V. I.

Lenin

German and Non-German Chauvinism [1]

The German Chauvinists, as we know, have succeeded in imposing
their influence upon the overwhelming majority of leaders of the
so-called Social-Democratic-now, in fact, National-Liberal
Party. We shall see presently how far this applies to the
non-German chauvinists like Postresov, Levitsky and Co. At the
moment we must deal with the German chauvinists, among whom, in
fairness, Kautsky must also be included, notwithstanding the
fact that P. B. Axelrod, in his German pamphlet, for example,
very assiduously and very incorrectly defends Kautsky and calls
him an “internationalist”.

One of the characteristics of German chauvinism is that
“socialists”-socialists in quotation marks-talk about the independence of nations, except those which are oppressed by
their own nation. It does not make much difference whether so
directly, or whether they defend, justify and shield those who
say it.

The German chauvinists (who include Parvus, the publisher of a
little magazine, called Die Glocke , among whose contributors are Lensch, Haenisch, Grunwald all the rest of the
crew of “socialist” lackeys of German imperialist bourgeoisie) speak at great length and very eagerly, for
example, about the independence for the peoples oppressed by
Britain. It is not only the social-chauvinists of Germany, i.e.,
socialists in words, chauvinists in deeds, but the whole
bourgeoisie press of Germany that is trumpeting with all its
might about the shameful, brutal and reactionary, etc., fashion
in which Britain rules her colonies. The German papers write
about the liberation movement in India with great gusto,
malicious glee, delight and rapture.

It is easy to see why the German Bourgeoisie is full of
malicious joy: it hope to improve its military position by
fanning the discontent in the anti-British movement India. These
hopes are silly, of course, because it is simply impossible
seriously to entertaining the influencing the life of a
multi-million people, and a very peculiar people at that, from
outside, from afar in a foreign language, particular when the
influence is not systematic, but casual, only for the duration
of the war. Rather than the desire to influence India the
efforts of the German imperialist bourgeoisie are more of an
attempt at self-consolation, more of a desire to fool the German
people and to divert their attention from home to foreign parts.

But this general, theoretical question automatically arises:
What is at the root of the falsehood of such arguments; how can
the hypocrisy of the German imperialists be exposed without
unerring certainty? The correct theoretical answer pointing to
the root of falsehood always serves as a means of exposing the
hypocrites who, for reasons all too obvious, are inclined to
cover up their falsehood, to obscure it, to clothe it in flowery
phrases, all sorts of phrases, phrases about everything in the
world, even about internationalism. Even the Lensches, Südekums
and Scheidmanns, all these agents of the German bourgeoisie,
who, unfortunately, belong to the so-called “Social-Democratic”
Party of Germany, insist that they are internationalists. Men
must not be judged by their words, however, but by their
deeds. This is a home truth. Will anyone in Russia judge
Potresov, Levitsky, Bulkin and Co. by their words? Of course,
not.

The falsehood of the German chauvinists has its roots in their
shouting their sympathy for the independence of the peoples
oppressed by Britain, their enemy in the war, and modestly,
sometimes much too modestly, keeping silent about the independence of the peoples oppressed by their own
nation.

Take the Danes. When Prussia annexed Schleswig she also seized,
as all “Great” Powers are wont to do, a part inhabited by
Danes. The violation of the rights of this population was so
patent that that when Austria ceded to Prussia her “rights” to
Schleswig under the Peace of Prague, August 23-30, 1866, the
treaty stipulated that the population of the northern part of
the province was to be asked in a plebiscite whether they wished
to join Denmark are were to be joined to Denmark in the event of
a vote to that effect. This condition, however, was not
fulfilled by Prussia who, in 1871, had this “unpleasant” clause
deleted.

Frederick Engels, who was never indifferent to the chauvinism of
Great-Power nations, specifically pointed to this violation of
the rights of a small nation by
Prussia. [2] But the present-day social-chauvinists, while recognising the right of
self-determination of nations in words, as Kautsky also does,
have never carried on any consistently-democratic and resolutely
democratic agitation in favour of liberating an oppressed nation
when that oppression was exercised nation was “their own”
nation. That is the whole secret, the kernel, of the question of
chauvinism and of its exposure.

A once popular pun in Russia was that Russkoye Znamya frequently behaved like Prusskoye Znamya . [3]
But this does not apply to Russkoye Znamya alone; for
Potresov, Levitsky and Co. reason in the Russian in the very
same way as Lensch, Kautsky and Co. reason in Germany. Take a
look in the liquidationist Rabocheye Utro , for example,
and you will find similar “Prussian”, or rather, international-chauvinist arguments and methods of
reasoning. Chauvinism remains true to itself, whatever its
national brand, whatever its pacifist cover-up phrase.

---
Notes:
[1]



[2]



[3]

Russkoye Znamya –Russian Banner; Prusskoye Znamya –Prussian Banner. – Ed.