The Political and Ethical Problem of Ends and Means in the Play ’Masses-Man’ by Ernest Toller

The Political and Ethical Problem of Ends and Means

The paper entails a discussion that Ernest Toller in the play ‘Masses-Man’ is concerned with the political and ethical problem of ends and means which is also the key political agenda of his age in addition to reference of two political texts by Adolf Hitler and Rosa Luxemburg. Toller was born at a time when Germany declared war on Russia and he decided to join the German army to defend his motherland. As student Ernest felt mistreated for being a Jew and in his career as a military man, he sought transfers to escape the wrath of platoon commanders. The physical slaughters that used to happen in the trenches propagated by nationalistic propaganda made Toller question the whole affair of nationalism. Notably, he made claims that if people knew and understood the pain and suffering of other individuals, they would never make them suffer. The author used his political poetry to spread the gospel and vision of a communal and peaceful society. The many political activities that Toller was involved in made him lose his incarceration a couple of times in addition to being declared unfit for active service. In the play, Toller posts the moral question of the end justifying the means. Notably, there exists a controversy about the morality of politics. Experience has it that disasters such as mass murder and torture, rape, cruel and unusual punishments, political witch hunts, the deliberate punishment of the innocent, and civil wars are fueled by punishment.

A Social Revolution in the Play

The play represents a social revolution and was set during a time of war when representatives of workers decided to strike in the effort of securing and ensuring a peaceful society. The chief protagonist in the play, Sonja Irene was married to disapproving middle-class husband and was a member of a committee that looked at the affairs of the people (Toller, 2015, 327). The mistreatment of the workers by the political class propelled her to call for a strike that was disputed by unlikely groups of people who advocated for violent revolutions to get a long-lasting solution to the issue of social justice and peace. Peaceful coexistence between people of the same nation without any bloodshed is a matter Ernst Toller advocated for and ensured that the human rights activists follow the same path (McCrae, 2017, p. 248). Apparently, she was unable to prevent violence in the struggle for peace and independence since she was even powerless to stop the death of an enemy soldier. Irene paid the ultimate price of the fight for peace through her life when she was executed by the government for causing bloodshed. She refused help from her husband and anonymous former opponents since securing her freedom would have resulted in the death of one of the prison wardens. Remarkably, in the play, the author asserts the element of determinism when Irene was ready to face any consequence fighting for nonviolent ways to fight for freedom and human rights. Toller contrasts between reality and dreams through illustrating the banality of real situations in life and the utopia that is created by the future generations (Toller, 2015, 327). Sonja Irene is used as an abstract figure and a real-life person to depict how the society used to solve political problems using mass action. All the issues that opposed the idea of Irene remained unresolved and an abstract argument emerged to justify the conflict resolutions using noble ideas. Also, the ethical socialism is contrasted with the applied Marxism where revolutionary expediency is compared with moral principles (McCrae, 2017, p. 249). A leader shows the way but the people can only attain ethical freedom through failing to exercise acts of violence. The involvement of political arguments in the play lifts it beyond ideology and propaganda despite the existence of many expressionist features.

The Political and Ethical Problems of Ends and Means

The political and ethical problems of ends and means in the play represent the key political issues during life and times of Ernst Toller. The November revolution in Germany at the end of the First World War witnessed the shift to a democratic parliamentary republic from a federal constitution monarchy (McCrae, 2017, p. 250). The major causes of the revolution were the extreme pressure from the population to change lifestyle after prolonged periods of war that led to the defeat of the German Empire. Besides, there was a capitalist class that owned most of the wealth held by the society and the various means of production and used to benefit from prolonged state of war. The bourgeoisie used to make profits through ensuring that they supply items that supported conflict. However, during the revolution, the elites of aristocrats had lost the war and there were social tensions between them and the general population. There was a new system of governance that was put in place especially after the revolutionaries forcefully acquired power (McCrae, 2017, p. 249). Also, to avoid potential conflict between the reactionary conservatives and the militant workers after the war, a new social democratic system was adopted to integrate the upper class to avoid situations of being stripped of their powers and privileges. After the revolution, a constitution was established that became a new dispensation that outlined the new democracy of Germany. The space and time for dictatorial forms of governments were over and it was time to rebuild the nation through the power that was given by the people through the law.

Rosa Luxemburg and Adolf Hitler

Rosa Luxemburg was a revolutionary socialist, anti-activist, economist, philosopher, and a polish Marxist theorist and a successful member of several social democratic parties of Germany. Luxemburg is likened to Irene, the key protagonist in the play since she was a German citizen through naturalization. Both characters illustrate high levels of leadership through trying their level best to push their political agendas for the betterment of the society (“Rosa Luxemburg Belongs to Us!” German Communism and the Luxemburg Legacy, 2016, p. 27). Despite the many achievements in her life including founding anti-war parties, she was captured by the troops and her body was thrown in a canal in Berlin. Both leaders were against dictatorial forms of leadership and opted for governments that were set by the people and sought to serve their interests. Luxemburg was forced into a marriage of convenience with the aim of obtaining Germany citizenship to continue the struggle of her party of constitutional reforms. On the other hand, Adolf Hitler, a leader of the Nazi party and German politician initiated the Second World War. The two leaders portray different traits as they opted for different methods to bring peace to the people.

Contrasting Approaches to Political Problems

At the end of the First World War, Germany was left with a few alternatives. The country was punished through losing territories and goods as reparations for the war. Notably, the treaty of Versailles was purposely designed to punish Germany as a result of the vengeful and bitter feelings that both France and Britain felt towards their enemy during the war. Hitler and Luxemburg confronted the German people with different approaches in dealing with various political problems. Luxemburg as a leader opted for strengthening of socialist movements that supported the social and economic interventions that promoted justice (”Rosa Luxemburg Belongs to Us!” German Communism and the Luxemburg Legacy, 2016, p. 27). Through her advocacy, the German people had the right to choose their leaders who sought to take care of their affairs while in power. On the other hand, Adolf Hitler form of leadership was autocratic in nature and did not present the German people with any choice. Civilians had to follow the rules set by Hitler and during his tenure, millions of Jewish people faced extrajudicial killings and prejudice on the bases of prejudice. The two leaders present contrasting ideas and different ways of governorship. In the respective speeches and writings represented in the selected texts, there are notable differences in the way Hitler and Luxemburg represent the issue of choice. Luxemburg illustrates that people have a right to choose their political system and that democracy should be entrenched in any system of governance (2012 Special Issue: Legacy of Rosa Luxemburg, 2016, p. 643). Therefore, according to Luxemburg people have the mandate to dictate the type of leaders they want and the government has no moral and legal authority to perpetrate crimes against humanity. Adolf Hitler never gave his subjects a choice on what they wanted to be addressed by the political class. His decisions to defend the people of Germany offended other countries leading to the start of the Second World War (Wiskemann, 2015, p. 497). Any contradicting thought of leadership was not welcome in his regime and leaders who rose to oppose Hitler were executed. However, the similarities between the kinds of choice made by the two figures are based on protecting the rights and privileges of the German population. The idea of politicians stabbing people on the back play a part in the discourse of Hitler. Leaders are elected by the people to serve their interests and not to use the instruments of power such as the military against the electorate.

Betrayal of Trust and Different Approaches to Leadership

Hitler as a leader betrayed the trust that people had in him to lead them to prosperity and help them heal from the effects of the First World War. However, he used his power in the negative direction by executing extrajudicial killings to people who opposed his system of governance. Political leaders have a duty to defend the people against any form of disregard of human rights and should always advocate for peace. Luxemburg appeals to the German working class that they have a duty to protect the economy of the nation through seeking for better ways to improve the way of life of the people (Wiskemann, 2015, p. 498). The middle-class should not use their wealth and power to fuel war and state of lawlessness in a country to reap benefits. Instead, they should advocate for equitable share of the resources and respect for human rights. Discrimination on the basis of the tribe should never exist and the Jewish people did not have to lose their lives on the basis of their background. The idea of international Jewry played no role in the discourse of Hitler since he considered them as sub-humans and his regime was racially motivated. Luxemburg holds an internationalist position in the way she preached the gospel of unity in diversity while the nationalist position of Hitler is evident in the way he reacted to people who never possessed a German origin (2012 Special Issue: Legacy of Rosa Luxemburg, 2016, p. 643). The crisis that faced the German social democratic party during the First World War was to fight against autocratic regimes that held political power and leadership for a prolonged period of time.

References

”Rosa Luxemburg Belongs to Us!” German Communism and the Luxemburg Legacy. (2016). Central European History, 27(01), p.27.

2012 Special Issue:Legacy of Rosa Luxemburg. (2016). Critique, 39(4), pp.643-643.

McCrae, M. (2017). Violence against prisoners of war in the First World War. First World War Studies, 3(2), pp.248-250.

Toller, E. (2015). Masses and Man: Nationalist and Fascist Perceptions of Reality. German Studies Review, 11(2), p.327.

Wiskemann, E. (2015). The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents (February–April 1945). International Affairs, 37(4), pp.497-498.