Max Sering and Max Weber
Exploring Colonial Thought in Economic and Agricultural Discourse on Prussian Eastern Provinces
The age of imperialism unleashed a new way of thinking about the Prussian Eastern Provinces and their inhabitants in the German Empire, based on colonial patterns. Among other intellectuals, Max Weber also propagated a colonial image of Poles in both culturalist and racist categories.
Introduction
The end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century marked a significant period in the history of European empires, characterized by the unprecedented spread of modern nationalism and the competition for colonies and global markets. The Berlin Congress of 1878 as well as the Berlin Congo Conference of 1885 should be mentioned here as trailblazing starting points of economic expansionism and colonialism. The overseas colonialism could also be seen reflected in the public spheres of the empires, including those of the recently founded German Empire, which had been established in 1871. It affected their political and economic debates and ultimately also practices, such as the restructuring of established agriculture and exploitation of land. This excerpt from an article by the author E. Rall in the national-liberal newspaper Die Grenzboten from 1905 illustrates these global entanglements:
At a time when an enormous amount of funding [...] is being made available for external colonization, i.e. for our overseas colonies, we must also ensure that there be no lack of the necessary means to promote internal colonization, which is so extremely important for the eastern territory of the Prussian monarchy and the whole of Germany1
The author advocates the provision of funds for an internal colonization of the Prussian monarchy’s eastern territory, which should be considered equally important as overseas colonization. Consisting of the provinces of West Prussia, East Prussia, Posen and Silesia, this region was predominantly agricultural. Polish speakers, around 4.4 million or eleven percent of the total population, constituted a notable segment of Prussian society.2 The region was economically and agriculturally stagnant, with traditional land ownership by the Junkers proving insufficient. The Poles gradually became a foreign national entity within the German nation-building process. German officials, politicians, and academics viewed the region as strategically important and as a potential source of economic growth, yet they also saw it and the Poles as a threat to German culture and national identity. Economists increasingly attributed the backwardness of these Prussian eastern provinces to the Poles and their supposed lack of culture, embracing racist and culturalist explanations. This text examines the thinking of the economists Max Sering and Max Weber with regard to the East Prussian provinces and contextualizes their judgements about the backwardness of the region within patterns of colonial thought. Secondly, it shows how their ideas can be placed in the broader context of anti-Polish agitation – promoted, for example, by associations such as the Ostmarkenverein – which combined an ideology of Germanization with one of internal colonialism.
Ideas from across the Pond: Agriculture and Settlement
Amidst a backdrop of economic upheaval, the traditional agricultural landscape in the Prussian eastern provinces faced pressure to modernize and increase productivity. This sector was predominantly characterized by the Junkers, an aristocratic and landowning class that largely relied on seasonal workers. Due to industrialization and the development of more beneficial production methods as well as the rise of the bourgeoisie, this class came under criticism. The Poles, comprising a significant portion of the local population and workforce, inevitably became another focus of investigation in the quest to understand the region's backwardness.
In 1881, in the context of his habilitation, the agricultural economist Max Sering set out on a mission from the Prussian Ministry of Agriculture to the USA, which at the time had a buzzing agricultural sector. This upswing was supported by German emigrants, among others, who had no prospect of owning land in the German Empire and thus contributed to the settler-colonial culturalization of large stretches of land ‘across the pond’. The question arose as to why the agricultural upswing through their work there couldn't be replicated in the Prussian eastern provinces. After his expeditions, Sering advocated for inner colonization in terms of settling Germans in the eastern provinces instead of relying on overseas colonial settlement to improve production for the empire. He didn’t see the Poles necessarily as a hindrance, but criticized the Junkers, who preferred to employ seasonal Polish farm workers, which meant that the land remained relatively uninhabited in the long run. He believed that the dissolution of the established system of large landholdings, the “Junkertum”, would promote economic growth and settlements.3
Racializing the Eastern Frontier
Colonialism and imperialism are inseparable from various forms of racism, notably colonial racism overseas and culturalist racism within Europe. These ideologies not only justified the othering and exploitation of non-European peoples, but also perpetuated notions of racial superiority and cultural hegemony within European societies. Sebastian Conrad argues that the blending of colonial and racist language and practice traces back to a global economic consciousness marked by colonialism already formed at the time.4 This environment significantly impacted minority groups such as the Polish within the German Empire.5 The economic and agricultural disparity was therefore no longer explained exclusively based on economic parameters, but additionally on culturalist or racist ones. The social economist Max Weber took that exact approach:
One is immediately tempted to believe in a difference in the adaptability of the two nationalities [Germans and Poles] to different economic and social conditions, based on racial qualities, both mental and physical.6
Like Sering, Weber was influenced by traveling and researching in the USA and made references back to the conditions of the German Empire.7 He as well criticized the economic practices of the Junkers, who made use of the low-cost Polish labor force and thus contributed to the perpetuation of its backwardness.8 But overall, he attributed the success of the German economy to the notion that the German civilization was superior to others. This he based, among other things, on cultural and religious characteristics and the Protestant ethic.9 A Slavic or Polish culture and economy were therefore supposedly inferior and, consequently, a problem. Since the Slavs had lower demands regarding their living conditions, he argued, they adapted better to the existing conditions and replaced the more demanding German settlers.10 In his much-researched inaugural speech to the professorship at the University of Freiburg in 1895, Weber explains the economic displacement of the Germans as follows:
It is mainly German day laborers who move away from the areas with a high level of culture, while it is mainly Polish peasants who multiply in the areas with a low level of culture. But both processes – the exodus here, the multiplication there – can ultimately be traced back to one and the same reason: the lower standards of living – partly in material, partly in ideal terms – which are native to the Slavic race or which have been bred into it in the course of history, have helped it to triumph.11
Thus, he sees in the racist constructed Poles and Slavs no logical economic advantage for the Junkers, but instead a danger that could cause the cultural decline of the Germans. Between Max Sering and Max Weber, partly overlapping but also different evaluations of agriculture can be found, which both include Polish seasonal workers to a different extent. While Sering criticizes the traditional logic of the economy, namely the profitability limited to the Junkers, Max Weber adds culturalist and racist explanations.12 Already in the two quoted sources we encounter numerous terms that are indicative of this. Weber speaks biologistically of “Rassenqualitäten” (racial qualities) when he used terms such as “physisch” (physical) and “psychisch” (mental) or assumes something inherent in a supposed “slawische Rasse” (Slavic race), such as their low standards of living. At the same time, he links these biologistic qualities to Polish culture, to which he attested a “tiefer Kulturstand” (low level of culture). Summing up, he stated for himself, his audience and his contemporaries in this inaugural-speech:
And why is it the Polish peasants who are gaining ground? [...] The Polish peasant is gaining ground because he’s content to merely graze on the grass, as it were – not in spite of, but indeed because of his habitual way of life, which is, both physically and spiritually, a lowly existence.13
In the landscape of German colonialism and imperialism, the Eastern frontier emerges as a battleground of conflicting interests and racialized ideologies. The actual scarcity of available land for colonization in the Prussian east highlighted the tensions between expansionist ambitions and existing demographics. Max Weber's racialized discourse provided intellectual justification for Germanization measures, rooted in fears of cultural decline and economic displacement. His constructed explanations also fueled the agitation of nationalist groups. The process of peripheralization affecting these provinces and their inhabitants, primarily the Polish, became apparent.
Colonial Agitation by Lobby Groups
Weber was associated with numerous lobby groups that dealt with the economic and colonial concerns of the eastern provinces and acted in German-nationalist interests. Thus, he was a member of the Verein für Sozialpolitik (Social Policy Society), which originally engaged him in the analysis of farm labor in the debated region.14 In addition, he was on the general committee of the Ostmarkenverein (German Eastern Marches Society), which had a radical nationalist and imperial agenda towards the east. In essence, it was agitating for internal colonization and the promotion of German businesses. It stirred up fears of a supposed “Slavic flood” and called for the closure of the borders.15 Although most of its members lived in the eastern provinces, one third were based in other regions of the German Empire, indicating a nationwide popularity. The association included predominantly influential professional groups such as officials, tradesmen, and the teaching profession.16
Last but not least, Weber was associated with the Alldeutscher Verband (Pan-German League), which pursued an ethnic and nationalistic agenda. Focusing particularly on colonization, both overseas and in the eastern provinces, this organization was characterized by a repressive anti-Polish outlook. Their demands combined economics with Social Darwinist explanatory patterns and programming. Like the Ostmarkenverein, its 18,000-strong membership consisted largely of professors and the teaching profession, as well as a significant number of members from across party lines in the Reichstag and the Prussian House of Representatives. Despite seeming like the most suitable organization for Weber, he still resigned, accusing the association of failing to apply sufficient pressure in the task of inner colonization.17
From Poles to Parallels
The Germanization policy was primarily led by the former Prussian Prime Minister and subsequent Reich Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The expulsions of tens of thousands of Poles and Jews, starting in 1885, and the subsequent seizure of Polish property, are particularly significant in these initial actions. 18 The first expulsions targeted immigrant and seasonal workers who lacked German citizenship, and encompassed a large number of Poles from the Russian Empire.19 The total number of expulsions for that year was 20,000 Poles and 10,000 Jews.20 The Settlement Law for the provinces of Posen and West Prussia was passed
in the Prussian Parliament in 1886 with a majority of 211 to 120 votes.21 To execute the law, a settlement commission was established, tasked with primarily acquiring large Polish estates and resettling German colonists. However, this initiative did not yield the expected results, as only 3,600 out of the approximately 40,000 required new settlers could be recruited. Among them, only 700 were not from the eastern provinces, indicating that the exchange of land ownership from Polish to German hands within the region fell far short of expectations.22
in the Prussian Parliament in 1886 with a majority of 211 to 120 votes.21 To execute the law, a settlement commission was established, tasked with primarily acquiring large Polish estates and resettling German colonists. However, this initiative did not yield the expected results, as only 3,600 out of the approximately 40,000 required new settlers could be recruited. Among them, only 700 were not from the eastern provinces, indicating that the exchange of land ownership from Polish to German hands within the region fell far short of expectations.22
Against the backdrop of global colonialism, with its deadly to genocidal consequences, this regional examination must confront a critical question: Were these measures truly colonial in nature? Historian Sebastian Conrad contends that in the mid-1880s, the German Empire witnessed a profound shift in its policies towards the eastern provinces and the Poles, coinciding with the inception of its overseas colonial empire. This policy pivot catalyzed the escalation of ethno-nationalist politics, framing the eastern provinces within a colonial paradigm. Conrad asserts that the rhetoric of various lobby groups began to echo racist undertones, while internal colonization policies gained traction, bolstered by the establishment of settlement colonies in German Southwest Africa, present-day Namibia.23 Consequently, it appears that these policies were not regionally isolated occurrences but rather mirrored the prevailing global zeitgeist of colonialism, nationalism, and burgeoning global consciousness. However, it's crucial to note that while parallels exist, the degree of authoritarian oppression, racialization and exploitation of people and land in the overseas territories and in the eastern provinces differed significantly.
