Date: 1915
Source: ru:LS/v29

Page: 475

ROLAND-GÖLST. “MILITIA OR DISARMAMENT?”
Roland-Gölst
Article by Roland-Gölst: “Militia or Disarmament?” (“Neues Leben”), Year 1 of Publication
1915, pp. 324 and 365).
NB: In the text, for the most part—if not everywhere—“disarmament” is used instead of “demilitarization”……
The fundamental flaw in Roland-Gölst’s article lies in his treatment of both demands as mere “formulas” (p. 326), as “propaganda slogans or rallying cries” (p. 327)—“both are good” (pp. 326 and 327, at the end).
This is a subjectivist, rationalist, idealist—philosophically speaking—approach to the question. “Both are unattainable under capitalism” (in bourgeois society) (p. 325)!!
Both are, after all, nothing more than propaganda!!
But our propaganda must align with the objective course of historical development. Objective development proceeds through the dictatorship of the proletariat. In this—and in this alone—in this particular respect—Marxian scientific socialism differs from pacifism, anarchism, opportunism, and the like.
It is precisely this point that Roland-Gölst fails to grasp: “Perhaps” (!!?? only? p. 324, at the bottom, line 1 from the top) the people’s militia might serve in the struggle “against its own national capitalist class”! Perhaps—only perhaps?
#
Lenin refers to this very article by Roland-Gölst in his essay “On the Slogan ‘Disarmament,’” written in early October 1916 (Socialist, p. 314). Ed., [485]


What a mess!
The root of the confusion lies in subjectivism.
The mistaken framing of the question concerning “defense of the fatherland” (p. 329)—“never, under no circumstances…”
Nonsense! On the contrary: p. 365 states that “there are cases in which it is conceivable,” and even civil war is conceivable: “Aber” (p. 367)—that laughable “aber”—“but” in these instances, the concept of a “people’s militia” “transitions into the concept of armed insurrection…” “And it can only lead to confusion if one expresses the expectation that, alongside street demonstrations and mass strikes during the period of proletarian revolution, armed uprising will also play a role—by advocating for the militia” (p. 367). This is a ludicrous confusion and the very crux of Roland-Gölst’s error. The military, militarism, is a fact. Civil wars are likewise a fact. Both are historical facts; thousands of years of history bear witness to this. It is precisely from these facts—not from “expectations,” not from “demands”—that we proceed. “Disarmament,” on the other hand, is a purely subjective, and solely subjective, expectation and demand, utterly divorced from reality.
Roland-Gölst is simply shifting blame from one ill-fated idea to another.
Oh, what a tangled web!


ROLAND-GÖLST. “MILITIA OR DISARMAMENT?”
487 Oh, what a mess!
The mistaken framing of the question concerning “defense of the fatherland” (p. 329)—“never, under no circumstances…”
Nonsense! Contradicted by: p. 365, which notes that “there are cases in which it is conceivable,” and even civil war is conceivable:
“But” (p. 367)—that ridiculous “but”—“but” in these cases, the concept of a “people’s militia” “transitions into the concept of armed insurrection…”
“And this can only lead to confusion when, in the form of a militia demand, one expresses the expectation that, alongside street demonstrations and mass strikes during the period of proletarian revolution, armed insurrection will also play a role” (p. 367).
This is a laughable confusion—and the very nail in the coffin of Roland-Gölst’s error. The military, militarism, is a fact. Civil wars are likewise a fact.
Both are historical facts; thousands of years of history attest to this. It is precisely from these facts—not from “expectations,” not from “demands”—that we proceed. “Disarmament,” on the other hand, is a purely subjective, and solely subjective, expectation and demand, entirely disconnected from reality.
Roland-Gölst is merely transferring the burden from one flawed notion to another.
________
_____________________ What a mess!
The root of the confusion lies in subjectivism.


18713· “Volksslimme” (Frankfurter Volksstimme)
Volksslimme (Frankfurt am Main), September 30, 1916.
An Explanation by Landsberg.
The Executive Committee of the Social Democratic Working Group distributed a pamphlet titled “The Formation of the Social Democratic Working Group” to participants at the Reich Conference. On page 9, the pamphlet claims that Landsberg had argued before the Social Democratic Reichstag faction in December that postponing the redefinition of Germany’s eastern borders to the Narew Line could be justified—if doing so would enhance Germany’s defense capabilities; in that region lived Poles and Jews who would gladly choose to remain within Germany. In response, Landsberg explained that he had said:
“I am opposed to annexations. In the West, such annexations could only occur at the expense of peoples rich in spiritual life; respect for those peoples precludes a social democrat from tolerating their subjugation, regardless of the form in which it might take place. In the East, however, there were no territories inhabited by self‑governing nations that could be considered for annexation; Poles and Latvians did not possess the right to self‑determination, and in the event of their incorporation into Germany, they would undoubtedly gain economically, politically, and culturally compared to their current situation. Yet I was also unwilling to pursue territorial expansion toward the East, for in my view, the incorporation of the lands inhabited by these peoples would not strengthen Germany—but rather weaken it. For Poles and Latvians were hostile toward Germany.” … Although I oppose their annexation, a “statesman” who advocated for it could hardly be called a “wild annexationist”…