The Peasant War in Germany

equality  before  the  law;  abolition  of  all  officialdom  transformed  itself  finally  in  the
organisation of republican governments elected by the people. Anticipation of communism
by human fantasy was in reality anticipation of modern bourgeois conditions.
This  anticipation  of  coming  stages  of  historic  development,  forced  in  itself,  but  a
natural  outcome  of  the  life  conditions  of  the  plebeian  group,  is  first  to  be  noted  in
Germany, in the teachings of Thomas Muenzer and his party. Already the Taborites showed
a kind of chiliastic community of property, but this was a purely military measure. Only in
the teachings of Muenzer did these communist notions find expression as the desires of a
vital section of society. Through him they were formulated with a certain definiteness, and
were afterwards found in every great convulsion of the people, until gradually they merged
with the modern proletarian movement. Something similar we observe in the Middle Ages,
where the struggles of the free peasants against increasing feudal domination merged with
the struggles of the serfs and bondsmen for the complete abolition of the feudal system.
While  the  first  of  the  three  large  camps,  the  conservative  Catholics,  embraced  all  the
elements  interested  in  maintaining  the  existing  imperial  power,  the  ecclesiastical  and  a
section  of  the  lay  princes,  the  richer  nobility,  the  prelates  and  the  city  patricians  –  the
middle-class  moderate  Lutheran  reform  gathered  under  its  banner  all  the  propertied
elements  of  the  opposition,  the  mass  of  the  lower  nobility,  the  middle-class  and  even  a
portion of the lay princes who hoped to enrich themselves through the confiscation of the
church estates and to seize the opportunity for establishing greater independence from the
empire.  As  to  the  peasants  and  plebeians,  they  grouped  themselves  around  the
revolutionary  party  whose  demands  and  doctrines  found  their  boldest  expression  in
Muenzer.
The Peasant War in Germany
– 30 –

---

Luther
[13]
 and  Muenzer,  in  their  doctrines,  in  their  characters,  in  their  actions,
accurately embodied the tenets of their separate parties.
Between  1517  and  1525,  Luther  had  gone  through  the  same  transformations  as  the
German  constitutionalists  between  1846  and  1849.  This  has  been  the  case  with  every
middle-class  party  which,  having  marched  for  a  while  at  the  head  of  the  movement,  has
been overwhelmed by the plebeian-proletarian party pressing from the rear.
When  in  1517  opposition  against  the  dogmas  and  the  organisation  of  the  Catholic
church  was  first  raised  by  Luther,  it  still  had  no  definite  character.  Not  exceeding  the
demands of the earlier middle-class heresy, it did not exclude any trend of opinion which
went further. It could not do so because the first moment of the struggle demanded that all
opposing elements be united, the most aggressive revolutionary energy be utilised and the
totality of the existing heresies fighting the Catholic orthodoxy be represented. In a similar
fashion,  our  liberal  bourgeoisie  of  1847  were  still  revolutionary.  They  called  themselves
socialists and communists, and they discussed emancipation of the working class. Luther’s
sturdy  peasant  nature  asserted  itself  in  the  stormiest  fashion  in  the  first  period  of  his
activities. “If the raging madness [of the Roman churchmen] were to continue, it seems to
me  no  better  counsel  and  remedy  could  be  found  against  it  than  that  kings  and  princes
apply force, arm themselves, attack those evil people who have poisoned the entire world,
and once  and  for all  make  an  end to  this  game,  with  arms,  not  with  words.  If  thieves  are
being punished with swords, murderers with ropes, and heretics with fire, why do we not
The Peasant War in Germany
– 31 –

---

seize,  with  arms  in  hand,  all  those  evil  teachers  of  perdition,  those  popes,  bishops,
cardinals, and the entire crew of Roman Sodom? Why do we not wash our hands in their
blood?”
This  revolutionary  ardour  did  not  last  long.  The  lightning  thrust  by  Luther  caused  a
conflagration. A movement started among the entire German people. In his appeals against
the  clergy,  in  his  preaching  of  Christian  freedom,  peasants  and  plebeians  perceived  the
signal  for  insurrection.  Likewise,  the  moderate  middle-class  and  a  large  section  of  the
lower nobility joined him, and even princes were drawn into the torrent. While the former
believed  the  day  had  come  in  which  to  wreak  vengeance  upon  all  their  oppressors,  the
latter  only  wished  to  break  the  power  of  the  clergy,  the  dependence  upon  Rome,  the
Catholic  hierarchy,  and  to  enrich  themselves  through  the  confiscation  of  church  property.
The  parties  became  separated  from  each  other,  and  each  found  a  different  spokesman.
Luther  had  to  choose  between  the  two.  Luther,  the  protégé  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the
respected  professor  of  Wittenberg  who  had  become  powerful  and  famous  overnight,  the
great  man  who  was  surrounded  by  a  coterie  of  servile  creatures  and  flatterers,  did  not
hesitate a moment. He dropped the popular elements of the movement, and joined the train
of the middle-class, the nobility and the princes. Appeals to war of extermination against
Rome  were  heard  no  more.  Luther  was  now  preaching  peaceful  progress  and  passive
resistance. (Cf. To the nobility of the German nation, 1520, etc.) Invited by Hutten to visit
him and Sickingen in the castle of Ebern, the centre of the noble conspiracy against clergy
and  princes,  Luther  replied:  “I  should  not  like  to  see  the  Gospel  defended  by  force  and
bloodshed. The world was conquered by the Word, the Church has maintained itself by the
Word, the Church will come into its own again through the Word, and as Antichrist gained
ascendancy without violence, so without violence he will fall.”
Out  of  this  turn  of  mind,  or,  to  be  more  exact,  out  of  this  definite  delineation  of
Luther’s policy, sprang that policy of bartering and haggling over institutions and dogmas
to  be  retained  or  reformed,  that  ugly  diplomatising,  conceding,  intriguing  and
compromising,  the  result  of  which  was  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  final  draft  of  the
constitution of the reformed middle-class church. It was the same petty trading which, in
the  political  field,  repeated  itself  ad  nauseam  in  the  recent  German  national  assemblies,
unity  gatherings,  chambers  of  revision,  and  in  the  parliaments  of  Erfurt.  The  Philistine
middle-class  character  of  the  official  reformation  appeared  in  these  negotiations  most
clearly.
There  were  valid  reasons  why  Luther,  now  the  recognised  representative  of  middle-
class reform, chose to preach lawful progress. The mass of the cities had joined the cause
of moderate reform; the lower nobility became more and more devoted to it; one section of
The Peasant War in Germany
– 32 –

---