this, for, while affirming their desire for a general peace, they said: 'Let us ask Germany to make known her war aims and the German Socialists to have a revolution, just as we have.'
"The Soviets obtained neither one answer nor the other. Nevertheless, peace can be nothing but just, nothing but lasting. It can be both only by the democratic will of the people. A separate peace cannot be that. … It would be a moral disaster the burden of which would be borne everywhere by international Socialism as a perfectly natural consequence.
"But most of all, Russia should find at the earliest possible moment a stable government whence shall arise the new life. A Constituent Assembly alone can furnish it; it alone can end the conflicts which unseat dictators without giving them authority and security for the morrow; it alone can say that it governs for the people by the people. …
"And we French Socialists who find in the seriousness of events and in the consciousness of our responsibilities the inspiration for these friendly declarations, we do not hesitate to say to you: We also realize the extent of our duties. French Socialists will do nothing to weaken the resistance of the army and people of France, but rather strengthen the morale of both, and forcefully implore the allied governments that they clearly indicate by their actions their oft-repeated declarations that they are fighting because they are attacked and that they would obtain no peace other than that of right. Thus would a promise of revision of the aim of war be imposed upon the governments."
But the French Socialists did not "impose" a revision of the aims of the war upon the governments. They promised revolutionary Russia the same illusory hope against which the masses had revoked, and in the accomplishment of which Kerensky has egregiously failed. Moreover, it wasn't a matter of "revision of aims" or of government promises, each of which are inconsequential; the character of the peace will be determined by class power, by the relations of classes. The attitude of the French Socialists strengthened the power of the imperialistic bourgeoisie and weakened the revolutionary power of the proletariat. The proletarian class struggle alone, waged aggressively against all Imperialism, is the instrument with which to secure a peace of understanding between the workers. "It is with deep pain," says the French Socialist resolution, "that we have seen some of you enter upon pour-parlers that may lead to a separate peace." The resolution has the grace of not accusing the Bolsheviki of desiring or planning a separate peace. The offer for an armistice was on all fronts; the invitation to a peace conference was for general peace negotiations; the Soviet delegation at Brest-Litovsk submitted proposals as a basis for a general peace; it was largely the refusal of the Entente governments to participate, an abstention justified by the moderate Socialists, which provided Germany its opportunity to convert the conference into one for a separate peace. And all through the conference, even after it had become one for a sparate peace, the Bolsheviki emphasized the necessity for a general peace, appealed to the Socialist conscience in all the belligerent nations for revolutionary action, and did not even receive moral support; aye, were reviled and slandered unmercifully by moderate Socialism.[1]
- ↑ Trotzky, answering the French Socialists, declared: "Experience has shown that the war cannot be solved by force of arms. On the mil-
