From International Press Correspondence, Vol. 3 No. 46, 28 June 1923, pp. 450–451.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Public Domain: Marxists Internet Archive (2021). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.
The Ruhr action is a question of more than local importance. It cannot be a matter of indifference for the Enlarged Executive what attitude the leading papers or the leaders of the German Communist Party take up towards it. The most important task was either to win over or neutralise the best part of the petty-bourgeois and proletarian sections of the population, and to carry on a policy which would enable the French proletariat to conduct a vigorous struggle against French imperialism.
What efforts were made to solve this task? The question was: should one deal with the situation by making use of nationalist prejudices, or by combating them ruthlessly?
The International, the theoretical organ of the Communist Party of Germany, published an article entitled Some Tactical Questions of the Ruhr War. This article contained the following paragraph.
“Although the German bourgeoisie is in its inmost heart counter-revolutionary, it has been given the opportunity to appear outwardly as an objectively revolutionary factor, owing to the cowardice of the petty-bourgeois democracy (principally the social-democracy). It is outwardly (at least for the time being) revolutionary in spite of itself (as Bismarck was from 1864 to 1871). and for analagous historic reasons.”
As a matter of fact, in this struggle, the German bourgeoisie has not played anywhere an objectively revolutionary role. Its role has been counter-revolutionary.
The German Party has taken the right view of the situation. In its political resolution, the German Party Conference made, among other things, the following statement:
“The only way out of the terrible situation (which grows daily worse) in which the German working and middle classes find themselves at present, and the only way to avoid the dangers which are threatening the very existence of Germany, is the establishment of a militant united front of the working class against its own bourgeoisie. and working class leadership of the nation.”
This means that French imperialism can only be defeated by the German proletariat. If the latter will, in the first instance, carry on a relentless struggle against its own bourgeoisie. It Is only thus that the Party helps the French proletariat to defeat the French bourgeoisie. Comrade Thalheimer referred to Marx’ and Engels’ attitude to the Franco-German war. If a parallel is to be drawn at all, it must be this: just as Thiers arrived at an understanding with Bismarck concerning the slaughter of the revolutionary French proletariat, so has Lutterbeck (on behalf of the German bourgeoisie) arrived at an understanding with the French general concerning the slaughter of the German revolutionary proletariat.
In his reply, Thalheimer wrote, among other things, as follows:
“It must he one of two things: either the German working class must look upon its present defensive struggle against French Imperialism as a revolutionary aim, or, if it does not do that, then in the latter case this struggle should not be carried on at all. I am of the opinion that the struggle of the proletariat against Imperialism in general cannot but be a revolutionary aim. But the question is: what is the best way for the German working class to conduct this struggle. I reiterate, the best way for the German working class to conduct the struggle against French imperialism is to realise that it must first of all overthrow the German bourgeoisie or carry on a relentless struggle against it, in order to establish a united fighting front with the French proletariat.”
Previous to that. In Nr. 5 of the International, Thalheimer said: “The defeat of French imperialism in the world war was not a Communist aim, but its defeat in the Ruhr is a Communist aim.”
I confess that I do not understand this theoretical principle. I put the question: was the struggle against French Imperialism in 1914–18 a Communist, and thus, a revolutionary socialist aim or not? If in 1914 the struggle against French imperialism was not a communist aim, the Entente social patriots were perhaps right in their assertion that the struggle against the Hohenzollern dynasty was revolutionary.
From the beginning of the war, the struggle against French Imperialism, and every kind of Imperialism, was naturally a Communist and a revolutionary aim. The proletariat of every State is under the obligation to fight against its own bourgeoisie, thus creating the prerequisite for the overthrow of international reaction.
Such, then, was the situation between 1914 and 1918. and such it is today. Comrade Thalheimer pointed out that great changes have taken place since 1914. But what are these changes? Thalheimer wanted to know what German imperialism was, and where was its strength. But in his criticism he overlooked a small matter, viz. that during and towards the end of the war the forces of the German bourgeoisie were shattered, that its militarism is practically non-existent. and can therefore not be considered as a force, as was the case in 1914 and later. The German bourgeoisie being today the weakest, it is occupying at present the weakest position In the world’s structure of capitalism. Overthrow of the German bourgeoisie, establishment of a Workers’ and Peasants’ Government, alliance with the Soviet Government and after the victory of the working class – if it cannot be avoided – a repetition of Brest-Litovsk, some compromise with French imperialism, such is the way not only to carry on a successful struggle, but. by such direct methods, to bring large masses of petty-bourgeois proletarian sections of society over to Communism. This will not happen, if we attempt to compete with the German nationalists, but only If we maintain in this critical situation the strictest internationalism.
Last updated on 3 September 2022