Paul Lensch

Lensch believed that World War I proved the failure of capitalism. Since capitalism, the system of a free market economy based on competition, relies on socialist economic regulatory measures (Lensch believed), the superiority and victory of the socialist principle is thus proved for Lensch. The state used a grain monopoly to ensure the nutrition of the population, and Bread cards would then be introduced. This is for Lensch the indication of a principle change in the economy towards a "democratic war socialism" (?). This lack of basic needs during the war is for Lensch basically godsend, because it allows the actions of government planning.

Here he saw the revolutionary character of the war. To Lensch the state is an institution that stands above classes. The state does not regulate any specific class, but is driven by “objective interests”. The war effort showed this and thus reflects the interest of the whole people. According to Lensch socialism is thus not achieved through class struggle, but through national reconciliation. The cultural identity and the economy should be linked together – this is important for the thesis of a "world war as a world revolution". The thesis removes Lensch from the classical Marxist view, although Marxist methodology is still basically applied. Large national industries, a bureaucratically regulating state and a strong work force are for Lensch, the new socialist "Volksgemeinschaft" (unity of a people).

The First World War was interpreted by Lensch as a world socialist revolution. It is the continuation of the theory of war socialism. While most in the SPD saw the war as a defensive war against Tsarist Russia, Lensch saw the liberal England as the cause of the war. This because England was the earliest industrialized country in Europe, and that gained England its supremacy. The war against Germany was just an attempt to prevent the opposing Germany's growth and to ensure its own monopoly.[3]

Lensch thus converts the Marxist theory of the class struggle to a national level. England was the state of the bourgeois-capitalist class while Germany now had taken the place of the proletariat.

England with its Parliamentary Monarchy was for Lensch the cause of capitalism. The Calvinist religion and the quest for individual wealth in England led to the creation of the bourgeoisie. The British society has an expansive quest for non-English markets, and therefore establishes a monopoly. The now emerging Germany threatened this supremacy, because it stands as a contrast to the individualistic England, and is instead a strong solidarity-oriented country, with no conventional bourgeoisie. He explains this also with the Thirty Years' War and a lack of unification of Germany in the 19th century.

Germany was no longer as reactionary as in the times of Wilhelmine Empire, but had developed democratic elements, which Lensch believed would be increased. For example, general election had been introduced in Germany - and not in liberal England. Further compulsory school attendance had been introduced, creating a national "cultural community" that was superior to the English one. Also Lensch mentions the German conscription as basically socialist in nature, in contrast to the British one.

Lensch do not deny the deficiencies in Germany, but stressed "the strength of the German proletariat" over that of foreign countries. He pointed out that German trade unions were the strongest and most tightly sealed, and contrasted this with the British labor movement and privileges conceded to the bourgeoisie. In Germany the labor leaders and the workers wanted to keep these privileges from others and therefore supported the Government in the war, inferring from this that the victory of Germany would be a victory for international socialism. A British victory would on the other hand set Germany back for years, and mean the end of socialism.[4]

The ideas of socialism as imagined by Lensch differ from the traditionally Marxist. It is about the creation of a national solidarity, which is characterized by government and moral obligations. With this "positive" interpretation of the historical "exceptionalism" of Germany, in contrast to the liberal model country England, Lensch is not alone. Many authors emphasized at the time the superiority of the German "culture" against the "superficial individualistic-capitalist Western civilization" and Ideas of 1914 against the Ideas of 1789.

The fact that Lensch mixed this with Marxist ideas, creating an authoritarian, nationalist model of socialism, is far from unique. There are similarities of this thinking with Ernst Niekisch idea of National Bolsheviks. Also famous is the work 1789 und 1914: Die symbolischen Jahre in der Geschichte des politischen Geistes by Johann Plenge.