Project Gutenberg's The Future Belongs to the People, by Karl Liebknecht This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: The Future Belongs to the People Author: Karl Liebknecht Translator: S. Zimand Release Date: March 1, 2012 [EBook #39023] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FUTURE BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE *** Produced by Odessa Paige Turner, Martin Pettit and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was produced from scanned images of public domain material from the Google Print project.) "THE FUTURE BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE" logo THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO DALLAS · ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO., Limited LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. TORONTO "The Future Belongs to the People" BY KARL LIEBKNECHT (Speeches made since the beginning of the War) [Pg 1] [Pg 2] [Pg 3] EDITED AND TRANSLATED BY S. ZIMAND WITH AN INTRODUCTION By WALTER WEYL New York THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1918 All rights reserved Copyright 1918 By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Set up and Electrotyped. Published, November 16, 1918 Press of J. J. Little & Ives Co., New York CONTENTS PAGE Preface by Walter E. Weyl 9 Introduction 14 The Man Liebknecht 21 The First Days 25 Liebknecht's Visit to Belgium 27 Did Not Cheer the Kaiser 29 Liebknecht Disapproves of the Majority Socialists of Germany 30 The Reichstag Meeting of Dec. 2, 1914 31 Liebknecht Condemned by His Party 34 A New Year's Greeting to England 36 Speech Delivered at the War Meeting of the Prussian Assembly, Mar. 2, 1915 40 In Defence of Rosa Luxemburg 53 Liebknecht Called to Army Service 61 Liebknecht Questions the Government 62 Liebknecht Expelled from Social Democratic Party 74 Reichstag Discussion about the Censorship 75 Justice in Germany in War Time 76 The Situation in Austria 98 Education in Germany in War Time 100 Liebknecht Protests at Being Prevented from Discussing the Submarine Warfare 113 Reichstag Meeting of March 23, 1916 115 Liebknecht's Comments on the Imperial Chancellor's Speech, April 5, 1916 116 Reichstag Meeting, April 7, 1916 118 Liebknecht's Remarks on the German War Loan, Reichstag Meeting, April 8, 1916 123 Liebknecht's May Day Manifesto 126 Liebknecht's May Day 1916 Speech 128 Liebknecht's Reply to His Judges 137 Liebknecht's Trial and Release 143 [Pg 4] [Pg 5] [Pg 6] "The aim of my life is the overthrow of monarchy. As my father, who appeared before this court exactly thirty-five years ago to defend himself against the charge of treason, was ultimately pronounced victor, so I believe the day is not far distant when the principles which I represent will be recognized as patriotic, as honorable, as true." Karl Liebknecht. PREFACE The philosophy of Karl Liebknecht as revealed in these pages leaves but a narrow ledge for heroes to stand on. To him the significant thing in history is, and has always been, the stirring of the masses of men at the bottom, their unconscious writhings, their awakenings, their conscious struggles and finally their gigantic, fearsome upthrust, which overturns all the little groups of clever men who have lived by holding these masses down. In these conflicts, kings, priests, leaders, heroes count for no more than flags or flying pennants. All great leaders, Cæsar, Mahomet, Luther, Napoleon, are instruments of popular movements, or at best manuscripts upon which the messages of their class and age have been written. To Liebknecht all that Carlyle has said about heroes is contrary to ideology and inversion of the truth. "As I take it," writes Carlyle, "Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked there. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing and accomplished in the world are properly the outward material result, the practical realization and embodiment of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these." Look at what is happening in Germany to-day and test, as best we may, these two confronting theories concerning the influence of great men upon history. As I write Germany is in the throes of revolution. The immensely powerful Hohenzollern monarchy has fallen, the brave, stubborn, modern-witted, money-bolstered aristocracy is shattered, and a proscribed poor man, Karl Liebknecht, is loudly acclaimed. Was it one man, a Foch, a Wilson, a Lenin or a Liebknecht that overturned this mighty structure, or was it the movement of a hundred million men and women, armed and unarmed, on the battle-field and in the factory, in France and England and Russia and Germany? What could Liebknecht alone have done with all his ringing eloquence and all his superb, I almost said, sublime heroism? Clearly we must rule Carlyle out of the controversy and agree with Liebknecht, the Socialist, that Liebknecht, the hero, had little to do with this vast subversion. Yet, as Carlyle says, "One comfort is, that Great Men, taken up in any way, are profitable company. We cannot look, however imperfectly, upon any great man, without gaining something by him." At this safe distance no one could be more "profitable company" than Karl Liebknecht as he stands up boldly against all that is powerful, respectable and formidable in Germany and challenges it at the utter risk of life and reputation. Such courage as his is almost inconceivable; for us poor conforming or at best feebly protesting little people it is quite impossible. To die among thousands, even to die alone, if you think you hear the plaudits of your nation or your class, is a thing many of us have learned to do, but to stand up against a vindictive irrational war spirit, such as ruled Germany, to stand up alone, to be contemned not only by your enemies but by those who called themselves your comrades and friends, to be met by polite derision and by actual threats of violence, to be called a madman, to be called a traitor, to be misunderstood and doubted; to be met in occasional moments of dejection even by doubts in your own mind, and still to hold your own bravely and with cool passion, day after day and day after day, in circumstances growing daily more difficult, and finally to go to prison gladly, triumphantly—that is courage surpassing the courage of the rest of us. It is easier to die even by torture than to persist in this opposition to forces physical and mental not only confronting but surrounding and even permeating us. We have agreed with Liebknecht that great events are not the doings of great men but merely the large theater in which these great men play their little parts. And yet, does not the hero, subordinate as he is to the wider movement of the play, exert a somewhat stronger influence than many followers of Marx seem willing to admit? Masses of men are moved to vital historic decisions in part by economic motives, but these motives must first be converted into emotion, and the hero, however his own actions are motived, is one of the vital factors producing that emotion. We shall perhaps never know to what extent the present rising of the German people against their once invincible rulers was occasioned, though not caused, by their vision of Karl Liebknecht, standing there alone against all the judges, rulers, legislators and respectables of Germany, and even against his fellow socialists. The heroism of Liebknecht was at least a point and center of coalescence. The course of events has vindicated Karl Liebknecht. But it might well have been otherwise. Had Germany won the war and established a clanging pax Germanica through the ruin of Europe, Liebknecht's heroism might never have been recognized. He might have rusted in prison and been released to obscurity and thereafter lived a futile life derided as a blind fanatic. The force of circumstances, the obscure action of the hundreds of millions, rescued Liebknecht and [Pg 8] [Pg 9] [Pg 10] [Pg 11] [Pg 12] raised him to the highest pinnacle of heroism. It stamped upon our minds for all time the picture of this brave man standing alone surrounded by cruel, confidently smiling foes. I said "alone." Yet this is not fair to a very small group of German minority socialists, who stood by Liebknecht and by whom Liebknecht stood. Among them were Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring, Hugo Haase, George Ledebour, and others, to whom, were real heroism always decorated, would be given a higher order of "Pour le Mérite." But among all these Karl Liebknecht stands preëminent. "And for all that mind you," concludes the French soldier Bertrand, in "Under Fire," "there is one figure that has risen above the war and will blaze with the beauty and strength of his courage." Barbusse continues: "I listened leaning on a stick towards him, drinking in the voice that came in the twilight silence from the lips that so rarely spoke. He cried with a clear voice, 'Liebknecht.'" Walter Weyl. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE "The future belongs to the people." The time was October 24, 1918; the place, Berlin, the center of Germany; the speaker, Doctor Karl Liebknecht. A remarkable change had indeed come over the Empire. As far as the eye could reach, a great shouting, surging crowd had gathered before the Reichstag buildings, a crowd such as might have foregathered in times past on almost any day of national festivity, to do honor to his Imperial Majesty, Kaiser Wilhelm. They were indeed shouting frantically on this occasion, but with other sentiments, shouting not for the Kaiser, but for abdication, while applauding frantically for another, a bitter foe of the Kaiser, a man who had been sent to jail for high treason, had been deprived of his seat in the Reichstag, had been dubbed, even by those in his own party, an enemy of his kind—Karl Liebknecht. And who, witnessing the flower-laden carriage of the great popular hero, but would admit that a new day was at last dawning in that land of autocracy, a day ushered in by the guns and men of Foch? The events leading to that ovation of the twenty-fourth of October are of interest. From the earliest days of its organization, soon after the middle of the nineteenth century, the German Social Democracy had taken a stand against militarism. During the Franco-Prussian War, two of its chief representatives, Wilhelm Liebknecht (the father of Karl Liebknecht) and August Bebel, had refused to vote for the war budget. In 1912, during the Balkan crisis, the German Socialists had attended in force the great gathering of the International Socialist Conference at Basle, protesting in vigorous tones against the war, and many there were on that occasion who declared that even if danger of world war had not been entirely eliminated, the Social Democrats of Germany, the strongest of the International movement, were prepared to meet any emergency that might arise. In the Reichstag elections, these Social Democrats had cast four and a quarter millions of votes, while the labor unions, which in Germany worked hand and hand with the Social-Democratic Party, numbered no less than two and a half millions. The Socialist movement had the support of hundreds of newspapers, possessed a strong and well-disciplined organization and large financial resources, and was remarkably rich in political experience. In efficiency of organization it ranked second only to the Catholic Church. It was true that the German Social Democrats as yet had gained little real influence on the international policy of the Empire, and despite their powerful organization and their influence, they were in a position before the war to use only moral pressure on the government. Yet to many it seemed extremely unlikely that the German government would dare instigate a world conflagration when opposed at home by this powerful "internal enemy." The war came. Immediately after war's declaration, the Imperial Chancellor called a meeting of the Reichstag on August 5, 1914, for the purpose of approving the war budget. The day before this gathering was held, he called together the leaders of the various parties, so the story runs, among them the Social Democrats, and transmitted to them a confidential communication. He had from a reliable source, he declared, information that a secret understanding existed between the French and the Belgian governments whereby the latter government had agreed, in case of emergency, that it would give the French army passage through Belgium for the purpose of invading Germany. It was because of this agreement, the Chancellor declared, that the neutrality of Belgium had to be violated. In addition to this information, the Chancellor told the assembled legislators that the Russian army had invaded German soil and had even then overrun two of the Prussian provinces. These statements produced the desired effect, convincing the majority of the Social Democratic leaders that their only course was to support the Kaiser and his government. The government knew how to fool them, knew what to use in order to get their support, and the Kaiser and his government were victorious. Every cable message during those days that reached America from Germany emphasized the thought that there were no longer any parties in Germany, that the Social Democrats had decided to give up their agitation and work only for victory. To many radicals in America who had pinned their faith to the internationalism of the German Social Democracy, these reports seemed well-nigh unbelievable. The Socialist leaders must have been put in jail, some argued. [Pg 13] [Pg 14] [Pg 15] [Pg 16] [Pg 17] Then more news came to confirm the reports, and the papers came, Socialist papers, and Socialist papers even of Germany, and all contained the same unbelievable truth. Some said then, "Well, the Government has taken over their papers and that is how this news can be explained." But fact after fact came out which made even the most doubtful admit that the cables had been based on truth. The strong and great structure built by a generation lay prostrate on the ground. In those days of disillusion, I remember well a conversation among a few of us concerning the plight of the Social Democracy. "The German government knew their Socialists well, and knew how best to reach them," declared one of our group. "There is one man in Germany, however, whom we shouldn't despair of, even now. If he is still alive, I cannot but believe that he will soon raise his voice against the course pursued by the German government and by his own party, and show the world that even in the land of utter darkness there still shines one light." Liebknecht's record was open. For a score of years he had fought militarism tooth and nail. Could he now embrace it? Temporarily, it seemed that he had. He opposed the majority of his fellow-Socialists in the early days of August when they voted to support the war budget. But his efforts were unsuccessful. The majority decreed that the Social Democrats must support the war, and party discipline demanded that the minority abide by the decision of the majority. Party discipline was strong, at first too strong for Liebknecht. He yielded. Against his better judgment he voted, on August 5, for the budget. He voted, but he rebelled in spirit, and the next month, both at the home of a Socialist Alderman, F. M. Wibaut, of Amsterdam, and at the residence of Lieutenant Henry DeMan, in Brussels, he declared that he could not himself understand what had possessed him when he gave his vote in the Reichstag to the war budget. He soon extricated himself from his former allegiances, however, and the noble spirit of courage which he afterwards displayed has but few precedents in modern history. In order to portray to the reader the real picture of the seemingly insurpassable obstacles against which he fought, and the courage and idealism which he displayed, I have collected and translated his speeches and his important utterances since the beginning of the war and here present them in detail for the first time to American readers. Liebknecht had many opportunities for making himself heard. He was a Deputy of the Reichstag from Potsdam- Osthavelland, an assemblyman to the Prussian Landtag from Berlin and Councilman to the Stadverordneten Versammlung of Berlin. Within and without these assemblies he used his pen and his voice alike. It was in the Prussian Assembly, where from the very beginning he had four companions who shared his point of view, that he delivered his longer addresses. His tactics in the Reichstag, where for some time he stood almost alone, were somewhat different. Here, instead of delivering speeches, he used the question with telling effect, as a means of bringing out the truth on his side and of showing the emptiness of his opponents' claims. The government resorted to every conceivable means to silence him, but without success. Failing, they called him to military service, and put him in the uniform of a German soldier. This act put a temporary end to his outside public addresses, but he could still deliver his scathing indictments in the Reichstag and in the Prussian Assembly. On May 1, 1916, he appeared at a public gathering in Berlin in civilian dress, and delivered the speech which sent him to jail. Why did he deliver that May Day address? Why did he not continue to reach the public over the heads of the legislators from his seats in the two Parliaments? It is indeed possible that he thought that the moment for the Revolution had struck. For it is an address of revolution, and seemed calculated to bring about an uprising of the workers. Perhaps he was under the impression that his addresses and the terrible pressure outside Germany had sufficiently awakened the German people, and that they needed but a word to bring them into action. Whatever the reason, the speech was a magnificent one; it required a courage which only a Liebknecht possessed. When Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Henry Thoreau in his prison cell and asked, "What are you doing here, Henry?" Thoreau replied, "What are you doing outside when all people with ideals are inside?" That sentence well describes the Germany of yesterday. Liebknecht was in prison, but even in his lonesome cell he still inspired the "gathering hosts and helped to make men free." I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my friends, Bertram Benedict and Dr. Wm. E. Bohn, for help and criticism. S. Zimand. November 3, 1918 THE MAN LIEBKNECHT Karl Liebknecht is a worthy son of a great sire. His father, Wilhelm Liebknecht, for years a member of the Reichstag, was the author of numerous pamphlets on Socialism and economics and was one of the first founders of the Socialist Party in Germany. Karl Liebknecht was born in Leipzig on August 13th, 1871, the same year in which his father was arrested on the charge of high treason. His mother was wont to say that she bequeathed to her son all the sorrow that was hers during that period, all the courage and all the strength which she had to summon to her aid to live through [Pg 18] [Pg 19] [Pg 20] [Pg 21] those days; and with her bequest went all the sorrow for the sufferings of humanity, and all the courage and the strength to battle for the cause of the people, which were back of the father's trial. And thirty-five years later, Karl Liebknecht underwent the same ordeal as his father—himself faced the accusation of high treason in the highest courts of his native land. Liebknecht studied first at Leipzig and then in Berlin, attending the university in each city. As a student he began his career of social enlightenment by organizing literary societies for the study of social problems. Liebknecht got his doctor's degree in Political Economy and Law at the University of Würzburg. From 1889 he practised law in Berlin. Later he became active in the Socialist movement in Berlin. In 1902 he was elected Councilman to the Stadverordneten Versammlung (Common Council) of Berlin. In October, 1907, he was tried for high treason before the Imperial Court of Germany at Leipzig for his book on "Militarism." The substance of this book which aroused the ire of the German authorities was first set forth in a lecture before a group of young people in 1906, for it is Liebknecht's belief that in the hands of the younger generation of Germany lies the hope of salvation; let them be impregnated, he would say, with the right social ideals before militaristic training has an opportunity to do its work, and there will be little danger of domination by the war lords, or of the fruition of the war lords' aims. His trial was most interesting. It was said upon excellent authority that the Kaiser himself was connected by secret wire with the court room. Liebknecht bore himself triumphantly throughout; there was never a moment of wavering, never any evidence of any quality contrary to the gigantic and fearless strength which characterizes the man. Liebknecht is himself a very able lawyer, and though he had noted lawyers to represent him (including Hugo Haase, at present a leader of the Minority Socialist Party in the Reichstag), he supplemented their speeches with additional analyses of his own. Liebknecht took up the question, "What is high treason?" He turned the tables upon Olshausen, who was conducting the trial against him, by a quotation from a work of Olshausen himself which contradicted the stand the latter was taking in the Liebknecht trial. The Socialist leader's address to the judges was one of the boldest attacks ever made, either up to that time or up to the present, against German militarism. "The aim of my life," he declared, "is the overthrow of monarchy. As my father, who appeared before this court exactly thirty-five years ago to defend himself against the charge of treason, was ultimately pronounced victor, so I believe the day is not far distant when the principles which I represent will be recognized as patriotic, as honorable, as true." Liebknecht's brave stand on this occasion was rewarded by a sentence of a year and a half in a military prison. While serving his sentence he was elected by the people of Berlin to represent them in the assembly of Prussia. In the Landtag Liebknecht recommenced his fight against militarism. It was there that he prophetically pronounced the word "Republic" for the first time. On one occasion there was a debate upon the building of a new opera house. "The opera house for which we are asked to vote the necessary funds," he exclaimed, "should last for many generations. We trust that it will last long after it has lost its character as a Royal Opera House." In 1910 Liebknecht visited America to give a series of lectures, and the United States made a strong impression upon him. He used to tell me that he felt truly homesick for America and had a genuine desire to repeat the visit. In 1912 he was elected representative to the Reichstag by the people of Potsdam-Osthavelland, under the very window of the Kaiser. The announcement of his success was met with wild demonstrations of delight. The sentiments of the surging crowds before the office of the Berlin Vorwärts when the result of the election was made public were voiced by a young workingman, when he exclaimed, "The new voice of freedom will be heard from now on in the Reichstag." In the Reichstag Liebknecht hurled with renewed zeal his invectives against the huge armaments and militarism of Germany. Liebknecht the man is of the kindest nature and frankest personality. There is to be seen in his make-up no grain of pretentiousness, of false pride—indeed, he usually lunches quite happily upon a sandwich in the train, too busy to find any other time for his meal. His home life is ideal. His present wife—his first died in 1912—is a Russian by birth, a graduate of the University of Heidelberg, and an ideal companion and helpmate. THE FIRST DAYS On August 3rd and 4th, 1914, the Social-Democratic members of the Reichstag called a special meeting in order to decide what stand the party should take on the War. At the first vote taken, ninety-four members were for voting for the budget and only fourteen against. At the last there were only three who held out to the end—Liebknecht, Ledebour, and Haase. The officials of the party tried to give the impression that there were no differences of opinion in the party, but Liebknecht wrote the following letter, which was published in the Bürger Zeitung, Bremen, September 18, 1914. "I understand that several members of the Socialist Party have written all manner of statements to the press with regard to the deliberations of the Socialist Party in the Reichstag on August 3rd and 4th. [Pg 22] [Pg 23] [Pg 24] [Pg 25] "According to these reports, there were no serious differences of opinion in our party in regard to the political situation and our own position, and decisions to assent to war credits are alleged to have been arrived at unanimously. In order to prevent the dissemination of an inadmissible fiction I feel it to be my duty to put on record the fact that the issues involved gave rise to diametrically opposite views within our party parliament, and these opposing views found expression with a violence hitherto unknown in our deliberations. "It is also entirely untrue to say that assent to the war credits was given unanimously." LIEBKNECHT'S VISIT TO BELGIUM On September 16th, 1914, Liebknecht went to Belgium to inform himself about the situation, and here is what Camille Huysmans, the secretary of the International Socialist Bureau, writes about Liebknecht's visit to Belgium: To P. Renaudel, Editor of L'Humanité. "My dear Renaudel,—Liebknecht came to Belgium on September 16th, 1914. He met several friends, and he came to see me at Brussels, at the Maison du Peuple, in the afternoon. I asked him into my office and we had a conversation which lasted more than two hours. I took him to dinner at a restaurant in the town, and we again talked at length. I invited other friends to meet him, among them our comrade Vandersmirsen. The next morning we went out in two motor cars. We passed through several districts. We tried to see Louvain, but the military authorities would not allow us to do so. "At Tirlemont, through the mistake of an officer, we were caught in some shrapnel fire, and we had to remain through the engagement. I showed Liebknecht what actually took place. He questioned the Belgians. He talked with the German soldiers. He was thus able to form his own opinion on the spot. "To sum up: Liebknecht, when he came, knew nothing of what had happened in Belgium. He went away convinced that the Belgians had not been sold to Great Britain, that they had not organized bands of francs-tireurs, that they had not assassinated the German wounded, and that the German executions in Belgium were unjustifiable. "He came to Belgium honorably and honestly to gain information. Anything else is calumny. Those Belgians who regarded the reception by me of a German as an act of treason grasped him effusively by the hand when they learned that he came to find out and to speak the truth. "Yours, "Camille Huysmans." DID NOT CHEER THE KAISER Berlin, October 24, 1914. Editor, Berliner Tageblatt. Berlin. Dear Sir: In your report of the meeting of the Prussian Assembly on the 22nd of the month you say that during the reading by Dr. Delbrück of the greetings of the Kaiser the whole house stood (that means, the Social-Democrats also). That does not correspond with the truth. The Social-Democratic members of the Assembly, who were in their places, remained seated. With reference to the closing speech of the President your report reads that the whole House applauded and took part in the cheers for the Kaiser. That also is not true. Five members (Hofer, Adolf Hoffmann, Paul Hoffmann, Liebknecht and Ströbel,—S. Z.) of the Social-Democratic representation in the Landtag (that means half) left the room when this speech of the President was delivered. I would ask you to print the above correction according to paragraph II of the Press Law. Respectfully, Karl Liebknecht. [Pg 26] [Pg 27] [Pg 28] [Pg 29] LIEBKNECHT DISAPPROVES OF MAJORITY SOCIALISTS OF GERMANY The Swiss Socialist paper Volksrecht published in November, 1914, the following statement, signed by Karl Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Franz Mehring and Clara Zetkin. "In the Socialist press of the neutral countries of Sweden, Italy and Switzerland, Comrades Dr. Suedekum and Richard Fischer have attempted to portray the attitude of the German Social-Democrats towards the present War in the light of their own ideas. We feel ourselves forced therefore to explain through the same mediums that we, and certainly many other German Social-Democrats, look on the War, its causes and its character, as well as on the rôle of the Social- Democrats at the present time, from a standpoint which in no way corresponds to that of Dr. Suedekum and Herr Fischer. At the present time the state of martial law makes it impossible for us to give public expression to our views." REICHSTAG MEETING, DECEMBER 2, 1914, AND LIEBKNECHT'S DOCUMENT EXPLAINING WHY HE VOTED "NO" At the second War Session of the Reichstag, Dec. 2, 1914, Karl Liebknecht not only voted against the War Budget— the only member of the Reichstag so to vote—but also handed in an explanation of his vote, which the President of the Reichstag refused to allow to be read, nor was it printed in the Parliamentary report. The President banned it on the pretext that it would entail calls to order. The document was sent to the German Press, but not one paper published it. The full text of the protest was received by way of Switzerland. It runs as follows: "My vote against the War Credit Bill of to-day is based on the following considerations. This War, desired by none of the people concerned, has not broken out in behalf of the welfare of the German people or any other. It is an Imperialist War, a war over important territories of exploitation for capitalists and financiers. From the point of view of rivalry in armaments, it is a war provoked by the German and Austrian war parties together, in the obscurity of semi-feudalism and of secret diplomacy, to gain an advantage over their opponents. At the same time the war is a Bonapartist effort to disrupt and split the growing movement of the working class. "The German cry: 'Against Czarism!' is invented for the occasion—just as the present British and French watchwords are invented—to exploit the noblest inclinations and the revolutionary traditions and ideals of the people in stirring up hatred of other peoples. "Germany, the accomplice of Czarism, the model of reaction until this very day, has no standing as the liberator of the peoples. The liberation of both the Russian and the German people must be their own work. "The war is no war of German defense. Its historical basis and its course at the start make unacceptable the pretense of the capitalist government that the purpose for which it demands credits is the defense of the Fatherland. "A speedy peace, a peace without conquests, this is what we must demand. Every effort in this direction must be supported. Only by strengthening jointly and continuously the currents in all the belligerent countries which have such a peace as their object can this bloody slaughter be brought to an end. "Only a peace based upon the international solidarity of the working class and on the liberty of all the peoples can be a lasting peace. Therefore, it is the duty of the proletariats of all countries to carry on during the war a common Socialistic work in favor of peace. "I support the relief credits with this reservation: I vote willingly for everything which may relieve the hard fate of our brothers on the battlefield as well as that of the wounded and sick, for whom I feel the deepest compassion. But as a protest against the war, against those who are responsible for it and who have caused it, against those who direct it, against the capitalist purposes for which it is being used, against plans of annexation, against the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg, against unlimited rule of martial law, against the total oblivion of social and political duties of which the Government and classes are still guilty, I vote against the war credits demanded. Karl Liebknecht. Berlin, December 2, 1914." KARL LIEBKNECHT CONDEMNED BY HIS PARTY FOR VOTING "NO" ON DECEMBER 2, 1914, AND HIS ANSWER [Pg 30] [Pg 31] [Pg 32] [Pg 33] [Pg 34] In December, 1914, the Social-Democratic representation of the Reichstag censured Karl Liebknecht for voting "No" in the open meeting of the Reichstag. At a meeting on February 2, 1915, the Reichstag Socialists adopted a resolution condemning his stand and repudiating alleged misleading information he had spread about the Party. To this Liebknecht answered in the Vorwärts of February 5, 1915, as follows: Berlin, February 5, 1915. Editor Vorwärts, Berlin. Dear Comrade:— Concerning the resolution adopted by the Social-Democratic Deputies of the Reichstag I wish to remark: (1) I voted against the war credits because the vote for the war credits is in my opinion in sharp contradiction not only to the interests of the proletariat, but also to the resolutions of the Social-Democratic Party and of the International Socialist Convention. And the Social-Democratic Deputies in the Reichstag are not justified in recommending a violation of the Program and party decisions. In a letter of Dec. 3, 1914, addressed to the Chairman of the Social-Democratic Deputies of the Reichstag I made my stand clear. (2) Misleading information about the Party I have not given out. The Social-Democratic Deputies in the Reichstag, who are not the proper authorities for such decisions, voted down my motion to postpone making any decision on this point until a thorough discussion had taken place. Karl Liebknecht. A NEW YEAR'S GREETING TO ENGLAND I am pleased to be able to write a message of brotherhood to British Socialists at a time when the ruling classes of Germany and Great Britain are trying by all means in their power to incite bloodthirsty hatred between the two peoples. But it is painful for me to write these lines at a time when our radiant hope of previous days—the Socialist International —lies destroyed on the ground with a thousand expectations, when even many Socialists in the belligerent countries— for Germany is not an exception—have in this most rapacious of all wars of robbery willingly put on the yoke of the chariot of Imperialism, just when the evils of capitalism were becoming more apparent than ever. I am, however, particularly proud and happy to send my greetings to you, to the British Independent Labour Party, who, with our Russian and Servian comrades, have saved the honor of Socialism amidst the madness of national slaughter. Confusion reigns among the rank and file of the Socialist Army and many blame Socialist principles for our present failure. It is not our principles which have failed, however, but the representatives of those principles. It is not a question of changing our principles, it is a question of applying them to life, of carrying them into action. All the phrases of "national defense" and the "liberation of the people" with which Imperialism decorates its instruments of murder are but deceiving tinsel. Each Socialist Party has its enemy, the common enemy of the International, in its own country. There it has to fight it. The liberation of each nation must be its own work. Only blindness can order the continuation of the slaughter until the "enemy" is crushed. The well-being of all nations is inseparably connected; the struggle of the organized working class can only be carried out internationally. Those who are seven times wise and whose weak souls are easily carried away by the whirls of diplomatic winds and lost in the gulfs of jingoism, say that the labor movement will no longer be international. The world war which has smashed the International must, however, be realized as a powerful sermon making clear the need for a new International, an International of another kind, with a different force from that which the capitalist powers so easily scattered on August 4, 1914. Only in the coöperation of the working masses of all countries, in times of war as in times of peace, does the salvation of humanity lie. Nowhere have the masses desired this war. Nowhere do they desire it. Why should they, then, with a loathing for war in their hearts, murder each other to the finish? It would be a sign of weakness, it is said, for any one people to suggest peace; well, let all the people suggest it together. The nation which speaks first will not show weakness but strength. It will win the glory and gratitude of posterity. It is the duty of every Socialist at the present time to be a prophet of international brotherhood, realizing that every word he speaks in favor of socialism and peace, every action he performs for these ideals enflame similar words and actions in other countries, until the flames of the desire for peace shall flare high over all Europe. The example which you and our Russian and Servian comrades have given to the world will have an emulating effect wherever Socialists have been ensnared by the designs of the ruling classes, and I am sure the mass of the British workers will soon rally to the International Labor Party. Already among the German [Pg 35] [Pg 36] [Pg 37] [Pg 38] workers there is far greater opposition to the war than is generally supposed, and the louder the echo of the cry for peace in other countries the more vehemently and energetically will they work for peace here. Thus shall the working classes of all the belligerent countries become conscious of the necessity to fight for a peace consistent with the principles of Socialism, a peace without conquest and without humiliation, a peace based not on hatred but on fraternity, not on force but on freedom, a peace which, because of its justice, may be everlasting. In this way, even during the war, the International can be revived and can atone for its previous mistakes. Thus it must revive, a different International, increased not only in numerical strength but in revolutionary fervor, in clearness of vision and in preparedness to overcome the danger of absolutism, of secret diplomacy, and of capitalist conspiracies against peace. Workers of the World, unite! Unite in a war against war! With Socialist greetings, Karl Liebknecht. Berlin, December, 1914. SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE WAR MEETING OF THE PRUSSIAN ASSEMBLY, TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1915 The Censor forbade the printing of the following speech in Germany. It is a clear analysis of the franchise question. Dr. Liebknecht also blames the personal régime and rule of Bureaucracy for the War. According to the Vorwärts reports, when Liebknecht began to speak the Free Conservatives, most of the National Liberals and the Centrum left the chamber in a demonstrative manner. Present: The Minister of the Interior: Discussion about the Prussian electoral reform, care for those disabled by war, and democratization of external politics. Taking part in the discussion: Dr. Busse (Cons.), V. Papenheim (Cons.), Dr. v. Zedlitz and Neukirch (Free Cons.), v. Loebell (Secretary of Interior), Dr. Friedberg (Natl. Lib.), Cassel (Progressive People's Party), Dr. Liebknecht (Soc.- Dem.). Dr. Liebknecht (Social-Democrat): Gentlemen, first I wish to protest against the fact that Russian workingmen are treated differently from the civilians of other enemy countries. Such differential treatment cannot be justified—indeed, must be condemned as sharply as possible. As to the care to be taken of those disabled by war, I can only support the heart-felt words which came from all parts of this house on this question and echoed in our hearts, that we demand action on this matter without delay and do everything possible to keep these unfortunate people from all need and misery. But I do not wish to mistake what experience teaches us—that we have every right to take words uttered in days such as we are passing through with a great deal of criticism and suspicion. On that account I would not like to throw all the words uttered to-day in the scales as solid weight. We will see if, in the future, deeds will follow. The great zeal with which this all-important question, which arouses all human emotions, was discussed, has for me a special significance because these debates serve to hide the complete silence of the bourgeois parties on the decisive and important suffrage question. ("Very true" from the Soc.-Dem.) Gentlemen, you can be assured that those who are in the field and the unfortunate invalids in the hospitals will be convinced that everything necessary is done in this important question only when we make it possible for them at the settlement of the question to be guaranteed necessary influence in legislation and administration. (Approval from the Soc.-Dem.) They will not rely on the good will of the ruling parties, and if the good words which were spoken with relation to the care to be taken of the war invalids do not go hand in hand with willingness to give to the mass of the people more rights, to make possible a democratization of Prussia, then they preach to deaf ears even if the words sound so very friendly. ("Very true" from Soc.-Dem.) Gentlemen, the 27th of February of this year will become a historical day for Prussia. It was a critical day. In the Budget Committee the Minister refused to give any assurance, even of a general nature, about a future suffrage reform; and to- day also we heard nothing about it. The Progressive Party expects, according to the speech delivered by Assemblyman Pachnicke, suffrage reform after the war; they expect at least the secret and the direct vote. The Centrum appeals to its "clear and unmovable" position on the suffrage question, which no one knows (Assemblyman Ströbel, Soc.-Dem., "Very good!"), and explains its present silence by the party truce. The National Liberals put the question of suffrage reform behind the task of winning the war. The Free Conservatives, through Frhr. v. Zedlitz, give a straightforward refusal, which Frhr. v. Zedlitz underlined three times last night in the Post. ("Very true" from the Free Conservatives.) I [Pg 39] [Pg 40] [Pg 41] [Pg 42] hear again a "Very true" from the midst of the Free Conservatives, and emphasize it again thus—according to them the war has brought out strong counter-reaction against any democratization and Frhr. v. Zedlitz must surely know it, because he warms himself behind the political stove. He considers the discussion of the election reform as superfluous, a discussion which endangers the party truce and which over-balances the discussions about the Budget; and he scoffs at the idea about a general fraternization on the foundation of the introduction of the suffrage law for the Reichstag in Prussia. ("Hear! hear!" from the Soc.-Dem.) The German Conservative Party was silent and by its silence showed that it approved the provoking refusal of Frhr. v. Zedlitz. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) To-day also was this approval repeated in an unmistakable sense. That clears the situation, gentlemen,—clears it delightfully. Clearness is especially necessary at this time. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) It never was so necessary as to-day, when the word "party truce" and the false conceptions of class harmonies, of unity and unanimity of the people and other beautiful descriptive words about a free German people of the future becloud many a mind. Gentlemen, we are glad that this fog was blown away. The naked truth is: In Prussia everything remains as it was before. Gentlemen, on October 22nd of last year our warning with reference to the election reform was received by this house partly with cold silence and partly with indignant murmur. It was astounding to the gentlemen that the representatives of the third class of Prussian helot voters dared, at this time, to raise the demand of the people. The government was silent then. On February 9th the same performance, and now the Committee's deliberations and the debates of to-day which clarify the situation so well! Everything remains as it was before—that is the significance of the day for Prussia. From the papers we already knew that, gentlemen. Already in September, 1914, upon the victory of the German troops, so many swelled up as "German friends of the people." An apotheosis of Militarism, an apotheosis of Monarchism, an apotheosis of the three-class system of voting and of all "Prussian egotism" we found in the reactionary papers,—in the papers not only of the Conservative Parties but even in those of the so- called Liberal Parties. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) Gentlemen, in 1866 it was said: The schoolmaster, the Prussian schoolmaster was victorious. To-day it is said: the Prussian system of voting is victorious in this war or will be victorious in this war. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) What progress! It will be said, as it was said: The Prussian three-class system of voting was victorious over democracy, —by which Russia is naturally left out of consideration as a good friend of the past and surely as a good friend of the future. The conclusion will be drawn which was drawn in such an open way by Frhr. v. Zedlitz. But I should like to advise you in your own interests not to forget that if this war, especially in the first months, awakened a strong enthusiasm in the German people, you must thank above all the fact that it was to be against Czarism—against the Russian reaction,—("Very true!" from Soc.-Dem.), against barbarism, unrighteousness; that it was thought to be a struggle for the freedom of Europe. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) And, gentlemen, do not forget the disastrous influence the backward conditions in Prussia and in Germany, which conditions were combated by us, had on the attitude of the Neutrals against Germany in this war! ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) Gentlemen, in spite of all the characteristic and true Prussian manifestations since the first months of the war, about which I just spoke, we had even up to now political dreamers. Gentlemen, those will now be enlightened about the situation, wherever they are, and that is of great value. The darkest pessimists were right in their prophecies. These debates have furnished water for our mills. The Conservative parties of this house stand with their old animosity against any democratization. From the Centrum nothing is to be hoped. The National Liberals provide a special chapter. Their ideal with respect to the electoral reform has been long similar to that of Frhr. v. Zedlitz, namely, not democratization, but future plutocratization of the electoral reform. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) So everything is as it was before! The National Liberals put out of their present thoughts the struggle for peoples' rights, because success is to them, as they say, more important. Gentlemen, that is explainable. These gentlemen know, in fact, for what this war is fought. For their electorate this war is such a tremendously important political and economic business that the people's rights, bad or good, have to be retarded. Gentlemen, the mine fields of Briey and Longwy, the mine fields of West Poland, the colonies which promise important profits and some other nice things are really no bad investments for German capital. The people can wait. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) And Mr. Pachnicke, the boldest representative of democracy in the bourgeois parties of this house, is already satisfied in advance—sure enough, only for the present, as he says—with the secret and direct vote! But even the moderate optimism of Mr. Pachnicke and Mr. Cassel that a majority is available in this house with reference to that patch-work reform, was very roughly stripped of its mask in the Budget Commission by a conservative interruption. Even here everything shall be as it was before! And even for this patch-work reform Mr. Pachnicke wants to wait until after the war. Gentlemen, we are not so modest. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) We see all other classes in the war, and especially through the war, pursue unrestrained and without any compunction their class interests. We know that this war serves or will serve, if it will go according to the desire of the ruling class—the great capitalistic interests—the interest of the ruling classes in a particular way. Shall only the masses of the people wait until after the war? The technical restoration of the law is a trifle. ("Very true!" from the Soc.-Dem.) Gentlemen, do we have any cause to postpone our demand for democratization in a time of martial law, the press censorship, the suspension of the miserable right of assembly, in a time of the darkest reaction, including the spy system in Prussia under the name of Burgfrieden (civic truce) in a form of military dictatorship, celebrates its triumph, in a time when the people are more than ever without any rights, in a time when by the war not only the danger to all of the [Pg 43] [Pg 44] [Pg 45] [Pg 46] [Pg 47] capitalistic economic order is made more...