Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:37:58.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy or Socialism? A Case Study of Vorwärts in the 1890s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Raymond Dominick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Interpreters who would make Karl Marx a democrat argue that a correctly informed socialist agitation can combine with economic conditions to create majority support for a proletarian revolution and a communist society. When the agitators themselves disagree about socialist theory, however, a dilemma is created. Should party leaders pose as guardians of orthodoxy and muzzle intraparty dissent, to the obvious detriment of democracy, or should they tolerate criticism of socialist dogma, and thereby perhaps weaken the chance for a successful revolution? Before Lenin imposed his answer to these questions upon the communist movement, the world's first mass-based and avowedly Marxist party, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), grappled inconclusively with this intraparty dilemma of democratic socialism.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1977 , pp. 286 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1977

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. Gay, Peter, The Dilemma of Democratic Socialism: Eduard Bernstein's Challenge to Marx (New York, 1961), pp. 7–8, poses a dilemma for democratic socialism in terms of society as a whole: can or should the party use undemocratic means to seize power in the hope that democracy can he restored later? One might well argue that a party's willingness to he undemocratic at the revolutionary moment is preconditioned by prior decisions regarding its own party structure and procedures.Google Scholar

2. The initial mission of the socialist press may have been to win converts, but by 1890 it was primarily a means of internal communication. See Kantorowicz, Ludwig, Die sozialdetnokratische Presse Deutschlands: Eine soziologische Untersuchung (Tübingen, 1922), pp. 26–42,Google Scholar and Roth, Guenther, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany: A Study in Working-Class Isolation and National Integration (Totowa, N.J., 1963), p. 245.Google Scholar

3. Koszyk, Kurt, Deutsche Presse im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1966), 2: 192–93.Google Scholar

4. See the Eisenacher organization statute in Schroder, Wilhelm, Geschichte der sozialdemokratische Parteiorganization in Deutschland, Abhandlungen und Vorträge zur sozialistischen Bildung, ed. Grünwald, Max, nos. 4 and 5 (Dresden, 1912), pp. 66–68.Google Scholar

5. See the complaints about this eclecticism by Marx and Engels in their correspondence, especially Marx to P. A. Sorge, Aug. 4,1874, and Engels to Marx, Sept. 21,1874, in Institut fur Marxismus-Leninismus, ed., Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, Werke (hereinafter cited MEW) (Berlin, 1966), 33: 636, 119, respectively.Google Scholar

6. Manifesto of July 24, 1870, in Beike, Heinz, Die deutsche Arbeiterbewegung und der Krieg von 1870–1871 (Berlin, 1957), pp. 93–94.Google Scholar Contrast to the editorial opinion in Volksstaat, July 23, 1870. See the three letters from the executive committee to Liebknecht, July 17–20, 1870, in Eckert, Georg, ed., Wilhelm Liebknechts Briefwechsel mit deutschen Sozialdetnokraten (Assen, 1972), 1: 324–25.Google Scholar Also see Wilhelm Bracke to August Geib, July 29 and Sept. 1, 1870, in Bracke, Wilhelm, ed., Der Braunschweiger Ausschuss der sozialdemokratischen Arbeiter-Partei im Lotzen und vor dent Gericht (Brunswick, 1872), pp. 5–6, 142–43.Google Scholar

7. Liebknecht to Engels, May 6, 1873, in Kundel, Erich, “Aus dem Briefwechsel der ‘Volksstaat’-Redaktion mit Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (hereinafter abbreviated BGA) 11, no. 4 (1969): 657.Google Scholar

8. See the organization statute in Schroder, Geschichte der Parteiorganization, p. 71.

9. See, for example, Die Laterne, Apr. 27, 1879, and Die Freiheit, May 3, 24, 1879.

10. Liebknecht, Bebel, and Fritzsche to Engels, Oct. 21, 1879, in Eckert, Georg, ed., Wilhelm Liebknechts Briefwechsel mit Karl Marx und Frederick Engels (The Hague, 1963), pp. 272–73.Google Scholar See also the circular letter of Marx and Engels to the German socialist leaders, Sept. 17/18, 1879, in MEW, 34: 398.

11. Der Sozialdemokrat, Oct. 17, 30, Nov. 7, Dec. 5, 19, and 26, 1880, posed the first clear challenge to a moderate party leader, in this case, Ignaz Auer. The next instance was a challenge to Bebel, Mar. 21, Apr. 18, 1881. Then came a major assault against Wilhelm Bios and Wilhelm Hasenclever, both of whom had denied responsibility for the Zurich newspaper in the Reichstag: Dec. 15, 22, 1881, Feb. 2, 23, Mar. 2, Apr. 6, 1882.

12. Der Sozialdemokrat, Feb. 16, 1881. For Bernstein's view on editorial independence, see his letter to Liebknecht, June 4, 1883, in Liebknecht Archive, 69/6–7, International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam (hereinafter abbreviated IISH). See also Bernstein to Engels, Feb. 17, 1882, in Hirsch, Helmut, ed., Eduard Bernstein's Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Engels (Assen, 1970), p. 75.Google Scholar Bernstein recalled his intentions in his memoir, Sozialdemokratische Lehrjahre (Berlin, 1928), pp. 123–25.Google Scholar

13. See the account in Lidtke, Vernon L., The Outlawed Party: Social Democracy in Germany, 1878–1890 (Princeton, 1966), pp. 192–212.Google Scholar

14. Der Sozialdemokrat, Apr. 2, 1885.

15. The protests and the final resolution appeared ibid., Apr. 23, 1885.

16. See for example the attack on Louis Viereck and his newspaper, Recht auf Arbeit, ibid., Aug. 20, Sept. 3, 18, 1885. Liebknecht himself contributed to the campaign with articles published on Oct. 22, 29, Nov. 11, 19, 26, 1885.

17. The initial proposal was printed with critical comments in the Berliner Volkstribune, Aug. 9, 1890. The adopted statute may be read in Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands: Abgehalten zu Halle a. S. vom 12. bis 18. Oktober 1890 (Berlin, 1890), pp. 5–8. (Hereinafter the party congress protocols will be cited as Protokoll with appropriate year and page references.)Google Scholar

18. Protokoll, 1890, pp. 7, 124–25, 134–36, 143, 145, 156–57. 238–39.

19. Engels to Bebel, Nov. 19, 1892, warned, “Your Verstaatlichung of the press will have important evil consequences, if it goes too far. You absolutely must have a press in the party which is not directly dependent upon the Vorstand or even the party congress, that is to say, which is in the position to oppose individual party steps.” Bebel's relevant replies came on Nov. 22 and Dec. 5, 1892, in Blumenberg, Werner, ed., August Bebels Briefwechsel mit Friedrich Engels (The Hague, 1965), pp. 617, 620–21, 634.Google Scholar

20. Bebel, August, “Erinnerungen an Liebknecht,” Beilage zum Wahre Jacob, no. 368 (1900).Google Scholar

21. Protokoll, 1890, p. 264. The resolution said, “Liebknecht wird als Chefredakteur des offiziellen Parteiorgan bestätigt und ist als solcher gleichberechtigt mit dem Parteivorstande.

22. Liebknecht to Julius Motteler, July 16, 1885, in Liebknecht Archive, 37/18–19, IISH.

23. Bock, Hans Manfred, “Die ‘Literaten- und Studenten-Revolte’ der Jungen in der SPD urn 1890,” Das Argument 13 (03 1971): 22–41,Google Scholar and Müller, Dirk H., Idealismus und Revolution: Zur Opposition der Jungen gegen den Sozialdemokratischen Parteivorstand 1890 bis 1894 (Berlin, 1975).Google Scholar

24. Protokoll, 1891, pp. 128–29.

25. The editorial attacks and Vollmar's replies may be read in Vorwärts, July 6,12, 21, 28, 30, 31, 1892.

26. Ibid., Nov. 23, 1894.

27. Protokoll, 1896, pp. 100–1, 114–16.

28. Die Neue Zeit 14, pt. 1 (1895–96): 113.

29. Kautsky to Adler, Aug. 5, 1891, in Adler, Friedrich, ed., Victor Adlers Briefwechsel mit August Bebel und Karl Kautsky (Vienna, 1954), pp. 75–76.Google Scholar See also Kautsky to Engels, Jan. 9, Apr. 5, and Sept. 26, 1891, in Kautsky, Benedikt, ed., Friedrich Engels Briefwechsel mit Karl Kautsky (Vienna, 1955), pp. 285, 292, 306.Google Scholar

30. See Kautsky's remarks in a letter to Engels, July 30, 1895, in Engels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky, p. 444.

31. Engels to Kautsky, June 13, 1891, ibid., p. 301.

32. Engels to Bebel, Oct. 24/26, 1891, in Bebels Briefwechsel mit Engels, p. 462.

33. Bebel to Engels, Oct. 24, 1891; see also his critical comments in the letter of July 12, 1891, ibid., pp. 459–60, 425–26, respectively.

34. For example, see Protokoll, 1895, p. 76; Protokoll, 1896, p. 12; Protokoll, 1898, pp. 58, 286.

35. Bebel to Liebknecht, Sept. 22, 1891, Liebknecht Archive, 65/115–16, IISH.

36. Auer denied acting as a censor in a letter to Max Quarck, Jan. 11, 1899, Quark Archive, Archiv der sozialen Demokratie at Bonn-Bad Godesberg (hereinafter abbreviated AsD). For evidence of Auer's actual censorship, see his letters to Liebknecht, Mar. 19, 1891, and June 14, 1897, in Liebknecht Archive, 61/81–82 and 61/99, IISH. See also Bebel to Liebknecht, June 15, 1897, in Liebknecht Archive, 65/132, IISH.

37. Protokoll, 1894, p. 68.

38. Liebknecht to Singer, Dec. 9, 1892, Liebknecht Archive, 41, IISH.

39. Liebknecht to Quarck, May 3, 1893, Dec. 18, 1898, Jan. 1, 4, 1889, in Quarck Archive, 139, 208, 209, 213, 214, AsD.

40. Engels to Kautsky, Apr. 30, 1891, in Engels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky, pp. 295–96.

41. Hirsch to Liebknecht, Sept. 23, Oct. 13, 1891, Liebknecht Archive, 177/65–66 and 177/67–68, IISH; Bebel to Engels, Sept. 12, 1891, in Bebels Briefwechsel mit Engels, p. 430.

42. Hirsch to Liebknecht, Oct. 29, 1891, Liebknecht Archive, 177/69, IISH; Bebel to Engels, Oct. 29, Nov. 15, Dec. 7, 1891, in Bebels Briefwechsel mit Engels, pp. 479, 487, 489. For the announcement of Hirsch's refusal, see Vorwärts, Nov. 11, 1891.

43. Mayer, Paul, ed., Bruno Schoenlank 1859–1901: Reformer der sozialdemokratischen Tagespresse (Hanover, 1971), p. 48.Google Scholar Liebknecht to Quarck, Nov. 1, 1893, gloats that he has thwarted Schoenlank's attempt to become “actual chief editor.” Quarck Archive, 158a, AsD.

44. Protokoll, 1891, pp. 291–97; Protokoll, 1892, pp. 16, 18, 253–57.

45. Kautsky to Engels, Nov. 26,1892, Oct. 11,1893, Engels to Kautsky, Nov. 3,1892, in Engels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky, pp. 372, 388, 393; Kautsky to Adler, Oct. 13, 1893, in Adlers Briefwechsel, p. 122.

46. Protokoll, 1893, pp. 17–18, 150.

47. Fricke, Dieter, Zur Organization und Tätigkeit der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung (1890–1914) (Leipzig, 1962), pp. 139–40.Google Scholar

48. Protokoll, 1894, p. 14.

49. Lehmann, Hans Georg, Die Agrarfrage in der Theorie und Praxis der deutschen und internationalen Sozialdemokratie (Tübingen, 1970), pp. 72–73.Google Scholar

50. Protokoll, 1894, pp. 108–35.

51. Vorwārts, Oct. 31, 1894.

52. The hypothesis that Engels encouraged Bebel's attack is well argued in Lehmann, Agrarfrage, pp. 117–18.

53. Vorwārts, Nov. 16, 1894, 1. Beilage.

54. Ibid., Nov. 17, 1894. For Vorwärts' handling of the union debate, see the issues of Nov. 3, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 22, 1893.

55. Ibid., Nov. 28, 29, 30, Dec. 1, 1894.

56. Liebknecht to Grillenberger, Nov. 17, 1894, Liebknecht Archive, 27, IISH; Liebknecht to Vollmar, Nov. 22, 1894, Vollmar Archive, 1283, IISH.

57. Vollmar to Liebknecht, Nov. 20, 24, 1894, Vollmar Archive, 2378a, IISH.

58. Liebknecht to Engels, Nov. 16, 29, 1894, Engels to Liebknecht, Nov. 24, 1894, in Liebknechts Briefwechsel mit Marx und Engels, pp. 394–95, 399.

59. Vorwärts, Nov. 24, 1894.

60. Singer to Adler, Nov. 26, 1894, Bebel to Adler, Dec. 6, 12, 13, 1894, in Adlers Briefwechsel, pp. 163, 166, 168,170; Kautsky to Bebel, Dec. 9,1894, in Bebels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky, pp. 84–85.

61. Lehmann, Agrarfrage, pp. 125–40, interprets the cease-fire as an unqualified victory for Bebel. To me, the outcome seems more like a draw.

62. Liebknecht to Kautsky, Dec. 8, 1894, in Kautsky Archive, DXV 544, IISH.

63. Kautsky to Engels, Nov. 24, 1894, in Engels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky, p. 417; Kautsky to Bebel, Dec. 9, 1894, in Bebels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky, p. 86; Kautsky to Adler, Nov. 21, 1894, in Adlers Briefwechsel, p. 161; Singer to Adler, Nov. 26, 1894, ibid., pp. 163–64; Engels to Adler, Dec. 14, 1894, in Adlers Aufsätze, pp. 108–9.

64. Bebel to Engels, Nov. 10,1894, in Bebels Briefwechsel mit Engels, pp. 780–82; Bebel to Kautsky, Dec. 3, 1894, in Bebels Briefwechsel mit Kautsky, p. 82.

65. Bebel to Engels, Apr. 24, 1894, in Bebels Briefwechsel mit Engels, p. 760, indicates that the relationship between Bebel and Liebknecht was very strained even before the Vollmar crisis. Bebel to Adler, Nov. 18, 1896, in Adlers Briefwechsel, p. 223, says that all personal contact between the Bebel and Liebknecht families had ceased.

66. Fricke, Organization und Tātigkeit, pp. 139–40, summarizes these events. For examples of Der Sozialdemokrat's emulation of Vorwärts editorial style, see the Beilage for Nov. 29 and Dec. 6, 1894.

67. Protokoll, 1896, p. 116.

68. Ritter, Gerhard A., Die Arbeiterbewegung im Wilhelminischen Reich (Berlin-Dahlem, 1959), p. 154.Google Scholar

69. Liebknecht had also been absent from his editorial office in 1892, when Vorwärts remorselessly attacked Vollmar.

70. Vorwärts, July 24, Aug. 16, 22, 25, 1896. Adolf Braun sent a private threat of resignation to Liebknecht on Aug. 24. In a separate letter signed by all the remaining members of the staff the same threat was made; Liebknecht Addenda, 83a/34–35, 294A/1–2, IISH.

71. Ibid., Aug. 30, 1896.

72. Protokoll, 1896, pp. 76–78, 86–90, 102, 104, 107, 111. For evidence that Singer, too, backed the editorial staff, see Singer to Liebknecht, Aug. 28, 1896, Liebknecht Addenda, 62/361–64, IISH.

73. Bernstein, Eduard, Die Geschichte der Berliner Arbeiterbewegung (Berlin, 1910), 3: 401;Google Scholar see also Protokoll, 1891, pp. 230–31, Protokoll, 1897, pp. 61, 69, 174, and Protokoll, 1899, pp. 8, 66, 284.

74. See the statement by Grillenberger in Protokoll, 1891, p. 297. The circulation of Vorwärts, reported in each party protocol, rose from 25,000 early in the decade to 52,000 by 1900.

75. Financial reports of Vorwärts were printed in each Parteitag Protokoll, as were the reports of deficits for the local press.

76. Protokoll, 1896, p. 86.Google Scholar

77. Protokoll, 1897, pp. 69–70;Google Scholarsee also the articles by Kautsky in Die Neue Zeit 15, pt. 2 (1896–1997): 275–82, 609–17.Google Scholar For a survey of opinions of SPD leaders, see Sozialistische Monatshefte, 1897, pp. 375–86, 457–64.

78. Protokoll, 1897, pp. 176–85, 213.

79. Ibid., p. 215.

80. These figures were compiled using the residence of the delegates to the congress as printed ibid., pp. 224–28. Of nine Berlin speakers at the congress, only one favored participation; see pp. 185–208.

81. Protokoll, 1897, p. 217.

82. Vorwärts, Oct. 10, 1897.

83. Die Neue Zeit 16, pt. 1 (1897–98): 196–99.

84. Ibid., pp. 264–69.

85. Vorwärts, Nov. 10, 16, 24, 1897.

86. Ibid., Aug. 24, 1898.

87. Ibid., Sept. 1, 1898.

88. Ibid., Sept. 24, 1898.

89. For statement of policy regarding matters on the party congress agenda, see Vorwärts, Oct. 21, 1894.

90. Members of the committee are listed in Protokoll, 1898, p. 10, but there is no explanation of how they were selected.

91. Ibid., pp. 161–62.

92. Vorwärts, Oct. 9, 1898.

93. Protokoll, 1898, p. 133.

94. Bebel to Liebknecht, Oct. 20, 1898, Liebknecht Archive 65/137–38, IISH.

95. See Auer's speeches in Protokoll, 1890, pp. 126–28, and Protokoll, 1891, pp. 92–93.

96. Protokoll, 1898, p. 121.

97. Vorwürts, Mar. 16,17,18, Apr. 8, 11, 12, 1898. See also Kautsky to Adler, Mar. 7, 1899, in Adlers Briefwechsel, p. 293.

98. Ibid., Apr. 18, 21, 1898. Kautsky replied on Apr. 26, 1898.

99. Scharlau, Winifred B. and Zeman, Zbynek A., Freibeuter der Revolution: Parvus Helphand (Cologne, 1964), pp. 49–51.Google Scholar

100. Nettl, J. P., Rosa Luxemburg (London, 1966), 1: 157–61.Google Scholar See especially Luxemburg's articles from Sept. 22, 1898, in the Leipziger Volkszeitung.

101. Protokoll, 1898, pp. 113–16, 126–27, 132.

102. Ibid., p. 122.

103. Bebel to Liebknecht, Mar. 28, 1899, in Liebknecht Archive, 65/142–43, IISH.

104. Liebknecht to Bebel, May 30, 1900, Bebel Archive, 127/12–13, IISH. See also a second letter on the same day, ibid. 127/14–15.

105. “What Is to Be Done?” in Daniels, Robert, ed., A Documentary History of Communism (New York, 1960), 1: 10–19.Google Scholar

106. Protokoll, 1898, p. 133.

107. Protokoll, 1896, pp. 114–16.

108. Liebknecht to Quarck, Jan. 1, 1893, Quarck Archive, 160, AsD. Beyer, Marga, “Wilhelm Liebknechts Kampf gegen den Opportunismus im letzten Jahrzehnt seines Lebens,” BGA 18, no. 1 (1976): 100, asserts that Liebknecht renounced his commitment to open journalism when he confronted Bernstein's heresy.Google Scholar I find Beyer's assertion to be completely unfounded.