German Social Democracy 1905-1917: The Development of the Great Schism (Harvard Historical Studies) [Tapa blanda]

This very interesting and well written book is a focused history of the great German Social Democratic Party in the years leading up to WWI. The narrative and analysis is based on a close analysis of party literature, writings of major party figures, contemporary scholarly and journalistic accounts, and voting patterns, all set against the background of German politics in the period. While this is a relatively short book, Schorske provides a detailed narrative, an excellent analysis of the major ideological currents, and a thoughtful perspective on how the party functioned in the complicated German political system of the time. An important aspect of the book is to reveal the features that led to the fission of the party in WWI.

A good deal of the book is devoted to the tension within the party between a relatively reformist wing and a smaller but important radical wing that was more faithful to Marxist ideals of revolutionary transformation. This radical wing, however, was not a Bolshevik type organization and was more interested in tactics such as general strikes and a general, perhaps vague, idea of worker based democracy. Schorske has a very nice narrative and analysis of the increasing moderation and reformism of the party. This was driven by its increasing electoral success at the national level, the ideological activities of the Revisionists led by Bernstein, the great growth of the trade unions associated with the party, and the general bureaucratization of the party. Schorske shows that in the first decades of the 20th century, the party became a relatively moderate, reformist force dedicated to participation in the Imperial political system. This was driven partly by electoral success, partly by relative success of trade unionism, and partly by the recognition that more aggressive tactics would be counter-productive.

Schorske shows as well that moderation and reformism came with a high price. While the party attempted to work within the existing system, the several authoritarian aspects of the Imperial political system and middle class fear of socialism obstructed even moderate reform efforts such as trying to achieve democratic voting at the state (Land) level. The party's commitment to the German political and economic system also to led to such politically expedient steps as de facto support for German participation in the European arms race and an aggressive but foolish foreign policy. This would culminate in the famous vote for war credits at the outbreak of WWI.

The party historically emphasized discipline and solidarity among its different elements but the strains imposed by WWI were simply too much. The left wing, including some of the most famous figures in the party, split off. Schorske describes the long term consequenes as deleterious with the post-war emergence of a more radical and authoritarian Communist Party and an excessively conservative Socialist Party.

Dustin Adam Stein
2/18/03

Intraparty Conflicts

With this book Carl E. Schorske joins a score of other manuscripts on pre-WWI Germany's political environment. Schorske has set himself apart from other literature evaluating this time period, on a rather individualized course by analyzing the articles, books, and manuscripts on the time period beginning in 1905 and ending in 1917 in light of the Social Democratic Party. After reading just the title, German Social Democracy 1905-1917: The Development of the Great Schism, the reader know what they to expect in the book-and Schorske delivers. In intricate details almost to the point of delirium or tedium Schorske rehashes the evolution of the German Democratic Party. The other major contribution to the study of pre-WWI Germany is the fantastic biographical details, which like the book does not spare any details, and reviews with concise abstracts a plethora of relevant literature.
The great "schism" in the Social Democratic Party was a result of the argument over the content and implementation of Marxism. The party was split between Radicals and Revisitionists. The relationship between the two extremes of the party revolves around the basic disagreement on two separate, but related issues. One might argue that the Revisitionists are more pragmatic and the Radicals less willing to compromise. The Radicals believed in a complete overthrow of the capitalist system, without capitulation to the political system all ready in place. Radicals wanted a mass uprising to debilitate the political system and instate a Marxist utopian reality. The Revisionists believed in incremental gain; aiming at attaining seats in the parliament and influencing current politics. The other discrepancy was over the definition of Marxism. Revisionists began to act as if Marxism was a grandiose myth incapable of implementation. The rift in these two issues led to the denouement of the Social Democratic Party further compounded by WWI.
The Social Democratic Party seemed destined to succeed with the powerful Unions support, Marxist ideology, Marxist youth educational system, ability to mobilize supporters, and almost imminent universal suffrage. However, the schism that developed as a result of ideological and concrete differences on important contemporary issues caused the party to be inept in what should have been its prime, and defunct "under the hammer blows of war." In summation, the differences between the Revisitionists Social Democrats and Radical Social Democrats were insurmountable to achieve their united political aim. In 1905 the Social Democratic party was destined for greatness, but the advent of the Revisitionists' ideology caused a rift in the infrastructure that allowed the prescient backlash of the Radicals to become a reality. The initiation of these two extremes in the Social Democratic Party caused a departing of the understanding of Marxist values at the center of the party. Initially they were both very small, but the combined energies endangered the party ideology.
Schorske does a more than adequate job of examining the rift between the Revisitionists and Radicals that eventually led to the demise of the Social Democratic Party. The ideological differences and variations in their interpretation of manifesting Marxism proved to be too insurmountable to form a unified front. Schorske spares no details, but the only insight to be gained by this book is in retrospect. There is nothing immediately discerned that jumps off the page at the reader. However, the book taken as a whole provides valuable insight into the paradigm that caused the break in the party.