Taking History with a Grain of Salt

While going over the different the different ideas concerning the second German Empire and its position in history (preceding the Third Reich and Nazi Germany), I found myself torn between conflicting theories. I found the Bielefeld theory (formulated by Hans-Ulrich Wehler and Jurgen Kocka) to be convincing; it seemed to cover all the bases (social, economic, political) with strong supporting evidence. The main idea the Bielefeld school presents is that of a discontinuity between Germany's modern economy and pre-modern, authoritarian political system. While other countries around Europe were undergoing parliamentarization and democratization, Germany remained a "Bonapartist half-dictatorship" (in the words of Wehler), controlled by Bismarck and the aristocratic elite. The second point they make is that of the bourgeois liberals' failure to push for political "progress" (democratization, parliamentarization). In exchange for a hand in Germany's booming economy (in addition to a number of other concessions provided by Bismarck), Wehler and Kocka suggest that the bourgeoisie compromised their political ideas, and conceded to the conservative aristocracy in the political arena. This idea of Bismarck using carrots to suppress political dissent is reinforced by the Bielefeld's school's third point - that Bismarck diverted Germany's attention from domestic tensions (political and social) by focusing on threats from abroad ("social imperialism")  and among Germany's religious and ethnic minorities ("negative integration"). 

I was pretty much sold on the Bielefeld interpretation of the Second Reich until I read the questions posed by Blackbourn and Eley's theory. Why do historians so often presume that the bourgeoisie were inherently liberal, and the aristocracy inherently conservative?   Why do we hold this period of German history up to a "European" model (exemplified by France, Britain, etc.) and judge it by its LACK of a revolution or democratization? Blackbourn and Eley also accuse the Bielefeld school of a grossly misinterpreting the Second Reich's political scene, and reducing the masses (all non-aristocratic voters) to a passive group to be manipulated by Bismarck and the conservatives.

As Lorenz points out, Blackbourn and Eley's theory asks more questions than it answers, but I found their argument just as convincing as Bielefeld's (especially when supplemented with those of Mittelage and Nipperdey). I found it disconcerting, though, how easily wooed I was by both arguments, despite their stark dissimilarities. I hate to think of myself as a passive reader of history, but after reading Blackbourn and Eley's arguments I felt presumptuous for assuming, alongside Wehler and Kocka, that one's class dictates their political affiliations. Conversely, I felt discouraged that I was so easily swayed by Blackbourn and Eley after reading their argument - but is it really possible to read and interpret history objectively? Would it be more intellectually honest to approach every theory I come across as a skeptic? I don't want to find myself so easily manipulated by well-worded arguments.

...

While reading the chapter from German Social Democracy, I found it particularly interesting how the German Social Democrats’ evolving interpretations of Marxism (or as Shorske calls one particular brand on page 2, “Marxian Socialism”) varied so greatly and often strayed so far from those of Marx himself, especially since the original Social Democratic Labor Party was cofounded by one of his disciples. Although Shorske notes that the German Socialists did not become “really receptive” to Marxism until after the Gotha Conference and the ensuing counterattacks from Bismarck, the Gotha Program still claimed ties to Marxism. These claims insulted Marx, who in turn wrote the essay Critique of the Gotha Program.

He found the program to be more Lassalian than Marxian, and criticized its demands (universal suffrage, direct legislation) as hackneyed, “nothing beyond the old democratic litany familiar to all”:

It is as if, among slaves who have at last got behind the secret of slavery and broken out in rebellion, a slave still in thrall to obsolete notions were to inscribe on the program of the rebellion: Slavery must be abolished  because the feeding of slaves in the system of slavery cannot exceed a certain low maximum!

He also accused Lasalle of being an opportunist who was compromising the goals of the movement in exchange for government concession. It seems like Marx was accusing Lasalle and those who drafted the program of essentially “selling out” so that they could have the backing of the very institution they should have been revolting against.

Only after Bismarck’s repression pressured the German Socialists to drop their goal of attaining their goals “by all legal means” did they fully embrace Marx’s ideology; Marxism was considered the “official gospel” of German Social Democracy as outlined in the 1891 Erfurt program. 

...