V. I.

Lenin

The Jena Congress of the German Social-Democratic Workers’ Party

Congressesof the German Social-Democrats have long become events whose
importance goes far beyond the con fines of the German labour movement. The
German Social-Democratic movement ranks first in respect of organisation,
integrality and coherence, and the extent and rich content of its Marxist
literature. It is natural that under such circumstances resolutions of
the German Social-Democratic congresses also frequently acquire almost
international significance. Such was the case with the question of the latest
opportunist tendencies in socialism (Bernsteinism). The decision of the Dresden
Social-Democratic Congress, which confirmed the old and tested tactics of
revolutionary Social-Democracy, was adopted by the Amsterdam International
Socialist Congress, and has now become the common decision of the whole
class-conscious proletariat throughout the world. Such is now the case too. The
question of a mass political strike—the main question at the Jena
Congress—is agitating the entire international Social-Democratic
movement. It has been brought to the fore lately by events in a number of
countries, including Russia, and even perhaps Russia in particular. The German
Social-Democrats’ decision will undoubtedly exercise considerable influence on
the entire international labour movement by giving support and strength to the
revolutionary spirit of militant workers.

However,let us first take brief note of the other and less important questions
discussed and decided by the Jena Congress. First of all, it considered the
question of Party organisation. We shall not of course dwell here on the details of the revision of the German Party Rules. It is important that the highly
characteristic basic feature of this revision should be stressed, i.e., the
tendency towards further, more comprehensive and stricter application of the
principle of centralism , the establishment of a stronger
organisation. This tendency found expression, first, in the inclusion
in the Rules of a direct provision to the effect that every Social-Democrat is
obliged to belong to a Party organisation, with the exception of cases when this
is precluded by very serious reasons. Secondly, it found expression in the
institution of a system of Social-Democratic local branches instead of the
system of delegates, the replacement of the principle of one-man authority and
confidence in an individual, by the principle of collective, organisational
links. Thirdly, it expressed itself in a decision to the effect that all Party
organisations must contribute 25 per cent of their revenue to the Party’s
central treasury.

Onthe whole, this obviously shows that the growth of the Social-Democratic
movement and of its revolutionary spirit necessarily and inevitably leads to the
more consistent establishment of centralism. In this respect the development of
the German Social-Democratic movement is highly instructive to us Russians. Not
so long ago organisational questions occupied a disproportionate place among
current problems of Party life, and to some extent this holds true of the
present as well. Since the Third Congress two organisational tendencies in the
Party have become fully defined. One is towards consistent centralism and
consistent extension of the democratic principle in Party organisations, not for
the sake of demagogy, or because it sounds good, but in order to put this into
effect as Social-Democracy’s free field of activity extends in Russia. The other
tendency is towards diffusiveness of organisation, “vagueness of
organisation”, whose injuriousness is now understood even by Plekhanov,
who defended it for such a long time (let us hope that events will soon force
him to understand likewise the connection between this vagueness of organisation
and vagueness of tactics).

Recallthe disputes about Clause 1 of our Rules. The Conference of the
new-Iskrists, who had been previously fervently defending the “idea”
underlying their mistaken formulation of this clause, now simply discarded all the clause and the idea as a whole. The
Third Congress confirmed the principle of centralism and
organisational ties. The new-Iskrists immediately attempted to put
on a basis of general principles the question whether every Party member
must belong to an organisation. We now see that the
Germans—opportunists and revolutionaries alike— do not even
question the legitimacy of such a requirement as a matter of
principle. When they brought this requirement (that every Party
member must belong to a Party organisation) straight into their Rules, they
explained the need of exceptions to this rule , not by considerations of principle but by the absence of sufficient freedom in Germany! Vollmar, who at Jena delivered the report on the
organisational question, justified toleration of exceptions to the rule on
the ground that it would be impossible for such people (petty officials) to
belong to the Social-Democratic Party openly . It goes without
saying that the situation in Russia is different: since there is no freedom
all organisations are equally secret. Under conditions of revolutionary
freedom it is particularly important that parties be quite distinct from
each other, and that no “diffusiveness” be permitted in this
respect. However the principle of the desirability of stronger
organisational ties remains unshaken.

Asregards the delegate system, which the German Social-Democrats have now
discarded, its existence was due entirely to the Exceptional Law Against the
Socialists. The farther this law receded into the past, the more natural and
inevitable became the transition to a Party system based on direct links between
organisations, instead of on links through delegates.

Anotherquestion that came up for discussion at Jena prior to the question of
political strike is also highly instructive for Russia. This was the question of
the May Day celebrations, or, to be more exact (to take the gist of the matter
and not the item that gave rise to the discussion), the question of the relation
of the trade union movement to the Social-Democratic Party. Proletary
has spoken several times about the profound impression made on German
Social-Democrats, and not only on them alone, by the Cologne Trade
Union Congress. [1]

It became more than evident at this Congress that even in Germany, where the traditions of Marxism and its influence are strongest, anti-socialist tendencies, tendencies
towards “pure trade-unionism” of the British, i.e., absolutely
bourgeois type, are developing in the trade unions—mark you,
Social-Democratic trade unions. That is why from the question of a May
Day demonstration in its literal sense, there inevitably arose at the Jena
Congress the question of trade-unionism and Social-Democracy, the question of
Economism, to speak in terms of trends within the Russian Social-Democratic
movement.

Fischer,who delivered the report on the question of May Day, frankly stated
that it would be a bad mistake to ignore the fact that in the trade unions the
socialist spirit is disappearing now here, now there. Things had gone so far
that, for instance, Bringmann, representative of the carpenters’ union, had
uttered and published statements like the following:

“The strike on May Day is like a foreign body in the human body.” “In
the given circumstances the trade unions are the sole means for improving the
condition of the workers”, etc. And these “symptoms of disease”, as Fischer aptly termed them, are being supplemented by a number
of others. In Germany, as in Russia and indeed everywhere, a narrow
trade-unionism, or Economism, is linking up with opportunism (revisionism). The
newspaper published by this same carpenters’ union wrote about the crumbling
foundations of scientific socialism, the erroneousness of the theory of crises,
the theory of collapse, etc. The revisionist Calwer did not call on the workers
to show discontent or increase their demands, but to be modest, etc.,
etc. Liebknecht met with approval from the Congress when he spoke against the
idea of the trade unions’ “neutrality”, and remarked that
“Bebel, it is true, also spoke in favour of neutrality, but, in my
opinion, this is one of the few points on which Bebel does not have the hacking
of the majority of the Party”.

Bebelhimself denied that he had advised the trade unions to be neutral with
regard to the Social-Democratic movement. Bebel fully recognised the danger of
narrow trade-unionism. He went on to say that he knew even worse examples of
this craft union apathy: young trade union leaders go so far as to jeer at the
Party in general, at socialism in general, at the theory of the class
struggle. These statements of Bebel’s evoked general indignation at the
Social-Democratic Congress.

There was loud applause when he resolutely declared: “Comrades, be on
your guard, think of what you are doing; you are travelling a fatal path,
which in the end will lead to your doom.”

Itthus stands to the credit of the German Social-Democratic movement that it
faced the danger squarely. It did not gloss over the extremes of Economism, or
invent lame excuses and subterfuges (such as were so abundantly invented by our
Plekhanov, for instance, after the Second Congress). No, it bluntly named the
disease, resolutely condemned the injurious tendencies, and straightforwardly
and openly called on all Party members to combat them. This is instructive to
Russian Social-Democrats, some of whom have earned the praise of Mr. Struve for
having begun to “see the light” on the question of the trade union
movement.

---
Notes:
[1]
The Cologne Congress of German Trade Unions took place in May
1905.