ON THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM

PROGRESS MADE BY POLITICIANS

LABORITES AND SOCIALISTS' TENDENCY TO COMPROMISE

ADDRESS TO WORKERS' EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION.

 Developments of the Socialist movement in politics were considered by No. 1. Economics Class (W.E.A.), under the guidance of the Director of Tutorial Classes (Mr. H. Heaton, M.A. M.Com.), at the most recent meeting. Mr. Heaton said :—

Having discussed Socialism as a critic of capitalism, and as the designer of a new society, we now turn to its efforts in the political field. Organised labor has moved along three distinctive lines— trade unionism, co-operation, and political activity. In some countries it has been driven to take up politics because of the apparent failure of its efforts on one of the other two lines, and has sought to gain its end through the ballot box. But in those countries the driving force has not been so much a desire to create a new social organisation as to remedy such defects as exist in the one prevailing. Political effort in Australia was not begun under the glamor of any new economic faith or creed, though the single taxer and the Socialist played their part. The early plan was to achieve certain trade union aims and political re forms (wages, hours of labor, education, and a more democratic franchise, &c.) by parliamentary as opposed to industrial action. Even in Queensland, where the first Labor Party platform (1890) was full-blooded Socialism, a much less ambitious programme was soon substituted. Only gradually did Socialistic aims creep into the hum-drum labor demands. This line of development was found where trade union effort preceded political activity. In other countries, especially Germany and Russia, where the political movement preceded the industrial, and went along its own lines, a full measure of Socialism was demanded from the first. Social revolution and the class war were popular items on the menu, and only gradually did these become supplemented, and to some extent displaced, by more moderate demands such as figured prominently on Labor platforms. If one can divide the political movement into two branches, Labor and Socialist, one might say that Labor parties gradually became more Socialist, and Socialist parties more labor. The pink became streaked with red, and the red with pink.
The relations between the political movement and other labor movements vary considerably in different countries. In the early days, German Social Democrats looked askance at unionism and co-operation; they feared them as rivals, which would distract the energy of the proletariat, and satisfy it with half-measures. Only gradually was it realised that labor must advance by all three methods—or all four, if one adds education, and the relation between the unions and the political bodies have therefore become much more intimate, even though each organisation has its clearly-defined sphere. In Belgium co-operation, unionism, and politics, were almost unseparable from 1890 onwards, and the keen Socialist was an equally keen co-operator and unionist. In England co-operation and trade unionism grew first, and were not formally connected; the political movement was built up largely by some of the unions, but the co-operative bodies sternly forswore all thought of politics or political connections until 1917. Then, having decided on the need for parliamentary effort, they determined not to join the labor political organisation, but to run their own candidates. In America the Socialist movement has no connection with the unions, and co-operation is little developed. In Australia politics and unionism are inseparable, but both have ignored co-operation almost completely. Finally, where Labor and Socialist parties exist side by side in a country there is no official connection between the two, except of mutual contempt and antagonism.
The movement has varied in complexion according to the political conditions and racial characteristics of each country. Where some degree of democracy has existed it has been possible to concentrate largely on securing economic reforms but in non-democratic countries the first fight has to be either for a parliament, better franchise, or for parliamentary control over ministers. In Australia, and to some extent in England, the fight for democratic reforms had been won by 1890 or 1900, but in Russia, Germany, and Belgium, social democracy has had to struggle so hard for democracy that it has had little time to strive for its social programme. National characteristics have also had their effect. The Britisher, stolid, practical, and an opportunist, has no inclination for philosophies of class war or social revolution. He takes each proposal by itself, judges it on its merits, and asks what will be its immediate result. Hence he clings to co-operation and unionism; they are something practical, something tangible; and when he does seek political power,it is in favor of some definite proposals rather than a school of economic thought—"Socialism without doctrines." The German, fond of theories and fundamentals. devoid of the practical ability to grapple with immediate problems, and submissive to authority, accepts en bloc a social philosophy, made for him by Marx, talks in strong terms, but acts tamely. Sombart, the chief German student of the Socialist movement, declares that "the Germans are the most submissive people on the face of the globe, and as for being aroused, they have not the capacity for it. At most any feeling of dissatisfaction is expressed in some satirical poem or learned controversial pamphlet. In action—never." Hence social democracy eschews any appeal to force, but proceeds along strictly political, legal, and parliamentary lines. The Frenchman, morbid, excitable, quick-witted, nervous, with the revolutionary tradition running through his recent history, grasps an idea quickly, and wants to act upon it at once. Barricades and street fighting still possess a glamor for him, and if they are out of date the general strike seems to be a worthy descendant. The kingdom will come not by talk but by violence, and as violence has been muzzled by politics, he turns to syndicalism. Always open to a new idea (or an old one repainted) he splits off new factions almost perennially, and the story of Socialism in France is full of accounts of faction, strife, reunion, and more schism. In Belgium alone did the characteristics of French, German, and British fully unite; hence the belief in practical unionism and co-operation; the recognition of the need for parliamentary action, and the willingness to indulge in riots and general strikes when more peaceful methods failed.
But although there have been differences in outlook and method, at bottom the movement in all countries is very much the same. The workman has become the critic, not merely of the political, but also of the economic structure. Poverty seems to him "an atrocious failure of statesmanship," one of the seven deadly sins. For a time he may believe that reforms can be made by the administration of medicines or the performance of slight operations; but finally he reaches the conclusion that the illness is incurable, and that no hope can be entertained of better days until capitalism is dead and buried. Or, dropping metaphors, partial regulation of industry may be valuable and beneficial for the time being, but all regulation must be regarded merely as a step towards ultimate social ownership. On this point—the final aim— all Socialists, whatever their nationality, are agreed. Private property, not merely in monopolies, but wherever, possession gives the chance to exploit others, must go. And if the Socialist in parliament and in power allows the ultimate aim to fade further and further into the distant future, and becomes simply a "social reformer," the younger men, the left wing, in the movement outside, cling steadfastly to that aim, and keep the flag from fading.

—Beginnings.—

Socialism could make little headway as a political movement until the industrial revolution had run some distance on its track. A proletariat was necessary, and that class did not fully emerge in England till about 1830, and in other countries much later. Hence nearly all the "movements" and revolutions up to 1848 were middle rather than working class in origin and character. The English revolution of 1688, the French upheavals of 1789 and 1830, the Reform Act of 1832, and the European turmoils of 1848 all aimed primarily at placing political power in the hands of the bourgeoisie and their satellites. They were fights between the new industrial and commercial classes against the power of monarchs, landlords, aristocrats, and the old governing class generally. In this struggle the middle class enlisted the services and support or the wage earners, but immediately the aims were achieved the alliance broke, and should the poor ask for their share of the spoils, they were rudely rebuffed and vigorously suppressed. Liberty, equality, security, and property, these were the watchwords of the revolutions, but each word was interpreted in the middle class sense, and the greatest of them was property.
Still, during the period before 1848 a vague working class feeling was growing. At first it expressed itself spasmodically in the burning of the new mills, the smashing of machines, and in the appeals for the enforcement of old laws forbidding the accumulation of machinery, and the employment of non-apprenticed persons, or decreeing the regulation of wages by the local authorities. All those efforts were intended to stop the advance of the industrial revolution; they failed completely. Then came the early co-operative and trade union experiments, and as these failed men turned to politics. Chartism, which occupied the attention of thousands of wage earners between 1836 and 1848, was political in its demands but economic in its aims. It was a knife and fork question, and found its stimulus in the desire for better houses, cheaper food, shorter hours, and greater security of employment. These things were to be realised through the agency of a parliament of paid members, elected annually by ballot. The chartists were the first wage earners to see good times coming through the slit in the lid of the ballot box. But those good times were not Socialism: in fact, of all the wage earners who swelled the tide of unrest in 1848, only the Frenchmen had any socialistic theory in their minds. The real start of the political Socialist movement was not made until the sixties and then it came, not in France, the home of utopianism, nor in England, the home of machinery and steam, but in Germany, the land of Marx and Lassalle.

—German Social Democracy.—

The industrial revolution set in in Germany in the fifties, and by 1860 was manifesting many of its worst features. Long hours, low wages, child labor, competition between manual and steam power, all showed themselves. The wage earner had no voice in local or national government; the right of combination, free speech, and free meeting, was denied him; he collided against the police and the law courts wherever he tried to stir himself, and his inexperience of concerted action was a serious handicap. He had helped the middle class Liberals in 1848, and the Liberals, afraid of his request for manhood suffrage, had soon deserted him. He felt something must be done, but what exactly he had no idea.
Then there descended upon him Ferdinand Lassalle—young, brilliant scholar, dandy, connoisseur of food and wines, society favorite, champion of deserted wives, agitator, organiser, orator, Jew. From 1882 to 1851 Lassalle was stirring up many of the German workers, and filling them with new ideas and resolves. In lectures and pamphlets he preached that the world was entering of a new era of which the working classes would be the builders and rulers, and declared that the foundation of the new society would be universal suffrage as opposed to the limited franchise existing in Prussia. Lassalle's efforts resulted in the formation of the Universal German Workingmen's Association in 1863, "to work in a peaceful and legal way for the establishment of equal and direct universal suffrage." Next year Lassalle was killed in a duel, and for a time his political organisation made very little progress. Its power was chiefly in North Germany.
Meanwhile in the south a rival body emerged. Here many working men's educational societies were feeling their way towards some radical policy. August Bebel,a young, self-educated wood turner, was their leader, and when he fell under the spell of Liebknecht who had come straight from Marx, the Socialists soon began to adopt a Marxian creed. In 1869 they formed the Social Democratic Workingmen's Party, with a democratic and Marxian platform. Six years later at Gotha, and joined south, and the united party of to-day was born. Even before Gotha, the two parties had secured political representation. There were two Socialists in the first Reichstag (1871), nine in the second and twelve, representing half a million votes, in the third (1877). Bebel and his fellows used the Reichstag as a platform from which to attack despotism and capitalism, and their hot words, augmented by the growing Socialist vote, began to stir fear in the hearts of the rulers. In 1878 two attempts were made on the life of the Emperor, and although the Social Democrats had nothing to do with those attempts, Bismarck seized his opportunity, and struck hard. To him this new party was an enemy of the state and society; its aim was the "subversion of the social order," its actions "publicly dangerous." Anti-social, anti-patriotic, it must be crushed, and this was to be done by the law pushed through the Reichstag in 1878. By this Act the Social Democratic organisation was declared to be illegal, its collections, meetings, processions were forbidden, its newspapers and other publications liable to be seized, and the police were given the right to place Socialist centres in a "minor state of siege," i.e., under a sort of martial law.
 For 12 years the ban lay on Social Democracy; the police were active; and yet the movement lived. Its affairs were directed from across the frontier, its papers and pamphlets smuggled in by a score of routes, and its Parliamentary leaders used the Reichstag as the only platform, from which they could preach to the millions outside. The Socialist vote, after a slight drop in 1881, rose to 760,000,in 1887, and 1,500,000 in 1890. The party came back in the latter year with 35 members, and in face of this manifestation of the folly and futility of repression, the Act was thrown overboard.

—Erfurt and After.—

The liberated party at once met again on German soil, at the congress at Erfurt, (1891), adopted a programme to which it still adheres. The first half is pure Marx, the Manifesto boiled down. The concentration of capital in industry and agriculture, increasing misery, more severe crisis, growing unemployment and the class struggle, all are set out in orthodox fashion. But it is recognised that the struggle must necessarily be political in character, and the proletariat "cannot effect the passing of the means of production into the ownership of the community without acquiring political power." The aim of the party is therefore "to shape the battle of the working class into a conscious and united effort, and to show it its naturally necessary end." As means to this end certain democratic reforms must first be obtained, such as universal adult suffrage, proportional representation, the initiative and referendum, freedom of organisation, press, and speech. For the workers there must be free legal facilities, and medical attendance, an eight hours' day, no child labor, 36 hours' unbroken rest weekly, thorough factory inspection, freedom to form unions, and an imperial scheme of workmen's insurance.
Such a programme appealed to the Socialist proper, to the democrat, and to the man who merely desired a better code of industrial laws. Hence from 1891 onwards the party made steady progress: in 1903 it cast 3,000,000 votes, and returned 81 members. This victory roused the anti-Socialist elements, who, at the next election, rolled up to the polling booth, as they had never done before, in addition to carrying on a strenuous campaign against the red terror. Hence, although the Socialists increased their vote by 250,000 they only returned 43 members, much to the open joy of the Kaiser. The result made them think hard, and organise harder. They strove hard to show that they were not dangerous people, made a definite bid for the votes of many who were scared by their programme of socialisation, and at the next election (1913) fought on an anti-militarist, democratic, social reform platform. The result confounded the critics. Social Democracy polled 4,250,000 votes, and returned 110 members. Forty per cent. of the electors accepted the followers of Bebel as their representatives, and if the seats had been distributed at all accordance with the distribution of population, the party might have come back 150 strong out of a House of 397.
Success was not, however, limited to the Imperial Parliament. In 1914 there were about 240 members in the various State Parliaments, and 12,000 in the city and local governing bodies. This numerical progress is partly the result of thorough propaganda and careful organisation. Social Democracy has perhaps the most perfect party machine in the world. Its 76 daily papers, its scores of weeklies and monthlies and its cheap editions reach millions of homes. Its juvenile department brings the young in the way they should go. Its Socialist college in Berlin gives 31 students each year an extensive course of training. Its lectures, cinematographic and theatrical displays, concerts, excursions, libraries, and big demonstrations, all help to win converts and strengthen the faithful. Discipline within the ranks of the party is well maintained, and although there are strong differences among the leaders both as to theory and tactics, a solid front was maintained on all essential matters until the outbreak of the war.

—Theory and Practice.—

 The years have witnessed important changes both in the aim of the party and also in its methods. The first Social Democrats were violent anti-parliamentarians; they had no desire to help in making laws, but looked upon the Reichstag as a platform for propaganda and protest. Their votes, if cast, were " 'agin the Government," and there was no thought any alliance with other parties. Gradually, as the party grew, all this change from the altitude of lofty isolation a cautious descent was made on to the plain— or into the mire—of practical politics. In 1901 a Bill was introduced by the party, and passed, much to the disquietude of the older brigade. In the 1909-10 session eleven Bills relating to labor, finance, and redistribution, were introduced, and 50 resolutions moved. In 1911 the Social Democrats voted with the Government; in 1912 they joined hands with the Radicals and National Liberals, and nearly succeeded in electing Bebel to the presidency of the Reichstag. In state and especially in local government, the party representatives have for years played an important part in fostering public enterprise, and have earned the respect of their opponents by their zeal and careful work, These things show to what extent the character of the party has changed. It had to be recognised that laws would be passed whether the Social Democrats sat silent or not; hence, while not necessarily abandoning the faith in an ultimate ideal, it was necessary to take part in legislation, discuss, propose, amend, and generally guide action into channels as beneficial as possible to the wage earners. The party still voted persistently against the budget, tariffs, indirect taxation, and increased military, naval and colonial expenditure. But to maintain a complete policy of negation was no longer possible.
 Critics called this change "compromise," "opportunism." They said stronger things when it was suggested, especially after the setback of 1907, that the Marxian prelude to the party programme needed overhauling. Bernstein's criticisms of some of Marx's theories and prophecies (1899) and the denial by others of the existence of any "ultimate goal," caused much heart-searching. The small progress between 1901 and 1907 was attributed to the failure of the Marxian predictions to fit with the facts, and the opposition of the peasants and middle-class to a doctrine based on their extermination. Although the Erfurt programme still stands, the prelude now counts for very little: little is heard of Marx, much of practical politics and legislation. Whether Marx was right or wrong is a question which worries only a few. What does worry all is the need for drastic reform of the Prussian constitution, and the establishment of parliamentary control over the imperial ministers. For Social Democracy recognised long before 1914 that it was really pitifully weak in spite of its numbers, so long as ministers were responsible only to the crown. The election of 1912 was fought largely on this issue, but the Socialist sweep made little difference to the situation, as the Zabern incident showed. Hence Social Democracy is driven back after 50 years' effort to the gospel of Lassalle—universal suffrage and democratic control of government. But even assuming that a Social Democratic Ministry was established, the party has no Socialist programme to place before the Reichstag. The social revolution of Marx will have to wait until the obstinate peasants and middle-class disappear, and meanwhile what of the tariff, taxation, defence, &c.? On these matters Social Democracy has little beyond a negative policy, or a programme which is largely ordinary "social reform." The party has enough preliminary work on hand to keep it busy for many years to come; the curbing of the royal despotism, the subordination of the military to the civil population, the conquest over the Military, the reform of the Prussian franchise,the destruction of the ban which keeps the Social Democrat out of official positions, the possible struggle with the church, the conversion of the country to a belief in internationalism, and the removal of the mud from the country's reputation; all these are big tasks, which must be faced before there can be any successful attempt at socialisation even of monopolies. And the Germans have not proved themselves to be good, practical, political reformers. Can Social Democracy then secure democracy, much less Socialism?

—France.—

 Until 1871 the Labor movement in France was secret in its organisation, and violent in its methods. It still regarded barricades and fighting in the squares as the best way to secure results. But the commune of Paris (1871), changed all that, and from 1880 onwards organised efforts were made to return Socialists to Parliament. The French Labor Party, organised in 1880 on a Marxian platform by Guesde speedily shed a faction, from which in turn another faction split. Solidarity and discipline seemed alien to the French character; only after 1905 was any decree of unity realised among the political groups, and then almost at once syndicalism arose to challenge the whole idea of the state and political action. In 1910 the united Socialist Party secured 76 seats in the Chamber of Deputies out of a total of 590; but in addition there were 34 Independent Socialists, including Briand, Viviani, and Millerand, men who would not be bound by the decrees of the official party or had been evicted from it. Further there were 30 Socialist Radicals more Radical than Socialist: but if these three groups combined they could as a "bloc" control the House.
 This union of kindred parties has been the great feature of French politics. In 1899 the Radicals and Socialists dominated the Chamber, and Millerand became Minister of Commerce. This raised the fundamental question, "Should a Socialist join a non-Socialist, bourgeois Government?" Gruesde said "No." Jaures, the leader of the party, gave a cautious "Yes."' But when Millerand voted three times against his party, officially received the Czar, repudiated the ideas of class war and social revolution, and proposed legislation for workers' insurance, conciliation boards, and a ten hours' day, the Socialists became angry, and in 1905 threw Millerand out of the party. Viviani and Briand joined the Ministry of 1906, and ipso facto ceased to be Socialists, and when in 1910 Briand became Premier, he was regarded by the Conservatives as a Socialist, and by the Socialists as a tool of the bourgeoisie. His treatment of the railway strike of 1910 roused the Socialists to in tense fury, and strengthen that party so much that in 1914 it secured 102 seats. No Socialist could enter a bourgeois Ministry—that was the condition reached after years of experience with Millerand and Briand. Then came the war, and Guesde, the ultra-Marxian, the arch-opponent of participation in government, joined the Cabinet with the consent of his party. Another Socialist accompanied him, and in 1915 Albert Thomas accepted the post of Minister of Munitions. The assassination of Jaures in July, 1914, robbed Socialism of one of its greatest minds, and France of one of its finest citizens.

—Other Countries.—

The Belgians began in 1885 "to organise politically against the exploiters," and had to fight by propaganda and general strike (1893) to secure a vote for all males over 25. But the franchise of 1893 gave additional votes for education and property owning, and this plural voting prevented the followers of Vandervelde from making much progress in representation. In 1913 a general strike of 400,000 workers lasted three days, and wrung from the Government a promise to appoint a royal commission to enquire into the franchise. This commission was sitting when war broke out. The Socialist party has managed to get better industrial laws and similar concessions, but its chief success has been in the fields of trade unionism and co-operation.
 In Italy, where the first political success was scored in 1892, faction, strife has been worse than in France. The old school is Marxian, the younger school reformist or revisionist; while after 1905 the syndicalists made considerable progress. The movement has been largely middle-class in character and membership; in no country have so many professors played a prominent part, and in no land have the agricultural laborers rallied so strongly round the flag. In 1913 the various Socialist sections won 77 seats; progress has not been quite checked by dissension as to aims and methods.
Russian Socialism came late; it was influenced by the middle-class struggle for political liberty, and the anarchist movement inspired by Bakunin and Kropotkin. Marxism became very popular among the industrial workers, and syndicalist ideas found many adherents. Work had to be done in secret, and was therefore more violent in tone. The Socialists joined in the revolution of 1905 to secure political reforms; they figured in the various Dumas, and played a large part in the upheaval of March 1917. Dissatisfied with the policy of the new revolutionary Government, which was more middle-class than Socialist, the left wing seized its opportunity in November, 1917. and established the Bolshevik regime. Bolshevism as an economic creed was Marxian and syndicalist, and its leaders have been trying in most difficult circumstances, to translate their creed into practice—with what success only the future can show.

—Books Recommended.—

 Kirkup, History of Socialism.

Sombart, Socialism and the Social Movement.

Russell, German Social Democracy.

Orth, Socialism and Democracy in Europe.

Pease, Jaures.

Spargo and Arner, Elements of Socialism.




Daily Herald (Adelaide, SA : 1910 - 1924), Thursday 25 July 1918, page 8