THE REVOLUTIONARY EPOCH
At the close of the last century a heated controversy arose in Germany
over the question, What effect does the industrialization of a country
produce upon its military power? The reactionary agrarian politicians
and writers, like Sehring, Karl Ballod, Georg Hansen and others, argued
that the rapid increase of the city populations at the expense of the
rural districts positively undermined the foundation of the Empire's
military power, and they of course drew from it their patriotic
inferences in the spirit of agrarian protectionism. On the other hand
Lujo Brentano and his school championed an exactly opposite point of
view. They pointed out that economic industrialism not only opened up
new financial and technical resources, but also developed in the
proletariat the vital force capable of making effective use of all the
new means of defense and attack. He quotes authoritative opinions to
show that even in the earlier experiences of 1870-71 "the regiments from
the preponderantly industrial district of Westphalia were among the very
best." And he explains this fact quite correctly by the far greater
ability of the industrial worker to find his bearings in new conditions
and to adjust himself to them. Now which side is right? The present War
proves that Germany, which has made the greatest progress along
capitalistic lines, was able to develop the highest military power. And
likewise in regard to all the countries drawn into it the War proves
what colossal and yet competent energy the working class develops in its
warlike activities. It is not the passive horde-like heroism of the
peasant masses, welded together by fatalistic submissiveness and
religious superstition. It is the individualized spirit of sacrifice,
born of inner impulse, ranging itself under the banner of the Idea.
But the Idea under whose banner the armed proletariat now stands, is the
Idea of war-crafty nationalism, the deadly enemy of the true interests
of the workers. The ruling class showed themselves strong enough to
force their Idea upon the proletariat, and the proletariat, in the
consciousness of what they were doing, put their intelligence, their
enthusiasm and their courage at the service of their class-foes. In this
fact is sealed the terrible defeat of Socialism. But it also opens up
all possibilities for a final victory of Socialism. There can be no
doubt that a class which is capable of displaying such steadfastness and
self-sacrifice in a war it considers a "just" one, will be still more
capable of developing these qualities when the march of events will give
it tasks really worthy of the historical mission of this class.
The epoch of the awakening, the enlightenment and the organization of
the working-class revealed that it has tremendous resources of
revolutionary energy which found no adequate employment in the daily
struggle. The Social Democracy summoned the upper strata of the
proletariat into the field, but it also checked their revolutionary
energy by adopting the tactics it was obliged to adopt, the tactics of
_waiting_, the strategy of letting your opponent exhaust himself. The
character of this period was so dull and reactionary that it did not
allow the Social Democracy the opportunity to give the proletariat tasks
that would have engaged their whole spirit of sacrifice.
Imperialism is now giving them such tasks. And imperialism attained its
object by pushing the proletariat into a position of "national defense,"
which, to the workers, meant the defense of all their hands had created,
not only the immense wealth of the nation, but also their own
class-organizations, their treasuries, their press, in short, everything
they had unwearyingly, painfully struggled for and attained in the
course of several decades. Imperialism violently threw society off its
balance, destroyed the sluice-gates built by the Social Democracy to
regulate the current of proletarian revolutionary energy, and guided
this current into its _own_ bed.
But this terrific historical experiment, which at one blow broke the
back of the Socialist International, carries a deadly danger for
bourgeois society itself. The hammer is wrenched out of the worker's
hand and a gun put into his hand instead. And the worker, who has been
tied down by the machinery of the capitalist system, is suddenly torn
from his usual setting and taught to place the aims of society above
happiness at home and even life itself.
With the weapon in his hand that he himself has forged, the worker is
put in a position where the political destiny of the state is directly
dependent upon him. Those who exploited and scorned him in normal
times, flatter him now and toady to him. At the same time he comes into
intimate contact with the cannon, which Lassalle calls one of the most
important ingredients of all constitutions. He crosses the border,
takes part in forceful requisitions, and helps in the passing of cities
from one party to another. Changes are taking place such as the present
generation has never before seen.
Even though the vanguard of the working-class knew in theory that Might
is the mother of Right, still their political thinking was completely
permeated by the spirit of opportunism, of adaptation to bourgeois
legalism. Now they are learning from the teachings of facts to despise
this legalism and tear it down. Now dynamic forces are replacing the
static forces in their psychology. The great guns are hammering into
their heads the idea that if it is impossible to get around an obstacle,
it is possible to destroy it. Almost the entire adult male population
is going through this school of war, so terrible in its realism, a
school which is forming a new human type. Iron necessity is now shaking
its fist at all the rules of bourgeois society, at its laws, its
morality, its religion. "Necessity knows no law," said the German
Chancellor on August 4th. Monarchs walk about in public places calling
each other liars in the language of market-women; governments repudiate
their solemnly acknowledged obligations, and the national church ties
its God to the national cannon like a criminal condemned to hard labor.
Is it not clear that all these circumstances must bring about a profound
change in the mental attitude of the working-class, curing them
radically of the hypnosis of legality in which a period of political
stagnation expresses itself?
The possessing classes, to their consternation, will soon have to
recognize this change. A working-class that has been through the school
of war will feel the need of using the language of force as soon as the
first serious obstacle faces them within their own country. "Necessity
knows no law" the workers will cry when the attempt is made to hold them
back at the command of bourgeois law. And poverty, the terrible poverty
that prevails during this war and will continue after its close, will be
of a sort to force the masses to violate many a bourgeois law. The
general economic exhaustion in Europe will affect the proletariat most
immediately and most severely. The state's material resources will be
depleted by the war, and the possibility of satisfying the demands of
the working-masses will be very limited. This must lead to profound
political conflicts, which, ever-widening and deepening, may take on the
character of a social revolution, the course and outcome of which no
one, of course, can now foresee.
On the other hand, the War with its armies of millions, and its hellish
weapons of destruction can exhaust not only society's resources but also
the moral forces of the proletariat. If it does not meet inner
resistance, this War may last for several years more, with changing
fortunes on both sides, until the chief belligerents are completely
exhausted. But then the whole fighting energy of the international
proletariat, brought to the surface by the bloody conspiracy of
imperialism, will be completely consumed in the horrible work of mutual
annihilation. The outcome would be that our entire civilization would
be set back by many decades. A peace resulting not from the will of the
awakened peoples but from the mutual exhaustion of the belligerents,
would be like the peace with which the Balkan War was concluded; it
would be a Bucharest Peace extended to the whole of Europe.
Such a peace would seek to patch up anew the contradictions, antagonisms
and deficiencies that have led to the present War. And with many other
things, the Socialist work of two generations would vanish in a sea of
blood without leaving a trace behind.
Which of the two prospects is the more probable? This cannot possibly
be theoretically determined in advance. The issue depends entirely upon
the activity of the vital forces of society--above all upon the
revolutionary Social Democracy.
"_Immediate cessation of the War_" is the watchword under which the
Social Democracy can reassemble its scattered ranks, both within the
national parties, and in the whole International. The proletariat
cannot make its will to peace dependent upon the strategic
considerations of the general staffs. On the contrary, it must oppose
its desire for peace to these military considerations. What the warring
governments call a struggle for national self-preservation is in reality
a mutual national annihilation. Real national self-defense now consists
in the struggle for peace.
Such a struggle for peace means for us not only a fight to save
humanity's material and cultural possessions from further insane
destruction. It is for us primarily a fight to preserve the
revolutionary energy of the proletariat.
To assemble the ranks of the proletariat in a fight for peace means
again to place the forces of revolutionary Socialism against raging,
tearing imperialism on the whole front.
The conditions upon which peace should be concluded--the peace of the
peoples themselves, and not the reconciliation of the diplomats--must be
the same for the whole International.
NO CONTRIBUTIONS.
THE RIGHT OF EVERY NATION
TO SELF-DETERMINATION.
THE UNITED STATES OF
EUROPE--WITHOUT MONARCHIES,
WITHOUT STANDING ARMIES,
WITHOUT RULING FEUDAL
CASTES, WITHOUT SECRET DIPLOMACY.
The peace agitation, which must be conducted simultaneously with all the
means now at the disposal of the Social Democracy as well as those
which, with a good will, it could acquire, will not only tear the
workers out of their nationalistic hypnosis; it will also do the saving
work of inner purification in the present official parties of the
proletariat. The national Revisionists and the Socialist patriots in
the Second International, who have been exploiting the influence that
Socialism has acquired over the working masses for national militaristic
aims, must be thrust back into the camp of the enemies of the working
class by uncompromising revolutionary agitation for peace.
The revolutionary Social Democracy need not fear that it will be
isolated, now less than ever. The War is making the most terrible
agitation against itself. Every day that the War lasts will bring new
masses of people to our banner, if it is an honest banner of peace and
democracy. The surest way by which the Social Democracy can isolate the
militaristic reaction in Europe and force it to take the offensive is by
the slogan of Peace.
----
We revolutionary Marxists have no cause for despair. The epoch into
which we are now entering will be _our_ epoch. Marxism is not defeated.
On the contrary: the roar of the cannon in every quarter of Europe
heralds the theoretical victory of Marxism. What is left now of the
hopes for a "peaceful" development, for a mitigation of capitalist class
contrasts, for a regular systematic growth into Socialism?
The Reformists on principle, who hoped to solve the social question by
the way of tariff treaties, consumers' leagues, and the parliamentary
co-operation of the Social Democracy with the bourgeois parties, are now
all resting their hopes on the victory of the "national" arms. They are
expecting the possessing classes to show greater willingness to meet the
needs of the proletariat because it has proved its patriotism.
This expectation would be positively foolish if there were not hidden
behind it another, far less "idealistic" hope--that a military victory
would create for the bourgeoisie a broader imperialistic field for
enriching itself at the expense of the bourgeoisie of other countries,
and would enable it to share some of the booty with its own proletariat
at the expense of the proletariat of other countries. _Socialist
reformism has actually turned into Socialist imperialism_.
We have witnessed with our own eyes the pathetic bankruptcy of the hopes
of a peaceful growth of proletarian well-being. The Reformists,
contrary to their own doctrine, were forced to resort to violence in
order to find their way out of the political _cul-de-sac_--and not the
violence of the peoples against the ruling classes, but the military
violence of the ruling classes against other nations. Since 1848 the
German bourgeoisie has renounced revolutionary methods for solving its
problems. They left it to the feudal class to solve their own bourgeois
questions by the method of war. Social development confronted the
proletariat with the problem of revolution. Evading revolution, the
Reformists were forced to go through the same process of historical
decline as the liberal bourgeoisie. The Reformists also left it to
their ruling classes, that is the same feudal caste, to solve the
proletarian problem by the method of war. But this ends the analogy.
The creation of national states did really solve the bourgeois problem
for a long period, and the long series of colonial wars coming after
1871 finished off the period by broadening the arena of the development
of the capitalistic forces. The period of colonial wars carried on by
the national states led to the present War of the national states--for
colonies. After all the backward portions of the earth had been divided
among the capitalist states, there was nothing left for these states
except to grab the colonies from each other.
"People ought not to talk," says George Irmer, "as though it were
self-evident that the German Empire has come too late for rivalry for
world economy and world markets, that the world has already been
divided. Has not the earth been divided over and over again in all
epochs of history?"
But a re-division of colonies among the capitalist countries does not
enlarge the foundation of capitalist development. One country's gain
means another country's loss. Accordingly a temporary mitigation of
class-conflicts in Germany could only be achieved by an extreme
intensification of the class-struggle in France and in England, and
_vice versa_. An additional factor of decisive importance is the
capitalist awakening in the colonies themselves, to which the present
War must give a mighty impetus. Whatever the outcome of this War, the
imperialistic basis for European capitalism will not be broadened, but
narrowed. The War, therefore, does not solve the labor question on an
imperialistic basis, but, on the contrary, it intensifies it, putting
this alternative to the capitalist world: _Permanent War or Revolution_.
If the War got beyond the control of the Second International, its
immediate consequences will get beyond the control of the bourgeoisie of
the entire world. We revolutionary Socialists did not want the War.
_But we do not fear it_. We do not give in to despair over the fact
that the War broke up the International. History had already disposed of
the International.
The revolutionary epoch will create new forms of organization out of the
inexhaustible resources of proletarian Socialism, new forms that will be
equal to the greatness of the new tasks. To this work we will apply
ourselves at once, amid the mad roaring of the machine-guns, the
crashing of cathedrals, and the patriotic howling of the capitalist
jackals. We will keep our clear minds amid this hellish death music,
our undimmed vision. We feel ourselves to be the only creative force of
the future. Already there are many of us, more than it may seem.
To-morrow there will be more of us than to-day. And the day after
to-morrow, millions will rise up under our banner, millions who even
now, sixty-seven years after the Communist Manifesto, have nothing to
lose but their chains.