Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

and Berger as its leaders. This party grew rapidly, and in 1910 captured the mayoralty and city council of Milwaukee, as well as the mayoral chairs in 29 other centres. It also polled 600,000 votes in the Congress elections, and returned Berger to the House of Representatives, while a few members won seats in the various state legislatures. A strong organization was built up, training centres and correspondence courses were instituted, and scholarly books on theory, history, and practice written by such men as Spargo and Hillquit. While holding generally to Marxian doctrines, the movement had its orthodox and revisionist schools. It was divided also between the revolutionists and the opportunists, the former leaning towards syndicalism, the latter towards co-operation with the American Federation of Labour. But such differences did not prevent the party from making steady progress. At the Presidential election of 1912, Eugene Debs secured 750,000 votes; in 1914, 870,000 votes were cast for socialist candidates to Congress. Two years later the Presidential vote was about 800,000, and a socialist gave a good account of himself in the New York mayoral election of 1917. The war tore the movement in two; the government used its power to gaol such leaders as Debs, and deport or persecute lesser lights, generally on very hollow pretexts. Socialist members were expelled from parliaments, and an unholy inquisition was instituted. Still the movement grows, and in the elections of 1920 the Labour or Socialist elements made a much stronger fight than on any previous occasion.

Australia. Australia had its utopian stage, of which William Lane was the prophet. From 1885-90 this Brisbane journalist worked night and day to organize and educate the workers in Queensland. Marx, Bellamy, Bax, in fact, the whole range of socialist literature, was handed out in tit-lits by him, and as a result of his labours the Australian Labour Federation was founded in 1889. Its programme was the nationalization of all sources of wealth and all means of production and distribution; the pensioning of all children, aged, and invalids; and the just division among all the citizens of all wealth produced, less only that part retained for public requirements or for extending production. To secure these ends an immediate fight was to be made for annual parliaments. The failure of the maritime strike knocked the life out of this movement, and Lane came to the conclusion that the only way to succeed was to go off to some uninhabited spot, and there establish a new model society. Paraguay was the country chosen for the settlement, land was secured, and in 1892 a few hundred bold spirits set out for this South American utopia-New Australia. The project failed dismally. The same old difficulties-lack of capital, grumblings at initial discomforts, and incapable leadership-were encountered. New Australia went the way of New Harmony.

Then came the Labour Party, whose growth we have already traced. That party, from its inception, has contained many socialists, but like such parties the world over has been largely occupied in party tactics, securing political reforms, and dealing with immediate problems. Demands for nationalization of certain industries and for the establishment of state enterprises have gradually assumed a more prominent position on its platforms, and the party throughout the continent has laid down as one of its objectives the “securing to each person the full result of his or her labour by the democratic ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” When the party has been returned to power it has endeavoured, with varying success, to extend the scope of state ownership in many small ways.

The opportunist, slow-going character of the Labour Party has made possible the existence of a distinct Socialist Party in Australia. Marxian in doctrine, revolutionary in tone, this party is weak numerically. Wageearners prefer the Labour Party, and since that party makes no fuss about Marx or any other writer, is reformist rather than revolutionary, and has to tone down its language in order to get the middle-class and rural votes necessary for winning seats and gaining a majority, the Socialist Party attacks the Labour Party vehemently. From this it passes almost inevitably to an attack on state enterprise and political action, and to adoration of the latest left-wing doctrine—the I.W.W. in 1916, the 0.B.U. in 1918, Bolshevism in 1920.

The Second International. To the socialist movement no ideal has been more attractive than that of a great international brotherhood of workers over-riding national frontiers, dynasties, armies, and capitalists. “Workers of the world, unite!” was the battle-cry of the Communist Manifesto. It was also the slogan of the First International, organized by Marx in 1864. The collapse of this organization was followed by twenty years intensive labour activity on purely national lines, but by 1889 the need for international co-operation was being strongly felt. International trade union and co-operative congresses were being held, and in 1889 the socialists of many lands met in Paris in conference. This was the first of a series of triennial congresses held during the: next 25 years; in 1900 an International Socialist Bureau was established in Brussels to keep the various national groups in touch with each other and arrange for ordinary and special congresses. In 1914 27 countries were affiliated, and the Stuttgart Congress of 1907 was attended by nearly 900 delegates from 25 lands. At these gatherings of what became known as the Second International, socialist policy was formulated on lines which may be described as mellowed Marxism."

The aim of the movement was an economic transformation, and there was abundant talk of the class war. But although Marxian phrases were used they were understood to have a pink rather than a red significance. The ultimate aim was socialist, but immediate tasks, such as the securing of an eight-hour day, better factory acts, abolition of sweating, provision for unemployment, and a better legal status for trade unions were not neglected. The socialist movement showed itself to be reformist as well as revolutionary. As for the revolution itself, it would come as a result of education, organization, propaganda, and the conquest of political power by democratic means. The Second International was almost unanimously in favour of constitutional progress towards the millennium.

At the congresses discussions on war and peace were frequent. The arguments for international solidarity of the workers were easily marshalled. Modern wars were capitalist in origin; colonial policies were capitalistic policies; the army, navy, press, schools, universities, and churches were all hand in glove with the fortune-hunters. Against this unholy alliance socialists of all nations must unite, and by abolishing capitalism abolish war. To this economic argument was added the sentiment of universal brotherhood. The peoples of the world did not hate each other; they had no desire for war; why then should they consent to be used as cannon fodder for capitalism? On these points there was unanimity. But how could socialists prevent war, pending the establishment of universal socialism? They could vote against all naval, military, and colonial expansion. They could instil into the minds of their children the spirit of brotherhood and teach them the real causes of war. But supposing a big war threatened the world before these efforts had borne fruit, what then? To this question, Hervé, the French socialist, replied, “Tell the soldiers to strike, desert, or refuse to obey orders.” Keir Hardie urged an international general strike, but the Stuttgart Congress regarded both suggestions as impracticable, and decided that if war threatened the workers and their representatives must use every effort “to prevent it by all the means which seem to them most appropriate, having regard to the sharpness of the class war and to the general political situation.” Should war break out, they must “intervene to bring it promptly to an end,” and then use the resulting political and economic crisis “to rouse the masses of the people from their slumbers, and to hasten the fall of capitalist domination.”

Socialism since 1914. This high-sounding resolution proved when tested to be little more than a pious hope. When Austria declared war on Servia, July 25, 1914, the International Socialist Bureau met immediately at Brussels; four days later it called on the workers of Europe to strengthen their demonstrations against war and demand the settlement of the AustriaServian dispute by arbitration. But the march of events was too rapid for 'the International. The diplomats on both sides depicted the coming war as one of defence; the press was heavily censored, and hence when the war came all were carried away by the need to “defend the Fatherland." In Germany social democrats became social patriots. In France all pacifist sentiment dried up with the invasion of French territory, and the attack on Belgium was a fact which silenced all words and theories in England. The whole prelude was so short and sharp, the mine was fired so unexpectedly, and the issues were so carefully adorned that the edifice of socialist internationalism was destroyed in a week. Most socialist leaders on each side were eventually sucked into ministerial office and gave their talents and their influence over the workers to the cause of winning the war. Thus the Second International was cut in two, and its members were ranged for the duration of the war in two hostile camps. Attempts to arrange international conferences during the war failed, partly because governments refused passports and partly because socialists on each side refused to meet those from the other. After the abortive Stockholm conference of 1917 interallied socialist conferences were held, from which attempts were made to send statements of war aims to enemy socialists. The division between inter-allied and enemy groups ended with the Armistice, and in February, 1919, the leaders from both sides met once more at Berne.

The Third International. The war caused a temporary division amongst European socialists; but it also caused what promises to be a permanent division, a division based not on the opposing groups on the battle-front, but on the foundation of conflicting socialist ideas and ideals. This clash of outlooks was present before 1914, but with the war it grew in intensity, and by 1920 had divided the movement in every country into two bitterly hostile camps.

The schism developed slowly; its first manifestation was the revival of a critical attitude towards the causes of the war. Here and there a few socialists began to assert that all the current explanations of the cause of the war were merely attempts to conceal the fact that the war was at bottom, like all its predecessors, capitalist in origin. The number of pacifist

P

socialists grew in most countries, though in nearly every case they were a small minority. The pacifist groups met in conference at Zimmerwald in September, 1915, and passed resolutions condemning the war and calling upon the workers to unite in stopping the butcheries of imperialist capitalism. This conference set the ball rolling, and gradually condemnation of the war merged into condemnation of the “sociał patriots” of Enrope and of the socialist ideals and constitutional democratic methods to which they clung.

Theri came the first Russian revolution, in which the socialists played an important part. It was followed by the failure of the Stockholm conference, and eventually the Bolshevik revolution in November, 1917. The Bolshevik leaders had even at Zimmerwald urged the need for a Third International to repudiate the principles for which the Second International stood. Hence in February, 1919, the Second was revived at Berne. In the following month the Third International was definitely constructed at a congress held in Moscow. Since that time these rivals have expended much energy in condemning each other and in appealing for the support of the labour organizations of the world. Let us note, therefore, in what respects they represent different schools of socialism.

Both Internationals agree on economic fundamentals. Both cry “Down with capitalism!”; they disagree when they pass to the cry, "Up with

-!” Both say that socialism (or communism) can only come by “the conquest of political power.” But they differ on the methods to be used in gaining that conquest, and on the kind of society which is to be built up when it has been gained. The Second International still sticks to the old-fashioned democratic political method. The conquest of political power means strenuous election campaigns, the winning of seats, and the ultimate capture of the government benches. It firmly adheres to the principles of democracy of the British type. To this the Third replies that socialism can never come through political action in a democratic state. The state is a tool and product of the bourgeoisie; democracy assumes that there is such a thing as a nation, when really what exists is two hostile classes. Whatever happens at elections the same class always rules, and hence when socialists speak of capturing the governing machine by parliamentary methods they are talking nonsense. Therefore, instead of prolonged and futile electoral activity let the workers arise in their might, overthrow the bourgeoisie and set up a dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship involves complete control over army and navy, the disarming of the capitalists, the building up of a red guard of workers, the displacement of all bourgeois judges, and the expulsion of reactionary government officials. All this may necessitate the use of force, but what does that matter Once the dictatorship is complete, steps can be taken towards the socialization of industry, agriculture, finance, transport, and trade. The socialized industries, etc., will not be administered by bureaucratic permanent officials; on the contrary, they will be controlled by the proletariat working through a hierarchy of workers' or peasants' councils, now commonly known as soviets. (See Chapter XXIV.) The state as a weapon of class rule disappears, and when the revolution is complete the dictatorship of the proletariat disappears; for since the bourgeoisie as a class has been swept out of existence, and its members are compelled to work for their living, a classless communist commonwealth emerges, in which there is no need for a dictatorship because there is no subject class to dictate to.

The fundamental tenets of the Third International-dictatorship of the proletariat as a weapon for building up a social system organized on the basis of soviets—are almost completely the product of recent Russian experiences and of the Russian reading of Marx. The dictatorship doctrine is condemned by the leaders of the Second International, who declare that a dictatorship is dangerous, especially when in practice it is not a dictatorship of the whole working class, but of only one section of that class, and really of a handful of leaders, or even one leader of that section. 5. The inevitable consequence of such a régime would be a paralysis of workingclass strength through fratricidal war. The inevitable end would be a dictatorship of reaction.'

Between these two rival ideas working-class organizations are to-day endeavouring to decide in most countries. In Italy the majority of the Socialist Party has officially accepted the doctrines of the Third International. Elsewhere left-wing groups, such as the Spartacus element in Germany, the I.W.W. in America, and the communist parties (generally small numerically) in most other European countries have joined. Other bodies have withdrawn from the Second International because it is too reactionary, and refuse to join the third because it is too revolutionary. Thus again the socialist movement reveals its fatal capacity for infinite divisibility.

Politically the fortunes of socialism have fluctuated widely since the Armistice. The British general election of December, 1918, swept by the passions aroused by victory, witnessed an overwhelming triumph for the coalition party; the Labour Party secured one-quarter of the votes in Great Britain, but owing to the defective electoral system obtained only one-tenth of the seats. During 1919 French socialists were badly beaten at the polls, as was the Labour Party in Australia. In Germany the socialists were returned in such great strength to the Constituent Assembly as to make them the strongest party (but not a majority party) in that Assembly. In the elections of 1920 there was a big transfer of votes from the Socialist and Liberal Parties both to the extreme left and extreme right, in consequence of which socialist political power was considerably weakened. In Italy alone did the elections of 1919 return a large left-wing Socialist Party (156 members in a House of 501), thanks to the spread of syndicalist and communist ideas during the preceding decade.

Books Recommended. Kirkup, T., “History of Socialism”; Sombart, W., “Socialism and the Social Movement”; Russell, B., “German Social Democracy; Orth, S. P., “Socialism and Democracy in Europe”; Beer, M., “History of British Socialism”; Pease, “History of the Fabian Society'); Hughan, J., American Socialism”; St. Ledger, A., "Australian Socialism; Walling, W. E., “Socialism as it is""; Bevan, E., “German Social Democracy During the War”); Dutt, P., “The Two Internationals”; Lenin, N., “The State and Revolution.

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »