The Fabians, Bernstein and Revisionism
The action of the German Social Democratic Party in deciding to overlook the theoretical and practical delinquencies of Bernstein raised a heated controversy in the columns of the English social democratic journal, the Social Democrat.
The controversy opened with a somewhat vitriolic article by Belfort Bax entitled Factitious Unity, which appeared in the Social Democrat of February, 1902. The article opens with some general remarks about unity. He claimed that there was a strong tendency in advanced parties to make a fetish of party unity and that “The integrity of principles is quite a secondary consideration provided that the unity of the party be maintained. Anything to avoid a split—that is the motto of the practical politician in the dawning 20th century.” He then suggests that it would be well for the advocates of unity at any price to ask themselves for what their party exists. If it for money, office, or power for its own sake, then unity may be justified in its day and generation. But, “If, on the contrary, party organisation itself is subservient to certain definite ideals, and has no object or significance apart from such, then equally clearly, whenever those ideals are threatened by the unity of the party, that unity must go by the board.”
Coming indirectly to the question of Bernstein, Bax examines the claim for unity by those who argue that it is better to patch up differences of opinion that may exist and “unite on a basis of some vague and general formula on which all can agree,” and who claim “that a party cannot afford to lose an able man of men merely because they happen to be shaky on some vital point of principle.”
To the first point Bax replies “the realisation of the ideals of a party is less likely to be effectuated by the attenuation of those ideals for the sake of mere numerical strength than by the surrender of a certain amount of such strength on behalf of the vigorous maintenance intact of the principles for the sake of which the party avowedly exists.” Against the second point he contends that “the ability of doubtful members cuts both ways. It may be of more danger to party principles when inside the party organisation than it is of advantage to the enemy when working against it outside. A party having any regard for its principles should surely look to it that its able men . . . should be straight even more than the rank and file—and, hence, if they go wrong, should be the more inexorably expelled. A party that is worth its salt can always afford to lose a man or two without collapsing, but if cannot always afford to have a powerful leader inside incessantly pulling the wrong way.”
After some references to the Liberal and Radical parties of the time Bax then comes to the attitude of the German Social Democratic Party towards Bernstein, at which his article was really aimed. We will have to quote nearly the whole of his final paragraph in order that what follows will be understandable.
After stating that the glorification of unity is not confined to Liberalism he continues:
“We see much the same thing at the present time among our comrades of the German Social Democratic Party. It has been of late crucially manifested in the Bernstein controversy. Mr. Bernstein repudiated almost every principle hitherto regarded as ’of faith’ in Social Democracy. He champions every form and well-nigh every abuse of capitalism. . . . He has systematically attacked every Social Democratic doctrine in turn, to the delight of reactionary readers and hearers. In a word, Mr. Bernstein is incomparably less friendly to Socialism, if any meaning is to be attached to the word at all, than the mildest English Radical. To judge from his expressed opinions, in fact, Mr. Bernstein has no more sympathy with the recognised principles of Social Democracy, and perhaps rather less, than Count von Bulow himself. And yet, wonderful to relate, for fear of causing a split in the party, for fear of jeopardising party unity, the German Social Democrats could not muster up sufficient courage to exclude Mr. Bernstein from their ranks. In this case the mere desire of preserving a formal unity must be alone in question, since it can hardly be alleged that there is any extraordinary ability at stake.”
In the March, 1902, number of the Social Democrat J. B. Askew replied to Bax, defending the attitude of the German Social Democratic Party, contending that the German party had considered the whole circumstances of the case and not merely the points raised by Bax. He then gives a lengthy outline of the matters in dispute, largely in accordance with the summary we gave in our last month’s contribution; but he omitted Bernstein’s support for war and his claim that the “higher” civilisation had a greater right to the territory of native people than the natives themselves.
After his statement of matters in dispute, he writes;
“Now it is fairly obvious that this theory or theories are open to dispute, and, indeed, I think that Kautzky has completely proved the worthlessness of most of Bernstein’s speculations, but that is a very different thing from thinking with Bax that it was advisable to expel him from the party on the strength of them.”
He then argues that if Bernstein were expelled for his criticisms,
“We tie the party down to a formula, which nobody is allowed to criticise under penalty of expulsion, a proceeding which is consistent from those who consider that Final Truth has been achieved in this direction, but very stupid for those who do not. After all what is a political party, or, rather, what is the Social Democratic Party, and what are the conditions of membership? The answer is. surely, we are a body of men and women who have come together to work for the achievement of ideas which we have embodied in a common programme, the most important item of which is that of die socialisation of the means of production and exchange. Membership of the party is conditional on acceptance of this, programme and the agreement to work for the common end Bernstein accepts both these conditions. . . . There is a difference. I may remind Bax. between saying that Bernstein is inconsistent in remaining in the Party and thinking that the party would do well to turn him out.”
Finally, after having a dig at Bax’s criticism of the Materialist Conception, and suggesting that he is in the same position as Bernstein. Askew winds up as follows:
“I am against expulsion—as I believe the German Party is—in cases where the theory of the Party alone is concerned, and there is no question of Party discipline or character at stake, because I believe that if we are to progress as a Party, if we are to meet the difficulties, which will confront us, our members must enjoy a full, free, and unlimited right of criticism in respect of the Party programme. To deny this is to imply that we have attained Final Truth, and that new circumstances can never arise to alter it, or render a new tactic and programme necessary.”
Before we go on to Bax’s reply to Askew’s contribution we must interpolate a few remarks of our own on the above.
The argument about Final Truth in connection with the matters in dispute seems plausible until it is examined, then it becomes comical. For example. If a naked man stands upright in the path of a modern express train he will be killed; likewise, if a thousand tons of rock drops on a naked man he will also be killed. These are final truths within the conditions of the statements; there can be no doubts about them, either now or in a thousand years.
Now let us come to the question of Socialist principles.
Present society is based upon the ownership of the means of living by the Capitalist class; there is an antagonism of interests between the owning class and the producing class: this antagonism of interests must continue as long as there is buying and selling. Capitalist ownership and capital investment, and a class that lives by selling its physical and mental energies to an owning class. These conditions can only be removed by a social revolution accomplished by the subject, or producing class. These are statements of fact and final truths for the conditions specified as far as Socialists are concerned. Further, reforms cannot alter the conditions because they do not aim at abolishing the present basis of society. This is also a final truth for the conditions specified. Again, wars, insecurity, crime, and a host of other evils, will continue whilst the present social basis remains. This, again, is a final truth for the condition specified.
Askew’s Final Truth argument would therefore appear to have no bearing upon the matters in dispute. In fact, however, it has for the disputants. What hipped all of Bernstein’s opponents in the dispute was the lengthy reform programmes and compromising of the Social Democratic Parties. Here there was no final truth, because no sooner was one reform adopted than another was required to meet the effects of the previous one. Many of the reforms advocated by the Social Democratic Parties during the eighties and nineties have been adopted, yet still the fundamental social position remains unchanged —Capitalists and workers, domination and class-struggle, wars, insecurity, crime, and the rest of the social evils. Yet still the reformers pursue their will-o-the-wisps. This reformism is what Askew means when he refers to “a common programme” in the above quotation. To him Socialism consists of two antagonistic parts—the accomplishment of common ownership and a policy of reformism. Reforms, however well intended, are designed to enable the exploiting machine to ran more smoothly; not to remove the machine, but to take some of the sand out of it. To bemuse the discontented and induce them to work harder and complain less.
Now to return to the controversy.
Bax’s reply to Askew appeared in the Social Democrat for June 1902. His answer to Askew’s Final Truth argument was as follows:
“I answer, it is a party, at all events, possessing certain principles, political, economical, and ethical, based on the known facts of historic evolution. Any one who sets himself up by sophistry, or otherwise, to upset these principles, though he may be an excellent man, has no right within a party whose raison d’etre is the realisation of an ideal based on the assumed truth of these principles. The cackle of toleration, of ‘self-criticism,’ and what-not, is the veriest balderdash. We want no ‘self-criticism’ within the party in the matter of fundamentals. We have a right to assume that a man has done his ‘criticism’ of principles before joining the party, for no party can afford to have persons within its ranks who call in question its very bases. And hence I say the moment a member begins publicly to whittle away doctrines at the foundation of the very existence of the party, he should be expelled.”
Bax then goes on to distinguish between the party programme and fundamentals:
“When Askew asks me whether I think it advisable to allow members the right of free criticism of the party programme, I say Yes. But if by party programme he means the ultimate foundation on which the party rests the basal object for which the party is constituted, I say No.
No man has a right to expect to be allowed to remain a member of a party whose principles, whether rightly or wrongly, he has publicly called in question. On the other hand, no party has a right to use the State, the secular arm, to crush opposition to its views.
The utmost that has been suggested is that he [Bernstein] should be politely, but firmly, told to clear out of the German Social Democratic organisation, and take his criticism with him There is nothing to prevent him from demolishing Marx or anybody else outside the organisation. What more than this can he want?”
The rest of Bax’s reply consists of some sarcastic references to Askew’s contribution, some instances of Berntein’s perfidious conduct, and a misunderstanding of Askew’s reference to views held by Bax which, he alleged put Bax in the position he claimed Bernstein was in. Bax took this to mean his attitude to feminism, whereas it really referred to his attitude to the Materialist Conception of History, Bax held views at variance with the Materialist Conception of History, and had debated his view with Kautsky in the German party journal a few years earlier. He called his view “The Synthetic Doctrine of History.” We will discuss his outlook at the end of the controversy over Bernstein’s membership of the German Social Democratic Party,
Gilmac.