Dr. Paul Lensch, German Social-Democracy and the World War, Berlin, 1915 (Vorw\"arts). 64 pp. (1.00 Mk).
A model of grovelling, chauvinist blather. A comparison with Plekhanov would be most useful!!
The war = a “product of imperialist policy” (5). In Jena (1911) Bebel said that instead of disarmament || N.B. we had rearmament and things were moving towards “a great catastrophe” (5)....
Pointing to the early twentieth-century wars and revolutions, Lensch exclaims: “what we are experiencing is a revolution” (6)....
We German Social-Democrats, “the strongest group in the International” (6), have been the most resolute in combating our government, etc., etc., have always held up Britain as an example (as if Britain were ruled not by a “capitalist clique”, but by a “committee for carrying out the Ten Commandments and other laws of morality” (6-7)). He points to the old traditions of German history and of Liebknecht, who “never entirely got rid of a certain South-German particularism and hatred of Prussia” (7).
Things went so far that Kautsky maintained mastery of the seas was “indispensable” for Britain (7: where is the quotation from?) (from the standpoint of food supplies, in contrast to Germany)....
! || “The danger of this line of reasoning, which, Incidentally, corresponded to a view almost universally held in the Party, has become fully evident in the present world war” (7)....
...“this weak criticism in regard to other countries” (8) had its roots “in the enormous strength of the Party”... “in its internationalism”.
“Undoubtedly, it [this world war] is an imperialist war” (9).... The policy in the East ... the Baghdad railway ... Britain and Egypt, etc., the (projected) partition of Turkey, Morocco, etc.
“Germany was not consulted at all in this dividing !! || up of the world” (10), “and it was more to protest against this insulting disregard than to protect the not very considerable material interests of German trade in Morocco” that the German Government protested against the Anglo-French agreement over Morocco.
In 1908 (the Revel meeting), the powers were already about to partition Turkey (Russia + Great Britain + France), but were prevented by the revolution in Turkey (11).
In 1914, agreements were nearly completed between Great Britain and Germany for the division of spheres in Africa (13) and in the East, etc.—Russia is to blame for the war.
In 1913 Germany threatened war over Armenia (14)....
| !! “For Germany, by which we mean the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, the question of capitalist expansion has become a question of national existence” (15).
The question now is not merely of dividing up colonies and spheres of influence, etc., but: “Shall the German people continue to exist as a great and independent nation, || !! or shall a large part of its national territory, in the east as well as in the west, be torn away and forcibly subjected to foreign, rule?” (15).
| “On which side are the interests of international socialism in general, and of the German labour movement in particular, in this struggle, insofar as it concerns the threat to British world domination?” (16).
British mastery of the seas is a continuation of the wars against the French revolution. The monopoly of Britain towards the middle of the nineteenth century: Britain must be the “workshop” of the world.
“The much-vaunted British ‘freedom’ was based on enslavement of the world” (20).
“Great Britain has in a certain sense been the ruling class of the world” (20)....
In Chemnitz in 1912 (p. 417 et seq. of the minutes) I, Lensch, quoted Engels on the decline of Britain’s monopoly and said:
| ! “International socialism, however, has not the slightest reason for helping to perpetuate this lasting supremacy of one capitalist state over all others. That would only make the conditions for the victory of socialism more difficult and protracted” (22–23).
...“the great historical advance that the shattering of British maritime supremacy would mean for the whole world and especially for international socialism” (23–24) would be the more certain the longer there was peace.... The working-class movement was a threat to the British bourgeoisie....
...“Seen in that light, participation in the world war was for the British bourgeoisie nothing but a flight from socialism” (24)....
...“In fact, if there were a means for throwing back for decades the proletariat’s international liberation struggle against capitalism, it would be the collapse of Germany in this war against Britain” (25)....
“The hard core of the International”, the German Social-Democrats, would be shattered and the working class thrown back into the camp of capitalism, etc. (25)....
“Germany is the centre and homeland of scientific socialism” (26).... “The interests of the international proletariat are on the German side” (27)....
Russian tsarism.... Marx and En gels in 1848. But now it is different. Engels in 1891 (quotation, p. 29). But now it is different.
Germany, as a complete national entity, “is being born” “only now” “with this war” (31)....
The German-Russian war “has grown far beyond the bounds of an imperialist war. || It represents the culmination of the German people’s painful process of development towards national unity” (33)....
A quotation from Engels on Russian diplomacy (35): as if written now....
Against the dismemberment of Russia (37) (“not dismemberment” (38)), against the formation of small states—“a certain national autonomy” is sufficient....
The downfall of tsarism (it should be awaited from the Russian proletariat) will accelerate development....
France and the war (§ V).... Revenge.
“The interests of freedom and democracy are absolutely incompatible with the victory of French arms” (42), for France is allied with Great Britain and Russia.
German Social-Democracy would “now” regard the severance of Alsace-Lorraine “as a mutilation of Germany” (43).
“An honourable peace” (44) with the French republic—that’s what’s needed.
The German past and future (§ VI):
National culture and its significance (according to O. Bauer, quotation p. 53). “Community of culture” (50 and others).
Capitalism must develop “towards democracy” (55)....
“The danger of war” (56)—the cause of delay in German democratic progress.
“Militarism” (58) in Germany?? On the contrary, universal conscription the most and “almost the sole democratic institution” (Engels), whereas you have “hired troops” (59)....
“A middle-European alliance of states” (that, he says, is what Liszt wants)—(+ the Scandinavian countries + Switzerland + Italy + the Balkans + Turkey)—“a new era in world political development” (63)...—“the locomotive of world history” (62) this war ... “an extraordinary step forward” “in the sense of democracy, world peace, freedom of the peoples and socialism” (82). “Yes, and socialism!” (62)....
Smash tsarism—make peace with France—smash the “coercive rule of the British bourgeoisie” (63)....
The International is now shattered, but it will revive, as it did after 1870 (64).
| | |
| | | | | | |