💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › freedom-press-london-socialism-in-scandinavia.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:20:58. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Socialism in Scandinavia Author: Freedom Press, Anonymous Date: August, 1890 Language: en Topics: Freedom Press, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism Source: Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, Vol. 4, No. 45, online source http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3131, retrieved on May 2, 2020. Notes: Freedom Press, London
(From a Swedish Correspondent.)
In an examination into the spread of Socialism in Scandinavia, Denmark
must be considered first. This little, but politically active, country
has special claims upon our attention, in view of the battle which is
being fought with very unequal weapons between the two Socialist parties
at present to be found there.
In Denmark, Socialism is as little free from schisms as in other
countries. There it has reached the stage at which its speakers and
writers declare for Reform or for Revolutionary Socialism. The leaders
of the reform section, the now notorious "Central Committee" of the
Social Democratic labor party, take their stand on the authoritarian
Socialism of Marx, and prove themselves believers in despotism a la
Marx. The revolutionary party, on the contrary, seem determined to
combat authority and bureaucracy, whether in old forms or new. And the
less tenable the old Socialism, with its admixture of Marxist State
despotism, becomes, the greater the favor shown by the younger section
to autonomy and revolution.
This conflict between the advocates of Socialist -form and the
revolutionary Socialists began, there is no doubt, when Arbejderen ("The
Worker") first appeared. That journal, which is still far too small for
the work it has in hand, is the organ of the revolutionary party.
Socialdemokraten, the organ of their opponents, had become omnipotent,
and the natural consequence was that it became more than ever
domineering and orthodox. But A Arbejderen appeared on the scene, and
began to indulge in criticism extremely annoying to the Central
Committee; and on the approach of the parliamentary elections the
hostility was fanned into a white heat. The reformers were censured for
having formed an alliance with the Liberal political groups, even for
the avowed purpose of opposing the absolute Government that at present
stands at the helm of State in Denmark-& Government which distinguishes
itself by its numerous and unconstitutional measures, or, in other
words, by its provisional laws which trample all justice under foot, and
against which the Folketing, the House of Parliament elected by the
people, moms powerless. In this compromise the revolutionary party felt
there was something doubtful and discreditable.
In the numerous public meetings hold, principally in Copenhagen, to
consider "the work of the Rigsdag last session," the views unfavorable
to the Central Committee took well-defined form. At last the
revolutionists could no longer work with the reform party, as the
Central Committee time after time outraged freedom of thought and
speech, plotted against, slandered, and in due time persecuted, "the
opposition," that is, the leading- men in the revolutionary camp, among
whom may be specially mentioned Gerson Trier and A. Petersen. Totally
forgetting the high mission of Socialism, the Central Committee employed
the most jesuitical means to preserve the semblance of honorableness,
which every honest Socialist regarded as lost to it forever. Its spirit
can best be judged by the following words, which one of its leaders,
Hordum, let escape him at a certain public meeting;-"In heaven's name
let the revolutionists make as much opposition as they please in their
own groups. They have nothing to do with our meetings and bad better
take care they are not chucked out so fine a day.- Let this sort of
thing go on, and Anarchism, in its serious sense, will soon make its
appearance in the capital of Denmark."
It is quite certain that the Central Committee has suffered a severs,
moral defeat, and its position will by no means be retrieved by the
circular which, for the purpose of explanation, it issued and circulated
at home and abroad.
The seven members who were expelled from the party, and who were the
mouthpieces of "the opposition," have now decided to form a now
Organization, "The Revolutionary Socialist Labor Party of Denmark"
-which, in unity with the Socialist party abroad, will use every moms to
achieve the speedy emancipation of the proletariat through independent
action based on principle and class-consciousness. This conflict, which
has been not about persons, but about principles, has had the good
effect of infusing new life into the torpid Socialist body' whilst it
has shown clearly the weakness and despicableness of that centralized
power which lies in the State idea. It has, in other words, opened a
breach in Marxocracy, that is, in Marxist State despotism
The new party will probably gain ground but slowly, because its
resources are scanty as yet. Relatively the older party is widely
spread, and it has at its back many influential newspapers. It owns five
daily papers, in Copenhagen (issue 22,000) and Aarhuus, Horsens,
Randers, and Aalborg (issue in all four towns, 30,000). It also reckons
on eighty purely political Social Democratic associations scattered over
the country, and combined in a Social-Democratic Federation, as wall as
on seventy trade unions in Copenhagen and several in the provincial
towns. And, lastly, in the Folketing the party has three
representatives, elected by over 17,000 voters.
The strength of the new party can best be gauged, perhaps, by the fact
that the resolutions proposed all over the country for the expulsion of
the "opposition" were supported with 2,643 votes against 39 1. On this
number 391 depends the future of the Revolutionary Socialist Labor Party
which is now forming. And about its future 1, for my part, have no
misgivings.
About Anarchism people in Denmark, as well an in Norway and Sweden, have
very vague ideas. The three countries, I think I may safely say, have
never had the chance of grasping the true import of the theory of
Anarchism. That this has been the case with Sweden I can assert with
confidence. The German Marxist press and other foreign journals of the
same school have great influence in the North. As far as Denmark is
concerned, sympathy for Anarchism has shown itself only in individuals
here and there, who have never attracted much attention. So far as I
know, it has found expression only in translations of several of
Kropotkine's Anarchist writings, which have been published in the Ny
lord, a periodical for literature, science, and art, and in the
Nylaende, which is issued by the Women's Emancipation League of Norway.
We now come to Norway. Unfortunately I have very slender knowledge of
the Socialist movement there. That Socialism has taken root in Norway,
and is led by talented and well-educated people, there can be no doubt.
It has an organ of its own, Socialdemokraten, which advocates its
principles; but if Socialism does not get out of the old
Social-Democratic rut, it will at the most receive a hearing only among
the workers in the towns, who, in Norway above all other countries, form
but a small minority of the population. Both in Norway and Sweden, the
fact that the rural population forms the overwhelming majority is
forgotten, or at least underrated. The center of gravity of the State in
both countries lies in the peasant claw, although this is much more the
case in Norway than in Sweden, where large landholders and capitalists
exercise much greater influence. A Norwegian peasant Republic is the aim
of that Chauvinist politician, Bjornstjerne Bjornson, the great
Norwegian poet. In these circumstances the State Socialism of Marx can
never gain much support, because the peasants are almost to a man quite
averse to anything of the nature of centralization and would not on any
account tolerate bureaucracy and authority. If, therefore, Socialism is
to continue to gain ground in Norway, the chief emphasis must be laid, I
think, on the uselessness of State institutions and of Governments in a
free community. Present social and political institutions must be made
the starting point; economic oppression is then the natural inference,
which, though in one way less striking, is apprehended more easily by
the land owning peasants.
Only when the peasant or agricultural class perceives clearly the
iniquities of the clam state, and also becomes conscious of the
importance of free associations, of free communes unendangered by
positive checks, only then will modern Socialism be widely accepted in
the country. That is just what might be expected from the national
genius. Norway, unlike the great nations of civilization, does not
possess large industrial centers with their terrible poverty, or towns
where all is unnatural. The population is spare, it is true; but it is
equally mattered over the country, and depends for its support
principally on its cattle and on the income from its forest cultivation.
The Norwegians are a nation little interested in their political
independence, which is built upon the possession of the land, but they
and their land are one. How can State despotism take root in such a
country?
(To be concluded in our next.)