V. I. Lenin

On November 7, New Style, the eleventh session of the
International Socialist Bureau was held in Brussels. It was preceded, as
usual in recent years, by a conference of socialist journalists of
different countries. The conference discussed certain practical questions
concerning the establishment of more regular contact between the socialist
daily news papers of different lands.

Asfor the session of the International Socialist Bureau, apart from
minor current affairs, there were two big items on the agenda: firstly, the
International Socialist Congress to be held in Copenhagen in 1910,
secondly, the split in the Dutch party.

Onthe first item, first of all the date of the Congress was fixed:
August 28–September 3, New Style. As regards the place of the Congress the
question was raised whether the Russian socialists could travel to
Copenhagen without hindrance. Knudsen, the representative of the Danish
socialists, replied that, according to their information and all that they
knew concerning the intentions of the Danish Government, the police would
not interfere with the Russian delegates to the Congress. If it was found
on the eve of the Congress that the opposite was the case the International
Socialist Bureau would undoubtedly take steps to hold the Congress
elsewhere.

Theagenda adopted for the Copenhagen Congress was the following:

1) the co-operative movement;

2) international organisation of assistance to big strikes;

3) unemployment;

4) disarmament and the arbitration of international conflicts;

5) the results of labour legislation in different countries and the question of organising it internationally, particularly the question of
the eight-hour day;

6) the improvement of contact between the national parties and the
International Socialist Bureau;

7) the abolition of capital punishment.

Itwas originally intended to include the agrarian question. Vaillant
and Molkenbuhr objected on the grounds that it would be difficult to
discuss such a question at an international congress without first
submitting it to more detailed consideration at congresses of the national
parties. A desire was expressed that the congresses of national parties
should discuss this question specially, so that it could be in shape for
the international congress of 1913.

Afteradopting resolutions of sympathy with the Swedish workers who
have organised one of the biggest general strikes of the recent period, and
the workers of Spain who have been fighting heroically against the military
adventure of their government, as well as resolutions of protest against
the atrocities and murders committed by tsarism in Russia and by the
governments of Spain, Rumania and Mexico, the International Socialist
Bureau passed to the next main item on its agenda, the question of the
split in Holland.

Theopportunists and Marxists of the Socialist Party in Holland have
long been in conflict. On the agrarian question the opportunists stood for
the point in the programme that calls for the allotment of land to
agricultural labourers. The Marxists vigorously opposed this point (which
was defend ed by the leader of the opportunists, Troelstra) and secured its
removal in 1905. After this the opportunists, attuning their policy to the
religious section of the Dutch workers, went to the length of defending
state subsidies for religious instruction in the schools. The Marxists put
up a strenuous opposition. The opportunists, with Troelstra at their head,
counterposed the parliamentary Social-Democratic group to the Party and
acted contrary to the decisions of the Central Committee. The opportunists
pursued a policy of rapprochement with the liberals and of committing the
socialists to their support (“justifying” this, of course, by the aim of
obtaining social reforms, which the liberals promised and ... failed to
carry out). The opportunists set about revising the old, Marxist programme
of the Dutch Social-Democratic Party and, inter alia , put forward
for this revision such theses as renouncing the “downfall theory” (a well-known idea of
Bernstein’s) or desiring that recognition of the programme should oblige
party members to recognise the political and economic “ but not the philosophical views of Marx ” The Marxists’ opposition to such a
policy became more and more acute. Finding themselves ousted from the
Central Organ of the party, the Marxists (among them the well-known woman
writer Roland-Holst, furthermore Gorter, Pannekoek and others) started a
newspaper of their own, Tribune . Troelstra unscrupulously
persecuted this newspaper, accusing the Marxists of wanting to “oust” him
personally, stirring up the petty-bourgeois-minded section of the Dutch
workers against the “trouble-makers”, the polemicists, the disturbers of
the peace—the Marxists. The upshot was that an extraordinary congress of
the party in Davant (February 13-14, 19O9), which gave the majority to
Troelstra’s supporters, decided to close down “ Tribune ”
and have in its place “a supplement” to the opportunist Central Organ of
the party! Naturally, the editors of Tribune did not agree to this
(with the exception of Roland-Hoist, who, unfortunately adopted a
hopelessly conciliatory position) and were expelled from the party .

Theresult was a split. The old, opportunist party, led by Troelstra
and van Kol (“famous” since his opportunist utterances on the colonial
question in Stuttgart), kept the title of “Social-Democratic Labour
Party” (S.D.L.P.). The new, Marxist party—much smaller in numbers—took
the title of “Social-Democratic Party” (S.D.P.).

The Executive Committee of the International Socialist Bureau tried to
assume the role of mediator for the restoration, of unity in Holland but
made a very bad job of it. It took a formal point of view and, obviously
sympathising with the opportunists, blamed the Marxists for the
split. Accordingly, their request for the admission of the new party into
the International was rejected by the Executive Committee of the
International Socialist Bureau.

Thequestion of admitting the Dutch Marxists into the International
came before a meeting of the International Socialist Bureau itself on
November 7, 19O9. Everybody wanted to avoid discussion of the real point
at issue and to do no more than suggest procedure, i.e., refer the case to
be

dealt with in one way or another, to indicate a method of settling the
conflict although, of course, the, majority of the members of the Bureau
must have been well aware of the real substance of this matter,
the real substance of the struggle between the two trends in
Holland.

Finallytwo resolutions were moved, revealing two trends. Singer in
support of the Marxists, Adler against. Singer’s read as follows:

“The International Socialist Bureau resolves: the Party which has been
formed in Holland under the name of the new S.D. Party [there is a mistake
in the title: it should be “S.D. Party”], should be admitted to
International Socialist Congresses as it satisfies the conditions specified
in the Rules of the International. Whether it should have a delegate on the
Bureau and how many votes it should have at the Congress is a question for
the Copenhagen Congress to decide if the Dutch comrades themselves do not
reach a settlement of the dispute.”

Wesee from this text that Singer did not go beyond the formal aspect,
leaving the final settlement of the question to the Dutch section of the
international congress, but at the same time clearly emphasising that the
Marxist party in Holland should be recognised by the International. Adler
did not venture to say the opposite, he did not venture to declare outright
that he did not consider the Dutch Marxists to be members of the
International, that he shared the attitude of the Executive Committee which
flatly rejected the Marxists’ application. Adler moved that “The request
of the S.D.P. be referred, to the Dutch section. If no agreement is reached
within this section an appeal can be made to the Bureau.” The formal
attitude is the same as Singer’s, but it is clear from the text that the
sympathies of this resolution are on the side of the opportunists, for it
says nothing about recognising the Marxists as members of the
International. And the voting of the resolutions made it instantly manifest
that the spirit of both one and the other had been perfectly
grasped by the members of the Bureau. Singer received 11 votes: from France
2 votes, Germany 2, England 1 (S.D.), Argentina 2, Bulgaria 1, Russia 1
(S.D.), Poland 1 (S.D.), America 1 (the Socialist Labour Party). Adler
received 16 votes: from England 1 (“Independent”

Labour Party), Denmark 2, Belgium 2, Austria 2, Hungary 2, Poland 1 (Polish
Socialist Party), Russia 1 (S.R.), America 1 (Socialist Party), Holland 2
(van Kol and Troelstra!), Sweden 2.

Theorgan of the German revolutionary Social-Democrats, Leipziger Volkszeitung (No. 259), rightly called this resolution of the
International Socialist Bureau a regrettable one. “At Copenhagen the
proletarian International must reconsider this decision”, it concluded
with full justification. Another newspaper of the same trend, the
Bremer Bürgerzeitung of November 11, 1909, wrote: “Comrade
Adler speaks as the advocate of international opportunism in all its
glory.” His resolution was passed “thanks to the support of the
opportunist olla podrida” (Sammelsurium).

Tothese just words we Russian Social-Democrats can only add that our
Socialist-Revolutionaries, of course, made haste to take their place in the
opportunist throng together with the P.S.P.

Thesession of the International Socialist Bureau was followed on
November 8, 1909 in Brussels by the fourth session of the
inter-parliamentary socialist commission, i.e., of the members of the
socialist parliamentary groups of different countries. The groups were but
sparsely represented in general (the Russian Social-Democratic group in the
Duma was not represented at all). The delegates interchanged reports on
question of workers’ old-age insurance, the state of legislation in
different countries, and Bills drawn up by labour deputies. The best report
was one made by Molkenbuhr based on his article published in the Neue Zeit .

---
Notes: