EXTRACTS FROM P. LENZ’S ARTICLES ON THE RIGHT OF NATIONS
ON SELF-DETERMINATION AND INDEPENDENCE
[1916, Zurich]
Dr. Paul Lensch: “The Self-Determination Delusion” (Die Glocke, No. 8, December 15, 1915).
… “A petty-bourgeois whim” (p. 465) — the same as “disarmament,”
“a petty-bourgeois phrase” (ibid.), the same as “the delusion of disarmament,”
and also “the right to work,” etc.
For example, Engels, in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung of November 14, 1849, wrote about “democratic pan-Slavism” (p. 466), stating that “the word ‘freedom’ replaces everything,” that it was nothing more than an “absolute demand for freedom,” a “fantastical abstraction from reality” — and Lensch: “the same kind of fantastical abstraction from reality as is the self-determination delusion” (p. 467)…
Engels then wrote that “the theory of universal brotherhood among peoples, which, regardless of the historical position or the level of social development of individual nations, seeks nothing beyond mere fraternal relations in the abstract” (p. 467)…
and then he turned against “Bakunin’s rhetoric about the terrible rape of the South Slavs”
See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIX, p. 43, note. Ed.
** See Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. VII, pp. 203–212; the passages cited can be found on pp. 205, 207, 210, 211–212. Ed.
[ 1 1 9 ]


(1)
“through Hungary and Germany.” — So what does Engels say here?
He argues that it is absurd to call “crimes” what the Hungarians and Germans—“at a time when, throughout Europe, the great monarchies had become a historical necessity”—did when they united these small nations into a vast empire “and thereby enabled them to take part in historical development”...
“And are the Persians, Celts, and Christian Germanic peoples not worthy of the Czechs, Oghuzes, and Sereshans?” (p. 467)
And Lensch declared triumphantly:
“This is what the ‘right to self-determination’ looks like according to Marx and Engels!” (p. 468; I would recommend this to the “socialist illiterates of the Vorwarts editorial staff”…
“In truth, the self-determination delusion is fundamentally alien to socialism…” Socialism is the idea of the dependence of the particular upon the whole… (‘the dependence of the individual upon the totality’…)
The theory of individualism gave rise to “self-determination”… yet it was precisely “the most bitter enemies of democracy” (p. 470) who sought to put it into practice—for example, Napoleon III.
“The affair of 1859 (Napoleon’s farcical plebiscite on the annexation of Nice: Bernstein, in his postscript to Héritier, dismissed it ‘ironically’)”
proved so beneficial to autocracy that even Bismarck was initially prepared to replicate it in the provinces conquered after the Danish War” (p. 470).
NB
| cf. Engels on the same topic N V
and further on about “naive” (p. 472)
self-determination, etc. = “petty-bourgeois idyll” (ibid.). And how, practically, is this to be realized (p. 473)? For example, in the Balkans? A mixture
of parodies, etc.


EXTRACTS FROM P. LENZ’S ARTICLES

on the side of the Hungarians and Germans.” — What, then, does Engels say here?
He argues that it is absurd to label as “crime” what the Germans and Hungarians—“at a time when, throughout Europe, the great monarchies had become a historical necessity”—accomplished when they forged these nations into a great state “and thereby made them capable of participating
(1)
in historical development”... “And how are the Persians, Celts, and Christian Germanic peoples any worse than the Czechs, Oghuzes, and Sereshans?” (p. 467).
And Lensch declared triumphantly: “This is what the ‘right to self-determination’ looks like according to Marx and Engels!” (p. 468)—I would recommend this to the “illiterate socialists of the Vorwarts editorial staff.”
“In fact, talk of the right to self-determination is, in essence, foreign to socialism…” Socialism is the idea of the dependence of the particular upon the whole…
The theory of individualism gave rise to “self-determination”… yet it was precisely “the most ardent opponents of democracy” (p. 470) who sought to put it into practice—for example, Napoleon III.
“The experience of 1859 (Napoleon’s farcical plebiscite on the annexation of Nice:
Bernstein, in his postscript to Héritier, dealt with it ‘ironically’)”
was so favorable to absolutism that even
Bismarck was at first ready to repeat the experiment in the provinces conquered after the Danish War” (p. 470).
NB HI
| cf. Engels on the same topic N V |
and further on, of course, “self-determination” and the like = “petty-bourgeois idyll” (ibid.). And how, practically, is this to be realized (p. 473)? For example, in the Balkans? A mixture
of parodies, etc.

NB
NB
NB
“With regard to
NB
No, we must not allow the “existence conditions of the great cultural nations, which have hitherto borne the torch of historical progress, to be crippled in favor of some ‘gentle national blossoms’” (p. 473) (as Engels put it), etc.—nations “that have allowed themselves to be used as the willing lackeys of Tsarism and reaction.”
And now Serbia… the interest of the progressive central powers lies in reaching the sea… the enemy of social democracy is the “small-canton economy” (p. 474)…
Alsace-Lorraine, for French socialists, is merely an attempt “to emerge from a difficult situation” (ibid.).
For Germany, Alsace and Lorraine are necessary (p. 476), and the “Social Democratic Fraction” was “absolutely right” when, in its August resolutions on the Alsace-Lorraine question, it completely excluded the self-determination delusion (p. 476).
Engels wrote in 1891 that between socialist France and socialist Germany, the Alsace-Lorraine question could not “arise.” “The matter is settled in the blink of an eye”—you may wait until the hour of the proletariat’s liberation (p. 476).
He also wrote, “Socialism and Annexations in the Past” (ibid., No. 9, January 1, 1916).
“Against annexations?” (pp. 494–495) This cry calls for “Marxist critique”… against all forms of conquest?
Marx and Engels stood at the vantage point of “European democracy,” opposing phrases such as “like disarmament, the right to self-determination of peoples, no annexations” (p. 496).


EXTRACTS FROM P. LENZ’S ARTICLES

No, we must not allow the conditions of existence of the great cultural nations—those which, until now, have been the bearers of historical progress—to be mutilated in favor of some “tender national flower” (as Engels put it) (p. 473) and the like—nations “that have allowed themselves to be exploited as the mindless tools of Tsarism and reaction.”
And now Serbia… the interest of the progressive central powers lies in reaching the sea…
the enemy of social democracy is the “economy of small cantons” (p. 474)…
Alsace-Lorraine, for French socialists, is only an attempt “to escape from a difficult predicament” (ibid.).
For Germany, Alsace and Lorraine are necessary (p. 476), and the “Social Democratic Fraction” was “entirely justified” when, in its August resolutions on the Alsace-Lorraine question, it completely ruled out talk of self-determination.
Ц
(476).
|
Engels wrote in 1891 that between socialist France and socialist Germany, the Alsace-Lorraine question could not “emerge.” “The misunderstanding will be resolved in an instant”—you may wait until the hour of the proletariat’s liberation (p. 476).
He also wrote, “Socialism and Annexations in the Past” (ibid., JSIs 9, January 1, 1916).
“Against annexations?” (pp. 494–495) This cry calls for “Marxist critique”… against all forms of conquest? j
Marx and Engels stood at the standpoint of “European democracy,” opposing phrases such as “like disarmament, the right to self-determination of peoples, no annexations” (p. 496).
“with regard to
NB

Marx and Engels called England a “counter-revolutionary” power in the world war. In the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848–49, Volume III of the Nachlass, p. ?*), Engels stated that the general war would crush “all reactionary peoples” (p. 497)…
there, too, Engels wrote: “We and the other revolutionary nations of Europe are asked to … guarantee the unimpeded existence, right at our very doorstep, of the counter-revolutionary hordes” (“we are to establish, in the very heart of Germany, a counter-revolutionary Czech state, to break the power of the German, Polish, and Magyar revolutions by interposing Russian forward posts between them… to respond to sentimental phrases about brotherhood…”
NB
we reply that hatred of the Russians was—and still is—the first revolutionary passion among the Germans…
And in 1859, Engels wrote in the Rhein und Ruhr that changes in Europe’s borders were coming down to “giving the large, viable European nations ever more of their true, natural boundaries—boundaries determined by language and affinity” (p. 498)… (while smaller nations should be incorporated; when the political map of Europe is redrawn, Germany should receive all its rights)…
and Lensch went on to write:
“Interestingly enough, it is precisely those comrades who today are so eager to repeat the slogan: ‘The proletarian has no fatherland,’ who, in this world war, seem to have no greater concerns
NB
* Page 245. Ed.


EXTRACTS FROM P. LENZ’S ARTICLES

Marx and Engels called England a “counter-revolutionary” power in the world war.
In the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848–49, Volume III of the Literary Heritage, p. ?*), Engels stated that the general war would crush “all reactionary peoples” (p. 497)…
and there, too, Engels wrote: “We and the other revolutionary nations of Europe are asked to … guarantee the unimpeded existence, right at our very doorstep, of the counter-revolutionary hordes” (“we are to establish, in the heart of Germany, a counter-revolutionary Czech state, to break the power of the German, Polish, and Magyar revolutions by interposing Russian forward posts between them… To respond to sentimental phrases about brotherhood…”
we
reply that hatred of the Russians was—and still is—the first revolutionary passion among the Germans” ** (p. 497–498)…
And in 1859, Engels wrote in the Rhein und Ruhr that changes in Europe’s borders were coming down to “giving the large, viable European nations ever more of their true, natural boundaries—boundaries determined by language and affinity” ***… (while smaller nations should be incorporated; when the political map of Europe is redrawn, Germany should receive all its rights)… .
and Lensch went on to write:
“Incidentally, it is rather strange that those very comrades who, even today, are so eager to repeat the words: ‘The proletarian has no fatherland,’ seem, in this present world war, to have no
NB
NB
NB
a fine example of socialization! I
* See Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. VII, p. 282. Ed.
** Ibid., Vol. VII, p. 219. Ed.
See Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. XIX, pp. 243–244. Engels’ article “Rhein und Ruhr” is included in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. XI, Part 2, pp. 1–10. Ed.

perl!1 seem to know, as if to give every proletarian an independent fatherland (p. 499–500), but in any case, to use all available means to prevent any “fatherland” from disappearing from the world map.”
But
the interests of the working class do not require that “every three miles a new ‘nation’ should begin—and in practice, that is precisely where the theory of self-determination would lead” (p. 500), but rather, for example, that large economic entities, and so on—((end of extracts)).


EXTRACTS FROM P. LENZ’S ARTICLES

know only one concern: to give every proletarian an independent fatherland and, in any case, to use all available means to prevent any “fatherland” from disappearing from the world map” (p. 499–500).
“But the interests of the working class require that ‘every three miles a new ‘nation’ should begin—and in practice, that is precisely where the theory of self-determination would lead” (p. 500), but rather, for example, that large economic entities
and
so on—((end of extracts)).
perl!!


APRIL 1916, ZURICH
TO THE THESIS “THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
AND THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION”