Every general world theory (Weltanschauung), whether religious or political in nature, it is sometimes hard to say where one begins and the other ends— fights not so much negatively to destroy the opposing world of ideas as positively to establish its own. Thus its struggle lies in attack rather than defence. Hence the definiteness of its aim gives it an advantage, for that aim is the victory of its own ideas, whereas it is hard to define when the negative aim of destroying the hostile doctrine can be said to be attained and assured. Hence a world theory is more definite in plan, as well as more powerful in attack than in defence, for the final decision lies in attack and not in defence.
Every attempt to combat a world theory by means of force comes to grief in the end, so long as the struggle fails to take the form of aggression in favour of a new intellectual conception. It is only when two world theories are wrestling on equal terms that brute force, persistent and ruthless, can bring about a decision by arms in favour of the side which it supports.
It was on this that the fight against Marxism had failed up to that time. It was the reason why Bis¬ marck’s legislation regarding Socialism failed in the end in spite of everything, and was bound to fail. It lacked the platform of a new world theory, to estab¬ lish which the fight might have been fought ; for only the proverbial wisdom of high State officials could find it possible to imagine that the twaddle about so-called “State authority’5 or “order and tranquillity” are a sufficient inducement to fight to the death.
In 1914 a contest against Social Democracy was in fact conceivable, but the lack of any practical substi¬ tute made it doubtful how long such a contest could have been maintained successfully. In that respect there was a serious blank.
Long before the War I held this opinion, and for that reason I could not make up my mind to join any one of the Parties then existing. As the