A translation of a speech by Wilhelm Liebknecht a prominent Socialist
leader in 19th century Germany. The contents of the speech are an attack
on nationalism, militarism and capitalist morality and an appeal for
international brotherhood and social revolution. It covers and
criticizes early industrial capitalism and Bourgeois society for its
failures to solve social issues and argues coherently that on the
contrary they are often the root causes of these problems, from poverty
to political violence.
Available for tablets at the Kindle Store.
Support via ko-fi
On
Offence and Defence
A
Speech by Wilhelm Liebknecht
(1871)
Introduction
Wilhelm
Liebknecht was an important figure in the history of German
socialism, he was amongst the first generation of socialist
politicians who founded the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).
And it was partially thanks to his activity that the SPD grew from a
small sect into a large political party with a mass following.
Despite this he’s often been overshadowed throughout much of his
life. The early period of his political activity is dominated by the
personalities of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Ferdinand Lassalle
all of whom he had met while moving through the German labour
movement that spanned much of Europe.
And his
legacy has been overshadowed by the life and death of his son Karl
Liebknecht, who followed in his fathers footsteps to be a leading
figure in the SPD before its Imperial turn to support the conflict
that became the First World War shattered his faith in the party.
Karl would be a prominent figure in the 1918 German revolution
alongside Rosa Luxemburg, both where murdered by right wing military
officers in January 1919, with the support of a government dominated
by SPD politicians.
This
speech was given during what might be called the height of German
Social Democracy, its membership and affiliated associations
continued to grow despite repressive legislation by the Bismarck
cabinet and its speeches and pamphlets openly talked about
revolutionary change. It was translated into Esperanto in 1913 by
W.C. Nutters, and this translation that I have used to create this
English version. The speech was dated 1871, but I believe this to be
a mistake passed on some remarks Liebknecht makes within, though the
best I can do to place it is in middle 1870s. Since I’ve not been
able to conclusively prove when this speech was given I’ve kept the
1871 date, if nothing else I know for certain that this speech
couldn’t have been given before 1871.
The
speech covers many topics and is an appeal to the workers of Germany
to get behind the program of the SPD and support social revolution.
It touches on the Prussian wars to unite Germany and defends the
record of several workers uprising that had broken out before,
especially that of the Paris Commune.
Wilhelm
Liebknecht was himself a participant of the wave of revolutions that
rocked Europe throughout 1848-9. Though in a minor capacity, he went
to Paris after hearing about the uprising in February but arrived to
find a lull, the July Monarchy of the House of Orleans had fallen,
and the new Republic was at the time stable and enjoyed the support
of many of France’s socialist politicians. Shortly after he joined
a column of exiled Germans who were marching into the German states
(this was before the unification of Germany in 1871) to spread
revolution there. Liebknecht was arrested and charged with treason in
Baden, fortunately the revolution did arrive in Baden just after
Liebknecht, the prison was stormed and the prisoners were released.
After
the revolutions of 1848 had been defeated Liebknecht lived in the
German exile community in Switzerland, before being expelled for
trying to build a mass socialist movement in that country. He ended
up in London, becoming acquainted with Karl Marx and would remain a
close colleague and drinking companion of Marx for many years. He
returned to German territory in 1862 after an amnesty for 1848
revolutionaries was passed.
Having
returned to German territory Liebknecht joined or founded over a
dozen socialistic organisations and wrote for a number of socialist
newspapers including Der Social-Demokrat (The
Social Democrat), Der
Volksstaat (The
People’s State) which he also edited and Vorwärts
(Forwards) which he also published in 1876. His journalism got him
into trouble with the authorities on several occasions. Most relevant
to this speech was the 1872 treason trial of Wilhelm Liebknecht and
his party colleague August Bebel, the trial was prompted by their
opposition to the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and demand for the
working classes to launch revolutionary warfare against their own
governments instead of supporting a blood letting for land, plunder
and supposed “glory”.
This
speech does touch on some of that material which Liebknecht made in
speeches and in newspapers articles during that conflict. I suppose
its worth noting that Liebknecht and Bebel’s position on war is the
opposite of what would become the SPD’s policy in the beginning of
the 20th century, where the SPD was both the largest party
in Germany and an increasingly active collaborator in German
Imperialism. There were still SPD members willing to take a Wilhelm
Liebknecht line in 1914-18, one of which was his own son Karl, but
when they aired their views the party itself acted like the German
Imperial courts, accused them of treason and forced them out into the
margins.
With
that and the two year sentences to imprisonment in a fortress both
men received in mind, I would speculate that the earliest this speech
could’ve appeared was 1873. Beyond the war commentary the speech
expands to include fighting on the social plan and covers many topics
about contemporary industrialised capitalist society, usually
Liebknecht uses the rhetorical device of turning hostile arguments on
their head. The remarks on sex work and women in general wouldn’t
earn him any awards from the 19th century feminist
movement and certainly not from our current movement. But beyond that
I would say the speech has aged fairly well. Its arguments against
the morals of capitalist society and the priorities of the State
remain current for the most part. The main weakness of the speech
reading after the fact is that Liebknecht is clearly a true believer
in the politics he promotes and he was certain that the socialist
transformation would be close at hand. Which unfortunately hasn’t
happened yet, I hope that this pamphlet will give us some incite into
why that was the case, and how we might go about changing that.
Reddebrek
ON
OFFENCE AND DEFENCE
Friends!
The
great leader of Democratic Germany, Johann Jacoby, said in his famous
speech concerning the goal of the labour movement that “The
founding of the smallest workers society will be of more importance
to the future historian than the battle of Sadowa”.
If he
were speaking at the present moment then he could’ve added: “And
more important than all the Triumphs and Cavalry manoeuvres of the
Master’s Bonaparte and Bismarck”. Yes, the founding of the most
insignificant societies of workers is more important to working
civilisation than all heroes, which the militarists and monarchs of
Europe have named on the field of honour or will name in the future.
Among the leagues of workers ideas about a New Time are born and grow
– and it is here that solution are being prepared to the urgent
questions that trouble our epoch – while the hands of soldiers hold
only killers to defend the creations of the past. Every Labour Union
is a school for human liberty – a piece of the world to come,
penetrating like a crack into the world of now, to blow apart this
one.
Today
two worlds stand hostilely against the each other. The world of the
possessors against the world of the dispossessed – the world of
Capital and the world of Labour – the world of the suppressors and
the world of the suppressed – the world of the Bourgeoisie and the
world of Socialism – two worlds with opposing goals, ideals and
perspectives – two worlds which cannot exist at the same time, one
must cede ground to the other.
During
this last war,
under the light of burning villages and cities, these two worlds
contrasted with sharp contours – here, the defenders of the old
world, spitting hatred and contempt at the neighbouring people;
praising wholesale slaughter of the people as the highest goal;
inciting by all means the passions; pouring a sea of blood upon an
altar of a senseless fatherland. - There, on the other hand, stands
the fighters for the new world, calm against the savage flow, quiet
amidst the national delirium, immovable in the face of reproaches and
persecutions, and proudly responding to the feverish adversaries.
What
seems to you to be the most sacred duty, is to us completely
senseless. What you praise is to us against reason and against
justice. The person who lives on the other side of the border is as
human as us. The peoples are a brotherhood and will one day love each
other, instead of tearing themselves apart. Death is death, even if
the killed speak another language or wear multicoloured clothes.
Death is a crime, and a crime does not cease to be a crime if it is
done wholesale. What you call glory! Is what we think is wrong; what
you call honour is for us dishonour; victory, which you celebrate is
for us the triumph of barbarism. The war is a sin to the sacred
spirit of humanity, and misfortune for victor and vanquished alike.
The
word “Fatherland” which flies so abundantly from your mouth has
for us no charm. “Fatherland” in your sense is to us a
reactionary and countercultural idea. Our fatherland is the whole
Earth: “ubi bene ibi patria [Where it is well with me, there is my
country] what you call a homeland is for us only a place of misery –
a prison – a hunting ground on which we are the game being hunted.
You despise us as “homeless” but you yourself made us homeless.
Isn’t it strange that you who boast of your Christianity, rebuke us
for not being “Nationalistic”? Is it not the greatest merit of
Christian religion that it transforms the national God of the Hebrews
into a God for all peoples; so- in modern times – overturned the
principle of nationality, and replaced any national thought with
international thought? You only defend prejudices and egoism – the
interests of humanity demand the break down of what you honour. Your
triumphs only hasten your ruin – in the celebration of your triumph
we heard the death longing of your narrowness.
Silent
in astonishment, the opponents saw the unexpected scene, and heard
the strangely sounding speech of the new world. Certainly the number
of those who protested in the name of humanity was insignificantly
small, and that small number consisted almost exclusively of workers
– pariahs of the present society. But could it be any other way? Is
it not always the downtrodden who take care of the sacred fire of the
liberty and humanity? Misery is the best, no it is the sole teacher
of humanity: to the weak ones it becomes a prayer; the strong
character learns by it to us his strength and dream of liberty, and
to act for his liberation. Yes it is in our time the workers who,
forced by misery have given themselves to working for liberation,
just as in the Middle Ages it was the peasants who preached the
gospel of freedom and equality; and, just as in the beginning of our
age from the midst of the poor and their suffering that the Christian
movement was born.
***
Because:
it is not the first time that two worlds have stood against each
other. In the 18th century when the Bourgeoisie was still
politically subordinated, that same bourgeoisie constructed its own
morality in opposition to the morality of the existing morals; - the
new conquers the old. This moral triumph was followed soon after by
the material victory – the French Revolution.
But
history has still yet a more striking example. Here is the Roman
Imperium at the height of its power. Nothing can be subjugated any
more, all the countries of the world then known are under the yoke.
Powerful people revel in unparalleled luxury; - People perish in
darkened slavery … Then suddenly the consciousness of the oppressed
mass rises; a movement is born; in the beginning the powerful
underestimated and mocked it; but little-by-little, they became
worried, and started to fear, and then began the most abominable and
cruel persecution. But that only created martyrs, and they only
strengthened the movement, which they wanted to suffocate. The feared
are forbidden “enemies of State and Society” – they were called
the Christians – meeting … and here they meet in catacombs. The
most horrible tortures are discovered, they are handed over to
martyrdom; vainly, they cannot frighten them, and in the most
terrible pains sympathetically at the foolish barbarians, who think
that they can stifle a just idea! - “If our cause is sacred, than
you cannot kill it, but if it is not sacred than it will perish
without you!” they shouted to their tormentors, and with joy, and
sure of their coming victory they went to the dungeon.
“If
our cause is sacred” this means in modern words, if our cause is in
the true interests of humanity, than it cannot be destroyed by
violence. But if it is against those interests, then it will perish
from its own flaws, without the need of a suppressing force.
Well,
what was the use of the Lion’s claw, the cross, or the crematorium
and the other martyrs? The Evolution of the Human Conscience marshes
ever onward: Christianity vanquished every kind of paganism, the new
world ruined the old!
We
point out here that we do not at all believe in the customary
traditions of so-called original Christianity; nor do we regard our
present civilisation as being the result of Christianity. It is easy
to prove that from the moment Christianity became the religion of the
State, all material and spiritual progress of Mankind has found
Christianity against itself.
The
downfall of Ancient Paganism was followed by a long dark night for
humanity. Christianity became the religion of the State, and drew
further and further away from the principles that guaranteed its
triumph. It turned itself into a tool of oppression. But humanity
does not allow itself to be halted. The ideas of liberty, equality,
fraternity have not died, but are always growing underneath the
surface of society. Vainly did the church try to chain the free
spirit; in vain it established the Inquisition. It could burn bodies,
but from the cinders these eternal ideas arose Phoenix like upon
undamaged wings.
Hundreds
of thousands of heretics were slain or crippled, the tyrants seemed
victorious, but in the end it was the heretics who defeated their
judges. Reformation broke the power of Papism, and today social
evolution no longer concerns itself with the powerless “infallible”
Pope.
Certainly,
one who is able to understand can conclude from the history of
religious persecution that it is madness to try to turn the wheel of
human progress. Just as the judges of heretics in the Middle Ages are
judged by the tribunal of Mankind, so are some of the present judges,
- who believe that they can smother with police power the new thought
of Socialism. And just like how the heretics of the Middle Ages
defeated their tormentors, so shall the modern heretics of today
triumph over their Judges and accusers of today. Or is it believed
that our ideas have less vitality than martyred Christianity? Vain
nonsense!
***
The
Bourgeois world against socialism today plays a similar role as the
descending Roman world against rising Christianity. Once again human
consciousness rebels against a crude materialism, which treats people
as cattle or merchandise. And just as before it is the poor and
damned of the earth where the seeds of a new world first sprout.
However,
there is also an important difference, Socialism is not opposed to
science, on the contrary it finds an irreversible backing in it,
although the present proponents of science are for the most part
loyal servants of the God Mammon! Socialism is not just a matter of
feeling, but also of knowledge; it supports itself with a clear
understanding of social relations. It has a concrete program for the
recreation of society. The Socialist feeling has the same as the that
of the first Christians. The mere feeling has already made
Christianity irresistible – so how hopeless is the battle against
Socialism? Which has the emotional strength of Christianity and above
that the knowledge base of Science! If the word religion can be
misunderstood then we should say: “Socialism is religious and
scientific at the same time”. Evolving in the head and the heart of
the workers, socialism cannot be destroyed by cunning, nor violence,
nor even by argument. The seed of Socialism lives in every worker,
whether consciously or unconsciously, strongly or weakly. And this
seed, the seed of the next world, is immortal. Against it denial will
be useless, as will closing eyes, persecution and slaughter! The
movement fulfils itself with the inevitability of the Law of Nature!
Opposition can only strengthen it, just as opposition strengthens
Christianity.
Socialism
has its martyrs, just like Christianity. And should thousands or
hundreds of thousands more be killed than Socialism would not be
hampered on its way to its final triumph, just as everything done to
oppose Christianity failed pitifully. From the blood of every martyr
arise a hundred more fighters; the growing danger will steel their
courage: whoever made a treaty with Death is certain of victory!
***
Let us
turn for a moment to France, that great political and social test,
where a few years ago the great drama of the Commune was played.
The socialist proletariat of Paris, for one moment the masters of the
situation, after a gigantic fight were defeated by the combined
French and Prussian armies. 40,000 workers were killed during the
fighting and afterwards, an equal number were arrested and sent to
perish in unsanitary prisons, dungeon ships and the poisonous vapours
of the Cayenne swamps, the dry Guillotine. What a cry of joy by the
defenders of the Old World! The social problem was driven out of the
world! Socialism in the bodies of 80,000 workers, was killed!
Socialism
murdered? One must have a weak memory. Just 23 years before Paris was
the scene of a similar drama, no less grandiose, though a little less
comprehensive. After the February revolution
the re-triumphant Bourgeoisie killed 12,000 workers and sent another
12,000 to Cayenne…. Ceaselessly did the Bourgeoisie crow with joy
about the defeat of Socialism. Society was saved, with all of its
dependencies: family, property, and heaven knows what else the
Bourgeoisie likes to honour with words, but in practice kicks and
covers in shame.
Socialism
was dead! 22,000 people, - whom the educated brains of the
journalists have discovered many beautiful names for, bandits,
arsonists, modern Barbarians etc. - 22,000 socialists were killed,
22,000 were on their way to the dry guillotine – who could still
believe in the future danger? Socialism was lifeless and interred,
above the cadavers the earth hardened. How could Socialism revive
itself?
Time
passed. The Republic was soon put in a tomb next to Socialism, atop
the two tombs Napoleon built his throne – so how could lifeless
Socialism reawaken? “Blood and killers” reigned; the printing
press was closely guarded or simply bribed; at the same time nothing
remained untried to bind the working people to the Empire. In short,
all types of reactionary policy were used to prevent a new explosion.
Doing more than Napoleon did is not feasible, and we do not believe
there is another landlord who could do more. It is understandable
that Bonaparte became the idol of the Bourgeois of every nation. It
is well known how much stupid admiration the whole liberal and
conservative press have poured on the head of the man of the 2nd
of December.
He was the human avatar of
wise foresight, endowed with supernatural qualities of all wisdom and
all power…
And the end? After 22 years of slumber the believed dead giant
stretched out its limbs, on the fourth of September 1870 it left the
tomb – Napoleon’s throne was toppled – Socialism lived!!
Half
a year later the Commune was founded! Socialism, which in 1848 only
endured for four days, now stood up to the combined French and
Prussian military force for two months, and it was only subjugated
after an 8 day street battle. The butchery was greater than in 1848;
the number of deportations was tripled. The whole European
bourgeoisie enthusiastically celebrated and express their approval in
every way. However just two months later the Bourgeois world could
ascertain that it was celebrating only a Pyrrhic victory, and
that it had cut its own flesh. France had lost its intelligent
workers, and Socialism was not dead! It lived in Paris, in France, in
Germany, everywhere in the world. It lives in the breast of every
worker who has a heart that can feel, and a head which can think.
The
bourgeoisie cannot kill every worker, and if it could, then what
would be the result? It would only doom itself. The Bourgeoisie
exists because of the
workers, and it will cease to exist because of
the workers – it cannot escape from this fatal dilemma. Now society
is producing a proletariat constantly growing in number, the economic
circumstances propel to proletariat towards Socialism. The more
powerful the Bourgeoisie become, the more gigantic the proletariat,
and thus the socialist movement becomes stronger, and the more
powerful the opposition to the Bourgeoisie. If the Bourgeoisies
wishes to become more powerful it must strengthen the proletariat and
the socialist movement its mortal enemy. If
it could nullify the proletariat and Socialism it would destroy those
who sustain it. In this fatal cycle it must perish.
By “blood and killers” they cannot expel Socialism from the
world. In June 1848 they tried in vain to do that; and the Paris
blood letting in May 1871 did not have a better result. Just as the
June rebels revived the Commune, so to will the Commune be celebrated
by inspiring repeated eruptions always more quickly and with more
force, until the old world has exhausted all its remedies and fallen
into ruin, unless a peaceful way can be found, which we will speak of
later.
***
That
crude force is not enough to defeat Socialism, our opponents more or
less understand. That’s why they have started to fight us with
moral weapons. They’ve
founded Workers Association’s that teach harmony between Labour and
Capital; that the true interests of the working class is that it
works hand-in-hand with the capitalists; and that the disputes on the
social question is only thrown up by a few, glorious men, the
unconscious, and the instigators… Now, they continue to claim: that
they founded these associations for US. The untruth of this harmony
will be conclusively proved most convincingly by everyday experience.
The workers will learn by their own experience that workers and
capitalists have nothing in common.
Facts mock this harmony. How many times have we seen the most intense
action, the most comprehensive strikes taking place by workers
trained in this sacred harmony of labour and capital, but in their
heads and hearts the milk of this harmony-wisdom has been turned by
the influence of experience into dead snake venom.
Could a handful of people be the cause behind a movement that has
appeared in every country at the same time and has been directly
dominating Europe for almost a century? What an insult to the
working class in such an assumption! Hundreds of thousands, millions
of workers would have to have been guided like sheep by a handful of
rebel leaders. Oh, gentlemen bourgeoisie and other reactionaries, if
workers were such easily duped sheep as you suppose, then surely they
would be in your nets, for you certainly do your best to capture
them, and you have a hundred times as many resources to tie them to
you than the Socialists do. But such an assumption is, firstly, and
insult to the workers, secondly, completely incorrect, and thirdly
absolutely foolish – and can only be the result of deep ignorance
of the whole history of social evolution.
The
child, with his naive fantasies populates the world with princes,
giants and dwarfs. It only sees extraordinary miracles and
conjectures secret powers everywhere. On similar ground to the child
stands everyone who believes that human history is the result of a
handful of extraordinary individuals – good and bad – and
who see in every event, and every movement nothing more than the
capricious whim or desire of this or that person. On this framework,
until very recently stood the whole of historiography, which was
nothing more than an unbroken chain of the names of famous princes,
generals and heroes, mixed with a great quantity of knowledge about
battles, conspiracies, deaths etc. in short, just a novel of the
worst kind, partly a rogue novel, partly a children's story.
For scientific historiography historical evolution is the struggle
between Man and Nature. It knows no arbitrariness, it sees only
necessity, nothing miraculous nor extraordinary; everything develops
according to nature, the general laws of Nature. The miracles of the
grey legged legends disappear before the torch of the critic, just as
the monstrous nebulae dissolve before the coming dawn. The cult of
heroes is thrown down and draped in the rags of superstition, the
“great men” are humiliated, humanity is raised!
The path of History is a constant struggle of man against nature –
an uninterrupted battle for existence; firstly; a battle to not be
subject to Nature; later, a battle to subject Nature. Our culture is
the result of this many thousands of years long battle.
***
Friends,
without a doubt you all know that the biblical creation story is
scientifically inverted. Man did not spring
perfectly from the hands of a creator; humanity did not degenerate
later either, so that God had to send prophets and saviours and other
miraculous enlightenments, to make their fellow men better. The
original man was not the straight, crooked creature, looking proudly
at the sky and wearing upon his forehead the sign of nobility as
chief of all creation – as the fable of the Old Testament tells the
story. Our ancient ancestors were in all ways similar to the animals,
and it is only through hazardous coincidence and favourable
circumstances, that they could raise themselves above the level of
their parents.
Historical
time began only when humanity became capable of living in solidarity
with other people. At that
time Man became a social animal, and its history begins. The
Man-alone could not raise himself above the other animals, and has
neither history nor evolution. Only through society did humanity
become humans. All progress, all culture is the result of social
collaboration. And the more advanced are social matters, than the
faster culture develops and the higher the level culture obtains.
Coming from the first individuals to a people, then later onto
nations and then the whole world – that is the course of human
evolution. The ideal of universal human solidarity is the highest
principle of culture and morality. To fully implement it is the task
of Socialism.
It
Follows: that civilisation is the result of collective labour. Every
man during his life has to struggle for existence. Every individual
plays a part in the combined total of cultural riches. The
“Great Men” whose stories are told by official histories also
played a part, and it is possible due to favourable circumstances
that they played more of a part than their contemporaries who remain
unknown, but by themselves they were not capable of doing that much
more, unless helped along by the circumstances created by society.
Before the critic’s sharp eye the social idols suffer the same fate
as the religious idols. Just
as the Christians through out idols and taught the mute and the
fearful that the God they feared was only a piece of rotten wood, so
science topples the “great people” from their pedestals and
revels to the people that they admired mere Chimeras.
Scientific
history makes heroes and miracles disappear and esteems every person.
Not thanks to the miracles of a select few has mankind reached the
stage on which it stands, no, humanity has risen like the Coral
Islands of the Pacific: through the common work of billions of
individuals.
Friends, forgive me this excursion from my subject. I wanted only to
show how incorrect is the supposition that human evolution is
fulfilled by the actions of a few great people, some bad, some good.
And also that the present social movement is not created by a handful
of men, - such a claim is most unscientific, and can only be believed
by children, the ignorant and the lowly, enslaved souls.
***
But
our Goal is Revolution!
Revolution! A terrifying phantom for old women of both sexes. Yes, we
are revolutionaries! We desire the revolutionary change of the
present system. But, let us look that phantom moment in the eyes, and
it’ll immediately lose its terrifying qualities.
We live today in the middle of a revolution, and we live through a
revolution. The whole of human history is a ceaseless revolution, a
revolution is born, it grows, progresses, and finally changes life.
For the whole of human existence Man is a revolutionary. That it is
discontented with what is and what it has, always desiring something
different and new – this is the very essence of human nature. If a
human or humanity ceased to be revolutionary, then at the same time
it would cease to exist! Revolution is life – non-revolution,
non-movement is death.
Its true that the word Revolution has another meaning; change by
force the existing forms of state or society. Well, who causes this
forceful change? Who is responsible for all the revolutions that have
erupted so far in this sense? Not those, who according to the law of
human evolution seek to create new forms and new contents for the new
expression of new thoughts; the guilty are those who through egoism
or need try to disrupt the natural and necessary course of human
evolution. Just like how water flows calmly and vigorously if there
are no barriers, but becomes violent when meeting obstacles, so too
is the advancing of humanity. Rebels and subversives are only born
when obstacles to progress are put in place. All revolutions in this
sense were caused, not be so called revolutionaries, but by those who
barred the natural course of evolution.
All revolutions have a defensive not offensive character. The Peasant
Rebellions of Germany
were defensive because it tried to defend sacred human rights against
obstinate feudalism. The attack on the Bastille was an act of defence
because it was prompted by the menacing manoeuvres of soldiers by the
court. The occupation of the Tuileries palace on the 10th
of August 1792 and the Reign of Terror were necessary to protect
France from internal plots and outside attack; The July Revolution
was the defence of civil liberty from attacks by the Bourbon dynasty;
the February Revolution was an act of defence against the corrupt
Bourgeois-regime; The March Revolution of 1848 in Germany was a
defence against the hostile actions of the Kings and Princes; the
June Days were a defensive revolt by the people against the
impositions of the Bourgeoisie who wished to stifle Socialism at all
costs; defence was the September revolution, needed to protect France
from the consequences of a shameful attack by the State; and finally
the Commune which was the manifestation of defence because it aimed
to be the salvation of the Republic after being twice betrayed by the
government.
And so in the future no revolution will break out that does not have
a defensive character. We are revolutionary people, but the
revolutionary movement that we work for, will only develop violence
and bloodshed our opponents want it; regents or the Bourgeoisie.
***
Friends! To prove to you that our movement is not artificial or
intentionally made, but grows naturally from social conditions, which
sustain it and will allow it to triumph – I will no speak on the
main reproaches that are used to calumny our goals and methods.
First
and foremost, there is the attempt to slander the so-called “Leaders”
to shake the faith of the masses in them. “The leaders” it is
said “live off of the sweat of the workers, and our only interested
in filling their own pockets” etc. Well, it is true that there are
people who live off of the sweat of the workers; people who live in
luxury at the expense of workers; and those people are the gentlemen
bourgeoisie, factory owners and other exploiters; who get rich by not
paying workers the full value of their labour. Live
by the sweat of the workers! Really, the bourgeoisie already
accomplishes this so thoroughly that a
subsequent harvest has
little promise! If
the so-called leaders were men not acting out of conviction but for
profitability, well, they would turn to the
right people:
where there is something to gain, so
to the gentleman bourgeois, to the rulers, who
have so much money. He who wants to sell
himself, sells himself to whoever can pay the most. That’s what a
bunch of journalists do, wait for an order from their masters to
start throwing insults at our heads.
Well
then, what profits can these “leaders” hope for? By standing
above the others they earn the first and most energetic attacks from
the opposition! Furthermore: It is an uncertain existence full of
misfortune that they lead. The fight itself – made against us with
weapons most dishonest- rewards the
fighters with special emotions, in return it requires full
self-denial of normal family life, abandonment of assured existence,
he often has to suffer actual misery, is this luck so enviable?
Those
who sell themselves, sell themselves for a life of comfort luxury,
not for a life of hunger and want. Among the so-called “leaders”
of our party I know of none who has not through his work in the party
suffered material loss!
Certainly
for our opponents – whose sole leader is naked selfishness- such
self-denial is an unsolvable mystery; they are not capable of
understanding, that ideas and principles exist, that for dangers and
misery, can make the people they touch insensitive. If they could
understand that, then they would not be our opponents!
***
We want
to abolish property….
Well,
friends, the crudest lie is never told.
What is
property? According to rationality and science there is only one
method for creating economic value. That sole method is: Labour.
Capital,
which economists regard as the second or even the main means, is
itself only a creation of Labour.
Well,
if Labour creates value, then it has a right to that value which it
has created, this is the foundation of Socialism.
Every
worker must enjoy the fruits of their work; in other words: every
worker has a property right to the whole result of their own labour.
My property is the product of
my own work. From this result, it follows that no one has the right
to the results of the work of another person. The
end point of all this is therefore that socialism will make owner
every man who works, and will leave hungry everyone who can work but
does not want to.
So, I
think that, far from being the abolishers of property, we are in fact
the most ardent defenders of property!
Today
the do-nothing is more esteemed than the man who works. Today the
material state of man is disproportional to the value of his work.
According to our views on property the vast majority of should be
owners, but because that vast majority does work, it is not so. On
the contrary: property is the monopoly of one class; so the vast
majority have to give up property and work to create property for
others. That is precisely why we are fighting
today's society, because it denies the
right of possession to the vast majority
and steals from it its rightful property.
You
must understand me clearly: I do not wish to say that every
individual bourgeois or capitalist is a thief. We do not
fight against persons, but against the system, unlike
our opponents, who avoid attacking our ideas, but earnestly endeavor
to cover with impurities our personalities – a sure sign that they
do not believe in the correctness of their own cause.
No, I’m
not talking about a separate Bourgeoisie, and blaming them for the
evils of today’s society. Our understanding of history precludes
this thinking. The bourgeois world was born from natural necessity
out of the feudal world, just as feudalism in its own way was born
out of the Ancient world. For us History is an organism, not a
mechanism. We know that everything has its own cause, its own
foundation. Only the most lamentable know nothing could attribute the
phenomena in the world to arbitrary intention. We do not proudly
state “Humanity, until now, has gone along paths that are bad, we
will show it the right way; and those who do not think like us are
ignoramuses or rogues!” That would be the chatter of immature boys
or charlatans. The present system of production has evolved
organically from the previous systems of production; it is a higher
form than those before it, that is why it has the right to exist. But
now it is in opposition to a new system of production – the
socialist system – to which it will, in its own way have to cede
its place, just as the petite-bourgeois production of the Middle Ages
yielded.
Suffice
to say, we do not attack property generally, but only this current
form of property, that property which more accurately is a tool for
exploiting other people, who are condemned to be dispossessed.
***
Let’s
take a quick luck at how property is born today.
Labour
is the source of all wealth – so the economists unanimously admit.
From this it follows, that no one has the right to value that is not
the result of his own work. Well, the productive potential of every
human is nearly equal – one creates a little more, another, a
little less; but not that much more or less beyond the average
amount. So: the value of everyone’s work, under similar conditions,
is approximately equal; therefore, if everyone received the full
value of their labour, than property would be shared out
approximately equally.
However,
instead of equality, the greatest inequality reigns. What is the
cause of this?
Well,
if you live in a region with factories, then you have a good
opportunity to investigate the foundations of this inequality. Each
of you knows some manufacturer and
seen him get
rich.
Let us
take as an example, Mr Zimmermann of Chemnitz. This gentleman arrived
20 or 30 years ago in Chemnitz, as poor as the poorest among us. He
successfully raised a little capital for a factory (back then a small
amount of capital was enough). Fortune favoured him, that is: he got
a lot of orders. These orders were given to the workers he hired,
while he himself did his part of the work, though
a part no greater than that of any of his
workers – because everyone knows that the
capabilities of Mr Zimmermann were no better than average. In the
beginning Mr Zimmermann hired only a dozen workers, then later a
hundred, and then more than a thousand. Mr Zimmermann is now a
millionaire, while his workers remain dispossessed proletarians.
But
what is the difference? Neither the quantity nor the quality of the
Mr Zimmermann’s work explains this difference. He didn’t work
better nor harder than his employees. And, although he became a
millionaire, they remained poor devils. Zimmermann did not become a
millionaire through his own work; for then
even the workers who did at least as much work as Mr. Zimmermann did
would all become millionaires. This did not happen – only
Zimmermann got rich, and his workers are still poor.
Here,
friends, is the solution to the riddle. From the fruits of the common
labour Mr Zimmermann receives more than he is entitled to, and the
workers received less than their entitlement.
The
current methods of mass production make it impossible for one person
to work productively on an individual scale; it requires the
collaboration of many; it needs machines and complicated tools, whose
cost is beyond the strength of everyone, who only have at hand the
fruits of one’s own labour. It follows then, that everyone who does
not have capital – and who through their own labour capital is not
acquirable – must then sell his labour, to another, who possesses
the necessary capital.
The
price, paid to the labourer is his salary. If that
wage were the total value of the labor delivered, then the
entrepreneur, even if he employed a thousand workers, would not get
rich. But the wage is only a part of the
value created by the wage earner. The entrepreneur pays less salary
than the labour
value. In other words: the salary paid is not equal to the value of
the labour –
the worker creates, in addition to the value paid to him, an
additional value
which is not
paid to him. This greater value (value
surplus) is the building blocks of the current bourgeois capital.
From
this, everyone can clearly see that: the
so-called employer is not the benefactor of the employee, but that
the employee is the benefactor of the employer! Of
course not a voluntary benefactor! Because his charity makes him a
proletarian, the slave of the one he enriches. Is that an order? A
right? Only those who personally profit from this system can approve
of it.
The
wage system is the foundation of the current ruling class, and of the
bad things that accompany this rule. It is for this reason that the
abolition of the wages system is the main task of the socialist
movement. To the worker the total value of his work – that is our
goal. We
do not attack property – on the contrary we wish to make enable
everyone to have property. The worker – instead of working on
account of another, who exploits and enslaves him – will work on
his own account, and as a free person will receive the total value of
their work.
This
we want to achieve we organisation.
For
we do not at all deny the benefits of concentrated production. We
know, that common work improves the results of labour.
We wish to preserve the profits of the current mass production
methods; we want them to be even greater; but we want to divide those
profits equally amongst
all, and not remain the monopoly of a few.
***
We
want to destroy harmony!
Stupid
lie. We want to establish
harmony.
We want to transform present society, which causes discord, and pits
one against another: suppressors and suppressed, exploiters and
exploited. Our harmony is the community. There will no longer be
Masters and servants, only colleagues, people, with the same rights
and duties.
Only
on the basis of equality is harmony possible. Currently, the
capitalist has different interests to those of the worker. These
interests are in direct conflict. This creates the sharpest discord,
instead of peace. The “harmony” of today, between workers and
capitalists is nothing
but an invention for children and for workers who have
still
not
learned to think.
***
We want to “Share everything!”
We
want to take, and to share among ourselves, the property of the
owning class! Well,
it has happened repeatedly that the possessing class was in the power
of the proletariat, that the proletariat therefore had a good
opportunity of "partitioning," or, frankly, of plundering
its owners. I
return to the February Revolution, of the March rebellion in Vienna,
Berlin etc. and the Paris Commune etc.
Despite
the many lies deliberately scattered about us, however, it is a fact
that one never respects the property of others more than during such
crises. Firstly:
The proletariat knows how to distinguish between people and States;
it knows that States do not change by a simple change in possession.
Secondly: Revolutionary times noble the heart; they spark the sacred
fires of the highest idealism, even within the worst characters.
During these times there are fewer crimes compared to those that
occur in ordinary times.
In
Paris, the workers respected property to the extent that they shot
thieves. I myself in the end of February 1848 saw chalked on the wall
of the Tuileries the words
“Thieves will be punished with death”.
That
reminds me of an interesting statement by Heinrich Heine the famous
German poet: “The
bourgeoisie saw the overthrow of the June
throne
with quiet resignation; but when they learned that thieves had been
shot, then suddenly a wave
of
terror fell upon them — and Mr. and Mrs. Rothschild. and other
capitalists ran away from Paris, where they were no
longer felt
themselves
in danger
”.
Certainly
it is the case that the true looters, the true thieves are not the
workers but the gentlemen and capitalists.
We also reject this reproach from our enemies.
How employers "share" with their workers, we have already
explained this above.
In
short - we
don't want to share; we are, on the contrary, the most ardent
opponents of this "partition." We
want to eliminate the partisans, all of whom deprive the workers of
part of the value of their work; also those who drain the people by
taxes. We want to protect society, work and property from the swarms
of locusts that in society, in the stock market, in industry, in
trade, swallow the fruits of the labor of others.
So
how do our opponents imagine the partition they have attribute to us?
Do they believe that the workers are so naive that they believe that
their situation would improve if the money and all the goods were
divided equally between them? Every worker knows that such a division
would in no way change the essence
of society; only the consequences would be removed for a time, but
the causes
would exist, and soon bear the same results.
Such
nonsense does not come to the head of any socialist. Socialism views
society as a living organism, not
as a constructed mechanism. Like
every animal and plant organism, society is constantly changing,
evolving from the bottom up, from one step to the next - only with
the difference that the collective organism we call society is
immortal and indestructible, and from all crises will rise with
rejuvenated forces. For this reason we
reject mechanistic changes and promote organic changes. The system of
wage labour on which the current methods of work are built will be
abolished, and replaced with the system of common labour, which
guarantees to everyone the fruits of their own labour. We will end
the exploitation of Labour by Capital.
It will not even be necessary to expropriate private property; for,
circumstances will compel the capitalists, of their own accord, will
present to the community what they have in order to live and take
part in the new system.
Because, keep in mind, the workers do not need the capitalists. It is
labour that produces value, and capital is nothing without labour.
For
example: if there were a huge submersion in
which all workers would perish, while all capitalists could save
themselves with its capitals, factories, machines, shining palaces
and every luxury. What would happen then? The
capitalists would have to work themselves, and would immediately
become workers, or they would perish amidst
all their treasures. But, if the opposite happened, if all
capitalists would perish, with all their capital, whilst the workers
could only save themselves, without factories, without machines,
without any capital, just sufficient nutrients until the next
harvest, what would happen? The workers would simply forge tools,
they would build houses, dig through the earth, dig mines, and after
a few years the destroyed capital would be fully recreated, then
later, the signs
of disaster would have disappeared; but the workers would live
happier than before, they would have the capital,
but without a capitalist class. Because I'm
sure that no one would restore vanished capitalism.
The
above example shows quite clearly that the worker does not need the
capitalist, while the capitalist without the worker cannot exist, not
as a capitalist at least. Instead of wanting to divide, we want to
deny to the
capitalists, their
"share" with their workers.
***
We
are the Barbarians of the present age.
We
want to destroy civilisation – the triumph of socialism will be the
death of civilisation. Well. The party, whose program demands
Education without cost
and generally demands all institutions of education be made free of
charge is not affected by such a rebuke.
Certainly,
we wish to destroy what our enemies call “civilisation”. We want
to destroy; slavery and exploitation; we want to kill the seed of
hate and discord between the peoples; we want to get rid of
ignorance, that spiritual night in which the majority of humanity is
pushed. Your
civilization, gentlemen, is the opposite of civilization; it can
indeed only exist, by
holding the people in ignorance, closing for it the temple of the
true civilization. Opening
that temple for the people, that is our goal. A science you
monopolized for a few chosen ones who in return must blindly submit
to you, that science we want to
do for the common good of all mankind.
And that will happen with the system of real public schools — which
will no longer be schools, not schools where the minimum knowledge is
taught – but public schools in the broadest sense of the word,
schools for the people, which will give all children the maximum of
knowledge; who will wake up in every child every talent or ability.
Socialism
is the danger and menace of civilisation! It will give to everyone a
talent and the possibility of improving themselves… Is this a
danger, or a threat? Current society only allows a few to improve and
better themselves and develop their talents. The vast majority of
talents are suffocated today. It is often
surprising that at such times so many extraordinary people rise up.
Well, that happens in times when hidden talents are given an
opportunity to develop. These mainly occurs in revolutionary times,
for when people need new strengths to develop new ideas. During these
times though, it is not that there are more talents than in ordinary
times, but that the need for talents is greater. The
occasion not only makes thieves, it also makes great people. A great
man is an ordinary man who has found favorable circumstances to grow
up.
So, the
greatest quantity of civilisation for all, - free science, freedom
for everyone. Of course,
we want to destroy your
civilization, because it forces science to sell itself to the rich
and to the powerful; for it is based on injustice; for it is utterly
immoral; because it means the prostitution
of science, of the whole spiritual life.
***
The
defenders of today’s society of impurities and dirt, also throws us
this reproach: that we want to annihilate
the family and introduce the common
ownership of
women and free love.
Well,
we certainly do want free love: we really want to
free love from the shackles that today's society has attached to it.
But if our opponents wish to talk about the
ownership of women and the annihilation of the family, then they have
only to look in a mirror. For they blame us for their own sins.
Instead of imposing the common ownership of women, we want to abolish
the already existing ownership of women. Instead of destroying the
family – which it is today humiliated and for the great multitude
is an inaccessible ideal – we want to ennoble the family, and make
family happiness open to all.
Where
today is the “sanctity of the family”? About which our enemies
make so much noise? Is it to be found in
those hundreds of thousands of prostitutes wandering the streets of
the cities, who
rent their bodies
to every man who presents money?
In
every country where class differences exist: everywhere where there
is an abyss between rich and poor; everywhere where exploitation of
man by man is the rule and custom – there is the torment of
prostitution. It is indeed the inevitable
consequence of the present state, the natural complement of bourgeois
marriage and a necessary institution of today's society. Our
society puts before hundreds of thousands of young women this choice:
to get into trouble or sell oneself; and so as long as that lasts, so
to will prostitution last. Prostitution will only disappear when all
people are given the possibility to live honestly. And to achieve
this, a revolutionary change to the present system is necessary.
The
most beastly fallen woman still merit our pity, our sympathy. Her
story is a social drama, affectionate to anyone who has a human heart
in their chest, and who can read in the human heart. Poor
education, bad examples, misfortune, homelessness – these are the
roots. Who would proudly throw stones at this fallen woman, the
truest victim of our shameful society? Prostitution is nothing more
than the common ownership of women – in its most crude and impure
form. And they accuse us of
wanted to the common ownership of women! If
we desired that, then we not have declared war on present society!
Look at the institution of marriage. Isn’t marriage reduced to
prostitution by capitalism? Is it really based on true love, and free
inclination? Is it not merely a spectacle, a matter of negotiation
instead of the linking of hearts? Doesn’t the woman sell herself in
marriage most of the time? Is she not bought like merchandise? Is it
not the case that among the upper classes marriages for love are
prohibited? That their mutual property is precisely weighted?
Is
it not considered foolish to marry “under one's own state”? Do
you not praise the “skill” and “practicality” of poor parents
who encourage their daughters to give themselves in some way to rich
lustful men? Wouldn’t a manufacturer who would allow his own
daughter, to be the wife of a laborer, if they would love one another
one another be declared foolish? Well, isn’t all this prostitution?
With the a woman of today just another commodity?
Here
is an example: Two peasants sit together. The son of one wants to
marry the daughter of the other. “My
son will get so much land, so many oxen, horses, pigs ---- how much
will you give your daughter?” - “I
could not give more than that.” “That is too little; you must
give more oxen and horses.” “I cannot.” “Well, in that case,
let’s drop the matter.”
This
is a scene from life, which even Juvenal
could not think up a more accurate satire. We
are proud of our civilization, we claim to stand much higher than the
savages, and yet we, like the savages, trade girls for cattle and
pigs!
Our
whole society is based on the degradation of humanity, which it turns
into commodities. That a woman must sell her body, is only part of
the system that forces the worker to sell his labour i.e. his body,
his spirit, himself. There is however a difference. Labour itself is
necessary, but it is only circumstances that attach shame and
hardships to it for the workers. But
what the prostitute does is the last defilement of human nature. Love
– she can give but must not sell. Selling love, whether with
marriage or without is prostitution!
Every
marriage, instituted by Mammon, is all the same even
if
the priest blessed it, it is prostitution. Every man's connection
with a woman, based on love, no even
without a priests blessing,
is a true marriage.
And
capitalism has also made women wage slaves; it also locks her to the
factories. Didn’t capitalism destroy the family in this way? And
that is not all. Insatiable capitalism drags even the children to its
alter of human commodities. Husband, wife, children – all are wage
slaves. Capitalism
kidnaps the home and the family and everything else. And yet, in
hypocritical indignation, the pious capital strikes its chest and
shouts to sky for the protection of society from the bad socialists
who want to eliminate the family. O, you vile hypocrites! The worker
does not have a family, you have forbade him from having one, and it
is the desire for a family, so that he can be a human, that he has
become a socialist.
Precisely
because of the annihilation of the family, precisely because of the
humiliation of women,
today's society has lost the right to existence, and
condemned
itself to death.
The
woman, with her more delicate feeling, is more acutely aware of her
humiliation than the man. Hence the boundless enthusiasm of many
women for socialism; hence the ardent participation of women in all
revolutions. During the heroic battle of the Commune,
young mothers, with children on their breasts, resisted the bullets,
and encouraged the men to persevere; young women grabbed the banner,
which fell from their hands of a dying warrior, and carried it, in
contempt of death, against the enemy, until they fell, pierced by the
bullets of the Order
bandits.
Hundreds of captured women and girls, though mortally wounded,
repeated endlessly the cry: Long live the Commune!
and through
bleeding
eyes still showed
contempt
for the savage triumphs.
“Filthy
Pétroleuses,
dirty prostitutes! Abominable sickness!” the reactionary Bourgeois
press roars in chorus.
Filthy
Pétroleuses?
A despicable offense, a bourgeois lie, invented by rogues, believed
only by fools, refuted even by honest opponents! Dirty prostitutes?
Undoubtedly, among those heroines there were a few though very few
prostitutes.
But
was it the Commune that pushed them to prostitution? No gentlemen
Bourgeoisie, that was your
society,
it is your best of all possible
worlds,
which pushes women into dishonour. The commune, on the contrary,
enabled them to rise from the mud, to cleanse themselves of the filth
of your society. And you marvel at that fiery enthusiasm for the
Commune, and a savage demonic hatred of the old society – the
society of prostitution –
that pushes them to the battle? And you are surprised that women –
half angels and half furies- tried to settle their lives of shame by
death for a holy thing?
Ah,
the “eternal womanhood” has
sprung up in those profaned women, like a foot-snake, and it has
whilst
dying sunk its
teeth into your society. You
call yourselves Christians, but you forget that Jesus shamed those
who wanted to stone an adulterous woman to death? And you bravely
cursed them to the tomb, those victims of your society, those martyrs
for a new ideal, who showed the slave the end of slavery, to the
woman the end of prostitution!
You,
friends, understood that the woman
problem is
not a separate problem,
but is a part of the general social problem. A woman is the necessary
completion of man. Without the woman the man cannot be a man; without
the help of woman the man cannot realize human ideal. Women, they
feel the misery of the current society the most, and so they will
also feel the happiness of social liberation the most. It
is therefore the duty of every woman, of every young lady to
encourage the husband, the fiancé to take part in our movement; and
of every mother, to proclaim to her children the gospel of liberty
and of equality, that a new generation may rise up, awareness of
their
human worthiness, who
will
not tolerate that there are still
lords
and servants on earth.
***
So
I have proved
that all the reproaches can be
thrown back at
our enemies. Not against, but for property,
we fight; not against, but for the family;
not against, but for civilization;
not against, but for order;
not against, but for harmony.
The labor movement is a civilized movement, not
created by some chance or by someone's whim, but born of natural
causes. I proved that only ignorance and folly may doubt the justice
of the socialist movement; and that any attempt to stop that movement
is so senseless, and
desperate as any attempt by an ox would be
to try to stop a
racing locomotive. Just as the locomotive
would thunder through the
senseless opponent,
so too will the
labor movement go across all barriers, straight to the target.
We can classify our enemies into two parties –
enemies due to ignorance, and enemies due to ill will. To the first I
say: Get to know our movement; you will cease to fear it immediately
after learning about it. The red phantom that frightens you, is just
like all phantoms merely a creation of ignorance; it will vanish with
the under the searching gaze of the intellect.
And you who fight against us because of ill will;
you who know that we are right; you who oppose us only out of
selfishness – consider that myopic selfishness is you leader. The
present society gives you great profits, but there does not exist any
power that will save your privileges. Your reign will soon be at an
end. You must
fall. But you can mitigate your fall; you can avoid catastrophe. To
fight against us can have but one result: It will increase the
birthing pains and quite possible hasten the birth.
You
can only lose if by violent obstacles you impose a violent character
on the crisis. To avoid catastrophes will be in the interests of all,
both you and us. It
is in the interests of all, to build a bridge to travel from the old
world to the new. Only through a
series of compromises can the social movement be resolved peacefully.
You
bourgeoisie, which has an army, at the capital, in the press, in all
material and all spiritual powerhouses – it's up to you to put the
solution of the social problem on the path of compromises and
reforms. All that is necessary is your will. For the will, you must
first understand that the present situation is based on injustice,
and is absolutely intolerable. That is why I repeat to our honest
opponents: Study the social problem! To understand the social problem
is to solve it. If it is misunderstood, then it will cause the most
terrible political and social earthquakes.
The
social problem is the Sphinx, who kills those who do not know how to
solve its riddle: but will kill itself immediately, once its riddle
is solved. The answer to the riddle of the Sphinx was
man.
The answer to the riddle of the social problem is also man.
And the world will not calm down until that riddle, Man is solved.
Until that solution, the sphinx of the social problem will continue
to show society its threatening face; it will continue to throw
society from one terror to another, from one bloodshed to another.
Two
worlds stand one against the other: the old world and the new, the
dead world of the present society, and the ideal world of the future.
Between the two worlds is a deep and wide abyss. Current society is
running blindly toward that abyss; savage terror will start to catch
it; it
looks like a bunch of buffaloes that, running away from a burning
meadow, gallop forward with their eyes closed, mad with terror, not
paying
attention to the wide abyss that opens before them. To
jump across it is impossible- a
few more steps, and they will not even
be
able to return; the former have disappeared – only after filling
the abyss with corpses the latter will be able to reach the opposite
side.
Will the abyss between the new and old worlds be filled with corpses?
Won't a bridge be built over which we can enter the new world? Our
adversaries can do that, and if they do, then they will do immense
service to all of humanity.
I
will end. What we must do, we see clearly before us. We see the way,
we see our duty. They
will try to seduce us from that path, or push us away from it. But
in Paris, and many other places, socialism proved that it knows how
to die for its principles.
Our
cause is the cause of humanity. It will depend on our opponents
whether we rich our goal peacefully or through violent struggle.
Whatever
the decision, we will accept it, without personal hate. For we also
fight for our enemies; it is also for them that we do our liberating
work, for they need freedom too.
And
you, friends, I advise the following: Work in your societies, calmly,
without interruption. Don't
let your actions get in the way, spread our ideas - and if
discouragement or despair ever fall on you, then follow the example
of the noble Jacoby who
never wavered, not even when all around him staggered, and always
remember his word: “The
founding of the smallest workers
society will be of more importance to the future historian than the
battle of Sadowa”
On
Offence and Defence
A
Speech by Wilhelm Liebknecht
(1871)
Introduction
Wilhelm
Liebknecht was an important figure in the history of German
socialism, he was amongst the first generation of socialist
politicians who founded the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).
And it was partially thanks to his activity that the SPD grew from a
small sect into a large political party with a mass following.
Despite this he’s often been overshadowed throughout much of his
life. The early period of his political activity is dominated by the
personalities of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Ferdinand Lassalle
all of whom he had met while moving through the German labour
movement that spanned much of Europe.
And his
legacy has been overshadowed by the life and death of his son Karl
Liebknecht, who followed in his fathers footsteps to be a leading
figure in the SPD before its Imperial turn to support the conflict
that became the First World War shattered his faith in the party.
Karl would be a prominent figure in the 1918 German revolution
alongside Rosa Luxemburg, both where murdered by right wing military
officers in January 1919, with the support of a government dominated
by SPD politicians.
This
speech was given during what might be called the height of German
Social Democracy, its membership and affiliated associations
continued to grow despite repressive legislation by the Bismarck
cabinet and its speeches and pamphlets openly talked about
revolutionary change. It was translated into Esperanto in 1913 by
W.C. Nutters, and this translation that I have used to create this
English version. The speech was dated 1871, but I believe this to be
a mistake passed on some remarks Liebknecht makes within, though the
best I can do to place it is in middle 1870s. Since I’ve not been
able to conclusively prove when this speech was given I’ve kept the
1871 date, if nothing else I know for certain that this speech
couldn’t have been given before 1871.
The
speech covers many topics and is an appeal to the workers of Germany
to get behind the program of the SPD and support social revolution.
It touches on the Prussian wars to unite Germany and defends the
record of several workers uprising that had broken out before,
especially that of the Paris Commune.
Wilhelm
Liebknecht was himself a participant of the wave of revolutions that
rocked Europe throughout 1848-9. Though in a minor capacity, he went
to Paris after hearing about the uprising in February but arrived to
find a lull, the July Monarchy of the House of Orleans had fallen,
and the new Republic was at the time stable and enjoyed the support
of many of France’s socialist politicians. Shortly after he joined
a column of exiled Germans who were marching into the German states
(this was before the unification of Germany in 1871) to spread
revolution there. Liebknecht was arrested and charged with treason in
Baden, fortunately the revolution did arrive in Baden just after
Liebknecht, the prison was stormed and the prisoners were released.
After
the revolutions of 1848 had been defeated Liebknecht lived in the
German exile community in Switzerland, before being expelled for
trying to build a mass socialist movement in that country. He ended
up in London, becoming acquainted with Karl Marx and would remain a
close colleague and drinking companion of Marx for many years. He
returned to German territory in 1862 after an amnesty for 1848
revolutionaries was passed.
Having
returned to German territory Liebknecht joined or founded over a
dozen socialistic organisations and wrote for a number of socialist
newspapers including Der Social-Demokrat (The
Social Democrat), Der
Volksstaat (The
People’s State) which he also edited and Vorwärts
(Forwards) which he also published in 1876. His journalism got him
into trouble with the authorities on several occasions. Most relevant
to this speech was the 1872 treason trial of Wilhelm Liebknecht and
his party colleague August Bebel, the trial was prompted by their
opposition to the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and demand for the
working classes to launch revolutionary warfare against their own
governments instead of supporting a blood letting for land, plunder
and supposed “glory”.
This
speech does touch on some of that material which Liebknecht made in
speeches and in newspapers articles during that conflict. I suppose
its worth noting that Liebknecht and Bebel’s position on war is the
opposite of what would become the SPD’s policy in the beginning of
the 20th century, where the SPD was both the largest party
in Germany and an increasingly active collaborator in German
Imperialism. There were still SPD members willing to take a Wilhelm
Liebknecht line in 1914-18, one of which was his own son Karl, but
when they aired their views the party itself acted like the German
Imperial courts, accused them of treason and forced them out into the
margins.
With
that and the two year sentences to imprisonment in a fortress both
men received in mind, I would speculate that the earliest this speech
could’ve appeared was 1873. Beyond the war commentary the speech
expands to include fighting on the social plan and covers many topics
about contemporary industrialised capitalist society, usually
Liebknecht uses the rhetorical device of turning hostile arguments on
their head. The remarks on sex work and women in general wouldn’t
earn him any awards from the 19th century feminist
movement and certainly not from our current movement. But beyond that
I would say the speech has aged fairly well. Its arguments against
the morals of capitalist society and the priorities of the State
remain current for the most part. The main weakness of the speech
reading after the fact is that Liebknecht is clearly a true believer
in the politics he promotes and he was certain that the socialist
transformation would be close at hand. Which unfortunately hasn’t
happened yet, I hope that this pamphlet will give us some incite into
why that was the case, and how we might go about changing that.
Reddebrek
Posts
.jpeg)
