REPUDIATION OF VIOLENCE IS REPUDIATION OF THE CLASS STRUGGLE
D. Z. MANUILSKY
Otto Bauer professes that the concessions made by the bourgeoisie to the working masses have changed the class character of bourgeois domination. It is no longer the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, but democracy. Terrified by the spectre of proletarian revolution in 1918, the bourgeoisie of Central Europe consented to a number of big reforms as the "lesser evil" to save capitalism and their own privileges. But these "reforms" changed the class character of the bourgeois dictatorship in Austria just as little as the introduction of the N.E.P. in Russia, for example, changed the class character of the proletarian dictatorship in the U. S. S. R. The policy of the bourgeois dictatorship depends, of course, on the relationship of force , but this relationship of forces is determined by the intensity of the class struggle waged by the proletariat. If the Austrian proletariat, as a result of the 1918 revolution, secured big successes in Austria even within the limits of the capitalist system and the bourgeois dictatorship, it was precisely because in 1918, contrary to the wishes of the social-democratic leaders, it used revolutionary methods of violence, and overthrew the power of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Now, after the event, these reforms, won by the mass struggle of the working class, are ascribed by the social-democrats to the virtues of their own policy of parliamentary reform, to the virtues of Austrian democracy. But it was precisely the reformist and parliamentary policy of social-democracy which led to the gradual loss of all these gains.
Take any trike as an example. At the very dawn of the Russian workers' movement, Lenin described the strike as a school of war. The strike is one of the forms of class struggle in which class compulsion is a characteristic factor. This compulsion contains elements of a certain "violence" on the part of the proletarian class which is attempting to force its demands on the bourgeoisie. Who is the agent of this class compulsion? The working mass itself. It forces the strike upon the reformist trade unions, which usually resist until the la t moment before calling on the masses to struggle. The role of the reformist trade union leaders is to carry on negotiations. '!'hey conduct these negotiations with the obvious intention of breaking the struggle of the striking workers. But if the stubbornness of the strikers nevertheless does not give way and the employer makes some concessions, the reformist leaders seize on these concessions in order to disseminate disintegration in the strike front of the strikers, and very frequently they are able to carry the less steadfast elements with them for a premature agreement, and thus to break the strike. Having broken the strike, the reformist leaders proudly announce that the concessions won by the struggle of the strikers are the fruit of their "wise" and able policy of negotiation. They claim the results of the workers' struggle as their own achievements. Cannot the same be said of the part played by social-democracy in regard to the concessions made by the bourgeoisie in 1918? These reforms had a dual significance. For the Austrian proletariat, they were the modest gain of its revolution; for social-democracy they were a means of splitting the revolutionary front of the working class and breaking the proletarian revolution in Austria.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, a strike does not pursue an untrammeled course of unimpeded "compulsion." It comes into conflict with the bourgeoisie's apparatus of violence which is on the side of the employers. The working masses reply with violence to the violence of the gendarmes and the police. Violence is the soul of the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat. Squeeze the soul out of the class struggle and the result is a lot of liberal Bauerite jabbering about the class struggle which, in practice, replaces the class struggle by the policy of class collaboration. On March 6, 1862, Marx wrote to Weydemeyer that "the class struggle will inevitably lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat." He who repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat today also repudiates the class struggle of the proletariat. And be who removes the class struggle from the arsenal of defensive weapons of the working class will inevitably lead the proletariat into the same plight as the workers have been led to by Austrian social-democracy. It could not be otherwise, for the class muggle is an unalienable law of every class society.
How can we explain that there are so few economic strikes in Austria and Germany except by the fact that Austrian and German social-democracy have repudiated the class struggle in practice? In Poland, Spain and Greece, which are also in the throes of a severe economic crisis, the working class is carrying on strikes, gaining successes and holding up the offensive of the employers. In Austria, where the working class is better organized than in other countries, where social-democracy has 700,000 members and the reformist trade unions have 580,000 members, the working class is retreating without a fight. And this capitulationist position adopted by Austrian social-democracy on the question of strikes is an integral part of its capitulationist position on the question of the proletarian dictatorship.
PREPARING THE ROUT OF THE PROLETARIAT
In the Linz program, Austrian social-democracy threatened to answer with violence ii the ruling class resorted to violence first. Since then social-democracy in Austria has repeatedly had good grounds to reply to violence. Such, for example, was the case on August 18, 1929, after the first fascist attack on the workers in St. Lorentz. Such was the case on Sept. 13, 1931, during the Heimwehr Putsch. In all these cases, social-democracy preferred to employ methods of "persuasion" in dealing with the class enemy of the proletariat. The whole idea of these ostensibly "Fabian" tactics is to lead the proletariat to defeat.
The ruling classes are proceeding to open civil war, bub not on the spur of the moment, not at any trifling excuse. They are making preparations, assuring themselves by a number of preliminary measures of those favorable positions which guarantee victory. They do not begin to shoot and provoke the oppressed masses until they have sufficiently disorganized and disarmed the latter. From month to month the ruling classes persistently get ready for violence on a large scale by a whole series of acts of "violence" on a smaller scale. And woe to the class which passively accepts today's small acts of violence in the hope of resisting the "great violence" of tomorrow! The tactic of the "lesser evil" reckons on just such a disarming of the proletariat. It conforms fully with the process of fascization which has gone on in Austria during recent year , and here, too, lies the real meaning of the treacherous tactics of Austrian social-democracy. "Attack" and "defense"? Where can you draw a clear line of demarcation between them in the class struggle or in war? The class which systematically retreats without holding up the enemy, without ever launching an attack, such a class, like an in-my in war, will inevitably be defeated.
OTTO BAUER AGAINST JACOBIN DEMOCRACY
Otto Bauer declares the proletarian dictatorship to be a specific form proper to the Russian revolution and the Russian proletariat. In support of this, theory, he quotes a historical analogy. France, he says, got rid of the relics of feudalism by the Jacobin method, i.e., by a revolutionary democratic dictatorship. But this method was not one which the bourgeoisie of other countries were obliged to follow, for they carried through their bourgeois revolutions without employing Jacobin methods. The same applies to the proletarian dictatorship in the Soviet Union.
It is difficult to read such a statement without a sense of shame, because Otto Bauer here comes forward, after the event, as a defender of the method by which the tasks of • the bourgeois revolution are solved by reactionary means, by an agreement between the bourgeois and the feudal classes. Let us remember what -was the essence of the Jacobin revolutionary democratic dictatorship. It consisted precisely in the fact that the petty bourgeoisie and the plebian elements in town and country seized the hegemony at the decisive moment of the revolution and succeeded ''by the blows of their terrible hammer in obliterating all the feudal ruins from the face of France as if by magic." (Marx.) The Jacobin dictatorship solved the tasks of the bourgeois revolution by the stern use of violence against the aristocracy, the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, the reactionary clergy, the courtiers, the royal family, etc. It executed the monarchist plotters and confiscated their property. And this unflinching justice meted out to the old reactionary classes enabled it to rouse the lower strata of the population to the struggle, and with their aid to conquer counter-revolution at home and the coalition of armies of all European 'reaction which were advancing upon revolutionary France.
The French Revolution of 1793 solved the tasks of the bourgeois revolution in a "plebian" revolutionary-democratic manner, differing in this respect, for example, from the revolution of 1848 in Germany, for the latter developed under the leadership of the counter-revolutionary liberal bourgeoisie--who betrayed the revolution by coming to terms with the aristocracy. The revolution of 1848 in Germany was incomplete. It not only failed to strike a real blow at the Junkers, but it paved the way for a counter-revolutionary solution of the task of the bourgeois transformation of Germany "from above" under the leadership of Junkers.
The fact that the monarchy existed in Germany until November, 1918, that the big Prussian landowners have remained untouched up to the present day, that the Junkers of East Prussia and the barons have a strong influence on the policy of the German republic in 1932, is a striking proof of this anti-democratic, counter-revolutionary solution of the tasks of the German bourgeois revolution in 1848.
It is no accident that Otto Bauer attacks democracy in this way. The fascization of social-democracy also finds its expression in the fact that in the epoch of monopoly capitalism, which has deprived the bourgeoisie of the possibility of following that democratic path which was characteristic of capitalism during the historical period of its rise, social-democray represents an anti-democratic party. It was precisely for this reason that German social-democracy in 1918 did not carry the tasks of the bourgeois revolution to their logical conclusion, but left the Prussian Junker in full possession of their economic foundations. It is just for this reason that the Second International is opposed to the plebian democratic method of solving the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution in the colonies; it is for this 'reason that it supports Chiang-Kai-Shek against the Soviet Red Army in China; it is for this reason that its leaders talk of the danger of upheavals in the colonies.
VIENNA-A "SOCIALIST" ISLAND
Let us take the "trump card" of Austrian social-democracy-the municipality of Vienna. We know that throughout the whole post-war policy of Austrian social-democracy the municipality of Vienna has played the same part as the Prussian government played in the policy of German social democracy. If, in the opinion of Wels, the Prussian government was the bulwark of the Weimar Constitution, the municipality of Vienna, which is in the hands of the social-democrats, is, in the opinion of Otto Bauer, the citadel of Austrian social-democracy and of the working class against the attacks of fascism. Can it be that the municipality of Vienna is a "bit of socialism" within the system of bourgeois dictatorship? If Otto Bauer considers that the proletariat in socialist Austria, relying on its own armed force, on the support of the proletariat of the U.S.S.R. organized as the state of the proletarian dictatorship, on the support of the working cl s of Germany and of the bole world, would be unable to hold out more than a few days, then bow can the "socialism" of Vienna, absolutely unarmed, without even its own police, bow can it bold out as a citadel of "socialism" within the system of the capitalist state? The class character of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in Austria is just as little altered by the fact that the Austrian social democrats have their seats in the municipality of Vienna as was the character of the bourgeois dictatorship in Germany by the fact that the German social-democrats had their seats in the apparatus of the Prussian government.
The municipality of Vienna is a part of the whole system of the capitalist state. Its acts are based on the bourgeois laws of this state which protect capitalist property. Its "reforms" and its measures may introduce certain correctives into the way the requirements of the great toiling masses of Vienna's population are met, but the class character of the municipality of Vienna as a branch of the capitalist state is not changed by them. If a social-democratic chauffeur drives a car belonging to a transport company, the machine does not become an instrument of socialist production. And if Seitz is commissioned by the bourgeoisie to direct the municipal economy of Vienna, this economy does not thereby acquire a socialist character. On the contrary, it is subject to all the laws of capitalism. The economic crisis has the same influence upon it as it has upon a private enterprise. It feels the pressure of the law of capitalist competition. Just like a private company, it cuts down the number of workers employed in the municipal enterprises, lowers wages, reduces the quantity and quality of municipal services at the disposal of the working population, cuts down house-building, closes "surplus" schools, etc. The same thing happens with municipal "socialism" as with co-operative "socialism in capitalist society. It is merely a branch in the whole system of capitalist economy. And il the social-democrats in the municipality of Vienna were conscientiously concerned with really helping the working population, not a single Communist proletarian would burl reproaches at such a municipality.
But the social democrats disseminate illusions among the masses through their theories that Vienna is a socialist island in the midst of a capitalist ocean. In the municipality, the social-democrats carry on the same policy of conciliation with the bourgeoisie as in the Austrian parliament. They come into daily contact with the representatives of the bourgeoisie, talk to them not as revolutionaries who are compelled for the time being to live in capitalist society, but as people who have one and the same platform-that of a commonwealth "above classes." When social-democracy penetrated into the municipality of Vienna, it left the whole reactionary apparatus untouched. We know that social-democratic officials in the service of a capitalist government are gradually trained to look upon themselves as part and parcel of the whole state apparatus. They assimilate themselves into the new environment, take on the same shade of political opinion, the same habits, the same maneuvers, the same manner of life as their fascist and semi-fascist petty bourgeois surroundings.
"Being determines consciousness." The social-democratic official is gradually taught to look upon himself as one who embodies the sovereignty of the state, becoming permeated with a psychology proper to its servant and defender. It seems to him that the proletariat ought to feel blessed by history because he, the "socialist," has wormed his way into the apparatus of the capitalist state. For him, the interests of the state overshadow everything. This idea of the state stands above classes or people. The idea of the state is his "instrument of p1oduction" by means of which be creates respect and esteem for himself in capitalist society. Without this state, he is nothing. If he is thrown out tomorrow, be is the dust of the earth, and therefore if the fascist party comes into power tomorrow, be can change color without much difficulty.
It is in this light of a "regeneration" that we should regard the fascization of those numerous strata among the social-democrats who have grown into the state apparatus of the bourgeois dictatorship. After July 20th, the Papen• Schleicher government in Germany replaced the chiefs but allowed large numbers of social-democratic officials to remain at their posts, knowing that these people would prove true and faithful servants of fascist reaction. This stratum of social-democratic officials who have been recruited for years past from among the ''best people" in the social-democratic party, forms a living bridge from social-democracy to fascism.
But this stratum is not made of iron and steel. It is not indifferent to the benefits of life which capitalist society proffer anyone not afraid to exceed the law somewhat. Municipal economy is connected with all kinds of contracts and deliveries from private :firms, which extends a wide field of action to those who consider the good of the state and their own personal advantage identical. In capitalist society, corruption is a natural phenomenon like unemployment, prostitution, venereal disease, tuberculosis, etc. The Sklarek case, which caused such a sensation in Germany, only raised the fringe of the curtain, affording a glimpse of the backstairs activities of the corrupt "socialist" municipal politicians, who differ little from their bourgeois colleagues in their avarice and feverish greed for personal gain.
But, it may be asked, what relation bas all this to the starving unemployed social-democratic worker of Vienna who is sitting with his family without bread, without potatoes or coal in winter-time? Where are his "socialist gains" now? What does he gain from the fact that Seitz and the social democratic officials are in the municipality of Vienna?
Social-democracy takes pride in the fact that it taxed Rothschild in Vienna. But the Soviet workers took everything from the Rothschilds, and handed it over to the toilers. Social-democracy boasts that it has developed cheap housebuilding in Vienna. But in Vienna, of 1,200,000 rooms, only 600,- 000 are for workers; the remainder constitute the luxurious quarters of rich and well-to-do elements, i. e., a mere handful of the population. Contrast this with the proletarian revolution in the U.S.S.R. which has raised up millions of Russian workers and peasants from surroundings of lice and filth, giving them access to the palaces of the tsar and of the financial magnates. In Moscow, at the center, the industrial workers formed only 3-6 per cent of the population before the revolution, whereas now they are the owners of all the houses in the Red capital. Let the social-democratic workers of Vienna observe what the Soviet power has done to build houses for the workers in the Donbas, in Baku and in other cities .
They say that in 1922 the municipality of Vienna opened sanatoriums with 2,600 beds for consumptives. But in 1931, at the very time when tuberculosis was beginning to claim victims right and left among the workers, the number of beds was reduced to 1,000. In the U.S.S.R. all the palaces of the rich and the grand dukes in the Crimea, all the sanatoriums in the old health resorts are now at the sole disposal of the toilers.
They say that Vienna led by Seitz, has made improvements in the working-class quarters of the city. What has been done by the Soviet power to improve the working-class quarters? The main attention of the municipal soviets bas been concentrated on this task.
Continue
IS TE WORKING CLASS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEFEAT OF DEMOCRACY?
.jpg)
No comments