Labor and Socialism.

  Call for Workers

[For the Queensland 'Worker.']

(By J.H.W.)

The Labor parties of Great Britain and Australia have been condemned by American comrades Eugene Debs and Charles E. Russell, and these two are not alone.

The British and Australian Labor parties are condemned because (a) they are not avowedly Socialist parties, nor do they adopt the "Communist Manifesto" as their platform; and (b) they do not enforce the acceptation of Socialist principles as a condition of membership.

Palliatives are no good to the workers. Go for Socialism and Socialism only all the time. Thus the argument of our critics and opponents. "Back to Marx" they cry. Such arguments are upheld by the S.L.P. of America, with a few branches in Britain ; the Socialist Party of America (certain sections) ; the Australian Socialist Party, the I.W.W., and the major portion of the B.S.P. of Britain, formerly the S.D.P.

Are they right?

State control, municipal enterprise, and the co-operative movement are practically non-existent in America — particularly the first and last, viz., nationalisation and co-operation.

The British Socialist Party, formerly the Social Democratic Party, recently resolved to throw in their lot with the I.L.P. and the Labor Party, thus admitting their policy— pursued for twenty odd years — had proved abortive.

Here is a sidelight on history that proves illuminating on this vexed question of method. At the Stuttgart congress a portion of the British section of the "International" tried to secure the exclusion of the representatives of the British Labor Party from the International congress, on the grounds that the British Labor Party did not proclaim the "class war."

The motion for admission of the British Labor Party to the congress was moved by Karl Kautsky, Speaking to his motion Kautsky pointed out that although the Labor party of Britain might not preach the class war as a matter of fact they put it into practice. Kautsky came in for some sharp criticism for this heresy (?) to Marxian principles, and in the “Socialist Review" for May, 1910, there was an article from Kautsky defending his action.

"I have no intention," says Kautsky, "of solving the problem as to which is the more important, the organisation of the proletariat into an independent class party without any definite programme, or the formation of a special, though indeed smaller, working class party, having a definite Socialist programme. There is just as little sense in such a problem as there is in asking which is the more important — the final aim or the movement. The organisation of the proletariat into an independent class party is as inseparable from the necessity of converting them to Socialism as is the movement from its aim.  Both must go hand in hand. The problem is not which is the more important organisation or enlightment, but how best they can both be united. This question can by no means be answered identically for all countries, the various answer depending upon the given political and social conditions.”

Referring to the historical conditions obtaining in England Kautsky says: Under these conditions it was only sensible to form a separate working class party by amalgamating the trade unions into a common political organisation and to permeate it with the socialist spirit. [This work was the achievement of the late respected Keir Hardie, and remains his living monument.] This also was the opinion of Karl Marx."

Again was read: "At first Marxism made its appearance in England in opposition to Marx, when Hyndman, Bax, and the others founded in 1881 the Democratic Federation, at present the Social Democratic Party."

We are told how the S.D.P. antagonised the trade unions by their tactics, how this incurred the severe censure of Engels. Then: "It is true Marx and Engels fought the corruption and narrow mindedness of the majority of the English trade union officials with no less energy than the S.D.P. itself, but nothing could shake their conviction that, in spite of all, the only way to create in England a strong Social Democratic working class party was to propagate Socialism in the trade unions. The Labor Party in England outside the trade unions can never therefore become a party embracing the masses. . . .

The recognition of this by Keir Hardie, Ramsay Macdonald, and the Independent Labor party determined them in their action of founding the British Labor Party in 1900. Kautsky says: By creating this party the path was at last entered on which Marx so long designated as the right one." That path along which is travelling the British Labor Party is also the path being pursued by the Australian Labor Party. That path, Kautsky maintains, Marx designated the right one.

But to go back to Marx. "Indispensable as are the trade unions in the guerilla warfare between Capital and Labor, of still greater importance are they as an organised means of promoting the abolition of the wage system itself. . . . the trade unions so far have laid too much stress upon their local and immediate struggles against Capital. . . . the trade unions must now learn to focus the organisation of the working class for the great purpose of attaining their complete emancipation. They must therefore support every social and political movement which has this for its aim." — Resolution by Marx accepted by Geneva International Congress, 1866.

"The great thing is to get the working class to move as a class (are they not doing this in Australia ?) ; that once obtained, they will soon find the right direction.. . . . above all give the movement time to consolidate."— Correspondence, Engels to Miss Wischnewetzky, December 28, 1886.

"The first great step which every country that comes into the movement must take is the forming of the workers into an independent (independent of Capitalist parties) political party the masses must have time and opportunity to develop, the opportunity first comes as soon as they have their own movement." "The Social Democratic Federation here shares with your German American Socialists, the distinction of being the only parties to accomplish the bringing down of the Marxian theory of development to a rigid orthodoxy. According to them, the working man is not to attain to this complete development through an evolution set in operation by his class feeling, but he has to swallow it down as an article of faith and without development. Therefore both remain only sects and come, as Hegel says, from nothing, through nothing, to nothing." (Some hitherto unpublished letters of Marx and Engels in the 'Socialist Review, March, 1908).

Wilhelm Liebknecht, the great old leader of the Social Democrats, is another authority to whom we are ofttimes referred. Attention of Socialists in America and here in Australia is called to Liebknecht's little treatise, entitled, "No Compromise — No Political Trading." In his "Studies on Socialism" the late renowned French Socialist thinker and leader, Jaures, informs us that on August 7, 1901, the first anniversary of Liebknecht's death, there was published in 'Vorwarts,' the chief organ of the German party, some portions of MSS discovered amongst the papers of Liebknecht after his death, and not previously ever published. They were essays in answering the question — "How shall Socialism be realised?" Here are a few extracts: —

"Questions of tactics are practical questions and, should be absolutely distinguished from questions of principle." "We have seen in especial it is absolutely unjustifiable to consider that the tactics of force are the only revolutionary tactics. We have shown force itself is not revolutionary, but rather belongs to the counter-revolution." "We have seen the necessity of emancipating ourselves from the bondage of catch words which too often only serve to hide a lack of clearness and vigorous action.'

In regard to the need of a "majority" on our side Liebknecht says : 'We have pointed out, finally, that the party, in order to put its Socialist ideas into practice, must conquer the power that is indispensable, and that it should do this first of all by means of propaganda . . . and that we ought to exert all our strength to enlighten this majority and win it over." Again, as to whether Socialism is only for the wage-earners or to be won only by them—" We must not limit our conception of the term 'working-class' too narrowly. We ought not to ask, 'Are you a wage-earner?' but — 'Are you a Socialist?' " Again— "If it is limited to wage-earners Socialism cannot conquer. If it includes all the workers, and the moral and intellectual elite of the nation, its victory is certain . . . . Not to contract but to expand ought to be our motto. The circle of Socialism should widen more and more, until we have converted most of our adversaries to being our friends."

Truly can we exclaim as did Jaures, 'This is great teaching.' The teaching of that Liebknecht who had begun as an anti-parliamentary revolutionist and who ended by being a standard bearer with August Bebel of the Social Democrats in the German Reichstag. The experience gained in Parliament taught Liebknecht the necessity of adopting practical methods instead of relying upon revolutionary catch phrases. Those who choose to are welcome to the belief in miracles, but no amount of blowing of trumpet will bring down the walls of the Capitalist Jericho. And, finally, let all Democrats, Laborites, and Marxian Socialists copy this excerpt from the communist manifesto by Marx and Engels and pin it in their hats: ''The Socialists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the monetary interests of the working class ; but in the movement of the present they also represent and take care of the future of the movement. Finally they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties (mark, not specially Socialist parties) of all countries.'

In reply to the question, "Can a Marxian Socialist vote for the Labor party or its programme?" I say in the light of foregoing teaching he is a traitor to his class who does not.

In reply to "Who are the Marxians?" "Who follow the teachings of Marx?' I reply the Labor party, whether of Britain or Australia. I know there are faults and failings in the various Labor parties of Australia, that some of the leaders are weaklings. But these are the reflex of the faults and failings of the weaklings in the movement. The remedy is Education, Education, and Education!

 J.H.W.

Worker (Brisbane, Qld. : 1890 - 1955), Thursday 9 December 1915, page 5