Still More Lies

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

Lenin’s short polemic, written in May 1917, argues that the Russian bourgeois press — including the supposedly conciliatory Yedinstvo — was systematically evading a consistent definition of annexation. The central claim is that these papers could not produce a definition that would apply equally to German, British, and Russian imperialist seizures of territory. By refusing to do so, they were not engaging in honest debate but in deliberate deception — repeating “old lies” to shield Russian imperialism from the same standard applied to its rivals. The article is therefore a demand for theoretical consistency as a weapon against hypocrisy: if annexation is a crime, it must be a crime for all, not a charge levelled only at one’s enemies.

Theoretical Grounding

This piece sits squarely within Lenin’s wartime writings on imperialism, most fully developed in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916). The argument draws on the Marxist method of exposing the class basis of apparently neutral political language. Lenin insists that the bourgeois press cannot define annexation honestly because any rigorous definition would expose the territorial ambitions of the Russian bourgeoisie — and, by extension, the Entente powers — as identical in essence to those of German imperialism. The theoretical move is to demand that concepts be applied universally, not instrumentally. This is a practical application of the Marxist understanding that the bourgeois state, even in its “democratic” or “liberal” guise, cannot transcend its class function. The refusal to define annexation consistently is not intellectual confusion but a necessary defence of class interests.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was written in the immediate aftermath of the February Revolution, during the period of dual power between the Provisional Government and the soviets. The Provisional Government, dominated by liberal and moderate socialist parties, was continuing the war on the side of the Entente. The Russian bourgeoisie was pursuing its own imperialist aims — particularly in relation to the Straits and Constantinople — while denouncing German annexations. Lenin’s intervention was therefore a direct attack on the political line of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries who supported the Provisional Government. By exposing the refusal to define annexation consistently, Lenin aimed to show that the “revolutionary defencist” position was a cover for continued imperialist war. The conjuncture was one of intense class polarisation, with the Bolsheviks building a case for breaking with the Provisional Government and for a socialist revolution that would end the war.

Where the Argument Continues

This short article is a fragment of a much larger polemical campaign. The argument is developed at length in Lenin’s The Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution (April 1917) and in his April Theses, where he systematically dismantles the case for supporting the Provisional Government. The demand for a consistent definition of annexation recurs in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, particularly in the chapter on the division of the world among the great powers. On the In Defence of Marxism site, the theoretical framework is extended in articles on the nature of interimperialist rivalry and the Marxist critique of “humanitarian intervention”. The broader corpus — including Against the Stream episodes — continues to apply this method to contemporary conflicts, arguing that the refusal to apply the same standard to all imperialist powers is a hallmark of opportunism.

Connections

• Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) — the theoretical foundation for the argument.
• Lenin, The April Theses (1917) — the political programme that this polemic supports.
• Lenin, The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky (1918) — a later development of the critique of centrist evasion.
• Trotsky, The War and the International (1914) — an earlier statement of the same demand for consistency in opposing imperialist war.
• In Defence of Marxism articles on the Ukraine war, particularly those arguing that NATO and Russian imperialism must be judged by the same criteria.

Key Quotes

1. “That is a lie. That is in the vein of Russkaya Volya and Rech, and it is a lie.”

2. “Pravda has challenged Rech and other papers to give a definition of annexation that would fit all annexations, German, British, and Russian.”

3. “The bourgeois newspapers (Yedinstvo included) are unable to answer this question and so they dismiss it by repeating the old lies.”

4. “Shame!”