342 The Australian Journal of Politics and History The development of “resources diplomacy" in Australia, as in Japan, seemed to have fan uncertain future. However both Mr Whidam and the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr F. X. Connor in the House of Representatives, in press statements and ina speech by the Prime Minister to the Austalian Mining Industry Council in March thi year, indicated clearly that the Labor government would be more involved in the ‘ownership, exploitation, and sale of minerals than had the previous government. The resources question, said Mr Whitlam ‘will become a very important aspect of cur foreign policy.’ From Japan's point of view, it made her request for a trade and fiiendship treaty with Austalia of greater importance ‘The changes that occurred in Australian foreign policy in the period under review, were changes in direction in eestain areas, rather than a completely new position in international affairs. A complete reassessment of aid programmes was one example ot Apart from the reversal of Australia's voting record in the United Nations. on questions relating to Southern Alrica, the main change was the orienting of Australia about East Asia and the South Pacific and away from the hypnotic reliance on the Powerful protectors. Not only were there the proposals for a completely new cegional Association to include China, but the Foreign Affairs Department itself was reorganised with the creation of a second Asian division. One division will henceforth. be responsible for North and West Asia and the ather for South and SouthEast Asia Australia did not become ‘antkAmerican’ as the Sydney Morning Herald suggested, bt it did modify its relations with the United States to take account of the changes that had aleady occurred in American policy towards Australia and this region, Mr Whitlam’s ‘more independent Australian stance in international affairs’ was besed on a combination of maintaining those props of Austalan foreign policy that were clearly in Australia's and the region’s interests, but at the same time seeking a more positive middle power rol, THESE MATER: is np, RELS Pao BALL STATE Uinvegsiry eee, LIBRA eee ie The Marxist Interpretation of Luther and Muentzer* By BERNHARD LOHSE. The image of persons and movements in the past is always changing. A survey of the manifold interpretations of Luther and the Reformation can lead to a degree Of scepticism, Of quite a few of these interpretations one can say that they ate in complete contradiction to each other. On the other hand it must be admitted that most of these interpretations ae not altogether wrong but are justified atleast to some extent, Be that as it may, scepticism should not be the ultimate goal of historical research and interpretation, The attempt to understand past epochs isa process which will never come to an end. The reason for this is that human beings at well 18 Iistorcal movements are profounder than any interpretation. The further distant We 4a the more numerous insights and comparisons we may achieve and the picture we tay to paint depends toa large degree on our standpoint or, to continue the metaphor, on the colours we have. For a person who does not accept the basic views of Marxism it is not easy to understand the Marxist interpretation of Luther and Muentzer and. of the Reformation.’ This statement does not mean that one should not take seriously the Commusist view of the Reformation. On the contrary, sine in recent years more and Tore important studies writen by Communist scholars have appested we ale compelled to investigate the Marxist interpretation of the Reformation, | am sue thet this wall be useful even if one has basic objections concerning the Marxist view not ‘only of the Reformation but of history altogether. For in the Marxist concept of the Reformation certain aspects have been emphasised which otherwise have not yet received due consideration, Besides, the Marxist interpretation of the Reformation ie challenge to church history to put forward its view of the Reformation in a betler and ‘more convincing way. In the following we shall at first give a sketch of the Marxist view of the Reformation period since this is of fundamental importance for the interpretation of Luther and Muentzer. In this connexion it will also be necessary to deal with some basic concepts of dialectical materialism. Secondly we shall then mention some Marxist Intezpretations of Luther and also of Muentzer though we shall in this sonnexion sLesor, detvred in mbt on 20 Jone 1872, Thoogoat {Me sap the sbrevaton ‘GOR at feen wid for ne Geet Democratic Repae, Gostatons hae Pasa mane oe tema xo Bape op she to feforaton (mb, [en Sanu Vivre 1967, Plined by Unrrty Sachin Tika tt Nd as ‘The Pain Wan Gey (Lae 68 Soe hae ae eet af, Socio, ed. (London, 4891) Nomhtartn Warners MeN bobs, Re ee ereetton ory. inde. (Camber ne Tah Kai Pat Tad Geet Gaertn oyna, (wands 1938). eh Shine aca eee eet ieormtin fa Gurr Horry AX ah pp. 3-15 Ene W Geach Ret ee Ghar Phe LYe ana’ Thou of Thamar Meenas bass) ea ee See, eon ig PA ha Romain Crust, 62" (St."'Louis "The ‘Foundation for Reformation R 1970) tn ‘Gecman. se the {Sateinetney nth ono te mers a yaa bh ei Seeder deugenen Cebtescnen a od. Whidlges IS ee ‘small chapters on the Marxist view. “ »344 The Ausiralin Journal of Potties and History mainly deal with Luther t ‘As regard the basic Marxist concept of history two points must be mentioned. Firstly, the wellknown distinction between the economic hasis and the superstructure meag that it is the productive forces which push forward the development and that a factors in the intelectual sphere depend on the economic bass; if the economis hace changes the intellectual factors necessaly change too. However, this theory Is nee bbe understood in the sense of a vulgar materialism. The Marxist interpretation Ce history does not claim to explain every phenomenon by this distinction between the basis and the superstructure. On the other hand this theory certainly implies the fact that every human being can be understood only within the context of the economic development, Secondly. the Marxist interpretation of history makes a basic distinction ben subjective and objective factors. As regacds the historical development it snot the personal attitudes of those who are acting in history which are decisive. Not even the world-view of a whole epoch rally matters. According to the Marist concept all these things belong to the subjective factors, What really counts is the objective factors. [te these objective factors which push forward the historical development and thus bring about progress. They are not just the result 10 which certain developments lead. Rathes they are the tendencies which underlie these developments and which point to the goal (of Socialism and of the classless society. According to Marxism history always follows certain laws whereas the subjective factors are the instrument of which, to use Hegelian ferms, the World Spirit avail himselt. The distinction between subjective and objectne factors does not mean that certain developments are given a completely. alien ingepetadion, 1¢ must be admitted that this distinction, however problematic ft. a Something which no historian can quite avoid, With regard to the Marxist view of the Reformation it must be emphasised, however, that because ofthis distinction between subjective and objective factors the question is of partievlar relevance where one has to raw the lines between the various periods. For only s€ Luther and Muentzer can be put into a particular period can the Marxist interpretation of the Reformation be maintained. The two principles of the Marxist interpretation of history imply that with cegacd to the Reformation the religious controversies are ultimately not decisive. Leo Stetn, ‘one of the leading historians in the GDR, has stated this clearly in a lecture delivered in 1967 on the ocession of the 450th anniversary of the Refoaation: The cardinal difference between the Marxist analysis and the traditional Protestant and Catholic interpretation of the Reformation fra les in the fact that the religious and polities! ideas of the sixteenth century are shown and proved 1 be not the cause but the fesult of that stage of development which was reeched on the verge between the feudal and the carly capitalist way of production But even the specifically theological elements of Luther's doetsine have t0 be explained within the political (sci. and social) context." Max Steinmetz, another leading representative of Marxist historians, says ‘The final cause of the differences between Reformation and Counter: Reformation, between Lutheran und Ignatian Theology, piety. and Policy does inot lie in the religious sphere but in the contrarety of > ESD ASG SR ay ty Artermtion Si er ann’, 430 Joe Romain The Marxist Interpretation of Luther and Muentzer 345 the various socio-economic developmental tendencies of that epoch? On the basis of the two principles which we have mentioned Marxist historians have since the days of Friedrich Engels put forward the theory thet Luther and. the Reformation, and also Muentzer, must be understood as patt of the socalled early bourgeois revolution. In order to explain what Marxists mean by this we follow Max Steinmetz who has published the officially accepted textbook of German history in the GDR, On the whole Marxist historians agree that the Reformation must be looked tas part of the early bourgeois revolution. There is, however, some eritiism which wil bbe mentioned later In the third volume of his text-book which deals with German history feom 1476 to 1648 and which has the significant subtitle ‘From the easly bourgeois revolution to the Westphalian peace treaty’ Steinmetz does ascribe to the period from 476 to 1525/26 2 particular relevance.* Within this period Steinmate distinguisies between arising tine ‘of clas struggles in the years from 1476 to 1517 and the following early bourgeois revolution itself, namely in the time from 1517 til the end of the peasant” revlt, ‘The fact that Steinmetz starts in his account not with the year 1517 or with some ‘other event but with the year 1476 is by no means unimportant. Steinmetz has various seasons for this year. Firstly, in that year the so-called Reformatio Sigismund wos published for the first time. ‘The Reformatio Sigismundi was an anonymous reform lteaise with a thorough program for a reform both of the church and of the emplte Which had been written during the Reform Council of Basel probably in 1439. Stace this treatise was printed in 1476 it reached a greater publicity. OF greater relevance another reason. In the year 1476 Hans Bochm or Bosheim, a herdsman and an lKnerant musician, stood up and preached before large crowds in the atea around Wiieburg against’ the luxury of the clergy. At the same time he. put forward Communist ideals which can be traced already to some other sects in the later ‘middle ages, Soon Hans Boehm was put on trial and sent tothe stake by the bishop of ‘Woreburg. Hans Boehm is, 0 0 say, the fountain head of the following ere of Social struggle inthe later 15th and early 16th centuries, According to Steinmetz Luther’s Reformation must be put into ths context: ‘Both the Reformation and the peasants’ war must be seen es one revolutionary process Which stars with the 95 theses and which ends with the violent struggles of the peasants from 1524 to 1526. That the Refonation is really part of the cary bourgeois revolution may be concluded from the fact that Luther by his 98 theses struck the first blow agzinst the leading power of the feudal system, ie, apuinst the Roman Catholic Church. It is indeed true that in the time when the Reformation began the church owned approximately one third of the ground within the empire and that by Luther's Reformation the process of secularsstion had been initiated. Thus Steinmetz can make clear distinctions between the various stages in the ealy history of the Reformation The first stage of this revolutionary development is the national antiRoman movement in which Luther was able to gather around 2% Max Sueinmets, Die aatonale Belestung der Reformation’, in 450 Jab Reformation, 4 Max sucnmets, Deuttcland von 1476 bu 1648 (Von der Shinbimerchen Revolution bis um enrfotschon Frieden) Lehrouch der deutschen Guschens Wor (eat Bete VSG) 5 Min! ‘Steinmets, “Reformation und Bauerntiog’ in Ragt der Bogeiedon eshihay scvebung, Honaouch, ed. by Werae Bertha, Cehard etek, Heimat Hee Wake Seni (in, 950),"p 132: Ths the West German ealton of tht book whieh ia To Caren ‘ppeited under te es Untendtige Vegungenhett Handbuch sur teseendcne sy a ‘er wetsrrichen igertchen Gesehchtaxcre bung (Eat bev 9705346 The Australian Journal of Politics and History himself ll opposing forces. His moderate bourgeois concept coulé, however, bring about only the break with the papacy and. the beginning of the Reformation of the church, The second stage lease to the splitting of the previously united movement by the strugele of an on-going Reformation of the church; thus a new movement stats, namely the so-called people's Reformation, and Thomas Muentzet forms’ revolutionary ideology and also an independent revolutionary party. The thied stage then Is the Great German Peasants’ War, the imax of the early Bourgeois revolution and the peatest mass move ‘ment in the older German history. The epilogue isthe Baptist move. ment and the attempt to build up 2 Baptist community at Minster (Gn 1535). Afterwards the revolutionary fire was extinguished for a long lime in Germany, while in Western Europe it was kindled by Calvinism again which was able to gain a fist victory of feudalism in the Low Countries In order to put the Reformation into this context of the early bourgeois revolution Marxist historians have to make two further important statements which basically may not be questioned. First, the manifold cises which can be discemed on the eve of the Reformation must ultimately be reduced to one single criss and this allimportant crisis is the change in the productive forces, ic, that the older peasant culture was replaced by the new bourgeois capitalist society. Marxism has certaily here pointed to an important change in the time around 1500, There are various sins of the rising capitalist economy: eg. the silver and copper mines or the spread of Industrial production particularly as regards textiles or, generally speaking, that which Karl Marc has called the relation between goods and money. There can also be no doubt that the change in the ways of production exerted a great influence upon the structure of society. But the presupposition which Marxism makes is problematic, namely that all different crises are due to this change in the economic basis. In 0 doing Marxism denies all other factors an independent relevance, and under these factors we have to understand not only the various movements in the church but also the manifold changes in the intelectual history and even in politic in which the ‘countries of modern Europe were gaining their shape. In other words, Marxism reduces the pluzality of factors which led to the great upheaval in the West to the one and unique factor of the economic basis. Of no less relevance is the second statement which East European historians have to make in order to see the Reformation exclusively within the economic context According to Marxism it was, in the objective sense, the task ofthe sixteenth century to promote the development towards a national state, To Macxitm this statement is necessary because the asserted relevance of the early bourgeois development demanded sreater areas for economic activity. Marxists rightly state that England and France already had such greater economic areas. Since the ays of the high middle ages these countries had a national monarchy. But the empice was stil lacking a strong centealsed ‘government, Therefore it was the empire where the economic crisis had to reach its climax. In the empire there was no power which could cope with this ers, Following the laws of historical development the empire had to produce 2 national state, This second statement of Marxist historians is again very questionable. Unfortunately the sixteenth century did not accomplish what Marxists stil expect. The sixteenth century did not see the reinforcement of imperial power but the stengthening of the territorial states within the empire. Even the seventeenth century which still belongs to that epoch did not bring about a change in this connexion. Certainly the Westphalian Peace 6 Max Stelnmeta oe ct (@ 9), 132 aa ‘The Morse Interpretation of Luther and Muentzer 347 treaty after the Thirty Years War maths 8 new beginning, but th fllowing era inthe tmpite is stamped by the tivalry betweun the rang power of Pista andthe der ‘Ausra, For a Marist point of view things seem to have happened in 2 Wrong Ghronologe order Before we tty to make some citical emarks concesning the Mart view of the Reformation, it should be mentioned that here and there we find some opposition fo the attempt to see the Reformation as part of the early bourgeos revolution. This apposition does by no meas lave the bas of Marism, Some yeas go the medieval historian Bernhard Topfer emphasized that i is arbitary of Stinmete and othets (0 draw a line of demarcation between the middle ages andthe Reformation er, ie the eatly bourgeois revolution, in the year 1476." Topfer pointed out that as eal asia te 14th century there were peasans" revolts in England, or that, compared with the Husite movement, the German Reformation was not altogether new, Topfer went 9 far as t0 deny that the Reformation and the peasants revolt have to be subsumed under the heading of the early bourgeois revohition, I s worth noting that even an historian ofthe rank of Leo Stem is able in « new publication completely to avd the doubtful term of the early bourgeois cevoluion.® But these question realy belong the innerMarxist contioersy. They do not put into question the basic prncpes interpreting history. The decision whether or not the Reformation has to be seen within the context of the easy bourgeois revolition depends on the judgment 2s (0 how far the capitalist elements in the economy of the early 16th century had made progres. No Marxist historan has inthis controversy stated thatthe Reformation was In any degree independent of the economie basi, not even in is beginning Therefore it Is not necessary to follow this Macnst controverry In any further deta. A more profitable exercise would be to ie Some citcl remacks concerning the Marc! view Si the Reformation. It is already a matter Of conoversy whether not the tem “revolution” is adequate in this connexion. ‘The term ‘revolution’ can’ mean quite Aitfeent things ‘among Marxists On the one hand they point to the great evonemic change. On the other hand they refer to the peasant’ war or atleast 10 Thomas Muentzer's revolutionary preaching. It is even doubtful whether or not the peasants revolt_may be called a revolution in the sense of cay clas struggles. It is not lipossible 10 seein the peaans' war the effort of an underprivileged etate to gain back certain rights, But be that as it may, iti hardly posible to call Luther’ attack ‘pon the Roman Catholic Church a revolition. Marit can do this only because they distinguish betwen subjective and objective factom. But itis somewhat lnfletous if Lather is supposed objectively to have done the opposite from what he sibjectively aspired to. ‘Also the tem aly bourgeois’ is not appropriate forthe early Reformation period According to Marxism the bourgeois should have been the leading figues in the revolutionary” movement, But ths was not the ease. On the whole the socalled bourgeois were on the side of the princes against the peasants, At last they did not consciously im at a revolutionary: change. Besies, one has certainly to asingish between various groups within the bourgeoisie. Already in the later ISth century we find ealy boureots icles which have toe sen in connexion withthe feudal system But the majority of the socalled bourgeois or, at we may say, of the citizens wete 7 Bernhard Tépter, Fragen der hustiechen revotutoniven Bowen Geschicherwienschaf 1 1963, p 1a fe 1 Lo Stern Marin Luther ed” Papp MeLnchthon. Ihe deolgiche. Herkurft und Ehiehtiche Leurung. Eine State der matetelion und eigen Picows fe Ser deasthee ‘Reformation (East Bein 1953) ee ah Lan Mer, ene Ger Reformation it Sel fe Zeer fir348 The Australian Journal of Poitcs and History father anticapitalisic and thus did not consciously bring about the economic change This majority of the citizens did neither go. with the peasants nor with the princes Even the lowest group of the citizens which Friedrich Engels ealled the plebetany did not consciously favour a revolutionary development.” But even if one accepts the Marxist view of the Reformation in the sense of a working hypothesis it was not the bourgeois but the peasants who were ‘progressive’ On the other hand Marxist historians usually ignore the fact that the Reformation met with approval among all groups of society. Princes, citizens, plebeians and. peosanig became adherents of the Reformation, and we find representatives ofall these groups also on the Roman Catholic side, The distinction between subjective and objecting factors which, a3 we sui, in a way is necessary for every historian, ls stretched too fy by Marxists in order to maintain the one-dimensional development in the L6th centuy and to put the Reformation into the context of the pretended eatly. bourgeon revolution, Therefore, the general view of the Reformation and of Luther and Muentzer as put forward by dialetical materialira cannot be aecepted, 1 1 ne now tum tso xa of he Marist inepetatin of Lather oe may ai we te base atte of Maro toe te Retort hr sed Zoteworty sty Expl a or wanting wh conn te wegen the sped a any tl On ieee hen ot Sa aes Corde iporemer8¢ Mat sade ot he Relais Uk’ NCtads ae tow more weve ton press and espa gee nants of way import ster heaped 8 po nee sro Sn the log wit Marin ty sey some Spel gn all ‘leith Ege who by he wor "Tie Can Peas War (1850) funded be Mart vy of Ue Reomaton pre ont she ¢ mee pe a Retame:! Gr hn, howe, st nalte tht Erp: ada oul pal sede wien wing th tear te okt of 188 fae Pee sid to Show tat not ety tt oon dys ute tee heen German owas wa espoable forthe hekdowr ithe ser Te eek cont change. There vo Eng Ltr he eprint Bese Eget waned to pam a tht eta Gmny had eva ta Mir sd Fag Sne Engen mo i dns he See say any suis Bul aad hal ofthe tinea ney ihn Paes ‘General History of the Great Peasants’ War’ (1840-43),"" Zimmermann belonged to ts lit dence movement a rime nthe Faken Nata Ate as headed oteextone it ning i quinn ne wan af Ea es en Get fiom Zimerman At the tegaiy the’ Commarea Late wey Scand Luther we hage by hr renee ten In he see Engr id evens ao pat ote Coma Roemer t See nae bul 1862 Engh athe oudaon fore eestor (bre (atten ein int st oe ei, vs Uhl ty i eit rae er 4 enya > (eae Tv ‘The Marxist Interpretation of Luther and Muenteer 309 Germany.!? Afterall, since Luther's Reformation had led tothe revolution of 1525, Protestantism was the only form of Christian fath which was worth eicng, Engels tis honest enough to admit that his arguments aginst Chrstnity were to alge degree taken over from innertheoloicl controversies and that he had only to put these aguments into a diferent content In his age Engels even rejected the atempt to draw a diet line from the economic buss to the intellectual superstructure. Ina letter to oeph Bloch, dated 9 September 1890, he suid thatthe younger generation of Maccns sometimes attributed foo much weight to the economic sie and. that he imac? at well ay Marx vere pari responsible for this. In order to explain this he continued that he himself and Mark had had the task of emphasing their chief argument agunst their enemies and thet they had not always found the time to pay the proper atienton to other factors? Towards the end of his life Engels planned to prepare a completely new edition of his stody on the peasants wat, but he was unable fo fn It It Ws therefore an open Guestion how far this eeviion would have gone. Certainly he would have st some dbeznts ina ifferent way. Compared with Engels. Kael Marx refered only seldomly to Luther and the Reformation, Basically he agreed with Engels. Marx could. say thet Cermany’s revolutionary. past was “theoretical, Le. the Reformation! Or he could cll the peasants revolt the most radical fat in German history" On the whole it seems that Marx was more able than Engels to se the core of Luther’ theology but that at the same time he teected this core completely Luther overcame the servitude of devotion because he replaced it by the Senitude of conviction. He broke. with the faith in authority because he restored the authority of faith. He converted the elses, into laymen because he changee the laytien ito cies. He feed men from extemal religiosity beeause he made religiosity the inner tran, He eancipted the body from the chan Beease he put the hear into chains In spite of this acute criticism Marx acknowledged certain aspects of Luther's work We particularly approved of Luther's writings against usury. In his "Capital one finds long quotations from Luther. Marx even called Luther the oldest German. poi conomist. Some years ago a younger historian in the GDR, Ginter Fabiunke, took up this idea and wrote a study, ‘Martin Luther als Nationalokenom' (1963) "? This study 's not free from arbitrariness especially because Fabiunke tres to construct out of Luther's seattered utterances 2 real concept of economy. What is worth noting, however, is the attempt to provide an apologia for Luther at least in the field of ‘The studies by Franz Mehring (1846-1919) who was the leading histortan of the Social Democrats during the time of the Second Empire did not maintain the relatively high standard of the judgments of Marx and Engels. While Marx. was not Blind 10 Luther's teal endeavour despite the very sharp evtiism, Mebring stated that Luther's work was really disastrous. To Mehring Luther was intellectually not siperior mind, "2, Fldrih ree Ya Ser Deughand (Aus dem tandchefteten Nae 3) In Ka Mes “zu ot dr Meech Rechaphnop, Kinky (1848), siete er Sig itr ot). 28 Kal Marlo. tf. 19) ane 2. Gime Fabian Man utr le Natomatokonone, (Est Bern, 1963,350 The Australian Journal of Poltice and History Even with respect to morality Mehring criticised Luther. According to Mehting Luther informed the Saxon Elector aguinst Muenizet. On the whole Mekring vulgatsed te Marxist interpretation of history as put forward by Engels." Max Steinmetz whom we have already mentioned has published many studies on Luther, Mugntzer and the Reformation. This historian seems 0 be an orthodse Marxist in every respect. To which consequences this can lead may be shown by hs attempt to explain Luther’s decision to become 2 monk It is not false to see in this important step an expression of the general social crisis which did not leave out-even the psychological Sphere and which could setfoudy disturb even the inner security of men. The clash between the Old and the rising New evoked. many hhidden or open doubis with regard to venerable traditions In Luthe these doubts were condensed to temptations with regard. to. th conscience and the certitude of salvation. It is hard to understand that so learned a scholar as Steinmetz tries to apply the ‘Marxist principles even in areas where they obviously cannot do justice to the personel life of a man, According to Steinmetz Luther's theological work is also ‘the theological expression of the economic and political struggle between the bourgeoisie andthe ‘asses of people aguinst the church of the pope which was govemed by Rome and Which hampered any social progress.?° In a volume published in 1970 and directed against the WestGerman bourgeois historiography, Steinmetz has put forward some Criticism which should be taken seriously. What be rightly points out is the fact that Western historians, at least in Germany, have stood too much under the impresion ot Luther's personality. To these historians the Reformation is, according to Steinmeta, ‘either an economic nor a social nor even a political movement. but only the renewal ‘of the Christian meswge, “ie. to say a miracle?! But it is clearly malicious of Steinmetz to state that the Western imperialistic historians tend to mix elements of historical truth with the endeavour to falsify this truth. According to Steinmetz the ‘ecumenical approach with regard to Reformation studies fs due to the united stempt of the various Christian denominations to overcome Communism? Some younger historians in the GDR who still follow the basic Marxist principles of interpreting history have gone much further. Here a real dialog may indeed take place. Gerhard Brendler for example says concerning the relation between the Reformation and the early bourgeois revolution that they are partially, though not completely identical. To be sure, the Reformation is still also the eaily bourgeois revolution, ut it is also something besides tht Both in its subjective intentions and in its results the Reformation ‘was something in itself. Luther's issue was the gospel! In this matter ‘one should believe him without sharing his illusions. Heve.we find a recognition of the relative independence of ideological phenomena This independence can explain to a great extent Luther's actions during the progress of the revolutionary movement. Whete Luther stopped, others thought and fought further.> This statement of Brendler makes clear that the distinction between subjective and iii rae rene 721, Max Steinmetz, ‘Reformation und Bouernkrieg” (a. $), p. 132 f. ‘The Marxist Interpretation of Luther and Mentzer 3st objective factors can make it possible to put new accents even within the Marxist scheme ofhistorcal interpretation. At any ate Brendler can better understand certain phenomena than the ealier Marxist historians ‘No other scholar has gone as far in this diection as Gethard Zschibite, tn his remarkable study "On the Midéle German Baptist Movement after the Great Peasants War (1958) Zschabitz warned against making out of Muentzer a modern social revolutionary by eliminating the theological aspects in his consciousness Against such an attempt Zschibitz stated: “Thomas Muenizer was 2 theologian and, measured even by the standard of his time, a deeply religious man."?* “Muentzer’s socio-poliial challenge should not be interpreted in a modern sense.” According to Zschabite, Muentzer put forward his revolutionary aims only with regard to the establishment of 2 divine order in which God's sll could ‘be realised more immediately and more broadly than in an order corrupted by men? To Zschabitz we also owe the first Marxist biography of Luther. This book appeared in the anniversary year of the Reformation, 1967, As 2 matter of fact, here we find quite a few of the traditional Marxist theories. For example, Zschibit says that in the 16th century, piety was nothing else but the acknowledgement of the worldaiew of the ruling class® Though this statement may not be quite beside the point it is certainly onesided. On the other hand we do find in the book by Zschabite ettain new accents. Concerning Luther's decision to enter a monastery he says “Luther was confronted with the manifold contradictions which ultimately () go back to the tensions of the growing social cris under whose grey wings anxiety and feat before hell and death could indeed become unbeatable.” Even concerning Luther's atitude during the peasants’ revolt Zschibitz ties to understand the Reformer, He ‘dmits that Luther's thinking in 1525 was stil the same as in 1521 when he siood before the Emperor. But the situation had changed. The class struggles which ad brought Luther to the fore had sharpened: * In other words: Luther was bound to his, lass, but ‘he was not a traitor of the peasants. He acted a® a bourgeois scholar of his eentury.”*9 On the other hand itis difficult to understand for all those who are not Masxists, hhow Zschibitz can state without reservation that Luther, in taking up the intentions of his society, created the bourgegis religious town ideology which corresponded to the ‘capitalist progress at that stage. According to Zschabite, Luther grew from a homo religiosus to the Ideological lesder of the Bourgeois propertied clas.>" Here we stil find the basic distinction between subjective and objective factors. But of greater importance is the progress Zschabitz has made compared with Engels and pactculaly with Mehcing, but also compared with Steinmetz. The judgments of the easier Marxist historians have been reversed here. As regards his atitude during the peasants wat, Luther is not only no longer blamed in a moral sense, but even interpreted os objectively furthering historial progress. For while Muentzer was the ancestor of ‘modern revolutions and at the same time one Who tried to accomplish something which was beyond the scope of that epoch Luther did that which was possible. The in, 2a miuelieuschen Wiaer8uferbeverine nach dem grofen Bouernrieg ie a (29, 26, Geihard Zac, Morn utr “Cree und Grenze Te! 1 (1489-1526), (Eat el 190 eat Pa tf tas Slopaphy. en nooner be espected hate Beh a1. Gerard chit, be ein 20) 9.33, BE Gears ech, te‘ ata 2p aoe Gtthard Zschabte, te ct (30) 208 $e: Geeta Zita, oe ct {w.30) pa SK Stara Zenit, oe. en 20,5 22.352 The Austalion Joureal of Politis and History distinction between subjective and objective factors allows, as we can see here, for a deeper and more appropriate understanding of a man tke Luther! {in a way the Marxist interpretation of the Reformation and of Luther and Muentzer 's fascinating since the plurality of causes, factors, and trends is reduced to only one cause and one tendency. Compared with the manifold interpretations in the West, the compactness of the Marxist view may seem attractive. In addition it must be said ther Marxist historiography can attribute an important role mot only to Muentzer, ber nowadays even to Luther. Since the days of Ernst Troelisch the question has often been disputed whether or not Luther belongs still to the midile ages or to the modesn cra, And even the problem as to where we have to draw the lines between the lace middle ages and the dawn of the moder era has not yet really been solved. Marxism seeins fo provide an answer which can overcome the danger of Westetn selativist interpretations However, the Marxist view of the Reformation is not satisfactory for the simple ‘reason that the Reformation is supposed to have been nothing mote than a factor in the change in the economic substructure, This interpretation fails to an even greater egie to explain the facts of the early 16th century than the often attacked bourgeois incerpretation. The principles of historical materialism ate too one-sided. History is too complex to be explained in a one-dimensional way Bat a dialog with the Marxist interpretation of the Reformation is worthwhile, It forces us to a citical reflection of our own principles of interpreting history and to Pay more attention to the cole of economic and social factors. In this sense We certtily need @ renewed study of the Reformation which takes into account the ‘manifold presuppositions of the Reformation and which also tes to see the Impact of the Reformation on society and economies. An unprejudiced dialog between the Marvist and the nonMarxist interpretations of the Reformation would be Useful for both sides. So far these are only first attempts. If we enter such a dialog historians and theologians should be prepared to admit that the economic and social factors are the condition for man’s life and thinking, but they should not forget that ultimately min 's something more than the sum total of the factors which determine his decisiony The Alice River Settlement and the Legend of the Nineties ‘By GLEN LEWIS Although the 1890s have normally been regarded as one of the most important decades in the development of the labour movement and of nationalism in Asstt recent historians have vied with each other in playing down the significance of the nineties and the element of militancy in the stkes.” In contrat the site e intended to give qualtied support to the ealir interpretations which moe realistically saw the nineties as a enucial decade for Austalia and especialy for the lito, movement. { would suggest that much of the confusion that has arisen Inthe ddscussion of Australian labour history generally and of the nineties in_patticulr devives from the failure of historians 10 draw a sufficiently clear diding line betwecg the labour movement on the one hand and labour leaders and the labour party ov the ther. Pethaps there isan elitist bias implicit in any country’s historiography. Hlisowy 's usually written by the victors rather than the victims and. Australis. labooe historians certainty have tended to concentrate on wellknown figues to the neglect of the ordinary man. Therefore my concern here is to react against what L see a6 sn cits tradition ty discussing the broader forces which were affecting the lebour movement and society in Queensland in the 1890s. Perhaps by looking at some of the undeririog contemporary social and economic issues and lesser figutes, rather than concente tin fn the more dramatic events and actors of the time, we tay guin a better ence perspective ‘The Alice River settlesient in Queensiand was one atthe ess well known legends of the nineties. A cooperative camp was made at the Alice River, near Beraldine, Immediately after the collapse of the strike in June 1891, then in July the government passed a Crown Lands Act which was intended to encourage cooperative settlonere While the venture was no more than an aftermath of the strikes failure an examination of the experiinent can act as a useful connecting point between the atiken labeer ‘mythology, and contemporary land settlement polices. It also cass light on sore of the issues which most preoccupied Queenslanders at that time, © tr ee oy te ean of ha Fad te ns ake? HT neon re ane, Ashlie Sage Pt MP yah ay pf ae ae Rl ee a i ow a sd se ae a eee Teen see Nora Ugh ee he ttn Sam Ny St Geen" Ae se Sotghal k seoe ae ln ies Huis, AR jee a et eaten ana a iy et: Bins yy Rete aan