Communists who supported German imperialism

[Unicorn]

World War I would not have happened without the support of the largely Marxist SPD which was the largest parliamentary group in Germany.

Why did some German "communists" see Prussian militarists as "progressive" and England as reactionary?

Whole SPD parliamentary group including e.g. Karl Liebknecht voted to fund the war in August 1914. He later abandoned this reactionary position but the majority of SPD parliamentarians continued to support the war. :confused:

[Philosophical Materialist]

SPD weren't communist they were social democrats. They supported German imperialism because they thought if Germany won then the limited reformist welfare state would be maintained. It was an act of national chauvinism and repeated by social democratic parties in other belligerent states.

[Unicorn]

SPD weren't communist they were social democrats.
Eh, no. There social democrat members (like Bernstein) but the party program and most members were Marxist.

http://marx.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm

[Luís Henrique]

World War I would not have happened

Of course it would. The party would have been outlawed, and the war would have happened in the same way.


without the support of the largely Marxist SPD

This was a nominal affiliation. In fact, the real control of the party was in the hands of its unionist branch, which, under Ebert, saw the war as an opportunity to attain economic gains for the German working class.


which was the largest parliamentary group in Germany.

The largest parliamentary group, but not the majority in parliament.

Politics is not reductible to the parliament. In 1914, the huge popular support for war would have made it practically impossible to the SPD to block it in the parliament, and totally untoughtable to block it in the streets.

Of course, the "head" of the SPD should have been more "vanguardist", and should have broken with its bases. But this is a safe thing to say now, 94 years after, in a peaceful situation.


Why did some German "communists" see Prussian militarists as "progressive" and England as reactionary?

For the same reason English, French, and Russian "communists" viewed their own bourgeoisies as "progressive" and the foreign bourgeoisies as "reactionary": practical opportunism, lack of political courage, shorsightedness, and the wish to tail "the masses".


Whole SPD parliamentary group including e.g. Karl Liebknecht voted to fund the war in August 1914.

He voted that way out of party discipline, having been defeated in the internal discussions.


He later abandoned this reactionary position

He later come to understand that his opposition to war could not be contained in internal debate, but had to be made public. He never hold the reactionary position itself.


but the majority of SPD parliamentarians continued to support the war. :confused:

Way up to 1916, when even Kautsky and Bernstein came to oppose it. The German proletariat, as a whole, also supported war practically to its end. In contrast to the French, Italian, and Russian armies, which saw huge breaks in discipline in 1917 (culminating with revolution in Russia), the German Army stood quite loyal to the very end of war (German Navy, in fact, being more permeable to revolutionary ideas than the Land force). Only military defeat was able to taught the German working class better than support the foreign adventures of German bourgeosie, and too late and too little.

Luís Henrique

[Unicorn]

He later come to understand that his opposition to war could not be contained in internal debate, but had to be made public. He never hold the reactionary position itself.

Why couldn't Liebknecht and other anti-war SPD politicians vote against the war and found the USPD in 1914? And was it right to let Bernstein join the party as he wasn't a Marxist?



Way up to 1916, when even Kautsky and Bernstein came to oppose it. The German proletariat, as a whole, also supported war practically to its end. In contrast to the French, Italian, and Russian armies, which saw huge breaks in discipline in 1917 (culminating with revolution in Russia), the German Army stood quite loyal to the very end of war (German Navy, in fact, being more permeable to revolutionary ideas than the Land force). Only military defeat was able to taught the German working class better than support the foreign adventures of German bourgeosie, and too late and too little.

Luís Henrique
Thanks Luis. Is this information accurate?

"From 1915 on the theoretical discussions within the SPD were instead dominated by a group of former anti-revisionist Marxists, who tried to legitimize the support of the First World War by the German SPD group in the Reichstag with Marxist argumentation. Instead of the class struggle they proclaimed the struggle of peoples and developed much of the rhetoric later used by Nazi propaganda ("Volksgemeinschaft" etc.). The group was lead by Heinrich Cunow, Paul Lensch and Konrad Haenisch ("Lensch-Cunow-Haenisch-Gruppe") and was close to the Russian-German revolutionary and social scientist Parvus, who gave a public forum to the group with his journal "Die Glocke"."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPD#Pre-republic_.281863_-_1918.29

[Devrim]

There is an interesting article on the development of the left in Germany by Paul Mattick here:

http://libcom.org/library/anti-bolshevist-communism-germany-paul-mattick


But by force of traditional procedures, in the name of discipline and unity, uneasy and against its better knowledge, the anti-war minority supported Social-Democratic chauvinism. There was just one man in the German Reichstag of August 1914 – Fritz Kunert – who was not able to vote for war credits but who was also not able to vote against them and thus, to satisfy his conscience, abstained from voting altogether. In the spring of 1915 Liebknecht and Ruehle were the first to vote against the granting of war credits to the government. They remained alone for quite some time and found new companions only to the degree that the chances for a victorious peace disappeared in the military stalemate. After 1916 the radical anti-war attitude was supported and soon swallowed up by a bourgeois movement in search of a negotiated peace, a movement which, finally, was to inherit the bankrupt stock of German imperialism.

I don't agree with all of the politics, but it is worth reading historically.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

Why couldn't Liebknecht and other anti-war SPD politicians vote against the war and found the USPD in 1914?

They could, I guess. In August 1914 they still believed they should fight internally and follow party discipline in public. In December 1914 they had changed to making the discussion public.

Evidently, a party founded in the heath of revolutionary struggle is stronger than one founded in defeat. The USPD, if founded in 1914, would have been weaker.


And was it right to let Bernstein join the party as he wasn't a Marxist?

If they were trying to build a Marxist party, it would have been wrong. As they were trying to build a working class party, it was probably right.


Thanks Luis. Is this information accurate?


"From 1915 on the theoretical discussions within the SPD were instead dominated by a group of former anti-revisionist Marxists, who tried to legitimize the support of the First World War by the German SPD group in the Reichstag with Marxist argumentation.

You should remind that Karl Kautsky was a "former anti-revisionist Marxist".

And also that Rosa Luxemburg had long denounced him and his "anti-revisionism" for what they were.


Instead of the class struggle they proclaimed the struggle of peoples and developed much of the rhetoric later used by Nazi propaganda ("Volksgemeinschaft" etc.). The group was lead by Heinrich Cunow, Paul Lensch and Konrad Haenisch ("Lensch-Cunow-Haenisch-Gruppe") and was close to the Russian-German revolutionary and social scientist Parvus, who gave a public forum to the group with his journal "Die Glocke"."


Seems a gross exageration.

Luís Henrique

[Xiao Banfa]

was it right to let Bernstein join the party as he wasn't a Marxist?

Bernstein was a self-proclaimed marxist. He quoted Marx alot in his writing.

If he was around today many of us would be supporting him anyway.

Hew would probably be a member of Die Linke.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.leninism.org/pof/pof7.htm

Here's an interesting anecdote on the German SPD:


Best represented by the German social-democratic party, with pronounced revolutionary and reformist/opportunist wings. The *reformist wing* aspires to convert the party into a party of the liberal bourgeoisie and limit its activity to the pursuit of those reforms which are acceptable to the bourgeoisie and consistent with capitalist rule. The *revolutionary wing* aspires to maintain the party as a party of the working class which works for reforms in order to win the support of workers necessary for the overthrow of capitalist rule. The struggle between the revolutionary and reformist wings at times flares up but at other times is relatively subdued.

Because the revolutionaries and reformists are dependent on the party apparatus, newspapers, etc. and because the struggle between them is not brought to the average party member in a clear, consistent way which relates to both the daily tasks of party-building and the long-term aims of the party--the polarization between the two wings is *insufficient to engage the full attention of the average party member* and enlist his or her participation in a contest of strength. In this circumstance, a center develops in the party which at decisive times (in order to "preserve party unity") pays lip service to the revolutionary wing but which in practice tolerates the reformist wing and is in defacto alliance with them.

Historically, *all* parties of this type eventually fell under the domination of the reformists, betrayed the workers and became vehicles of the liberal bourgeoisie. Many of these parties did finally achieve state power, where they played a useful role for the bourgeoisie in deceiving the workers.



The lack of independent organization for the revolutionary wing of the German SPD was one of the key reasons why the SPD degenerated. Then again, that was the nature of even classical social democracy in the first place. :(



[BTW, the same process is alas repeating itself in the PSUV, with the centrist "unity" folks taking charge.]




And also that Rosa Luxemburg had long denounced him and his "anti-revisionism" for what they were.

Perhaps you could shed some light on this in my "parliamentarianism" thread in our user group, no? :confused:

[Philosophical Materialist]

Eh, no. There social democrat members (like Bernstein) but the party program and most members were Marxist.

http://marx.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm

The clue is in the name (and also spelled out in the actual link). New Labour's Party Programme says it is a "democratic socialist party" but it doesn't make it so.

[mac1905]

Sory for offtop but also interesting issue were west German maoists from MLPD that together with protoplast of NPD wanted revision of German-Polish border and stated that 'west Poland is german and to defend these lands many german communist died.

So pretty big tendentions to imperialist policy as well after II WW.

[Holden Caulfield]

a lot of socialists (most notably Kautsky) rushed to join imperialist causes when the 'nations' were in the midst of war and showed that they could not remove themselves from the 'revisionist' tendancies that plauge 'democratic socialists'

[Wanted Man]

Sory for offtop but also interesting issue were west German maoists from MLPD that together with protoplast of NPD wanted revision of German-Polish border and stated that 'west Poland is german and to defend these lands many german communist died.
Really? :ohmy: I never heard that before, that's seriously fucked up.

[ComradeOm]

Eh, no. There social democrat members (like Bernstein) but the party program and most members were Marxist.Don't confuse the two terms. "Marxist" does not automatically translate as "communist". In addition "social democrat" was an acceptable term for socialists and communists prior to 1915. Indeed the Bolsheviks continued to use that particular label (as part of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) right up to 1918

As it is the original question is valid - the SPD was the latest and most organised socialist party in the world at the time and was very much at the forefront of the Marxist and socialist global current. Why the SPD (and indeed almost every socialist organisation in Europe) lined up behind an openly imperialist war is of obvious interest to communists.

On a related note, the social-chauvinism of the SPD was not limited to the right of the party. Luxembourg's sentiments on Polish independence, for example, would not be at all popular today

[gilhyle]

Engels wrote as follows to Lafargue in 1893: "if France makes war on Germany in the interests of and with the assistance of the tsar, it is Germany which will be the revolutionary centre" MECW 50 P. 158.

WHile the wording is ambiguous, it acknowledges sufficiently the progressive potential of Germany to set out the basis for why German social democrats ( a label which included communists at the time ) might see Germany as the progressive force. Only the overlay of imperialism would make this analysis invalid

As to Kautsky worth recalling that Kautsky was not a member of the parliamentary party. He attended the meetings which decided to support the war. Initially, he adopted the stance abstention. Faced with the right wing determination (including Bernstein) to break discipline and vote for war credits, irrespective of party discipline, Kautsky moved to arguing for a consensus around voting for war credits on condition that the party demand that the Government commit in advance to a purely defensive war.

Kautsky believed that the war would be short and that the unity of the SPD was worth the compromise.