Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:49:38.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Revisionist Looks at Imperialism: Eduard Bernstein's Critique of Imperialism and Kolonialpolitik, 1900–14

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Roger Fletcher
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now generally accepted that prior to the outbreak of the First World War German Social Democracy did not, as a rule, count foreign policy among its more central concerns. It is often further assumed that the right wing of the prewar German labor movement was still less interested in foreign policy problems than were left-wing or centrist party spokesmen. This assumption requires qualification, for the work of East German historians and others has shown that social imperialist thought had made heavy inroads into the revisionist wing of prewar Social Democracy. In fact, revisionists and reformists from Vollmar onwards frequently manifested a deep and enduring concern with the problems of Germany's position in the world. Yet there remains in the person of Eduard Bernstein—in many ways the father of revisionism and certainly its intellectual leader and chief publicist—one prominent revisionist whose pre-1914 foreign policy position continues to defy satisfactory categorization and generalization.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 237 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Owtscharenko, Nikolai, “Zur Herausbildung der aussenpolitischen Konzeption der Sozialdemokratie im Kampf gegen die imperialistische ‘Weltpolitik’ an der Wende vom 19. zum 20. Jahrhundert,” Marxismus und deutsche Arbeiterbewegung, Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften (East Berlin, 1970), p. 566.Google Scholar

2 See Fricke, Dieter, “Die ‘Sozialistischen Monatshefte’ und die imperialistische Konzeption eines Kontinentaleuropa (1905–1918),” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft (hereafter cited as Zfg), 1975, pt. 1, pp. 528–37Google Scholar, and “Eine Musterschrift des Opportunismus: Die ‘Sozialistischen Monatshefte’ am Ende der relativ friedlichen Entwicklung des Kapitalismus in Deutschland,” ibid., 1973, pt. 2, pp. 1209–20; König, Erika, Vom Revisionismus zum demokratischen Sozialismus: Zur Kritik des ökonomischen Revisionismus in Deutschland (Berlin, 1964), pp. 55–101Google Scholar; Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (East Berlin, 1967), chap. 4, pp. 192–95 and passim; Strutynski, Peter, Die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Marxisten und Revisionisten in der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung um die Jahrhundertwende (Cologne, 1976), pp. 32–46, 96–130Google Scholar; Ascher, Abraham, “Imperialists within German Social Democracy prior to 1914,” Journal of Central European Affairs 20 (1960–61): 397–422.Google Scholar

3 Gustafsson, Bo, Marxismus und Revisionismus: Eduard Bernsteins Kritik des Marxismus und ihre ideengeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen (Frankfurt a.M., 1972), p. 324Google Scholar, and Hirsch, Helmut, Der “Fabier” Eduard Bernstein (Berlin, 1977), p. 97.Google Scholar On Bernstein, see also Gay, Peter, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism: Eduard Bernstein's Challenge to Marx (New York, 1952)Google Scholar; Angel, Pierre, Eduard Bernstein et l'évolution du socialisme allemand (Paris, 1961)Google Scholar; and Meyer, Thomas, Bernsteins konstruktiver Sozialismus (Berlin, 1977).Google Scholar

4 Lösche, Peter, “Arbeiterbewegung und Wilhelminismus,” Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 20, no. 9 (1969): 523.Google Scholar On the ideology of the party center, see Matthias, Erich, “Kautsky und der Kautskyanismus,” Marxismusstudien 2 (Tübingen, 1957): 151–97Google Scholar; Irrlitz, Gerd, “Bemerkungen über die Einheit politischer und theoretischer Wesenszüge des Zentrismus in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (hereafter cited as BzG) 8, no. 1 (1966): 43–59Google Scholar; Fülberth, Georg, “Zur Genese des Revisionismus in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie vor 1914,” Das Argument, special issue (Mar. 1971), pp. 1–21Google Scholar; Steinberg, Hans-Josef, Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie: Zur Ideologie der Partei vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg, 3rd rev. ed. (Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1972), pp. 13–86Google Scholar; and Bon, Frédéric and Burnier, Michel-Antoine, “Edouard Bernstein et le triangle socialiste,” Le Mouvement social 87 (1974): 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A useful guide to the relevant literature is Ullrich, Volker, “Emanzipation durch Integration? Zur Kritik der bürgerlichen Geschichtsschreibung über die Arbeiterbewegung bis 1914,” Das Argument, no. 75 (1972), pp. 104–47.Google Scholar

5 Fricke, , Zur Organisation und Tätigkeit der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung 1890–1914 (Leipzig, 1962), pp. 58–64, 108ff, 237–50Google Scholar; Laschitza, Annelics and Schumacher, Horst, “Thesen über die Herausbildung und Entwicklung der deutschen Linken von der Jahrhundertwende bis zur Gründung der Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands (Spartakusbund),” BzG 7, no. 1 (1965): 33Google Scholar; Fülberth, pp. 16–19; Ullrich, pp. 132–37; and Groh, Dieter, Negative Integration tmd revolutionärer Attentismus: Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges (Frankfurt a.M., 1973), p. 496.Google Scholar

6 Petit, Irène, “Kautsky et les discussions autour du problème de l'impérialisme dans le parti social-démocrate allemand de 1907 à 1914,” Revue d' Allemagne 1, no. 3 (1969): 337.Google Scholar

7 Schorske, Carl E., German Social Democracy 1905–1917: The Development of the Great Schism, Harper, Torchbook ed. (New York, 1972), pp. 276–84.Google Scholar

8 Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie (Stuttgart, 1899). The term revisionist is here used to designate the whole of the party's right wing.

9 Fülberth, pp. 19–21. Recent research on working-class reading habits sheds some light on the probable ideological disposition of the masses, suggesting a general indifference to theory, which was grasped, if at all, at a very superficial level and usually secondhand. See Steinberg, Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie, pp. 129–42, and “Workers’ Libraries in Germany before 1914,” History Workshop 1, no. 1 (1976): 166–80.

10 Fricke, , “Zur Rückkehr Eduard Bernsteins in das Deutsche Reich 1901,” ZfG, 1974, no. 12, p. 1346Google Scholar; idem, “Zum Bruch Eduard Bernsteins mit den ‘Sozialistischen Monatsheften’ im Herbst 1914.” BzG 17, no. 3 (1975): 454–55 (Sozialistische Monatshefte hereafter cited as SM).

11 Fricke, “Bernsteins Bruch mit den SM,” p. 455. Until he broke with the Monatshefte in December 1914, Bernstein was possibly the most regular and prolific contributor to this journal, which he once described as his “literary home” (Bernstein to Wurm, Oct. 2, 1903. Bernstein Papers, C 40, IISG, Amsterdam). But Bloch admitted to Adolf von Elm that he and Bernstein were in fundamental disagreement on a whole range of issues and had “often fought the most violent debates over single sentences in [Bernstein's] articles” (Bloch to von Elm, Aug. 4, 1908, SM Papers, vol. 4, Bundesarchiv, Coblenz).

12 Bernstein, , Der Revisionismus in der Sozialdemokratie (Amsterdam, 1909), pp. 4–8.Google Scholar Cf. Rikli, Erika, Der Revisionisms: Ein Revisionsversuch der deutschen marxistischen Theorie (1890–1914) (Ph.D. diss., Zurich, 1936), pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

13 Hilferding, Rudolf, “Der Revisionismus und die Internationale,” Die Neue Zeit (hereafter cited as NZ), 1908–1909, vol. 2, p. 165.Google Scholar On the editorship of the Monatshefte, see Fricke, , Die deutsche Arbeiterbewegung 1869 bis 1914 (East Berlin, 1976), pp. 462, 829.Google Scholar In some ways Bloch's personality paralleled that of Gerson Bleichröder, Bismarck's banker and the brother of Julius Bleichröder, who was the father-in-law of Dr. Leo Arons, Bloch's Maecenas. Of assimilated Jews in general under the Kaiserreich Stern, Fritz has observed, “Jewish Selbsthass was a common characteristic and Jewish anti-Semitism more than a mordant oxymoron” (Gold and Iron: Bismarck, Bleichröder, and the Building of the German Empire [New York, 1977], p. 470).Google Scholar Bloch suffered from this syndrome, overcompensating for his Jewishness in his frenetic determination to demonstrate that he was at least 110 percent patriotic and German nationalist.

14 Bloch to Karl Leuthner, May 6, 1909, SM Papers, vol. 8. Cf. Bloch, Helene (his widow), “Die Bedeutung der Sozialistischen Monatshefte,” in Anna, Siemsen, ed., Ein Leben für Europa: In memoriam Joseph Bloch (Frankfurt a.M., 1956), pp. 88–89.Google Scholar This work, like that of Stössinger, Felix (written in collaboration with Bloch and edited by Helene Bloch), Revolution der Weltpolitik: Joseph Blochs Vermächtnis (Prague, 1938)Google Scholar, offers an incomplete and at times misleading guide to Bloch's true ideological position before 1914. In the same category is Stössinger's article “Bolschewismus oder revolutionärer Revisionismus,” Frankfurter Hefte, no. 3 (1953): 507–18.

15 This even extended to his granting substantial personal loans to indigent revisionist writers—in 1910, for instance, 10,600 marks to Karl Leuthner. See Leuthner to Bloch, Sept. 23, 1910, SM Papers, vol. 8. On the financial position and funding of the Monatshefte, see Fricke, Deutsche Arbeiterbewegung, pp. 464–65.

16 Miller, Susanne, “Critique littéraire de la Social-Démocratie Allemande à la fin du siède dernier,” Le Mouvement social 59 (1967): 51.Google Scholar

17 As early as 1902, at the Munich Party Congress, the Monatshefte was bitterly attacked as the root cause of the waning fortunes of the Neue Zeit. See Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands: Abgehalten zu München vom 14. bis 20. September 1902 (Berlin, 1902), pp. 131–47, 256–67 (hereafter cited as Protokoll München, etc.). For comparative circulation figures, see Fricke, Deutsche Arbeiterbewegung, pp. 429, 463, 830; and Bloch to von Elm, Aug. 4, 1908, SM Papers, vol. 4.

18 Jansen, Reinhard, Georg von Vollmar: Eine politische Biographie (Düsseldorf, 1958), p. 124.Google Scholar

19 Bloch to Bernstein, Jan. 2, 1915, Jan. 5,1915, Bernstein Papers, D 61.

20 Illustrated by Noske in his description of the party's activity in the Reichstag: “In practice, things worked as follows. Ledebour or the Bremenese Henke would make a socalled theoretical speech. It then fell to me, as the party's second speaker, to get up and repair the damage wrought by their twaddle.” Noske, Gustav, Erlebtes aus Aufstieg und Niedergang einer Demokratie (Offenbach, 1947), p. 35.Google Scholar

21 Stampfer, Friedrich, “Die auswärtige Politik der Sozialdemokratie,” Die Neue Gesellchaft 1, no. 28 (1905): 334Google Scholar; Michels, Robert, “Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie im internationalen Verbande,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Soziaipolitik (hereafter cited as ASS) 25 (1907): 180–205Google Scholar; Bloch to Leuthner, July 31, 1908, SM Papers, vol. 8; Victor, Max, “Die Stellung der deutschen Sozialdemokratie zu den Fragen der auswärtigen Politik (1869–1914),” ASS 60 (1928): 154Google Scholar; Ascher, p. 403; Schröder, Hans-Christoph, Sozialismus und Imperialisnms: Die Auseinandersetzung der deutschen Sozialdemokratie mit dem Imperialismusproblem und der ‘Weltpolitik’ vor 1914, pt. 1, 2nd rev. ed. (Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1975), p. 143Google Scholar; Bley, Helmut, Bebel und die Strategie der Kriegsverhütung 1904–1913 (Göttingen, 1975), p. 24Google Scholar; Zeman, Z.A.B. and Scharlau, W. B., The Merchant of Revolution: The Life of Alexander Israel Helphand (Parvus), 1867–1924 (London, 1965), p. 68.Google Scholar

22 Owtscharenko, p. 547.

23 Victor, p. 167; Groh, pp. 301–2; Schröder, , Sozialistische Imperialismusdeutung (Göttingen, 1973), p. 117 n. 131Google Scholar; Frölich, Paul, Rosa Luxemburg: Her Life and Work, trans. Edward, Fitzgerald (London, 1940), pp. 186–87Google Scholar; Ncttl, J. P., Rosa Luxemburg, 2 vols. (London, 1966), 2: 474, 529.Google Scholar

24 Singer, , Protokoll Mainz (1900), p. 158.Google Scholar On his position within the party—he was, with Bebel, cochairman of the SPD—see Gemkow, Heinrich, “Grossbourgeois und musterhafter Sozialdemokrat: Paul Singer,” BzG 11, no. 1 (1969): 106–13.Google Scholar

25 Victor, pp. 147–52; Schröder, Sozialismus und Imperialisms, pp. 89,92, and Sozialistische Imperialismusdeutung, p. 111 n. 82. The otherwise excellent work of many East German historians is therefore seriously disadvantaged, as William Maehl complains, by their tendency to disregard “the influence of considerations of Macht and the diplomatic situation upon Socialist foreign policy.” See Maehl, William, “Russian Imperialism and the Emergence of a German Socialist foreign Policy, 1890–1900,” The New Review 13, no. 3 (1973): 36 n. 107.Google Scholar

26 As does William Maehl, who dates its inception from Bebel's Reichstag speech of February 1896. See Maehl, pp. 16ff.

27 Groh, p. 724. See also Michels, p. 225; Maehl, p. 21; Angel, p. 359; Miller, Susanne, Das Problem der Freiheit im Sozialismus (Frankfurt, 1964), p. 133Google Scholar; and Lösche, Peter, Der Bolschewismus im Urteil der deutschen Sozialdemokratie 1903–1920 (Berlin, 1967), p. 68.Google Scholar

28 Ratz, Ursula, “Karl Kautsky und die Abrüstungskontroverse in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie 1911–12,” International Review of Social History (hereafter cited as IRHS) 11, no. 2 (1966): 225CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Georg Ledebour 1850–1947: Weg und Wirken eines sozialistischen Politikers (Berlin, 1969). p. 116; Bley, p. 24.

29 Kiernan, V. G., Marxism and Imperialism (London, 1974), p. 9.Google Scholar Among Kautsky's more important works on the subject are his “Ältere und neuere Kolonialpolitik,” NZ 16, pt. 1 (1898): 769–81, 801–16; Die soziale Revolution (Berlin, 1902); Der Weg zur Macht (Berlin, 1909); Sozialismus und Kolonialpolitik (Berlin, 1907); Patriotisms und Sozialdemokratie (Leipzig, 1907); “Weltpolitik, Weltkrieg und Sozialdemokratie” (SPD Morocco pamphlet), in Dokumente und Materialien zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung, Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED (East Berlin, 1975), 4: 356–61; “Der erste Mai und der Kampf gegen den Militarismus,” NZ, 1912, pt. 2, pp. 97–109; “Der Imperialismus,” ibid., 1914. pt. 2, pp. 908–22; Der politische Massenstreik (Berlin, 1914).

30 Kautsky, John H., “J. A. Schumpeter and Karl Kautsky: Parallel Theories of Imperialism,” Midwest Journal of Political Science 5, no. 2 (1961): 103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Joll, James, The Second International 1889–1914, rev. ed. (London, 1974), p. 91.Google Scholar Hilferding's study is not considered here—partly for reasons of space and partly because of its irrelevance to this discussion, for Hilferding normally aligned himself with the party center although his theoretical work was grist to the radical mill. See Ratz, “Kautsky und die Abrüstungskontroverse,” pp. 220–21.

32 Irrlitz, pp. 52–53.

33 Although Der Weg zur Macht has been praised as “one of the summits of theoretical achievement on the part of the German labor movement, a true document of the revolutionary application of Marxist theory” (Irrlitz, p. 52), this prognosis of tumult in the non-European world was no more than mere prediction. At bottom, Kautsky was still wedded to the traditional, quietistic collapse theory. See Schröder, Sozialistische Imperialisimusdeutung, pp. 32–34. and Ratz, , “Briefe zum Erscheinen von Karl Kautskys ‘Weg zur Macht,’” IRSH 12 (1967): 435.Google Scholar

34 Kautsky, , Der Weg zur Macht, rev. ed. (Berlin, 1910), p. 52.Google Scholar

35 Schröder, Sozialistische Imperialismusdeutung, p. 37.

36 Ratz, “Kautsky und die Abrüstungskontroverse,” p. 216 n. 1.

37 Kautsky, “Der erste Mai,” p. 108.

38 Ratz, Georg Ledebour, p. 115.

39 Bley, pp. 143–46 and passim.

40 Schröder, Sozialistische Imperialismusdeutung, p. 40.

41 Maehl, p. 5. Cf. Victor, p. 178.

42 Hobson was not a Marxist; Hilferding was, though an Austro-Marxist. See Leser, Norbert, Zwischen Reformismus und Bolschewismus: Der Austromarxismus als Theorie und Praxis (Vienna, 1968), pp. 174, 183–85.Google Scholar

43 Even Nettl, whose sympathetic identification with his subject is beyond question, entertains doubts on this score. See his Rosa Luxemburg, 2: 529, where he defends his use of the term physiognomy in preference to theory. In his later, abridged edition (London, 1969, p. 165) he drops the term physiognomy but still declines to accept her characterization of imperialism as a theory.

44 For Rosa Luxemburg's views on imperialism, see Kemp, Tom, Theories of Imperialism (London, 1967), pp. 45–61Google Scholar; Schröder, Sozialistische Imperialismusdeutung, pp. 17–40; Kiernan, pp. 17–22; Nettl, 2: 519–36, 828–41; Groh, pp. 297–301.

45 Kemp, p. 54. Cf. Groh, p. 291.

46 Luxemburg, “Verschiebungen in dcr Weltpolitik,” Leipziger Volkszeitung, Mar. 13. 1899.

47 Internationaler Sozialisten-Kongress zu Paris, 23. bis 27. September 1900: Verhandlungen und Beschliisse (Berlin, 1900), p. 27.

48 Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital, trans. Agnes Schwarzschild, intro. Joan Robinson, Routledge Paperback (London, 1963), p. 446.

49 Ibid., pp. 446, 453.

50 Ibid. The stark choice between socialism and barbarism she spelled out with absolute clarity in her Junius brochure in 1916.

51 Luxemburg, Tlie Accumulation of Capital, pp. 466–67.

52 Ibid., pp. 446, 467.

53 Kemp, p. 59; Schröder, Sozialistische Imperialismusdeutung, p. 37; Groh, pp. 301–4.

54 Nettl, 2: 531. 535.

55 Schröder, Sozialismus und Imperialismus, p. 99, and Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Sozialdemokratic und Nationalstaat: Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie und die Nationalitätenfrage in Deutschland von Karl Marx bis zum Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkrieges (Würzburg, 1962), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar

56 Schröder, Sozialtstische Imperialismusdeutung, p. 33; Nettl, 2: 535, 842–62.

57 Protokoll Chemnitz (1912), pp. 415–19, 421–23. Liebknecht attacked Lensch and Pannekoek—according to Ledebour, the principal exponents of this novel tendency (ibid., p. 415)—as having failed to think their Marxism through to its logical conclusion, which demanded intensification of the class struggle as the best prophylactic against imperialist war (ibid., pp. 425–27).

58 See Lensch, Paul, “Miliz und Abrüstung,” NZ 30, pt. 2 (1911–12): 765–72Google Scholar; Anton Pannekoek, “Das Wesen unscrer Gegenwartsforderungen,” ibid., pp. 810–17; idem, “Deckungsfrage und Imperialismus,” NZ 32, pt. 1 (1913–14): 110–16; and Radek, Karl, “Zu unserem Kampfe gegen den Imperialismus,” NZ 30, pt. 2 (1911–12): 194–99, 233–41.Google Scholar

59 Sec Sigel, Robert, “Die Lensch-Cunow-Haenisch Gruppe: Ihr Einfluss auf die Ideologie der deutschen Sozialdemokratie im Ersten Weltkrieg,” Internationale Wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung 11 (1975): 421–36Google Scholar; idem, Die Lensch-Cunow-Haenisch Gruppe: Eine Studie zum rechten Flügel der SPD im Ersten Weltkrieg (Berlin, 1976); Ascher, Abraham, “‘Radical’ Imperialists within German Social Democracy, 1912–1918,” Political Science Quarterly 76 (1961): 555–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 Kautsky, , “Krieg und Frieden,” NZ 29, pt. 2 (1911): 105–7Google Scholar; Ledebour, Reichstag speech of Apr. 3, 1911, Stenographische Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstages, 266: 6139–43 (hereafter cited as RT Verhandhmgen); August Bebel, “Deutschland, Russland und die orientalische Frage,” NZ 4, pt. 2 (1885–86): 502–15; Max Beer, “Der moderne englische Imperialismus,” NZ, 16, pt. 1 (1897–98): 300–306; idem, “Imperialistische Politik,” NZ 21, pt. 1 (1902–3): 389–95.

61 Parvus, , “Die Industriezölle und der Weltmarkt,” NZ 19, pt. 1 (1900–1901): 708–16, 783ffGoogle Scholar; idem, Die Koloniaipolitik und der Zusammenbnuh (Leipzig, 1907), pp. 21ff. and passim; Heinrich Cunow, “Handelsvertrags- und imperialistische Expansionspolitik,” NZ 18, pt. 2 (1899–1900): 242. See also Zeman and Scharlau, pp. 41–42, 62–64, 103–5. 113–20; Deutscher, Isaac, The Prophet Armed: Trotsky 1879–1921 (London, 1954), pp. 103–5Google Scholar; Aschcr, “Radical Imperialists,” pp. 555–68.

62 Owtscharenko, p. 566. See also Bloch to Leuthner, Mar. 5, 1907, SM Papers, vol. 8.

63 Bernstein, , Protokoll Jena (1911), p. 392Google Scholar; Bloch to Leuthner, June 11,1908, and passim, SM Papers, vol. 8.

64 Fricke, “Eine Mustcrschrift des Opportunismus,” p. 1211, and “Die ‘Sozialistischen Monatshefte’ und Kontinentaleuropa,” pp. 528–34; Bloch, Charles, “Der Kampf Joseph Blochs und der ‘Sozialistischen Monatshefte’ in der Weimarer Republik,” Jahrbuch des Instituts für deutsche Geschichte, Tel Aviv, ed. Walter, Grab, 3 (1974): 261.Google Scholar

65 As Ledebour dubbed Bernstein, , Protokoll Mainz (1900), p. 167.Google Scholar Bloch deplored and censored the foreign policy views of all revisionists other than those of the Lcuthner-Schippel group. This is abundantly clear from the SM Papers now held at the Bundesarchiv in Coblenz.

66 Stössinger, Revolution der Weltpolitik, 1: Grundlegungen, pp. 7, 41. To Leuthner he confided that he regarded the task of “promoting understanding of national issues” among the socialist work force as being of “paramount importance.” For this reason he looked to “rare gems” (einzelne Schwalben) such as Leuthner, Schippel, and Calwer to explicate “the program of the SM,” basing “the cause of the SM essentially on you [Leuthner] and Schippel as far as its general political tendency [was] concerned.” Bloch to Leuthner, Jan. 5, 1907, and June 11, 1908, SM Papers, vol. 8.

67 Barkin, Kenneth D., The Controversy over Germany Industrialization, 1890–1902 (Chicago, 1970), pp. 203–4.Google Scholar Cf. Stössinger, Revolution der Weltpolitik, 6: Das Gesetz der Imperien.

68 Bloch to Leuthner, Oct. 19, 1908, SM Papers, vol. 8.

69 Ibid., Bloch to Leuthncr, Nov. 19, 1908, and Dec. 17, 1908.

70 See Calwer, Richard, “Kolonialpolitik und Sozialdemokratie,” SM, 1907, vol. 1, pp. 192–200Google Scholar, “Der 25. Januar,” ibid., pp. 101–7, “Deutsch-französische Annäherung,” SM, 1908, vol. 2, pp. 663–66;, Schippel, Max, “Der Imperialismus auf dem Chemnitzer Parteitag,” SM, 1912, vol. 3, pp. 1271–76Google Scholar; Quessel, Ludwig, “Auf dem Weg zum Weltreich,” SM, 1913, vol. 2, pp. 656–66Google Scholar, “Das parlamentarische Regierungssystem und der Imperialismus,” SM, 1914, vol. 1, pp. 546–51; Leuthner, Karl, “Die Aufgaben der deutschen Sozialdemokratie in der auswärtigen Politik,” SM, 1908, vol. 3, pp. 1126–31Google Scholar, “Herrenvolk und Pöbelvolk,” SM, 1909, vol. 1, pp. 475–81, “Umlernen,” ibid., pp. 558–69, “Das kontinentale Deutschland,” SM, 1913, vol. 1, pp. 283–87.

71 Bloch to Arons, Mar. 2, 1908, SM Papers, vol. 1. See also Stössinger, Revolution der Weltpolitik, 1: Grundlegungen, p. 50, and 3: Die Deutschen, pp. 65–66 and passim.

72 Bloch to Leuthner, Nov. 19,1908, SM Papers, vol. 8.

73 Bernstein, , “Sozialdemokratie und Imperialismus,” SM, 1900, pp. 239–41.Google Scholar

74 “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” SM, 1900, p. 558.

75 “Sozialdemokratie und Imperialismus,” p. 241.

76 Ibid., pp. 239–40.

77 Ibid., p. 245.

78 Ibid., p. 244.

79 Ibid.

80 Die englische Gefahr und das deutsche Volk (Berlin, 1911), p. 36 (hereafter cited as Die englische Gefahr); “Neue Englandhetze,” Vorwärts, Sept. 1, 1911; England and Germany: Reflections on the Possibility of an Understanding (The Hague, n.d., but apparently written in early 1919), pp. 21–22.

81 “Sozialdemokratie und Imperialismus,” p. 243; “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” p. 557; Die englische Gefahr, p. 8.

82 “England und Dr. A. Tilles Flegeljahre,” SM, 1901, vol. 1, pp. 335–37; “Neue Englandhetze”; Die englische Gefahr, pp. 7–8; RT Verhandlungen (Dec. 12, 1903). 197–107.

83 “Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf,” SM, 1907, vol. 2, pp. 994–95.

84 Die englische Gefahr, p. 36.

85 “Sozialdemokratie und Imperialismus,” p. 241.

86 “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” p. 558; “Neue Englandhetze”; Die englische Gefahr, pp. 32–41; England and Germany, pp. 21–22.

87 “Sozialdemokratie und Imperialismus,” p. 248. The view that Anglo-Saxon imperialism was benign whereas that of Germany was immutably malignant was also widely prevalent in the party center. See Victor, p. 166.

88 Bernstein, “Die internationale Politik der Sozialdemokratie,” SM, 1909, vol. 2, p. 619.

89 “Politische Schwarzmalerei,” SM, 1912, vol. 1, p. 540.

90 Bernstein explained the roots of reactionary German imperialism by reference to the country's history, geography, and tradition, which had cast Germany as a nation of conquerors since the Middle Ages. Freedom being indivisible, a nation which traditionally oppressed other peoples would never permit liberty to flourish at home. As a precondition to socialist collaboration on Weltpolitik, he therefore insisted on the prior attainment of democracy within the Reich. For this reason he expressly rejected a policy of “compensations,” whether it emanated from Friedrich Naumann's National Socials or from fellow revisionists like Wolfgang Heine. See “Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie und die türkischen Wirren,” NZ 15, pt. 1 (1896–97): 116; “Sozialdemokratie und Imperialismus,” pp. 245–51; Die Leiden des armenischen Volkes und die Pflichten Europas (Berlin, 1902), pp. 37–39; RT Verhandlungen (Apr. 14, 1913), 289: 4733–34

91 Die englische Gefahr, pp. 11–28; Die Wahrheit über die Einkreisung Deutschlands (Berlin, 1919, written in 1915), pp. 21–30 (hereafter cited as Die Wahrheit).

92 Die englische Gefahr, pp. 21–22.

93 Ibid., p. 42.

94 Ibid., p. 3. In essence, this was also the analysis of Kautsky in 1898 and in his post-1910 writings. See Kautsky, “Ältere und neuere Kolonialpolitik,” pp. 811–12; idem, Sozialisten und Krieg (Prague, 1937), pp. 289–90.

95 Bernstein, Die englische Gefahr, pp. 48, 42.

96 Ibid., p. 32. See also “Neue Englandhetze” and Die Wahrheit, p. 18.

97 Die Wahrheit, pp. 34–35.

98 “Stehendes Heer und Überproduktion,” NZ 17, pt. 2 (1898–99): 55: “Einige Klippen der Internationalität,” SM, 1901. vol. 1, p. 253; “Das Finanzkapital und die Handelspolitik,” SM, 1911, vol. 2, p. 955; “Politische Schwarzmalerei,” p. 542; Protokoll Jena (1911), pp. 239, 392; Protokoll Chemnitz (1912), p. 420.

99 Die Wahrheit, pp. 9–10.

100 Ibid., p. 15.

101 Ibid., p. 10.

102 See John H. Kautsky, p. 105; Ratz, Georg Ledebour, p. 117; Angst to Tyrrell, Feb. 27, 1914, Bley, p. 239; Victor, pp. 165–66; Bloch to Leuthner, Apr. 14, 1909, SM Papers, vol. 8; Bernstein, , “England und Dr. A. Tilles Flegeljahre,” pp. 335–48, and “Eindrücke aus England,” Neue Deutsche Rundschau, 1901, vol. 1, pp. 561–85.Google Scholar

103 Bernstein, “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” p. 561; Die englische Gefahr, p. 42; RT Verhandlungen (May 15, 1914), 295: 8886.

104 Die englische Gefahr, p. 47.

105 See Fischer, Fritz, Krieg der Illusionen: Die deutsche Politik von 1911 bis 1914 (Düsseldorf, 1969), pp. 23–39Google Scholar; Gutsche, Willibald, “Mitteleuropaplanungen in der Aussenpolitik des deutschen Imperialismus vor 1918,” ZfG, 1972, no. 5, 533ff.Google Scholar

106 Bernstein, , Dokumente des Sozialismus (hereafter cited as DdS), 1 (1902): 282.Google Scholar

107 In Bernstein's view the Russians were congenital barbarians and the Russian state was irretrievably militaristic and imperialistic, a condition which could not be altered even by the adoption of bourgeois democracy in Russia. See “Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie und die türkischen Wirren,” p. 112; “Kreta und die russische Gefahr,” NZ 15, pt. 2 (1896–97): 10–20; DdS 1 (1902): 99; “Abrechnung mit Russland,” Vorwärts, Aug. 26–28, 1914; “Die Kultur im Kriege und die Frage Russland” (incomplete and undated ms apparently written shortly after the outbreak of the Great War), Bernstein Papers, A 65.

108 NZ 12, pt. 1 (1893–94): 633.

109 Entwicklungsgang eines Sozialisten (Leipzig, 1924), p. 45. On this occasion the Reich leaders successfully exploited popular Russophobia to mobilize socialist support for the war effort. Previously it had been a common theme among German socialists to point the finger of derision at “Junker cosmopolitanism” and to contrast socialist patriotism with the unholy alliance between East Elbia and tsarist tyranny and barbarism. See Eisner, Kurt, Der Geheimbund des Zaren (Berlin, 1904), p. 8Google Scholar and passim.

110 Bernstein, Die Wahrheit, p. 10.

111 DdS 5 (1905): 308–9; “Neue Englandhetze”; Die englische Gefahr, p. 36.

112 Die englische Gefahr, p. 18; RT Verhandlungen (Apr. 14, 1913), 289: 4739.

113 Die englische Gefahr, p. 19; Die Wahrheit, pp. 20–21.

114 Die englische Gefahr, pp. 47–48. Albert Südekum drew the same parallel. See Südekum diary, entry of 1912, Südekum Papers, 152 C, Bundesarchiv, Coblenz.

115 Bernstein, Die englische Gefahr, p. 42.

116 Ibid., p. 48n.

117 Ibid., pp. 43–44.

118 “Sozialdemokratie und Imperialismus,” p. 251. During the war he expanded his thoughts on the relationship between democracy and foreign policy into a book, Sozialdemokratische Völkerpolitik: Die Sozialdemokratie und die Frage Europa (Leipzig, 1917).

119 “Bedcutung und Aufgaben des Sieges,” SM, 1912, vol. i, p. 146.

120 “Politische Schwarzmalerei,” p. 542. See also his forewords to Wallas, Graham, Politik und menschliche Natur (Jena, 1911), p. viiGoogle Scholar, and Macdonald, Ramsay, Sozialismus und Regierung (Jena, 1912), pp. iv–v.Google Scholar

121 Wesen und Aussichten des bürgerlichen Radikalismus (Munich, 1915), pp. 35, 42 (revised version of a speech delivered in Budapest immediately prior to the Great War).

122 “The German Elections and the Social Democrats,” Contemporary Review 91 (Apr. 1907): 481.

123 “Vom Parlament und vom Parlamentarismus,” SM, 1912, vol. 2, pp. 651, 653–54.

124 Hilferding, “Der Revisionismus und die Internationale,” pp. 169–71. See also Bernstein, “Bedeutung und Aufgaben des Sieges,” p. 147; “Vom Parlament und vom Parlamentarismus,” pp. 654–55.

125 Bernstein, “Bedeutung und Aufgaben des Sieges,” p. 145.

126 Ritter, Gerhard A., “Bernsteins Revisionismus und die Flügelbildung in der Sozialdemokratischen Partei,” Die deutschen Parteien vor 1918 (Cologne, 1973), p. 342.Google Scholar

127 Bernstein, “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” p. 550.

128 Ibid., p. 551.

129 “Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie und die türkischen Wirren,” p. 109.

130 “Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf,” p. 993.

131 On no account, so Bernstein admonished, should Social Democracy permit itself to “fall victim to a romantic, sentimental mawkishness on behalf of the weak, the incapable, the undeveloped, the stagnant” (“Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” p. 551).

132 Ibid.

133 Ibid., pp. 551–54.

134 “Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf,” pp. 990–94; “Paris und Mainz,” SM, 1900, p. 711. As Bernstein later admitted, prewar German socialist hatred and fear of Russia was not based on tangible fact, nor was it the product of calm deliberation; it was rather “the expression of a traditional and still vital inheritance.” Vorwort zur Veröffentlichung der Berichte über die Stellung der Sozialisten und organisierten Arbeiter der verschiedenen Länder zum Krieg, Bernstein Papers, A 133. Engels's Russophobia is clearly evident in his “Die auswärtige Politik des russischen Zarismus,” NZ 9, pt. 1 (1890–91): 145–54, 193–203. See also Wehler, pp. 9–27, and Schröder, Sozialismus und Imperialismus, pp. 73–76. Bebel, “the leading spokesman of the Social Democratic Fraktion on all foreign policy questions” (Owtscharenko, p. 555), followed closely in Engels's footsteps. See Von Eckardstein, Baron, Lebenserinnerungen und politische Denkwürdigkeiten, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1921), 3: 136–37Google Scholar; Maehl, pp. 4ff.

135 Bernstein, “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” p. 556.

136 Ibid., pp. 556–57; “Sozialdemokratie und Imperialismus,” pp. 240–41.

137 “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” pp. 561–62; Die englische Gefahr, pp. 26–37.

138 In 1919 he pointed to the Anglo-German agreement on the Portuguese colonies, negotiated shortly before the outbreak of the World War, as a brilliant example of what might have been achieved. By virtue of this agreement, he claimed, “in regard to colonial expansion Germany was in a more favorable position immediately before the outbreak of the war than at any previous time” (Die Wahrheit, p. 32).

139 “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” p. 561.

140 Ibid.

141 Ibid., p. 559.

142 Ibid., pp. 558–59; “Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf,” pp. 994–95.

143 DdS 5 (1905): 308–9.

144 Protokoll Chemnitz (1912), p. 421.

145 “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” p. 561.

146 Protokoll Chemnitz (1912), p. 419; RT Verhandlungen (May 15, 1914), 295:8886.

147 “Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf,” p. 996.

148 Ibid., p. 989.

149 “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” pp. 560, 562.

150 Die Votaussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie, rev. ed. (Stuttgart, 1921), p. 211; “Paris und Mainz,” pp. 711–14.

151 “Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf,” p. 996.

152 “Der Sozialismus und die Kolonialfrage,” pp. 560–61.

153 “Die Kolonialfrage und der Klassenkampf,” p. 996.

154 In 1900 he openly endorsed the liberal imperialism of the Fabians, as expressed by Shaw in his “Fabianism and Empire,” and pronounced the Fabian position more truly Marxist than the anticolonialist resolution passed by the Paris Congress of the International. See “Paris und Mainz,” pp. 713–14.

155 See Schröder, Sozialismus und Imperialismus, pp. 137ff., and Sozialistische Imperialismusdeutung, pp. 21–24; Groh, p. 296.

156 Schröder refers to Kautsky as having been “much too impressed by the achievements of the bourgeois epoch and deeply enthralled by it” (Sozialistische Imperialismusdeutung, p. 40). See also Matthias, pp. 172–73; Irrlitz, pp. 50, 55–56; Ratz, Georg Ledebour, p. 116.

157 Bernstein, Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie, 1921 ed., p. 210.

158 Nettl, 1: 204.

159 Bebel to Bernstein, Oct. 16, 1898, Bebel Papers, B 6, IISG, Amsterdam.

160 Luxemburg, Rosa, Gesammelte Werke, ed. Clara, Zetkin and Adolf, Warski, 3: Gegen den Reformismus (Berlin, 1925), p. 79.Google Scholar

161 Schmidt, Helmut, “Vorwort,” in Kritischer Rationalismus und Sozialdemokratie, ed. Georg, Lührs, Thilo, Sarrazin, Fritjof, Spreer, and Manfred, Tietzel (Berlin and Bonn-Bad Godesberg, 1975), p. ix.Google Scholar See also Wistrich, Robert S., “Back to Bernstein?” Encounter (London) 50, no. 6 (1978): 80.Google Scholar