AS A RESULT of speaking at agitational meetings across the country, I am somewhat late in replying to Comrade. Kautsky. I would be well satisfied if my article on the mass strike and my agitation in April had achieved nothing more than to begin a discussion in the party on the tactic and to breach the ban on such discussion in our theoretical organ, "Die Neue Zeit". The first thing was to oppose the incomprehensible attempt to prevent a public discussion in the party press about questions which arouse great interest in the broadest circles of the party. My article about the mass strike was refused not only by our central organ, "Vorwärts", but also by "Die Neue Zeit" - which had at first accepted it and even had the type set for it - in the last analysis because a discussion about the mass strike was not wanted in the party press.[1]
The error in this can only really be seen when one considers that the discussion has not suddenly come out of the blue, it is not something that has just occurred to one person - as Comrade Kautsky presents it when, throughout his article, he only talks about me and my agitation and starts his article with the sentence: "in our Dortmund party organ, Comrade Luxemburg has raised the question of the mass strike."
Before I even entered the arena with my article, the question of the mass strike had already become a live issue in a whole number of party centres and party newspapers. The comrades in Halle and the agitation section in Hessen-Nassau had sent formal resolutions to the Party Executive calling on them to take up the question of the general strike. The comrades in Königsberg, in Essen, in Breslau and in Bremen had decided to hold meetings to discuss the mass strike. In Kiel and Frankfurt am Main, half-day protest demonstrations had already taken place with much success. Comrade Pokorny of the miners' union had put forward the idea of the mass strike in a public meeting in Essen and had expressed the hope that in the coming great political struggles the leading role would fall to the miners. Even our deputies in the Prussian Parliament had already threatened a mass strike. How much the discussion of the mass strike simply corresponded to the mood and needs of the great mass of party comrades is proven by the fact that my article has been reprinted by more or less the whole Prussian party press and even by some newspapers outside Prussia. It is proven further by the fact that, in the sixteen mass meetings which I held in April, in Silesia, in Kiel, in Bremen, in Frankfurt am Main, in the industrial region of Rhineland-Westphalia, and on the 1st of May in Cologne, everywhere without exception, the slogan of the mass strike found the most enthusiastic agreement. Only one other slogan - as I discovered - now calls forth the same stormy support amongst the party masses in Germany: it is a sharp emphasis on our republican position. This slogan is unfortunately also not presented to the public in either "Vorwärts" or "Die Neue Zeit"[2], though in this respect too a section of our provincial press (from the "Dortmunder Arbeiterzeitung" to the "Breslauer Volkswacht") does what is necessary on this issue as well.
Thus one can find in the broadest sections of the party a really strong combativity, a really resolute determination to carry the present suffrage struggle through to victory, if necessary through mass pressure on the streets. There has never been such an intense interest in the question of the mass strike in Germany. Only one party paper has up till now remained completely untouched by this mood in the country - our central organ "Vorwärts", which until now has not even had one word on the whole debate about the mass strike in the party press. One section of the party membership is also completely ignorant about it - the Berlin comrades who are supposed to get their information about the mood and intellectual life of the party nationally from "Vorwärts".
Yes, the central organ is so zealous in carrying out the directive it has received that it puts a line through every single word about the mass strike, even in reports of meetings which are held in Berlin. Thus in the report in "Vorwärts" about the mass meeting in Frankfurt am Main on the 17th April (the same report obviously appeared 'unedited' in other party papers) the sentence which states that "the speaker won from the audience a stormy resonance for her propaganda for the mass strike" has been characteristically and carefully removed.
It is moreover not the first time that an attempt has been made to ban public discussion of the mass strike, and the repeated failure of these attempts should by now, in my opinion, have shown that they are futile. The Cologne Trade Union Congress[3] forbade "propaganda for the mass strike", even in 1905. The pre-conference of the German party comrades in Austria before the 1904 Salzburg Party Congress likewise resolved that the slogan of the mass strike should neither be discussed nor mentioned at the Party Conference. Both resolutions failed however for the simple reason that Social Democracy is not a sect which is made up of a handful of obedient pupils, but a mass movement in which questions which stir its internal life must somehow reach the light of day, whether or not this is thought to be desirable.
It is therefore not the attempt to prevent a discussion of the mass strike which is in itself deplorable here - in my view, such bans are to be taken calmly with peace of mind rather than with indignation - but the general conception of the mass strike which lies behind it. If one was to listen to the arguments which lie behind the claim that it is harmful to discuss the mass strike at present, one might think that the lessons of the Russian Revolution, the whole rich treasury of experiences from that period, which are of vital importance in a consideration of the mass strike and proletarian tactics in general, had passed without leaving a mark. One might think that we were still living in the fine period of the debates with Domela Nieuwenhuis and Cornielssen[4].
According to Comrade Kautsky, "If that", i.e. discussion of the mass strike, "were to take place publicly, it would be the same as conveying to the enemy the weak points of one's own position. The whole discussion would be as useful as if one wanted a council of war to discuss whether to give battle to the enemy within his hearing".
According to this conception, the mass strike would be a slyly thought out coup which is secretly constructed by the "council of war" of the social democracy - something like the Executive of the party and the General Committee of the trade unions - behind closed doors and by which the enemy - in this case, bourgeois society - is taken unawares. I wrote in opposition to this conception as far back as 1906 in the pamphlet about the mass strike written for the Hamburg comrades and can only repeat what I said:[5]
"On the same ground of abstract, unhistorical methods of observation stand those today who would, in the manner of a board of directors, put the mass strike in Germany on the calendar on an appointed day, and those who, like the participants in the trade-union congress at Cologne, would by a prohibition of 'propaganda' eliminate the problem of the mass strike from the face of the earth. Both tendencies proceed on the common purely anarchistic assumption that the mass strike is a purely technical means of struggle which can be 'decided' at pleasure and strictly according to conscience, or 'forbidden' - a kind of pocketknife which can be kept in the pocket clasped 'ready for any contingency', and according to decision, can be unclasped and used".
To the fears of Comrade Kautsky, which stem from this conception and which amount to the belief, that public discussion of the mass strike would betray the weak points of our position to the enemy, there is no better answer than the words of Comrade Pannekoek[6], who has already shown up most of the weak points of Comrade Kautsky's position in the "Bremer Bürgerzeitung":
"How misleading this analogy with military techniques is", Pannekoek writes, "is shown by the fact that the party has never done anything but discuss its strong and weak positions completely openly. It could not have been otherwise as Social Democracy is not a small, closed group but a mass movement. Here secret plans are useless. Strength and weakness depend here on general social and political conditions, of which nothing can be kept secret and which cannot be affected by secrecy. How could we betray our weaknesses to the enemy? He knows them as well as we do. And if he does not, if he is the victim of a mistaken assessment of his and our strength, then this too is rooted in necessary historico-social conditions, which cannot be affected by tactical secrecy at all."
But Comrade Kautsky refers to still other harmful effects of a public debate. "I would very much regret it", he writes, "if Comrade Luxemburg's article has the effect of opening a discussion in the party press in which one side was to put forward reasons as to why a mass strike would be hopeless at present. They may be correct or incorrect; such a discussion can under no circumstances be a stimulus to action."
Now this view is completely incomprehensible to me. It has never been held by Social Democracy before. We have through never attempted to find a "stimulus to action" through illusions and hiding the true state of affairs from the masses. If the opponents of the mass strike are correct in their reasons for the hopelessness of such an action, then it is thoroughly useful and necessary for us to hear their arguments and to follow them. If they are incorrect, then it is just as useful and necessary for their arguments to be publicly acknowledged to be invalid. The most thorough discussion can only be of use and contribute to the self- clarification of the party, direct our attention to the weaknesses of our movement and press us to undertake the most urgent practical tasks of agitation and organisation.
If Comrade Kautsky had in mind here the danger that the trade union leaders would become involved as a result of my written and oral agitation and would bring their big guns to bear against the idea of the mass strike, then in my opinion this fear was based on an overestimation of the power of leaders, which again can only be explained by the rather mechanistic conception of the mass strike as a surprise plan hatched out and conducted by the "general staff". In reality the trade union leaders are not even in a position to prevent a mass strike movement if this arises out of the situation, out of a sharpening of the struggle and out of the mood of the proletarian masses. If in such situations the trade union leaders emerge in opposition to the efforts of the masses, then it is not the mood of the masses but the authority of the leaders which is done for. In fact there is already such a keen mood of struggle in the working class that any public attempt by the trade union general staff to slow down the movement would only result in awakening criticism and protest in the ranks of the trade unions themselves. In the interests of "stimulating action", nothing would be better than if the trade union leaders were to appear on the scene with their 'big guns'; so that their arguments could be seen in the light of day and it could thus be confirmed how much the leaders lag behind the masses in their feelings and thoughts. That Comrade Kautsky has relieved the trade union leaders of this painful burden by himself first opposing public discussion and then, when this was no longer possible, by acting in public in order to divert - in his role as the theoretician of radicalism[7] - thoughts of and interest in the mass strike towards the coming Reichstag elections - that he has done this will certainly have met with the full approval of the General Committee of the trade unions. I doubt however that it was effective as a "stimulus to action".
Why has Comrade Kautsky then sounded this warning? From what dangers did the party have to be saved? Did someone or other perhaps consider ordering a mass strike from one day to the next? Or did, on the other hand, the danger consist of awakening unfounded illusions in the party with regard to the miraculous effects of the mass strike and thereby carelessly driving the masses into an action which they hope will solve all their problems at a stroke? Nothing like this is known to me, either from meetings or from the press. I gave no grounds for doubt in this respect.
I wrote: "A mass strike suddenly 'created' one morning by a simple decree of the party is merely childish fantasy, an anarchistic chimera. However a mass strike which occurs after a protest movement involving huge numbers of workers and which has grown over a number of months, a mass strike which comes out of a situation where a three-million strong party is faced with the dilemma; either forward at any cost, or the mass action under way will collapse in failure, such a mass strike born from the inner needs and the determination of the aroused masses and, at the same time, from the sharper political situation, carries with it its raison d'etre and its guarantee of effectiveness".
"Of course, the mass strike is not a miraculous method which guarantees success under all circumstances. In particular the mass strike cannot be regarded as an artificial, one-off, mechanical means of political pressure, neatly applied according to some set of regulations and commands. The mass strike is merely the external form of action whose inner development, whose logic, whose growth, and whose consequences stand in the closest connection with the political situation and its further development. The mass strike, that is as a short one-off protest strike, is certainly not the last word in the campaign which is in progress. But it is just as certainly its first word in the present stage. And if the further development, the duration, the direct successes, as well as the costs and the sacrifices, of this campaign cannot possibly be calculated with pen and paper in advance, in the way that costs are calculated for an operation on the Stock Exchange, then nevertheless there are situations where it is the political duty of a party which has the leadership of millions resolutely to launch the slogan which alone can further advance the struggle which it has begun".
And in conclusion I stated quite clearly my opinion of what is involved:
"In no case, however, can it be expected that one fine day the 'command' for the mass strike will be issued by the highest leadership of our movement, by the party executive and by the General Council of the trade unions. Bodies which bear the responsibility for millions are by nature cautious with decisions which others must execute. Moreover, the decision for an immediate action of the masses can only proceed from the masses themselves. The emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the working class itself - this guiding sentence from the 'Communist Manifesto' also means that within the class party of the proletariat the great decisive movements cannot proceed from the initiative of a handful of leaders, but from the conviction and resolution of the mass of the party's supporters. In addition, the decision to pursue the present struggle for the franchise in Prussia to victory in accordance with the words of the Prussian party congress - 'by all means possible', and thus also by means of the mass strike - can only be carried out by the broadest sections of the party. It is the business of the party and trade union comrades in every town and in every area to take a position on the questions of the present situation, to express in a clear and open way their opinion and their wishes, so that the opinion of the organised working masses as a whole can make itself heard. And if that takes place then our leaders will certainly be found at their posts as they always have been up to now".
The main question therefore was that the masses should take up the question of the mass strike and take a position on it. Whether a mass strike is possible, opportune, and necessary would then become clear from the further development of the situation and from the attitude of the masses. Comrade Kautsky's attitude, on the other hand, appears remarkable precisely from the standpoint of the Marxist conception. Comrade Kautsky himself bases his whole theory of the 'strategy of attrition' on the fact that we may find ourselves forced to use the mass strike, not now, but after next year's Reichstag elections. Comrade Kautsky himself further admits that "any sudden event, such as a blood-bath after a street demonstration", can make the mass strike quite spontaneously necessary. And he writes in conclusion: "In the whole existence of the German Empire, the social, political and international contradictions have never been as sharp as today. Nothing is more possible than surprises which lead even before the next Reichstag elections to violent outbursts and catastrophes in which the proletariat is moved to call forth all its strength and all the forces at its disposal. A mass strike under such conditions could very well be successful in sweeping away the existing regime".
If that, however, is the case, if there is even one chance that the mass strike will be used in the near future in Germany, then it is our duty as a matter of course to bring this possibility to the masses' attention, and to arouse sympathy for this action in the broadest possible circles of the proletariat, so that the workers are not taken unawares and so that they do not enter into it as a blind reaction, but with full consciousness, with confident awareness of their own strength, and in the greatest numbers possible.
The masses themselves should be prepared for all political eventualities and decide on action for themselves, not wait from the signal from above "at the given moment", as if they were "trusting their master who piously and lovingly protects the state through graciously honourable and wise rule", and it were always fitting for the party masses "to keep their mouths shut". The Marxist conception consists precisely in considering the masses and their consciousness as the determining factor in all the political actions of social democracy. In the spirit of this conception, the political mass strike - like the whole struggle for the franchise - is in the final analysis only a means for the enlightenment of the class and the organisation of the broadest sections of the proletariat. So how one can consider such actions possible in the immediate future, and at the same time forbid the masses to concern themselves with this problem, as if it were a matter of playing with fire from which the masses must be protected, is quite puzzling precisely from the standpoint of Marxism. All the modern and ancient strategies of war cannot explain this puzzle.
Notes
1. Rosa Luxemburg had submitted her article 'Was weiter?' ('What next?') to both the SPD paper 'Vorwärts' and the theoretical journal 'Die Neue Zeit'. It was refused for publication in both: 'Vorwärts' said that party rules forbade propaganda for the political mass strike; Kautsky at first accepted it for 'Die Neue Zeit', but later he yielded to pressure and withdrew it. This marked the end of the personal friendship between Luxemburg and Kautsky. The article was eventually published in a local paper, the 'Dortmunder Arbeiterzeitung'. This forced the discussion into the open and Kautsky then had to reply in 'Die Neue Zeit' (see above), though he only accepted Luxemburg's reply to him (this article) after considerable pressure.
The opposition to publishing Luxemburg's articles stemmed from the desire not to offend the trade union leaders and to maintain the compromise with them reached in 1906.
2. The SPD had abandoned the slogan of the republic out of fear that an open campaign against the monarchy might lead to the reintroduction of the Anti-Socialist Laws. Engels criticised the absence of the demand for the republic from the 1891 Erfurt party programme, and only reluctantly agreed to it on the grounds of legality.
For Rosa Luxemburg the slogan of the republic was inseparable from the struggle for equal suffrage and for the mass strike. For her, the call for the republic gave a focus to all the struggles against Prussian absolutism, and also served as a link between those struggles and the overall aim of socialism.
In March 1910, just after the publication of her first article on the mass strike, she published in the 'Breslauer Volkswacht' an article called 'A time of sowing', in which she argued that the slogan of the democratic republic should become the guiding aim of the Prussian suffrage movement. She described the slogan as "a practical war cry against militarism, navalism, colonialism, great power politics, Junker domination and the Prussianisation of Germany; it is the consequence and drastic summary of our daily struggle against all these various phenomena of the ruling reaction".
3. The Cologne Trade Union Congress met in May 1905 and unanimously adopted a resolution opposing use of the general strike.
4. Niewenhuis and Cornielssen were Dutch anarcho-syndicalists who saw the general strike as the means to overthrow the capitalist state.
5. The pamphlet referred to is "The Mass Strike, the Political Party, and the Trade Unions", available in English in the Pathfinder Press collection 'Rosa Luxemburg Speaks'.
6. Anton Pannekoek: a Dutch Marxist, who from 1906 was active in German Social Democracy. He was part of the 'Bremen Left' in the SPD and a keen supporter of the use of the mass strike. He is best known for his anti-parliamentarian and ultra-left positions in the Communist International after the First World War.
7. 'Theoretician of radicalism': even as late as 1910 Kautsky was generally regarded as on the left of the SPD.
Last updated on: 14.10.2026