Produced by Odessa Paige Turner, Martin Pettit and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This book was produced from scanned images of public
domain material from the Google Print project.)
"THE FUTURE BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE"
[Illustration: Logo]
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK . BOSTON . CHICAGO
DALLAS . ATLANTA . SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED
LONDON . BOMBAY . CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO
"The Future Belongs to the People"
BY
KARL LIEBKNECHT
(Speeches made since the beginning of the War)
EDITED AND TRANSLATED BY S. ZIMAND
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY WALTER WEYL
New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1918
_All rights reserved_
Copyright 1918
BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
Set up and Electrotyped. Published, November 16, 1918
Press of J. J. Little & Ives Co., New York
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE BY WALTER E. WEYL 9
INTRODUCTION 14
THE MAN LIEBKNECHT 21
THE FIRST DAYS 25
LIEBKNECHT'S VISIT TO BELGIUM 27
DID NOT CHEER THE KAISER 29
LIEBKNECHT DISAPPROVES OF THE MAJORITY SOCIALISTS OF
GERMANY 30
THE REICHSTAG MEETING OF DEC. 2, 1914 31
LIEBKNECHT CONDEMNED BY HIS PARTY 34
A NEW YEAR'S GREETING TO ENGLAND 36
SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE WAR MEETING OF THE PRUSSIAN
ASSEMBLY, MAR. 2, 1915 40
IN DEFENCE OF ROSA LUXEMBURG 53
LIEBKNECHT CALLED TO ARMY SERVICE 61
LIEBKNECHT QUESTIONS THE GOVERNMENT 62
LIEBKNECHT EXPELLED FROM SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY 74
REICHSTAG DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CENSORSHIP 75
JUSTICE IN GERMANY IN WAR TIME 76
THE SITUATION IN AUSTRIA 98
EDUCATION IN GERMANY IN WAR TIME 100
LIEBKNECHT PROTESTS AT BEING PREVENTED FROM DISCUSSING
THE SUBMARINE WARFARE 113
REICHSTAG MEETING OF MARCH 23, 1916 115
LIEBKNECHT'S COMMENTS ON THE IMPERIAL CHANCELLOR'S
SPEECH, APRIL 5, 1916 116
REICHSTAG MEETING, APRIL 7, 1916 118
LIEBKNECHT'S REMARKS ON THE GERMAN WAR LOAN,
REICHSTAG MEETING, APRIL 8, 1916 123
LIEBKNECHT'S MAY DAY MANIFESTO 126
LIEBKNECHT'S MAY DAY 1916 SPEECH 128
LIEBKNECHT'S REPLY TO HIS JUDGES 137
LIEBKNECHT'S TRIAL AND RELEASE 143
"The aim of my life is the overthrow of monarchy. As my father, who
appeared before this court exactly thirty-five years ago to defend
himself against the charge of treason, was ultimately pronounced victor,
so I believe the day is not far distant when the principles which I
represent will be recognized as patriotic, as honorable, as true."
KARL LIEBKNECHT.
PREFACE
The philosophy of Karl Liebknecht as revealed in these pages leaves but
a narrow ledge for heroes to stand on. To him the significant thing in
history is, and has always been, the stirring of the masses of men at
the bottom, their unconscious writhings, their awakenings, their
conscious struggles and finally their gigantic, fearsome upthrust, which
overturns all the little groups of clever men who have lived by holding
these masses down. In these conflicts, kings, priests, leaders, heroes
count for no more than flags or flying pennants. All great leaders,
Caesar, Mahomet, Luther, Napoleon, are instruments of popular movements,
or at best manuscripts upon which the messages of their class and age
have been written.
To Liebknecht all that Carlyle has said about heroes is contrary to
ideology and inversion of the truth. "As I take it," writes Carlyle,
"Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this
world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked there.
They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns,
and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men
contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing and
accomplished in the world are properly the outward material result, the
practical realization and embodiment of Thoughts that dwelt in the
Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it
may justly be considered, were the history of these."
Look at what is happening in Germany to-day and test, as best we may,
these two confronting theories concerning the influence of great men
upon history. As I write Germany is in the throes of revolution. The
immensely powerful Hohenzollern monarchy has fallen, the brave,
stubborn, modern-witted, money-bolstered aristocracy is shattered, and a
proscribed poor man, Karl Liebknecht, is loudly acclaimed. Was it one
man, a Foch, a Wilson, a Lenin or a Liebknecht that overturned this
mighty structure, or was it the movement of a hundred million men and
women, armed and unarmed, on the battle-field and in the factory, in
France and England and Russia and Germany? What could Liebknecht alone
have done with all his ringing eloquence and all his superb, I almost
said, sublime heroism? Clearly we must rule Carlyle out of the
controversy and agree with Liebknecht, the Socialist, that Liebknecht,
the hero, had little to do with this vast subversion.
Yet, as Carlyle says, "One comfort is, that Great Men, taken up in any
way, are profitable company. We cannot look, however imperfectly, upon
any great man, without gaining something by him."
At this safe distance no one could be more "profitable company" than
Karl Liebknecht as he stands up boldly against all that is powerful,
respectable and formidable in Germany and challenges it at the utter
risk of life and reputation. Such courage as his is almost
inconceivable; for us poor conforming or at best feebly protesting
little people it is quite impossible. To die among thousands, even to
die alone, if you think you hear the plaudits of your nation or your
class, is a thing many of us have learned to do, but to stand up against
a vindictive irrational war spirit, such as ruled Germany, to stand up
alone, to be contemned not only by your enemies but by those who called
themselves your comrades and friends, to be met by polite derision and
by actual threats of violence, to be called a madman, to be called a
traitor, to be misunderstood and doubted; to be met in occasional
moments of dejection even by doubts in your own mind, and still to hold
your own bravely and with cool passion, day after day and day after day,
in circumstances growing daily more difficult, and finally to go to
prison gladly, triumphantly--that is courage surpassing the courage of
the rest of us. It is easier to die even by torture than to persist in
this opposition to forces physical and mental not only confronting but
surrounding and even permeating us.
We have agreed with Liebknecht that great events are not the doings of
great men but merely the large theater in which these great men play
their little parts. And yet, does not the hero, subordinate as he is to
the wider movement of the play, exert a somewhat stronger influence than
many followers of Marx seem willing to admit? Masses of men are moved
to vital historic decisions in part by economic motives, but these
motives must first be converted into emotion, and the hero, however his
own actions are motived, is one of the vital factors producing that
emotion. We shall perhaps never know to what extent the present rising
of the German people against their once invincible rulers was
occasioned, though not caused, by their vision of Karl Liebknecht,
standing there alone against all the judges, rulers, legislators and
respectables of Germany, and even against his fellow socialists. The
heroism of Liebknecht was at least a point and center of coalescence.
The course of events has vindicated Karl Liebknecht. But it might well
have been otherwise. Had Germany won the war and established a clanging
_pax Germanica_ through the ruin of Europe, Liebknecht's heroism might
never have been recognized. He might have rusted in prison and been
released to obscurity and thereafter lived a futile life derided as a
blind fanatic. The force of circumstances, the obscure action of the
hundreds of millions, rescued Liebknecht and raised him to the highest
pinnacle of heroism. It stamped upon our minds for all time the picture
of this brave man standing alone surrounded by cruel, confidently
smiling foes.
I said "alone." Yet this is not fair to a very small group of German
minority socialists, who stood by Liebknecht and by whom Liebknecht
stood. Among them were Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Hugo Haase, George
Ledebour, and others, to whom, were real heroism always decorated,
would be given a higher order of "Pour le Merite." But among all these
Karl Liebknecht stands preeminent.
"And for all that mind you," concludes the French soldier Bertrand, in
"Under Fire," "there is one figure that has risen above the war and will
blaze with the beauty and strength of his courage."
Barbusse continues: "I listened leaning on a stick towards him, drinking
in the voice that came in the twilight silence from the lips that so
rarely spoke. He cried with a clear voice, 'Liebknecht.'"
WALTER WEYL.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
"_The future belongs to the people._" The time was October 24, 1918; the
place, Berlin, the center of Germany; the speaker, Doctor Karl
Liebknecht. A remarkable change had indeed come over the Empire. As far
as the eye could reach, a great shouting, surging crowd had gathered
before the Reichstag buildings, a crowd such as might have foregathered
in times past on almost any day of national festivity, to do honor to
his Imperial Majesty, Kaiser Wilhelm. They were indeed shouting
frantically on this occasion, but with other sentiments, shouting not
for the Kaiser, but for abdication, while applauding frantically for
another, a bitter foe of the Kaiser, a man who had been sent to jail for
high treason, had been deprived of his seat in the Reichstag, had been
dubbed, even by those in his own party, an enemy of his kind--Karl
Liebknecht. And who, witnessing the flower-laden carriage of the great
popular hero, but would admit that a new day was at last dawning in that
land of autocracy, a day ushered in by the guns and men of Foch?
The events leading to that ovation of the twenty-fourth of October are
of interest.
From the earliest days of its organization, soon after the middle of the
nineteenth century, the German Social Democracy had taken a stand
against militarism. During the Franco-Prussian War, two of its chief
representatives, Wilhelm Liebknecht (the father of Karl Liebknecht) and
August Bebel, had refused to vote for the war budget. In 1912, during
the Balkan crisis, the German Socialists had attended in force the great
gathering of the International Socialist Conference at Basle, protesting
in vigorous tones against the war, and many there were on that occasion
who declared that even if danger of world war had not been entirely
eliminated, the Social Democrats of Germany, the strongest of the
International movement, were prepared to meet any emergency that might
arise. In the Reichstag elections, these Social Democrats had cast four
and a quarter millions of votes, while the labor unions, which in
Germany worked hand and hand with the Social-Democratic Party, numbered
no less than two and a half millions. The Socialist movement had the
support of hundreds of newspapers, possessed a strong and
well-disciplined organization and large financial resources, and was
remarkably rich in political experience. In efficiency of organization
it ranked second only to the Catholic Church.
It was true that the German Social Democrats as yet had gained little
real influence on the international policy of the Empire, and despite
their powerful organization and their influence, they were in a position
before the war to use only moral pressure on the government. Yet to many
it seemed extremely unlikely that the German government would dare
instigate a world conflagration when opposed at home by this powerful
"internal enemy."
The war came. Immediately after war's declaration, the Imperial
Chancellor called a meeting of the Reichstag on August 5, 1914, for the
purpose of approving the war budget. The day before this gathering was
held, he called together the leaders of the various parties, so the
story runs, among them the Social Democrats, and transmitted to them a
confidential communication. He had from a reliable source, he declared,
information that a secret understanding existed between the French and
the Belgian governments whereby the latter government had agreed, in
case of emergency, that it would give the French army passage through
Belgium for the purpose of invading Germany. It was because of this
agreement, the Chancellor declared, that the neutrality of Belgium had
to be violated. In addition to this information, the Chancellor told the
assembled legislators that the Russian army had invaded German soil and
had even then overrun two of the Prussian provinces.
These statements produced the desired effect, convincing the majority of
the Social Democratic leaders that their only course was to support the
Kaiser and his government. The government knew how to fool them, knew
what to use in order to get their support, and the Kaiser and his
government were victorious.
Every cable message during those days that reached America from Germany
emphasized the thought that there were no longer any parties in
Germany, that the Social Democrats had decided to give up their
agitation and work only for victory. To many radicals in America who had
pinned their faith to the internationalism of the German Social
Democracy, these reports seemed well-nigh unbelievable. The Socialist
leaders must have been put in jail, some argued.
Then more news came to confirm the reports, and the papers came,
Socialist papers, and Socialist papers even of Germany, and all
contained the same unbelievable truth. Some said then, "Well, the
Government has taken over their papers and that is how this news can be
explained." But fact after fact came out which made even the most
doubtful admit that the cables had been based on truth. The strong and
great structure built by a generation lay prostrate on the ground.
In those days of disillusion, I remember well a conversation among a few
of us concerning the plight of the Social Democracy. "The German
government knew their Socialists well, and knew how best to reach them,"
declared one of our group. "There is one man in Germany, however, whom
we shouldn't despair of, even now. If he is still alive, I cannot but
believe that he will soon raise his voice against the course pursued by
the German government and by his own party, and show the world that even
in the land of utter darkness there still shines one light."
Liebknecht's record was open. For a score of years he had fought
militarism tooth and nail. Could he now embrace it? Temporarily, it
seemed that he had. He opposed the majority of his fellow-Socialists in
the early days of August when they voted to support the war budget. But
his efforts were unsuccessful. The majority decreed that the Social
Democrats must support the war, and party discipline demanded that the
minority abide by the decision of the majority. Party discipline was
strong, at first too strong for Liebknecht. He yielded. Against his
better judgment he voted, on August 5, for the budget. He voted, but he
rebelled in spirit, and the next month, both at the home of a Socialist
Alderman, F. M. Wibaut, of Amsterdam, and at the residence of Lieutenant
Henry DeMan, in Brussels, he declared that he could not himself
understand what had possessed him when he gave his vote in the Reichstag
to the war budget.
He soon extricated himself from his former allegiances, however, and the
noble spirit of courage which he afterwards displayed has but few
precedents in modern history. In order to portray to the reader the real
picture of the seemingly insurpassable obstacles against which he
fought, and the courage and idealism which he displayed, I have
collected and translated his speeches and his important utterances since
the beginning of the war and here present them in detail for the first
time to American readers.
Liebknecht had many opportunities for making himself heard. He was a
Deputy of the Reichstag from Potsdam-Osthavelland, an assemblyman to
the Prussian _Landtag_ from Berlin and Councilman to the
_Stadverordneten Versammlung_ of Berlin. Within and without these
assemblies he used his pen and his voice alike. It was in the Prussian
Assembly, where from the very beginning he had four companions who
shared his point of view, that he delivered his longer addresses.
His tactics in the Reichstag, where for some time he stood almost alone,
were somewhat different. Here, instead of delivering speeches, he used
the question with telling effect, as a means of bringing out the truth
on his side and of showing the emptiness of his opponents' claims. The
government resorted to every conceivable means to silence him, but
without success. Failing, they called him to military service, and put
him in the uniform of a German soldier. This act put a temporary end to
his outside public addresses, but he could still deliver his scathing
indictments in the Reichstag and in the Prussian Assembly.
On May 1, 1916, he appeared at a public gathering in Berlin in civilian
dress, and delivered the speech which sent him to jail. Why did he
deliver that May Day address? Why did he not continue to reach the
public over the heads of the legislators from his seats in the two
Parliaments? It is indeed possible that he thought that the moment for
the Revolution had struck. For it is an address of revolution, and
seemed calculated to bring about an uprising of the workers. Perhaps he
was under the impression that his addresses and the terrible pressure
outside Germany had sufficiently awakened the German people, and that
they needed but a word to bring them into action. Whatever the reason,
the speech was a magnificent one; it required a courage which only a
Liebknecht possessed.
When Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Henry Thoreau in his prison cell and
asked, "What are you doing here, Henry?" Thoreau replied, "What are you
doing outside when all people with ideals are inside?" That sentence
well describes the Germany of yesterday. Liebknecht was in prison, but
even in his lonesome cell he still inspired the "gathering hosts and
helped to make men free."
I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my friends, Bertram Benedict
and Dr. Wm. E. Bohn, for help and criticism.
S. ZIMAND.
_November 3, 1918_
THE MAN LIEBKNECHT
Karl Liebknecht is a worthy son of a great sire. His father, Wilhelm
Liebknecht, for years a member of the Reichstag, was the author of
numerous pamphlets on Socialism and economics and was one of the first
founders of the Socialist Party in Germany. Karl Liebknecht was born in
Leipzig on August 13th, 1871, the same year in which his father was
arrested on the charge of high treason. His mother was wont to say that
she bequeathed to her son all the sorrow that was hers during that
period, all the courage and all the strength which she had to summon to
her aid to live through those days; and with her bequest went all the
sorrow for the sufferings of humanity, and all the courage and the
strength to battle for the cause of the people, which were back of the
father's trial.
And thirty-five years later, Karl Liebknecht underwent the same ordeal
as his father--himself faced the accusation of high treason in the
highest courts of his native land.
Liebknecht studied first at Leipzig and then in Berlin, attending the
university in each city. As a student he began his career of social
enlightenment by organizing literary societies for the study of social
problems. Liebknecht got his doctor's degree in Political Economy and
Law at the University of Wuerzburg. From 1889 he practised law in Berlin.
Later he became active in the Socialist movement in Berlin. In 1902 he
was elected Councilman to the Stadverordneten Versammlung (Common
Council) of Berlin. In October, 1907, he was tried for high treason
before the Imperial Court of Germany at Leipzig for his book on
"Militarism." The substance of this book which aroused the ire of the
German authorities was first set forth in a lecture before a group of
young people in 1906, for it is Liebknecht's belief that in the hands of
the younger generation of Germany lies the hope of salvation; let them
be impregnated, he would say, with the right social ideals before
militaristic training has an opportunity to do its work, and there will
be little danger of domination by the war lords, or of the fruition of
the war lords' aims.
His trial was most interesting. It was said upon excellent authority
that the Kaiser himself was connected by secret wire with the court
room. Liebknecht bore himself triumphantly throughout; there was never a
moment of wavering, never any evidence of any quality contrary to the
gigantic and fearless strength which characterizes the man. Liebknecht
is himself a very able lawyer, and though he had noted lawyers to
represent him (including Hugo Haase, at present a leader of the Minority
Socialist Party in the Reichstag), he supplemented their speeches with
additional analyses of his own.
Liebknecht took up the question, "What is high treason?" He turned the
tables upon Olshausen, who was conducting the trial against him, by a
quotation from a work of Olshausen himself which contradicted the stand
the latter was taking in the Liebknecht trial. The Socialist leader's
address to the judges was one of the boldest attacks ever made, either
up to that time or up to the present, against German militarism. "The
aim of my life," he declared, "is the overthrow of monarchy. As my
father, who appeared before this court exactly thirty-five years ago to
defend himself against the charge of treason, was ultimately pronounced
victor, so I believe the day is not far distant when the principles
which I represent will be recognized as patriotic, as honorable, as
true."
Liebknecht's brave stand on this occasion was rewarded by a sentence of
a year and a half in a military prison. While serving his sentence he
was elected by the people of Berlin to represent them in the assembly of
Prussia. In the Landtag Liebknecht recommenced his fight against
militarism. It was there that he prophetically pronounced the word
"Republic" for the first time. On one occasion there was a debate upon
the building of a new opera house. "The opera house for which we are
asked to vote the necessary funds," he exclaimed, "should last for many
generations. We trust that it will last long after it has lost its
character as a Royal Opera House."
In 1910 Liebknecht visited America to give a series of lectures, and the
United States made a strong impression upon him. He used to tell me
that he felt truly homesick for America and had a genuine desire to
repeat the visit.
In 1912 he was elected representative to the Reichstag by the people of
Potsdam-Osthavelland, under the very window of the Kaiser. The
announcement of his success was met with wild demonstrations of delight.
The sentiments of the surging crowds before the office of the Berlin
_Vorwaerts_ when the result of the election was made public were voiced
by a young workingman, when he exclaimed, "The new voice of freedom will
be heard from now on in the Reichstag." In the Reichstag Liebknecht
hurled with renewed zeal his invectives against the huge armaments and
militarism of Germany.
Liebknecht the man is of the kindest nature and frankest personality.
There is to be seen in his make-up no grain of pretentiousness, of false
pride--indeed, he usually lunches quite happily upon a sandwich in the
train, too busy to find any other time for his meal. His home life is
ideal. His present wife--his first died in 1912--is a Russian by birth,
a graduate of the University of Heidelberg, and an ideal companion and
helpmate.
THE FIRST DAYS
On August 3rd and 4th, 1914, the Social-Democratic members of the
Reichstag called a special meeting in order to decide what stand the
party should take on the War.
At the first vote taken, ninety-four members were for voting for the
budget and only fourteen against. At the last there were only three who
held out to the end--Liebknecht, Ledebour, and Haase.
The officials of the party tried to give the impression that there were
no differences of opinion in the party, but Liebknecht wrote the
following letter, which was published in the _Buerger Zeitung_, Bremen,
September 18, 1914.
"I understand that several members of the Socialist Party have written
all manner of statements to the press with regard to the deliberations
of the Socialist Party in the Reichstag on August 3rd and 4th.
"According to these reports, there were no serious differences of
opinion in our party in regard to the political situation and our own
position, and decisions to assent to war credits are alleged to have
been arrived at unanimously. In order to prevent the dissemination of an
inadmissible fiction I feel it to be my duty to put on record the fact
that the issues involved gave rise to diametrically opposite views
within our party parliament, and these opposing views found expression
with a violence hitherto unknown in our deliberations.
"It is also entirely untrue to say that assent to the war credits was
given unanimously."
LIEBKNECHT'S VISIT TO BELGIUM
On September 16th, 1914, Liebknecht went to Belgium to inform himself
about the situation, and here is what Camille Huysmans, the secretary of
the International Socialist Bureau, writes about Liebknecht's visit to
Belgium:
To P. Renaudel, Editor of _L'Humanite_.
"MY DEAR RENAUDEL,--Liebknecht came to Belgium on September 16th, 1914.
He met several friends, and he came to see me at Brussels, at the Maison
du Peuple, in the afternoon. I asked him into my office and we had a
conversation which lasted more than two hours. I took him to dinner at a
restaurant in the town, and we again talked at length. I invited other
friends to meet him, among them our comrade Vandersmirsen. The next
morning we went out in two motor cars. We passed through several
districts. We tried to see Louvain, but the military authorities would
not allow us to do so.
"At Tirlemont, through the mistake of an officer, we were caught in some
shrapnel fire, and we had to remain through the engagement. I showed
Liebknecht what actually took place. He questioned the Belgians. He
talked with the German soldiers. He was thus able to form his own
opinion on the spot.
"To sum up: Liebknecht, when he came, knew nothing of what had happened
in Belgium. He went away convinced that the Belgians had not been sold
to Great Britain, that they had not organized bands of _francs-tireurs_,
that they had not assassinated the German wounded, and that the German
executions in Belgium were unjustifiable.
"He came to Belgium honorably and honestly to gain information. Anything
else is calumny. Those Belgians who regarded the reception by me of a
German as an act of treason grasped him effusively by the hand when they
learned that he came to find out and to speak the truth.
"Yours,
"CAMILLE HUYSMANS."
DID NOT CHEER THE KAISER
BERLIN, _October_ 24, 1914.
Editor, _Berliner Tageblatt_.
Berlin.
DEAR SIR:
In your report of the meeting of the Prussian Assembly on the 22nd of
the month you say that during the reading by Dr. Delbrueck of the
greetings of the Kaiser the whole house stood (that means, the
Social-Democrats also). That does not correspond with the truth. The
Social-Democratic members of the Assembly, who were in their places,
remained seated.
With reference to the closing speech of the President your report reads
that the whole House applauded and took part in the cheers for the
Kaiser. That also is not true. Five members (Hofer, Adolf Hoffmann, Paul
Hoffmann, Liebknecht and Stroebel,--_S. Z._) of the Social-Democratic
representation in the _Landtag_ (that means half) left the room when
this speech of the President was delivered.
I would ask you to print the above correction according to paragraph II
of the Press Law.
Respectfully,
KARL LIEBKNECHT.
LIEBKNECHT DISAPPROVES OF MAJORITY SOCIALISTS OF GERMANY
The Swiss Socialist paper _Volksrecht_ published in November, 1914, the
following statement, signed by Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz
Mehring and Clara Zetkin.
"In the Socialist press of the neutral countries of Sweden, Italy and
Switzerland, Comrades Dr. Suedekum and Richard Fischer have attempted to
portray the attitude of the German Social-Democrats towards the present
War in the light of their own ideas. We feel ourselves forced therefore
to explain through the same mediums that we, and certainly many other
German Social-Democrats, look on the War, its causes and its character,
as well as on the role of the Social-Democrats at the present time, from
a standpoint which in no way corresponds to that of Dr. Suedekum and
Herr Fischer. At the present time the state of martial law makes it
impossible for us to give public expression to our views."
REICHSTAG MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 1914, AND LIEBKNECHT'S DOCUMENT
EXPLAINING WHY HE VOTED "NO"
At the second War Session of the Reichstag, Dec. 2, 1914, Karl
Liebknecht not only voted against the War Budget--the only member of the
Reichstag so to vote--but also handed in an explanation of his vote,
which the President of the Reichstag refused to allow to be read, nor
was it printed in the Parliamentary report. The President banned it on
the pretext that it would entail calls to order. The document was sent
to the German Press, but not one paper published it.
The full text of the protest was received by way of Switzerland. It runs
as follows:
"My vote against the War Credit Bill of to-day is based on the following
considerations. This War, desired by none of the people concerned, has
not broken out in behalf of the welfare of the German people or any
other. It is an Imperialist War, a war over important territories of
exploitation for capitalists and financiers. From the point of view of
rivalry in armaments, it is a war provoked by the German and Austrian
war parties together, in the obscurity of semi-feudalism and of secret
diplomacy, to gain an advantage over their opponents. At the same time
the war is a Bonapartist effort to disrupt and split the growing
movement of the working class.
"The German cry: 'Against Czarism!' is invented for the occasion--just
as the present British and French watchwords are invented--to exploit
the noblest inclinations and the revolutionary traditions and ideals of
the people in stirring up hatred of other peoples.
"Germany, the accomplice of Czarism, the model of reaction until this
very day, has no standing as the liberator of the peoples. The
liberation of both the Russian and the German people must be their own
work.
"The war is no war of German defense. Its historical basis and its
course at the start make unacceptable the pretense of the capitalist
government that the purpose for which it demands credits is the defense
of the Fatherland.
"A speedy peace, a peace without conquests, this is what we must demand.
Every effort in this direction must be supported. Only by strengthening
jointly and continuously the currents in all the belligerent countries
which have such a peace as their object can this bloody slaughter be
brought to an end.
"Only a peace based upon the international solidarity of the working
class and on the liberty of all the peoples can be a lasting peace.
Therefore, it is the duty of the proletariats of all countries to carry
on during the war a common Socialistic work in favor of peace.
"I support the relief credits with this reservation: I vote willingly
for everything which may relieve the hard fate of our brothers on the
battlefield as well as that of the wounded and sick, for whom I feel the
deepest compassion. But as a protest against the war, against those who
are responsible for it and who have caused it, against those who direct
it, against the capitalist purposes for which it is being used, against
plans of annexation, against the violation of the neutrality of Belgium
and Luxemburg, against unlimited rule of martial law, against the total
oblivion of social and political duties of which the Government and
classes are still guilty, I vote against the war credits demanded.
KARL LIEBKNECHT.
BERLIN, _December 2, 1914._"
KARL LIEBKNECHT CONDEMNED BY HIS PARTY FOR VOTING "NO" ON DECEMBER 2,
1914, AND HIS ANSWER
In December, 1914, the Social-Democratic representation of the Reichstag
censured Karl Liebknecht for voting "No" in the open meeting of the
Reichstag.
At a meeting on February 2, 1915, the Reichstag Socialists adopted a
resolution condemning his stand and repudiating alleged misleading
information he had spread about the Party. To this Liebknecht answered
in the _Vorwaerts_ of February 5, 1915, as follows:
BERLIN, _February_ 5, 1915.
Editor _Vorwaerts_,
BERLIN.
DEAR COMRADE:--
Concerning the resolution adopted by the Social-Democratic Deputies of
the Reichstag I wish to remark: (1) I voted against the war credits
because the vote for the war credits is in my opinion in sharp
contradiction not only to the interests of the proletariat, but also to
the resolutions of the Social-Democratic Party and of the International
Socialist Convention. And the Social-Democratic Deputies in the
Reichstag are not justified in recommending a violation of the Program
and party decisions.
In a letter of Dec. 3, 1914, addressed to the Chairman of the
Social-Democratic Deputies of the Reichstag I made my stand clear.
(2) Misleading information about the Party I have not given out. The
Social-Democratic Deputies in the Reichstag, who are not the proper
authorities for such decisions, voted down my motion to postpone making
any decision on this point until a thorough discussion had taken place.
KARL LIEBKNECHT.
A NEW YEAR'S GREETING TO ENGLAND
I am pleased to be able to write a message of brotherhood to British
Socialists at a time when the ruling classes of Germany and Great
Britain are trying by all means in their power to incite bloodthirsty
hatred between the two peoples. But it is painful for me to write these
lines at a time when our radiant hope of previous days--the Socialist
International--lies destroyed on the ground with a thousand
expectations, when even many Socialists in the belligerent
countries--for Germany is not an exception--have in this most rapacious
of all wars of robbery willingly put on the yoke of the chariot of
Imperialism, just when the evils of capitalism were becoming more
apparent than ever. I am, however, particularly proud and happy to send
my greetings to you, to the British Independent Labour Party, who, with
our Russian and Servian comrades, have saved the honor of Socialism
amidst the madness of national slaughter.
Confusion reigns among the rank and file of the Socialist Army and many
blame Socialist principles for our present failure. It is not our
principles which have failed, however, but the representatives of those
principles. It is not a question of changing our principles, it is a
question of applying them to life, of carrying them into action.
All the phrases of "national defense" and the "liberation of the
people" with which Imperialism decorates its instruments of murder are
but deceiving tinsel. Each Socialist Party has its enemy, the common
enemy of the International, in its own country. There it has to fight
it. The liberation of each nation must be its own work.
Only blindness can order the continuation of the slaughter until the
"enemy" is crushed. The well-being of all nations is inseparably
connected; the struggle of the organized working class can only be
carried out internationally.
Those who are seven times wise and whose weak souls are easily carried
away by the whirls of diplomatic winds and lost in the gulfs of
jingoism, say that the labor movement will no longer be international.
The world war which has smashed the International must, however, be
realized as a powerful sermon making clear the need for a new
International, an International of another kind, with a different force
from that which the capitalist powers so easily scattered on August 4,
1914.
Only in the cooeperation of the working masses of all countries, in times
of war as in times of peace, does the salvation of humanity lie. Nowhere
have the masses desired this war. Nowhere do they desire it. Why should
they, then, with a loathing for war in their hearts, murder each other
to the finish? It would be a sign of weakness, it is said, for any one
people to suggest peace; well, let all the people suggest it together.
The nation which speaks first will not show weakness but strength. It
will win the glory and gratitude of posterity. It is the duty of every
Socialist at the present time to be a prophet of international
brotherhood, realizing that every word he speaks in favor of socialism
and peace, every action he performs for these ideals enflame similar
words and actions in other countries, until the flames of the desire for
peace shall flare high over all Europe. The example which you and our
Russian and Servian comrades have given to the world will have an
emulating effect wherever Socialists have been ensnared by the designs
of the ruling classes, and I am sure the mass of the British workers
will soon rally to the International Labor Party. Already among the
German workers there is far greater opposition to the war than is
generally supposed, and the louder the echo of the cry for peace in
other countries the more vehemently and energetically will they work for
peace here. Thus shall the working classes of all the belligerent
countries become conscious of the necessity to fight for a peace
consistent with the principles of Socialism, a peace without conquest
and without humiliation, a peace based not on hatred but on fraternity,
not on force but on freedom, a peace which, because of its justice, may
be everlasting. In this way, even during the war, the International can
be revived and can atone for its previous mistakes. Thus it must revive,
a different International, increased not only in numerical strength but
in revolutionary fervor, in clearness of vision and in preparedness to
overcome the danger of absolutism, of secret diplomacy, and of
capitalist conspiracies against peace.
Workers of the World, unite!
Unite in a war against war!
With Socialist greetings,
KARL LIEBKNECHT.
BERLIN, _December, 1914_.
SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE WAR MEETING OF THE PRUSSIAN ASSEMBLY, TUESDAY,
MARCH 2, 1915
The Censor forbade the printing of the following speech in Germany. It
is a clear analysis of the franchise question. Dr. Liebknecht also
blames the personal regime and rule of Bureaucracy for the War.
According to the _Vorwaerts_ reports, when Liebknecht began to speak the
Free Conservatives, most of the National Liberals and the Centrum left
the chamber in a demonstrative manner.
_Present_: The Minister of the Interior: Discussion about the Prussian
electoral reform, care for those disabled by war, and democratization of
external politics.
Taking part in the discussion: Dr. Busse (Cons.), V. Papenheim (Cons.),
Dr. v. Zedlitz and Neukirch (Free Cons.), v. Loebell (Secretary of
Interior), Dr. Friedberg (Natl. Lib.), Cassel (Progressive People's
Party), Dr. Liebknecht (Soc.-Dem.).
_Dr. Liebknecht_ (Social-Democrat): Gentlemen, first I wish to protest
against the fact that Russian workingmen are treated differently from
the civilians of other enemy countries. Such differential treatment
cannot be justified--indeed, must be condemned as sharply as possible.
As to the care to be taken of those disabled by war, I can only support
the heart-felt words which came from all parts of this house on this
question and echoed in our hearts, that we demand action on this matter
without delay and do everything possible to keep these unfortunate
people from all need and misery. But I do not wish to mistake what
experience teaches us--that we have every right to take words uttered in
days such as we are passing through with a great deal of criticism and
suspicion. On that account I would not like to throw all the words
uttered to-day in the scales as solid weight. We will see if, in the
future, deeds will follow.
The great zeal with which this all-important question, which arouses all
human emotions, was discussed, has for me a special significance because
these debates serve to hide the complete silence of the bourgeois
parties on the decisive and important suffrage question. ("Very true"
from the Soc.-Dem.)
Gentlemen, you can be assured that those who are in the field and the
unfortunate invalids in the hospitals will be convinced that everything
necessary is done in this important question only when we make it
possible for them at the settlement of the question to be guaranteed
necessary influence in legislation and administration. (Approval from
the Soc.-Dem.) They will not rely on the good will of the ruling
parties, and if the good words which were spoken with relation to the
care to be taken of the war invalids do not go hand in hand with
willingness to give to the mass of the people more rights, to make
possible a democratization of Prussia, then they preach to deaf ears
even if the words sound so very friendly. ("Very true" from Soc.-Dem.)
Gentlemen, the 27th of February of this year will become a historical
day for Prussia. It was a critical day. In the Budget Committee the
Minister refused to give any assurance, even of a general nature, about
a future suffrage reform; and to-day also we heard nothing about it. The
Progressive Party expects, according to the speech delivered by
Assemblyman Pachnicke, suffrage reform after the war; they expect at
least the secret and the direct vote. The Centrum appeals to its "clear
and unmovable" position on the suffrage question, which no one knows
(Assemblyman Stroebel, Soc.-Dem., "Very good!"), and explains its present
silence by the party truce. The National Liberals put the question of
suffrage reform behind the task of winning the war. The Free
Conservatives, through Frhr. v. Zedlitz, give a straightforward refusal,
which Frhr. v. Zedlitz underlined three times last night in the _Post_.
("Very true" from the Free Conservatives.) I hear again a "Very true"
from the midst of the Free Conservatives, and emphasize it again
thus--according to them the war has brought out strong counter-reaction
against any democratization and Frhr. v. Zedlitz must surely know it,
because he warms himself behind the political stove. He considers the
discussion of the election reform as superfluous, a discussion which
endangers the party truce and which over-balances the discussions about
the Budget; and he scoffs at the idea about a general fraternization on
the foundation of the introduction of the suffrage law for the Reichstag
in Prussia. ("Hear! hear!" from the Soc.-Dem.) The German Conservative
Party was silent and by its silence showed that it approved the
provoking refusal of Frhr. v. Zedlitz. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)
To-day also was this approval repeated in an unmistakable sense.
_That clears the situation_, gentlemen,--clears it delightfully.
Clearness is especially necessary at this time. ("Very true!" from the
Soc.-Dem.) It never was so necessary as to-day, when the word "party
truce" and the false conceptions of class harmonies, of unity and
unanimity of the people and other beautiful descriptive words about a
free German people of the future becloud many a mind. Gentlemen, we are
glad that this fog was blown away. The naked truth is: In Prussia
everything remains as it was before. Gentlemen, on October 22nd of last
year our warning with reference to the election reform was received by
this house partly with cold silence and partly with indignant murmur. It
was astounding to the gentlemen that the representatives of the third
class of Prussian helot voters dared, at this time, to raise the demand
of the people. The government was silent then. On February 9th the same
performance, and now the Committee's deliberations and the debates of
to-day which clarify the situation so well! Everything remains as it was
before--that is the significance of the day for Prussia. From the papers
we already knew that, gentlemen. Already in September, 1914, upon the
victory of the German troops, so many swelled up as "German friends of
the people." An apotheosis of Militarism, an apotheosis of Monarchism,
an apotheosis of the three-class system of voting and of all "Prussian
egotism" we found in the reactionary papers,--in the papers not only of
the Conservative Parties but even in those of the so-called Liberal
Parties. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)
Gentlemen, in 1866 it was said: The schoolmaster, the Prussian
schoolmaster was victorious. To-day it is said: the Prussian system of
voting is victorious in this war or will be victorious in this war.
("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)
What progress! It will be said, as it was said: The Prussian three-class
system of voting was victorious over democracy,--by which Russia is
naturally left out of consideration as a good friend of the past and
surely as a good friend of the future. The conclusion will be drawn
which was drawn in such an open way by Frhr. v. Zedlitz. But I should
like to advise you in your own interests not to forget that if this war,
especially in the first months, awakened a strong enthusiasm in the
German people, you must thank above all the fact that it was to be
against Czarism--against the Russian reaction,--("Very true!" from
Soc.-Dem.), against barbarism, unrighteousness; that it was thought to
be a struggle for the freedom of Europe. ("Very true!" from the
Soc.-Dem.)
And, gentlemen, do not forget the disastrous influence the backward
conditions in Prussia and in Germany, which conditions were combated by
us, had on the attitude of the Neutrals against Germany in this war!
("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)
Gentlemen, in spite of all the characteristic and true Prussian
manifestations since the first months of the war, about which I just
spoke, we had even up to now political dreamers. Gentlemen, those will
now be enlightened about the situation, wherever they are, and that is
of great value. _The darkest pessimists were right in their prophecies._
These debates have furnished water for our mills. The Conservative
parties of this house stand with their old animosity against any
democratization. From the Centrum nothing is to be hoped. The National
Liberals provide a special chapter. Their ideal with respect to the
electoral reform has been long similar to that of Frhr. v. Zedlitz,
namely, not democratization, but future plutocratization of the
electoral reform. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.)