LAUFENBERG, ORGANISATION, WAR AND CRITICISM (original) (raw)

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

NOTEBOOK “ν”

(“NU”)

LAUFENBERG, ORGANISATION, WAR AND CRITICISM

Laufenberg Organisation, War and Criticism.Documents concerning the HamburgParty debates by

Dr. Heinrich Laufenberg,

Fritz Wolffheim and Dr. Carl Herz.

“For distributing only to Party members, on presentation of their membership card.”

(Published by Dr. H. Laufenberg, Hamburg) (pp. 1-77).

Year???? (1915) ((undoubtedly 1915)).

Echo[1] followed the government slogan (8)—very interesting quotations from Echo (9-15) (urging militarisation of the youth, 26 et seq.). Statements by Laufenberg and others in opposition to this.

Leaders’ tactic that borders on informing against, etc

Proposal for conference of “authorised delegates” rejected (23 and others).

...“The contradiction was bound to come intothe open between the leaders, who followthe policy of the Echo, and the masses, whoadhere to the old, proletarian principles andreject the neo-revisionist policy of harmony”(34).... leadersandmasses

§VIII: “_Compact (Sammlung) of the leaders_” (N.B.) (against the masses).

The discussion showed:

“The debate, which spread over four evenings,was extremely indicative of the frame of mindof the so-called leading circles in Hamburg.Clearly evident was the fact, long known to anyattentive observer of Hamburg party life, thatthis upper stratum of leaders had long ago inward-ly broken with the radical views of the Hamburgparty rank and file. Although they still employedradical formulas at meetings, in reality forthese men Marxism had become an embarrassinguniform which was only donned for officialparty functions” (36).
!!!! N.B.
N.B.
von Elm, August Winnig, Hil-debrandt and others, defended imperialism,etc. (p. 36) N.B.

(((H. Thomas supports Elm and the others, p. 47. etc.)))

...“In districts 1 and 2, where the executive committees control the organisations, no meetings were called during the first four months of the war” (37)....

p. 41: The opportunists refer to Kautsky(he, too, is stated to be in favour of mutingcriticism)—and the authors’ note to theeffect that Kautsky had protested againstthis “misuse” of his name. theopportunistsandKautsky
In the Hamm district—there were 6,000members before the war—after fourmeetings, the vast majority _supported_Laufenberg (p. 47)....

§XI: “The carrot and the whip”—the opportunists, the “bosses” of the organisations, Elm (Adolf von Elm) and Emil Krause—“gave a seat” on the “Public Welfare Committee” (48) to a young worker (of the Workers’ Education Central Committee), so that he should act in a spirit of moderation....

N.B.!!! Laufenberg’s pamphlet was sold by “Karl _Hoym_”(48), a worker in the (party) print-shop Auer & Co.,and he was subjected to persecution (Treiberei)—lethim complain, they said, “to his Dr. Laufenberg” (48)
The police have gone to such lengths that, “as inthe case of speeches by Comrades Scheidemann andLensch, they have given speakers definite instruc-tions about the content of their speeches andhave forbidden discussion. Whereas the activity of bourgeois associations is not subjected to policeinterference, the corporate life of party and tradeunion organisations is now controlled by the police.We are thus in the same exceptional position as atthe time of the Anti-Socialist Law” (52)....
!!
The press committee (in whose name H. Thomas wrote) rejected Laufenberg’s complaints... (claims that the influence of Rosa, Mehring, Zetkin,etc., “in the party as a whole is quite insignificant”p. 53, etc.), and in Bremen, this same H. Thomaswrote, “after Comrade Pannekoek left Bremen” (54)meetings have been “much quieter (viel ruhiger)”.
N.B.!!

From Laufenberg’s reply (to this committee) of January 22, 1915:

N.B. ...“The laudatory reception the policy of the _Echo_enjoys in bourgeois circles, up to and including the Hamburger Nachrichten may prompt you to believethat the broad bourgeois public would protect your[the press committee’s] back against the blows of theparty opposition. This policy in fact coincides withthe views that have enabled Comrades Dr. AugustMüller and von Elm to enjoy the well-deserved favourof the bourgeois world” (55).
N.B.

...“Echo’s nationalist-chauvinist position (56)....

The press committee’s reply of January 27, 1915,accuses Laufenberg and Co. of “_demagogy_”(59) ... and states that the party Executive Committeehas declared “you and your friends” to be “saboteursof the party” (62)....
N.B.
From Laufenberg’s reply of February 4, 1915:... “local ‘party bureaucracy’” (63). N.B.
From Thomas’s reply (February 4,1915)—the war is imperialist and wehave not denied it, but we have deniedthat the cause is only German imperial-ism. We all recognise that the causeis “international imperialism” (65).
N.B.internationaland Germanimperialism!
...“The meetings of party members in HamburgAltona and Ottensen, whenever a discussion tookplace, adopted our [Laufenberg and Co.’s] pointof view” (65). N.B.

Hamburger Echo is “the second largest Social-Democratic newspaper in Germany” (67).

The _New York Volkszeitung_—“has pursued a consistent proletarian policy during the world war” (67).

[Echo was angered by this, blaming“our old Schlüter” for it (p. 68) anddescribing as stupid the accusationsthat German Social-Democracy “has byits attitude lost the character of a work-ers’ party and renounced its principles”(68).] N.B.Echo_sets out the viewof New York_Volkszeitung
...“But this small wing [the opportun-ists] is not content with imposing onthe party the tactics of national reform-ism. It is going further, attemptingto split the party into two camps....In contrast, the spokesmen of radicalismuphold the principle of unity of theGerman workers’ movement” (73) ... (onthe old bases of its 50 years’ history).... and the conclusion XV (§), “Whatshould be done?”
N.B.

...“The development of the proletarian organisations during the lengthy period of consolidation of the capitalist national states was premised on the belief that great political upheavals in the foreseeable future were out of the question, and that for a long time to come the struggle would centre on a parliamentary compromise with the old entrenched forces....

...“The world war changed the situation at a stroke. It showed that the capitalist economy had passed from the period of continuous upward development into the era of a stormy, explosive extension of its field of action. This confronts the proletariat with the task of adapting its class organisations to the revolutionary needs of the future.

“The monstrous events of last summer caught the proletarian organisations unprepared. It was left entirely to the local bureaucracy to determine our attitude towards these epochal political developments, as if it were a matter of the monthly control of dues stamps” (74)....

...“In our view, the main thing for the presentopposition is to make the changes the situationrequires in the form of organisation of the Germanproletariat. The previous general situation in Germanyfor decades compelled the proletariat to engage inpredominantly reformist activity. In organisationalmatters this was based on the leader principle, inpractical action exclusively on parliamentarism.The historic changes we are now experiencingcompel the proletariat to undertake mass action,and this presupposes that the masses are free asregards their organisation, class-conscious andindependent in determining the course of theiractions” (75).
N.B.

And the authors even propose a “_statute_” (76-77).

End

Notes

[1] Here and below the reference is to the Hamburger Echo, the daily newspaper of the Hamburg Social-Democratic organisation. Founded in 1875 as the Hamburg-Altona Volksblatt; its name was changed in 1887. During the First World War it adopted a social-chauvinist position. It was closed by the nazi government in March 1933 and resumed publication in April 1946.

Works Index | Volume 39 | Collected Works | L.I.A. Index
< Backward Forward >