ACCORDING TO A NEWSPAPER REPORT
That the political mass strike as a means of workers’ struggle, which we have recently been able to observe, has so quickly gained recognition is unique among the phenomena of party life. It is unique not just among party comrades but also among researchers. What is remarkable is not the question’s novelty, because, quite the opposite of being new, it has been under discussion for a very long time—even causing vehement arguments at international congresses twelve years ago. It was also discussed within our party, with the conversation tending toward whether the mass strike could, for example, be used to fight for universal suffrage in the Prussian parliament. What is remarkable is the way in which the mass strike has been suddenly included as a means of class struggle.
Not too long ago, this method was seen as something foreign to the proletarian-socialist class struggle, something inessential that couldn’t even be discussed,† and now we share the feeling that the political mass strike is no lifeless being, but represents rather one bit of a lively conflict. What led to such a rapid turnaround? The Russian Revolution! In Russia people also used to share the same views about the political mass strike as held by us. Although people knew very well that revolution would break out in Russia and that this would only run its course with the use of force, people didn’t know which form this would take. Now, after the glorious 22 of January which has inscribed itself with golden letters into the history books, we can clearly see which form the violent struggle for the overthrowing of Russian absolutism is taking. The size of the success of the political mass strike, as used in the Russian Revolution, has brought about this turnaround in how people perceive this political instrument.
What lies behind the fact that slogans of the political mass strike capture our attention so suddenly and so immediately? It must be a large realignment in class relations, causing workers to look instinctively for new weapons with which to fight their battles. In short, two opposing tendencies have surfaced inside our party recently, one exemplified in the person of Eduard Bernstein, the diligent propagandist of the politically demonstrative mass strike, the other personified in Dr. [Raphael] Friedeberg.‡ In the political mass strike, Bernstein sees the tool for fighting for political rights and for fighting off the ruling class’s constant theft of such rights. The opposite position has its base in the trade unions and found its expression in the Cologne Congress,* the summary of its argument running as follows: The general strike is something very dangerous and ruinous for the workers’ movement.
The more it seems that each position rules out the tenability of the other, the more erroneous this assumption actually turns out to be. Instead, they proceed from the same foundation, an anarchistic worldview, which observes things hanging in the air. According to the anarchistic perspective, a general strike—which certainly is the anarchists’ cure-all—can be generated, or ended, or refused, just as the workers want it. This conception of the mass strike does not see it as a product of historical development and necessity, but rather as a means that can be applied, or indeed ignored arbitrarily, at any time. The same logic finds its expression when the trade unions and leaders declare that we don’t want the general strike at all, and reckon that they have banished it from this world with a ten-line resolution. This is the same conception that states that the tactics—which means the methods—used in class struggle are not interlinked with the theory or the aims of that conflict, so they can be alternated or applied arbitrarily. This is the whole ahistorical, bourgeois way of conceptualizing things. Our opportunistic comrades take up the same position when they say that although principles must be protected, tactics do not have to take their lead from them.
Marxist socialists have an utterly different conception of things. If you were to ask one of these beings if they supported the general strike, then you would not get a yes or no answer, as you would from the anarchists, but rather the response that we would first need to familiarize ourselves with the relations, to see whether such a method was demanded by historical necessity. The incorporation of such a method into the weapons of class struggle does not, as we see, depend on whether individuals want it or don’t want it; instead, it is developments in relations that force this method onto the workers.
We are moving toward the highest escalation of societal relations. We should not permit ourselves to lose sight of foreign politics. The Russo-Japanese War has led to a colossal realignment in relations between powers. It has pushed Asia’s young military power into the foreground and has made an essential contribution to toppling Russian absolutism. Since 1895, when Japan was cheated out of the fruits of its victory,* the major powers brought about an inner, larger aggravation of the circumstances in the Far East. Until then the hotspot of international politics was beside the Bosphorus. However, since 1895 the Far East has caught our attention.† This proves that the old world politics and world-economics—as Marx called it‡—have stepped over the borders of Europe and the world hotspot has relocated to the Far East.
Given that [Jean] Jaurès bases his peace propaganda on the peoples’ increasing insight, due to peace prevailing in Europe for the last thirty years, one look at the global political situation—at the major powers’ increasing escalation against each other, at the insane rearmament—shows us how wrong and shortsighted Jaurès’ politics is. The Russo-Japanese War showed us that this was not the end of martial struggles, but rather just the beginning of a new phase.§ Due to its victories and position of prominence, Japan will become the object of severe attacks launched by the old powers, during which we [Germany], as events at the fortresses in Jiaozhou have illustrated,¶ will no longer be mere spectators but rather participants. Which precipitates, in its turn, growing rearmament on land and on the sea, and new import duties and taxes in domestic politics; this causes a situation of permanent famine, as already exists in certain regions of Germany. The starving classes of the population, forced to nourish themselves from fungi, demonstrate the monstrous cleft between the capitalists’ lifestyle, and the lifestyle of the “beneficiaries” of capital.
When viewed from either socio-climatic corner—the Ruhr conurbation and the Saxony-Thuringia textile industry,* with its starving, boundlessly exploited proletarians, who remind us of the first pioneers of the class struggle, the silk weavers of Lyon†—this scenario demonstrates to us how things really stand; but they also show us the impotence and limitations of the trade union movement.
There is no difference at all between the situation of Lyon’s silk weavers in the first third of the last century and our present day. We can see the big social struggle coming already, and on top of that the repercussions of the Russian Revolution, as has already been seen in Austria.‡
The Russian Revolution has to mean an escalation of class struggles, whether these are victorious or not. In case of victory, the revolution will certainly not create a socialist paradise, but it will—if accompanied by the creation of a modern, bourgeois state-of-law—trigger class struggles within the party with a mighty bang. From that point on, the political struggle in all modern countries will storm ahead, opening up a new era for Europe. Even if we only focus on international escalation in the Far East, [it is clear that] we are moving toward large political battles. The struggle that German Social Democracy has led until now was a role model for all other countries,§ but we need to be conscious that it was solely tailored for parliamentarianism, and guaranteed power for us in this area. The escalation of the struggle and the application of new methods go hand-in-hand with realignment of power relations between the masses on the outside, and their representatives. The consciousness of the masses, who know that they must fight for their rights on the streets, shows that the question of whether the mass strike is useful or harmful, is hypothetical. This question will become just as superfluous as the question that used to be asked, of whether one should take part in parliamentary life or not.
Characteristic for adversaries of the political mass strike are [Karl] Frohme’s¶ deliberations at a meeting in Hamburg, where he urgently warned against playing with fire, what with this mass of explosive substance currently piled around us. All questions regarding what should be used to shut up the striking masses, etc., have apparently already been answered by Russia’s practical example.
The anxiety of the unions that such struggle brings suffering or even ruination into their organizations bears witness to ignorance about these struggles, which have actually become historically necessary. It sure is a worrying sign that people in the German trade union movement are starting to look at the form [of struggle] as if it were the main issue. The petrified monsters in the English trade unions should be a cautionary tale for us all.
All organizations destroyed by the Antisocialist Laws,* including the Organization of Book Printers, who had to bow before a certain clause, came out of that same struggle strengthened tenfold. When the revolution broke out, the Russian workers had next to no organization at all—and now? Now they have trained the masses to the point that work can be stopped in an instant, one minute in this city, the next minute in the next. Today they have organizations, and although still in the first phase of construction, their core is good. We might wish the German trade unions had something of their spirit. (Quite right!)
It is evident from these deliberations that we cannot grasp things in a one-sided, mechanical fashion, and that, above all, we cannot just pay heed to domestic politics, but must also follow foreign developments.
If today, as a result of one of those well-known, sudden decisions, Russian despotism should end up being saved by German bayonets, then the German working class couldn’t watch passively while the Russian people are cheated out of the prize for their struggles; they would have to take a stand, and allow the situation to teach them which method to use.
The mass strike does not have to be used in seizing the right to vote—it depends entirely on the situation.
But the working class must be informed about all these proceedings, so that they deserve to be called revolutionaries! Readiness is everything! (Thunderous applause, lasting a long time.)