The Situation in Germany

Clara Zetkin
(1920)
THE military-monarchist mutiny of Kapp-Luttwitz was an inevitable stage of development in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under the disguise of democracy and social-democracy; its object was to revive the capitalist regime and to prevent the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat and the realisation of the Soviet order. The National Assembly, the coalition government, as well as the deceptive laws of socialisation and the factory committees had prepared the ground for this mutiny, and the government of Noske collected and armed the requisite fighting detachments. The regime introduced by this government was really the bloody class terror of the bourgeoisie under the mask of democracy. The mutiny cast this mask aside and laid bare the class dictatorship of militarism. Kapp’s partisans are striving for the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, under which the junkers and the representatives of the larger industry might play the leading role, and which would be realised in the form of a monarchist power by means of the military apparatus. The partisans of Ebert desire a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie under which the leading and ruling role would be played by the representatives of other branches of industry, of commercial and financial capital, and which would take the form of a bourgeois democracy. The only reliable guarantee of victory over monarchist militarism would be the destruction of the very ground in which it is rooted and which feeds it, and for this purpose a further development of the proletarian revolution is absolutely necessary – the arming of the workers, the disarmament of the well-to-do classes, and consequently, a radical extermination of the newly reviving militarism, which has been so fondly cultivated by Noske. The government of the bourgeois and the Socialists of the majority were afraid to take this course. It was aware that by this means it would break the sword which defends and supports the class power of the capitalists, and at the same time it would help to arm the mortal enemy of this class power for a deadly blow ...
Occupying the standpoint of political collaboration between the exploited and the exploiters, and considering it its duty to protect the bourgeois order and bourgeois property, this government would be fated to merely a senseless and pusillanimous marking of time; It is understood, however, that only the proletariat alone is in a position to overthrow the military-monarchist clique and to defend successfully the so-called “achievements of the revolution” and the revolution itself. But for this government the “achievements of the revolution” consisted of ministers’ portfolios, government positions for its Party adherents and for its political clients. By means of a martial law, arrests, censorship, courtmartials, general conscription, corps of volunteers, etc:, it reduced these achievements to a lower level than that of the ordinary bourgeois-democratic liberty and, by closing series of railway-workshops, and introducing compulsory voluntary piece-work, and by organising of a ‘Technical Emergency Aid’ (Technische Nothilfe) and by the laws on Labour councils, and the shooting of strikers, it again enforced the almost tottering capitalistic front.
Not for the sake of the revolution, but exclusively for the prolongation of their own ministerial well-being did Ebert and Noske call the proletariat to a general strike which they but the day before had condemned as the basest of crimes against the German nation. The idea of arming the proletariat awoke a feeling of mortal terror in their hearts. They knew perfectly well that the armed proletariat, once roused to the defense of the revolution and the republic, would not stop at the attainment of its nearest object – rendering harmless of the Kapps and Luttwitzes; that its movement would inevitably pass into a struggle against capitalism and against the coalition government, existing only, thanks to the bourgeoisie, and defending the latter’s interests. And thus, on the first day of the crisis it became evident that the Government having nothing against being saved by the workers on strike, was totally averse to allowing the armed workers to become carried away by the struggle for Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Its flight from Berlin under cover of the motto, “In a civil war not a single drop of blood should be shed”, had a symptomatic meaning. But its motto was sharply contradicted by the relentlessly harsh measures with which the Ebertists, in no wise stopped by the bloody civil war, mercilessly, put down by means of guns and machine guns all revolutionary attempts of the proletariat. This flight only served to prove the fact that the Government was willing to enter into an agreement with the mutinous imperialists and that all the bourgeois democrats, with the exception of a small group of no influence at all, were in their secret hearts passionately desirous of uniting with the restored militarist power for the oppression of the proletariat. It became evident also that the protection of the bourgeois property was much, more important for these gentlemen than the much lauded welfare of the bourgeois democracy, to the defense of which the coalition Party called them.
In this way the proletariat found itself compelled to enter into the fight against the militarist counter revolution without deceiving itself by any illusions in regard to the general situation or the intentions of its to enter into the fight against the militarist counter revolution without deceiving itself by any illusions in regard to the general situation of the intentions of its enemies, but inspired only by the clear consciousness of its historical mission and class interests, which demanded the further development of the revolution. The proletarian masses felt and understood that they ought to put down militarism in order to wrench this weapon out of the hands of the capitalist exploiters who were defending the class rule of the bourgeoisie that by means of the disarmament of the state militia, the provisional army of volunteers, the civil and citizen militia, in a word by means of a complete disarmament of the well-to-do classes and the arming of the workers, they would acquire a position strong enough to make it a base for the seizure of the political power. Without the arming of the workers no realisation of the Soviet order, no dictatorship of the proletariat could be possible. Such was the general conviction of all the representatives of the advance guard of the proletariat, and now the masses became convinced of this as well. And another fact became clear to the masses: neither the Government nor the bourgeois democracy could realise these demands for the disarmament of the bourgeoisie and the arming of the workers. This must be accomplished by the proletariat itself. Political Workers’ Councils and Fighting Committees arose which became the organisers and leaders of the new struggle.
In a grand impulse, and with heroic courage, the workers everywhere rushed to the fight. A general strike passed over the whole country. Even the technical personnel, the shop employees and the government officials were caught by the general wave. The railwaymen, the employees of the street-car traffic, the post and telegraph workers stopped work. Enormous agricultural strikes took place. It is true also that for some categories of the proletariat – and first of all for the employees and officials – the inducements to participate in the strike were mottoes of the majority Social Democrats and the Democrats, namely: for the Republic, for democracy, for the Constitution, against the restoration of the Monarchy. But it is also without doubt that the wider circles of the masses did not enter the strike in favour of the bourgeois order. Their motto was: “Down with Kapp and Hindenburg, and with Bauer and Ebert; down with both Luttwitz and Noske”. The masses understood clearly that it was not the bourgeois democracy, nor the harmonious political “collaboration” of the exploited and the exploiters; that should be the object of their struggle, but that this object, both in the present and in the future, must be the establishment of a proletariat class-dictatorship. They in nowise deceived themselves as to the fact that this aim cannot yet be the concrete object of the struggle at the given historical moment. At the present moment they had only to see about the enforcement and strengthening of the proletarian position for the conquest of the government.
The strike was carried on everywhere under the motto of the disarmament of the bourgeoisie and the arming of the workers. To this were added the demands for the immediate liberation of all condemned or detained revolutionists, for the immediate cessation of all pending lawsuits against the fighters for the revolution, for the cessation of martial law, the suppression of censorship; etc. Notwithstanding the diversity of the fighting mottoes, proclaimed by the various socialist parties and labour organisations, the proletarian masses formed one common battle-front; they were united not by resolutions written on paper, or formulas invented by the leaders, they were closely welded by the process of the revolutionary action brought about by the experience of the consciousness of their class position. This remarkable fact was slightly shadowed and concealed by the participation in the strike of followers of the Social Democratic Majority Party and the mottoes of the labour bureaucracy. The social patriot leaders consciously tried to mask and conceal the importance of the single front. But, notwithstanding all their efforts or in spite of them, the above fact exercised a great influence on the consciousness of the proletarian masses, who partly mentally, partly by intuition, comprehended all its significance.
During this crisis the importance of the line of the Main, as a social-political frontier, became evident. It was not accidental that the Ebert government fled to Stuttgart. The government found here a defense against the counterrevolution from the right and against the still threatening danger of a revolution from the left, not in a few thousands of militaristically inclined state militia, but in the public safety militia and a militia of citizens, consisting of students, sons of bourgeois, petty bourgeois, peasants fighting on their own account, defending democracy against the attempts of “Bolshevism”. It was perfectly clear that, as the Marxists had always affirmed, at the given stage of social development, the political democracy of South Germany is a result of economical backwardness, not political progress.
Notwithstanding the class consciousness and courage evinced by the Communist Party in Wurtemberg, which boldly raised the banner of proletarian revolt in South Germany the influence of the badly developed industry and class distinctions, and the absence of proletarian masses welded together by the consciousness of their numbers and their force, made itself felt in the course of the revolution, owing to the existence of wide stratifications, of petty-bourgeoisie and peasantry. It is even possible that during the coming revolutionary fights the province lying south of the line of the Main will play the role of a “Democratic Vendee”, in which will be revived, mutatis mutandis, the idea of “the Rhine League”, the whole force of the movement being directed against the revolutionary proletariat of the industrial north.
It was sufficient for the giant proletariat to declare a strike and the phantom of the mutinous Kapp-Luttwitz government dispersed like smoke. The decisive role was played not only by the universality of the strike, but the unexampled staunchness and solidarity with which the strike was carried out at Berlin. But, although Kapp and Luttwitz were soon driven away, there are Kapps and Luttwitzes still in Germany. It has not been possible to annihilate militarism completely, because the bourgeoisie, desirous of retaining its own power, cannot dispense with its services. It was not possible either to obtain the disarmament of the bourgeois counter revolution, or the arming of the workers, with the exception of such places where the proletariat had seized the arms, dispersed all the state militia, and disarmed the public guards, the civil and citizen militia and the provisional volunteers. It was thus in Central Germany, namely in Thuringen, some parts of Saxony, the Rhine-Westphalian Region, where numerous closely-welded masses of industrial workers are concentrated. They are numerous here, and conscious of their own power; and here the industrial proletariat taught by experience, is free of all illusions regarding bourgeois democracy end coalition-government. “The revolution” passed quietly here without bloodshed and even without “violence” in such places where (as in Chemnitz and the mining region) the proletariat was led by, the well-organised Communist Party, clearly cognisant of its aims and the paths leading towards them. In Thuringen, in Leipzig and in the Central Germany, in the brown coal region, the revolution after a stubborn defense on the part of the proletariat, ended in a regime of white terror. This was due to the open or scarcely concealed treachery of the Social-Democratic majority and the labour union bureaucracy, and not without fault were the leaders of the Independent Socialist Party, who with religious fanaticism remained faithful to the old mistakes of the Party: not having any clear tactics, they fluctuated all the time between refusal to fight and breaking out into attempts, they entered into negotiations at the very moment when it was necessary to act, and thus weakened the effect of the onslaught and paralyzed the energy of the fighters.
Nevertheless the crisis in general ended in the victory of the revolutionary workers. After the collapse of the government of Kapp-Luttwitz, that of Bauer-Noske fell, too. Undoubtedly this was not much of a success. The men who stood at the helm of the government, playing the part of puppets in the hands of the ruling bourgeoisie, were replaced by others, while the programme of the government and the whole system of the bourgeois class order remained the same. The state chancellor Muller is continuing the work of Bauer. For the protection and further glorification of the bourgeois and exploiters’ regime based on capitalistic property, he is continuing to oppress, deceive and shoot down the workers. Noske is not there but “Noskeism” still continues to exist, and triumphant white terror is flourishing. The fault of all this lies first of all in the criminal mode of action of the labour union bureaucracy, which with the social traitor Legien at its head, has managed by its speeches to deceive the workers to such an extent that they were satisfied with the verbal promises of the government to carry out the nine most modest demands put forward by the labour unions and even still more reduced in the course of the negotiation. These gentlemen beat the retreat demanding the ending of the strike, which had not had time to attain its fullest development.
This result was also the fault of the leaders of the Right Wing of the Independent Socialist Party, who had bound indissolubly the fate of the activity of the Party with the activity of the labour union bureaucracy and the Social-Democratic majority; and, moreover, the fault lay in the weakness of the revolutionary consciousness and lack of energy of the “Left” leaders of the Independent Socialists, who had not been able to withstand the Hilferdings and Crispiens. But, nevertheless, in the same way as falsehood is a covert acknowledgement of the superiority of virtue over vice, the change of government bears witness to the recognition of growing might of the proletariat, a concession to its force. In the depths of the capitalistic society a certain heave has taken place in the mutual relations between the class forces struggling against each other for the power, a heave which is showing its cracks and splits in the external political covering. The social order has not fallen to pieces yet, but the threatening premonitory cracks are to be heard.
The enforcement of the power of the bourgeois democracy and the formation of a new coalition government are but fleeting successes purchased at the price of a submission to militarism. The outbreak of the revolutionary proletariat has joined in a political union the bourgeois democracy and the militarist-monarchist conspirators. They have extended a brotherly hand to each other, frightened by the common danger of a proletarian dictatorship. The merging of all the counter revolutionary elements into one mass inimically inclined towards the working class is an open fact. This mass does not include only a certain insignificant minority of bourgeois democrats preaching the necessity of a struggle against the danger from the “Right” and insisting on the necessity of concessions and compromises in respect to the “Left” the organ of this group is the Frankfurter Zeitung; the same must be said of several circles of small peasants, employees and soon, who are manifesting an inclination to flirt with “nationalistic Bolshevism”. The motto of the democrats in general now is not the struggle against militarism but rather a joint struggle with militarists against “Bolshevism”. This course of development which led to a counter revolutionary, denouement must sooner or later end in the fall of the bourgeois democracy. It is undermining the latter’s bases, destroying the last illusions, annihilating the blind confidence on the part of the workers, rendering the class struggle more acute and directing it towards its historically inevitable end.
At the other pole of the social order a colossal consolidation of forces has also taken place. Since the time of the revolutionary fights in 1919 the process of the deepening of the revolutionary self-consciousness and solidarity of the proletariat has progressed enormously. The revolutionary will, fighting capacity, and readiness for self-sacrifice are growing in the working masses together with the revolutionary consciousness. The tactics and strategy of the masses have become firmer and more definite; their estimation of the mutual relations between the conflicting forces more accurate; their vision has become clearer in regard to the distinction between the constant object of the fight and its temporary aims; they are recognising more thoroughly the necessity of solidarity, simultaneousness in all actions and demonstrations. The experiences of the revolutionary period have taught the proletariat as a whole very much. The force of revolutionary tradition acquired in the fights of last year is showing itself now in practice. The revolutionary advance guard of the working class has gained considerably as to numbers, consciousness, and the force of its decisive influence on the wider masses. This may be explained not only by the great and profitable lessons given by events, but to a considerable degree also by the agitation and the whole activity of the Communist Party, which was spread not only over the members of the Party but on such proletarian masses as well, that had up to then been standing apart from the proletarian class struggle, as, for instance, the numerous adherents of the Independent Social Democratic Party and especially its Left Wing. Owing to the last fights the proletariat has acquired a greater consciousness of its own forces; it has come out of them with a clearer understanding how to find support for its forces only in self-armament, of the necessity of having its own revolutionary fighting organisations, the Workers’ Councils, in order to realise such arming. To preserve the Workers’ Councils which have arisen during the struggle and for the struggle, to breathe life into them, to make them capable of fighting by means of revolutionary demonstrations and not by means of dead formulas, is one of the most important tasks of the revolutionary advance guard. In accomplishing this task the advance guard must direct the forward-rushing revolutionary life of the present historical moment and even accelerate its pace still more. The struggle of the present period will in all probability acquire other forms during the forthcoming elections, which will not then be the traditional parliamentary elections in the generally accepted sense of the word, but they will be revolutionary elections.
It is possible, even, that the Reichstag will be elected only to be dissolved, dispersed ...
How far the course of events will modify the political situation in the Rhine-Westphalian province we cannot as yet foresee, because of the indefiniteness and inaccuracy of the information arriving from there. Up to now, evidently, the struggle between the bourgeois and the proletariat has been not only of a more obdurate and wider nature, but it differed also as to its inner purport. In this struggle the new coalition government existing, thanks to Legien and with the blessing of the labour unions, has manifested all its dishonesty and falsehood. It entered into agreements in Bielefeld and Munster only for the purpose of violating them. The object of these agreements was to postpone the struggle to gain time to the end of the Easter holidays in the hope that it would be impossible to bring the workers who had gone home for the holidays again together for the renewal of the struggle. At the same time the new coalition government demonstrated a readiness to serve the interests of the capitalists with a blind fury and shortsighted zeal. It provoked the demonstrations of the French at Frankfurt and Darmstadt, by sending its white guard into the neutral zone for the pacification of the workers.
How will the struggle end? This depends not on the degree of wisdom of the government which consists of social-patriots, representatives of the centre and the Democrats, nor on the intensity of the friction going on inside it. The result of the struggle does not depend upon the fierce character of the military reprisals, which the government will apply for the defense of the magnates of capital and the bourgeois order. It will depend exclusively on the class consciousness, readiness for self-sacrifice and revolutionary will which will be manifested by the proletariat of the whole of Germany in defending the cause for which their brothers in the Rhine-Westphalian province are fighting with such heroism and the courage of despair. They may conquer, they may acquire a very strong position in the struggle for political power if they will wish this, if they will act. Have the revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary will of the German proletariat attained such a height that it will venture immediately after the great fights just ended to try its forces in this new grandiose warfare? ...
This is the fatal question, the answer to which can be given only by the proletariat itself.

The Duty of Working Women in War-Time

Clara Zetkin 1914
The New York “Vorwärts” the weekly edition of the “Neu Yorker Volkszeitung,” publishes an article on this subject from the pen of our esteemed comrade Clara Zetkin, of which the following is a summary The desire of the international proletariat for peace has shown itself powerless to prevent the world war. As cannon balls roll over weak blades of grass, which but yesterday waved gently in the breeze, crushing them to the earth, so the forces of Imperialism, driven on by capitalism, have swept over the proletarian peace demonstrations and hopes. The world is now aflame. A war is raging such as has never been known before ....
Was it necessary?
Workers Towards Socialism.
Martial-law makes it impossible for us to seek an answer. We are face to face with the fact that the driving forces of capitalism have burst the bounds of peaceful development. The consequences are incalculable, for whatever the changes may be which the war brings about on the map of Europe, it is certain that it will not be fought to the end without having the most tremendous effect on the economics of the nations, and on the world’s market. It is just this consideration which demands that the working class should become, in increased measure, the conscious bearers of the historic process of development towards the higher social order of Socialism.
It were unworthy of Socialist women to watch these historic events with folded hands, which from their To-day are preparing the To-morrow. The times call them to great tasks, the fulfilment of which requires all the devotion, enthusiasm and self-sacrifice which flows from the “eternal feminine” of their nature and their conviction.
War and Hunger.
The twin-sister of war is hunger. Its shrivelled, merciless hand knocks at the door of each family whose breadwinner is in the field .... Unemployment, too, spreads more quickly than any pestilence; anxiety, hunger, sickness, child-mortality follow in its wake. What will the winter bring? That, question is on millions of lips ....
Here we have the wide field where the Socialist women can fight battles, which are at the same time battles for their rights as human beings. The moment demands their whole strength. And so the Socialist women are working peacefully alongside of the bourgeois nationalist “Women’s Service,” and. also with its representatives on communal bodies, without however joining its organisation, which would be a drag upon them in their work. Our comrade Frau Zietz has recently written an article pointing out the necessity of such activity and the lines of demarcation by which it must be guided in each instance.
The Help of Women Essential.
If the municipalities are in earnest in their desire to stem the terrible tide of approaching misery, they cannot do without the help of our women comrades’ day. For they bring to the relief work knowledge and schooling obtained in the Socialist Party and the trade unions, as well as the practical experience which they have gained as proletarians. They know how to find the way to those proud and sensitive sufferers in garret and cellar who do not apply for relief, and they can find the sympathetic word that will loosen their tongues. They have the quick penetrating eye to see where and in what way help is needed. More than anyone else they can “open their mouth for the dumb and for the cause of all that are forsaken.” No alms; help and work as a social duty, that is the demand put convincingly by them to all public bodies. And our women must moreover seek to awaken the Socialist spirit, the proletarian class solidarity, in those they are helping; for let it be remembered that all the loving help and relief are in themselves incapable of shaking the foundations of capitalist society.
Maintain our Organisation
The war has thinned the ranks of our political and economic organisations. It is for the women to see that the loosened threads are not entirely sundered. When we speak of preserving the organisations, we mean, above all, the spirit which dwells therein. One of the most important methods of preserving this spirit is by the circulation of our Press, which, above all the turmoil of battle and the heaps of ruins, must keep the banner of International Socialism waving aloft unstained.
The Hardening Effect of War.
International Socialism! Do not the words sound like a mockery? In the days when the representatives of the proletariat should have been assembled in Vienna for the covenant of peace and freedom of the peoples, tens of thousands of the sons of the people were drawing their last breath on the battlefields, tens of thousands more were lying groaning in the field. hospitals, and that death and those wounds had been dealt by a brother-hand. Hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, irrespective of what country’s uniform they wear, are declaring with clenched teeth: “We do not wish to, we must. The rights and independence of our fatherland are menaced.” War has its own logic, its own laws and standards. It creates an atmosphere which indeed calls forth heroism, but which on the other hand, whether the fighters would or no, often rouses the beast that slumbers in the sub-consciousness of man. Letters from the front prove the hardening of the soul and the senses to the horrors of battle, a hardening which in many cases develops into brutality and bestiality. The papers relate the most horrible atrocities which citizens beyond the German boundaries are said to have perpetrated, in the name of patriotism, against the invading German soldiers; yes, even against the wounded and those who are caring for them. Even if the descriptions of these deeds are enormously exaggerated, as we believe they are, there is still more than enough of barbarity.
“Avenging” “Outrages.”
But do our ears deceive us? Similar barbarities are to “avenge” these misdeeds. That is what we read in part of the bourgeois Press. For every German maliciously shot, a village burnt down. The “Berliner Neueste Nachrichten” goes further and demands “ the clearance of occupied districts of all inhabitants .... Everyone seen in civil dress in the banned districts 24 hours after the expulsion order should be shot as a “spy.” Hand in hand with the advocacy of barbarism goes, of course, detraction of foreign peoples, whose friendship Germany but yesterday was striving to gain, and the belittling of their contributions to the upward march of humanity. It is as though all the standards were broken by which right and justice used to be measured in the life of nations, all the weights falsified with which the value of national things was weighed. Far away indeed seems the world-wide ideal of proletarian solidarity, the brotherhood of the peoples. Is it possible that the war extinguishes not only human lives, but human goals?
All Peoples have Contributed to Civilisation.
No, a thousand times no. Let us not allow the working masses to forget that the war has been caused by world-wide economic and political complications, and not by ugly and despicable personal qualities in the peoples with which Germany is fighting. Let us have the courage, when we hear the invectives against “perfidious Albion,” the “degenerate French,” the “barbaric Russians,” etc., to reply by pointing out the ineradicable riches contributed by these peoples to human development, and how they have assisted the fruition of German civilisation. The Germans, who have themselves contributed so much towards the international treasury of civilisation, ought to be able to exercise justice and veracity in judging other peoples. Let us point out that all peoples have the same right to independence and autonomy for the preservation of which the Germans are struggling ....
We Socialist women hear the voices which in this time of blood and iron still speak softly, painfully, and yet consolingly, of the future. Let us be their interpreters to our children. Let us preserve them from the harsh brazen sound of the ideas which fill the streets to-day, in which cheap pride-of-race stifles humanity. In our children must grow up the security that this most frightful of all wars shall be the last. The blood of the killed and wounded must not be a stream to divide that which unites the present distress and the future hope. It must be as a cement which shall bind fast for all time
The “Gleichheit” Suppressed
“The ‘Gleichheit’ Suppressed,” Justice, 17th Dec. 1914, (anon) p.1.
“Humanité” publishes a report from a Swiss correspondent that the journal “Gleichheit,” published at Stuttgart and edited by our well-known comrade, Clara Zetkin, has been suppressed, and her “Appeal to Socialist Women” confiscated. This action of the Würtemburg Government follows upon the speech delivered on Sunday, December 6, at a Party meeting at Stuttgart. She strongly attacked the attitude of the majority of the Social-Democratic Reichstag Section. At the conclusion of her speech the local Executive of the Party and about thirty delegates left the hall, leaving nearly a hundred delegates present. These delegates passed a resolution congratulating Karl Liebknecht on voting against the further war credits in the Reichstag.
The number of the “Gleichheit” for November 27 contained a stirring article by Clara Zetkin entitled “An Appeal to the Socialist Women of all Countries.” In it she wrote: “The longer the war continues, the more are the masks torn down that have deceived so many people. It is presenting itself in all its naked ugliness as a war of capitalist conquest and world domination.” She makes a passionate appeal to the Socialist women of all countries to preserve the old Social-Democratic ideal and not to permit themselves to be carried away by the pervading Chauvinism. She says “If men must kill, it is we women who must fight for life. If men remain silent, it is our duty to speak out.”
A certain number of copies of the “Gleichheit” were sent across the Swiss frontier before the issue was confiscated.

Only in Conjunction With the Proletarian Woman Will Socialism Be Victorious

Clara Zetkin
The investigations of Bachofen, Morgan and others seem to prove that the social suppression of women coincided with the creation of private property. The contrast within the family between the husband as proprietor and the wife as non-proprietor became the basis for the economic dependence and the social illegality of the female sex. This social illegality represents, according to Engels, one of the first and oldest forms of class rule. He states: “Within the family, the husband constitutes the bourgeoisie and the wife the proletariat.” Nonetheless, a women’s question in the modern sense of the word did not exist. It was only the capitalist mode of production which created the societal transformation that brought forth the modern women’s question by destroying the old family economic system which provided both livelihood and life’s meaning for the great mass of women during the pre-capitalistic period. We must, however, not transfer to the ancient economic activities of women those concepts (the concepts of futility and pettiness), that we connect with the activities of women in our times. As long as the old type of family still existed, a woman found a meaningful life by productive activity. Thus she was not conscious of her social illegality even though the development of her potentials as an individual was strictly limited.
The period of the Renaissance is the storm and stress period of the awakening of modern individuality that was able to develop fully and completely in the most diverse directions. We encounter individuals who are giants in both good and evil, who spurn the commandments of both religion and morals and despise equally both heaven and hell. We discover women at the center of the social, artistic and political life. And yet there is not a trace of a women’s movement. This is all the more characteristic because at that time the old family economic system began to crumble under the impact of the division of labor. Thousands upon thousands of women no longer found their livelihood and their lives’ meaning within the family. But this women’s question, as far as one can designate it as such, was solved at that time by convents, charitable institutions and religious orders.
The machines, the modern mode of production, slowly undermined domestic production and not just for thousands but for millions of women the question arose: Where do we now find our livelihood? Where do we find a meaningful life as well as a, job that gives us mental satisfaction? Millions were now forced to find their livelihood and their meaningful lives outside of their families and within society as a whole. At that moment they became aware of the fact that their social illegality stood in opposition to their most basic interests. It was from this moment on that there existed the modern women’s question. Here are a few statistics to demonstrate how the modern mode of production works to make the women’s question even more acute. During 1882, 5½ million out of 23 million women and girls in Germany were fully employed; i.e., a quarter of the female population could no longer find its livelihood within the family. According to the Census of 1895, the number of employed women in agriculture, in the broadest meaning of this term, has increased since 1882 by more than 8%, in the narrow sense by 6%, while at the same time the number of men employed in agriculture has decreased by 3%, i.e., to 11%. In the area of industry and mining, the number of employed women workers has increased by 35%, that of men by only 28%. In the retail trade, the number of women employed has increased by more than 94%, that of men by only 38%. These dry numbers stress much more the urgency of solving the women’s question than any highfalutin declamations.
The women’s question, however, is only present within those classes of society who are themselves the products of the capitalist mode of production. Thus it is that we find no women’s question in peasant circles that possess a natural (although severely curtailed and punctured) economy. But we certainly find a women’s question within those classes of society who are the very children of the modern mode of production. There is a women’s question for the women of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie, the intelligentsia and the Upper Ten Thousand. It assumes a different form according to the class situation of each one of these strata.
How does the women’s question shape up as far as the Upper Ten Thousand are concerned? The woman of the Upper Ten Thousand, thanks to her property, may freely develop her individuality and live as she pleases. In her role as wife, however, she is still dependent upon her husband. The guardianship of the weaker sex has survived in the family law which still states: And he shall be your master. And how is the family of the Upper Ten Thousand constituted in which the wife is legally subjugated by the husband? At its very founding, such a family lacks the moral prerequisites. Not individuality but money decides the matrimony. Its motto is: What capital joins, sentimental morality must not part. (Bravo!) Thus in this marriage, two prostitutions are taken for one virtue. The eventual family life develops accordingly. Wherever a woman is no longer forced to fulfill her duties, she devolves her duties as spouse, mother and housewife upon paid servants. If the women of these circles have the desire to give their lives a serious purpose, they must, first of all, raise the demand to dispose of their property in an independent and free manner. This demand, therefore, represents the core of the demands raised by the women’s movement of the Upper Ten Thousand. These women, in their fight for the realization of their demand vis-a-vis the masculine world of their class, fight exactly the same battle that the bourgeoisie fought against all of the privileged estates; i.e., a battle to remove all social differences based upon the possession of property. The fact that this demand does not deal with the rights of the individual is proven by Herr von Stumm’s advocacy of it in the Reichstag. Just when would Herr von Stumm ever advocate the rights of a person? This man in Germany signifies more than a personality, he is capital itself turned into flesh and blood (How accurate!) and if this man has put in an appearance in a cheap masquerade for women’s rights, then it only happened because he was forced to dance before capitalism’s Ark of the Covenant. This is the Herr von Stumm who is always ready to put his workers on short rations if they do not dance to his tune and he would certainly welcome it with a satisfied smile if the state as employer would also put those professors end scholars who meddle in social politics on short rations. Herr von Stumm endeavors nothing more than instituting the entail for movable female property in case of female inheritance because there are fathers who have acquired property but were not careful in the choice of their children, leaving only daughters as heirs. Capitalism honors even lowly womanhood and permits it to dispose of its fortunes. That is the final phase of the emancipation of private property.
How does the women’s question appear in the circles of the petit-bourgeoisie, the middle class and the bourgeois intelligentsia? Here it is not property which dissolves the family, but mainly the concomitant symptoms of capitalist production. To the degree this production completes its triumphal march, the middle class and the petit-bourgeoisie are hurtling further and further towards their destruction. Within the bourgeois intelligentsia, another circumstance leads to the worsening of the living conditions: capitalism needs the intelligent and scientifically trained work force. It therefore favored an overproduction of mental-work proletarians and contributed to the phenomenon that the formerly respected and profitable societal positions of members of the professional class are more and more eroding. To the same degree, however, the number of marriages is decreasing; although on the one hand the material basis is worsening, on the other hand the individual’s expectations of life are increasing, so that a man of that background will think twice or even thrice before he enters into a marriage. The age limit for the founding of a family is raised higher and higher and a man is under no pressure to marry since there exist in our time enough societal institutions which offer to an old bachelor a comfortable life without a legitimate wife. The capitalist exploitation of the proletarian work force through its starvation wages, sees to it that there is a large supply of prostitutes which corresponds to the demand by the men. Thus within the bourgeois circles, the number of unmarried women increases all the time. The wives and daughters of these circles are pushed out into society so that they may establish for themselves their own livelihood which is not only supposed to provide them with bread but also with mental satisfaction. In these circles women are not equal to men in the form of possessors of private property as they are in the upper circles. The women of these circles have yet to achieve their economic equality with men and they can only do so by making two demands: The demand for equal professional training and the demand for equal job opportunities for both sexes. In economic terms, this means nothing less than the realization of free access to all jobs and the untrammeled competition between men and women. The realization of this demand unleashes a conflict of interest between the men and women of the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia. The competition of the women in the professional world is the driving force for the resistance of men against the demands of bourgeois women’s rights advocates. It is, pure and simple, the fear of competition. All other reasons which are listed against the mental work of women, such as the smaller brain of women or their allegedly natural avocation to be a mother are only pretexts. This battle of competition pushes the women of these social strata towards demanding their political rights so that they may, by fighting politically, tear down all barriers which have been created against their economic activity.
So far I have addressed myself only to the basic and purely economic substructure. We would, however, perform an injustice to the bourgeois women’s rights movement if we would regard it as solely motivated by economics. No, this movement also contains a more profound spiritual and moral aspect. The bourgeois woman not only demands her own bread but she also requests spiritual nourishment and wants to develop her individuality. It is exactly among these strata that we find these tragic, yet psychologically interesting Nora figures, women who are tired of living like dolls in doll houses and who want to share in the development of modern culture. The economic as well as the intellectual and moral endeavors of bourgeois women’s rights advocates are completely justified.
As far as the proletarian woman is concerned, it is capitalism’s need to exploit and to search incessantly for a cheap labor force that has created the women’s question. It is for this reason, too, that the proletarian woman has become enmeshed in the mechanism of the economic life of our period and has been driven into the workshop and to the machines. She went out into the economic life in order to aid her husband in making a living, but the capitalist mode of production transformed her into on unfair competitor. She wanted to bring prosperity to her family, but instead misery descended upon it. The proletarian woman obtained her own employment because she wanted to create a more sunny and pleasant life for her children, but instead she became almost entirely separated from them. She became an equal of the man as a worker; the machine rendered muscular force superfluous and everywhere women’s work showed the same results in production as men’s work. And since women constitute a cheap labor force and above all a submissive one that only in the rarest of cases dares to kick against the thorns of capitalist exploitation, the capitalists multiply the possibilities of women’s work in industry. As a result of all this, the proletarian woman has achieved her independence. But verily, the price was very high and for the moment they have gained very little. If during the Age of the Family, a man had the right (just think of the law of Electoral Bavaria!) to tame his wife occasionally with a whip, capitalism is now taming her with scorpions. In former times, the rule of a man over his wife was ameliorated by their personal relationship. Between an employer and his worker, however, exists only a cash nexus. The proletarian woman has gained her economic independence, but neither as a human being nor as a woman or wife has she had the possibility to develop her individuality. For her task as a wife and a mother, there remain only the breadcrumbs which the capitalist production drops from the table.
Therefore the liberation struggle of the proletarian woman cannot be similar to the struggle that the bourgeois woman wages against the male of her class. On the contrary, it must be a joint struggle with the male of her class against the entire class of capitalists. She does not need to fight against the men of her class in order to tear down the barriers which have been raised against her participation in the free competition of the market place. Capitalism’s need to exploit and the development of the modern mode of production totally relieves her of having to fight such a struggle. On the contrary, new barriers need to be erected against the exploitation of the proletarian woman. Her rights as wife and mother need to be restored and permanently secured. Her final aim is not the free competition with the man, but the achievement of the political rule of the proletariat. The proletarian woman fights hand in hand with the man of her class against capitalist society. To be sure, she also agrees with the demands of the bourgeois women’s movement, but she regards the fulfillment of these demands simply as a means to enable that movement to enter the battle, equipped with the same weapons, alongside the proletariat.
Bourgeois society is not fundamentally opposed to the bourgeois women’s movement, which is proven by the fact that in various states reforms of private and public laws concerning women have been initiated. There are two reasons why the accomplishment of these reforms seems to take an exceptionally long time in Germany: First of all, men fear the battle of competition in the liberal professions and secondly, one has to take into account the very slow and weak development of bourgeois democracy in Germany which does not live up to its historical task because of its class fear of the proletariat. It fears that the realization of such reforms will only bring advantages to Social-Democracy. The less a bourgeois democracy allows itself to be hypnotized by such a fear, the more it is prepared to undertake reforms. England is a good example. England is the only country that still possesses a truly powerful bourgeoisie, whereas the German bourgeoisie, shaking in fear of the proletariat, shies away from carrying out political and social reforms. As far as Germany is concerned, there is the additional factor of widespread Philistine views. The Philistine braid of prejudice reaches far down the back of the German bourgeoisie. To be sure, this fear of the bourgeois democracy is very shortsighted. The granting of political equality to women does not change the actual balance of power. The proletarian woman ends up in the proletarian, the bourgeois woman in the bourgeois camp. We must not let ourselves be fooled by Socialist trends in the bourgeois women’s movement which last only as long as bourgeois women feel oppressed.
The less bourgeois democracy comprehends its task, the more important it is for Social-Democracy to advocate the political equality of women. We do not want to make us out to be better than we are. We are not making this demand for the sake of a principle, but in the interests of the proletarian class. The more women’s work exercises its detrimental influence upon the standard of living of men, the more urgent becomes the necessity to include them in the economic battle. The more the political struggle affects the existence of each individual, the more urgent becomes the necessity of women’s participation in this political struggle. It was the Anti-Socialist Law which for the first time made clear to women what is meant by the terms class justice, class state and class rule. It was this law which taught women the need to learn about the force which so brutally intervened in their family lives. The Anti-Socialist Law has done successful work which could never have been done by hundreds of women agitators and, indeed, we are deeply grateful to the father of the Anti-Socialist Law as well as to all organs of the state (from the minister to the local cop) who have participated in its enforcement and rendered such marvelous involuntary propaganda services. How then can one accuse us Social-Democrats of ingratitude? (Amusement.)
Yet another event must be taken into consideration. I am referring to the publication of August Bebel’s book Woman and Socialism. This book must not be judged according to its positive aspects or its shortcomings. Rather, it must be judged within the context of the times in which it was written. It was more than a book, it was an event – a great deed. (Very accurate!) The book pointed out for the first time the connection between the women’s question and historical development. For the first time, there sounded from this book the appeal: We will only conquer the future if we persuade the women to become our co-fighters. In recognizing this, I am not speaking as a woman but as a party comrade.
What practical conclusions may we now draw for our propaganda work among women? The task of this Party Congress must not be to issue detailed practical suggestions, but to draw up general directions for the proletarian women’s movement.
Our guiding thought must be: We must not conduct special women’s propaganda, but Socialist agitation among women. The petty, momentary interests of the female world must not be allowed to take up the stage. Our task must be to incorporate the modern proletarian woman in our class battle! (Very true!) We have no special tasks for the agitation among women. Those reforms for women which must be accomplished within the framework of today’s society are already demanded within the minimal program of our party.
Women’s propaganda must touch upon all those questions which are of great importance to the general proletarian movement. The main task is, indeed, to awaken the women’s class consciousness and to incorporate them into the class struggle. The unionization of female workers is made extremely difficult. During the years 1892 until 1895, the number of female laborers organized in central trade unions grew to around 7,000. If we add to this number the female workers organized in local unions and realize that there are at least 700,000 female workers actively involved in large industrial enterprises, then we begin to realize the magnitude of the organizing work that still lies ahead of us. Our work is made more burdensome by the fact that many women are active in the cottage industry and can, therefore, be organized only with great difficulty. Then we also have to deal with the widely held belief among young girls that their industrial labor is only transitory and will be terminated by their marriage. For many women there is the double obligation to be active in both the factory and the home. All the more necessary is it for female workers to obtain a legally fixed workday. Whereas in England everybody agrees that the elimination of the cottage industry, the establishment of a legal workday and the achievement of higher wages are important prerequisites for the unionization of female workers – in Germany, in addition to these obstacles there is also the enforcement of our unionization and assemblage laws. The complete freedom to form coalitions, which has been legally guaranteed to the female workers by the Empire’s legislation, has been rendered illusory by the laws of individual federal states. I do not even want to discuss the manner in which the right to form unions is handled in Saxony (as far as one can even speak of a right there). But in the two largest federal states, in Bavaria and Prussia, the union laws are handled in such a way that women’s participation in trade union organizations is becoming more and more of an impossibility. Most recently in Prussia, the district of the “liberal,” eternal candidate for minister, Herr von Bennigsen has achieved everything humanly possible in the interpretation of the Law of Unionization and Assemblage. In Bavaria all women are excluded from public meetings. In the Chamber there, Herr von Freilitzsch declared very openly that in the handling of the law of unionization not only the text but also the intention of the legislators should be taken into account. Herr von Freilitzsch is in the most fortunate position to know exactly what were the intentions of the legislators, all of whom have since died, before Bavaria became more lucky than anybody could have imagined in their wildest dreams, by appointing Herr von Freilitzsch as her minister of police. That does not surprise me at all, because whoever receives an office from God also receives concomitantly intelligence, and in our Age of Spiritualism, Herr von Freilitzsch has thus obtained his official intelligence and by way of the fourth dimension has discovered the intentions of the long deceased legislators. (Amusement.)
This situation, however, does not make it possible for the proletarian women to organize themselves together with men. Until now they had to wage a fight against police power and juridical stratagems and on the surface they seemed to have been defeated, In reality, however, they emerged as victors because all those measures which were employed to smash the organization of the proletarian woman only served to arouse her class consciousness. If we want to obtain a powerful women’s organization in both the economic and political realms, then we must, first of all, take care of the possibility of women’s freedom of movement by fighting against the cottage industry, for shorter working hours and, above all, against what the ruling classes like to call the right to organize.
We cannot determine at this party congress what form our propaganda among women should take. We must, first of all, learn how we ought to do our work among women. In the resolution which has been submitted to you, it is proposed to elect shop stewards among the women whose task it will be to stimulate the union and economic organization of women and to consolidate it in a uniform and planned manner. This proposal is not new; it was adopted in principle at the Party Congress of Frankfurt, and in a few regions it has been enacted most successfully. Time will tell whether this proposal, when introduced on a larger scale, is suited to draw proletarian women to a greater extent into the proletarian movement.
Our propaganda must not be carried out solely in an oral fashion. A large number of passive people do not even come to our meetings and countless wives and mothers cannot come to our meetings. Indeed, it must certainly not be the task of Socialist propaganda among Socialist women to alienate the proletarian woman from her duties as mother and wife. On the contrary, she must be encouraged to carry out these tasks better than ever in the interests of the liberation of the proletariat. The better the conditions within her family, the better her effectiveness at home, the more she will be capable of fighting. The more she can serve as the educator and molder of her children, the better she will be able to enlighten them so that they may continue to fight on like we did, with the same enthusiasm and willingness to sacrifice for the liberation of the proletariat. When a proletarian then exclaims: “My wife!” he will add mentally, “Comrade of my ideals, companion of my battles, mother of my children for future battles.” Many a mother and many a wife who fills her husband and children with class consciousness accomplishes just as much as the female comrades that we see at our meetings. (Vivid agreement).
Thus if the mountain does not come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain: We must take Socialism to the women by a planned written propaganda campaign. For such a campaign, I suggest the distribution of pamphlets and I do not mean the traditional pamphlet on which the entire Socialist program and the entire scientific knowledge of our century are condensed on one quarto page. No, we must use small pamphlets which discuss a single practical question from one angle of vision, especially from the point of view of the class struggle, which is the main task. And we must not assume a nonchalant attitude toward the technical production of pamphlets. We must not use, as is our tradition, the worst paper and the worst type of printing. Such a miserable pamphlet will be crumpled up and thrown away by the proletarian woman who does not have the same respect for the printed word that the male proletarian possesses. We must imitate the American and English teetotallers who put out pretty little booklets of four to six pages. Because even a female proletarian is enough of a woman to say to herself: “This little thing is just charming. I will have to pick it up and keep it!” (Much amusement and many cheers.) The sentences which really count must be printed in great big letters. Then the proletarian woman will not be frightened away from reading and her mental attention will be stimulated.
Because of my personal experiences, I cannot advocate the plan of founding a special newspaper for women. My personal experiences are not based upon my position as the editor of Gleichheit (which is not designed for the mass of women, but rather their progressive avant-guard), but as a distributor of literature among female workers. Stimulated by the actions of Frau Gnauck-Kuhne, I distributed newspapers for weeks at a certain factory. I became convinced that the women there did not acquire from these papers what is enlightening, but solely what is entertaining and amusing. Therefore, the big sacrifices which are necessary in order to publish a cheap newspaper would not be worth it.
But we also have to create a series of brochures which bring Socialism closer to the woman in her capacity as female proletarian, wife and mother. Except for the powerful brochure of Frau Popp, we do not have a single one that comes up to the requirements we need. Our daily press, too, must do more than it has done heretofore. Some daily newspapers have made the attempt to enlighten women by the addition of special supplements for women. The Magdeburger Volksstimme set an example in this endeavor and Comrade Goldstein at Zwickau has skillfully and successfully emulated it. But until now the daily press has regarded the proletarian woman as a subscriber, flattering her ignorance, her bad and unformed taste, rather than trying to enlighten her.
I repeat that I am only throwing out suggestions for your consideration. Propaganda among women is difficult and burdensome and requires great devotion and great sacrifice, but these sacrifices will be rewarded and must be brought forth. The proletariat will be able to attain its liberation only if it fights together without the difference of nationality and profession. In the same way it can attain its liberation only if it stands together without the distinction of sex. The incorporation of the great masses of proletarian women in the liberation struggle of the proletariat is one of the prerequisites for the victory of the Socialist idea and for the construction of a Socialist society.
Only a Socialist society will solve the conflict that is nowadays produced by the professional activity of women. Once the family as an economic unit will vanish and its place will be taken by the family as a moral unit, the woman will become an equally entitled, equally creative, equally goal-oriented, forward-stepping companion of her husband; her individuality will flourish while at the same time, she will fulfill her task as wife and mother to the highest degree possible.

In Defence of Rosa Luxemburg

clara Zetkin
The article written by comrade Louisa Kautsky in commemoration of Rosa Luxemburg (see the Freiheit of January 20, No.36) challenges to energetic opposition all those who intimately knew the greatness of soul of our so foully assassinated comrade. It goes against my inclination to dispute about the deceased as it were before her open grave. Yet truth and friendship prompt me to refute some of the assertions made by Louise Kautsky. I believe I owe it not only to the departed, but also to the living to prevent the caricature of Rosa Luxemburg, as drawn and spread by her numerous enemies, from being any further coarsened and distorted by ill-drawn lines from the hand of a friend.

Louisa Kautsky is right when she says of Rosa Luxemburg as a fighter that “she did not spare even her best friends, on the contrary”. Yet as a friend thoroughly understanding the deceased comrade L. Kautsky ought to have laid stress on some other points besides. The tenacious, thoughtful patience with which she fought for the soul of her oldest friends before setting out top combat them! The sincerity of her grief when she had to take arms against a former confederate, the bitterness of her disappointment when his way of fighting and wielding arms made he recognize that he did not come up to the high ideal she had formed of him. To be sure, Rosa Luxemburg did not spare even her oldest friend if she was honestly convinced that he was detrimental to and wronging the proletarian class-struggle. The cause in her eyes always stood above the person. Once she considered it her duty to combat even her dearest friend she did so with all the weapons at her disposal. With the heavy artillery; of serious scholarly methods and mature theoretical training, with the weighty blows of brilliant dialectics, the dainty foil of irony, wit and derision. Yet at no time did she make use of unchivalrous methods. Here was a thoroughly noble character, incapable of retaliating upon anyone, of weilding the weapons of baseness, even if such were used against herself.

Louisa Kautsky is therefore wrong when she characterizes Rosa Luxemburg thus: “I am sorry to say that in such cases she acted like Lenin, much admired by her, who having once been brought up before a party-tribunal for libelling a party-comrade declared: ‘A political opponent, in particular if he be of our own socialist camp, ought to be fought with poisoned weapons by seeking to arouse the worst possible suspicion against him’.” By the way, I strongly doubt whether the above-mentioned utterance ought really to be taken as characteristic of the great bolshevik leader. I know from the history of the Russian revolution as also from my own experience what a relentless and fear-inspiring opponent comrade Lenin was. Yet libel I did not find among his weapons. Before granting conclusive force to that alleged statement of his I ought to know all the details of the context and the circumstances in which it is said to have been made.

According to my knowledge and feelings Louisa Kautsky ought to have guarded against passing at the end of her commemorative essay, from the purely personal ground to the political one and here insinuating a change – incomprehensible to her – in the ideas and attitude of Rosa Luxemburg. I fully and with heartiest sympathy appreciate what Louisa Kautsky is endeavoring to do for socialism within the limits of her circle and her nature. By no means do I question her right to hold her own opinion on the events and phenomenon that occur in the camp of international socialism. But all this does not alter the fact that in the struggle for socialism she only partakes of the experience of others but has no experience of her own. In consequence, notwithstanding her striving after objectivity, she lacks the true independent attitude towards those phenomena. She regards them from the point of view of her entourage, of a wife trying to understand, closely taking part in the struggle of her husband, but herself not standing in the midst of the fray. Rosa Luxemburg, on the other and, was in the thickest of the fighting and kept a sharp lookout from the high watch-tower she had erected for herself.

Thus it is easily understood, that while the one, scrutinizing and weighing, fought for the historical appreciation of the Russian revolution, the other in lofty self-confidence sat in preconceived judgement upon the “bolshevik heresies” which, “contrary to all reasons have so dazzled and deluded the clear mind of Rosa Luxemburg that she desired to repeat in Germany the experience that had miscarried in Russia.” No need for me to further pursue this crushing verdict, for I am certain that the “experiments that miscarried in Russia” will still have a creative role assigned to them in future history wen what the socialist compromisers have written against them will no longer be able to harm even a mouse. Rosa Luxemburg’s attitude towards the Russian November revolution was consistent and clear. It has not to be judged by incidental utterances about persons and events, utterances that are pardonable with high-spirited persons of subtly differentiated and high-strung sensitiveness, influenced by impressions and things. Rosa Luxemburg valued bolshevism as a whole by its prominent historical importance, and she did not fail to criticize those detail inclinations and her tact forbade her to act as Louisa Kautsky’s demand for consistency in political action obviously seems to have required. That means, to unearth old feuds and antiquated judgement just at the moment when the spies and hangmen of Ebert and Noske were dogging the footsteps of Radek.

I do not desire to argue within the limits of these lines with Louise Kautsky on the question as to which really are the “bolshevik methods that Rosa Luxemburg not only confessed, but unfortunately, even began to practice herself”. All I wish to say is that those “methods” do not correspond to the figure that, for the benefit of the unprincipled and faint-hearted policy of the right wing of the Independent Socialist Party is being drawn on the wall, – a counterfeit that comes very close to the “bolshevik” and “Spartacus” bogey of the government socialists. However, let us mention the “bolshevik methods” no more. With this catchword to explain the miscarriage of the January revolt of Berlin is just as foolish as to attribute the failure of the Paris Commune to its having anticipated the “bolshevik heresies” and “methods”. Rosa Luxemburg did not take her methods of combat from the Russian conditions. She rather deduced them by means of deep research of insight into international development. For Germany she based them on the German conditions, yet not on the conditions of the past period of slack evolution, but on those of the stormy chapter of revolution that began after the rise and unfolding of imperialism.

My friend, Louisa Kautsky, will not be offended if I say what I think, i.e. that the commemoration article was begun by the grateful friend of Rosa Luxemburg and finished by the wife of Karl Kautsky. Rosa Luxemburg would have been the last person to reproach her for it. Out of her consciousness of her own freedom there grew up a leniency towards the inner constraint and dependence of others. It is not the patronage of Louisa Kautsky that will have spoken the last word on Rosa Luxemburg “delusion” and “bolshevik methods”. The final word will be uttered by history. We all who take pride in having been Rosa Luxemburg’s friends and comrades in arms await this verdict.

Clara Zetkin (Germany)