Der Kampf, 1916, No. 2. In an article “War Aims” (against annexations), Fr. Adler quotes from Süddeutsche Monatshefte their statement[1]:
| clear! |
“The states which make up the world today, are states based on power. But their power lies in land, people and property”.... “They (the soldiers) expect ‘real guarantees’: they expect land, people and property”... |
|
and for a parallel, the Constitution of 1791, article VI: “The French nation will never wage a war of conquest and will never use its forces against the liberty of any people” ... and the Constitution of 1848: “The French Republic respects foreign national- ities just as it counts on respect of its own. It will never wage a war of conquest and will never use its forces against the liberty of any people”.... |
|||||
|
The French Constitution of 1791 on national wars |
|||||
|
My addition: texts of the French Constitutions of 1791, 1793, etc., see in F. Helie, The Constitutions of France |
||
|
Renner on Trotsky |
ha-ha!! |
Ibidem, No. 1: in an article “Reality or Lunatic Idea”, p. 17, K. Renner calls Trots- ky “a very close friend of Hilferding”. |
||||||
|
From his arguments in favour of an alliance of Germany and Austria- Hungary: “Were there only two big economic systems in the world, it would be easier for us Social-Demo- crats to demolish the last great par- tition wall, much easier than today, when we are in a confusing labyrinth and for that very reason have such a hard time finding our way. Let the whole world take the path of alliance, so much the better for us—the closer shall we come to the final goal” (19-20). |
||
| typical!! | ||
|
(p. 16: “The movement for a so- called Central Europe is still basically a bourgeois movement and of that I shall speak first of all”). |
N.B. cf. Central Europe and a United States of Europe |
||
|
⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ |
We and they: |
⎫ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭ |
|
| 1) |
Renner, Sozialistische Monatshefte, Die Glocke + Co. = lackeys of the imperialist bourgeoisie |
||
| 2) |
Kautsky, Hilferding & Co. (+ a very close friend = Trotsky) = persuaders of the imperialist bourgeoisie counsellors and reformers of the imperialist bourgeoisie.[2] |
||
| 3) |
the Lefts = revolutionary fighters against the imperialist bourgeoisie. |
Der Kampf, 1916, No. 2, pp. 59-60.
|
Hilferding advances Kautsky’s usual ar- gument that world economic ties militate against isolation, that the greatest increase in the British colonies’ imports and exports (1899-1913) has not been in trade with Great Britain (p. 57): “Germany has been spared the expense of acquiring and admin- istering colonies, but as soon as her capi- talist development allowed, she derived the same advantages as Britain from their productive capacity. There can be no question of the colonies being monopolised for Britain” ... (the same as Britain—is flatly untrue: railways, concessions, export of capital. Germany has outstripped Brit- ain in spite of the latter’s colonies. Without colonies, Britain would probably be still more behindhand. That, in the first place. And, in the second place, finance capital in Britain has to a greater extent “rested on its laurels”. Now German finance capital, too, wants to do so). “The distinguishing feature of imperial- ist policy is that it seeks to settle pro- blems of economic competition by the exercise of state power in the interests of the capitalist stratum controlling the state. By protective tariff walls it ensures exploi- tation of the home market for its cartels. By its policy of colonies and spheres of influence it seeks to reserve parts of the world market as a monopoly for its capi- talist class, and by economic and political means of compulsion it seeks to convert smaller countries into spheres of exploita- tion for its capital. That brings it into ever-increasing contradiction with the impe- rialist policy of other states. Hence, the striving to increase state power, the inten- sified armaments race on land and sea. It was this policy that led to the catastrophe. And the peoples are now faced with the alternative: will they (!!!) continue this policy after the war, or do they intend to break with it? Continuation of the insep- arable protective-tariff, colonial and arma- ments policies, or a break with power policy!” (59-60).— |
|||||||
|
predatory tricks of finance capital |
|||||||
| the main thing: |
|||||||
| N.B. “they” |
|||||||
| N.B. | |||||||
|
We must first of all take power in our own hands and not talk vainly about “power”. |
||
|
“It is not a question of merely regulating trade relations, but of the power policy that seeks to secure a monopoly position for one’s own capital at the expense of others, the policy from which the danger of war arose. That was the situation before the war. But does that mean that we are to be reconciled to it and not oppose by every means the continuation of this policy, and at a much higher level? We are of the contrary opinion: because we have seen what this monopolist power policy leads to, we must oppose its continuation and extension by every means” (61). |
N.B. N.B. |
[1] In his article “War Aims”, Friedrich Adler quotes the statement of the Social-Democratic group in the Prussian Landtag of January 17, 1916.
[2] During the First World War Trotsky pursued a Centrist policy and supported social-imperialists. Lenin regarded Centrism as the most harmful and dangerous variety of opportunism, for masked opportunists are a hundred times more harmful and dangerous for the working-class movement. Led by Lenin, the Bolsheviks waged an implacable struggle against Centrism and its Trotskyist variety. Exposing the real nature of the Trotskyist slogan “neither victory nor defeat” Lenin pointed out that he who supports this slogan in the present war, “is consciously or unconsciously a chauvinist”, “an ‘enemy’ of proletarian policy”, a supporter of the bourgeoisie (see present edition, Vol. 21, p. 279).
| | |
| | | | | | | ||||||