NOTEBOOK “ν” (“NU”)

LAUFENBERG, ORGANISATION, WAR AND CRITICISM

| Laufenberg | | | Organisation, War and Criticism . Documents concerning the Hamburg Party 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 into the open between the leaders, who follow the policy of the Echo, and the masses, who adhere to the old, proletarian principles and reject the neo-revisionist policy of harmony” (34).... | | | | | leaders and masses |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| |
| |

§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 mind of the so-called leading circles in Hamburg. Clearly evident was the fact, long known to any attentive observer of Hamburg party life, that this upper stratum of leaders had long ago inward- ly broken with the radical views of the Hamburg party rank and file. Although they still employed radical formulas at meetings, in reality for these men Marxism had become an embarrassing uniform which was only donned for official party 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 muting criticism)—and the authors’ note to the effect that Kautsky had protested against this “misuse” of his name. | | | the opportunists and Kautsky |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| In the Hamm district—there were 6,000 members before the war—after four meetings, 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)—let him complain, they said, “to his Dr. Laufenberg” (48) |

| | The police have gone to such lengths that, “as in the case of speeches by Comrades Scheidemann and Lensch, they have given speakers definite instruc- tions about the content of their speeches and have forbidden discussion. Whereas the activity of bourgeois associations is not subjected to police interference, the corporate life of party and trade union organisations is now controlled by the police. We are thus in the same exceptional position as at the 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. Thomas wrote, “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 believe that the broad bourgeois public would protect your [the press committee’s] back against the blows of the party opposition. This policy in fact coincides with the views that have enabled Comrades Dr. August Müller and von Elm to enjoy the well-deserved favour of 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 Committee has declared “you and your friends” to be “saboteurs of 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 we have not denied it, but we have denied that the cause is only German imperial- ism. We all recognise that the cause is “international imperialism” (65). | |
| --- | --- |
| | | N.B. international and German imperialism! |

| ...“The meetings of party members in Hamburg Altona and Ottensen, whenever a discussion took place, adopted our [Laufenberg and Co.’s] point of 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) and describing as stupid the accusations that German Social-Democracy “has by its attitude lost the character of a work- ers’ party and renounced its principles” (68).] | | N.B. Echo sets out the view of New York Volkszeitung |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | | |

| ...“But this small wing [the opportun- ists] is not content with imposing on the party the tactics of national reform- ism. It is going further, attempting to split the party into two camps.... In contrast, the spokesmen of radicalism uphold the principle of unity of the German workers’ movement” (73) ... (on the old bases of its 50 years’ history).... and the conclusion XV (§), “What should 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 present opposition is to make the changes the situation requires in the form of organisation of the German proletariat. The previous general situation in Germany for decades compelled the proletariat to engage in predominantly reformist activity. In organisational matters this was based on the leader principle , in practical action exclusively on parliamentarism . The historic changes we are now experiencing compel the proletariat to undertake mass action , and this presupposes that the masses are free as regards their organisation, class-conscious and independent in determining the course of their actions” (75). |
| --- | --- |
| N.B. | | |
| |
| | | |

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

---
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.