# International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart{36}

The recently concluded congress in Stuttgart was the twelfth congress of the proletarian International. The first five congresses belong to the era of the First International (1866–1872), which was led by Marx, attempting—in Bebel’s apt expression—to create from above the international unity of the struggling proletariat. This attempt could not succeed until the national socialist parties had rallied and grown strong, but the activity of the First International rendered great services to the working-class movement of all countries and left lasting traces.

The Second International opens with the Paris International Socialist Congress of 1889. At the subsequent congresses in Brussels (1891), Zurich (1893), London (1896), Paris (1900), and Amsterdam (1904), this new International, resting on strong national parties, was finally consolidated. In Stuttgart there were 884 delegates from 25 peoples of Europe, Asia (Japan and part of India), America, Australia, and Africa (one delegate from South Africa).

The great significance of the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart lies precisely in the fact that it marked the final consolidation of the Second International and the transformation of international congresses into businesslike assemblies that exert the most serious influence on the character and direction of socialist work throughout the world. Formally, the decisions of international congresses are not binding on individual nations, but their moral significance is such that non-observance of decisions is in practice an exception, scarcely less rare than non-observance by individual parties of the decisions of their own congresses. The Amsterdam Congress achieved the unification of the French socialists, and its resolution against ministerialism truly expressed the will of the conscious proletariat of the whole world, determined the policy of the workers’ parties.

The Stuttgart Congress took a major step forward in the same direction, proving to be, on a whole series of important questions, the supreme institution for determining the political line of socialism. This line the Stuttgart Congress defined even more firmly than the Amsterdam Congress, in the sense of revolutionary Social-Democracy against opportunism. The organ of the German Social-Democratic women workers, *Die Gleichheit* (“Equality”), edited by Clara Zetkin, rightly says on this matter: “on all questions, the various deviations of individual socialist parties toward opportunism were corrected in a revolutionary sense, thanks to the collaboration of socialists of all countries.”

A remarkable and sad phenomenon in this connection was that German Social-Democracy, which until now had always upheld the revolutionary standpoint in Marxism, proved unstable or took an opportunist position. The Stuttgart Congress confirmed a profound observation of Engels about the German working-class movement. Engels wrote to the veteran of the First International, Sorge, on April 29, 1886: “It is generally a good thing that the Germans, especially after they have sent such a large number of philistines to the Reichstag (which was, however, inevitable), are being disputed in their role as leaders of the international socialist movement. In quiet times everything in Germany becomes philistine; and at such moments the sting of French competition is absolutely necessary, and there will be no lack of it.”{37}

There was no lack of the sting of French competition in Stuttgart, and this sting indeed proved necessary, for the Germans displayed no small amount of philistinism. It is especially important for Russian Social-Democrats to bear this in mind, for our liberals (and not only liberals) go out of their way to present precisely the least brilliant aspects of German Social-Democracy as a model worthy of imitation. The most thoughtful and outstanding leaders of thought among the German Social-Democrats themselves noted this circumstance and, casting aside all false shame, resolutely pointed to it as a warning. “In Amsterdam,” writes Clara Zetkin’s organ, “the revolutionary leitmotif of all debates in the parliament of the world proletariat was the Dresden resolution—in Stuttgart, the speeches of Vollmar in the commission on militarism, of Peplow in the commission on emigration, of David (and also, we add on our own, Bernstein) in the colonial commission sounded as an unpleasant opportunist dissonance at the congress. In the majority of commissions, on the majority of questions, the representatives of Germany were this time the leaders of opportunism.” And K. Kautsky writes, assessing the Stuttgart Congress: “the guiding role that German Social-Democracy had until now actually played in the Second International did not manifest itself in any way this time.”

Let us proceed to examine the individual questions discussed at the congress. On the colonial question, disagreements could not be eliminated in the commission. The dispute between the opportunists and the revolutionaries was decided by the congress itself, and decided by a majority of 127 votes to 108, with 10 abstentions, in favor of the revolutionaries. Let us note in passing here the gratifying phenomenon that the socialists of Russia all voted unanimously on all questions in a revolutionary spirit. (Russia has 20 votes, of which 10 were given to the RSDLP, excluding the Poles, 7 to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and 3 to representatives of the trade unions. Then Poland has 10 votes: 4 Polish Social-Democrats and 6 PPS members and non-Russian parts of Poland. Finally, two representatives of Finland had 8 votes.)

On the colonial question, an opportunist majority formed in the commission, and a monstrous phrase appeared in the draft resolution: “the congress does not condemn in principle and for all time every colonial policy, which under a socialist regime may have a civilizing effect.” In fact, this proposition was tantamount to a direct retreat toward bourgeois policy and a bourgeois world outlook that justifies colonial wars and atrocities. This is a retreat toward Roosevelt, said one American delegate. The attempts to justify this retreat by the tasks of a “socialist colonial policy” and positive reformist work in the colonies were utterly unsuccessful. Socialism has never refused and does not refuse to advocate reforms in the colonies as well, but this has nothing and should have nothing in common with weakening our principled position against conquests, the subjugation of foreign peoples, violence, and plunder, which constitute “colonial policy.” The minimum program of all socialist parties applies both to the metropolises and to the colonies. The very concept of a “socialist colonial policy” is an endless muddle. The congress acted quite correctly in striking from the resolution the words cited above and replacing them with an even sharper condemnation of colonial policy than in previous resolutions.

The resolution on the question of the attitude of socialist parties toward trade unions is of especially great importance for us Russians. With us, this question is on the order of the day. The Stockholm Congress decided it in favor of non-party trade unions, i.e., confirmed the position of our supporters of neutrality, with Plekhanov at their head. The London Congress took a step toward party trade unions, against neutrality. The London resolution, as is known, provoked great disputes and discontent in part of the trade unions, and especially in the bourgeois-democratic press.

In Stuttgart, the question, in essence, arose precisely thus: neutrality of the unions or an ever closer rapprochement between them and the party? And the International Socialist Congress, as the reader may convince himself from its resolution, pronounced in favor of a closer rapprochement of the unions with the party. There is not a word in the resolution about either neutrality or the non-party character of trade unions. Kautsky, who in German Social-Democracy advocated the rapprochement of the unions with the party, against Bebel’s neutrality, therefore had every right to proclaim in his report on the Stuttgart Congress before the Leipzig workers (*Vorwärts*{38}, 1907, No. 209, Supplement):

“The resolution of the Stuttgart Congress says everything we need. It puts an end to neutrality forever.” Clara Zetkin writes: “In principle, no one any longer objected (in Stuttgart) to the fundamental historical tendency of the proletarian class struggle—to link the political and economic struggle, to link both types of organization as closely as possible into one united force of the socialist working class. Only the representative of the Russian Social-Democrats, Comrade Plekhanov” (one should have said: the representative of the Mensheviks, who sent Plekhanov to the commission as a defender of “neutrality”) “and the majority of the French delegation attempted, with rather unsuccessful arguments, to justify some limitation of this principle by reference to the peculiarities of their countries. The overwhelming majority of the congress sided with the resolute policy of unity between Social-Democracy and the trade unions….”

It should be noted that Plekhanov’s unsuccessful argument, in Zetkin’s just opinion, was presented by the Russian legal newspapers in the following form. Plekhanov referred in the commission of the Stuttgart Congress to the fact that “in Russia there are 11 revolutionary parties”; “with which of them should the trade unions enter into unity?” (we quote from *Vorwärts*, No. 196, 1st Supplement). This reference by Plekhanov is incorrect both factually and in principle. Factually, in each nationality of Russia no more than two parties are struggling for influence over the socialist proletariat: the Social-Democrats and the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Polish Social-Democrats and the PPS{39}, the Latvian Social-Democrats{40} and the Latvian Socialist-Revolutionaries (the so-called “Latvian Social-Democratic Union”), the Armenian Social-Democrats and the Dashnaktsutyun{41}, etc. The Russian delegation in Stuttgart also immediately divided into two sections. The number 11 is entirely arbitrary and misleads the workers. In principle, Plekhanov is wrong because the struggle between proletarian and petty-bourgeois socialism in Russia is inevitable everywhere and in all spheres, including in the trade unions. The English, for example, did not think of opposing the resolution, although they too have two contending socialist parties, the Social-Democrats (S.D.F.){42} and the “Independents” (I.L.P.){43}.

That the idea of neutrality, rejected in Stuttgart, has already managed to bring no small harm to the working-class movement is especially clearly seen in the example of Germany. Here neutrality was most widely preached and most widely applied. The result was such a manifest deviation of the trade unions in Germany toward opportunism that this deviation was openly acknowledged even by so cautious a man on this question as Kautsky. In his report before the Leipzig workers, he says outright that the “conservatism” displayed by the German delegation in Stuttgart “becomes understandable if one looks at the composition of this delegation. Half of it consisted of representatives of the trade unions, and thus the ‘right wing’ of our party proved to have more strength than it actually has in the party.”

The resolution of the Stuttgart Congress must undoubtedly accelerate the decisive break of Russian Social-Democracy with the idea of neutrality, so beloved by our liberals. Observing the necessary caution and gradualness, taking no abrupt or tactless steps, we must work unswervingly in the trade unions in the spirit of an ever closer rapprochement between them and the Social-Democratic Party.

Further, on the question of emigration and immigration, the disagreement between the opportunists and the revolutionaries surfaced quite clearly in the commission of the Stuttgart Congress. The former toyed with the idea of restricting the right of migration of backward, undeveloped workers—especially Japanese and Chinese. The spirit of narrow, guild-like exclusiveness, of trade-unionist exceptionalism, outweighed in such people the awareness of socialist tasks: the work of enlightening and organizing those strata of the proletariat not yet drawn into the working-class movement. The congress rejected all aspirations in this spirit. Even in the commission, the votes in favor of restricting freedom of migration remained completely isolated, and the resolution of the international congress is imbued with the recognition of the solidary class struggle of the workers of all countries.

On the question of women’s suffrage, the resolution was also adopted unanimously. Only one Englishwoman from the semi-bourgeois “Fabian Society” defended the admissibility of fighting not for full, but for a suffrage for women curtailed in favor of the propertied. The congress rejected this unconditionally and pronounced in favor of women workers waging the struggle for suffrage rights not together with the bourgeois supporters of women’s equality, but together with the class parties of the proletariat. The congress recognized that in the campaign for women’s suffrage it is necessary to fully uphold the principles of socialism and the equality of men and women, without distorting these principles by any considerations of convenience.

An interesting disagreement arose in the commission on this matter. The Austrians (Victor Adler, Adelheid Popp) justified their tactics in the struggle for universal suffrage for men: for the sake of winning this right, they deemed it convenient not to push to the forefront in agitation the demand for suffrage rights for women as well. The German Social-Democrats, especially Zetkin, protested against this even at the time when the Austrians were conducting their campaign for universal suffrage. Zetkin declared in the press that leaving the demand for suffrage rights for women in the shadows should not have been done under any circumstances, that the Austrians opportunistically sacrificed principle for considerations of convenience, that they would not have weakened but would have strengthened the sweep of agitation and the force of the popular movement if they had also energetically upheld women’s suffrage. In the commission, Zetkin was fully joined by another outstanding German Social-Democratic woman, Zietz. Adler’s amendment, which indirectly justified the Austrian tactics (this amendment speaks only of ensuring that there be no interruption in the struggle for suffrage truly for all citizens, and not that the struggle for suffrage be always waged with the demand for equal rights for men and women), was rejected by 12 votes to 9. The viewpoint of the commission and the congress can most accurately be expressed by the following words of the aforementioned Zietz from her speech at the international conference of socialist women (this conference took place in Stuttgart simultaneously with the congress): “We must demand in principle everything that we consider correct,” said Zietz, “and only when the strength for struggle is lacking do we accept what we can achieve. Such has always been the tactic of Social-Democracy. The more modest our demands, the more modest will be the concessions of the government….” From this dispute between the Austrian and German Social-Democratic women, the reader can see how strictly the best Marxists regard the slightest deviations from a consistent, principled revolutionary tactic.

The last day of the congress was devoted to the question that most interested everyone: militarism. The notorious Hervé defended a highly untenable position, failing to link war with the capitalist regime in general and anti-militarist agitation with the entire work of socialism. Hervé’s project—to “respond” to any war whatsoever with a strike and insurrection—revealed a complete failure to understand that the application of one or another means of struggle depends not on a prior decision of revolutionaries, but on the objective conditions of the crisis, both economic and political, that the war will provoke.

But if Hervé undoubtedly displayed light-mindedness, superficiality, and an infatuation with striking phrases, it would be the greatest short-sightedness to counterpose to him merely a dogmatic exposition of the general truths of socialism. Into this error (from which Bebel and Guesde were not entirely free) Vollmar fell especially. With the extraordinary self-satisfaction of a man enamored of stereotyped parliamentarism, he tore into Hervé, failing to notice that his own narrowness and the callousness of opportunism compel one to recognize a living stream in Hervéism, despite the theoretical absurdity and nonsensicality of the way Hervé himself posed the question. It sometimes happens, after all, that theoretical absurdities conceal a certain practical truth in a new turn of the movement. And this side of the question—the call to value not only parliamentary methods of struggle, the call to action in accordance with the new conditions of a future war and future crises—was emphasized by the revolutionary Social-Democrats, especially Rosa Luxemburg in her speech. Together with the Russian Social-Democratic delegates (Lenin and Martov—both spoke here in solidarity), Rosa Luxemburg proposed amendments to Bebel’s resolution, and in these amendments the necessity of agitation among the youth, the necessity of utilizing the crisis engendered by war for the purpose of accelerating the downfall of the bourgeoisie, the necessity of bearing in mind the inevitable change in the methods and means of struggle as the class struggle sharpens and the political situation changes were underscored. From Bebel’s dogmatically one-sided, dead resolution, which permitted a Vollmarist interpretation, there thus emerged in the end an entirely different resolution. All the theoretical truths were repeated in it as a lesson to the Hervéists, who are capable of forgetting socialism for the sake of anti-militarism. But these truths serve as an introduction not to the justification of parliamentary cretinism, not to the sanctification of peaceful means alone, not to bowing before the given, comparatively peaceful and calm situation, but to the recognition of all means of struggle, to taking into account the experience of the revolution in Russia, to the development of the active, creative side of the movement.

In Zetkin’s organ, to which we have already repeatedly referred, it is precisely this, the most outstanding and most important feature of the congress’s resolution on anti-militarism that is remarkably well captured. “Here too,” says Zetkin of the anti-militarist resolution, “revolutionary energy (Tatkraft) and the courageous faith of the working class in its capacity for struggle triumphed in the end—triumphed, on the one hand, over the pessimistic gospel of impotence and the ossified striving to confine oneself to the old, exclusively parliamentary methods of struggle, and, on the other hand, triumphed also over the simple-minded anti-militarist sport of the French semi-anarchists like Hervé. The resolution, adopted in the end unanimously, both by the commission and by nearly 900 delegates from all countries, expresses in energetic words the gigantic upsurge of the revolutionary working-class movement since the last international congress; the resolution puts forward, as a principle of proletarian tactics, its flexibility, its capacity for development, its sharpening (Zuspitzung) as the conditions for this ripen.”

Hervéism is rejected, but it is rejected not in favor of opportunism, not from the standpoint of dogmatism and passivity. The living striving for ever more resolute and new methods of struggle is fully recognized by the international proletariat and placed in connection with the entire sharpening of economic contradictions, with all the conditions of the crises engendered by capitalism.

Not an empty Hervéist threat, but a clear awareness of the inevitability of social revolution, a firm determination to fight to the end, a readiness for the most revolutionary means of struggle—such is the significance of the resolution of the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart on the question of militarism.

The army of the proletariat is growing stronger in all countries. Its consciousness, cohesion, and determination are growing not by the day but by the hour. And capitalism is successfully seeing to the increasing frequency of crises, which this army will utilize for the destruction of capitalism.

Written in September 1907

Printed according to the text of the *Calendar*