The Peace Formula of the Social Patriots and Social Pacifists

In September, a conference is to be held in Stockholm at which the hostile brothers of social patriotism and social pacifism want to bury the battle axe in order to restore peace to themselves and the whole world. From Scheidemann to Haase, everyone today knows only one goal that is worth the sweat of the noble: peace!

“Peace - that is now the only revolutionary slogan. General peace immediately or first special peace, then general peace-peace above all!” answered Parvus to Kerensky et al. And not a day goes by without the papers of the social patriots and independents longing for peace. In this they are conspicuously at odds with the bourgeois press, which, with the exception of the conservative and national-liberal organs of heavy industry, sing the same hymn to peace.

The German pseudo-socialists have already announced their formula for peace. It reads: a peace of understanding without annexations and contributions, and the independents add with particular emphasis: on the basis of the right of peoples to self-determination. In all this there is no fundamental difference between the social patriots and the Independents, and as far as the right of self-determination of peoples is concerned, which the imperialist bloc majority of the German Reichstag did not expressly include in its peace resolution, but on which the Independents attach all the greater importance, since in this way they believe they can free themselves from the compromising community of the Scheidemänner at least on one point, the brave hares have the little mishap of running blindly into the arms of the Russian and French social patriots.

“There will be peace when the governments have clearly declared that they accept the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination with all its practical consequences,” declare Renaudel and his cohorts. The same is declared by the executioners of English and French imperialism, and in Russia by the social patriots of the workers' and soldiers' councils. And Mr. Haase and Mr. Kautsky, moved by this, press them to their brotherly breast.

Peace! with this advertising sign, they throw themselves once again onto the high horse of the people's pleasers to take one last ride on it into the arena, where they hope to win the favor of the public through articulate clown plays, and it basically makes little difference whether the independents pull a few more aborted drudge ears out of the stable in this race. They are all striving towards the same goal: they are all riding in the same arena, and they will all stumble over the same obstacles and break their necks.

1. Peace without Annexations.

At the beginning of the war, the Social Patriots could not emphasize loudly enough the standpoint of a purely defensive war, and in the declaration that Haase read out on their behalf on August 4, it was explicitly emphasized that the Social Democrats rejected any war of conquest. Despite this turn of events, the attitude of the Social Democrats met with the undivided applause of the entire bourgeois world, proving that even for the most sworn annexationist All-Germans, the commitment to a purely defensive war was not the main issue and was merely an empty formula, while the decisive factor lay in the approval of national defense and truce, in the recognition of class solidarity between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The question of whether to wage a defensive or aggressive war, whether to annex or not, need not have worried them for the time being. In reality, the answer to it depended not so much on the wishes and hopes of the annexationists as on the success of the weapons, and it was in the very first months of the war that the all-German Count Ernst zu Reventlow, the most dogged annexationist, emphasized with all emphasis that one should not speak of such things until one had victory in one's pocket, in the face of a somewhat hastily published platform of peace conditions, as Mr. Rohrbach described them. It was therefore not worth casting even the slightest shadow over the class solidarity between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat that had just been sealed because of the question of annexations.

If they wanted to remain faithful to the policy of August 4th, the social patriots had to gradually give a certain content to the formula of a purely defensive war without annexations. They were forced to do so by the consequences of this policy itself, which found its most audacious promoters in the social-imperialists of the “Bell” and the General Commission of the trade unions. Under this pressure, the party committee, behind which the party executive cowered, decided on its well-known annexation program. It was the first and so far only attempt by the social-patriotic party executive to move towards open social imperialism. The international situation finally led the party executive back to the purely social-patriotic line of defensive war and thus to the demand for peace without annexations. Meanwhile, the bourgeois annexationists unrolled their annexation programs ever more openly, in the quite correct realization that the better way to secure the borders was to annex territories of military, strategic and economic importance.

Social patriots and social pacifists have now come together again in the formula of peace without annexation. The Social Democratic working group has repeatedly advocated this demand; Kautsky developed and justified it in his January program, and in Stockholm the representatives of the Independent Party committed themselves to it without, incidentally, encountering any protest from the International Group, which was affiliated to the Independents.

Kautsky wanted to eliminate the compromising communion with the Scheidemänner by emphasizing the different interpretations of the same words. The internationalists, who now also wanted to be represented in Stockholm, would have to decide whether they wanted to go along with the social-pacifist sophistry or adopt the clear standpoint of the Zimmerwald Left. If they do not want to lose the last remnants of their reputation, which has been badly battered since Gotha, they must now finally pursue an unambiguous policy, independent of social patriots and independents, which is once and for all incompatible with the demand for an annexationist peace.

Peace without annexation after an imperialist war is a smooth and flat illusion, and a thousand times more beneficial than the phrase-like pacifist zeal for peace of the socially patriotic and pacifist people's happiness is the open commitment of the annexationists to the conquering character of this world war. Anyone who has even learned the ABC of imperialism knows that its lexicon does not include the renunciation of annexations. Its essence lies in the expansion of economic, financial, political and cultural powers beyond the borders of national states. Without annexations, none of the belligerent powers can conclude peace. It only depends on the forms of annexation. The peculiarities of large-scale industrial production and the financial capital concentrated in the big banks also determine the methods of imperialist expansion. In large areas of expansion with an old culture, where capitalism has been introduced at a rapid pace, the impossibility of the old forms of colonial division policy has already become apparent.

The great powers have not succeeded in dividing China among themselves, nor is Turkey's territorial existence seriously threatened. Until the end of the 19th century, the great powers' China policy was still characterized by territorial division, but these annexationist plans were soon shattered by the national regeneration movements of the Chinese, and the great powers had to be content with an open-door policy. Until shortly before the war, the expansionist policy of the great powers in China took on more and more of a financial policy character. The Chinese bond negotiations with the various banking alliances are still fresh in the memory. And today, the governments of the imperialist states cannot outdo each other in emphasizing the independence of the small and large peoples of the Occident and Orient. It is obvious, however, that nothing suppresses independence as much as economic and financial dependence.

On this basis, it was still possible for England to take possession of Egypt and even the French, Russian, English and American interests were so closely interwoven that the global political differences between these powers were often obscured by this dependence. On the other hand, the forms of territorial annexation policy pursued by the old colonial powers turned more and more towards the political independence of the colonies under economic and financial dependence on the mother country. This was the case in England's relationship with its large dominions. This process is becoming increasingly evident in India and Egypt. And the whole so-called peaceful penetration is nothing more than a form of colonial policy adapted to finance capital and its expansion needs.

Even if the era of territorial annexations is not yet over, this form of annexation policy is increasingly taking a back seat to so-called peaceful penetration. While the old colonial powers are increasingly losing their ability to colonize, the large colonies themselves are developing ever greater economic and political independence. However, whether territorial seizure or peaceful penetration: the consequences of these two forms of annexation policy are the same: dependence of the annexed territory to the point of oppression, intensification of global political antagonisms, armaments, etc. Without annexations in this or that form, imperialism is inconceivable. Mr. Scheidemann knows this as well as Mr. Haase.

2. The Right of People's to Self-determination.

It is the opinion of the Independent Social Democrats that the right of peoples to self-determination should form the basis for peace. Initially, of course, the “Independents” were only thinking of bringing about peace without annexations on this basis, i.e. for them the right of peoples to self-determination meant the opposite of the policy of annexations, it was to a certain extent the positive complement to the negative demand for peace without annexations. Thus, the right to self-determination could initially only be considered for the peoples most exposed to the danger of annexation, i.e. the Belgians, Serbs, Greeks, Poles and the exotic peoples of the African and Australian colonies.

Now, the right to self-determination would certainly be a nice morning gift for these peoples, too, if it could be offered to them from the blood wedding of this war. However, it would take an unusual degree of optimism, not to say political stupidity, to imagine that these peoples, the so-called “small nations” and the “savages”, of all people, could get hold of even a sliver of the heavenly kingdom of the right to self-determination in the age of imperialist wars. The iron die is cast on the fate of these peoples. Anyone who is not completely blind to the predecessors of the war must already recognize what is to happen to the Belgians, Serbs, Poles, Hottentots and Maoris. If anywhere, the well-known fable rhyme applies to the relationship between the big nations and the small ones:

Silence, said the robber, you are mine;
For I am great and you are small!

It is to misjudge the very nature of imperialism if one believes or wants to believe that there could be a right of self-determination for the small nations under its rule. But this seemingly democratic peace formula of the social pacifists has a particularly delicate side. As is well known, in their peace resolution agreed with the Center and the Progressives, the Social Patriots did not explicitly demand the right of nations to self-determination. Reason enough for the Independents to now advocate this demand with particular emphasis in order to get out of the compromising neighborhood with the Social Patriots, into which they had fallen through all their previous policies and not least through their peace propaganda. But one does not walk with impunity under the peace palms of social pacifism. For even if the German social patriots kept the secret of the peoples' right to self-determination in the depths of their bosom, their Russian and French cronies praised it all the more loudly as an elixir of peace. But are Kerensky and Zeretelli any better than the Scheidemänner and Ebert? They are the executioners of the glorious Russian revolution, they play the role of traitors in a historical drama of which the small alewives among the German social patriots can hardly dream. Thus the German social pacifists, with their beautiful right of self-determination of the peoples, fall from the rain of German social patriotism into the fire of Russian and French social patriotism; thus they once again strengthen the French social patriots against the opposition of their country, as they have repeatedly done since Haase's declaration of August 4, 1914 and Geyer's declaration of December 21, 1915. Whether from the mouths of the Russian and French social-patriots or from the mouths of the German social-pacifists: in every case the demand for the right of self-determination of the peoples means the worst concealment of the essence of imperialism.

But let us for once disregard the tender concern that the pseudo-socialists of both stripes feel for the small nations. We think that the great nations need be no less a subject of concern. Here the brothers in the enemy camps are conspicuously silent. Who would claim that any of the great nations were asked on August 2, 1914, whether there should be war or peace? Who wants to claim that even in the parliamentarily governed countries of Western Europe, the people have the decisive influence on the course of politics? The people's right to self-determination cannot be achieved in any country by way of parliament, for every parliament is a committee of the state which, under the halo of democracy, is responsible for the administrative affairs of the ruling classes. The internal political events currently taking place in Germany provide an instructive example of the spirit of modern parliaments. Let us just march the facts consecutio temporum. Their language is so emphatic that any word of interpretation would be superfluous, even weakening and therefore harmful.

In mid-July, Mr. von Bethmann-Hollweg is dismissed rather suddenly. It is said: as a result of an unforeseen move by Mr. Erzberger. Immediately afterwards, a Reichstag majority consisting of the Center, Progress and Social Democrats is formed, which pushes through a peace resolution that is entirely in line with Mr. Bethmann-Hollweg's policy. And to top it all off, Mr. Hötzsch declared in the “Kreuzzeitung”: “It was doubtful whether Mr. Scheidemann was speaking on behalf of Mr. von Bethmann, and it is not doubtful that Mr. Erzberger was a confidant of the resigned Chancellor, as he had been used by him on numerous secret diplomatic missions.” In any case, the public was informed that Mr. von Bethmann-Hollweg had stumbled upon the advance of this same Mr. Erzberger. Just as the old Chancellor was leaving, the new one was already in place. The German Reichstag was faced with a fait accompli and its majority took it so much for granted that not even the “Vorwärts” remembered that the way in which Chancellors are appointed in Germany has very little to do with “democracy”; it forgot this, although it had been busily beating the drum for the democratization of Germany since Scheidemann and Ebert's illumination from Stockholm. Only the “Berliner Tageblatt” ventured a quiet suggestion that the Reichstag, as a representative body of the people, was being thoroughly disgraced by the chancellor appointments. Now Mr. Michaelis was there. The majority presented him with a so-called peace resolution. Mr. Michaelis declared his support for it without, however, falling out with the right. On the contrary, the Conservative press called him their man and wholeheartedly rejoiced at Mr. von Bethmann-Hollweg's departure. No sooner had Mr. Michaelis declared his support for the majority's peace resolution than he submitted - not to the Reichstag, but to a conference of press representatives - a wealth of incriminating material on the Entente's intentions of conquest, from which it was clear that the Chancellor was not thinking of making peace as long as the Entente was pursuing such plans. A short time later, Mr. Michaelis replied to a representative of the “Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten”: “Now it is important, while avoiding any nervousness, to convince the opponents of Germany's undiminished strength that speculation on our supposed weakness is out of their calculations,” to which the “Kreuzzeitung” promptly commented: “In Dresden, the Chancellor spoke to the chief editor of the ‘Neueste Nachrichten’ there in a way that amounts to a sharp criticism of the behaviour of the Reichstag majority.” The “Vorwärts” had no other way out of this embarrassing situation than to write resignedly: “It must also be left to the Chancellor to decide whether he wants to be constantly played off against the majority, as is now happening daily in the right-wing press.” That was on August 3. On August 5, a telegram from Hindenburg ran through the press expressing the “rock-solid confidence” that “the spirit of unity and perseverance will remain alive in the Reich, which guarantees victory and honorable peace for our people.” Mr. Michaelis, to whom the telegram was addressed, replied: “The people at home keep the deeds of the army and fleet before their eyes with deep gratitude and will endure, fight and win in the spirit of unity and perseverance at home until honorable peace.” Now Mr. Reventlow was able to bridle his high horse in public against the so-called majority and to put the whole Don Quixotic movement from Erzberger to Scheidemann to the sword.

Since then, the “Vorwärts” has only managed to stutter and stammer when it comes to democratization and parliamentization. The conservative press, on the other hand, has been all the more confident, and the “Deutsche Tages-Zeitung” has been beating the sack and the donkey at the same time ever since. This newspaper is used to calling a spade a spade, and so it was right on the money when it wrote during the course of the affair: “the ideas of the self-importance of the free people often associated with democratization are a poor self-deception. It is not the people who govern themselves, nor is it the best and most capable who lead and lead the way, but what imposes its will on the people in the realm of unrestricted democracy is the alliance of big business and high finance, which is the driving force behind the pretended backdrop of democracy.” The politicians of the “Deutsche Tages-Zeitung” cannot be denied their intimate knowledge of the political processes and their driving forces.

All the more touching is the picture of good Aunt Voss, who looks tearfully after the whole democratic glory with the sigh: “A change of person, but alas, no change of system!” Mr. von Bethmann-Hollweg leaves, Mr. Helfferich stays, against the wishes of the majority of the Reichstag, as Mr. Georg Bernhard still notes today with great astonishment. A number of new men take their turn. We mention a few names and leave it to our readers to search their memories for the men hidden behind them: Dr. Schwander, Max Wallraf, A. Otto Rüdlin, Wilhelm von Waldow, August Müller, Edler von Braun, Dr. Drews, Oskar Hergt, Paul von Eisenhardt-Rothe, Dr. Friedrich Schmidt. We do not know which of these gentlemen are known to the German workers. In any case, they belong to the Michaelis cabinet. Finally, Mr. Batocki and Mr. Gröner had to leave office; the one because he did not please the German big agrarians, the other because he did not please German heavy industry. That is the alliance of big business and high finance, the knowledgeable “Deutsche Tages-Zeitung” instructs us. Banko's spirit, Heine would say.

The German social patriots and German social pacifists were well aware of all this. Nevertheless, they revelled in the delights of democratization, parliamentarization and the right of peoples to self-determination. But none of them found a word of protest against the actual events described. However, the “Vorwärts” allowed itself to be pushed back from one position to another, while Mr. Lentsch in the “Glocke” celebrated July 19 as a day of triumph for German Social Democracy and a Social Democratic speaker in the main committee of the Reichstag described the existence of a Vice-Chancellor as a revolutionary act. Meanwhile, the “Vorwärts” slowly reconciled itself to the idea of a “Reichsrat” and the Social Democratic parliamentary group took part in the deliberations of the “Free Commission”, which the “Deutsche Tages-Zeitung” said had become necessary because even the main committee no longer offered the necessary guarantee of confidentiality. So the decisive negotiations move from the plenary to the main committee, from the main committee to the “Free Commission”. This is the “road to democracy” to which there is no turning back, as the “Vorwärts” says.

The social patriots and social pacifists, the people around Scheidemann and Haase, say yes and amen to all of this. Truly, compared to these figures, the men of St. Paul's Church were still heroes of spirit and strength.

We never expected anything else from them. They are also brothers with the same caps in all countries. We only expect from the workers that from now on they will no longer allow themselves to be fooled into believing that they have a right to self-determination where there is none and where there can be none. They have just had to experience in their own organizations how there was no right of self-determination for them where they believed they were the masters of the house. One leaf after another, one cash register after another was stolen from them. Authority, not majority! declare the party absolutists. Truly, these born thugs in the realm of workers' organizations are the appointed fighters for democracy! And their level-headed night owls, the independents, who fearfully and embarrassingly refrain from any independent expression of the will of the people, are the appointed fighters for the peoples' right to self-determination. There is no right of self-determination of the peoples as long as the peoples are in a labor relationship that binds them to capitalist entrepreneurship. Let the workers remember that! It is part of the ABC of socialist thinking.