Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 3, No. 2. 1940

Social-Democracy and the War

page break

Social-Democracy and the War

Lenart and Lenin.

St. Simon, Fourier and Owen are the ancestors of Dr. Lenart. Social-democracy, having absorbed the humanitarian but unscientific sentiments of these thinkers has digested but little of Marx and Engels, and, finding much of what it has digested unpalatable, disgorges it on inappropriate occasions.

The International Relations Club is to be congratulated on bringing before us a speaker so capable and intelligent as Dr. Lenart. No better exponent of the social-democratic view-point could have been found, and there could certainly have been no finer exposition. This article is not a report of the meeting at which Dr. Lenart spoke; all those interested will have attended the meeting, and, anyway, some fool of a student presented a report of the meeting to the metropolitan dailies, the impartiality of which was breathtaking.

We hope that Dr. Lenart will not be deterred by the stupid action of this student from coming to address us again. We know that the present critique will only make him more eager to come again to the attack. And Dr. Lenart would be the first to admit that the tenuous scheme of social-democracy as a saviour of mankind has certain very grave defects. Actually the question of social-democracy is the most vital political problem or the day, as social-democracy plays a particularly important part in time of war. Every "left", "liberal", or "socialist" government in the world today, except that existing in the Soviet Union, is social-democratic.

What, then, is the nature of Social-democracy? What is its role in times of war and crisis? Does social-democracy hold out any hope for a rationally constructed colony?

It is the intention of this critique to prove that social-democracy leads to an utter betrayal of working-class principles; that in times of war and crisis its nature leads it directly into the reactionary camp; and that not only does it present no hope for a new society, but it actually produces a fascist regime in every country in which it grows powerful.

St. Simon, Fourier and Owen, were filled [unclear: with] [unclear: the] [unclear: situ]ation of the working class of their day by a rising capitalism. They understood the fundamental opposition of bourgeois and proletariat but, having no scientific method of analysis, they did not see in the proletariat a class possessing any historical initiative or importance. Their schemes for the betterment of mankind were utopian in the extreme, consisting mainly of isolated social experiments without any revolutionary activity. Their ideas were merely an obscure reflection of the instinctive desires of the undeveloped proletariat for a rational reconstruction of society.

Marx, Engels, Lenin and their followers put socialism on a scientific basis, developing a complete philosophical, economic, and political analysis of society. From these men sprang the concept of dialectical materialism, the materialist conception of history, and the first complete statement of the revolutionary role which the proletariat had to play in the reconstruction of society on a socialist basis. It is impossible without a study of their works to realise fully the great erudition and reasoning powers of these men.

Social-democrats recognise more fully than did Owen the class structure of society, but because of an ignorance or misunderstanding of the fundamental doctrines of Marxism, believe that a socialist society, with a rational system of distribution of wealth, can be brought about by gradual methods of evolution - such as progressive liberal legislative measures and increasing taxation of he rich. The scheme, they say, has pitfalls; but anything is better than revolution.

Dr. Lenart presented this view very ably, and defended it brilliantly when it come to question time. His statement of the position can fairly be condensed thus:

"Hitler's" aggressive policy can only have disastrous results for page break the future of civilisation. Chamberlain's policy of weak-kneed submission to Hitler since 1933 was very foolish, but at the outbreak of the present war that polivy was definitely reversed. We should therefore support this war, which is a war against fascism. But capitalism broods wars, capitalism broods misery for the majority of mankind. Capitalism must there for be abolished at the conclusion of the war. But it must be abolished gradually, and not be evolutionary methods. Socialism must come by evolution, not by revolution. In other words, the solution is in the ballot- box and social-democracy".

The Voice from the Past

With Dr. Lenart's views on the nature of the war I am not here concerned. Anyway, it is seditious to state that the war is an imperialist war.

Although social-democracy did not pass directly over to capitalism until 1914, social-democracy has existed in ideologies and have been fought by scientific socialists, for over a century. Listen to Marx and Engels speaking in the Communist Manifesto (1848) of critical-utopian socialism:

"In proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this phantastic standing apart (of critical-utopian socialism) from the contest, those fantastic attacks upon it, lose all practical value and theoretical justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed more reactionary sects....They still dream of experimental realisation of their social Utopias.... and to realise all these castles in the air they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of reactionary conservative socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

Listen to Lenin in a brief essay on "Marxism and Revisionism" written in [unclear: 19)8:]

"In the domain of politics revisionism tried to revise the very foundation of Marxism, namely, the doctrine of the class struggle. Political freedom, democracy, and universal suffrage remove the ground for the class struggle, they say.... and render untrue the old proposition of the Communist Manifesto that the workers have no country for, they said, since the "will of the majority" prevails under democracy, one must neither regard the state as an organ of class rule, nor reject alliances with progressive, social-reformist bourgeoisie against the reactionaries."

In the later writings of Lenin, in Strachey's "Coming Struggle for Power", and in Palme Dutt's "Fascism and Social Revolution", the reactionary role of social-democracy during and after the last war is brilliantly exposed.

The complete betrayal of their own principles by the opposition social-democratic parties at the beginning of the imperialist war in 1914, and their subsequent unholy alliance with the reactionaries is too well known and too obvious to be described here. In almost every country with Europe, the Labour movement, under social-democratic leadership, supported the war from the beginning, just as the Labour movement is doing in the present war. In the words of Dutt: "The split was caused by the dominant official leadership of the social-democratic parties abandoning their pledges and obligations before the International, directly contravening the principles on which their parties were built, and passing to unity with capitalism."

page break

Since the war, the labour movements and social-democratic organisations have had a record of betrayal, compromise, vacillation and opportunism even more shameful. Let us look briefly at a few specific instances.

Austria and Germany

In Austria in 1918, power was almost in the hands of the proletariat, but the forcible institution of socialism was prevented by the tactics of social-democracy. Social-democratic parties continued in power, attempting to bring about "the pacific victory of socialism". In 1928 seventy per cent of the population of Vienna voted for the social-democrats. In 1930, the elections gave the rising Fascist organisation, the Heimwehr, 8 representatives to 72 social-democrats. In 1933 Dollfuss proclaimed an open dictatorship. The social-democratic leaders tried to negotiate, to appease; they refused to lead the workers against the fascists, at a time when the power of the fascists could easily have been broken. When a popular revolution did break out in 1934, it broke out against the orders of the social-democratic leadership. Austria became completely fascist, and her position today, under the yoke of Germany, is directly attributable to the futile eclecticism of social-democrats and to its childlike faith in the power of the ballot-box.

Strachey in his "Menace of Fascism" has shown how the weak and vacillating policy of social-democracy in Germany, its policy of lesser evil, its submission to the forces of capitalism, paved the way for the betrayal of the Weimar Constitution and the rise of Hitler to power in 1933. It is quite obvious to any observer, that if the working class had been led by a revolutionary Marxist party, there would have been no Hitler and no fascist Germany.

These are no isolated examples. Study the history of modern Poland, China, Greece, and Hungary, observing carefully the role of social-democracy when fascist ideas grow. Finland is a horrible example. Social-democracy is a road, not to reform, but to fascism and fascist measures. Look around you, at the present reactionary measures of New Zealand's social-democratic government. Observe how men like Sir Oswald Mosley, Hitler, Mussolini, Pilsudski, Sample and Fraser, were all social-democrats before they tasted power.

We cannot act on the vain hope that "things will be different in England"; we cannot allow the horror of violent revolution to prevent us from becoming realists. It can be shown theoretically, and it has been proved practically countless times, that the ruling capitalist class will never allow social-democracy to become too strong. At a certain stage of the progressive reformist measures, as soon as the security of the system itself is threatened, the ruling class will use force to subdue working class organisations. "One of the tragic lessons of the events in Germany was that the enemies of democracy were willing to shed blood to destroy liberty, and did not shrink from murder, arson, and lawless action; but social-democracy was peaceful, law-abiding, and shrank from fratricidal strife."

That is the fundamental nature of social-democracy. It is a humanitarian illusion. Not only does evolution to a new stage of society by democratic means conflict with the basic laws of history, but it has been demonstrated fully, by the tragic events in Germany to be an impossible dream.

Let us be realists. Let us not shrink from the inevitable.

R.L.M.