The Collapse of the Second International/Chapter 9
CHAPTER IX.
Existing Organisations to be Sacrificed and
Revolutionary Organisations Set Up in
the Struggle with the Bourgeoisie.
Legal mass organisations of the working class are, perhaps, the most important distinguishing mark of the Socialist parties during the existence of the Second International. They were strongest in the German party, and there the war of 1914–15 caused a great break and forced a new problem to the fore. It was clear that passing to revolutionary action meant dissolution of the legal parties by the police. It meant that the old party, from Legien down to Kautsky, sacrificed the revolutionary aims of the proletariat for the sake of preserving the existing legal organisations. However much we may deny the fact, it is nevertheless true. The revolutionary right of the proletariat was sold for a mess of pottage as represented by the present legal organisations sanctioned by the police.
Take the pamphlet by Carl Legien, leader of the S.D. Trade Unions of Germany, entitled: "Why Should Trade Union Officials Take a Greater Part in the Inside Life of the Party?" (Berlin, 1915). This is a paper given by the author on January 27, 1915, to a conference of trade union officials. In his paper (which subsequently appeared in pamphlet form) Legien quoted a most interesting document which had not been suppressed by the censor for the reason that it formed part of Legien's paper. This document, so-called "material for the lecturers of the Niederbarnim (a suburb of Berlin) district," is a statement of the views of the German Social-Democrats of the Left and the protest they directed against the party. Revolutionary Social-Democrats, so says this document, did not and could not foresee one factor, namely:
"That the whole organised force of the German S.D. Party and of the trade unions would go over to the side of the government which was waging war, and that the whole of this force would be applied to crush the revolutionary energy of the masses." (Legien's pamphlet, p 34.)
This is perfectly true. The following assertion in the same document is also true:
"The way the S.D. faction voted on August 4th meant that the revolutionary and anti-militant view, even had it been deeply rooted in the masses, could only have forced its way through against the will of the party centres, and not under the tried leadership of the party. The internationalist view could only have forced its way through by overcoming the opposition of the party and the trade unions." (Ibid.)
This again is perfectly true.
"If the S.D. faction had done its duty on August 4th the external form of the party would probably have been destroyed, but its spirit would have remained, that spirit which animated the party during the period of the Exceptional Law and helped it to overcome all difficulties. (Ibid.)
In Legien's pamphlet we find it noted that the gathering of "leaders"—whom he had brought together to hear his paper and who styled themselves trade union leaders and officials-burst out laughing—burst out laughing when they heard this. The idea struck them as ridiculous that one can, and must, create illegal revolutionary organisations at a time of crisis, as was done at the time of the Exceptional [Anti-Socialist] Law. And Legien, a most devoted watchdog of the bourgeoisie, beat his breast and exclaimed: "To disrupt organisations in order that questions may be decided by the masses is a purely anarchist thought. I have not the least doubt that this is an anarchist idea."
"True," exclaimed the chorus (Ibid., p. 37) of flunkeys of the bourgeoisie, who styled themselves leaders of the S.D. organisations and of the working class.
Here we have an instructive object lesson. Leaders have been so depraved and stupified by activity under bourgeois legality that they are incapable of even grasping the thought of the necessity for any other form of organisation; they cannot see the need for illegal organisations for directing the revolutionary struggle. Men have come to such a pitch that they imagine that legal unions sanctioned by the police are organisations which cannot be surpassed; they imagine that during a time of crisis these unions can be preserved to supply the [revolutionary] directing force! Here you have a concrete instance of the manner in which opportunist dialectics work out in practice. Thus, the ordinary growth of legal unions and the simple habit of dull but conscientious Philistines[1] who limit themselves to book-keeping, brought it about that in a moment of crisis these conscientious lower middle class men turned traitors and strangled the revolutionary energy of the masses. And this was not done accidentally. We must set up a revolutionary organisation, for both the changed historical situation and the era of revolutionary action on the part of the proletariat demand it. But such a transition is possible only over the heads of the old leaders who strangled revolutionary energy; over the head of the old party, and along the path of its destruction.
Counter-revolutionary men of the lower middle class naturally cry out: "This is anarchism,'" just as the opportunist, E. David, shouted "Anarchism " when taking Liebknecht to task. It is evident that in Germany the only leaders who remain honest are those whom the opportunists slander as "Anarchists."
Take the army of to-day. It is a model of good organisation. And this organisation is good solely because it is flexible and at the same time able to imbue millions of men with a single will. To-day these millions are in their homes in various parts of the country. On the morrow the order is given to mobilise, and they assemble at given points. To-day they lie in trenches where they may possibly remain for months. To-morrow, in different order, they go into attack. To-day they work miracles in evading bullets and shrapnel. To-morrow they do wonders in open fights. To-day their advanced detachments lay mines underground. To-morrow they advance over dozens of miles as directed by aviators. This is what is called organisation—when enthused by a single aim and animated by one will, millions of men change their mode of intercourse and action; change the place and the methods of their activity; change their instruments and tools in accordance with a change in circumstances and the requirements of the struggle.
The same relates to the struggle of the working class with the bourgeoisie. If no revolutionary situation is in existence to-day, or conditions which breed discontent amongst the masses and increase their activity; if to-day you are handed a voting paper, take it and organise so that you may beat your enemy, but do not use it for the purpose of sending men to parliament for the sake of soft jobs, at which they clutch, for fear they may be sent to prison. If on the morrow they take away your voting paper and hand you a rifle, a magnificent quick-firing gun, built in accordance with the latest requirements of machine technique—take these instruments of death and destruction, don't listen to sentimental whimperers who fear war. In this world there still remain many things which must be destroyed by fire and iron before the working class may be free. And if exasperation and despair are on the increase amongst the masses; if there exists a revolutionary situation, be ready to create fresh organisations and to employ the useful instruments of death and destruction against your own government and bourgeoisie.
To be sure, this is no easy matter. Much difficult preparatory work will have to be done and many painful sacrifices will be required. It is a new method of organisation and of struggle, which we must also learn, and no science can be learnt without making mistakes and suffering defeat. This form of the class struggle bears the same relation to participation in elections as does an attack to manœuvres, marches, or lying in trenches. This form of struggle in History does not frequently become the order of the day—yet its significance and effects extend over decades. During such intense periods when these methods become necessary each day is equivalent to twenty years of normal development.
Let us compare C. Legien with K. Kautsky, who writes as follows:
"As long as the party was small, every protest directed against the war acted as a courageous propagandist act. … The recent conduct of our Russian and Serbian comrades has been universally approved. The stronger a party becomes, the more propaganda considerations, and the motives of its decisions, become interwoven with considerations as to practical consequences, the more difficult it becomes to give to the motives of both kinds their just and equal due; nevertheless, we should try to do justice to both. Hence, the more powerful we become the more easily arises disagreement between us when we are confronted by any new and complex situation." (Internationalism and War," p. 30.)
Kautsky's arguments differ from those of Legien only by their cowardice and hypocricy. Kautsky, in substance, supports and justifies the base renunciation of revolutionary activity by the Legiens, but does it stealthily, without expressing himself definitely, getting over it by means of hints and bowing low before Legien as well as before the revolutionary conduct of the Russians. We Russians are accustomed to meet with this sort of attitude only amongst the Liberals, who are always ready to acknowledge the "courage " of the revolutionaries, but who at the same time would not, for anything in the world, give up their arch-opportunist tactics. Self-respecting revolutionaries will not accept "expressions of recognition " from Kautsky, but will reject such a manner of putting the question with indignation. If a revolutionary situation did not exist, if it was not binding to preach revolutionary action, then the conduct of the Russians and the Serbians was wrong and their tactics were wrong. Such knights-errant as Legien and Kautsky should have at least the courage of their opinions, and express them openly.
If the tactics of the Russian and Serbian Socialists deserve recognition, then it is not only unlawful but even criminal to justify the opposite tactics of powerful parties: such as the German, the French and other parties. By means of an expression such as "practical consequences," which is purposely wanting in clearness, Kautsky has veiled the simple truth that the big parties took fright at the prospect of having their organisations dissolved and their leaders arrested by the government. This means that Kautsky justifies the betrayal of Socialism by considerations of the disagreeable "practical consequences" of revolutionary tactics. Does this not mean the prostitution of Marxism?
One of the S.D. Deputies, who voted for the war credits on August the 4th, speaking at a workers' meeting said: "We should have been arrested!" And the workers shouted in reply: "That would not have mattered!"
If there is no other signal for transmitting to the working masses of Germany and of France the revolutionary frame of mind and the idea of the need to prepare for revolutionary action, the arrest of a deputy for a bold speech would have played a useful part as a battle-cry addressed to the proletarians of different countries to unite for carrying on revolutionary work. It is no easy matter to effect such a union, and the more binding was it on the deputies to take the initiative, for they stood above the masses and understood the ins and outs of politics.
Not only in time of war, but each time the political situation becomes strained—quite apart from any revolutionary action on the part of the masses—the government of the freest bourgeois country will not fail to threaten the dissolution of legal organisations, seizure of funds, arrest of leaders and other "practical consequences" of the kind. What is to be done? Should we acquit the opportunists on that account, as Kautsky does? That would mean giving one's blessing to the transformation of S.D. parties into National Liberal-Labour parties.
For the Socialist there can be but one inference: action of a purely legal kind as practised by the European parties, has outlived its time and has become the foundation of a bourgeois-Labour policy, in consequence of capitalist development having reached the imperialist stage. It is necessary to supplement this action by the creation of an illegal foundation, an illegal organisation, illegal S.D. work without the surrender of a single legal position. Just how this is to be done experience will show; would that there were the readiness to enter upon this path and the consciousness of its need! The revolutionary Social-Democrats of Russia demonstrated in the years 1912–1914 that this problem can be solved. Muranov, the Labour deputy, whose bearing in court was better than that of all the others, and whom Tsardom sent to Siberia, showed clearly that apart from ministerial parliamentarism there is also illegal and revolutionary parliamentarism. (Henderson, Sembat, Vandervelde, down to Suedekum and Scheidemann, believe themselves to be quite fit to occupy "ministerial posts" though they are not given a chance to enter further than the anteroom!) Let the Kosovskys and Potresovs go into raptures over the "European" parliamentarism of flunkeys or grow reconciled to it. We shall never cease to repeat to the workers that legal action of that kind and the Social-Democracy of the Legiens, Kautskys and Scheidemanns deserve only our contempt.
- ↑ Matthew Arnold applied this term of contempt to the middle class of Great Britain. which he called ignorant, narrow-minded and deficient in great ideas.—Trans.