Colonial criticism in the Social Democratic Party of Germany

At Katzbachstraße 9 in Kreuzberg, a red brick building still stands today. From 1890, the central office of the SPD was located here, in the rented apartment of the then party secretary Ignaz Auer. Only a few years later, the party moved to Kreuzbergstraße.

German people, do you have a right to colonies? We have a right. The earth is there for all people and is big enough to pacify the just colonial claims of all peoples. (…) Therefore, German people, you must reclaim your colonies. [1]

This is stated in an appeal published in 1919, which was also signed by SPD members. [2] It was not the only moment in which SPD politicians made procolonial statements. Especially in the context of colonial revisionist movements, which had a large following after the end of the First World War and thus after the "loss" of the German colonies and did everything they could to stage Germany as a heroic colonial power,[3] SPD members also took the floor. For example, Marie Juchacz – a Social Democrat and social reformer, to whom a monument is dedicated in Kreuzberg at the Hallesches Tor – emphasized the necessity of German colonialism in an article and concluded with the following appeal: "As members of the German people, as mothers of future generations, German women must not remain indifferent if an essential area of human work and human happiness, such as colonization, is to be closed off to us. This is about the life and future of our people, of our children." [4]

Such and similar positions were not uncontroversial within the Social Democratic Party of Germany, even if they had probably gained the upper hand at that time. Rather, explicit opponents of colonialism also expressed themselves – especially in the 19th century. The party's relationship to (German) colonialism can be described as ambivalent, for example due to the history of the heterogeneous party, which was characterized by ideological contrasts, disputes and splits. [5]

When the German Reich officially began to occupy, subjugate and exploit territories in 1884/1885, the SPD (or its predecessor organization) was subjected to considerable repression. The so-called Anti-Socialist Law prohibited political activity outside the Reichstag until 1890. Only after its repeal did the party appear under the name Social Democratic Party of Germany. After initial criticism of German colonial expansion, which was articulated in the Reichstag above all by August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht – to whom a memorial plaque is dedicated at Adalbertstraße 2 in Kreuzberg – this was brought out more and more sharply at the turn of the century and thus in the context of colonial scandals and wars. As early as 1896, August Bebel, among others, sharply criticized Carl Peters in the Reichstag and thus helped to bring about his dismissal. The then "Reich Commissioner of the Kilimanjaro Region" Carl Peters is considered a co-founder of the colony "German East Africa"; he became known above all for his brutal violence. [6] This violence also preoccupied the Social Democrats in the context of the so-called "Boxer War", in which German troops were involved in the suppression of the resistance movement from 1900 onwards. [7] The colonial war and the associated position of the party were discussed in detail at a party meeting in Mainz. Paul Singer, after whom a street in the Berlin district of Friedrichshain is named today, was then chairman of the SPD, city councillor of Berlin and member of the Reichstag – his constituency Berlin IV also included parts of today's Berlin district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg. [8] At the meeting, he presented a resolution that clearly condemned this war:

It is supposedly carried on in the name of civilization, in the name of culture, but the means which are expended on it are the bloodiest mockery of civilization, of culture. This world policy is a policy of robbery, a policy of conquest, which, unconcerned about the laws of morality and morality, is simply based on the laws of brute force, and with the means of power created by the development of the bourgeoisie, it appropriates foreign countries and oppresses the peoples living there. [9]

The resolution, which was subsequently adopted unanimously, condemns the expansive, capitalist colonial policy, the violent appropriation and "subjugation" of people that goes hand in hand with it, as well as the growing international danger of wars in the context of "overseas robbery and conquest". It concludes with the following appeal:

Social Democracy, as the enemy of all oppression and exploitation of human beings by human beings, raises the most decisive objection to this policy of robbery and conquest. It demands that the desirable and necessary cultural and intercourse relations with all peoples of the earth be realized by respecting and safeguarding the rights, freedoms, and independence of these peoples. [10]

The Social Democrats also raise "the most resolute objection" to the war policy in China[11]. Interestingly, Rosa Luxemburg criticizes the fact that the workers' parties internationally failed to react in unison to this war and also that they failed to mobilize the "indifferent masses of the people" against it. [12] Even though the party congress finally called on all organs of the party to "fight the China policy that is harmful to the people by energetically spreading the protest movement"[13], today – at least in the district of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg – hardly any traces of protest marches, events or meetings against this war can be found.

Nevertheless, the SPD was not only critical at the party congress. It was also found in the Reichstag and especially in the SPD's party organ, the magazine Vorwärts, which was printed from 1902 in the printing house and publishing house Paul Singer and Co at Lindenstraße 69. August Bebel described the colonial wars[14] in the Reichstag as "a mark of shame for our civilisation; they are a sign of the brutalisation of international law". [15] And also in the "Vorwärts" – the so-called "Hun Letters", the letters of German soldiers in China, in which the cruel violence against the Chinese is clearly described, were published and commented on. It says:

The Hun letters, which may indeed "cut open" in detail, are so numerous that one cannot get over these atrocities with the talk of exaggerations. There is so much that is reported unanimously that it is enough to recognize the terrible truth. The Chinese atrocities should mean the death sentence for the depraved capitalist-militarist society on whose soil they have grown up. [16]

A few years later, at the time when the party had already moved into the newly constructed building complex at Lindenstraße 2-4 in Kreuzberg, the brutal actions of German troops were again criticized. The focus was now on the colonial war in "German South West Africa", in which the German Reich reacted with extreme harshness when the Herero and Nama defended themselves against their expulsion and exploitation. This colonial war finally represented ? the first genocide of the 20th century.

This was mentioned very explicitly in the "Vorwärts": In the "Trothae Extermination Strategy"; the aim was to "cut off any possibility of capitulation from the fleeing Hereros and to expose them to annihilation." And further: "General von Trotha thus directly prevented the Herero from capitulating. As he himself admitted, he drove them into the desert with full intent, in order to abandon them to the death of starvation." [17]

But not only the genocide, but also the extreme exploitation in the colonial system was named. The guilt of the German occupation was very clearly emphasized:

From the human point of view, the poor, oppressed blacks are not to be blamed if they finally seek to shake off the yoke of German foreign rule imposed on them. By force and cunning they have been robbed of their land and their livestock. They themselves have become slaves for the most part, and their wives the objects of lust of brutal, selfish aliens. [18]

And further: "It is now irrefutably clear that the main blame for the uprising lies with our German colonizers. The German colonial system drove the oppressed, exploited natives to this desperate act." [19]

The question of the legitimacy of colonial claims was also clearly denied when, for example, August Bebel emphasized: "(...) The land that the insurgents defend is their country. If they refuse to hand it over, that is their right." [20]

The colonial war in "German South West Africa" played an important role not only in the "Vorwärts", but also in the Reichstag. The question of war credits was also debated. While the Social Democrats abstained in the first vote on the increase in the budget, they rejected the demanded supplementary budget together with the Centre Party in 1907. As a result, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections were called. Politically, a broad (bourgeois) bloc was formed, accusing the SPD of "treason against the fatherland" and an alleged "coup attempt". [21] Even though the SPD did not lose any votes in the election, and even gained some, the merger of the bourgeois parties still cost it seats and thus political influence. [22]

In the same year, the International Socialist Congress took place in Stuttgart, where the Second International's position on colonialism was discussed as one of the most pressing issues. [23] The different positions of the socialists were more than clear. While some called for an improvement in colonial policy – a "socialist colonial policy" – and thus accepted and advocated the colonial system, others rejected colonial expansion itself. Eduard Bernstein, for example, argues that "a certain guardianship of civilized peoples over non-cultured peoples (...) is a necessity that socialists should also recognize." [24] Karl Kautsky, on the other hand, rejected the "paternalism of other nations": the idea of a "socialist colonial policy" was a "complete logical contradiction" [25]. He argued as follows:

It is a widespread error that the inferior peoples are hostile to the civilization that brings them higher peoples. On the contrary, all experience shows that where the savages are met in a friendly manner, they gladly accept the tools and aids of the higher civilization. But if one comes to oppress and subjugate them, if they are to be brought under the tutelage of a despotism, even if it is benevolent, they become suspicious. Then, with the foreign rule, they also reject the foreign culture, then there are fights and devastation. Thus we see that wherever there is a colonial policy, there is not an upliftment, but a depression of the peoples. Even a socialist regime could not change this. It would also have to regard the colonies as foreign bodies and establish foreign rule there. If we want to have a civilizing effect on primitive peoples, the first necessity is that we win their confidence. And these we gain by giving them freedom. (Bravo!) [26]

Even though Kautsky rejected colonial rule, it is clear that his (fundamental) criticism of colonialism is by no means accompanied by an anti-racist stance. Rather, most social democrats also held the view that there was a "civilizational gap" between Europeans and non-Europeans. [27] With the idea of an educational "cultural mission", they too remained attached to a unilinear idea of progressive "development". [28] Instead of violence, the supposed "cultural mission" was to be achieved through cooperation. However, racist ideas and thought structures were not questioned or criticized.

At the congress, the resolution of the colonial critics was ultimately adopted by a narrow majority, which states:[29]

The Congress is of the opinion that the capitalist colonial policy, in its very essence, must lead to the enslavement, forced labour or extermination of the indigenous population of the colonial territories. The civilisational mission to which capitalist society appeals serves only as a cover for the desire for conquest and exploitation. Only socialist society will give all peoples the opportunity to develop into full culture. [30]

The fact that such positions were by no means uncontroversial at this point in time is shown by the debate, but also by the close result of the vote. The resolution itself is also partly interpreted as a compromise, because it states that the members of parliament "must advocate reforms in order to improve the lot of the natives"[31]. Whether this can be read as an indication of support for the reformist colonial policy, which replaces a fundamental criticism and rejection of the colonial system, is not entirely clear.

In the pamphlet "The German Colonial Policy" of 1907, which was distributed in the "Vorwärts" bookstore, the majority rejection was confirmed again:

So the result of our discussions is the round rejection of colonial policy for German Social Democracy. Basically, as a party of the proletarian class struggle, it fights against all oppression and exploitation not only in its own country, but also in the colonies, where it degenerates into the worst atrocities,"[32] the authors conclude. It goes on to say: "Since Social Democracy, as a minority party in the German Reich, is not yet able to assert its fundamental rejection of capitalist colonial policy (...) it must try to mitigate the evils as much as possible through continuous critical and controlling activity in parliament and in the press (...). [33]

Whether the SPD at this time no longer fundamentally rejected colonial exploitation and adhered to the idea of a reformist colonial policy, or whether it was more a focus on ways of exerting influence, is probably a question of interpretation. The SPD's manoeuvring was certainly also characterized by pragmatism – at the latest when the renunciation of colonial possessions became increasingly unlikely. In any case, at this point in time, it can also be said that the colonial-critical or anti-colonial attitude of the SPD politicians themselves was increasingly disintegrating.

It becomes clear that the positions within the SPD on colonial expansion, occupation, subjugation and exploitation were heterogeneous. While some did not reject the colonial system in principle, but only wanted to improve it, there was a strong anti-colonial line of argumentation at the same time – especially until the First World War – which was even the dominant position for a long time. The brutal violence in the colonial wars was criticized, but also the colonial system itself: capitalist expansion, the occupation of territories and the exploitation of people on the one hand, the endangerment of international peace and the "waste" of (taxpayer) money of the workers on the other.

However, the anti-colonial lines of argumentation within social democracy were rarely anti-racist, as the example of Karl Kautsky shows. Rather, they remained attached to the idea of a "cultural mission" and thus to the unilinear development model. Nevertheless, the members of the party were the ones who repeatedly put the issue of colonial exploitation on the agenda and criticized it, not only in the "Vorwärts" but also in the Reichstag. In particular, they sharply condemned the massive violence in the colonial wars. However, at the latest with the beginning of the First World War – also in the context of a "generational change" in the SPD – these positions became increasingly on the defensive. National tendencies, on the other hand, continued to increase. In 1919, in the context of the colonial revisionist movement, the fundamental support or demand for German colonial possessions – also by SPD members – emerged.