CHAPTER XIII

RECENT PROGRESS OF SOCIALISM

During recent years the organised socialism has made notable progress in nearly all parts of Europe. The German working men still continue to form the vanguard of the proletariat of the world. At the general election of 1893 the Social Democrats polled 1,786,000 votes, which was an increase of nearly 360,000 on the large figures of 1890. At the general election of 1898 the Social Democratic vote rose to about 2,100,000. Their seats in the Reichstag increased from 48 to 56, out of a total of 397.

There is no change to record in the principles of this powerful party. Its tactics, while remaining essentially the same, naturally vary to some degree according to circumstances. It adheres to the Erfurt programme. Its single-minded aim is the advocacy and promotion of the interests and ideals of the working class of Germany without compromise and without alliance with other parties, though it is ready to co-operate with them in particular questions. The party consistently refuses to vote for the imperial budgets, not only because they are designed for the support of militarism, but because they are so largely made up of indirect taxes that throw an unfair burden on the poorer classes. To the high tariff, which, after long discussion, came into operation in 1906, they offered the most strenuous resistance. The Social Democrats are also in general opposed to the colonial policy of the empire. They are the champions of the democratic rights of the people, of free speech, of a free press, and especially of the right of combination, which was lately threatened by the Emperor. In all matters relating to factory legislation and the better protection of the working class in its daily life and vocation they are forward both to make suggestions themselves and to assist any legislation which is really fitted to contribute towards these important ends. They claim, in fact, to be the representatives and advocates in the widest sense of the working class of Germany, and are opposed to all measures which tend to strengthen the class State to which they are so entirely opposed. While expressing a preference for peaceful methods, they still regard as probable a great crisis or catastrophe by which they will gain political power and so realise their collectivist ideal. Such a crisis will, they say, be brought on not by them but by the ruling classes, of which the class State is the representative.

At the Annual Congress at Stuttgart in 1898 the busts of Marx and Lassalle appeared on the platform amidst laurels and palms. The busts of Lassalle, Karl Marx, and Engels were grouped amidst ferns and flowers round an allegorical figure of Liberty on the platform at the Hanover Congress of 1899. It is only right to add that, with the development of Social Democracy in Germany and throughout the world, the stage on which these men appear seems to widen and their stature to grow. Their writings, whether learned or popular, are read and pondered in all lands of the civilised world, sometimes leading to organisation and action, often to latent thought and conviction ready to bear fruit in due time. Lassalle and Karl Marx promise to be, if they are not already, historical figures of the first magnitude.

It is also clear that, if the Social Democracy means to be worthy to guide the destinies of the working class of Germany, it must not stiffen and degenerate into a sect. Its principles and tactics founded on the views of Marx must be subject to continual discussion and to revision. The party is disposed to take Marx too literally, more literally than Marx took himself. They have been disposed out of season to emphasise the ultra-revolutionary side of Marx. We have already seen that this ultra-revolutionary side of Marx was the product of a time and of circumstances which no longer prevail in Germany or elsewhere, or prevail at least in a much milder degree. But there was another side to Marx. It would not be fair to call it his opportunist side. On this side Marx had regard to his environment, as every man must have. Even in the communistic manifesto Marx recommended co-operation with other advanced parties for the attainment of democratic ends. He recognised the possibilities of progress contained in a peaceful evolution. Factory legislation and the co-operative movement in England were not only good results, they were the victories of new principles. As we have seen, he believed that in America, England, and Holland the workmen might attain their goal by peaceful means. In a milder time it would only be consistent that this milder side of Marx should be more emphasised by his followers.

The necessity for a criticism of Marx as a condition of the further development of his teaching has recently been pointed out by Eduard Bernstein, formerly editor of the _Sozialdemokrat_. This criticism he attempted in a memorial addressed to the Congress at Stuttgart, and more fully in 1899 in a book _Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemocratie_. Bernstein’s criticism is applied more or less to all the leading positions of Marx, his materialistic conception of history, his dialectical method, his theory of surplus value, his revolutionary conception of social development which looks forward to a great catastrophe as the close of the capitalistic era. He maintains that statistics do not favour the theory that a social catastrophe is imminent as the result of a class war carried on by a continually increasing host of impoverished and degraded proletarians against a diminishing band of the colossal magnates of capitalism, and has greater faith in a peaceful evolution through the democratic transformation of the State, the extension of municipal socialism and of the co-operative movement. We need not say that we believe that these criticisms are in the right direction.

Bernstein’s book made a great stir in Germany, and received a limited support at the Hanover meeting. But a resolution, which was moved by Bebel in a long and able speech, and which affirmed the old positions of the party against Bernstein, was carried by an overwhelming majority.

The abstract collectivism of the German Social Democratic party is not fitted to ensure success among the peasantry. Yet at the election of 1898 they gained ground in many agricultural districts east of the Elbe. We may presume that these results were obtained chiefly among the purely labouring class as distinguished from the men who own their farms. But they do not despair of also winning over the peasant owners, many of whom are heavily burdened with mortgages. The peasant owner is often proprietor only in name, being really caretaker for the mortgagee, and therefore merely a dependent of the capitalist.

All previous successes of the German Social Democrats were eclipsed by the triumph at the general election of 1903, when they counted 3,010,000 votes, and returned 81 members. Of the entire poll they had 32 per cent, or nearly one-third. It was an increase of 900,000.

The number of their seats in the Reichstag never correspond to their votes at the elections. There has been no Redistribution Act since the founding of the Empire, and the strength of the party lies in the towns, which have grown enormously since 1871. Even under the most favourable circumstances they have little direct influence on the legislation of Germany, and still less on the executive, which depends on the Emperor and his ministers. The rôle prescribed to them by their circumstances is vigilant scrutiny and outspoken criticism. They are an opposition party. In fact, they are more and more becoming the only effective opposition party in Germany.

At the Jena meeting of 1905 the bust of Liebknecht, who died in 1900, held a place of honour on the platform beside those of Marx and Lassalle. Changes of organisation aiming at greater energy and efficiency were introduced. This meeting elected a party direction (_Parteivorstand_) of two chairmen, four secretaries and a treasurer, with the two assessors chosen by the Board of Control. It thus consisted of nine members. The Board of Control, which acts as check on this executive, also numbers nine members. Among the subjects discussed were the dearness of meat and other necessaries of life caused by the German protective system, and the question of the general strike, introduced in a masterly speech by Bebel, who advocated it as a possible resource in case universal suffrage be withdrawn, or the right of combination be infringed by the Government. A resolution in this sense was in principle adopted by a very large majority. It was confirmed at the Mannheim meeting in 1906.

The German Social Democrats do not insist on universal suffrage in the hope of exercising any immediate influence on the Government or in the Reichstag. They regard it rather as an instrument of agitation and education. They seek to enlighten the masses of the people, to make them of one mind on the political and economic questions that concern them, to organise and discipline them for the great task of emancipation. Their main field of action is the people, not parliament. Their ‘main aim is to win the whole working class for socialism.’

In this aim their prospect of success depends on how far they can win over the Catholic working men and the rural population. With both they have so far gained ground. It is not impossible that they may in time prevail with both. In their principles and tactics there is nothing now that need give offence to the religious convictions of the Catholic electors. The rural population could be won over by a suitable agrarian programme. In these circumstances the Centre and the Conservatives would alike have the ground taken away from under their feet, and the German Government would find itself in an untenable position. For in such a case the army could hardly continue to be a trustworthy support. The following significant passage occurs in the speech of Bebel already referred to:—‘The struggle in Russia sends a chill into the marrow-bones of our rulers much more than you believe. They have a deadly fear that the fire may cross the border. They say to themselves, if that is possible in Russia where there is no organisation, and the proletariat is comparatively small, what then may happen in Germany where we have politically enlightened masses and an organised proletariat, where already there are not only battalions but whole regiments in the army which consist of Social Democrats, and when the Reserve and the Landwehr are called out, whole brigades are formed of them?’[1] The raising of the tariff has been to the party a most helpful subject of agitation, which they have used to the uttermost. Molkenbuhr, one of their leaders, looks forward to the doubling of their adherents in a few years.

At the general election of 1907 the party had 3,260,000 votes, but owing to the more active combination against it of other parties it returned only 43 members. The congress at Nürnberg in 1908 was notable for the first serious opposition to the rigid discipline of the party. The claim of the South German members to vote for the budgets of their governments was maintained by a minority of 119 against 258.

It was not till 1894 that a Social Democratic party was founded in Holland. It is making progress: in the general election of 1897 it counted 13,000 votes, and returned 3 members out of 100. In 1901 it had 38,000 votes, and returned 7 members, and there was besides an independent socialist member. It had 65,000 votes and 7 members in 1905. An interesting feature of the Dutch movement is the sympathetic reception which socialism has met among the artist and intellectual class generally. It is curious that anarchism has had considerable influence, which, however, is declining.

In Denmark the social democratic movement began in 1871, and it continues to have a strong and growing influence. At the general election of 1903 the party returned 16 members out of 114, polling 56,000 votes. In 1906 it polled 77,000 votes and returned 24 members to the popular chamber. For some time before 1902 half of the members of the municipal council of Copenhagen were socialists. The mayor also was one of the party. Denmark may still rightfully be regarded as the most progressive country in Europe. Even in Norway and Sweden the socialists are gaining ground. They claim to have wielded a considerable influence in securing the peaceful separation of the two countries.

No country in Europe has during recent years had a more interesting social history than Belgium. In hardly any country has the working class endured such misery. Ignorance, long hours of labour and low wages, the want of political rights and of organisation, have for generations tended to keep the workers in the lowest estate. All the more remarkable, therefore, is the awakening which has recently taken place. The Belgian socialist party can now muster at the polls a voting strength of about half a million, and in a chamber of 166 it returns about one-fifth. In 1900 it had 33, in 1902 it had 34, in 1904 only 28, in 1906 it had 30, and 34 in 1908. The organisation of the trade-unions is well developed. But the distinctive feature of the social movement of Belgium is its co-operative undertakings. These are affiliated to the socialist movement, and form an admirable training on its more practical side. The Belgian socialist party is specially fortunate in such leaders as Anseele and Vandervelde.

France, which was so long the foremost nation in the revolutionary movement, has for the last three decades yielded the first place to Germany. The terrible disasters sustained by the working men of Paris in 1848 and 1871 quelled their revolutionary energy for a time. The first working men’s congress after the Commune met in 1876, and at the congress of Marseilles in 1879 a socialist party was organised. It remained a united party till 1882, when it polled 98,000 votes. Since that year French socialism has been fruitful in division. In view of the danger which in 1899 appeared to threaten the Republic in connection with the Dreyfus case, the socialist parties combined in common action for its defence. For this purpose they formed a permanent _comité d’entente socialiste_. Five important socialist organisations were included in the agreement. The good understanding was broken when the socialist Millerand entered the emergency Cabinet of that year. Without going into details, it is enough to say that there have been two main tendencies in French socialism—the uncompromising revolutionary school which adheres to Marx, and an opportunist or _possibilist_ school which has been ready to co-operate with other democratic parties. The first-named school naturally objected to Millerand entering the Cabinet.

Socialism is rapidly becoming a power in France. According to M. Marcel Fournier, in the _Revue Politique et Parlementaire_, the radical socialists polled 171,810 votes at the general election of 1893 and 629,572 at that of 1898, whilst the socialists polled 598,206 in 1893 and 791,148 in 1898. The _Parti Ouvrier_ or Marx party claimed to have cast 152,000 votes in 1893 and 371,000 in 1898. The socialist members in the Chamber of 1898 numbered about fifty.

After 1900 two distinct parties, representing the two tendencies of which I have spoken, were for a time consolidated. The Socialist Party of France represented the uncompromising section. The French Socialist Party stood for the more opportunist policy. In 1902 the French socialists together polled 805,000 votes, and returned 48 members to the Chamber of Deputies. There was really very little difference between the two leading parties, and they formed a union in 1905. At the general election in 1906 it was calculated that the whole socialist vote amounted to 1,120,000. The unified party returned 52 members with 896,000 votes, while 23 were described as independent socialists. There were besides 143 radical socialists.

The radical and democratic republicans are to a large degree dependent on labour and socialist support. There is also a growing conviction that the political principles of the Revolution of 1789, which are so dear to the French heart, cannot be realised apart from the economic principles which are comprehended in socialism. In the great debate of Clemenceau with Jaurèz in the Chamber in 1906 it was no impassable gulf which separated radical and socialist. The former was in favour of a graduated income-tax, the eight hours’ day, and the restoration of monopolies to the State. What we may call the prevailing republican atmosphere is most favourable to social justice and the claims of labour. But it would be a very serious mistake to believe that France is at all convinced of the reasonableness or practicability of the abstract collectivism of the socialist party. When a motion for the substitution of collective property for individual property was put to the vote at the close of the debate, it was rejected by 505 to only 55. As at present advised, France will have neither clericalism nor collectivism.

The socialists form a majority in many of the most important French communes, and exercise great practical influence on their work. Thus they are taking a large part in the national and local life of France.

Revolutionary feeling tending to anarchism has considerable influence in France, especially among the trade unions (_syndicats ouvriers_).

The Italian socialist party definitely separated itself from anarchism and formed a distinct organisation at a congress in Genoa in 1892. Its career has been a hard and troubled one. There has been much discord in its own household. The government was for some years openly hostile. It has been concerned in many strikes and popular disturbances. The working classes of Italy, we must remember, were from an educational, economic, and political point of view at an inferior stage of progress. Between the various provinces, and especially between the north and south, the differences of development were very serious. Italy has had long to suffer from the burden of a divided and depressed historical past.

At the general election of 1892 the party had only 26,000 votes and returned 6 deputies. The next elections showed a rapid increase, till in 1900 they counted 175,000 votes and returned 32 members to the Chamber. On that occasion an alliance with the radicals and republicans partly accounted for the increase of members returned. At the general election of 1904 the party had a voting strength of 320,000, but returned only 27 members.

For some time after 1900 the Government was not only sympathetic, but in some degree dependent on the party for support. As in other countries, there is a reformist or moderate and a revolutionary wing in the Italian socialist party. The latter takes a _syndicalist_ or trade-union form and is largely imbued with anarchism. At the congress at Rome in 1906 a new movement called _integralism_ became supreme. The integralists aimed at combining the best and most effective methods of all sections, gradual reform when possible, but violence also, and the general strike if necessary. They are anti-monarchical and anti-clerical.

The Italian socialists have been active not only in organising strikes but in municipal work and in co-operative undertakings. A marked feature in the brief history of the party has been its success in organising the peasantry. One of these peasant combinations, with a membership of 200,000, held a national congress at Bologna in 1901 and formed a national federation. In that and the following year many agrarian strikes were successful, and brought a little improvement in the hard lot of the rural workers in Italy. It was a notable awakening of labour, in which the party took a leading share. When we consider the very backward condition of Italy and the short period during which the party has been in existence, we must regard its success as remarkable.

After making some progress the Working-Men’s Socialist Party of Spain has declined in recent years. The number of its votes for the Chamber decreased from 26,000 in 1904 to 23,000 in 1905. It has, however, succeeded in sending representatives to a good number of municipalities and communes. The political and industrial life of Spain has been in a most depressed condition.

Besides the Parliamentary Socialism, which is based more or less on Marx, anarchism has always found a congenial soil in Spain, Italy, and other countries where misery and oppression have been hereditary for so many centuries, and which even yet have not learned habits of self-control, of free discussion, and open action. It is such an unhappy environment that produced the assassins of President Carnot, the Empress of Austria, and King Humbert of Italy. Anarchism is very powerful and widespread in the south of Spain.

We may note a rapid progress of socialism in Eastern Europe. Even Servia and Bulgaria have socialist parties, which are affiliated to the International. In Austria there is a numerous and active Social Democratic Party, which has introduced the federal principle into its organisation. It is a united party with a common programme and tactics, but it is composed of national groups—German, Czech, Polish, Italian, etc., each of which enjoys a real autonomy. In fact, the party is an International on a small scale, of which the basis as regards principles and tactics is national autonomy and international solidarity. On the political side, it holds that the real and vital forces of the State in Austria can be developed only on the two principles of national autonomy and complete democracy. On the economic side the party adheres to the common principles of socialism. At the general election of 1901 the party polled about 800,000 votes. Its most pressing demand was for universal suffrage as necessary to the political development of the country. After long debate this was granted in 1907, in which year the party polled 1,050,000 votes and returned 87 members to the Reichsrath. The Christian Social Party returned 96 members with 722,000 votes. In view of the medley of races and languages which exist in Austria, the position and organisation of the party have a special interest. The various national groups, we are told, work together in perfect harmony.

The revolutionary movement in Russia h