Robert Schmidt has repeatedly emphasized that there can be no antithesis between the party and the unions in Germany. Actually, there ought not to be any such conflict, but if certain phenomena within the German workers’ movement are likely to create and stir up such an antithesis, this very speech by Schmidt has shown us that there actually are elements working in that direction. (“Quite right!”)
Because what else was the central axis of the speech by Schmidt, who asked to speak for an hour in order to explain and justify his behavior regarding the May Day celebration, but who actually used his time to undertake an unprecedented spate of badgering and baiting against Neue Zeit and against theory in general. (“Quite right!”) In fact, this badgering was carried on with such unpleasant methods and in such an obnoxious way as we have previously encountered only from our bitterest opponents from the camp of the bourgeoisie. (Quite right!)
Kautsky is actually the person called upon to speak on behalf of Neue Zeit,† but he is busy right now at the Fifteenth Commission.‡ In Kautsky’s absence, I feel it is my duty to present some facts to shed light on the methods Schmidt uses in his fight against Neue Zeit. Indeed, certain accusations have been made by Vorwärts in woeful tones like this: “Oh, what a shame it is that Neue Zeit does not work sufficiently toward the theoretical education of the masses!” Vorwärts is so busy that it cannot do this itself. Among those who are ready at any moment to complain that Neue Zeit has such a small circulation, then, we must also apparently include Robert Schmidt, but such people seize on every opportunity with the greatest zeal to work against Neue Zeit, to discredit it and tear it apart. Thus, Schmidt literally says it would be a blessing for the workers not to read Neue Zeit any more. I ask you, how can a party “comrade,” a SPD delegate to the Reichstag, abase himself in such a way and say such things against Neue Zeit, the only theoretical publication [we have], whose purpose is to educate the German workers about socialism! (“Quite right!”)
Supposedly, Neue Zeit has too few articles about the unions. I have here the table of contents of the articles about the unions that Neue Zeit published during the past year, not counting articles on the subject of the mass strike. I will go through this list with the proof right here in my hand because all this is highly relevant to the question of Robert Schmidt’s truthfulness and competence in dealing with source material
During this past year, in issue No. 2 of Neue Zeit, [Karl] Legien wrote on the subject of the past decade of the union movement;* in issue No. 9, [Paul] Umbreit wrote on the so-called “labor chambers” [Arbeiterkammern];† in issue No. 20, [F.] Schnetter wrote about the “guild ideas” in the wage agreements [Zunftgedanken in den Tarifverträgen];‡ in issue No. 27, [Eugen] Umrath on the general strike debates; in issue No. 28, Umbreit on the enthusiasm for industrial peace; in No. 33, [Emil] Kloth on the general strike and May Day [discussions] at the trade union congress in Cologne; also in No. 33, Hermann Müller wrote about a fusion within the realm of the unions; in No. 34, Heinrich Baer on union and party; also in No. 34, Kautsky on a revision of union tactics; in No. 36, Kautsky on the Cologne union congress; in No. 41, Hoch on the Christian union movement in Germany; in No. 47, Stroebel on the unions and the spirit of socialism; [and] in No. 48, [Hermann] Fleissner on party and union. (“Hear, hear!”)
At any rate, in this rather lengthy list, you will not find the names of either Robert Schmidt or [Otto] Hué, nor of one whose name has earned even greater recognition, [Adolph] von Elm. (“Well said!”) If you want to find these names, you have to look, not in Neue Zeit, but look in Sozialistischen Monatsheften, or take a step farther afield and look in Neuen Gesellschaft [New Society], also a reformist and revisionist publication; or even farther afield in Europa, the now defunct publication of Messieurs Michalski and Eduard Bernstein. (Laughter and shouts of “Quite right!”)
That’s where they write, but not for Neue Zeit. And then they come along, these people who have carried their spiritual lanterns off to shine in other places—they come here and plant themselves down and say that Neue Zeit doesn’t have anything in it about the unions and that it would be a good thing if it wasn’t read any more.
Schmidt emphasized, among other things, that if anyone did write about the unions in Neue Zeit, it would certainly be only some godforsaken theoretician who didn’t understand anything about the practical work of the unions, and as proof he cites an article by the well-known theoretician Fleissner from Dresden (laughter), and a second article by the even better known theoretician, a journeyman baker, [H.] Fischer from Weimar (more laughter).
And what about Schmidt’s understanding of how to cite source material? He read out the following sentence: “Now the striving to improve the conditions of life for workers in the state that exists today must quite naturally contribute to the prolonging of the existence of this state, because the better things go for the individual members of a state system, the less reason will these members have for bringing about a change of that state system.” Here he quickly claps the book shut and says, Yes, you see, such are the views that are spread about by Neue Zeit. But this is not where the article began, and this is not where it ended.
To begin with, the author was taking up a question that was urgent at that time—whether the neutrality of the trade unions, generally speaking, was a new discovery, a “recipe” being recommended to the unions for the first time, or whether this was not in fact an old practice of the unions. The author wrote:
The trade unions have always objected against anyone incorrectly describing them as organs of the SPD, as Social Democratic trade unions. The grounds for this are clear; the objectives of the unions lie in a different sphere from those of the Social Democratic Party.
The author then speaks in favor of a division of labor between the party and the unions, and then after the sentence quoted by Schmidt, the author adds the following:
If Social Democracy now wants to carry through a change in spite of everything, it must be in the position to demonstrate convincingly that the goal it is striving for will bring further improvement for the unions—more improvements than is possible to achieve in the present society through union organizations alone.
Thus, Schmidt has simply cut the passage in half. I don’t know if Schmidt was already convinced, even before he picked up this article, that it would be a good thing if Neue Zeit was not read so much, and therefore, accordingly, read only that one sentence torn out of context. (Laughter.) But matters stand in exactly the same way with regard to Comrade Schmidt’s truthfulness, when he asserts emphatically that Neue Zeit is a publication specially devoted to disparaging parliamentarism. He even presents us with the frightening specter in France of conditions that have allegedly gone all to pieces, and claims that Neue Zeit has been working in that same direction. I would like him to show me even one single article in Neue Zeit where parliamentarism is disparaged.
But perhaps what Schmidt means by “disparagement of parliamentarism” is the critique of the bourgeois system of parliamentarism, which our program, our class point of view, obliges us to make. If that is his understanding, if he believes that it is our duty to praise the bourgeois parliamentary system to the skies, then I must certainly say that Neue Zeit cannot win or deserve the praise of Robert Schmidt, and I hope that in the future, as long as Kautsky edits it, it will not deserve the praise of Robert Schmidt.* (Applause.)
Comrade Schmidt, in his personal remarks about me, starts out by reproaching me for a lack of kindliness—that is, a courteous, friendly, comradely tone. I feel deeply touched and very contrite. Fortunately, I know a way to correct this lack, and to raise myself to a level of true and proper kindliness. (Laughter.)
To be specific, Schmidt advised the theoreticians to join the trade unions and work in them. In fact, I believe that would be very healthy for me as a way of learning about kindliness and comradeliness. Proof of this is given in an article that Comrade Hué recently published in the German mineworkers’ paper.† At the end of his article there is a passage that can serve as a model of kindliness toward one’s comrades:
In Russia, for years, the people’s freedom struggle has been raging. We have always wondered why our theoretical “general-strikers” don’t immediately go to Russia to join in the fight and gather practical experience of the struggle. In Russia the workers are shedding their blood. Why aren’t the theoreticians rushing to the scene of battle?—especially those who came from Russia and Poland and are now in Germany, France, or Switzerland, writing such stirringly “revolutionary” articles. For those who show such an excess of “revolutionary” energy as do our systematic promoters of the general strike—it is time for them to take a practical part in the Russian fight for freedom instead of pushing along the general strike discussion from their summer vacation resorts. Better to test things out in practice than just study them in theory.‡ And so, off you go, you “theoreticians of the class struggle”—off to the fight for freedom in Russia!
And then here is what Pastor Naumann had to say in his publication Die Hilfe [Assistance], after quoting with delight the passage above by Hué: “These words are well said! The international revolutionaries should tell us why they are not international enough to betake themselves right now to Warsaw.”
In other words, Comrade Hué invites us in the most kindly and comradely fashion to go to that place where very recently the public prosecutor assisted my close party comrade, Marcin Kasprzak, to achieve the highest honor that can be rendered to any Social Democrat.*
And so I believe I have the right to hope that in the trade unions I will not only arrive at a true understanding of the fundamental principles and practical tactics of the workers’ movement but also be instructed on how to maintain a genuinely kind and comradely tone in discussions among party members.
With regard to Neue Zeit, I have a further point I would like to make—namely, that Schmidt is heading for a big disappointment if he is hoping that Neue Zeit will be read as little as possible by the workers. As you know, the loveliest kind of badgering campaign already occurred once before, in 1902 in Munich. What effect did that have on the growth of Neue Zeit? In the first half of 1902, the number of subscribers was 3,700; and in the second half, 3,600. But in the first half of 1905, it was 4,800; and in the second half, 5,100. (“Hear, hear!”)
Thus, we see that the attack by “party comrades” against Neue Zeit had the same effect, generally speaking, as the attacks by the bourgeois press against Social Democracy. We have grown healthier from that, and it gives us rosy cheeks. (“Well said!”)
For those who do not know what the usual circulation figures are for a scholarly-theoretical review, I will add the point that Neue Zeit, with this number of subscriptions, is not only not lagging behind the best bourgeois reviews, but is ahead of them. This number of subscriptions for a scholarly publication not aimed at a mass audience must be described as “excellent.”
Now a few more words about the main question before us—whether there is a conflict between the party and the unions. Comrade Hüttmann states that he doesn’t understand where the attacks on the unions are coming from. He cannot imagine that there are union people who fail to stand with both feet firmly planted on the ground of the class struggle. Facta loquuntur.†
I want to call to your attention some leaflets that were recently circulated by the Center Party‡ against Social Democracy, in particular during the election campaign in Essen, where they capitalized on a whole series of statements excerpted from the trade union press and used them against us. These statements show that many “union people,” in fact, no longer stand firmly on the ground of the class struggle and that there are “unionists” who are stirring up conflicts with the party, and they exist, not purely in someone’s imagination, but in sad reality.
The first leaflet, put out by the Center Party, is entitled “Take Off the Mask!” And here is what it says:
A correspondent writing to the publication Deutschlands Buchdrucker [The Book Printers of Germany] directs a complaint against Social Democracy, charging political impotence with regard to the question of the political mass strike. He writes in issue No. 65 for this year: “Indeed with their mysticism about the political mass strike, people are only shielding an incompetent policy [based on] the Jacobin system, which at one time did help develop the agitational strength of Social Democracy, but is unsuitable for constructive political work, for real political strength in the sense of positive and lasting results. The union movement did not need the historical references by Bernstein; his utterances are only proof of the political helplessness of the party, which can move neither forward nor back, because it is bound hand and foot by an outdated program, and as a result is tied fast to its wrong politics and policies.”
In a second leaflet the Center Party states:
In issue No. 23 of Fachgenossen [Skilled Workers], the Social Democrat Edmund Fischer: “One may still value workers’ insurance so little as to ignore the fact that today’s recipient of old age or disability insurance occupies an entirely different social position compared to the grandfather of twenty-five years ago, no longer able to work, who thus became a burden on his children, or who felt it was shameful to live on social security payments. The social [security] laws are, to be sure, always the foundation structures. But they are nevertheless only the foundation, and thus they constitute the starting point for a grand edifice of human solidarity. And the effort to outdo one another in completing the construction of this grand edifice has awakened and strengthened the idea of community, of equality, of solidarity, in circles that are numbered not only among the workers, and thus this idea has contributed to the general ennoblement of spiritual life.”
To this wonderful utterance the Center Party, of course, only needed to add the following comment: “Is this not an annihilating condemnation of the negative politics of Social Democracy?”
That is the way this union person gives his evaluation of the [existing] workers’ insurance system, which our parliamentary delegates have never grown tired of criticizing.
Comments like these show that, in fact, there are union people who are creating a division, or fissure, making a dichotomy between Social Democratic party politics, on the one hand, and trade union practice, on the other. Actually, this split is not between the party and the unions, but exists within the unions themselves, and to a certain extent within the party as well. It is this that constitutes the split between the “revised” conception of a minority of leaders and the healthy, revolutionary conception of the mass of the workers. The mass of union members is on our side and certainly feels that it is in the interest of both the party and the unions that the workers’ movement as a whole should be pervaded throughout by one and the same spirit, that the movement in all its component parts must be carried along by the spirit of socialism. (Lively agreement.) They all feel that the unions and the Social Democratic Party must say to themselves, like Bertha in William Tell: “There is one enemy before whom we all tremble, and one freedom that makes us all free.”* (Hearty applause.)
People listening here to the previous speeches† in the debate on the question of the political mass strike must really feel like clutching their heads and asking: “Are we actually living in the year of the glorious Russian Revolution, or are we still living ten years ago?” (Voice from the hall: “Quite right!”)
Day after day, we are reading news about the revolution in the papers, we are reading the telegram dispatches, but it seems as though some of us don’t have eyes to see or ears to hear. There are people asking us to tell them how to make the general strike, exactly by what means, at what hour the general strike will be declared. Are you already stocked up with food and other necessities? The masses will die of hunger. Can you bear to have it on your conscience that some blood will be spilled? Yet all those people who ask such questions do not have the slightest contact with the masses or feeling for them. Otherwise, they would not worry their heads so much about the blood of the masses, because it so happens that responsibility for that lies least of all with the comrades who ask such questions.
Schmidt asks, why should we all of a sudden give up our old, tried-and-true tactic in favor of the general strike? Why should we all of sudden commit this kind of suicide? Then does Robert Schmidt not see that a time has come which was predicted to us by our great teachers, Marx and Engels, a time when evolution becomes transformed into revolution? We see the Russian Revolution, and we would be donkeys if we have learned nothing from it.
And then [Wolfgang] Heine steps up and asks Bebel, well, have you thought about the fact that in the event of a general strike not only our well-organized crafts and trades but also the unorganized masses will appear on the scene, and are you going to rein in these masses? From this one phrase* we see revealed to us Heine’s entire bourgeois conception, which is a shame and a scandal for any Social Democrat. (Commotion in the hall.)
Previous revolutions, in particular that of 1848, have shown that in revolutionary situations it is not the masses who must be reined in, but the parliamentary lawyers, so that they won’t betray the masses and the revolution.
Schmidt [earlier] referred to “the Belgian experiment” and to [Émile] Vandervelde’s comments.† I believe that if anything has ever shown that a magnificent spontaneous mass movement could be ruined by petty-mindedness, that strike was it. And Vandervelde could not cite a single fact to refute my criticism, but instead he tried to talk his way out of it with hackneyed generalities when I demonstrated to him that this entire magnificent mass strike movement was ruined by parliamentary wheeling and dealing with the liberals.‡ (Eduard Bernstein from the floor: “Not true!” Luxemburg to Bernstein: “Oh, what do you understand about such things?” Great commotion in the hall.)
Here Heine has summoned up the specter of bloody red revolution, and has said that the blood of the German people—this was the gist of his remarks—is more precious to him than to that light-minded youngster, Bebel. I will leave aside personal questions about who has greater competence and who is more capable of taking responsibility, Bebel or the cautious and statesmanlike Heine, but surely we can see from history that all revolutions have been paid for with the blood of the people. The only difference is that, up until now, that blood has been spilled on behalf of the ruling classes, and now when we are within sight of the possibility that they might shed their blood for their own class interests, all at once there appear some cautious so-called Social Democrats who say, “No, that blood is too precious.”
What we are talking about is not a matter of immediately proclaiming the revolution; it is not even a matter of proclaiming the mass strike. And if Heine, Schmidt, and [Karl] Frohme call upon us to organize the masses and educate them, we will answer them that we are doing that, but we don’t want to do it in their sense. (Cries of “Ach! Ach!” from the hall.)
Not in the sense of covering things up and smoothing over contradictions, as these comrades have been doing year after year and day after day. No, it is not the organization that comes before everything else, but it is above all the revolutionary spirit of enlightenment! That is much more important. Remember the time of the antisocialist “exceptional laws”! Our unions were broken to pieces, and yet they rose again from the ashes, like the phoenix. And it will be the same in the future in periods when mighty battles are fought. The most important thing is to educate the masses, and there we don’t have to be as cautious as the union leaders were in Cologne. The unions must not become an end-in-themselves, thereby becoming obstructions that interfere with the workers’ freedom of movement. When will you finally learn from the Russian Revolution? There the masses were driven into the revolution; not a trace of union organizations, and yet step-by-step they built and strengthened their organizations in the course of the struggle. The point is that this is a totally mechanical and non-dialectical conception, that strong organizations must always precede the struggle. The opposite is true: organizations are born out of struggle, together with class enlightenment.
In the face of all this petty-mindedness we must remind ourselves that the final words of the Communist Manifesto are not just a string of pretty phrases to be trotted out at public meetings, but that we are in deadly earnest when we shout out to the masses: “Workers of the world, … You have nothing to lose but your chains; you have a world to win.”