8. No Compromises?¶
Core Argument¶
Chapter 8: No Compromises?¶
Lenin’s polemic against the German ‘Lefts’ dismantles their slogan “No compromises!” as a fundamental betrayal of Marxism, not a revolutionary principle. He anchors his argument in Engels’ 1874 critique of the Blanquist Communards, who believed communism could be introduced immediately after seizing power, skipping all intermediate stages. Engels countered that genuine Communists accept necessary compromises imposed by historical development while clearly pursuing the final goal of abolishing classes. Lenin insists the key distinction is not between compromise and non-compromise, but between compromises enforced by objective conditions—such as lack of strike funds—and treacherous compromises by leaders who capitulate to the bourgeoisie out of cowardice or self-interest. Every proletarian, he notes, understands this difference from strike experience.
Lenin condemns the ‘Lefts’ for failing to see that the entire history of Bolshevism—before and after the October Revolution—was filled with tactical compromises, including blocs with bourgeois liberals, Socialist-Revolutionaries, and Mensheviks. Refusing all compromise in advance is absurd, akin to renouncing zigzags on a difficult mountain ascent. The proletariat, weaker than the international bourgeoisie, must exploit every rift among enemies and win any temporary ally. Lenin identifies the German ‘Lefts’ error in refusing to participate in reactionary parliaments and trade unions, and in their outright rejection of the Treaty of Versailles.
He argues that German Communists must not promise categorically to repudiate the Treaty of Versailles upon taking power. Such a pledge would be absurd and deprive them of freedom of action. Instead, they should state that repudiation depends on the international success of the Soviet movement, not just German action. The Scheidemanns and Kautskyites have hindered this movement; Communists are helping it. To prioritise liberation from Versailles over liberating other oppressed countries is philistine nationalism, not revolutionary internationalism. Overthrowing the bourgeoisie in any large European country is such a gain for the international revolution that one can, and should if necessary, tolerate the treaty’s continued existence. Since Russia endured the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for months, a Soviet Germany allied with Russia could endure Versailles longer. The imperialists are trying to trap German Communists into declaring they will not sign. To openly inform a stronger enemy whether and when you will fight is folly. Lenin concludes that the Communist Party must use changes of tack and conciliation to raise proletarian class-consciousness, not lower it, and that hasty refusals of compromise only harm the revolutionary cause.