Source: International Socialist Review, August 1903 issue, Vol. IV, No. 2. pp. 89-94.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for marxists.org, April, 2023.
“Even the mentally most inert Philistine and the most brainless minister of state will now certainly stir from his stupor and anxiously inquire, What next?” writes Comrade [Karl] Kautsky in a recent issue of the Neue Zeit. “He must realize that things can no longer continue as heretofore, that the so-called ‘fight with the weapons of the mind’ against Socialism is a total failure. This fight has never been much more than a string of misquotations for the purpose of proving that the strongest party in Germany is composed of a lot of idiots, scoundrels and vandals. And it is the sum total of the intellectual ammunition which the bourgeoisie used against us during the recent campaign.”
But a thorough bourgeois never learns anything. Says the Neue Zeit editorially in its issue of July 4:
“One would think that those diminutive fractions of the bourgeois left would bethink themselves a little after the crushing defeat which they have suffered. During the first few days after the catastrophe, they indeed made some desultory remarks that might have caused some unusually confiding mind to harbor the expectation that they would repent in sack and ashes. But this mood passed off rapidly, and to-day they are once more masters of the situation. It is not the Berliner Tageblatt, not the Frankfurter Zeitung, nor any of the other charming members of that newspaper family, that have received a shameful drubbing in the elections, but rather — the Social Democracy is once more on the eve of its internal dissolution, or it is in the moulting stage toward liberal radicalism, or — well, in short, it is really the Socialist party that has lost the electoral battle, and we should be thankful to at last follow the wise counsels of those honest papers.”
According to the capitalist press, the Socialist party is once more on the verge of disruption, because — lo and behold! — Comrade Edward Bernstein has stirred up a little storm in a teacup about non-essentials by an article in the Socialistische Monatshefte, in which he warms up the old contention that the Socialist party should assert its right to the vice-presidency in the Reichstag. Of course, for Bernstein and his opportunist friends this matter is by no means unessential, but of the gravest diplomatic consequences. Our great revolutionist friend inflates this vice-presidential bubble into a mighty balloon which will carry the Socialist party, in his opinion, from a position of cold and unsympathetic criticism to one of fruitful and effective political activity. He declares that no principle will be violated by accepting the representative duties of this position together with the parliamentary duties, because “a visit to the emperor is a formality pure and simple” which does not in the least touch any of our fundamental principles. It is “purely an acknowledgement of the present political status, by which we do not in the least signify our adherence to the principles of monarchy.” Moreover, “the imperial constitution, more than any other, stands in its origin and stipulations next to the principles of a republic.” The constitution does not recognize the traditional rights of monarchs, because “it does not recognize an emperor of Germany, or an emperor of the Germans, but only a German emperor.” In some parts of Germany the Socialist representatives are compelled to take the oath of allegiance, and “that is a much more serious matter than a simple visit to the emperor. A Socialist does not sacrifice his principles by making a visit, once or twice in the year, to the executive head of the state, as a representative of the elected representative authority, under the provisions of the constitution.”
The capitalist press takes this very minor matter as seriously as does Bernstein himself. The Nationalliberale Korrespondenz declares that it does not wish to give rise to “the erroneous idea that only a certain part of the liberals is liberal enough to fully recognize the claim of the Socialists to the position of vice president. This is in no way the case. Especially in the national liberal party there is no desire to deny a claim that follows per se from the proportional strength of the various parties in the Reichstag.” But the National-Zeitung, the liberal radical organ, is not so willing to accede to the claims of the Socialists. If the Socialists should nominate Comrade [Paul] Singer for this position, it would be “a matter of course that all parties of the right should refuse to sanction the choice,” because “Singer, after being ordered to leave the session by authority of the rules of order, did not comply but violated these rules.” In reality, Vice President von Stolberg ordered Comrade Singer out of the house by a flagrant breach of the rules, and the “liberal radical” organ champions this reactionary despotism. The conservative organs take it for granted that no Socialist can ever occupy the seat of vice president, because we are opponents of monarchy and would not rise to join in the customary homage to the emperor. The organs of the Center party are divided. The Centrums-Korrespondenz and the Koelner Volks-Zeitung recall the fact that once upon a time the Center party was treated by the parties of the right like Cinderella, but hedges on the question of the personalities to be nominated by the Socialists. And the Germania, after repeating the old lie that “the Social Democracy proclaims atheism,” continues:
“Let us wait and see what the beginning of the Reichstag session will bring in the matter of the vice presidency. If the majority of the Reichstag should offer the Socialists that position, they will hardly be so ‘inhuman’ and impolite as to refuse it. But if Mr. Paul Singer should be nominated by them, then the majority of the Reichstag will no doubt refuse to accept him” on the specious ground mentioned above. Besides, the clerical organ complains that “that no Socialist will accept the duties of representation connected with the vice presidency, or call for a ‘Hoch’ for the emperor, as required by the majority of the Reichstag and by the loyalty for the monarch.”
Vorwaerts replies that
“We are quite satisfied, if the Center fraction will violate our good right by hypocritical interpretations. We are fully alive to the difficulties growing out of an acceptance of the vice presidency by a Socialist. And we offer no objection if the majority of the Reichstag will open the new session by a violation of justice, which will brand them as a reactionary mass opposed to the Socialist Party, a party representing three million working class votes.”
Comrade Singer is much surprised at the stand taken by Bernstein. “It is queer,” he says,
“that the result of the elections, which opens up a great perspective for the future power of the party, should give Comrade Bernstein no other concern than the discussion of such a minor and unessential question. Power and influence are not vested in the vice presidency, but in the Reichstag. So far as urging a determined claim on the vice presidency is concerned, Bernstein is once again making an assault on an open door. There is no difference of opinion about that in the party. Speaking for myself, it seems to me that we shall insist on our claim, just as we did in 1898. It is also a matter of course that a Socialist vice president fulfills all the duties prescribed by the rules of business. We have so declared in the convention of seniors in 1898, when we made our claim to the vice presidency. But it was then sought to saddle certain social duties on us which are not provided for by the order of business. And when we declined to attend the imperial court our just claims were denied.
“I can see no reason for abandoning our standpoint, so much less as the vice presidency has not by far the importance attributed to it by Bernstein. * * * Of course, it would do us no harm to have a Socialist vice president. But neither can I see what great differences it would make for us whether one of us could ring the presidential bell or not. I deny that there is any occasion for the party to covet that position at any cost. * * * I lack the understanding for the necessity of opening up, without need, and immediately after a glorious campaign, such questions as will give renewed countenance to the widespread legend of the fundamental differences of opinion among the Socialists. * * * ”
The Leipziger Volkszeitung, the organ of the Leipsic Socialists, thinks that it is not worth while to enter into the sophisms of Bernstein at the present moment. But the Volksfreund of Karlsruhe is very angry at the insinuation that Bernstein’s argument is based on sophisms and announces that there will be a great revisionist campaign in the near future. The Neue Zeit points out that
“The priority for this idea of Bernstein’s belongs to the Berliner Tageblatt. Bernstein has aroused a great enthusiasm in the radical press by mentioning the idea that the Socialist fraction of the Reichstag should translate the valiant and heroic battle of three millions into a courteous bow before the monarchic principle. The capitalist paper suggested the idea immediately after the main election. But however much it is otherwise inclined to demand credit, it has not insisted on its prior claims in this instance, but prefers to regard as the mightily rushing spring of Socialism that which is in reality only the sluggish flow of muddy water from its own pipes. It is jubilant over the impending admission of the Socialists at court, because Comrade Bernstein recommends that the new representatives of the party, at the command of the bourgeois majority, should stoop to an action which is repugnant to their political principles.”
Bernstein’s assertion that the German constitution is almost democratic elicits the following from the Neue Zeit:
“We confess that we rubbed our eyes when we read that, for we thought we were dreaming. The origin of the German constitution is sufficiently known, and no one ever thought of denying that there was no constitution in Germany that had been made to such an extent without the people and its representatives, and so entirely by monarchs and princes, as the imperial constitution.”
The Neue Zeit strongly suspects that Bernstein does not know the literature dealing with the origin of this constitution, especially since he attributes such a high diplomatic value to the distinction between an emperor of Germany, an emperor of the Germans and a German emperor. The Neue Zeit then quotes from a work of Professor Lorenz, how the German emperor was the creation of the meanest intrigues of the German princes during the Franco-Prussian war.
“When all these contemptible intrigues began to blossom out in their sins, Bismarck asked one of his conspirators what was the Latin word for sausage. When he was told that it was ‘farcimentum’ he joked about those fine diplomatic distinctions now mentioned by Comrade Bernstein: ‘Nescio quid mihi magis farcimentum esset’ — I don’t know what would be more sausage to me — in other words, all kaisers look alike to me.”
The Neue Zeit concludes by saying:
“If those (capitalist) papers rejoice at Comrade Bernstein’s proposition as if somebody had fried an extra sausage for them, then the party should, in our opinion, close the books for once and all in this matter of eternally revising our most elementary principles, by repeating the words of Bismarck: Nescio quid mihi magis farcimentum esset. We can really afford to do that after the 16th of June, and it would not be the least gratifying result of that glorious day.”
While Bernstein, with characteristic opportunist smallness, is wasting time and paper on a bagatelle, Kautsky publishes an exhaustive and deep analysis of the new situation created by the result of the elections and the probable course to be followed by the government against the Socialists. He shows that the government has two ways to oppose us: [First,] by weakening the proletariat through a corruption of its leaders. This method is hopeless in Germany. It is also futile to hope for success by trying the tactics of the English bourgeoisie against the trade unions. The German trade unions have a generation of class conscious political action behind them, and the German bourgeoisie is not as strong as the English. The other method is brutal suppression of political rights under the leadership of the army officers, the representatives of the aristocrats. Kautsky thinks that the growth of the Socialist movement will increase this tendency toward violent methods, but that the reaction of to-day is not as strong as it was in the years following 1848.
“Then it followed in the wake of the violent suppression of the revolutionary classes and countries; today it grows with the continuous increase of the revolutionary masses. Then it drew its strength from the complete helplessness of the masses against the government; to-day it is accompanied by a growing rebellion against the ruling regime. Then it was mainly supported by a strong government, behind which stood a small but aggressive caste of nobles; today the government as a reactionary factor is far outdone by the reactionary parties, and these are not produced by one class, but by various classes with different interests and methods of warfare. It is extremely difficult to unite them all under one leadership, and it is impossible to keep them permanently together for united action.” * * *
This dissolution of the reactionary elements is furthermore offset by the fact that with the decline of liberalism the revolutionary Socialists become more and more a political necessity.
“Liberalism is dead, and a strong Socialist Party alone offers the possibility to protect the German nation against brainless experiments and to do justice to the most elementary needs of the economic and intellectual development.”
From these premises Kautsky concludes that
“a regime of great political and economic reforms is excluded by the present situation. But neither is a regime of permanent restriction and violent suppression of the proletarian movement probable, although it is more likely to be tried than an era of reform. However, if it should come to such a regime of the ‘strong man,’ and he should succeed in stifling some of the signs of life of the Socialist Party for a short time, it could only be a regime so absolutely out of harmony with the requirements of modern life, so narrow and stupid, that it would soon bring Germany to the verge of ruin and face to face with a catastrophe, which would result in a much greater victory of the Socialist Party and in the conquest of the political power by the proletariat.”
The probable policy, according to Kautsky, will be one of inconsistency, vacillating between concession and violent repression. To those who would derive from such inconsistency the hope that the government might try to seek a modus vivendi with the Socialists, if they would accept the tactics of state Socialism, Kautsky answers:
“This is a conception which looks very clever, but is in reality extremely foolish, because it neglects the economic basis of things. It emanates from the premise that the governments derive their powers from within themselves, as if they were not dependent on the ruling classes.”
It follows from the foregoing that the work of the Socialist representatives will largely deal with the problems mapped out by the so-called immediate demands. Vorwaerts of July 4 declares that the Socialists will more than ever demand a fulfillment of its social duties from the government. They must try to obtain the legal eight-hour day, combat female and child labor, provide for greater protection of the employes of house industries, and meet the problems of factory inspection and workingmen’s insurance. The problem of the unemployed and of providing for widows and orphans of the working class should also be solved in the next Reichstag.
But whether the Socialists will succeed in obtaining these demands or not, Vorwaerts is certain that the German working class will not permit the ruling classes any longer to rest in sloth and idleness. “The working men will press the spur of critique into the flanks of the class state, until it starts ahead — toward the final goal, Socialism.”
Ernest Untermann.
Last updated on 9 April 2023