« AnteriorContinuar »
make for war and the interests of labor make for peace. The former view is contradicted by Kautsky, the latter by Bauer (as we have shown), and they are far more influential in the international movement than Hillquit.
This radical division among Socialists may be most clearly seen in the discussions of the International and National Congresses. A very strong tendency to modify the position held by the average Socialist before the war, as formulated by Hillquit, will be noted. This tendency has naturally become more rapid since the present war began, as the reader will note from documents of Parts IV and V. Whether this stupendous event is fundamentally modifying the Socialist position, first on questions connected with war, and then generally, or whether it is leaving both Socialist “principles" and Socialist "tactics” essentially as they were before, as Kautsky claims, is a question we must leave to the reader to decide after we have supplied him with ample evidence-on both sides of the question.
WAR AND ITS CAUSES
THE anti-war resolution of the International Socialist Congress held at Stuttgart in 1907, is perhaps the most important document in Socialist history, in view of the present war. It was the result of a compromise and was consciously designed to cover up some of the Socialist differences connected with war, as its framers stated before the Congress. It is a very carefully constructed compromise, however, and a correct reflection of the consensus of Socialist opinion, so that it deserves the closest attention. It describes that relatively restricted area of common ground on which nearly all Socialists stand. However, the development of Socialist opinion, as the discussion at the Congress shows, had already advanced, in many cases, considerably beyond this point. For two widely different opinions had developed by 1907, both of them maintained by very large factions. And the division was mainly along national lines; the majority of the French on one side and all the Germans on the other. Both the leading causes and the remedies for war were very thoroughly discussed. The causes named in the resolution finally adopted were: imperialism, militarism, nationalist agitation, the desire of governments to turn the attention of the masses away from difficult domestic problems, and the fear of the rising international power of the working classes. While the economic cause of war was mentioned first, other related causes also receive full recognition. No complete remedy was held to be possible at the present stage of capitalist society. But two possibilities of the future was offered. The decay of the power of capitalism will itself gradually bring about the weakening of militarism, or if a war is actually started, a democratic revolution will result. Especially remarkable again was the position that a great hope not only for the abolition of wars, but for the introduction of Socialism, lies in the very development of militarism, which may result in such a reaction against it which will sweep away not only militarism, but the whole social system along with it.
Three resolutions are to be considered besides the final compromise resolution finally adopted: the resolution offered by the French majority favoring an international general strike in case of war, the resolution of the French minority, supported by Bebel and the Germans, opposing such action, and an amendment of the Russians adopting the main principle of the German resolution, and so rejecting the general strike, but advocating an effort to turn any future war into a social revolution, after it had once broken out and as soon as a favorable moment offered itself. At the present time this last proposition, which was incorporated as part of the final compromise, is certainly as interesting as any. For even if we hold that the establishment of a Socialist or even a semi-Socialist society, is improbable as a direct or indirect outcome of the war, a merely political and democratic revolution in several of the warring countries, a revolution in which the Socialists took a leading part, pushing it always in the direction of Socialism, would be a world event altogether eclipsing the French Revolution.
RESOLUTION OF FRENCH MAJORITY Two formulations had strong support at Stuttgart, each being upheld by approximately half of the Congress. The majority of the French delegates (including Jaurès) proposed the following:
Militarism is to be viewed exclusively as the arming of the state in order to keep the working classes in political and economic subjection to the capitalist class. The working class of all countries must remember that a government cannot threaten the independence of a foreign nation without committing a crime against this nation, against its working class, and against the international working class. The threatened nation, and its working class, accordingly have the duty of defending their independence against attack, and they have a right to the support of the working classes of the whole world. The policy of defense, as well as the anti-militarism of the Socialist Party, demands the disarmament of the bourgeoisie, and the arming of the working classes, through the introduction of general military service of the people (militia). In view of the Russian revolution, of the extreme danger to the Czarism, and the neighboring empires which would like to follow it, in view of the ceaseless capitalistic and colonial enterprises and plundering, the International Bureau and International Parliamentary Conference are called upon to form the necessary institutions in order to be able to take suitable action in case of the menace of an international conflict to prevent war. The prevention of war is to be brought about by national and international Socialist action of the working class by all means, from parliamentary intervention to public agitation and the general strike and insurrection. (Our italics.)
Here, then, is an immediate remedy; it is not necessary to wait for Socialism. And the cause of war is not so much the search for new markets and fields of investment, as the capitalist desire to use the army against the working class at home.
MINORITY FRENCH RESOLUTION The minority of the French delegation at Stuttgart, including Guesde, proposed a resolution of the very opposite tendency, and it was supported by Bebel and the Germans.
Whereas militarism, as all conflicts have shown, is a natural and inevitable result of capitalist society, based upon class oppositions, and, whereas this militarism cannot be abolished until its cause, capitalist society, is abolished, and whereas by the concentration of all efforts of the working class (in the Socialist movement) the question of militarism secures its due share of attention, and whereas the proposed means of antimilitarism, from desertion and the military strike to revolution, make propaganda and conversion to Socialism more difficult, and so postpone the moment when the proletariat will be sufficiently organized and strong enough to put an end to capitalist society, and with it to all wars, the Congress declares that the best means against militarism and to preserve peace, must consist in organizing the workers of all the world socialistically, and in the meantime avoiding military service, refusing all money for the army, navy, and colonies, and making propaganda for the armament of the people.
In this resolution we are told curtly that capitalism is the cause of war, and that, therefore, Socialism is the only effective remedy. And the one important immediate anti-war measure, according to this German view, is for Socialist members of parliament to refuse to vote any money for the army, navy, and colonies. Yet, the Germans themselves were the first of all the Socialist parties of the Continent of Europe to desert this principle-in 1913, a year before the outbreak of the present war. (See Chapter V.)
Of the speeches at the Congress, the most important were the opening and closing speeches, both by August Bebel, the speech of Jaurès for France, and the speech of Vandervelde for Belgium. The speeches of Bebel