A Question

[el che]

Marx criticized the way in which German Bourgeoisies was developing, that it could not play a progressive role like English or French one. But now Germany is one of the most advanced countries in the world, and this development is due to its bourgiousies. Was the analysis of Marx wrong?

[Karl Belin]

I would say that the development of Germany is due in part to the immense presures of the German proletariat on the bourgeoisie in the last period. There was extreme radicalization in Germany, with huge sectors of the work force in the Communist and Social-Democratic parties. For a whole period in the late 10's through the 20's, mass mobilizations of the working class forced the bourgeois to take actions - stimulate the economy, institute the construction of modern roadways, etc. When this was not enough, the German proletariat REALLY mobilizaed and almost took power, but due to the Stalinist leadership of the CP and the lack of leadership in the Social Democracy, Hitler came to power, in his words, "without breakin a single pane of glass".

The subsequent German war machine that developed in the fascist state served to stimulate the economy. The masses were working again. Now they were working on weapons - much like the American work force in the same period, just a bit later.

After Germany lost the war, they became leaders in the European market for lots of industrial goods because of the massive industrial complex that existed within that country. This allowed many of the factories and industries to remain open, despite their defeat. Foreign investors also helped to re-stilmulate the German economy. This was a period that Marx had, in my opinion, not forseen due to his time of existence. This was the age of imerialism, of which Lenin spoke of as the highest stage of capitalism.

It was this imperialism that allowed Germany to develop its economy and industries.

[Finn McCool]

Hi,

Marx criticised the German Bourgeoisie for being too cowardly to take power, which reflected their ties with the landlords and the state. But that doesn't mean that they weren't able to develop  the economy. That is to say, once the Junkers under Bismarck united the country, presumably as a counterweight to the power politics of Europe at the time, they were the class most able to benefit from that. Certainly it lead to a rapid development of the working class and its organisations and ... the "Anti Socialist" Laws!.

The political role of the German bourgeois was limited by the constraints of its economic situation. Once those limits were overcome by unification, it meant that internal trade could flourish and that petty obstacles could be overcome. 

The Junkers made the move I assume, because otherwise the German states and duchies, principalities and whatnot, would have been wiped out by rthe development of British and French Capitalism. The development of German Capitalism towards becoming the dominant economic power in Europe was perhaps the key factor in the process that lead to both the first and second world wars.

If that makes sense?