Against National Bolshevism. Against Hamburg Tendency!

Arthur Goldstein — Berlin:

Comrades! The hour has come when the confrontation between communism and national communism, this by-product of the bourgeois world, must take place. I would like to say that the spirit of this party conference must not be intoxication and ecstasy, but calm, objective reflection and consideration of what needs to be said on this subject. You should therefore not expect a brilliant firework display of phrases to shower you, rather I will express everything that needs to be said on this topic in a very factual manner. In my opinion, our party must finally clarify where the Communist Workers' Party of Germany ends and the German National People's Party begins. I would like to point out that in assessing the position of our comrades in Hamburg, the delegates at the party congress cannot be guided by what they say here, but only by what is written in their writings and newspaper articles. It is only from this point of view that you may judge my speech, and I ask you to proceed only according to this point of view. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Hamburg organization is making a statement of principle to the public at this very moment, before the party conference begins. I believe that a party must exist today, that it is a necessity in the interest of the continuation of the revolution; merely to be satisfied with a declaration of principle today would mean the sanctioning of informality, where every member is allowed to defend and enforce his principles without having to worry about the unity of the organization. Coming now to the subject itself, I would like to state that we in Berlin have by no means always taken the harsh stance towards the Hamburg direction that is perhaps now being expressed. During the struggle with the Spartacus League, we did everything we could to do justice to the Hamburg comrades. We even went far beyond the scope of what we should actually have done. We defended Laufenberg and Wolffheim at a time when they were being slandered by the Spartacus League. We considered it our duty of honor to stand by them with arguments that perhaps did not entirely correspond to our convictions. If this subject has come up at all, and if the discussion has taken on such violent forms, the blame does not lie with the Berlin organization, which has imposed the greatest reserve on itself. If you follow our newspaper up to the present day, you will find almost nothing that could be interpreted as aggressive against the Hamburg direction. It was only at the moment when the issue was again hurled at the party from Hamburg in an intensified form that we clearly and unambiguously clarified our position, which coincides with the view of the entire 3rd International.

I would like to ask the question: What is the actual focus of Hamburg National Communism? I think we can distinguish between two eras in the Hamburg movement; the first is probably characterized by the writing: “Revolutionary people's war or Counter-Revolutionary civil war” and the second begins around the time our party was founded. When the first communist address reached the public, it was clear to me from the outset that a path was to be taken here that was likely to leave the path of socialism. We all believed that these tendencies would gradually disappear under the influence of the political situation and the global political situation. Indeed, I would even like to relate the strange case where, when the Lüttwitz enterprise appeared, comrade Wendel spontaneously declared: “Now National Bolshevism is finally finished for me”. I say, we once had this hope. We saw ourselves deceived. The German Communist Workers' Party was founded. At the founding party conference, as you will recall, a programmatic declaration was adopted that all nationalist Bolshevism would be rejected. This declaration was also printed in the Hamburg K.A.Z., but the decisive passage was not published. When things took this turn, and when finally the pamphlet “Communism against Spartacism” appeared, which in my opinion signified an outright capitulation of scientific socialism, when furthermore article after article appeared in the Hamburger K.A.Z., in which one proceeded more and more clearly in a very specific direction, in which one tried to engage the proletariat for things that were in the direction of the counter-revolution, then a complete demarcation had to take place here. So what is the focus of the Hamburg standpoint? The first communist address essentially takes a stand on the problems of the Treaty of Versailles, and I must acknowledge here that Laufenberg and Wolffheim have the merit of having said really clearly and precisely on this point what must first be said: that it cannot be accepted under any circumstances. We were in agreement on this point. This must be emphasized because the Spartacus League has now adopted a policy that is also reformist and opportunist in character on this issue. Here we give Laufenberg and Wolffheim the credit for having declared on this point that the Versailles Treaty is a bulwark of international counter-revolution. It not only threatens the German proletariat, but also undermines and is already undermining the preconditions for a future socialist mode of production in Germany. We have also recognized the merit of having recognized this. We also dealt with the problem in the same way in the Berlin K.A.Z. The biggest question remains: What do the Hamburg comrades think about the abrogation of the Versailles peace treaty? And here we come to one of the main problems of Hamburg Communism in general. If I start from the right premises, then I believe I can say that comrades Laufenberg and Wolffheim were guided by the following points of view when explaining the necessity of annulling the peace treaty and in their opinion on how the annulment should take place:

They assume that the necessary precondition of the confrontation with Entente capital cannot be the question of negotiations, but that this confrontation is the first precondition of communism in Germany. They also assume that, in view of the enormous technical-industrial superiority of the Entente, the German proletariat would face an enormous task if it were faced with the decision to take up the struggle with Entente capital. In this consideration they came to the conclusion that the German proletariat would probably not be able to cope with this task on its own. Because they are unable to place the necessary trust in the strength of the German proletariat, they are today flirting with the idea of wanting to carry out the abrogation of the Versailles peace treaty not with the proletariat alone, but together with the bourgeoisie.

What can be said about this? The people of Hamburg very often refer to the example of the Russian Soviet government. Russia today also has tsarist generals and high-ranking officers at its head. It should not be forgotten that while Russia was waging war with the Entente, it was also waging civil war at home and that no thought was given to engaging a Brusilov until the civil war had finished off the Russian bourgeoisie as a class. I said that the Hamburg comrades referred to the example of Russia. They have other moments that are decisive for their position on the Versailles Peace Treaty.

We do not reproach them for raising this issue at all, on the contrary. We only reject the way in which this problem has been brought into the debate, that the focus of Hamburg's policy is that the revolutionary people's war against the Entente has been described as the most essential thing. But before I go into this, I must state the following. By placing this problem so much in the foreground, the Hamburg comrades have allowed themselves to be guided by a certain point of view. They see only one political and historical development as possible for the progress of the world revolution. They assume that Germany is the center of the world revolution, which we also accept. We have always clearly formulated the idea that the German revolution must necessarily be led forward if the world revolution is to achieve victory at all. I need not go into that. But whether history really will and must take this path is the big question. Who can guarantee that Germany will be the country in which the revolution breaks out first? I could imagine a case where the proletarian revolution might break out earlier in Italy, where things are ripe, than in Germany. German-Austria and the Balkans could also be in flames one day. It is also possible that a new revolutionary movement could make itself felt here or there. All these are possibilities that a politician must reckon with, who must never declare that history can only take this one path, as he has just imagined it.

All those who have been in the war and have had the opportunity to talk to French socialists in France will admit to me that the main concern of the French socialists was German militarism. They would have struck out if it were not for German militarism in the background. If we were to adopt a decisive class struggle policy in Germany today and show that the German proletariat is willing to break with the bourgeoisie, then the movement in France will also gather pace. And here I reproach the Hamburg comrades for having, through their tendencies, impeded the development process of the revolutionary movement, especially in France, in the most dangerous way. I have seen articles in French communist newspapers in which the fear is already expressed that the Hamburg tendencies could possibly gain the upper hand in the K.A.P.D. There can be no doubt that nothing would be so likely to stop the world revolution in its tracks as the question of national communism. France would say that the old bourgeois society under the flag of Communism may now continue to lead the regiment in order to crush the revolutionary movement in France with an iron fist with the help of German Communists.

I said that this so-called revolutionary people's war has moved to the center of Hamburg politics, that people's war which can come into question after the seizure of proletarian power. Anyone who has been inclined to make any concessions to the Hamburgers on this point will probably have been instructed by the last articles that Hamburg is no longer content to propagate the so-called revolutionary people's war after the seizure of proletarian power, but is already propagating the national uprising in the present situation, that it is openly making the party of the counter-revolution its own. So we ask the question: how is it possible for communists to arrive at such a position? Before I go into the question of the nation, this main problem, in more detail, I must make a few remarks about the way in which the Hamburg comrades actually think of the war against Entente capital, the conditions under which it should be waged. As you know, the first communist address contains the phrase that a so-called revolutionary truce is to take place on condition that the German bourgeoisie submits to the new communist order. (Shout out: This is not the case!) Then a new edition should have appeared by now. The copy I have clearly states this. I can also read out the passage. It says here:

“Provided that the bourgeoisie recognizes the seizure of power carried out by the proletariat, the proletarian dictatorship would be no less interested in the establishment of a revolutionary truce for the period of the war than in the reverse relationship under Wilhelm II.”

What does such a revolutionary truce mean? It means that the positive idea of socialism is put aside in favor of the idea of the common defense of Germany against the Entente. The essence of the Hamburg line of thought is not that we are now defending communism, but that we are defending Germany as a newly created nation, which will only find its expression with the seizure of power by the proletariat. There is talk, and not only once, of the struggle against foreign domination, which must be taken up at the moment of the revolutionary truce with the bourgeoisie. What does this struggle mean? Nothing other than the unleashing of all those nationalist instincts in the proletariat of the Entente countries on which the socialism of the old social democracy can rely if it were to respond with the same nationalism. I would like to refer to the present situation, to the Polish war. If Russia is imposing certain restrictions on Poland today, it is doing so not least because it fears that overly aggressive action against Poland would drag the Polish people into the nationalist frenzy. This is also what we must emphasize with regard to this point of view. But not only does the idea of revolutionary truce open all the valves to nationalism, something even worse comes into question: under what conditions would the German bourgeoisie feel compelled to refrain from waging civil war against the proletarian dictatorship? Consider the situation clearly. In Germany the proletariat has come to power, the German proletariat is faced with the necessity of defending the position it has won against Entente capital. In this situation, the German bourgeoisie supposedly declared itself ready to fight for the proletarian dictatorship against Entente capital. What would be the political significance of such a war of the German proletariat against Entente capital? What political goal would such a war, which the Hamburg comrades call a class struggle, have to pursue? Interpreted as a class struggle, it could not content itself with defending communism in Germany; it would have to pursue the broad aim of defeating capitalism in the Entente countries as well. (Very good). Otherwise it would just be a war waged with purely negative aims. If one attaches such importance to this revolutionary war, it must also have a positive aim, namely the aim of bringing communism to the Entente countries. If the Hamburgers start from this premise, should one expect the German bourgeoisie to be committed to the complete destruction of world capital in addition to the defeat of itself and the elimination of German capitalism? (Very good!) That it could be used for the complete establishment of world communism? To expect such a thing from the German bourgeoisie is not acceptable. One should not take one's opponent for such a fool that he is working on his own suicide.

What does it mean to advocate the idea of revolutionary people's war on the one hand and to declare civil war counter-revolutionary in that situation on the other, and to do everything possible to discredit the idea of civil war? I think we all know that we are not enthusiastic supporters of civil war. We would probably all be very happy if communism could be realized in the least bloody way possible. What is the meaning of civil war? For us it cannot be a question of whether we consider civil war to be harmful or useful, for us the question is: can we achieve socialism without civil war? can we achieve victory without fighting? We say it will be the greatest civil war that world history has ever seen.

Without wanting to dwell on the necessity or usefulness of this subject, I would prefer to examine the causes and reasons for the Hamburgers' attitude towards revolutionary people's war and revolutionary truce. I actually had to go back to what was written in Hamburg during the war. I would be reluctant to go into it, and I would refrain from doing so, if the people of Hamburg had not themselves referred to their position during the war, to their position vis-à-vis the policy of the Spartacus League, which had called on the soldiers to leave the front. Here they reproach the Spartacus League for the very thing that is its main merit, that it broke the neck of the counter-revolutionary instrument of the German army, at least on a trial basis. I could quote various passages here, but I will refrain from doing so. We do not refer to Lenin, but if we do, it is only because the Hamburgers have wrongly referred to him. Lenin is completely on our side on this issue. One should not expect Paul Levi to play the heroic role that was expected of him. After all, Levi was only Rosa's young man. If the attacks always refer to Levi, then I believe that these attacks are not directed at Levi at all, but rather at Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, who made this very policy of the Spartacus League, the necessary smashing of the imperialist army, their own.

How is it possible that Laufenberg and Wolffheim have such totally different views on these matters from ours? If we ask ourselves this question, we come to the core problem of Hamburg Communism in general. In the pamphlet “Communism against Spartacism” it is openly admitted that in Hamburg the nation is elevated to the starting point of politics, that the idea of the nation is regarded as the most important one, which should be decisive for the politics of the German and international proletariat. What about that? I would like to remind you that the feudalist historical period had very little to show of the nation in its consciousness. Feudalism did not know these closed nation-states, as they were later realized in the course of history. I only recall the German Middle Ages; there was nothing there that could somehow point to the development of national unity and unity at that time. I recall the struggles in Italy that took place between the individual oligarchies, and it is only in the development of capitalism, in the emergence of the bourgeoisie in history, that the tendency towards national unity and freedom becomes apparent. The great revolutionary movement of the 17th century in England and the great French revolution of 1789 established the establishment of unified nation states as the conclusion of the entire revolutionary movement. We can see from this that the establishment of the nation was a matter, and indeed an intrinsic matter, of the bourgeois world. The establishment of nation states, which was a necessity in the interests of the capitalist mode of production, because capitalism required large uniform economic areas for its development, gave rise to the first stirrings of nationalism in the consciousness of the peoples. The great deed of the French bourgeoisie consisted precisely in its declaration as a nation. But this is a moment of an exclusively bourgeois character. What is the attitude of the proletariat towards the idea of the nation? That is our question. It not only concerns us now, it also concerned socialism in its early stages, and in a very different way from today, but the socialism that we call scientific socialism, which was founded by Marx and Engels. The two founders of scientific socialism dealt with this historical problem in great detail. They passionately supported the unification efforts of Italy, Germany, Poland and so on. But they did so from the point of view that national unification was a historically progressive moment. They did it in those times when capitalism was only in the early stages of its development, when the creation of national states had to become the prerequisite for the proletariat to enter the stage of history. Another question is whether this idea can still play a role for us today. As far as I know, the period of striving for national unity and freedom came to an end for Western Europe in 1871. From this point onwards, we in Western Europe — and Germany must be counted among them — have seen how capitalism is increasingly breaking through national barriers with its colonial policy, and how the idea of imperialism is being put on the agenda. From now on, all capitalist countries are pursuing imperialist policies. Capitalism shows a tendency to transcend national boundaries, to form large economic syndicates that no longer care about national tendencies. If the bourgeoisie today has no interest in this nationalism, if it goes back to business as usual without any scruples in order to pursue its economic interests, how much less does the proletariat have an interest in getting involved in nationalism in any way? (Very true!)

In terms of world politics, we are today in a situation that is undoubtedly leading to a decision. The existence of the Russian government is forcing Entente capital again and again to send its troops against Russia. It also compels the international proletariat to stand up completely for the international idea of class struggle.

In a situation in which it is no longer a question of the English working class getting involved in wage disputes, but in which it is already faced with the task of conducting world politics, in a situation in which world capital is organizing itself absolutely uniformly against the international proletariat, we cannot and must not pursue the insane policy of nationalism. I say this is counter-revolutionary in a way that could not be worse. (Shout out: Where does it say that? Shout out again: In Marx!)

Anyone who doesn't believe that need only look at the latest issues of the Hamburg K.Α.Ζ. (Shout out: Which articles?)

Every article! When we deal with the subject of the nation, it goes without saying that we are not thinking of denying the existence of the nation. That has not occurred to us and has not been written anywhere. In the brochure Nation and International it is said that racial problems can still exist. Such questions cannot be settled by a decree, not even by party congress resolutions. We are not thinking of trying to solve problems in this way. But the party congress must take a clear position.

I said that we have never denied the existence of the nation. But that is not the issue at all, but rather whether the moment of the nation is made the object of proletarian politics today. We object to this. By throwing the nation into the debate today, we are undoing all the work of socialism. It got to the point where the proletariat was aware that it was international. It said to itself that we have common interests against capitalism. This work is once again sabotaged by moments like this and the national tendencies are brought to develop in all their particular strength. We are resolutely opposed to this. Did scientific socialism, to which we still subscribe, defend its position vis-à-vis the nation in the same way as the Hamburgers do today? [Shout-out Wolffheim — Hamburg: Yes, indeed!] I take a different view. Marx and Engels certainly took the national moment into account, but today it can no longer play a role. Perhaps someone can tell me whether in all the literature there has been talk of making the national moment the main factor in proletarian politics. [Shout-out Happ — Hamburg: The Communist Manifesto!] The Manifesto begins by saying that every history is the history of class struggles. Marx in particular recognized this idea so clearly in relation to utopianism. What does the development from utopianism to science actually consist of? Utopianism is rooted in the idea that the bourgeoisie, the middle classes, can be convinced of the idea of socialism through arguments of justice and morality, that there is a community of interests between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. It was Marx and Engels who shaped the sharp idea of class struggle. It forms the principle of scientific socialism. Of course there are nations by nature. That is self-evident. We only maintain that the idea of the class struggle must become far stronger than the idea of the nation, that it must transcend the national framework if the proletariat is to achieve victory. [Shout-out Wolffheim — Hamburg: In the logical development!] When Laufenberg and Wolffheim argue that we have to pick up where the bourgeoisie left off in history, i.e. where the German bourgeois revolution came to a halt, if we are to be obliged today to carry this idea to its logical conclusion, then that is pure nonsense. It is unhistorical thinking. History has proven that it has taken other paths. Imperialism has shown that the bourgeoisie no longer even thinks about nationalism. Therefore, there can be no obligation to continue the failed bourgeois revolution of 1848.

I come to the end. Today, in a situation where everything depends on formulating the idea of the international class struggle as sharply as possible, where Soviet Russia is threatened by Entente capital, where the international proletariat must close a united front in order to oppose the mighty power of world capital with an equally mighty power of the international proletariat, we must ruthlessly combat all those tendencies that might be capable of diverting the proletariat from its path. Under no circumstances must the proletariat today be brought back to the point where it even advocates the idea of a compromise with the bourgeoisie. There is no compromise between dying capitalism and the development of the proletarian revolution. Here there is only the struggle until the decision. That is why I and my Berlin friends consider it necessary that we take a clear stand against National Communism. A clear decision must be made about what is to be understood as communism and what is not. The party was in such a brilliant situation when it was founded. The masses flocked to us everywhere. We had every prospect of organizing the party well. At that moment we were surprised by this object of contention from Hamburg: Communism versus Spartacism. That did us more harm than we will be able to build up today. That is why it is necessary for this dispute to be fought out to the last consequence. The worst thing we could do would be to agree on another lazy compromise. If we do that, we will experience the battles all over again. The party as such must clearly state where it stands on these issues. It must adopt a program, it must establish guidelines that will either be accepted or not. Something positive must be established. And then it must be stated here that all those who do not want to commit to the program have no place within the party.

I have taken the liberty of drawing up some guidelines, which read as follows:

GUIDING PRINCIPLES ABOUT NATION AND CLASS STRUGGLE

1. The era of feudalism is characterized by the lack of a unified state organized within the framework of the nation, which was synonymous with the lack of a corresponding national ideology. (Oligarchy of princes in Germany, Italy, France, England, etc.)

2. With the development of the capitalist mode of production, the need for large, unified economic areas became more and more apparent. The struggles of the English and French bourgeoisie in the 17th and 18th centuries ended with the establishment of uniform, self-contained nation states in which the bourgeoisie took over the legislative and administrative functions. As the ruling state power, the bourgeoisie developed the idea of national unity and freedom. Thus, ideologically speaking, the nation is a product of the bourgeois world, born out of the economic and political interests of the capitalist social structure.

3. How does the proletariat behave in its efforts to achieve economic liberation from the slavery of capitalism? In those countries where the bourgeoisie is about to establish the national unitary state in the interest of the full development of the capitalist mode of production, the proletariat will fight together with the bourgeoisie against the prevailing federalism, but at the same time the special political and economic goals must be sharply emphasized. This epoch ended for Germany and the whole of Western Europe in 1871. From this point on, the period of full capitalist development began, which already took on the forms of imperialism at the turn of the century.

4. In the stage of history where capitalism reaches its full development, the class antagonisms between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat naturally make themselves felt to a greater extent. At this stage there are no longer any common interests between the exploiters and the exploited. The proletariat of all countries is uniting more and more into a common front of struggle against the community of interests of capitalism.

5. This applies to the highest degree to the present epoch, where, in the midst of the world revolutionary development, the existence of the Russian Soviet Republic is causing the whole of world capital to take joint action against the victorious Russian proletariat. In this historical situation the German proletariat, together with the proletariat of all countries, has the duty to take up the struggle against world capital on an international scale with the mobilization of all forces. The struggle against world capital will be waged effectively through the most ruthless class struggle against the German capitalist class, as the henchmen of Entente capital. The complete defeat of the German capitalist class is the prerequisite for a successful confrontation with Entente capital. That is why all efforts are considered counter-revolutionary which aim to engage the German proletariat in a community of struggle with the bourgeoisie in the form of a national uprising against the Entente. Efforts aimed at renouncing the inevitable civil war after the victory of the proletarian revolution in favor of a so-called revolutionary people's war against the Entente must also be considered counter-revolutionary. The task of the victorious proletariat is first and foremost to suppress its own bourgeoisie. Any struggle against Entente capital that may become necessary means a simultaneous struggle against the German capitalist class, which is linked to the Entente by common interests. Any kind of National Bolshevism must therefore be fundamentally rejected by a revolutionary party. Aspirations of a National Bolshevik character have no place in the K.A.P.D. The K.A.P.D. is committed to the class struggle in the interests of the revolution of the German and international proletariat. The organization of the International does not consist in the Federation of Nations, but in the international union of the class organizations of the proletariat for the sole purpose of building a communist world.

That is the line we must take if we want to do justice to the interests of the revolution. Comrades Laufenberg and Wolffheim are mistaken if they believe that they have brought something new. The effect of their ideas is only to throw us back into the pre-Marxist era. We must fight against this in the interests of the international proletariat. (Bravo!)

‎

Franz Pfemfert — Gotha:

In a quarter of an hour, of course, it is not very easy to respond to a presentation that has lasted for hours and made extensive use of quotations. If I were to start quoting now, I would sacrifice my entire fifteen minutes with quotations. Comrade Laufenberg may have gone around the bush today, but he has not been able to dispel the fact that he and Comrade Wolffheim are not only national Bolsheviks, that they are even on the way to introducing anti-Semitic tendencies into the German proletariat.

It is not a question of our taking action against Laufenberg and Wolffheim on higher orders simply because this Radek demands that they be excluded; rather, we had to turn against Laufenberg and Wolffheim before Radek spoke out. The phraseology of the “foreign hordes” supports the counter-revolution, because it has the power to use the same words. If Laufenberg presents it as if the German revolution had been completed in 1918, this is a fiction. We know very well that Foch wore down the front and that it was possible for Hindenburg to lead the troops back in an “orderly” manner. We know that the councils were also formed on the orders of the army command in order to misuse this instrument. Arming the proletariat did not consist of switching the army. It is not true that the Bolsheviks did not come to power with the slogan of civil war, but with the slogan of truce and national people's war. These were the slogans of the Mensheviks. In contrast, the Bolsheviks demanded peace and also signed the Peace of Brest with this slogan in order to gain a breathing space. Only after they were able to reorganize the army was it possible for them to declare a revolutionary people's war. And even then, they would still be on the defensive. They still demand peace from the Entente every two weeks. Laufenberg was not against the war in 1914, but only against truce. He should not make it out as if he had been the only one who had done the right thing in 1914. In other words, Laufenberg demands what Mr. Haase also proclaimed in 1914: We will not abandon our fatherland in the hour of danger.

Germany can provide Entente capital with nothing other than the labor products of the German proletariat. One must have lost faith in class consciousness if one adopts Comrade Laufenberg's thoughts as one's own. It cannot be in our interest to pursue the exclusion of the two comrades, but rather to establish what we want.

It is childish to accuse Radek of stealing Laufenberg's thoughts. We could only be happy, because then Laufenberg would be rid of them. (Laughter)

‎

Franz Jung — Berlin:

The previous speaker has already pointed out that Laufenberg has skirted around the most essential points. I see this as a presentation that is only intended for effect and is likely to capture the unoriented. First of all, we must note that the accusation that we are preparing a second Heidelberg conference falls entirely on the Hamburg comrades. It has been established that the Hamburg comrades have already entertained thoughts of a split. It has also been established that there is continued talk of a split here. If the comrades knew the program, this word would not even be thrown into the debate. We are trying to establish this program. We therefore have to work out those guidelines that we want to regard as fundamental. To describe this attempt to reach agreement as a split is as demagogic as we have ever seen in the proletarian movement. It is necessary to point out that everything that the Hamburg comrades accuse the Spartacus League, or rather us as walking in its footsteps, falls back on them when one hears that 1. the Hamburg comrades have committed a direct fraud by removing the core word of the draft program from this draft without a note, without informing their members, and secondly that the signature under the May Appeal is forged. [Wolffheim — Hamburg: We got the order from Goldstein!] The Executive Committee will then make the necessary declaration. The May Day appeal had such a provocative effect on the proletariat that one can only see in it a well-prepared action to blow it up. If comrades Laufenberg and Wolffheim then speculate on the autonomy efforts at the same time, one can get an idea of the Hamburg direction's way of fighting.

I would like to ask: is there a class organization of the proletariat exclusively in Germany, or is it international? Laufenberg deliberately avoided this question. The question of the war against the Entente has a decidedly counter-revolutionary character. We must do everything in our power to be left alone by the Entente. Whoever wants to be of service to the proletariat must know how to create the impression abroad that it is impossible for the proletariat to wage war against the Entente. Laufenberg's and Wolffheim's propaganda deprives us of these means, it creates the breeding ground for uniting the working class under the old imperialist laws of war. We are not and no longer want to be a party of politicians; we have no place for politicians. We refuse to be taken for granted and to be treated in any way as underage children. We have come together to find the guidelines to rally the proletariat. We must not tolerate splitting hairs in our struggle group.

‎

Fritz Rasch — Berlin:

I am very surprised by the remarks of Comrade Schwabe, as he was one of those who approved the resolution presented by the Central Committee at its meeting on June 29. [Shout-out Schwabe — Eisenach: That's not true!] You can't deny that; you even agreed to the tougher resolution. It seems to me that you then changed your mind, just as we sometimes change our shirts. (Laughter)

What is it all about? If we as the K.A.P.D. want to determine our stance, we cannot do so from the narrow framework of the nation. Our policy can only be set from the standpoint of the international class struggle of the proletariat. From this point of view we have to fight the German bourgeoisie. “German politics is German politics, Russian politics is Russian politics,” said comrade Laufenberg at a meeting in Hamburg. I say our policy is proletarian international class struggle policy. (Very true!) There can be no right with us. I would tear up my membership book, just as I did with the Spartacus League, if the nationalist tendencies of the Hamburg comrades were to gain the upper hand in the party. At a time when the Russians are close to the German border, when every day presents us with new and daunting tasks, the Hamburg K.A.Z. writes: Should Germany become a Russian border state? I shook my head when I read that. Today the slogan for us is: an armed alliance with Soviet Russia! The views that run through all the brochures and articles of the two comrades are only aimed at fighting the civil war and propagating the people's war. I have had the opportunity to talk to comrades abroad. But everywhere this point of view, which is based on having chauvinism represented abroad by comrades Laufenberg and Wolffheim, was simply not understood. Accept Berlin's proposal and then let the comrades draw the consequences.

‎

Jan Appel — Hamburg:

I declare that I stood up for the two comrades constantly until they left for Moscow, and I did so because we had parted company with the Spartacus League not over the question of nationalism, but over the question of organization, union or trade union, and parliamentarism. That is why we stood by Laufenberg and Wolffheim and we still stand by them on these issues today. What separates us is the question of national defense, the question of national defense. We did not understand the first communist address as national Bolshevik, we rejected this word. The Spartacus League then attacked us. We went to Moscow, and only then were we presented with the brochure “Communism against Spartacism”. When we read it, we didn't think twice about declaring that Laufenberg and Wolffheim were no longer on the side of the class struggle. That is easy to prove. The two comrades declare that the goal of our movement and struggles should be the unity of the nation. I say: that is not our goal; that we should exploit national tendencies is certain, Radek does that too. But we say, and here we are Marxists, that the goal is not the unity of the nation, but the rule of the working class, not in one country alone, but in the whole world. This goal exists not only where the working class has power, but also in other countries. We have to reckon with that. That is why we do not say: unity of the nation, but: The rule of the international proletariat. That is what we want and that is where we differ from the two comrades. All the brochures and articles show where we are heading. I admit that comrades Laufenberg and Wolffheim have also taken this standpoint before, and it is the fault of all comrades that they have not read things carefully. But once we have recognized this, we should also know what we have to do.

We were initially repelled by the paragraph from the brochure “Democracy and Organization”, which was referred to several times. It corresponded to the whole mood of the working population in Germany, of social democracy; but it was wrong, as the outcome of the war showed. People think that the front could have been switched. I don't understand that. Anyone who was a soldier knows that that was an absurdity. Things can't be changed all at once. The same applies to the question of truce. We had understood that the bourgeoisie were to be deceived by pretending to have a truce in case they submitted to us. In the same breath, Laufenberg speaks of the peasants; they should be granted a parliament so that they can speak out “as they see fit”. Of course we have to reckon with them, but we are resolutely opposed to recognizing their views as our own. In doing so, we have left the ground of the idea of class struggle. If one is guided by the idea of establishing the unity of the nation, then one ends up accommodating the wishes of the bourgeoisie. Logically, we have to make concessions, and I say that if we deviate from our principles in order to achieve certain goals, we are no longer communists. Comrade Rasch has already pointed out that in recent times the bourgeoisie has been lulled into a sense of security. That should give the two comrades food for thought. They should say to themselves: we can also be wrong. Don't always think you're popes! We should learn from the events in Thal and Marburg. If you want to represent the interests of the working class, you have to realize that you can also be wrong. A national war could break out at any moment. Who will then be in charge of the army? It will be officers. If the army leadership is removed at that moment, then we will have civil war.

We will probably have to rely more on our own forces. The great mass of the proletariat will then easily submit to the “given army command”. Then, however much you may have written, the workers will fight against the blacks under the supremacy of Ludendorff and Hindenburg, just as they did in 1914. If we don't want to see the facts, we are either blind or we believe that we can achieve proletarian power through artifice. It is simply not true that the bourgeoisie's sense of power disappears overnight. Laufenberg speculates that large masses of the bourgeoisie are impoverished. But they are not yet proletarians. If we cannot understand the path of history, we should refrain from leading the proletariat astray. Every worker will answer the question of whether it is Greater German or Lesser German according to his proletarian instinct: the main thing is that my situation is improved. And the situation will be improved by destroying imperialist capital. (Bravo!)

‎

Amalie Schaumann — Magdeburg:

Comrade Laufenberg said yesterday that the parties were bourgeois in character and would have to disappear when the proletariat seized power. This view seems dangerous and wrong to me. I believe that the parties must disappear not with the beginning of the proletarian revolution but with its victory. And not even with the victory of the proletariat of one part of the world, but only when the world revolution has become a reality. I recall the very dangerous example of Hungary, where the Communist Party gave up its organization and merged with the others. (Very true!) The workers have not yet become communists with the establishment of the proletarian state. What are the first communist measures that a victorious working class has to carry out? I mean that wage labor and the economy of the individual household are the germ cells of the capitalist economy, and therefore the first communist measures are the replacement of this wage labor and the individual household. The substitute for wages is what man needs in the way of necessities. Only then can we speak of communists when the individual economy has been abolished and replaced by the common household, at least with regard to food. Until this measure is taken, we as communists must stand together with the differently minded workers, we must drive this non-communist workforce forward. Comrade Laufenberg went on to say that the nation as such is quite justified and that it is our duty to stand up for the existence of this nation if it is endangered. I don't subscribe to that either. Laufenberg said that the nation is a grouping of compatriots who are distinguished from other nations by their customs and traditions and their common language. I think this view is wrong. There are certainly linguistic communities, but what about the peripheral areas where 5 or 6 different languages are spoken? To which nation should those zones profess themselves, in which German and French are taught at the same time from the beginning? What harm could it do us if we were also taught French? It could only be to our advantage. But the argument that the nation is an entity held together by common customs and practices is even worse. That is wrong! Aren't the customs of the East Prussian population different from those of the population of western Germany? From those of the Latvian or Lithuanian population? Are not the customs and traditions of the workers much more similar to each other than the customs and traditions of the bourgeoisie? Can we even speak of similarity? No, customs and traditions are not what holds a nation together! Customs and traditions are international. We have no interest in preserving this nation because it is only an artificial illusion thrown into the working classes by the ruling classes in order to defend their own interests against those of others. In the event of a war against the Entente, we would, in my opinion, have a duty to practice sabotage from the beginning of this war. I say that the German people have neither the right nor the duty to place themselves economically under the Entente. We will not fight against the proletarians of other countries. It has been said that we need technicians, etc. Yes, but I have no right to say that if the technicians resist under all circumstances, it is more likely that production will be somewhat damaged — it is only temporary — than that we will adopt the views of these people as our own. It seems to me to be the same with doctors.

As necessary as healthcare is, I say that we cannot jeopardize 60 million healthy people for the sake of caring for the currently ill. The same applies to officers. I have a deep mistrust of officers. I was surprised yesterday that I was not told to what extent comrade Laufenberg considers an association with such officers to be possible at the present time. These officers may not even be so disreputable as individuals, but they are primarily interested in asserting themselves as a caste. What does Brusilov prove? It proves that the Russians bought these men out of necessity. But it does not yet prove that Brusilov can one day become dangerous to the Russians. We communists must be suspicious and control such people wherever possible. Above all, we must not place too much trust in them. Comrade Pf. said yesterday that Laufenberg had acted as a counter-revolutionary here. But I must contradict this opinion. I consider the Hamburgers to be revolutionaries and fighters. Comrade Laufenberg expressed an opinion yesterday that must seem extraordinarily revolutionary, but I don't really know how we can put it into practice. Think of the picture: the workplace as the nucleus of economic life has the legislative and executive power and at the same time the military power. That is a unified, magnificent building. But how will the counter-revolutionary officers fit into this building? I would therefore ask you not to attach so much importance to the defense of the nation as to how it is possible to put the arming of workplaces into practice.

‎

Karl Jahnke — Hamburg:

In his speech yesterday, comrade Laufenberg doubted the existence of the opposition in Hamburg at all. He asked the question: what is the situation in Hamburg? I can answer this question. In the old local group, every initiative comes from the two comrades, Laufenberg and Wolffheim, and woe betide anyone else who wants to speak. That is one of the effects of this doctrine. The opposition is definitely on real ground. One of the effects of the doctrine is the position on the Kapp Putsch. When the comrades in the Ruhr area were waiting for help, the slogan “guns at disposal” was issued. The entire Hamburg proletariat waited for instructions; they were commanded to “Stand at Gunpoint”. [Wolffheim — Hamburg: Just like Berlin!] [Schröder — Berlin: Unheard of!] If we had pointed out at that time, instead of standing at gunpoint, that you must first have guns if you are to stand at gunpoint, it would have been more sensible. We also think the theoretical basis is wrong. The nation came into being when the state, the bourgeois apparatus of power, was constituted. A phrase was needed to deceive the entire oppressed masses; it was called a nation.

Comrade Laufenberg refers to Lenin, to the Russians. I am in a position to read out a letter that Trotsky wrote to the I.W.W. on the question of whether wars between Soviet states are also possible in the future. Trotsky answers this question in the negative. He says, among other things, that the first task must be to eradicate war in the first place. It is clear that if we eliminate the causes of war, wars will disappear by themselves. Communism means the end of the exploitation of man by man. Only the collective struggles of man against the forces of nature will remain. These are the views of Trotsky. You will find Lenin's views in the Theses on National Questions. Comrade Laufenberg always refers to Lenin with reference to these great stars, without which the proletariat cannot realize communism. Russia was an agrarian country and it was only during the war that a notable industry emerged. Most of the engineers and managers came from Germany. When the war began, when the national phrase prevailed, when everything returned to Germany, these forces were missing in Russia, and now they are missing all the more. It's different in Germany. We are made of different stuff. No bourgeoisie can help us to build proletarian culture. Only the proletariat itself can do that. In this respect, we fully agree with Marx that the liberation of the working class can only be the work of the working class itself. If one doubts whether the proletariat can achieve communism on its own, I ask: are there not enough people of science who have worked their way up from the proletariat? We resolutely reject any collaboration with the bourgeoisie. On the contrary: let us write on our banner the destruction of the bourgeoisie and we will carry out communism. In Hamburg we have a frightening example of how the phrase of nationalism weighs on the brains of the proletarian masses. Everything is denied there, only the rule of two people remains. The Hamburg local group tries to suppress every other opinion. These are the effects of this doctrine. They talk about bigwigs. Go to Hamburg. Every initiative comes from these two comrades. Comrade Laufenberg spoke of the guiding principles of the Action Committee. They are not the guiding principles of the Action Committee, but those of comrades Laufenberg and Wolffheim We must come clean. We are either nationalists or revolutionaries; there is no such thing as both.

‎

Adolf Dethmann — Kiel:

I don't think we can take things as lightly as they have been taken here. To make it easier for you to understand where the tendencies are leading, I must read out what Laufenberg said in Hamburg. It is not just the speech that is under discussion here, but his entire conception of the nation. At the district conference in Hamburg, Laufenberg said: “The goal of socialism is the unification of all members of the nation. The goals of humanity meet in the nation. The second phase of socialism consists in the epoch of the amalgamation of national unity." The nation therefore has an eternal character as long as humanity will exist. This is the core. Laufenberg might want to dispute that. [Laufenberg — Hamburg: No!] So all the better. When discussing this problem, you have to look at things historically and apply the method of historical materialism. The nation is a historical product, a solidified economic unit that will one day disappear. Laufenberg and Wolffheim have abandoned the standpoint of historical materialism by declaring the nation to be the foundation of human society. The fundamental thing for communists is that economic development is the basis. Everything else is merely a reflection of this economic development. Laufenberg and Wolffheim have abandoned this point of view and that is why they preach the nation. They confuse nation and state. Of course there are nations, but they are characterized only by language and ultimately also by the economy. But this rests on a class antagonism.

How is it that a language has developed at all? Is it more than a means of communication for the exchange of goods, etc.? How is it that languages differ so much? It is only because we are geographically separated from each other. With the development of the economy, the nation disappears. What does the proletariat do with nations? First, it organizes its own state and its own economy. When a second state is founded, the proletarians are interested in organizing their economy centrally. With the development of economic relations, nations and their distinguishing feature, language, also disappear for the simple reason that the proletarians are forced to enter into an exchange of goods with each other. They must have a means of communication and that will be the world language. Our goal is the communist community of mankind, which no longer recognizes national differences. The question of wars between Soviet states shows where these thoughts of the two comrades lead. If two council states exist and they create a unified political leadership because this is a necessity, then wars are impossible. Then there can be no more Soviet states, then there is only one Soviet state over the whole world, because political relations are only an expression of economic relations. The extent to which nationalism and communism are incompatible can be seen from the position of the two comrades on the Polish war. They are up in arms against the Russians' current of peace, but at the same time they propagate the autonomy of nations. How can they demand that the Russians should cross their borders?

The fact is that Laufenberg and Wolffheim no longer understand how to work with the method of historical materialism, but instead turn to the petty-bourgeois anarchism of Max Stirner, to individualist anarchism.

In the essay “Communism versus Spartacism”, the role of Levi is so grossly overestimated. How is this overestimation of the individual possible? It results from the petty-bourgeois outlook of the comrades. These personal attacks on Levi also stem from the petty-bourgeois view of the individual. They want to appear as individuals. — The struggle of the proletariat is not only international, it is also truly anti-national. Laufenberg cited the Russian situation, where the bourgeoisie also sits in the high command. This view can become a tactical necessity, but not a principle. Laufenberg said that the interest of the German proletariat, even in a classless society, is to maintain Germany as the industrial heart of Europe. He goes on to say that we represent the interests of the German proletariat vis-à-vis the representatives of the Jewish proletariat. Again, differences between proletarians. The working class is cheering the two comrades today because they are also making communist propaganda, and that is the dangerous thing about their work. (Applause)

‎

Oskar Nickel — Rhineland-Westphalia:

Laufenberg and Wolffheim must also realize that they are wrong. So far we have protected them against the attacks of the Spartacus League. But now they have to submit, if there is any discipline at all. They should not feel like leaders. We do not want to exclude them, they should judge for themselves. We are more generous than the Spartacus League. As class-conscious proletarians, we reject compromises with the bourgeoisie. In order to fight international capitalism, we cannot propagandize the nation. We shout the same to the syndicalists. We very much regretted that we did not receive any help from Hamburg during the action. The word “truce” sounds so bourgeois in itself, as an honest revolutionary one should refuse to operate with these words at all. I have always expected honest fighting from the North. We have no right to exclude, they exclude themselves if they continue to defend their ideas. We also refuse to keep our party together because of Russian roubles. We must be careful that our party does not become a party of leaders. People don't matter to us. To propagate these nationalist ideas at a time when Russia is on Germany's border means stabbing the proletarian front in the back.

‎

Ludwig Meyer — Leipzig:

I want to refute at the outset that the dispute here is a dispute about individuals. It is not. It is a fight about nationalism or internationalism. This battle must be fought fiercely. It is regrettable that this fight could start at all. Nationalities are entities that have arisen within capitalist society. As international socialists, we have to ensure that national borders are destroyed. We have to show the proletariat of the world that the workers can have no interest in reviving the national idea. It has always been the task of socialists to propagate the idea of the International everywhere. We ran up a storm against it in the old party when it pursued national politics. Within bourgeois society you cannot pursue a National Communist policy.

Laufenberg meant here that the representatives of the left wing refused to join forces with the representatives of other parties in the councils in 1918. The fact that the U.S.P. entered the government with the majority socialists meant that the rule of the proletariat had been betrayed and sold out. At that time, the idea of class struggle should have been sharply emphasized. But instead they tried to go hand in hand with the reactionaries. The struggle was avoided. Today, Laufenberg and Wolffheim distinguish between two different directions of the officer caste. The Kapp-Lüttwitz were only a small part. But for me, the others are much more dangerous than the Kapp-Lüttwitz. It's a tremendously dangerous game if you want to rely on these elements. We have to open the eyes of the workers to the fact that they cannot be saved by associating themselves with these officers. The work of liberating the working class can only be their own work. The task of the doctors, technicians and officials will be to join the proletariat, not to receive them as leaders. They will come to us when they are forced by our tactics to either work or starve. (Shout: Russia!) Yes, in Russia they have been forced to work. By the way, don't take everything that is done in Russia and transfer it to German conditions. Laufenberg made some remarks here against comrade Radek. We remember the time when the battle between Rosa Luxemburg and Radek was fought. I also reject Radek, but in a different sense than Laufenberg and Wolffheim. I certainly agree with Laufenberg that the task of the German proletariat will be to destroy German capital. But if we are to make use of the German officers in this, I thank you for it. Then you cannot be international socialists. The freedom of propaganda cannot go so far as to give the floor to outspoken nationalists. If we had known at the time of the split with the Spartacus League that you were the strict nationalists you are turning out to be today, the die would have been cast differently for you. Such a policy cannot and must not exist.

‎

Z. (Hermann Zinke? or Rudolf Ziegenhagen?) — Berlin:

Before I go into the matter itself, I would like to counter the accusation made by Wolffheim against Berlin that negative policies were pursued by Berlin. I only point to the creation of the first communist address and the signing of the May Appeal to show that Laufenberg and Wolffheim were only interested in engaging the party's policy for their ideas and documenting that the party should be held responsible for its ideas. This accusation of dishonesty falls back on the Hamburgers.

The fundamental questions are questions of proletarian politics and the chapter on National Bolshevism should perhaps be entitled: In the labyrinth of errors. I will only extract a few things from Laufenberg's and Wolffheim's statements to prove that this heading is not wrong. In analyzing the concept of nation, Laufenberg admitted that the nation was an expression of bourgeois society. In contrast, Comrade Dethmann stated that Laufenberg had said in Hamburg that the nation was the basis of human society in general. Laufenberg then went on to say that the development of bourgeois society was incapable of realizing the nation. All consequences arise from the question of the nation. Social democracy has not achieved much, but it has at least done so by emphasizing the one sentence: the worker has no fatherland. We must break away from this bourgeois idea, which culminates in the viewpoint of the nation. Our task is to demand the self-consciousness of the proletariat. This includes steering the direction of thought in proletarian directions. But these are not nationalist lines. The working class can never come to the conclusion that it wants to complete what bourgeois society was unable to complete. Another contradiction in Laufenberg's statements is the rousing of the masses during the world war. How did the two comrades accomplish this task? By writing in their pamphlet “Democracy and Organization” that the proletariat has a natural interest in maintaining the social economy, insofar as it is a vital function of society as a whole, and that “in cases of war this results in the military subordination of the proletariat to the given army command”. So this was intended to rouse the proletariat, to educate it to class consciousness! That is impossible. These are blatant contradictions, and when Laufenberg said that military subordination does not require political subordination, let us contrast this with the fact that at that time military subordination was political subordination. The old Social Democratic Party supported the economy as a “vital function of the whole”, so it acted entirely in the spirit of Laufenberg and Wolffheim. If today they take the view that the front should have been revolutionized, I say here too that they have not put themselves in the psyche of the masses. It was a greater gamble to leave the front than to stay at the front and just shirk there.

The fairy tale of the front stabbed to death by Levi is a typical example of bourgeois ideology and has already been aptly characterized by comrade Dethmann. It is not people or leaders who make history. That leaflet could never have had the effect it did if it had not corresponded to a necessity. We must smash the bulwark of the capitalist economy and carry the idea of international class solidarity into the masses. When the world union of all proletarians has become a fact, it is not the freedom of nations that must prevail, but the unity and freedom of the world proletariat. We have the great historical task of moving beyond bourgeois ideology. Here we must be intolerant to the extreme. Whoever is not with us here is against us. The only choice here is either communism or nationalism, but then negation of the international idea of class struggle! (Applause)

‎

Fritz Dyck — East Prussia:

I cannot go into the speakers' comments, as I was only able to come here today. I just want to share what the East Prussian Party Congress decided on July 11, 1920 and gave us delegates. It says: The party congress has dealt in detail with the question of national Bolshevism, the question of whether internationalism or nationalism, and has come to the conclusion that nationalism would further fragment the unity of the working class, that the party would join the bourgeois circles and that any proletarian action would be fragmented at the very moment when this action would begin. The national idea, which comrades Laufenberg and Wolffheim expounded in their pamphlets, assumes that the bourgeoisie will still be foolish enough to sacrifice its forces to the revolutionary proletariat. In any case, it has been established that Laufenberg and Wolffheim have the will to wage the national war against France and to wage it with the help of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie will rejoice when it finally gets the workers in its hands and, what is more, at a moment when it is going to the national war together with the workers. We know that the national spirit would then have to be fought again in the army, as we are fighting it today in the proletariat. It is quite certain that the K.A.P.D. is suffering from the propaganda that Comrades Laufenberg and Wolffheim are now carrying out through their brochures and addresses. We intended to lead the Königsberg branch of the Spartacus League into the K.A.P.D., but our wish failed because the comrades told us that we only wanted to become nationalists. The workers resisted the national idea. It was only when we proved to them that we did not stand on the ground of nationalism that the revolutionary workers came together in the K.A.P.D.. There will be national revolutionaries in German nationalist circles, but never in working-class circles. The workers will refuse to belong to a party in which nationalist ideas are propagated. The members of the East Prussian district demand that if Laufenberg and Wolffheim do not change their views and continue to hold them, these comrades must be expelled. Otherwise it will no longer be possible to belong to a party with such unclear slogans.