/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

I'm bored as shit waiting for late-ass parents during these parent-teacher conferences, so let's read a little Lenin in the meantime. The version on Marxists.org is kinda trash so I made corrections to grammar and sentence structure as-needed.

German and Non-German Chauvinism
<V.I. Lenin, May 31, 1916 in Voprosy Strakhovania

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 hopes to improve its military position by fanning discontent through the anti-British movement in India. These hopes are silly, of course, because it's simply impossible to seriously entertain the idea of influencing the life of hundreds of millions of people, and a very distant people at that, from outside, from afar in a language foreign to them, particularly when the influence is not systematic, but casual, and only for the duration of the war. Rather than a genuine desire to influence India the efforts of the German imperialist bourgeoisie are more of an attempt at pacifying the masses, 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 these falsehoods; how can the hypocrisy of the German imperialists be exposed without any room for uncertainty? The correct theoretical answer that uncovers the falsehoods always serves as a means of exposing the hypocrites who, for reasons all too obvious, are inclined to cover up their falsehoods, to obscure them, to clothe them 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. Should anyone in Russia judge Potresov, Levitsky, Bulkin and Co. by their words? Of course not.

The root of German chauvinist falsehoods is in their shouting 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 inevitable violation of their rights was so obvious that that when Austria ceded to Prussia her “rights” to Schleswig under the Peace of Prague, August 23-30, 1866, they stipulated that the population of the northern part of the province was to be asked in a plebiscite whether they wished to join Denmark, and that they should be ceded to Denmark in the event of a vote to that effect. This condition 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 smaller nations by Prussia. 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 consistent democratic and internationalist agitation in favour of liberating an oppressed nation when the oppressor 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. 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.