|
Tags: Replaced Visual edit |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Library work|title=Militarism & Anti-Militarism|author=Karl Liebknecht|written in=1907|published_date=1910|type=Book}} | | {{Library work|title=Militarism & Anti-Militarism|author=Karl Liebknecht|written in=1907|published_date=1910|type=Book}} |
|
| |
| == Contents ==
| |
|
| |
| === Preface to the English Edition ===
| |
|
| |
| === Preface ===
| |
|
| |
| === Part I-Militarism ===
| |
| <blockquote>Chapter I-General Remarks
| |
|
| |
| Chapter II-Capitalist Militarism
| |
|
| |
| Chapter III-Methods and the Effects of Militarism
| |
|
| |
| Chapter IV-Particulars of Some of the Chiefs Sins of Militarism</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| === Part II-Anti-Militarism ===
| |
| <blockquote>Chapter I-Anti Militarism of the Old and the New International
| |
|
| |
| Chapter II-Anti-Militarism Abroad with Special Regard to the Young Socialist Organizations
| |
|
| |
| Chapter III-Dangers Besetting Anti-Militarism
| |
|
| |
| Chapter IV-Anti-Militarist Tactics
| |
|
| |
| Chapter V-The Need for Special Anti-Militarist Propoganda
| |
|
| |
| Chapter VI-Anti-Militarism in Germany and the German Social Democracy
| |
|
| |
| Chapter VII-The Anti-Militarist Tasks of the German Social Democracy</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| == Preface to the English Edition ==
| |
| Soon after Karl Liebknecht published his work, “Militarism and Anti-Militarism,” it was confiscated by the German authorities, and the author was tried for high treason at Leipzig, Saxony, in October 1907. The trial commenced on October 9 and lasted three days. Throughout the whole of the trial, the court was crowded with Liebknecht’s sympathizers.
| |
|
| |
| The proceedings were begun by the presiding judge in his red robe (the fourteen judges who sat with him were also in red robes), who read the following preliminary indictment drawn up on August 9, 1907:<blockquote>By order of the Imperial state attorney, in accordance with paragraph 138 of the law concerning the judicial procedure of the Imperial courts, the main proceedings are opened before the united 2nd and 3rd criminal chambers of the Imperial court, against Dr. Karl Paul August Friedrich Liebknecht, lawyer, of Berlin, who is suspected of having set afoot a treasonable undertaking in the years 1906 and 1907 within the country: that of effecting a change in the constitution of the German Empire by violence, viz.: abolition of the standing army by means of the military strike, if needs be conjointly with the incitement of troops to take part in the revolution, by writing the work “Militarism and Anti-Militarism,” and causing it to be printed and disseminated, in which he advocated the organization of special anti-militarist propaganda which was to extend throughout the whole Empire, and conjointly with it the setting up a Central Committee for conducting and controlling same, and making use of the Social-Democratic Young People’s Organizations for the purpose of organically disintegrating and demoralizing the militarist spirit; the necessary sequence of which would be—in the case of an unpopular war and in exceptional cases even today: such as in the case of a war between France and Germany or in the case of Germany’s intervention in Russia—the military strike and the eventual incitement of troops to take part in the revolution; that is to say, he not only pointed out the ways and means which appear to be destined and suited to further the aforesaid treasonable undertaking and to insure its success, but he also demanded the speedy application of these methods (crime against paragraph 86 of the criminal code in connection with par. 81, No. 2, Par. 82 of the criminal code).
| |
|
| |
| The order for the confiscation of the aforesaid work remains in full force. The accused is not to subjected to preliminary confinement.</blockquote>Throughout the proceedings Liebknecht bore himself in a manly way. He took upon himself the full responsibility for what was contained in the work, but he fiercely contested all the insinuations made by the public prosecutor and the wrong ideas that he tried to read into his work. He repeated several times that it was absurd to put him on his trial for treason, for nowhere in the book had he advocated illegal action, that his trial was purely a political affair and that his condemnation was a foregone conclusion.
| |
|
| |
| The public prosecutor asked the court to pass a sentence of two years’ imprisonment and the loss of civil rights for five years. After deliberating for half-an-hour the court passed the following sentence:<blockquote>The accused is found guilty of having set afoot a treasonable undertaking and is condemned to incarceration in a fortress for eighteen months. The costs of the prosecution are to be paid by the accused.
| |
|
| |
| All copies of the work “Militarism and Anti-Militarism” which has been put under the ban, in the possession of the author, printer, publisher, wholesale booksellers and booksellers, as well as all publicly exposed copies of this work, or those offered for sale, as well as the plates and forms for their production, are to be destroyed.</blockquote>Thousands of people, chiefly working men and working women, had gathered in the lobbies and outside the court discussing the outcome of the trial. When Comrade Liebknecht appeared outside, he was vociferously cheered by the crowd; this proved the workers’ appreciation of the stand he was taking against German militarism and against militarism in general.
| |
|
| |
| Liebknecht states in his work that the semi-republican and republican countries (with the exception of Great Britain) have been the chief offenders as regards employing the armed forces of the state in bloody conflicts with the strikers. What Liebknecht contended in 1907 has been substantiated in a most striking manner not only as regards France, the United States of America and Australia, but also Great Britain. In the great Coal and Railway strikes of 1911 the British Government lent the whole force of the State to defeat the strikers, and the workers’ blood was spilt. The French Railway strike of 1910 has become a classical example. Briand challenged the workers to choose between allegiance to their class organization or to the capitalist state and scored a signal victory. In Colorado, USA, there was a feud between the Rockefeller interests and the strikers, which culminated in the bestial massacre of workers at Ludlow camp. As the life interests of the bourgeoisie in the various countries became seriously threatened, it never failed to show its ugly claws.
| |
|
| |
| As regards “Militarism against the enemy abroad,” Liebknecht, in lectures and in the Press, repeatedly called upon the German Social Democracy to take up the question of militarism in a serious manner. In the present work he makes the following appeal:<blockquote>And we keep asking: “Is German Social Democracy, the German Labor movement—the nucleus and the elite troop of the new International, as it likes to be called—being either too prudent or over-confident, is German Social Democracy going to refrain from tackling this problem till, inadequately armed and straining to the utmost all its strength and its methods of fighting, it is faced by the fact of a world war or an intervention in Russia, which can to a certain extent be avoided and for which German Social Democracy would also have to bear the responsibility?”</blockquote>But his appeals fell upon deaf ears. Liebknecht’s ideas were actively opposed by Bebel and other influential leaders of German Social Democracy. This attitude was plainly manifested at the Stuttgart congress of 1907. Vaillant, on behalf of the French delegation, proposed definite methods of fighting militarism. Bebel, on the other hand, said that German Social Democracy did not want to commit itself to a definite course of action, but that when the time for action came, it would know how to act.
| |
|
| |
| The present war has demonstrated that the policy of the German leaders was an ostrich-like policy: though scenting danger, they stuck their heads in the sand, perhaps lulled into a false sense of security by the increasing Socialist vote in Germany. But this policy contains two palpably weak points: (1) It is absurd to entertain the idea that the mass of the workers need not bother their heads about militarism and that when the times comes the leaders will tell them what to do; (2) A political organization (unless it is backed up by an industrial organization of the workers) is not an instrument that can be used effectively because it is impossible to mobilize the voters for action at a critical moment. The Socialist movement (in its bulk) made straight for disaster with its eyes blindfolded and it was wrecked on the shoals of the present war. The proletariat should take to heart the lessons of the past and set to work to solve the urgent problems now confronting it as regards militarism.
| |
|
| |
| Tackling militarism means tackling a hornet’s nest. Bebel, who gave evidence at Liebknecht’s trial, said he was opposed to a special anti-militarist organization being started in Germany. Amongst other things he stated:<blockquote>First I said to myself that the comrades who would carry on the agitation have not had such a good legal training as the accused (Liebknecht) and, therefore, they would soon come into collision with paragraph 112 of the Criminal Code, which is such an unpleasant contingency that we would rather not have our comrades face it. Finally, I have opposed the tactics of the accused because I know there are large influential sections in Germany which are waiting for a chance to make a decisive onslaught on Social Democracy either by rendering the provisions of the Criminal Code more stringent or by passing a special law</blockquote>The German Social-Democrats refrained from making a serious onslaught upon militarism because they preferred not to run the risk of having their organization disrupted or their members brutally punished. But if we really believe in our ideal of international Socialism we must be willing to face risks. The Prussian Junker lays down his life that his caste may dominate, the German Socialist Patriot calmly faces the bullets of the enemy that Germany may live, and the French nationalist dies for his country; the Russian Socialists have died in thousands in the Tsar’s unhealthy prisons, in the gold-mines of Siberia and the benumbing cold of the Arctic zone. People are willing to suffer and die for the most varied ideals. If our proletarian ideal of international Socialism is worth anything, we must be prepared to give our time, our health, even our life for its realization. Comrade Liebknecht has set us a splendid example. On May 1, 1916, he threw down the gauntlet to the German Government at a public meeting, and he is now pining behind prison walls for his brave deed. The letters (dated May 3 and 8) he addressed to the Royal Court Martial in Berlin express in a nutshell the creed of an international Socialist. Liebknecht appeals to the international proletariat as follows:<blockquote>The present war is not a war for the defense of national integrity, nor for the liberation of downtrodden people, nor for the benefit of the masses. From the point of view of the proletariat it only signifies the greatest possible concentration and intensification of political oppression, of economic exploitation and of the wholesale military slaughter of the working class for the benefit of Capitalism and absolutism.
| |
|
| |
| To this the working class of all countries can give but one answer: A harder struggle, the international class struggle against the capitalist governments and the ruling classes of all countries for the abolition of oppression and exploitation, for the termination of the war by a peace in the Socialist spirit. In this class struggle is included the defense of everything that a Socialist—whose fatherland is the International—has to defend.
| |
|
| |
| The cry, “Down with the war!” is meant to express that I thoroughly condemn and oppose the present war because of its historical essence, because of its general social causes and the particular form of its origin, because of its methods and its aims; and the cry is also meant to express that it is the duty of every representative of proletarian interests to take part in the international class struggle for its termination.
| |
|
| |
| Alexander Sirnis
| |
|
| |
| July 1917</blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| == Preface ==
| |
| A few weeks ago the Grenzbote reported a conversation which took place between Bismarck and Dr. Otto Kaemmel in October 1892. In this conversation the “Hero of the Century” himself threw off the mask of constitutionalism with the cynicism peculiar to him. Amongst other things, Bismarck said:
| |
|
| |
| “He who in Rome put himself outside the pale of the law was banished (aqua et igni interdictus)”; in the Middle Ages he was said to be outlawed. Social Democracy should be similarly treated and deprived of its political rights. I would have gone to this length. The Social-Democratic question is a military question. At present Social Democracy is not taken seriously enough; it strives—and successfully—to win over the non-commissioned officers. In Hamburg a large portion of the troops already consists of Social-Democrats, for the inhabitants have the right to join the local battalions only. Suppose these troops should one day refuse to fire on their fathers and brothers at the Emperor’s order? Should we have to mobilize the Hanover and Mecklenburg regiments against Hamburg? We should, in that case, have something like the Paris Commune. The Emperor took fright. He told me that he did not wish to be called the “Kartaetschenprinz” (Shrapnel prince) some day, like his grandfather, and did not wish to “wade up to his ankles in blood” at the very beginning of his reign. I answered him at the time: “Your Majesty will have to wade much deeper if you draw back now.”
| |
|
| |
| “The Social-Democratic question is a military question.” This puts the whole problem in a nutshell. This expresses more and goes much deeper than von Massow’s cry of distress: “Our only hope lies in the bayonets and cannons of our soldiers.”* “The Social-Democratic question is a military question.” This is now the keynote of all tunes sung by the firebrands. If there was anyone whose eyes had not yet been opened by the earlier indiscretions of Bismarck and Puttkamer, by the speech to the Alexandrians,† the Hamburger Nachrichten and the thoroughbred Junker von Oldenburg-Januschau, this would now be accomplished by the Hohenlohe-Delbrück revelations confirmed about the end of the year by the county court judge Kulemann, and by the above heartless words of Bismarck.
| |
|
| |
| “The Social-Democratic question—to the extent that it is a political question—is in the last resort a military question.” This should be a constant warning to the Social Democracy and a tactical principle of first importance.
| |
|
| |
| The enemy at home (Social Democracy) is “more dangerous than the enemy abroad, because it poisons the soul of our people and wrenches the weapon from our hands before we have raised it.” Thus the Kreuz-zeitung, of January 21, 1907, announced that class interests come before national interests in an electoral fight which was carried on “under the waving flag of Nationalism.” And over this electoral fight hung the ever-increasing menace to the electoral rights and the right of Trade Union organization, the menace of “Bonaparte’s Sword” which, in his letter of New Year’s eve Prince Buelow flourished round the heads of the German Social-Democrats in order to intimidate them. This electoral fight was carried on under the banner of the class struggle at its fiercest.‡ Only one who is blind and deaf could deny that these and many other signs pointed to a storm, even to a hurricane.
| |
|
| |
| Thus the problem of fighting “militarism at home” has become of the greatest importance.
| |
|
| |
| The Carnival elections of 1907 were also fought on the nationalist question, on the colonial question, on Chauvinism and Imperialism. And they showed, in spite of all this, how miserably small was the power’ of resistance of the German people against the pseudo-patriotic traps laid by these despicable business patriots. They taught us what bombastic demagogy can be employed by the Government, the ruling classes, and the whole howling pack of “patriots” when the “things they hold most holy” are concerned. These elections furnished the proletariat with the necessary enlightenment; they caused it to bethink itself and taught it the social and political relation of forces. They educated it and freed it from the unfortunate “habit of victory.” These elections rendered the proletarian movement more profound by exerting a desirable pressure on it, and enabled one to understand the psychology of the masses in regard to national acts. Certainly the causes of our so-called setback (which, in reality, was no setback, and by which the victors were more taken aback than the vanquished) were manifold. But there is no doubt that just those sections of the proletariat which have been contaminated and influenced by militarism formed an especially solid obstacle which prevents the spreading of Social Democracy. They were, for instance, state workers and lower-grade officials who are at the mercy of governmental terrorism.
| |
|
| |
| This, too, forces the question of anti-militarism and the question of the young people’s movement and of their education to the fore; and the German Labor movement will henceforth certainly pay more attention to these points.
| |
|
| |
| The following brochure is the enlargement of a paper read by the author on November 28, 1906, at the Mannheim Conference of the German Young Socialist organizations. It does not pretend to offer anything essentially new; it only presumes to be a compilation of material already known. Nor does it pretend to exhaust the subject. The author has endeavored, as far as possible, to collect the disconnected material scattered in papers and magazines all over the world. And thanks especially to our Belgian comrade De Man, it has been possible to give a short account of the anti-militarist and Young Socialist movement in the most important countries.
| |
|
| |
| If mistakes have crept in here and there, they should be excused on account of the difficulty of mastering the material and, frequently, by reason of the unreliability of the sources of information.
| |
|
| |
| In the realm of militarism many things change quickly at the present time. What, for instance, is said further on in regard to French and English military reforms will very soon be rendered out-of-date by events.
| |
|
| |
| This is still more true of anti-militarism and the proletarian Young Socialist movement, these latest manifestations of the proletarian struggle for freedom. They develop quickly everywhere, and one is glad to see them make headway in spite of setbacks now and then. Since this brochure was set up in type, I have learned that the Finnish Young Socialist societies held their first congress in Tammerfors, on December 9 and 10, 1906, where a union of youthful workers was founded. Apart from educating the class-consciousness of youthful workers, the special object of this union is to fight militarism in all its aspects.
| |
|
| |
| People will be inclined to complain that the theoretical principles of our work are too briefly stated and their historical depth not sufficiently probed. In reply to this I must point out that the political aim of this brochure is to propagate anti-militarist thought.
| |
|
| |
| Some people again will be dissatisfied with the piling up of countless details, often seemingly unimportant, especially in regard to the history of the Young Socialist movement and anti-militarism. This dissatisfaction may be justified. The author started from the assumption that only through details is one enabled to see clearly the upward and downward movement in the development of the organization, the molding and changing of the tactical principles and the manner in which their application has been arrived at. One has to take into account that it is just detail that presents the chief difficulty in anti-militarist agitation and organization.
| |
|
| |
| Dr. Karl Liebknecht
| |
|
| |
| Berlin, February 11, 1907
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> See Das Deutsche Woclieriblatt Arendts, middle November, 1896. Sozial-demokratische Parteikorrespondenz, II. year, No. 4.
| |
|
| |
| † Speech delivered by the Kaiser to the recruits of the Alexander regiment calling upon them to shoot at their fathers and mothers.—Trans.
| |
|
| |
| ‡ On the evening of February 5, 1907, when the second ballots were taken, troops of the Berlin garrison were provided with live cartridges and held ready to march. It is known that on June 25, 1903, when the second ballots were last taken, in Spandau pioneers appeared in the Schoenwalder Strasse to “bring to their senses” the workers excited by the result of the elections.
| |
|
| |
| = Part I-Militarism =
| |
|
| |
| == Chapter 1-General Remarks ==
| |
|
| |
| === About the Essence and Meaning of Militarism ===
| |
| Militarism—one of the most oft-repeated war cries of our time— denotes a phenomenon at once intricate, complex, many-sided, and at the same time most interesting and significant by reason of its origin and nature, its methods and effects. It is a phenomenon deeply rooted in the life of class-organized societies, yet it can assume within similar social systems the most varied forms, according to the special natural, political, social, and economic conditions of individual states and territories.
| |
|
| |
| Militarism is one of the most important and most vital manifestations of the life of most social systems, because it expresses in the strongest, most concentrated and exclusive form the national, cultural, and class instinct of self-preservation.
| |
|
| |
| A history of militarism written in its full meaning reveals the inner nature of the story of human evolution and its driving power. A dissection of capitalist militarism means the laying bare of the most secret and the finest rootlets of capitalism. The history of militarism is at the same time a history of the political, social, economic and, in general, the cultural relations of tension between states and nations, as well as a history of the class struggles within individual state and national units.
| |
|
| |
| It is plain that there can be no question here of even an attempt at such a history. But we will indicate a few general points.
| |
|
| |
| === Origin and Basis of Social Relations of Power ===
| |
| The deciding factor in every social relation of power is, in the last resort, the superiority of physical force* which, as a social phenomenon, does not appear in the form of the greater physical strength of some individuals. Moreover, on an average, one human being equals another, and a purely numerical proportion decides who is in the majority. This proportion of numbers does not simply correspond to the numerical proportion of those groups of persons whose interests are contradictory, but is determined chiefly by the extensive and intensive degree of the class consciousness, the intellectual and moral development of an individual class, since not everyone knows his real interests, especially his fundamental interests; and, above all, not everyone recognizes or acknowledges the interests of his class as his own individual interests. This intellectual and moral stage is determined by the economic position of individual groups of interests (classes), whilst the social and political position represents more a consequence (though one that reacts strongly) and an expression of the relation of power.
| |
|
| |
| Economic superiority also helps directly to displace and to confuse the numerical proportion, because economic pressure not only influences the height of the intellectual and moral stage and, thereby, the recognition of class interests, but also produces a tendency to act in conformity with more or less well understood class principles. That the political machinery of the governing class lends it increased power to “correct” the numerical proportion in favor of the ruling group of interests is taught us by all the well-known institutions such as: the police, justice, schools, and the Church which must also be included here. These institutions are set up through the political machinery and employed in an administrative capacity. The first two work chiefly by threats, intimidation and violence: the school chiefly by blocking up all those channels by which class-consciousness might reach the brain and the heart: the Church most effectively by blinding the people to present evils and awakening their desire for the joys of a future life, and by terrifying them with threats of the torture chamber in hell.
| |
|
| |
| But even the numerical proportion thus acquired does not decide absolutely the relation of power. A weapon in the hands of an armed man increases his physical strength many times. It depends upon the development of the technique of arms (including outer fortification and strategy whose form is chiefly a consequence of the technique of arms) how many times this power is multiplied. The intellectual and economic superiority of one group of interests over another is turned into a downright physical superiority through the possession of armaments, or of better armaments, on the part of the superior class. Thus the possibility is created of a class-conscious minority completely dominating a class-conscious majority. Even when the division into classes is determined by the economic position, the political relation of power of the classes is regulated by the economic position of individuals only in the first place; it is regulated in the second place through the countless intellectual, moral, and physical means at the disposal of the economically dominant class. The concentration of all this power exerts no influence on the constitution of the classes, for this constitution is created by a situation which does not depend upon it. This situation forces certain classes (which themselves may constitute a majority), as if in accordance with nature’s bidding, into economic dependence on other classes which may form a small minority. The former remain in this state of dependence without the class struggle or any political means of power being able to bring about a change.† ''So that the class struggle can only be a struggle to further class-consciousness which embraces the readiness for sacrifice and for revolutionary deeds in the interest of one’s class—a struggle to capture those means of power which are of importance either in the creation or suppression of class-consciousness, as well as of those physical and intellectual means of power whose possession means the multiplication of physical force.''
| |
|
| |
| From all this one may grasp what an important role is played by the technique of arms in social struggles. It depends upon this technique whether a minority, when there is no longer an economic necessity, still remains in a position to dominate, at least for a certain time, a majority against its will by military action which is “political action of the most concentrated type.” Apart from the division of the classes, the development of the relations of power is in reality everywhere closely bound up with the development of the technique of arms. As long as everyone—even he who is in the worst possible economic position—can produce arms which are essentially equally good under equally difficult conditions, the majority principle and democracy will be the regular political form of society. As long as the above proposition holds good, this should also be the case when an economic division into classes has taken place. The natural process of development is that the division into classes (the consequence of economic and technical development) runs parallel with the improvement of the technique of arms, including the art of fortification and strategy. Thereby the production of arms becomes more and more a specialized profession.
| |
|
| |
| And further, as class domination as a rule corresponds to the economic superiority of one class over another, and as the improvement of the technique of arms continually renders the production of arms‡ more difficult and more expensive, such production of arms gradually becomes the monopoly of the economically ruling class, whereby the physical basis of democracy is done away with. Then the point is: he who is in possession is in the right. It may happen that the class, which was once in possession of the political means of power, is able to retain its political domination, at least for a time, even after it has lost its economic superiority
| |
|
| |
| After what has been said above it is unnecessary to dwell here on the point that not only the form and the character of the political relations of power are determined by the technique of arms, but also the form and the character of the class struggles of the period.
| |
|
| |
| It is not sufficient that all citizens are equally armed and in charge of their arms to permanently safeguard the domination of democracy. Merely an equal distribution of arms, as events in Switzerland have shown us, does not obviate the danger that this distribution may be done away with by a majority which is about to become a minority or even by a minority which is better organized for striking a blow. The whole population can only be armed equally and permanently when the production of arms is in the hands of the people.
| |
|
| |
| The role of democratizing which the technique of arms can play has been clearly depicted by Bulwer in the remarkable Utopia, “The Coming Race,” which is one of his less known works. In this book Bulwer presupposes such a high development of the technique that every citizen can at any moment achieve the most disastrous results by means of a small stick, easily procurable and loaded with a mysterious force resembling electricity. And, indeed, we can reckon with the possibility that the easy domination by man over the most powerful forces of nature—even if it be in the remote future—will reach a stage which will render the application of the technique of slaughter impossible, for it would mean the annihilation of the human race. Technical progress will bring it about that the making of arms, instead of being exploited by the plutocracy to a certain extent, will again to a certain extent become the possession of men on a wide basis of democracy.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| <nowiki>*</nowiki> And, of course, of the intellectual force which is a regulator inseparable from physical force to the extent that it effects the best possible use of the physical force and the subjugation of the physical force of men; in fact, doing it through the medium of the physical force at its disposal thus acquired. As a rule it depends chiefly upon the economic position of the groups of interests to what extent the subjugation of the physical force exists as a social phenomenon, i.e., aids in determining the social relation of power when it occurs on a large scale and with regularity in the dealings between individual groups of interests. Some of the more important aspects of this manifestation will be discussed later.
| |
|
| |
| †“In the social production of their life men enter certain definite necessary relations which do not depend upon their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage in the evolution of their material forces of production.”—Marx.
| |
|
| |
| ‡Besides munitions and weapons of all kinds including the system of lighting, the fortresses and men-of-war to the arms proper belong, for example, the military system of communications (horses, wagons, bicycles, building of roads and bridges, ships on inland waters, railways, automobiles, telegraphs, wireless telegraphy, telephone, etc.). Nor should we forget the telescope, airships, photography, and war dogs.
| |
