory of imperialism as a system of inter-imperialist rivalry in which war and annexation are not aberrations but necessary expressions of capitalist competition on a world scale. The key theoretical move is the rejection of any "non-class" or "philistine" standpoint that treats war and peace as matters of good intentions, conferences, or legal definitions. Lenin's argument sits squarely within the Bolshevik tradition of revolutionary defeatism and the struggle against "social-chauvinism" — the betrayal of socialism by those who support "their own" bourgeoisie in imperialist war.
Conjunctural Relevance¶
The article was written in May 1917, in the immediate aftermath of the February Revolution and the establishment of the Provisional Government and the Petrograd Soviet. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries who controlled the Soviet's Executive Committee were pursuing a policy of "revolutionary defencism" — supporting the war effort while calling vaguely for a "peace without annexations." Lenin's intervention targets the Izvestia editors precisely because their definition of annexation as a return to pre-war borders provides ideological cover for continued imperialist war. The conjuncture is one of dual power, with the bourgeoisie in government and the petty-bourgeois parties in the Soviet restraining the revolutionary energy of the workers and soldiers. Lenin's polemic is a direct attack on the political line that would later lead to the July Days and the Kornilov affair, and ultimately to the October Revolution. The article demonstrates that theoretical clarity on the question of annexations is not an academic exercise but a weapon in the struggle to win the masses to the necessity of proletarian revolution.
Where the Argument Continues¶
This article is a compressed version of arguments Lenin develops at greater length in The State and Revolution (1917) and Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). The definition of annexation cited here is drawn from the resolutions of the April 1917 All-Russia Conference of the Bolshevik Party, which Lenin drafted and which are reproduced in his Collected Works. The polemic against "revolutionary defencism" and the illusion of a democratic peace under capitalism is continued throughout Lenin's 1917 writings, particularly in The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution and the articles collected in Towards the Seizure of Power. Within the In Defence of Marxism corpus, the theoretical framework of this article is elaborated in works on the Marxist theory of the national question and the Leninist analysis of imperialism. The argument that peace under capitalism is always "an exchange of annexations" finds contemporary expression in IDOM analyses of modern imperialist wars and the fraud of "humanitarian intervention."
Connections¶
This article should be read alongside: - Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) — for the economic analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry - Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917) — for the theory of the state that underpins the rejection of "non-class" standpoints - Marx and Engels on Ireland and Poland — for the classical Marxist treatment of national oppression - Trotsky, The War and the International — for the revolutionary Marxist response to the First World War - The April Theses (1917) — for the political programme Lenin was advancing in the same period - IDOM articles on modern imperialism and the national question, which apply this theoretical framework to contemporary conflicts
Key Quotes¶
-
"Annexation means keeping an alien people by force within the bounds of a given state."
-
"To confuse the idea of annexation with the question of how long 'to keep on fighting' is ridiculous; it means failure to grasp the connection that exists between war and the interests and rule of definite classes; it means abandoning the standpoint of the class struggle for the philistine 'non-class' standpoint."
-
"So long as the capitalist class is in power the nations are bound 'to keep on fighting' as long as that class wants it. To think that one can escape this by wishes, demands, or conferences is the illusion of a petty bourgeois."
-
"So long as the capitalist class is in power, their peace is bound to be 'an exchange of annexations' — Armenia for Lorraine, colony for colony, Galicia for Kurland, and so on."
-
"When the proletariat comes to power — and that is what the war is leading up to everywhere — then and only then will 'peace without annexations' become possible."
-
"To vacillate weakly between hopes in the capitalists and hopes in the workers' revolution is to condemn oneself to impotence and muddle in the question of annexations."