Liberal and Imperialist Marxism

Given even all of the cases of the earlier years, in which former Social Democrats entered minister cabinets and became state supporters after the gradual change of their beliefs, these are still incomparable to the blatant rise of relearning in the ranks of Social Democracy during this [First World] War. When we say this, we do not think of the revisionists, who didn’t try to hide their intention of leaving behind the class struggle in order to pursue continuous civil truce [Burgfrieden - K.V.] even during times of peace, and also not about the pale-red radicals who appear to be confusedly engulfed in the current state of world affairs, who adamantly hold onto the old and are forced into taking part due to their lack of actual, coherent goals. What we do mean and what should astonish more is the fact that people, who before were the spokesmen of the radical left, suddenly have become enthusiastic defenders of imperialism.

We already have experienced a similar occurrence earlier, when in Russia, before 1905, former Marxists, such as Peter Struve and others, became advancers of bourgeois ideas. Because the explanation of the given phenomenon is nearly exactly applicable to the current happenings, we will print a quote from a 1909 article below:

"The cause of this at first glance inexplicable occurrence lies in the dialectical character of Marxism itself, in the historical character of the Marxian study of history. It doesn’t only criticise capitalism, but also explains its historical necessity. It appreciates every stage of societal development in its historical justification, until the respective stages have to make way for the next.

Marx didn’t simply attack capitalism, he aptly showed, described and explained its real nature. The proletarian derives from this analysis the cause of his state, the understanding of how surplus value is extracted from his labour, the developmental reason for the existence of this order and the goal, the goal that from now on becomes his, the goal of socialism. But Marx' evaluation also shows other features, features which affect those, who do not live in the immediate reality of capitalism. It shows that capitalism overthrows the old, immovable conditions, the archaic barbarism and uncultured way of life, how it opens sources of an enormous abundance of infinite possibilities, grants free passage to the people with an active goal of reaching for more and turns them into the emperors of a new world, and how it creates wonders which no past civilisation has ever seen before.

These traits of the Marxian analysis will especially affect those, who, like our Russian comrades, live under barbaric conditions, in the uncultured world of primitive productive conditions, who want to rise above, but are denied their ambitions through the channels of ruthless repression. What for them forms a new ideal is not socialism, almost unrecognisable in the distance, but the grand capitalist development itself, which sublates [aufhebt - K.V.] the old conditions. Marx taught them about capitalism, and this capitalism is what they long for.

Of course not as the final goal, a person can only support a cause with their entire body if they believe that it will grant happiness to all. The bourgeois freedom and order alone could not fulfil this task anymore, therefore socialism, which Marx identified as the necessary stage following capitalism, was to become the final goal which indeed is capable of achieving this task. For this however, capitalism was to become a necessary stage in order to bring about this goal, the immediate practical task therefore became the aiding of capital. This is how Marxism, which showed the necessity of doing away with the old, better than any other ideology, became the theory of the rising revolutionary bourgeoisie, primarily among the Russian intelligentsia, who became the leaders of this rising class.

As soon as the proletariat appeared, the Marxism of these bourgeois ideologues began to adopt the colouring of revisionism: the workers should fight for the bourgeois republic along with the bourgeoisie, while abandoning any goals of their own. They should aid the construction of capitalism first, before finally defeating it.

Although this explains how Marxism was able to assume the role of early liberalism, serving a bourgeoisie such as the Russian one, it is also clear that this Marxism must be completely foreign to the theory of proletarian class struggle and therefore must take on a very mechanical character. This is because the intelligentsia merely took the parts of Marxism, which they could put to use. The intelligentsia needed nothing more from it apart from the fact that capitalism is reasonable and necessary. That capitalism at the same time is subjugated to development and doomed to fall, this fact was treated as a distant future, which lay ahead and was not yet part of the realm of practical action.

But Marxism isn’t mechanical, capitalism cannot be divided into its two parts and the other half [the one disregarded by the bourgeois "Marxists" - K.V.] is no future affair but a fundamental part of present reality. Bourgeoise and proletariat appear together and not separate from one another and the contradictions between them therefore also appear right away. The earlier the proletariat begins to form its own consciousness, the earlier it can develop its own power, the more quickly it becomes ripe for reaching its goal. Even if both classes initially support progress, they are still in contradiction over what this progress looks like, what it contains and what it is to be understood as. The proletariat wants to form politics and economy in such a way that the possibility of a peaceful further development becomes reality, the bourgeoise however tries to consolidate its rule for all time. If the working class would let themselves be convinced by the quasi-Marxist theoreticians that they should trustfully grant the leadership to the bourgeoisie, where it appears progressive, due to the fact that the goals remain the same, it would hinder their own future rising."

What was then said of capitalism in contrast to the primitive small scale production is now applicable to imperialism in contrast to the capitalism preceding it [Pannekoek calls it Kleinkapitalismus, this directly translates to small capitalism, which is why translating it as laissez faire capitalism would be incorrect, the precise meaning becomes clear in the following passages. - K.V.]. Imperialism opens wide horizons, leads out of the confinements of the European continent, turns the world over a colossal scale and triggers an untameable energy within humanity. Every other nation now wants to become like the British, who rule over the oceans and talk about every corner of the world as part of their empire. Britain’s rule over the world, their wealth, built on the wealth of the nations that they themselves rule, this is what becomes the objective of the longing of those nations.

It is all but unnatural that now, socialist theoreticians want to show the irresistibility of imperialism in their fight against the old party tradition, which failed to recognise the importance of imperialism. Against their blunt mind-paralysis, their impotence in understanding the most modern developments, their cowardice and their hiding behind the comfortable slogan of the "long proven tactics", those theoreticians needed to assert the irresistibility of the imperialist development. But those who see nothing more than this irresistibility, this necessity of imperialism, can just as well be enthusiastic spokespeople of imperialism rather than revolutionary social democrats, who see the need for a more powerful workers' tactic in light of those same developments. In the earlier numbers of the Leipziger Volkszeitung, what was always also emphasised in regard to the newly rising imperialism is the essentiality of a new type of mass activity to oppose it.

This is how it is possible that a social democrat with knowledge of imperialism can easily find arguments supporting their new beliefs once they decide to switch sides. They simply need to understand and present Marxism in the mechanical way and to claim that imperialism is simply a necessary stage of capitalist development preceding the creation of socialism. Socialism can only be based on the most developed capitalism and therefore, there is now a need to defend the power monopoly of the respective countries against the foreign imperialisms, that there now exists a need to be imperialist but that socialism remains the final goal – in the distant future. In the distant future because the proletariat has proven incapable of having the necessary strength in order to achieve victory.

That the realisation of socialism is not advanced and supported with this quasi-Marxist view and that it is instead restrained and delayed becomes perfectly clear. Because this realization completely depends on the power, the independence, the energy and the clarity of purpose of the working class.