Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International¶
Core Argument¶
The Second International did not collapse, according to Kautsky and Vandervelde, but the Basel Manifesto of 1912 proves otherwise. This manifesto made a concrete historical appraisal of the impending war, recognising it as predatory, imperialist, and reactionary, arising directly from capitalist imperialism. It contained no mention of ‘defence of the fatherland’ or distinctions between offensive and defensive war. Instead, it declared that workers shooting each other down would be a ‘crime’ and that the war could not be justified in the people’s interest. The manifesto stated the war would bring crisis, which must be used to ‘rouse’ the masses and ‘hasten the downfall of capitalist rule’, citing the Paris Commune and the 1905 Russian Revolution as examples of revolutionary mass struggle.
Socialists now advocating ‘defence of the fatherland’ in this imperialist war are social-chauvinists – socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds. The opportunists and Kautskyites dare not repudiate or compare the Basel Manifesto with their conduct, because it completely exposes them. The contradiction between the manifesto and its non-application reveals profound contradictions in the Second International’s work. The relatively peaceful period 1871–1914 fostered opportunism, which paid lip-service to revolutionary aims while pursuing class collaboration. This contradiction has now burst. The question is whether to force the ‘pus’ back into the body for the sake of unity, or remove it for the labour movement’s recovery.
Lenin argues that the situation in Europe in 1915 is analogous to Russia in 1901: no one can know when a decisive revolutionary battle will occur, but revolutionaries must prepare by breaking with opportunists and supporting, sharpening and extending mass revolutionary action. He attacks Kautsky and Axelrod for preserving unity with counter-revolutionary elements like Legien and David, calling this a betrayal that merely prettifies the present domination of opportunism. Lenin cites David’s dismissal of transforming the world war into civil war as “folly”, and contrasts it with his own party’s programme: refusal of war credits, disruption of the class truce, formation of illegal organisations, support for solidarity in the trenches, and backing revolutionary mass action. He argues that such tactics cannot be dismissed as adventurism because they are already producing strikes and demonstrations in Russia, Italy, Britain and Germany. Lenin insists that illegal organisations are essential for telling the truth to the masses, and that the workers are already demanding them. He concludes that opportunism has become social-chauvinism, has broken with Social-Democracy spiritually and politically, and will soon break organisationally. Only underground work supporting revolutionary mass struggle can lead to proletarian revolution.