💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › ferdinand-domela-nieuwenhuis-socialism-in-danger.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:56:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Socialism in Danger Author: Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis Date: 1894 Language: en Topics: socialism, international Source: Retrieved on 28th November 2020 from https://www.marxists.org/archive/nieuwenhuis/1894/danger1.htm] Notes: Translated by R. Grierson from the Société Nouvelle, nº 110 (Jan 1894) and nº 113 (June 1894). First printed in English in Liberty, October 1894 — May 1895.
The work of our friend, Domela Nieuwenhuis, is the result of patient
studies and personal experiences very profoundly lived; four years were
spent writing this work. In a time like ours, in which events go by
quickly, in which the fast succession of facts makes harder and harder
the critique of ideas, four years is already a long time, and certainly,
during this period, the author has been able to observe many changes in
society, and his own spirit went through an evolution. The three parts
of the work, published at various long intervals in La Société Nouvelle,
testify of the steps traversed. Firstly, the writer studies the “various
tendencies of Social Democracy in Germany”; then, terrified by the
retreat of the revolutionary spirit which he has recognized in German
socialism, he asks himself whether socialist development is not in
danger of being confused with the innocuous demands of the liberal
bourgeoisie; finally, resuming the study of the manifestations of social
thought, he notes that there is no reason to worry, and that the
regression of a school, in which one deals more with commanding and
disciplining than with thinking and doing, is very largely compensated
by the growth of libertarian socialism, where fellow workers, without
dictators, without enslavement to a book or to a collection of formulas,
work together to build a society of equals.
The documents cited in this book are of great historical importance.
Under the thousand appearances of official policy — formulas of
diplomats, Russian visits, French genuflections, toasts of emperors,
recitations of verses and decorations of servants, — appearances which
one is often naive enough to take for history, happens the great thrust
of proletarians emerging from the counsciousness of their condition,
with the firm resolution to make themselves free, and preparing to
change the axis of social life by the conquest for all of a well-being
which is still the privilege of some. This deep movement is the real
story, and our descendants will be happy to know the twists and turns of
the struggle from which their freedom was born!
They will learn how difficult was intellectual and moral progress in our
century which consists in “curing individuals.” Certainly, a man can
render great services to his contemporaries by the energy of his
thought, the power of his action, the intensity of his devotion, but,
after having done his work, he should not pretend have become a god, and
especially that, in spite of himself, we do not consider him as such! It
would be to want the good done by the individual to turn into evil in
the name of the idol. Every man weakens one day after having struggled,
and how many of us give in to fatigue, or else to the solicitations of
vanity, to the snares laid by perfidious friends! And even if the
wrestler had remained valiant and pure until the end, some will lend him
a language which isn’t his, and even the words he spoke will be used by
diverting them from their true meaning.
So see how was treated this powerful individuality, Marx, in whose
honor, hundreds of thousands fanaticized, raise their arms to heaven,
promising to religiously observe his doctrine! A whole party, a whole
army with several dozen deputies in the Germanic Parliament, do they not
now interpret this Marxist doctrine precisely in a sense contrary to the
thought of the master? He declared that economic power determines the
political form of societies, and it is now argued in his name that
economic power will depend on a party majority in political assemblies.
He proclaimed that “the state, in order to abolish pauperism, must
abolish itself, for the essence of evil lies in the very existence of
the state!” And we devote ourselves to his shadow to conquer and rule
the state! Certainly, if Marx’s political ideas are to triumph, it will
be, like the religion of Christ, on condition that the master, adored in
appearance, is denied in the practice of things.
Readers of Domela Nieuwenhuis will also learn to fear the danger posed
by the duplicitous ways of politicians. What is the goal of all sincere
socialists? No doubt each of them will agree that his ideal would be a
society where each individual, developing fully in his strength, his
intelligence and his physical and moral beauty, will freely contribute
to the growth of human wealth. But what is the way to get to this state
of affairs as quickly as possible? “To preach this ideal, to educate
each other, to join together for mutual aid, for the fraternal practice
of any good work, for the revolution,” will say first of all the naive
and the simple like us. “Ah! what a mistake! — we are told — the way is
to collect votes and conquer the public powers .” According to this
parliamentary group, it is advisable to substitute ourselves to the
State and, consequently, to use the means of the State, by attracting
the voters by all the maneuvers which seduce them, while being careful
not to offend their prejudices. Is it not fatal that the candidates for
power, led by this policy, take part in intrigues, cabals, parliamentary
compromises? Finally, if they one day became the masters, would they not
necessarily be trained to use force, with all the apparatus of
repression and compression that we call the citizen or national army,
the gendarmerie, the police and all the rest of these filthy tools? It
is by this path so widely open since the beginning of ages that the
innovators will come to power, admitting that the bayonets do not
overturn the ballot before the happy date.
The safest way still is to remain naive and sincere, to simply say what
our energetic will is, at the risk of being called utopian by some,
abominable, monstrous, by others. Our formal, certain, unshakeable ideal
is the destruction of the State and all the obstacles that separate us
from the egalitarian goal. Let’s not play the finest with our enemies.
It is by trying to deceive that one becomes fooled.
This is the moral that we find in the work of Nieuwenhuis. Read it, all
of you who have a passion for truth and who do not seek it in a
dictator’s proclamation or in a program written by a whole council of
great men.
International Socialism is to-day confronted by a problem of the gravest
1 importance. Wherever the modern spirit prevails, wherever the new
conscience has come to life, are found the same divergence of opinion,
the same lamentable schism. In the stream of thought that makes for the
ocean of righteousness two distinct currents flow side by side: they
might be styled the parliamentary and anti-parliamentary, or the
parliamentary and revolutionary, or better still, the authoritarian and
the libertarian.
This remarkable difference of opinion was one of the chief topics
discussed at the Zurich Congress, and although a resolution was adopted
which was virtually a compromise, the question remained unsettled. The
motion brought forward by the Paris Central Revolutionary Committee was
drafted as follows:
“The Congress decides:-
The continuous struggle for the possession of political power by the
socialist and worker’s party is our chief duty, for only when the
proletariat has won political supremacy will it be able by abolishing
privileges and classes, and by expropriating the present ruling and
possessing class, to obtain a complete hold of that power, and to found
the Social Republic, firmly based on human equality and solidarity.”
All must admit that the words run glibly, but that the task is by no
means easy. Indeed, one must be very simple, not to say silly, to
believe that political power can be used to abolish classes and
privileges, and to expropriate the possessing class. First, we must work
long and hard till we have obtained a parliamentary majority, and then,
that difficult business accomplished, we must calmly and serenely
proceed by legal enactments to expropriate the possessing class. O
sancta simplicitas! As if the possessing class, having at its disposal
all the “resources of civilisation” would ever permit you to go so far.
A proposition of the same nature, but more cunningly 2 formulated, was
tabled by the German Social Democratic party, and submitted for
discussion by the Congress! In brief, it claimed that the struggle
against the rule of the exploiting classes must be POLITICAL and have
for its end THE CONQUEST OF POLITICAL POWER.
The object in view, then, is to be the possession of political power,
and this programme is quite in harmony with the words of Bebel at the
conference of the party held at Erfurt : “We have first to win and to
use political power, so as to arrive simultaneously at economic power by
the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. Once let political power be in our
hands, the rest will follow as a matter of course.”
Surely Marx must have turned in his grave when he heard such heresies
defended by disciples who swear by his name. It seems to be with Marx as
with Christ: many profess to worship him the better to betray his
principles. Observe the language used by Bebel. He seems to wish to have
it inferred that economic power will follow political power as a kind of
aftermath. Is it possible to imagine political omnipotence enthroned
beside economic impotence? Up to now We have all been teaching, under
the guidance of Marx and Engels, that it is economic power which
determines political power, and that the political power of a class in
the state is merely the shadow of its economic resources. Economic
subjection is the cause of all manner of slavery and social inferiority.
And now we hear it said by the little gods of the Social Democratic
party that political power must first be achieved, and that economic
good things will follow: whereas it is exactly the opposite which is
true.
Yes, they even went so far as to say: “So only he who will take an
active part in the political struggle, and will make use of all the
political resources at the disposal of the proletariat, will be
recognised as an active member of the international revolutionary
socialistic party.”
We all know the classical phrase in Germany reserved for the expulsion
of members of the party — hinausfliegen (to put him out). At the
Congress at Erfurt, Babel repeated what he had previously written (see
“Protokoll,” p. 67):
“We must make an end of this continual grumbling and of these firebrands
of discord who give the impression outside that the party is divided. I
will take action at the next meeting of the party so that all
misunderstanding between the party and the opposition shall disappear ,
and so that if the opposition does not rally to the attitude and the
tactics of the party it shall have the opportunity to start a separate
party.”
Quite in the tone of the Emperor William, is it not? Just like His
Imperious Majesty when he says of dissatisfied subjects: “If that does
not please them, they have only to leave Germany. I, William, I do not
allow grumbling, thus saith the Emperor.” “I, Bebel, I do not permit
grumbling in the party; I, Bebel, have spoken.” Touching analogy!
It is desired to apply internationally this peculiarly German drill.
Were the proposal accepted, and were Marx still alive, he himself would
have to be expelled from the party he founded, that is if the
inquisitors dared in his case to be consistent. Once the heresy hunt
were commenced, a 4 creed would have to be imposed, and every member of
the party would have to declare with his hand on his heart that he
believed implicitly in only one effective way of salvation — that
through the possession of political power.
Opposed both to the French and the German resolutions on this subject at
Zurich was that of the Dutch Social Democratic party, which formally
declared that “the class war cannot be ended through parliamentary
action.”
That this contention was not devoid of interest to thinkers, and would
have had many supporters among independent men is proved by the comments
of an influential writer in the English socialist paper Justice, which
were to the effect that the Dutch had raised a most effective and much
needed protest, and that they led the way in which the Socialists of all
countries would shortly have to follow.
We all know the fate of these various motions. That of Holland was
defeated, but not ingloriously, for the Germans surrendered the most
objectionable points in their manifesto, and in a manner quite
parliamentary framed a feeble half-and-half declaration in the spirit of
compromise, which all nationalities might be expected to tolerate for
the occasion. We are proud that Holland alone took no part in this
travesty of union, preferring the honour of isolation and the dignity of
silence.
However, it is a most remarkable thing that Germany has been able to
swallow a resolution of which the introductory words constitute a flat
contradiction of the proposition brought forward in the congress by her
delegates. This freak of compromise can be proved by collating the two
texts :
German Proposition. — The war against class rule and exploitation must
be POLITICAL and have for its end THE CONQUEST OF POLITICAL POWER.
Resolution carried. — Considering that political action is only a means
of achieving the economic emancipation of the proletariat:
workers of all countries in trades unions and other associations to
fight the exploiter is an absolute necessity;
agitation and the consequent discussion of socialist principles as for
the purpose of obtaining urgent reforms; to that end it recommends the
workers of all countries to struggle for the acquisition and exercise of
political rights, which may be made available to present as effectively
as possible the claims of the proletariat in all legislative and
administrative bodies; to obtain possession of the means of political
power and capitalist supremacy, and to change them into instruments for
the emancipation of the worker;
political war must be left, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances
of each country, to the different nationalities; 4 Nevertheless, the
congress declares that it is necessary that, in this war the
revolutionary purpose of the socialist movement be kept in the
foreground, involving, as it does, the complete overthrow, in its
economic, political, and moral aspects, of society as at present
constituted. Political action must never be used as an excuse for
compromises or alliances injurious to our principles and to our
solidarity.
It is true that this resolution, itself the product of a compromise,
does not as a whole dazzle the reader by its logical consistency. The
first section of it contained the bait which the Dutch contingent were
expected to swallow, and whereby it was anticipated that their consent
to the whole resolution would be secured. In the following sections some
concessions are made to the other side, for instance, where the
acquisition and use of political rights are recommended to the workers;
and finally, to satisfy both wings of parliamentarians, and that each
might give its approval, mention is made of political power as a means
of agitation as well as an instrument for obtaining urgent reforms.
In short, nothing has been effected by this resolution, constructed to
conciliate both parties, and to display at all hazards an unbroken front
to outsiders. To demonstrate the most complete international union was
the purpose of the congress, and that end has certainly not been
achieved. Not only was the Dutch delegation in direct opposition, but
many of the Germans, too, could not possibly have approved the latter
part of the proposition, for they openly declared themselves in favour
of the principle of direct legislation by the people, of the initiative
and referendum, and of the system of proportional representation. This
is in open conflict with the views of the well-known Karl Kautsky, who
writes as follows:
“Partizans of direct legislation hunt the devil from one body into many,
for to grant to all citizens the right of voting upon proposed legal
enactments is nothing more nor less than to carry corruption from
parliament to people.”
And here is his conclusion:
“In fact, in Europe, to the east of the Rhine at all events, the
bourgeoisie has become so enfeebled and cowardly that it seems as if the
government of politicians armed with the sword will only be done away
with when the proletariat will be able to exercise political power, as
if the fall of military absolutism involved the immediate transference
of authority to the workers. One thing is certain, that in Germany, in
Austria, and in most European countries, the conditions indispensable to
the progress of socialist legislation, and above all the democratic
institutions needful to the triumph of the proletariat will never come
into existence. In the United States, in England, and in the English
colonies, even perhaps in France, legislation by the people might reach
a certain state of development; but for us, Eastern Europeans, it must
be reckoned as one of the adjuncts of Utopia.”
Is it possible that a practical people like the Germans, who pride
themselves on their common sense and moderation, are at this time of day
going to wax enthusiastic over an “adjunct of Utopia” and become
fanatics and dreamers? Forbid the thought!
Although our motion may have been rejected, we have the satisfaction to
have 5 forced the partisans of the reactionary tendency to play a far
more revolutionary role than they ever intended. First, they have
acknowledged that political action is only a means of obtaining the
economic freedom of the workers. Secondly, they have accepted the
principle of direct legislation by the people. They have thus left the
ground they originally held, and have advanced nearer to our position.
And when Liebknecht said: “What separates us is not any difference of
principle, but a mere revolutionary phraseology and we. must get rid of
the phraseology,” we are, so far as his last words are concerned,
entirely in agreement with him, but we ask who is responsible for that
phraseology: he and his party who lose themselves in intricate and
redundant sentences, or we who use expressions that are clear, pithy,
and correct?
It is recognized that success, even a temporary success, may justify a
little boasting, and at the Erfurt meeting of the party Liebknecht made
use of the following language: (Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des
Parteitages der sozial-demokratische Pertei Deutschlands, p. 805)
“Our arms were invincible. In the end brute force must ever retreat
before the advance of ethical principles, before the logic of facts.
Bismarck, to-day a beaten man, bites the dust, and the Social Democracy
is the strongest party in Germany. Is that not a convincing proof that
we have been right in the tactics we have pursued? Now what have the
Anarchists done in Holland, in France, in Italy, in Spain, in Belgium?
Nothing, absolutely nothing! They have failed in whatever they have
undertaken, and everywhere wrought injury to the movement. And the
European workers have left them severely alone.”
This is indeed “tall talk.” We need only remark, by the way, that
Liebknecht has a nasty habit of calling every socialist who disagrees
with him an anarchist. The word “anarchist” in his mouth is equivalent
to traitor. That is an abominable misuse of words against which we must
in all seriousness protest. If we asked in turn what Germany has
obtained for the workers more than the above named countries, it would
be difficult to answer. Liebknecht knows that perfectly well. Just a
moment before he did the “high falutin” we have quoted, he had said:
(“Idem,” p. 204.)
“The fact that up to the present time we have got nothing from
Parliament is not a valid objection to parliamentarianism, but is simply
due to our comparative weakness in the country, among the people.”
In what then consists the superlative success of the German tactics?
According to Liebknecht the Germans have done nothing, and the
socialists in the countries cited have achieved the same result. Well, 0
== 0. Where are now the splendid advantages of the German method? Does
not Liebknecht draw a most imposing picture of that social democracy
which has absolutely done nothing?
Remark how the prestige of success is claimed an evidence that the right
has prevailed. We are right for we have had some success. That was the
reasoning of Napoleon the third and is the favourite 6 argument of all
tyrants; and such, alas, is the best justification that can be advanced
to bolster up German tactics.
The success, too, of which so much is made, is, to put it mildly,
slightly mixed. What is the German party? Merely a large army of
discontented citizens, not all social democrats.
Bebel said at Halle in 1890: (Protokoll Halle, p. 102.) “If lessening of
the hours of labor, the stoppage of work by children, Sunday work, and
of night work, are grounds of boasting, then nine-tenths of our
agitation are wasted.”
Everyone now knows that these reforms are not distinctively socialist;
any radical will support them. Bebel recognizes that nine-tenths of the
agitation identified with the movement are on half of reforms not
essentially socialist; now, if the party obtains a large number of votes
at the elections, it is in a great measure due to the agitation
undertaken to win these practical reforms, for which the radicals are
quite as enthusiastic. Consequently nine-tenths of the elements which
form the party are satisfied with such palliatives, and the remaining
tenth may be social democrats. What resolution purely socialist in
character has been brought forward in Parliament by the socialist
members? Not one. Bebel said at Erfurt: (“Protokoll Erfurt,”) p. 174.
“The great aim of parliamentary action is the education of the people
with reference to the designs of our opponents, and not the immediate
acquisition of a proposed reform. We have always regarded our measures
from that standpoint.”
That is not quite correct. If that were so, there would be no reason for
keeping the masses in ignorance of the final purpose of social
democracy. Why, for instance, propose that the ten-hour day should be
inaugurated in 1890, the nine-hour day in 1894, and the eight-hour day
in 1898, when at Paris it was unanimously decided to agitate for a
maximum eight-hour working day? No, the party tactics do not suit a
working-class movement; they are better adapted to the small shopkeeper
spirit; but degeneration has gone so far that Liebknecht cannot form an
idea of any other method of waging the class war. Here is what he said
at Halle: (“Protokoll Halle,” pp. 56–57.)
“Is it not an anarchist way of fighting to look with suspicion upon all
parliamentarianism, all legal agitation? If that be true, what other way
remains open?” So to his mind there can be no other agitation than legal
agitation; a melancholy result of the fear of losing votes. That is
unmistakably apparent from the report of the general committee of the
party, delivered at Erfurt. (“Protokoll Erfurt,” pp. 40–41.)
Nor could the parliamentary system yield other results. A large
collection of men has no single interest in common but it necessarily
has many a diverse and opposite character, which cannot be regulated by
the same individual or by the same assembly. Any authority which
legislates on every subject and for everybody must needs be arbitrary
and despotic; and the voter who imagines himself free and independent
because be drops a paper in the urn at election time, while on the other
hand he tamely submits to any law that may be 7 imposed upon him, is the
victims of an illusion, and in reality he is a slave in whose hand has
been placed a toy sceptre.
These remarks on parliamentarianism presuppose that the vote of the
citizen is unfettered and enlightened, but what shall we may of the
franchise exercised by a mob steeped in poverty, brutalized by ignorance
and superstition, and at the mercy of a cunning minority in the
exclusive possession of wealth and power and which holds at its absolute
disposal the means of existence indispensable to the majority? As a rule
the poor elector is neither capable of voting with intelligence, nor
free to vote as he wishes.
Without preliminary education, and destitute of the means for
self-instruction, obliged to place implicit faith on what he reads in
some irresponsible newspaper (assuming that he has the ability and the
time to read), knowing nothing of men and things apart from his own
narrow life, how can the workman know what things to ask from
Parliament, or through what channel to make his wants known? Is it
possible for him to have any clear idea of the nature of a Parliament?
“The committee of the party and the delegation in Parliament have not
given effect to the wish expressed by the opposition that deputies
instead of attending Parliament should do propagandist work throughout
the country. The non-fulfilment of duties that members were elected to
perform would have been favourably regarded by our political enemies
only; in the first place because they would have been relieved of a
persistent control in Parliament, and secondly, because such conduct on
the part of our deputies would have incurred the displeasure of the
great mass of indifferent voters. To convert that mass to our opinions
is one of the requirements of the movement. Besides it is known that the
sayings and doings of Parliament are closely studied by classes of
people who are too indifferent or who have not the opportunity to be
present at Social Democratic meetings. The popular agitation culled for
by those opponents of parliamentary action found in our ranks will be
most efficiently carried on by an active and energetic advocacy in
Parliament of the interests of the proletariat, and without supplying
our enemies with an accusation that we fail to do the work we have
voluntary undertaken.”
Dr. Muller in his very interesting pamphlet (Der Klassenkampf in der
deutschen Sozialdemokratie, p, 38) delivers the following pertinent and
just criticism on the question at issue:
“We find then that the fear of being accused, by the mass of indifferent
voters, of neglecting their parliamentary duties (and thus of running a
risk of not being re-elected) constitutes one of the reasons why members
must devote themselves constantly to practical work in Parliament.
Evidently when they have persuaded the electors that Parliament can
bestow palliatives it is their duty to do all they can to obtain such
benefits. But that the proletariat can ever get from Parliament any
considerable amelioration of their condition, the Social Democratic
leaders themselves do not believe, and they have said so often enough.
And yet they have the impudence to give the names of ‘agitation’ and
‘development of the masses’ to that fraud, that swindle of the workers.
We contend that such agitation and development does harm, and instead of
being useful to, it vitiates the whole 8 movement. If Parliament be
continually extolled as a possible beneficent agency, how can we expect
to convert the indifferent masses into social democrats, who are the
mortal foes of parliamentarianism, and see in parliamentary social
reform only a monster humbug of the ruling classes to defraud the
workers. By such methods Social Democracy will never convert the
workers, but the bourgeoisie will corrupt and defeat Social Democracy
and its principles.”
Nobody has expressed himself more clearly on the futility of
parliamentary action than Liebknecht himself, but it was the
revolutionary Liebknecht of 1869, and not the parliamentarized
Liebknecht of 1894. In his interesting treatise upon the policy of the
Social Democracy, especially in its relation to Parliament, he uses the
following language:
“The Progressive party afford us an example full of instruction and
warning. At the time of the so-called conflict over the Prussian
constitution they indulged in ‘grand and potent’ speeches. With what
energy they protested against the reconstruction — in words! With what
overwhelming sentiment and with what ability they undertook to defend
the rights of the people — in words! But the government calmly
disregarded all their legislative ideas. It left the law to the
Progressive party, but retaining in its own hand all the resources of
civilisation, used them. And what of the Progressive party? Instead of
throwing aside parliamentary weapons, proved to be useless and a hollow
mockery, instead of leaving the house, and forcing the government to
despotic action, instead of appealing to the people, they serenely went
on as before, drunk with their own verbosity, throwing into the empty
air wordy protests and legal disquisitions, and passing resolutions that
everybody knew to be gas and nothing more. Thus Parliament instead of
being a political arena became the home of burlesque: citizens heard
everlastingly the same speeches, never saw any results from them, and
turned away, at first with indifference, afterwards with disgust. The
events of the year 1866 were allowed to happen. The ‘grand and potent’
speeches of the Prussian Progressive party made the opportunity for the
policy of ‘blood and iron,’ and they were also the funeral orations of
the Progressive party itself. The party in very truth killed itself by
its speeches.”
Just as did the Progressive party in days gone by. so the Social
Democracy are acting to-day. How insignificant has been the influence of
Liebknect on his party, when in spite of the warnings uttered by
himself, it has pursued the same foolish course. And in place of showing
the better way, it has allowed itself to be dragged into the maelstrom
of politics, there hopelessly to founder.
Where are we to look for the revolutionary Liebknecht who was wont
strenuously to maintain that “Socialism is no longer a matter of theory
but a burning question which must be settled, not in Parliament but in
the street and on the battlefield, like every other burning question?”
All the doctrines promulgated in his treatise are deserving of the
widest possible circulation, so that every one may be able to weigh the
difference between the brave champion of the proletariat who lived years
ago, and the shopkeepers’ representative of to-day. After having said
that “with universal suffrage, to vote or not to vote is only a question
of expediency not of principle,” he concludes:
“Our speeches cannot have any direct influence upon legislation.
“We shall not convert Parliament with words.
“By our speeches we can only scatter truths among the people that it is
possible to proclaim more effectively in another way.
“Of what service then are speeches in Parliament? None. And to talk
merely for the sake of talking is the business of fools!
Think of it : Not a single advantage. And here, on the other hand, are
the disadvantages:
“Sacrifice or compromise of principles; degradation of a sublime
political struggle into the discussion of a debating society; and
encouragement of the idea among the people that the Bismarckian
Parliament is destined to settle the social question.
“And for practical reasons, should we concern ourselves with Parliament?
Only treachery or stupidity could persuade us to do so.”
We could not give utterance to our convictions more forcibly or more
exactly. But mark the notable inconsistency. According to his premises,
and after having reckoned up all the profits and losses flatly to the
discredit of parliamentary action, he might be expected inevitably to
have given a verdict in favour of non-participation. However he delivers
himself as follows: “To prevent the Socialist movement sustaining
Caesarism, it is necessary that Socialism should enter into the
political struggle.” It is past comprehension how so logical a mind can
thus bury itself in contradictions!
But they are themselves in doubt and confusion. Evidently
parliamentarianism is the bait by which the catch of fish must be
obtained, cued yet they try to make it look as if it were a desirable
thing in itself, an end as well as a means. Thence the dubiety and
indecision on the question. For instance at the Erfurt congress Bebel
said :
“Social Democracy differs from all preceding parties, inasmuch as they
have all been established for a totally different end. We aim to replace
capitalistic production by socialistic production, and are consequently
obliged to pursue our objects by ways and means radically opposed to all
preceding parties.” (“Protokoll,” p. 25).
Perhaps that is why they advise us to take the parliamentary road, the
way pursued by all the other parties, and why they tell us it will lead
us in quite a different direction. Singer found himself in a similar
dilemma when he said at Erfurt: “Supposing that it is possible to obtain
anything valuable through parliamentary action, that action would
necessarily weaken the party, since any possible advantage can only be
obtained by means of the cooperation of parties.” (“Idem,” p. 199).
Isolated, the Social Democratic members can do nothing, and “a
revolutionary party should hold aloof from any kind of policy which can
only be pursued with the assistance of other parties.” What business
then have they in such a Parliament?
The Zuricher Sozialdemokrat wrote in 1883: “Parliamentarianism as a
general rule shows nothing which can be viewed with sympathy by a
Democrat, especially by a thorough Democrat, that is a Social Democrat.
For him, on the contrary, it is antidemocratic because it means the
supremacy of a class, mostly the middle 10 class.” And again it affirms
that “the struggle against parliamentary action is not revolutionary,
but reactionary.” That is to say quite the opposite. The risk of
compromise was apparent, and if the government had not been obliging
enough to disturb that condition of things by the law against
Socialists, who knows where we would now stand? If there had been a real
statesman at the head of affairs he would have given the Social
Democratic party a free hand and rope enough with which to hang itself.
With much truth the above-mentioned paper in 1881 wrote as follows: “The
anti-socialist law has done much for our party, which stood in danger of
enfeeblement. The Social Democratic party had become too pliable, too
popular; it latterly had opened the door to ambition and personal
vanity. To prevent it becoming a middle-class party, in theory as well
as in action, it was essential that it should experience persecution.”
Bernstein said something similar in the Lehrbuch fur Sozialwissenschaft:
“In the later years of its existence (before 1878) the party had
wandered far from the direct road, so that the propaganda was now very
different from that of 1860–1870 and of the years immediately following
1870.”
A small social democratic sheet too, edited by an enlightened socialist,
A. Steck, wrote as follows:
“There are comparatively few who think that logically the whole party
should forsake its principles, as it would by a union of the active and
scientific Marxians with the moderate disciples of Lassalle. The
watchword of the Lassalleans — ‘Through universal suffrage to victory ‘—
a motto often ridiculed by the Marxians before their surrender, now
constitutes in very truth — shame that we should say it — the guiding
principle of the German Social Democracy.”
It was just the same with the early Christians. At first the various
schools of thought were in strong opposition. Do we not read that the
war-cries were. “I am of Paul,” “I am of Cephas,” “I am of Apollos.”
Gradually their differences became less pronounced, they became more
friendly. Opposing doctrines were reconciled and at last one saints’ day
was established in honour both of Peter and Paul. The antagonistic
disciples were united, but at what a sacrifice of principle!
Very remarkable is the analogy between primitive Christianity and modern
Social Democracy. Both found their disciples among the poor, the
outcasts of society. Both were subject to persecution and suffering; and
yet both grew in numbers and importance in spite of oppression. In the
fulness of time came an emperor, one of the most licentious who ever
climbed the steps of a throne (and that is no small thing to say, for
licentiousness is at leave on a throne), who as a matter of policy
became a Christian. Immediately a change took place, the salient points
of Christianity were rubbed off, and it was made popular. Its adherents
obtained the most lucrative posts in the state, and orthodox and sincere
disciples were banished as heretics from the Christian community.
Similarly in our day we see the selfish and the powerful endeavouring to
nobble Socialism. “We are all 11 Socialists now,” and we find the
doctrine made acceptable to every palate; and if we give them the chance
the opportunists will triumph, while thorough and uncompromising
Socialists will be excommunicated from the political party, simply
because their unbending straightforwardness is regarded as hostile to
the schemes of the men plotting for place and power. The victory of
Social Democracy will thus mean the defeat of Socialism. just as the
supremacy in the state of the Christian church was contemporaneous with
the decay of Christian principles. Already international congresses are
like economic councils, where the majority presume to expel those who
are bold enough to differ from them in opinion. Even now there is a
censorship applied to socialist writing ; only after Bernstein in London
has examined it, and Engels has placed on it the seal of orthodoxy, is
the pen-work regarded as canonical and permitted to be published among
the faithful. The form of creed in which Social Democracy is to
enshrined is ripe for promulgation. What more can they do? Ah! who can
say? At any rate we have sounded the alarm and we shall see how far
these absurd pretensions will be carried.
Indeed they can go far. Not long ago Caprivi in a jocular spirit called
Bebel “Regierungskommissarius”, and although Bebel replied “We have not
spoken as government commissioners, but governments have adopted Social
Democratic measures,” everybody sees the point, and the incident is an
invincible proof of how closely the once antagonistic parties have drawn
together, and suggested that the spirit of fraternization may work
wonders.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that the bold saying “Not a man
nor a farthing to the government” is quite out of date, and Bebel indeed
promised his support to the government when, to meet the new situation
created by the invention of smokeless powder, it asked for a giant to
provide dark uniforms to the army. If they yield to militarism the sow’s
tail it will seize the whole hog. To-day they vote credits for dark
uniforms, to-morrow for improved artillery, and the day after for an
additional army corps, etc., always with the same justification.
Yes, compromise of principle marched in step with success at the polls,
so that at length the exploiting classes found that an antisocialist law
was not needed. We would he simple indeed to imagine that they repealed
the law from a sense of its injustice! It was the inoffensiveness of
Social Democracy that brought about the abolition; and do not subsequent
events go far to prove that they had weighed up the party to a nicety ?
Has not its degeneracy since then made progress with leaps and bounds?
Liebknecht in 1874 thus summed up the political situation:
“Every attempt at action in Parliament, every effort to help in the work
of legislation, necessitates some abandonment of our principles,
deposits us upon the slope of compromise and of political give-and-take.
till at last we find ourselves in the treacherous bog of
parliamentarianism, which by its foulness kills everything that is
healthy.”
Notwithstanding, what is the upshot of all this searching of heart? Why,
we resolve to go on working at the dirty business. Surely that
conclusion is in 12 direct opposition to the premises. and we are
surprised that a thinker like Liebknecht does not perceive that by his
conclusion he destroys the whole structure of his argument. Admire the
logic if you can. Very suggestive are the following remarks of Steck on
the two methods of work, the parliamentary and the revolutionary:
“The party of reform would achieve political power just after the style
of any bourgeois party. For that purpose it avoids isolation, does not
present to the world any programme of principles, and advances towards
its object much the same as any other political party, It is indefinite
on all sides in its working and in its scope. Sometimes here and there,
but very rarely, it acts as might a Social Democratic party, but almost
always it reveals itself as a Democratic party, an Economic Democratic
party, or a Workmen’s Democratic party.
“The progressive democracy seeks its end in the acquisition of
palliative reforms, as if that were its sole object. It accepts them
thankfully from the bourgeois,with all the modifications and reductions
thought necessary by the donors. It seeks alliance, if possible with the
more progressive elements of the middle-class parties. In this way it is
only recognised as the head and forefront of middle-class reform. There
is no gulf between it and the ordinary political factions of the
progressive type, because it no longer proclaims the revolutionary
principles of Social Democracy. That kind of tactics may achieve some
small success, such as the other parties might obtain; only such
success, measured by our programme of principles, is very small and
often of doubtful utility, and at its best it may be of the color but it
is not of the essence of Social Democracy.
“We must not fancy, however, that a matter of tactics is unimportant.
The risk of losing sight of the chief end of Social Democracy is great,
although less to be dreaded among the leaders than among the rank and
file. But the temporary eclipse of the socialistic ideal is already
perceptible, chiefly from the fact that the minds of the people are bent
on the acquisition of palliative reforms, which have been rated at far
more than their intrinsic value.
“Again it is unquestionable that the habitual resort to compromise not
only hinders but aggressively damages the propaganda for the principles
of socialism, and prevents its healthy development. Often active workers
in the cause are induced to barter their principles for some immediate
political advantage.
“If this compromising spirit in the party be allowed to have the
ascendancy it might easily happen that graver consequence would ensue,
and perhaps even some arrangement might be made with the conservative
parties by which a slightly ameliorated form of the present social order
would he tolerated. The effect of such a state of things would be a
reduction of privileges and an increase in the number of a still
privileged class; it would improve the social position of a large number
at the inevitable expense of the exploited masses, whose position would
still be one of economic subjection.
“It would not be the first time a revolutionary agitation has been
brought to an end by satisfying one section of the discontented at the
expense 13 of the other sections. Besides it is quite in keeping with
the action of political reformers to refrain from upsetting capitalism,
and slowly to transform it and make it by degrees more tolerable to the
socialistic spirit of the age.
“In reply to the assertion that the organized proletariat would not be
satisfied with a partial success, but would insist, in spite of leaders,
in obtaining its complete emancipation, there stands out the fact that
gradually the proletariat is being divided against itself, and that a
higher class is being evolved from its ranks, an ‘aristocracy of
labour,’ that will have the power to block revolutionary measures. A
keen eye can already discern here and there symptoms of such a division.
“The revolutionary party, on the other hand, desires to obtain political
power in the name of Social Democracy only, and with the party’s grand
object inscribed upon its banner. It will be obliged for a long time to
struggle as a minority, to endure defeat after defeat, and to suffer
bitter persecution. But ultimately its triumph will be undiluted and
complete, for a Social Democratic society will be in existence and
supreme.”
Steck likewise recognises that “in reality the revolutionary method is
the most direct.” “Our party,” says he, “ought to be revolutionary
insomuch as it possesses a decidedly revolutionary programme, and that
it reveals such a character in all its political manifestoes and
measures. Let our propaganda and our claims be for ever revolutionary.
Let us meditate continually on our sublime purpose, and let us always
net as becomes those devoted to such an ideal. The straight road is the
best. Let us for ever be and remain, in life as in death, Revolutionary
Social Democrats and no other. So will the future be ours.”
Now, there are two points of view taken by Parliamentary Socialists.
Some there are who desire to obtain political power in order to possess
themselves of economic powers; and that is the professed object of the
German Social Democratic party, as witness the formal declarations of
Bebel, Liebknecht, and others. But we also find there are those who will
only engage in political and parliamentary actions as a means of
agitation. For them all elections are merely instruments of propaganda.
But here is the danger of coquetry with evil: a door should be either
open or shut. We commence by nominating candidates for purposes of
protest, but as the movement gets stronger they become serious
candidates At first Socialist members of Parliament assume an
irreconcileable attitude, hut when their numbers increase they introduce
bills and try to initiate legislation. In order to make their projects
successful they are forced to enter into compromises, as Singer has well
remarked. It is the first step which costs, and once on the slope they
are obliged to descend. Is not the practical programme authorised at
Erfurt almost the same as that of the French Radicals? Is there a single
subject in the work of the later international Congresses which is
definitely Socialist? The real and central ideal of Socialism is
relegated for its fulfilment to a distant future, and in the meantime
labor is spent on paltry palliatives, which could just as readily be
obtained through the Radicals.
To put the case with undressed candour, the reasoning of 14
Parliamentary Socialists is as follows: We must first obtain among the
voters a majority, which will then send Socialist representatives to
Parliament, and whenever we have a majority in the House, even of one.
the trick is done. We have only then to make such laws as we wish for
the common good.
Even losing sight of a common form of obstruction in most countries, a
second or rather a fifth wheel to the parliamentary chariot, known as
the House of Lords, a Senate, or an Upper Chamber, of which the members
are invariably the unbending and arbitrary representatives of capital,
we would be very silly to think that the executive government would get
into a sweat in carrying out the wishes of a Socialist majority in the
Lower Chamber. This is the way Liebknecht ridicules such an idea:
“Let us suppose that government does not interfere, perhaps in quiet
assurance of its innate strength, perhaps as a matter of policy, and at
last the dream of some imaginative Socialist politicians comes true, and
there is a Social Democratic majority in Parliament — what would happen?
Here is the Rubicon: it must be crossed! Now has come the moment for
reforming society and the state! The majority makes up its mind to do
something that will make the day and the hour memorable in history — the
new era is about to start! O, nothing of the kind ... A company of
soldiers bids the Social Democratic majority begone or be chucked, and
if these gentlemen do not leave quickly a few policemen will show them
the way to the State prison, where they will have ample time to reflect
on their quixotic conduct. Revolutions are not made by permission of the
government; the Socialistic idea cannot be realised within the sphere of
the existing State, which must be abolished before the foetus of the
future can enter into visible life. Down with the worship of universal
suffrage! Let us take an active part in elections, but only as a means
of agitation, and let us not forget to proclaim that the returning
officer will never issue into the world the new Democratic State.
Universal suffrage will only acquire complete influence over the state
and over society after the abolition of police and military
government.”— (Ueber die politische Stellung, pp. 11 and 12.)
This is temperate but striking testimony that will command a powerful
allegiance.
Nobody is simple enough to think that the exploiting class will
surrender its property, or that the realisation of Socialism can be
effected by Act of Parliament. At first we take up political action as a
means of agitation, but once on the slope we slide to the bottom. As
Liebknecht said at the St. Gall Congress of the party,“Let there be no
mistake, once we take part in elections, we not only engage in
agitation, but we expose the weakness and inefficiency of parliamentary
action.” By all means let us proceed to assimilate that lesson . Vollmer
on this subject was the most logical of the German Social Democrats, and
his proposals mark the course of conduct that his fellow-countrymen
ought to follow in the future. (See “Les divers courants de la
democratie socialiste allemande”, Monde nouvelle, 8e année, t. 1, p.
295.)
Parliamentarianism, as a method of tactics, is found wanting; even if we
could 15 improve it, it would be labor lost. Leverdays work, “Les
Assemblées Parlantes,” is in this connection very instructive, and it
deals thoroughly with the question. Why do not the apologists of
Parliament try to refute that book? Legislative chambers or Parliaments
are as nearly as possible word-mills, or as Leverdays says “a government
of public chatterers.” An honest member confining himself to his own
experience, his own views, and his own convictions would be at least as
capable as any ordinary minister, assisted by the specialists of his
department. But he must know something of everything, for the most
divergent subjects come before Parliament. He should be a living
encyclopedia. What a punishment for the poor representative who attempts
the task — his simple duty — to listen to all the speeches!
“At La Haye, when you visit the prison, the gaoler tells you that in
olden times criminals were laid upon their back, and upon their bare
head water fell drop by drop from the roof. And the honest man always
add that it was the most severe of punishment. Well, that cruel penalty
has been transferred to the Chamber of Deputies, and a conscientious
member must daily undergo the martyrdom torment of feeling that
incessant drop, not upon his head but into his ear, in the form of
speeches by honourable members.”
Such punishment is past endurance, so they have devised all sorts of
recreation, so as to render life supportable. There is the dining-room,
the smoking-room, tea on the terrace, the library, the system of
pairing, frequent and prolonged holidays, etc., Let us add also that it
is indispensable that a man should be a partisan, for if he were to try
to work in isolation he would be absolutely without influence.
On the subject of Parliaments we may quote the remark of Mirabeau on a
certain occasion: They are always willing but they never do anything.”
The words of Leverdays also merit reproduction: “Modern Hollanders if
menaced by the invader would not break down their dykes as in the time
of Louis XIV., and political Hollanders of to-day would not open the
dyke to the revolution in order to drown the enemy. Save the country, if
it be possible, but at all hazards preserve order! In this way they
betray the masses, to lead them to the slaughter-house. As a rule, if
the defence of a nation rests in the hands of exploiters only, you may
feel sure it will be sold.”
There is an intimate connection between economic and political freedom,
inasmuch as to each fresh economic development there is a corresponding
political transformation. Kropotkin has made this clear. Absolute
monarchy in the political world is mated with personal slavery and
vassalage in economics. Representative government in politics goes along
with the economic system of commercialism. Sometimes they are two forms
of the same principle. A new mode of production is not found consistent
with an outworn fashion of consumption, and does not exist
contemporaneously with antique methods of political organisation. In a
society where capitalist and workman would be merged in the same
individual there would be no necessity for a government; it would be an
anachronism, an 16 impediment. Free workmen need a free organisation,
which is incompatible with the existence of the statesman. The
destruction of capitalism implies the destruction of government.
The roads taken by parliamentary and revolutionary socialism do not lead
to the same destruction; no, they way run parallel but they will never
meet.
Parliamentary Socialism must end in State Socialism, although the Social
Democratic leaders do not yet recognise the fact, and declared in Berlin
that Social Democracy and State Socialism are in irreconcilable
opposition. But they commence with state railways, state apothecary
halls, state education. State or Parliamentary Socialists do not want
the abolition of the state, but the centralisation of production in the
hands of government, that is to say, that the state should be the
supreme regulator of industry. Do they not name Glasgow and its
municipal undertakings as au example of practical socialism? Emile
Vandervelde, in his pamphlet “Le Collectivisme,” makes the same city
serve as a model. Well, if that is the best instance they can cite, the
hopes of practical socialism do not rise very high. The number of
unemployed there is appalling, the population herds together in
overcrowded tenements. The same author lauds the co-operative movement
in Belgium, as it exists in Brussels, Gand, Jolimont, and says that we
might call it voluntary collectivism. All these cases are specimens more
repulsive than attractive to him who is not dazzled by superficial
appearances, and wishes to discover the true inwardness of things.
Wherever the cooperative movement prospers it is at the expense of
socialism ; unless, as some do at Gant and elsewhere, we give the name
of socialists to co-operators. There the proletariat apparently are at
the top, although it is their exploiters who rule, and freedom is
indiscoverable, just as in state factories.
Liebknecht, perceiving the danger, said at Berlin :
“Do you suppose that it would be disagreeable to the English cotton
manufacturers that their business should be transferred to the State?
Moreover in a very short time the State will find itself forced to take
over and work the mines of the country. Every day the number of
capitalists willing to resist such a proposal becomes fewer. Not only
trade but even agriculture will in course of time pass into the hands of
the State; that is one of the certainties of the future. If in Germany
we were to take the soil away from the great landlords, paying them
suitable compensation and engaging them as government officials, to be
territorial captains of rural industry, in a position equivalent to that
of the satraps of the ancient kingdom of Persia, would it not be a big
bit of luck for the nobles, and don’t you think some of the shrewdest
among them have already discounted the proposal? Ah yes, they would jump
at it, for it would increase both their influence and their income. But
that is one of the inevitable results of State Socialism and must not be
dismissed us an idle dream.” (Protokoll, Berlin, p. 179).
Rest assured that when the doomed class of exploiters and landlords
perceive that collectivism is a first-rate thing for them, and that the
State is willing to buy out their bankrupt concerns, they 17 will tumble
over each other in their haste to avail themselves of the splendid
market afforded by practical socialism. We see that Emile Vandervelde
proclaims already that “la grande industrie is to be the field of
collectivism and that is why the workers’ party demands, and limits
itself to demanding the socialisation of the mines, quarries, and land
of the country along with the principle means of production and of
transport.” So the small traders and mechanics may rest in peace, for
their little world is to be the home of free association : even the big
men have nothing to fear, for they will be well rid of a bad business in
return for a good indemnity. (Cf. “Le Collectivisme”, p. 7.)
Bless you, they all have votes, and bearing this in mind, Kautsky
assures the small shopkeepers that “The transition to socialism does not
involve the expropriation of the small trader or of the peasant. On the
contrary, the change will not only take nothing from, but it will
increase their profits,” (Das Erfurter Program in seinen grundsätzlichen
Theil erläutert von K. Kautsky, p. 150.) Liebknecht sees the danger
clearly, and we have not heard the last of the struggle for supremacy
between Social Democracy and State Socialism; but he does not see that
it is impossible Parliamentary Socialists should be contented with mere
agitation as the end of its parliamentary action; it must have a
positive object (Liebknecht proved it at the meeting of the party at
Saint Gall) and it is obliged to mess about with State Socialism. At the
Berlin congress of the party Bebel had enough of it, and said “that he
was not at all in agreement with the theories of Liebknecht as to the
meaning of State Socialism.”
What confusion there is in the definition of the state. Liebknecht
describes state socialism at one time as calculated to develop the state
(eminent staatsbildend); at another time he calls it a revolutionary
force (staatstürzende Kraft). Sometimes they tell us: “We, the
Socialists, desire to preserve the state by changing and improving it,
while you others wish to maintain the present anarchist society, you
ruin the existing state by the tactics you employ.” Again they say: “The
modern state can only be reinvigorated and brought up to date by
bringing Socialism along the highway of legislation; social democracy is
just the party to which the state should look for support, if there
really were statesmen at the head of affairs.” How different from the
independent spirit of these words: “Socialism is not an academic
discussion, but a burning question that parliaments will never be able
to solve, but that must be finally settled in the street and on the
battle-field!” Sometimes Bebel holds “social reform through the state to
be very important;” at other times he considers it of trifling value.
Now he speaks of the fall of bourgeois society as being very near, and
strongly advises the discussion of principles; and again, he advocates
practical reforms, because bourgeois society is still strong and “the
discussion of principles might give the impression that the social
revolution is close at hand.” On the one hand they criticise those who
in their impatience think we are near the revolution, and yet Bebel and
Engels have named a year, the year 1898 to wit, as the year of
salvation, the year of victory, parliamentary methods, by means of the
polling-booth. Can that be the great “Kladderadatsch” that is believed
to be near?
Liebknecht even speaks of the outgrowth of 18 socialist society. He now
believes that it is possible to reach the solution of the social
question by the way of reform. Are we to believe that the state, the
existing state, can do this? Were Marx and Engels in error when they
taught “that the state is the organisation of the possessing classes to
effect the complete subjection of the non-possessing classes?” Was Marx
mistaken when he said “that the state in order to abolish pauperism must
abolish itself, for the kernel of the evil lies in the very existence of
the state?” And Kautsky controverted the opinion of Liebknecht, when he
wrote in the Neue Zeit:
“Political power, so called, is the force organised by one class to
suppress another (Manifeste communiste). A class state to characterise
the existing state, appears to us an inappropriate name. Can there be
any other state? You may answer ‘the democratic state (Volksstaat).’ By
that is meant the state conquered by the proletariat. But that also
would be a class state.’ The proletariat would have other classes in
subjection. The great difference between the future state and the
existing states will consist in this: the interest of the proletariat
demands the abolition of all class distinctions. The workers will use
their supremacy to banish as quickly as possible the separation of
classes; that is to say that the proletariat will take possession of the
state, not to make of it a true state, but to abolish it altogether; not
to fulfil the real purpose of the state but to render it useless for any
purpose.”
Compare this quotation with those from Liebknecht and Bebel, and you
will see that they flatly contradict each other. The latter are the
essence of state socialism against which Kautsky protests. We most
choose between the two : Either we are working (as Bebel says) to get
what we can in the way of reform, and to palliate as much as possible
the evil conditions imposed upon the workers under the present social
régime (and this constitutes practical politics), the policy by which
the German Social Democratic party obtain at the ballot box so great a
number of votes; or we embrace the opinion that under existing social
conditions the situation of the proletariat cannot be appreciably
improved. If we adopt the first hypothesis we prolong the suffering of
the workers, for all these palliatives have only the effect of
reinvigorating the present society. Yet Bebel professes to recognise, so
as not to run entirely out of gear with Engels, that in the last resort
we must decide upon the abolition of the state, which in reality “is
merely an organisation to maintain the business of production and
exchange on its present basis, in other words, an organisation which has
nothing in common with the ideal state.” As a fact he practically works
to consolidate the prevent state, while he declares as a matter of
theory that ultimately the state must be abolished. In such a position
there is neither rhyme nor reason.
Bebel said in Parliament:
“I am convinced that if existing society continues its evolution in
peace, so that it shall reach the highest stage of development, it is
quite possible that the change from the present social system into a
socialist society may also take place in peace and at no distant date;
just as the French in 1870 became Republicans and rid themselves of
Napoleon, after he had been vanquished and made prisoner at Sedan.”
What meaning but one can we attach to that language: If everything comes
off peaceably, everything comes off peaceably? Let us nominate men fit
to do their duty — that is the phrase used. As if it ware men, and not
the system, that were at fault! Are we not obliged to breath a tainted
air when we enter a room where the atmosphere is impure? It is just as
if he said: I am convinced that if the birds do not fly away we shall
catch them. When ... but that is just the difficulty. And such language
is delusive for it arouses among the workers an idea that indeed
everything will take place peaceably, and once that idea takes root, the
revolutionary character of the movement disappears. Has not Frohme, a
German deputy, said that “he cannot in all conscience imagine that the
German social democracy should wish to abolish the state?” We even read
in the Hamburger Echo of 15^(th) November, 1890:
“We tell the chancellor frankly that he has no right to denounce Social
Democrats as enemies of the state. We do not tight the state but state
institutions, and a social system which does not agree with the true
idea of the state and of society and with their mission. It is we Social
Democrats who wish to perpetuate the state in greatness and purity. Thad
has really been our mission for more than a quarter of a century, and
Chancellor von Caprivi ought to know it. Only where there exists a true
ideal of the state can there be a true affection for the state.”
When we hear and read about “true socialism,” and “a true ideal of the
state,” there comes to our minds the old-time phrase “true
christianity.” And the more’s the pity that just as there have been
twenty, aye a hundred “ true christianities,” each of which
excommunicated and excluded all others, so there are to-day twenty and
more true socialisms. We would long ago have liked to shut our eyes to
this foolishness, but., alas! it is impossible.
Not only can the state not be preserved, but on the advent of socialism
it will show itself to be not worth preserving. No, this possibilist,
opportunist, reforming, parliamentary action is good for nothing, and
simply stifles among the workers the revolutionary idea that Marx tried
to instil into them.
Childishly we attribute to commonplace and corrupt persons and parties
the results of the evolution of civilisation. What guarantees do we
possess that politicians of our party will be better than their
predecessors? Are they infallible? No. Others have been corrupted and so
will ours be, because man is the product of circumstances and is moulded
by the environment in which he lives.
Engels has commented so severely upon the practical policy of
parliaments that we are at a loss to understand how he has come to
approve the tactics of the German Social Democratic party. Here is the
opinion he used to hold:
“A kind of shopkeeper socialism has its advocates in the Social
Democratic party, even among its parliamentary representatives, and
these advocates while endorsing in a vague way some socialist
principles, and granting grudgingly that the future belongs to
collectivism, think that future is very far distant, not within
measurable distance. They aim at patching up the 20 present social
system, and in default of doing anything better, they fling themselves
with enthusiasm into the efforts of the reactionaries to promote the
so-called ‘raising of the working classes.’”
That is exactly what we have been saying. In the distance the
parliamentarians speak about the abolition of private property, but
coming to close quarters they busy themselves with practical politics.
It is really sad to find men like Liebknecht handling this rubbish.
Listen to his words at the Paris International Congress of 1889:
“Practical reforms, reforms to be had at once and of immediate utility,
are first in our programme, and that is their place by right, as they
are the recruiting inducements to enlist the proletariat in the
socialist party and who clear the road for socialism. Fancy Socialists
as recruiting sergeants! Not so thought they who used these words:
‘Whoever talks with the enemy parleys with him; whoever parleys bargains
with him.’”
In this way they slide down the slope of compromise, and at last they
base the whole agitation on the solution of the land question, and
formulate such blood-curdling reforms as those submitted to the Workers’
Congress of Marseilles in 1892, among which may be named with bated
breath the easy transference of small properties, readjustment of
taxation, and farm laborers’ allotments. A nice programme certainly,
just such a one as has been accepted by the Belgian Workers’ party;
while the Swiss proletariat are to be endowed in the same handsome
fashion. That is what they call practical socialism!
The state has always been the powerful instrument of the oppressors 1
against the oppressed. Hence it is that “the working classes cannot take
possession of the machinery of the state for the purpose of using it to
win emancipation.” We read in the preface of Engels’ 1891 address:
“According to the philosophic conception, the state is ‘the realization
of the idea’ of the kingdom of God upon earth, the domain where eternal
truth and eternal justice realize themselves or ought to realize
themselves. The result is a superstitious reverence for the state and
for everything in connection with it, which is all the more evident
because we are accustomed from childhood to suppose that public business
and the common interests of society cannot be cared for in any other way
than they have been up to date, that is to say, through the state and
its well-paid employees. And we fondly think we have made a great step
in advance when we have lost faith in the hereditary monarchy and when
we lay claim to a democratic republic. In fact the state is nothing else
but an instrument of oppression used by one class over another, and
quite as much so under a democratic republic as under a monarchy; and in
any case it is an evil which, in the struggle for class supremacy, must
in turn be used by the victorious proletariat, which will necessarily
suffer some injury from its use (as did the Commune) until the
mischievous working of it is abated, introducing an era when a future
generation, raised in new and free social conditions, will be strong
enough to throw aside the paraphernalia of the state.”
Engels writes to the same effect in several of his works. In his
important pamphlet, “Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums, und des
Staates,” (On the origin of the family, private property, and the state)
pp. 189, 140, he says:
“The state does not then exist from eternity. There have been
communities which existed without the state, completely ignoring the
state and its power. To a certain stage of economic development,
necessarily linked with the division of society into classes, the state
in consequence of that division became a necessity. We are now rapidly
approaching a stage of development in production where the existence of
these classes has not only ceased to be a necessity, but constitutes a
positive obstacle to production. Those classes will inevitably disappear
in the same way they formerly came into existence. With them will
likewise disappear the state. Society will reorganize production upon
the basis of free and equal association of the producers, and will
relegate state machinery to a suitable place: the 2 archeological
museum, in just position to the spinning-wheel and the bronze hatchet.”
Such is the development of the state in a class society, and that is the
way in which it is regarded by anarchists. In his other pamphlet,
“Dühring’s Umwälzung der Wissenschaft,” pp. 267, 268, he says:
“The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its
personification in a visible body, but inasmuch as it was the state it
only stood for the class which represented in itself the whole of
society. When it really became the representative of a complete society,
it became superfluous. As soon as there are no classes in society to
oppress, as soon as class supremacy and the struggle for existence
disappear, with their antagonisms and their extravagances resulting from
the anarchy dominating production, there is no longer anything to
subdue, nothing calling for measures of oppression. The first act
performed by the state when really representing the whole of society,
i.e. the seizure of the means of production in the name of society, will
also be the last act performed by it in its office as state. The
intrusion of state authority to social situations becomes gradually
superfluous in any circumstances and disappears of itself. In place of a
government of persons arises a government of the business of production.
The state is not ‘abolished’, it dies. It is from that point of view we
must consider ‘the free popular state’, both in the light of the law of
its temporary action and of its final demonstrated inadequacy, and
likewise the so-called anarchist doctrine affirming that in the fulness
of time the state will be abolished.”
It is a strange thing to prove, that Engels who controverts the
anarchists, is himself an anarchist in his conception of the rôle of the
state. His thought is anarchistic but by the associations of the past he
found himself attached to the German social democracy.
The latest edition of a few essays, “Internationales aus dem
Volksstaate” (1871–75), contains a preface by Engels in which he says
that in these essays he has always with intention called himself a
Communist, and although he accepts the name of social democrat he finds
it inappropriate for a party “whose economic program is not only
completely socialist, but straightforwardly communist, and whose final
political purpose is the disappearance of the state and at the same time
of the democracy.”
What essential difference is there between his opinion and that of
Kropotkin who says, in his “Etude sur la Révolution,”:
“The abolition of the state, that is the task imposed upon the
revolutionist, at least upon him who has the courage of his thought,
without which we do not make revolutions. In that task he has against
him all the traditions of the bourgeoisie. But he has on his side the
evolution of humanity, which lays it upon us at this historic moment to
emancipate ourselves from a form of control, rendered necessary perhaps
by the ignorance of the past, but which has become hostile to all
further progress.”
But it is apparent that a consciousness exists of having wandered from
the former standpoint, and that it is wished to hide that divergence by
battling with those who have denounced it. Although the 3 old
International has recorded among its principles that “the economic
struggle must precede the political struggle,” the so-called Marxists
announce that we must become possessed of political power in order to
triumph in the economic struggle. And La Revolte was right when it wrote
to this effect:
“It was to be false to the principle of the International. It was to
tell the founders of the International, and especially Marx, that they
were fools in declaring the pre-eminence of the economic struggle over
political warfare. But what was there to gain by bourgeois leaders in an
economic struggle? An increase of wages? But they are not wage slaves. A
diminution of the hours of work? But they already work in their own
houses, either as literary men or as manufacturers! They could only make
profit out of the political contest. They sought to drive the workers in
that direction. Helped by the prejudices of the proletariat they
succeeded.”
It is evident that they avoid all discussion of the office of the state;
in general they steer clear of the rock by the help of indefinite
phraseology, without attempting to fathom the question at all. Again we
are indebted to Kropotkin for treating the question in its true light in
his “Etude sur la Revolution”:
The bourgeois knew what they wanted; they had made up their minds long
ago. For many years they had entertained an ideal of government, and
when the people began to wake up they set them to work out the
realization of that ideal, making them a few unimportant concessions on
certain points, such as the abolition of feudal rights, or equality
before the law. Without bothering about details, the bourgeois had drawn
up, far in advance of the revolution, the main lines of future action.
But in the whole of modern socialism, we see a tendency to slur over the
principles that rule modern society. Among the moderate section to talk
of revolution is to incur dislike and suspicion. They treat with
contempt those who discuss future society or endeavor to mark out the
work of the revolution.”
True it is that it is useless labor to try and graft ideas of liberty
and justice upon ancient and worn-out institutions. To endeavor to raise
an edifice upon rotten foundations is certainly not the work of a good
architect. Many do not apprehend the connection between power and
property. These are the two main supports of one edifice, viz. modern
society, and he who wishes to overturn the one and leave the other
standing does only half of the necessary work. In fact we do not
intentionally adopt to our injury the state machine, we take it up
simply without understanding that we are introducing into the citadel
the Trojan horse. Moritz Rittinghausen whose work “La Législation
directe par le Peuple.” deserves to be read, touches the sore spot when
he writes:
“If you make a mistake in the measures you take with respect to the
question of government, your revolution will soon be at the mercy of the
old political parties. It would be better to understand thoroughly. the
nature, the essential character of democratic government, without
bothering too much about the reforms that such a government advertises
its readiness to carry into effect.”
Here indeed we see how applicable is that passage of the New Testament
which says: “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles.” 4 The
neglect of this elementary truth has already brought many misfortunes
upon the world, for invariably people have tried to carve out a new
revolution taking for their model the old ones of byegone ages.
“When we glance at the conglomeration of revolutionists, who are
correlated by certain modes of thought, and not as some say by personal
partizanship, when we analyze their fundamental ideas, their pur. poses,
and their tactics, we discover with alarm that they all have their eyes
riveted upon the past, that none of them steadily contemplate the
future, and that they have only one idea, to revivify some great man who
has passed away.”
We must intelligently embrace the conviction that all previous
revolutions have been used for the one purpose of strengthening and
increasing the supremacy and power of the bourgeoisie. As long as the
state based upon legislation continues to exist and gradually to develop
its nature, as long as we continue to work with such cooperation, so
long shall we be slaves. If in the approaching revolution the people do
not rise to their great duty, which consists in abolishing the state
with all its codes and in effectively hindering its taking root in the
socialist society, all the blood which may be shed, and all the
sacrifices of the proletariat — for the greatest sacrifices are always
its portion, although they remain unrecorded — will be servicable only
to some ambitious men who wish to supplant those who sit in office, and
who won’t hesitate to say “Get out of that, for I want to sit down^. We
are not interested in a change of officials; what we want is a complete
change of the social organism. More and more it will be proved true that
“the future will not be concerned with the rule of men over men, but
with the administration of affairs” (Aug. Comte). For it is certain that
the verdict as to which is the best social system will hang upon the
question: What system allows the greatest liberty and independence? For
if freedom to live as we like is to be surrendered, one of the grandest
characteristics of human nature, individuality, will disappear.
From this point of view Engels and the Anarchists could keep step in
their progress, if they were not to be hindered by words. But that which
is really harmonious will come together, [in] spite of all separating
forces; and as for the opposing elements sometimes they can be brought
into apparent unison, but in the end they are found to be
irreconcilable. That is the thought that comforts us and brings hope to
our hearts even in sight of the many controversies and divisions which
arise between people who on the whole should arrive at an understanding.
Let us again take into consideration the question whether it be possible
for revolutionary socialists and communist anarchists to work together.
We use the names habitually employed, although we think that communism
and anarchism are ideals which exclude each other. Kropotkin, on the
other hand, says in his work “La Conquete du Pain,” p. 81, that “anarchy
leads to communism and communism to anarchy, each being the expression
of the tendency predominating in modern societies bent on the search for
equality.” It has been impossible for me to coincide with the reasoning.
When he calls “anarchism communism — a communism without government,
that of free men,” and 5 regards this as “the synthesis of the two ends
pursued by mankind through the ages �� economic freedom and political
freedom,” we could easily find ground for debate, but a further
explanation would have been desirable. Anarchists, rightly so called,
are pure individualists who contend that private property is an integral
part of liberty, and who neither repudiate individual production or
exchange. Hence it is that men like Benjamin R. Tucker and others do not
look upon Kropotkin and Most as anarchists at all. For that reason we
would perhaps do better to speak henceforth of revolutionary communists.
No one should find fault with that name. Respecting this question we
will make further investigation under the guidance of men regarded as
representative by both schools of thought. Is there any difference in
principle between socialism and anarchism? The German social democratic
party, at the congress of Saint Gall, passed the following resolution:
“This meeting of the party declares that the anarchist theory of
society, in so far as it seeks the absolute autonomy of the individual,
is anti-socialist; that it is nothing else than a partial form of the
principles of bourgeois liberalism, although it proceeds from the
socialist standpoint in its criticism of the existing social order. It
is especially incompatible with the socialist claim for the
socialization of the means of production and for the social regulation
of production, and it ends in an irreconcilable contradiction, unless
production reverts to the petty scale of hand-work. The anarchist
religion and the exclusive recommendation of a policy of violence are
based upon an erroneous conception of the part played by violence in the
history of nations. Violence is a reactionary factor quite as much as a
revolutionary factor, indeed more reactionary than revolutionary. The
use of individual violence does not accomplish its purpose and is
injurious and reprehensible in so far as it offends the feelings of
justice entertained by mankind. We hold persecutors responsible for the
savage acts committed by the persecuted in their frenzy, and we look
upon the inclination to such acts as a phenomenon that has revealed
itself in all time in similar conditions, and indeed which police spies
habitually employ against the workers to the advantage of reaction.”
Liebknecht, who spoke in support, divided anarchists into three classes:
make a revolution by individual acts.
After having shown the necessity to agitate, organize and educate (a
strangely arranged series of acts, as if it were possible to agitate and
organize without preliminary education, that is to say, without knowing
why we agitate and organize) he defines in the following style the
difference between socialism and anarchy:
“Socialism concentrates its forces, anarchy divides them and is
consequently in a state of political and economic impotence; it is no
more consistent with revolutionary action than with modern production on
a large scale. Anarchy is demonstrated to be and to remain
unrevolutionary and anti-revolutionary.”
We believe this distinction to be very inaccurately drawn. In a 6
scientific demonstration we do not advance one step towards the solution
by the help of grandiose language. In the first place let us settle the
question — Is an Anarchist a Socialist, yes or no? And that in our view
is not a matter of doubt. What is, in short, the kernel, the true
inwardness of socialism? The recognition or the non-recognition of
private property?
A little time ago appeared the first number of a publication, got up for
the revolutionary-anarchist-socialist propaganda, entitled “Necessité et
bases d’une entente,” by Merlino. The author says in it:
“We are above all Socialists, that is to say we wish to destroy the
cause of all iniquity, exploitation, poverty, and crime, viz.,
individual ownership.”
That is equivalent to saying that both Anarchists and Socialists have a
common enemy — private property. In like manner Adolphe Fischer, one of
the Chicago martyrs, said straightforwardly
“Many would evidently like to know what is the connection between
anarchism and socialism, and whether these two doctrines have anything
in common. Some believe that an Anarchist cannot be a Socialist, nor a
Socialist be an Anarchist. That is inaccurate. The philosophy of
socialism is a general philosophy, and comprehends several distinct
subordinate doctrines. By wav of illustration let us take the term
‘christianity.’ There are catholics, lutherans, methodists, anabaptists,
members of independent churches, and various other religious sects, and
all call themselves ‘christians.’ Although every catholic is a christian
it would be inaccurate to say that every christian believes in
catholicism. Webster defines socialism as follows — *A better ordered, a
more just, and a more harmonious arrangement of social affairs.” That is
the end of anarchism. Anarchism seeks a better form of society. Then
every Anarchist is a Socialist, but every Socialist is not necessarily
an Anarchist. Anarchists in their turn are divided into two parties —
Anarchist-Communists, and Anarchists who have espoused the ideas of
Proudhon. The International Workers’ Association is the body
representing Anarchist-Communists. Politically we are Anarchists, and
economically we are Communists or Socialists. In the matter of political
organisation, Anarchist-Communists demand the abolition of political
power: we deny to any class or to any individual the right to rule over
another class or individual. We think there cannot be freedom as long as
one nan is to be found under the government of another, as long as one
man remains master of his fellow in any respect whatever, and as long as
the means of existence are monopolised by certain classes or certain
individuals. As for the economic organisation of society, we are
believers in the communist form, or in the co-operative method of
production.”
We might quote still many authors who all speak to the same effect.
There is therefore a common point of departure for Socialists and
Anarchists.
In the second place, Merlino would like an organisation of production:
“The fundamental principle of the organisation of production, that every
man must work, must make himself useful to his 7 fellows, unless he be
sick or incapable — the principle that every man must make himself
useful to society by means of his labour has no need to be made into a
law; it must become part of morality, permeate public opinion, and
become, so to speak, a part of human nature. It will be the corner stone
over which will be erected the edifice of human society. No arrangement
founded on that principle can produce serious and permanent injustice,
while the violation of that principle will undoubtedly bring back
humanity in a very short time to its present condition.”
So we are in agreement upon the Abolition of Private Property and the
Organisation of Production.
Here is the third point: Merlino sets out with the idea that
the expropriation of the bourgeoisie can only be effected by force, by
violent procedure. The revolted workers have no need to ask anybody for
permission to take possession of the factories, workplaces, shops,
houses, etc., and to use them for the purposes for which they were
constructed. That would however be hardly a commencement of the
inevitable appropriation; it would be a mere preliminary. If each group
of workmen, having taken into their hands a portion of capital or of the
accumulated wealth, wish to remain absolute masters of it to the
exclusion of other workmen, if one group wished to live on the heaped-up
wealth, and refuse to work and to come to an understanding with the
other groups for the organisation of labour, there would simply be,
under other names and with a change of monopolists, the continuance of
the existing regime. The mere act of appropriation by the workers can
only be provisional, the wealth taken can only become common property
when everybody will set himself to work, when production shall be
organised for the general benefit of the community.”
Formerly Socialists were in agreement on that point, but since the
parliamentary microbe has done its evil work among them it is not so.
At Erfurt, Liebknecht called violence “a reactionary factor.” How does
he reconcile that deliverance with the distinct teaching of Marx, his
master, by whose name he swears, who says in his “Capital,” “Violence is
the midwife of every old society about to give birth to anew. Violence
is an economic factor.” He wrote besides in the “Deutsch-franzosischen
Jahrbucher,” “The arm of criticism cannot fill the place of the
criticism that uses arms. Material violence can only be abolished by
material violence; theoretical teaching itself becomes material violence
as soon as it permeates the majority.” And if even that is not yet
sufficiently explicit, what shall we say of that quotation from Marx in
the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung,” “There 18 only one means of lessening, of
simplifying, of concentrating the fatally criminal sufferings of this
old society, and its heart-rending pangs in bringing to birth the new,
and that is Revolutionary Terrorism.”
Engels adds, in “The Condition of the Working-Class in England,”
“The only possible solution is a violent revolution, which cannot be
much longer on the way. It is too late mow to hope for a peaceful 8
solution. The classes are more antagonistic than ever, the spirit of
revolt is penetrating the heart of the workers. their bitterness is
increasing, skirmishes are enlarging themselves into important combats,
and soon but a little push will be needed to put everything in motion;
then will resound the cry throughout the country ‘War ‘to the mansions,
peace to the cottages!’ And the rich will come on the scene too late to
stop the onslaught.”
Marx and Engels recognise therefore violence as a revolutionary factor,
and we have seen that Liebknecht calls it a reactionary factor, Is he
not in complete opposition with the two first mentioned?
Surely Marx must have been a quack, a revolutionary bounder on the
bounce, a “Maulheld,” to use a word much in favour among German
soldiers. He bluntly and without subterfuge declares that violence is a
revolutionary factor, and nowhere do we read that he ever rose to the
superior point of view of some modern Socialists, who describe violence
as a reactionary factor.
No revolutionist will regard violence as revolutionary in all its forms
and in all circumstances. In that case every riot, any considerable
resistance to the police, might be characterised as tending to
revolution. But it is surprising to find that such acts as the taking of
the Bastille, and the fighting of the workers at the barricades in 1848
and 1871 are to be classified as reactionary.
Is it possible that without laughing we can describe a speech in
Parliament as a revolutionary act ? It may be, as everything appears
possible nowadays. We hear tell of parliamentary revolutionists, Yes,
people have begun to regard Parliamentary Socialists as revolutionists
of the first water. There are certain Socialists who for certain deeds
express their gratitude to the Crown, there are even some, like
Liebknecht and his colleagues in the Saxon Landtag, who swear fidelity
to the King, to the royal house, and to the country. When brought to
book he replied
“As for the statement of the government commissary respecting the oath,
I am surprised that the president has not taken up the defence of my
party; it is recognised that we hold other views about religion, but
that does not exempt us from the obligation incurred in taking the oath.
In my party we respect our pledged word, and just as Democratic
Socialists have kept their word, they will know how to be faithful to
their oath.”
Consequently they have sworn fealty to the king and his house; they are
Royalist Socialists. There are some in Holland who are under high
ministerial patronage because they belong to the important group (in
this respect like Bebel and Vollmar) who seek an improved state of
society by strictly legal methods.
Do they really believe that our present bourgeois state of society would
ever have issued from the womb of feudalism without forcing the peasants
from the soil and passing bloodthirsty laws against the victims of their
spoilation, and without the violent destruction of all the old ideas
with reference to property; and do they think that the present society
will give birth to a socialist society without violent revolutions? It
is impossible to be mistaken on this point, and yet 9 they make the
public believe such silliness. Liebknecht said in the Reichstag that it
is possible to settle the social question by means of reforms. Ah, well!
Does he believe it — yes or no? If yes, he completely repudiates the
Liebknecht of the past, who taught exactly the opposite. If no, he makes
people believe it and leads them by the nose. There is no escape from
the alternative.
Of what use then is it to organise the workers, unless to make of them a
power hostile to the power of the possessing classes? Can it be that
such an organisation is also a reactionary factor? If we thought
ourselves strong enough, do you think that we would endure one day
longer our condition of slavery, poverty, and misery? It would be a
crime to do so. The knowledge of our weakness through lack of
organisation is the only reason why we tolerate the existing state of
things. Governments know this better than we do. Why else should they
continually seek to increase their power? The antagonistic forces both
organise themselves, and each tries to force the other to ill-considered
action, so as to profit by it.
Everything depends moreover on the conception of the state. Liebknecht
and his anti-revolutionist friends take quite a different view of it
from Marx. While the latter wrote,
The state is powerless to abolish pauperism. So far as states have
concerned themselves with pauperism they have confined themselves to
police regulations, charity, etc. The state can do nothing more. For
really to abolish poverty the state must abolish itself, for the source
of the evil lies in the very existence of the state, and not, as many
radicals and revolutionists believe, in a definite ideal state, that
they propose to replace the existing state. The existence of the state
and the existence of slavery are inseparable. The state and ancient
slavery were not more intimately bound together than are the state and
modern capitalist society.”
Liebknecht believes that it is necessary to take care of the poor, of
the helpless, as long as life lasts, and in this connection he uses in
Parliament the following language, which forms a striking contrast with
the language of Marx:
We think this great contrast between the very rich and the very poor is
a sign of our low civilisation. We think that the upward progress of
civilisation will gradually cause this opposition to disappear, and we
believe that the state (of which we have the noblest conception as to
its end) has laid upon it the civilising mission of bridging the gulf
between rich and poor, and because we attribute this mission to the
state we accept in principle the bill brought forward.”
So while the one believes that the state must first be abolished, before
the antagonism between rich and poor can be made to disappear, the other
is of opinion that the state is inspired with a mission to abolish that
antagonism.
With the first of these contentions the last is in complete opposition,
just as in the following language:
“Only by legislation, nut necessarily christian, but really humane, of a
civilising influence, imbued with the socialistic spirit, concerning
itself with the interests of work and the workers, busying itself 10
seriously and energetically with the labour problem, and restoring to
the state its highest function, will you be able to avoid a revolution.
In one word, you will escape revolution only by pursuing the path of
reform — of real and thorough reform. If you pass the law with the
amendments — with the amendments we have added to it, to correct its
deficiencies, you will have made a long step in the direction of reform,
By that course of action you will not undermine the foundations of
socialism, but you will have done it a service, for this law is a
testimony in favour of the truth of the socialist idea.”
Dr. Muller, after having quoted these declarations, aptly remarks, “A
patched-up kind of state socialism is then a testimony in favour of the
socialist idea!”
This is the length to which they have already travelled, and it may help
us to understand things yet more surprising. But for the energy of the
younger spirits, the German Social Democratic party would have sunk
still more deeply in the mire.
That there is a general alarm about the growth of the parliamentarianism
which subordinates the economic to the political struggle is clearly
evident from the questions set for discussion at the Zurich
International Congress. The Swiss Social Democratic party declared in
its proposition that “Parliamentarianism, where its power is unchecked,
leads to the corruption and the bamboozlement of the people.”
The Americans affirmed that it was necessary to be careful that the
Social Democratic party preserved faithfully its revolutionary
character, and that it did not recognise the system pursued at the
present day by the governing classes.
We clearly perceive that parliamentarianism does not give sufficient
guarantees. that it will preserve to socialism its revolutionary
character. Whenever the social democracy falls into the danger of
becoming a wreck upon the rocks of parliamentarianism, the Anarchist
Communists will utter a shrill cry of alarm, and that will be a public
benefit.
We believe that Anarchists and revolutionary Socialists can accept
without searching of heart the following programme; moreover, the
Anarchists who met at Zurich declared that it was unobjectionable:
«All those who recognise that private property is the source of every
iniquity, and believe that the emancipation of the proletariat is only
possible through the abolition of private property —
“All those who recognise that any organisation of production must have
for its basic principle that every member of society must do some useful
work in order to entitle him to a share in the products resulting from
the labour of the community—
“All those who agree that the expropriation of the bourgeoisie must be
aimed at by every possible means, whether legal or illegal, peaceable or
violent —
“Can cooperate in the overthrow of modern society and in the
establishment of a new society.”
In place of being irreconcileable opponents, revolutionary socialism 11
and anarchism can therefore cooperate. We are in harmony with Teistler
when he declares in his pamphlet, “Le Parlementarisme et la Classe
Ouvrière” (No. 1 of the Berlin Socialist Library),
“The working class will never obtain any advantage by
politico-parliamentary methods. Being an oppressed social stratum it
will exercise no influence so long as class predominance shall exist. It
will be some time after the proletariat have come into possession of
economic supremacy that the political strength of the bourgeoisie will
break down. Useless therefore to reckon upon influence achieved through
legislation. Besides, political power could never reach the economic end
desired by the workers. For this is how events will really fall into
sequence: As soon as the proletariat shall have destroyed the present
form of production, the political scaffolding of the state will fall to
pieces. But the whole political organisation cannot be changed by a
political action. How, for example, are we by political means to dismiss
or render efficient the wages question? The very supposition is absurd!
The whole of modern economic legislation is only the sanction, the
codification of existing circumstances, and of practices commonly
occurring. Only when they shall have acquired an influential position,
or when 1t will be for the profit of the dominant classes, will the
workers obtain anything by parliamentary methods. In any case the social
movement constitutes the motive power. That is why it is inexcusable to
try to drive the workers from economic ground to ground purely
political.”
Revolutionary Socialists, along with Anarchist-Communists if possible,
should guide the class war, organise the masses, and use strikes as
their medium of political power, instead of wasting their strength in
the political struggle. Let us leave therefore polities to the
politicians.
As long as the power of capital shall exist, so long will
parliamentarianism be a weapon employed by the “haves” against the
“have-nots”, And capitalism shows its hand even in the social democratic
party, a fact of which we might give numerous instances, We might cite
the model experiment in cooperation by the Socialists of Ghent, where
tyranny is in force and where freedom of criticism is suppressed, aye,
punished with the loss of employment. The same fear which hinders the
workpeople of a factory, threatened with the deprivation of their daily
bread, from speaking the truth against their employer, or which forces
them to sign a paper in which — contrary to their knowledge of facts —
they protest against some attack upon the manufacturer, that very fear
hinders the Socialists of that place from corroborating the truth which
I myself proclaim fearlessly because I am independent of them.
Look at countries where universal suffrage exists as in Germany and
France. Is the lot of the worker there any better? Consider the United
States, where, under the omnipotence of capitalism, the elections are
veritable hotbeds of corruption. One of these electioneering generals
(who by the large amount of money he controlled was able to secure the
election of the two last presidents, Harrison 12 and the respectable
Cleveland) was lately impeached and condemned to several years’
imprisonment. In fact the United States are governed by these
mercenaries in the pay of the bloated financiers, who are really the men
who point out the political game that is to be played.
We cannot condemn the poor devil who prefers to accept a few francs for
his vote rather than suffer starvation along with his wife and children.
It is the most natural thing in the world. Whoever shall offer him the
most shall enrol him either as a clerical, a liberal, or an enthusiastic
Socialist. He is driven to the political manger by hunger, and for that
reason we have not the heart to condemn him.
On this subject the remark of Henry George is much to the point: “The
millionaire always supports the party in power, however corrupt it be.
He never tries to introduce reform, for instinctively he fears change.
Never does he fight with a bad government. If he is threatened by those
who hold political power he does not stir, he makes no appeal to the
people, but he corrupts the opposing force with money.” In reality
politics has become a matter of business and nothing else. Is it not
true “that a society made up of the excessively rich and the excessively
poor becomes an easy prey to those who seek to possess themselves of
power?”
Ah well! if that be true, we are persuaded that the political war does
not help us — could not help us. For meanwhile the economic evolution
will be on us with the tide. A democratic constitution and a bad
government can travel in harness. The key to every political problem is
the social question, and those who endeavour to get hold of political
power do not attack the evil at a vital point.
We must vote rightly, and if parliamentarianism has given us nothing up
to now it is because we have voted wrong. Try to get men capable of
doing their work, cry the political quacks. Exactly, reply we, let us
try to catch birds by putting salt on their tails.
The collectivists take occasion to be satisfied with the march of
events. Emile Vandervelde says in his pithy pamphlet,
“Looking only at the prospect of material wealth, the impelling force of
the two systems would be appreciably equivalent. But we must take into
account, to the credit of the collectivist solution, a moral factor
whose influence will go on continually increasing. In place of being the
subordinates of an anonymous society, those who actually guide the
industrial army would become public men, endowed by the workers
themselves with a certificate of confidence.”
But he forgets to add that, according to his idea, the workers will all
be “the subordinates of a great anonymous society,” namely the
state—that is to say, that there will not be much advance. Let us
endeavour to abolish tyranny altogether, not merely to have a change of
tyrants. By collectivism we succeed only in changing our masters, not in
suppressing them. Such a state will be infinitely more tyrannical than
the existing state.
Plato, in his “Republic,” made the following reflection:
honour, for they are unwilling to be considered either mercenaries or
thieves in publicly accepting or privately appropriating money; neither
do they attach value to honours. By force and penalties we might
constrain them to accept power, but they think the conduct of him
scandalous who seeks a governmental position and does not wait till he
be forced to accept it, Actually the greatest punishment for those who
are unwilling to govern is that they must become subject to the morally
inferior, and it is to avoid that, I believe, that good men take up the
business of government. But then they do not accept it as a thing that
will bring much pleasure, but us an unavoidable task that they cannot
turn over to others. For that reason I think that if ever there should
exist a state exclusively composed of good men they would seek as much
not to govern as there are some now anxious to govern, and it would be
demonstrated that a true government does not seek its own interest, but
that of its subordinates, and that consequently every wise man would
prefer to find himself under the direction of others rather than to be
himself burdened with power.”
Which proves that Plato had also some anarchist tendencies.
Actually it is often said: Whatever happens, we must in any case pass
through the state socialism of the Social Democrats before we realise a
better society. We do not confidently say “No.” But if that must be so,
we shall yet have far and long to fight our way. If the signs of the
times do not deceive us we see already the lower middle class, in
combination with the aristocracy of the workers, preparing to take over
political power from the hands that hold it today. That will be the
dictatorship of the fourth state, behind which has already formed a
fifth. And do not think for a moment that the fifth state will be
happier under the rule of the fourth than the fourth is now under the
domination of the third. Judging from some recent events we may very
justifiably entertain reasonable apprehensions. What is left of freedom
of thought and speech in the official German Social Democratic party?
The discipline of the party has become a tyranny, and woe to him who
opposes the leaders of the party — they make short work of him. What
liberty is there in the much belauded cooperative societies of Belgium?
We could produce evidence to prove that such a liberty is a more
grievous despotism than is ordinarily met with. In any case the fifth
state will have the same struggle to maintain, and a stupendous effort
will be necessary to free it from the domination of the fourth state.
And if there should subsequently be a domination of the fifth state to
the detriment of the sixth, and so on, how very prolonged will be
sufferings of the proletariat? Once a social democratic state has been
established it will not be easy to abolish it, and it is very possible
it may be less difficult to strangle it at its birth than to depose it
when it shall have been established. We cannot expect that the people,
after having exhausted their strength in a Homeric contest with the
bourgeoisie, will be ready at once to enter upon a struggle with the
bureaucratic State of the Social Democrats. If we ever become the
subjects of 14 such a state we will be for a long time the victims of
its blessings. From the christian revolution at the commencement of our
era — which had in the beginning a similar communist tendency — we have
fallen into the hands of clerical and feudal despotism, and we have
actually been subject to it for nearly nineteen centuries.
If that can be avoided, let us try our best.
Liebknecht, at Berlin, expressed his belief that state socialism and
social democracy were on the eve of their final battle. The further
capitalism goes to ruin, rot, and dissolution, the more clearly does
bourgeois society perceive that in the end it cannot defend itself
against the attacks of socialist ideas, and so much nearer do we
approach the moment when state socialism will be seriously proclaimed:
and the last battle that social democracy has got to wage will be begun
under the device, “Here social democracy: there state socialism.” The
first part is true, the second not. It is evident that by that time
Social Democrats will have been so absorbed by the State Socialists that
they will fight as allies. Let us not forget that to all appearance the
revolution will not be brought about by the Social Democrats, who for
the most part have thrown off — except in words — their revolutionary
character, but by the mob who having become impatient will begin the
revolution against the advice of their leaders. And when the mob shall
have risked its life, and the revolution shall have been completed, the
Social Democrats will suddenly rush to the frontand try to appropriate
(without striking a blow) the honours of the revolution, and claim it as
their own work.
In truth, Revolutionary Socialists are not without responsibility; it
lies with them to sanction a dictatorship, or to usher in an era of
freedom. It ought to be their endeavour that after the struggle the mob
be not dismissed with thanks for services rendered, and that it be not
disarmed, for those who have might can assert the right. They must
prevent others from starting up and organising themselves as a central
committee, or as a government under any form whatever, and especially,
of course, they must not reveal themselves in these objectionable
shapes. The people must be allowed to manage their own affairs and to
defend their own interests if they do not wish to be again defrauded.
The people must look with suspicion upon eloquent dissertations on the
rights of man issued on paper, and take care that when the socialisation
of the means of production is decreed they do not pass again in reality
under the power of new rulers, chosen under the mischievous influence of
electoral intrigues (not unknown where universal suffrage prevails) and
under the disguise of a sham democracy. We have had enough of reforms on
paper. It is time that we had something genuine in the way of reform,
and that will only come about when the people really hold the reins of
power. Let there be no more play on the words “evolution” and
“revolution”, as if they were opposites. Both have the same meaning —
their only difference consists in the time of their appearance.
Deville, whom nobody will suspect of anarchism, but who is known 15 and
recognised as a Social Democrat, and who wields some influence,
recognises this fact, as we do. He writes: “Evolution and revolution do
not contradict each other; on the contrary, they succeed and complete
each other — the second is the conclusion of the first. Revolution is
only the characteristic crisis which effectively ends a period of
evolution.”
In fact revolution is nothing else than the inevitable final phase of
all evolution, but there is no opposition between these two terms, as is
often suggested. To avoid all confusion, and that it may be remembered,
we may briefly state the difference. A revolution is a rapid change,
easily noticed, from one condition to another. An evolution is a much
slower transition, with progress less perceptible.
Let us now endeavour to establish the conclusion that SOCIALISM IS IN
DANGER in consequence of the tendency of the vast majority. The chief
danger is the influence of capitalism on the social democratic party.
Indeed the less revolutionary character of the party in some countries
arises from the fact that a far greater number of adherents of the party
there have something to lose if a violent social change were to take
place. That is why the social democracy shows itself by degrees more
moderate, well-beloved, practical, diplomatic (in its own language, more
cunning), until ultimately it will become thin-blooded by reason of its
cunning, and so pale that it soon won’t knaw itself. Social democracy
will capture still more votes, although the increase is not as rapid as
Messrs. Engels and Bebel imagined it would be, there will be more
members of Parliament, more communal councillors and other socialist
dignitaries, more newspapers, book shops, and printing offices; in
countries like Belgium and Denmark there will be more bakeries, drug
shops, co-operative stores, etc.; Germany will furnish more cigar
merchants, brewery firms, etc.; in a word, a great number of persons
will be economically dependent on the future “peaceable and calm
development” of the movement; that is to say, that any really
revolutionary action would be dangerous to their interests. And these
are precisely the leaders of the party, and, in consequence of the
“discipline”, almost omnipotent. In this case as in others it is
economic conditions which guide the policy of the party. When we see the
German party patted on the back by the bourgeois press, as is sometimes
done, putting it in contrast with vulgar Revolutionary Socialists, it
gives material for reflection. One of our leading newspapers published
the following paragraph, in which there is something suggestive for the
thoughtful observer: “Our Socialists in these later years have become so
refined, have so curled and pomaded themselves in the most recent
parliamentary style, that we may say that we are witnesses of the
beginning of the gradual transformation of a party most revolutionary
into a party not exactly radical, but which considers the existing
framework of society sufficiently elastic and roomy to accommodate it,
even with all its discontent.”
The actual development of German socialism is a very important subject,
which it is not our business to treat in the present essay. 16 Even if
the number of socialist deputies in the Reichstag has risen from 60 to
70 there is not yet anything to cause dread to the German empire. In the
first place, socialism manifests its weakness in becoming a party
numerically strong in Parliament, for its adherents then expect results
from it more positive than a parliamentary fraction can obtain, even by
increased tameness and compliance. In the second place, we may be sure
that the non-socialist parties will smooth down all opposition existing
between them in proportion as Socialists attack them more vigorously as
an influential party in the legislature.
But the danger which threatens us is not after all so great — it is
evidently a phase of evolution. It is not our business to form a
movement according to our caprices, but we have to analyse the
situation. Spite of all the efforts of leaders to send the movement
through an artificial canal, the economic development pursues its steady
advance, and men will be forced to conform their actions to that
development, for it will never accommodate itself to their whims or
preferences.
It is not surprising that backward countries like Germany and Austria
are favourable to the principle of authority. When western nations like
France, England, the Low Countries, and Belgium had for long quaffed the
cup of freedom, Germany did not even know how to spell the word
“liberty”. That is why political development in that country is almost
at a standstill, and although she has overtaken other countries on the
lines of economic development her political development remains very far
behind. He who understands to some extent the state policy of Germany
(and this is even more true of Austria) knows how retrograde it is. And
although Belfort-Bax considers the German Socialists as the natural
leaders of the international socialist movement, we think that the
guidance of such a movement, cannot be trusted to an oriental people.
We regard the future with calmness because we have the assured
conviction that events will not follow our or any other theories, and
that the future belongs to those who will have most closely reckoned up
the items that constitute progress — who will have analysed most
accurately the signs of the times.
For us truth is found in the following words: Theft is the modern deity,
Parliamentarianism is his prophet, and the State his executioner. That
is why we remain in the ranks of Free Socialists, who do not exorcise
the Devil by Beelzebub, the chief of devils, but who go straight to the
end, without compromise, and without laying any offerings upon the altar
of our corrupt capitalist society.