Revisionism and Nationalism

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

So far as the German Social Democracy is concerned, the great majority of revisionists are found among those who support the granting of war credits; standing with them, however, are a number who were hitherto vigorous opponents of revisionism. And both groups defend their attitude by referring back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. On the contrary, I, who sought fifteen years ago to give revisionism a theoretical basis and have been championing it since that time in speech and writing, have taken the opposite position, and I may add that other revisionists have done the same. This is the best proof of the fact that the old labels of revisionist and Marxist will give us little help in answering the question which we now face.

Now revisionism is the theoretical background of a practical policy for which the name of reformism constantly gained wider acceptance. This policy often approximated what is known as opportunism and has often been taken for the same thing. Against this confusion I have protested countless times. Opportunism is marked by the disregard of theoretical thinking, and not a few party members who were counted as revisionists made no secret of the fact that they cared little or nothing for revisionist theory. The opportunistic Socialists in Germany have almost without exception followed the nationalist tendency, and just on this account the notion has gained ground that nationalism and revisionism are twin brothers.

As a matter of fact the state of the case is quite different. [Pavel] Axelrod is right in regard to the difference between the present groups of Socialists as marked by varying degrees of internationalism. But, in my opinion, he does not formulate the distinction accurately when he takes as its point of departure “the irreconcilability of the ideology and psychology of patriotism and nationalism with the principles and interests of the proletarian movement as a whole.” The old ideology and psychology of patriotism could be very well reconciled with these principles and interests. But what cannot be reconciled with them is this new ideology and psychology of nationalism which has lately become fashionable in Germany. The old ideology required the self-government of the nation, its independence as a center of culture among other similar centers. It was essentially democratic. The notion of patriotism itself was once synonymous with democracy. This new German, or, better, neo-German ideology on the contrary, is the expression of conflicts of interests between a definite group of capitalists in one land and other groups in other lands. It imposes these conflicts upon the nation as a whole and makes it appear in any given case that the solidarity of the workers with those of other lands is less important than their attachment to the group of capitalists which dominates their nation. This sort of patriotism or nationalism is, therefore, in the last analysis not democratic, for it leads to the suppression of popular rights and popular policies. It brings about a state of affairs in which state-craft is a matter of governmental intrigue. Right here is found the distinction which we seek.

Let us put it this way. We are dealing with the contrast between the sociological and the imperialist conceptions of the relations among peoples. The sociological conception is based on the social forces which are constantly bringing the peoples into closer contact and so creating increased community of interest. The imperialist idea is that the peoples are the followers of great capitalistic combinations, and stamp the struggles and conflicts of these combinations as those of their respective peoples. While the sociological conception has for its purpose the steady strengthening of international law, the imperialistic conception places this international law in a subordinate position. In the field of trade the sociological conception leads necessarily to the policy of free exchange among nations; the imperialistic idea leads to the introduction of high tariff. It is most significant that in imperialistic literature of all shades nothing has been more sedulously botched than plans for dividing the world among tariff leagues. The fulfillment of these plans would be a suitable result of the present war; this would mean the tearing apart of the peoples for an indefinite period.

This new capitalistic nationalism which culminates in imperialism is what we must oppose, not the old democratic sort. To fight the latter would be to serve the purposes of the former. The International of the people is possible only as a union of nations joined together in freedom. This must remain the controlling thought in the International of the workers. And it can remain the controlling thought. For what we call a crisis of the International is, in truth, a crisis of only a part of it. The International failed because this part failed. If elements that make up this part come to themselves, the rehabilitation of the International will be rapid. For the majority of groups have not failed, but on the contrary have conducted themselves splendidly.

To sum it all up; so far as crass opportunism has not been the cause of sins against the International, they are the results of theories which have as little to do with revisionism as with Marxism.

The Socialist International will come out of this war laying greater stress on international affairs. One of its first duties will be the development of the bases of international politics for the working class. It will give greater attention than heretofore to international law, treaties between nations and trade relations, and will take a positive position with regard to these matters. It may be that at first it will lose considerably. But it will gain in thought, in principles, and in practical programs. This is what I gather from Axelrod’s discussion, and in this I agree with him absolutely.