V. I. Lenin

Inthe present article I intend to confine myself to an account of the transactions of the Congress on the question indicated in
the heading and to a description of the trends of socialist thought which
came into conflict there.

Priorto the Congress three draft resolutions on co-operative societies
were published. The Belgian draft (in No. 5 of the Periodical Bulletin of the International Socialist Bureau , which is issued irregularly in
the three official languages of the International Congresses) begins by
warning socialist workers against the doctrine of those who regard
co-operative societies as something self-sufficient, a sort of means for
the solution of the social question. Then, admitting that the working class
is extremely interested in utilising the co-operative societies as a weapon
in their class struggle, the draft resolution of the Belgian party points
out the direct advantages of co-operative societies (combating commercial
exploitation, improving the working conditions of persons in the employ of
the suppliers, etc.) and expresses the desire for “organic, closer and
closer ties” to be established between the socialist parties and the
co-operative societies.

Thedraft resolution submitted by the majority of the French Socialist
Party is drawn up in the Jaurès spirit. The co-operative societies
are exalted to the skies and are put forward—exactly in the style of the
bourgeois reformers—as a “necessary” element of “social
reformation”. There are vague phrases about converting the co-operatives
from

unions of separate persons into general federations of associations. Proletarian co-operative societies are confused with the
co-operatives of petty proprietors (in agriculture). The resolution
advocates the neutrality of co-operative societies, describing as harmful
the imposition of any obligations on the co-operative societies with
respect to the Socialist Party.

Lastly,the draft submitted by the minority of the French socialists
(Guesde-ists) declares emphatically that the co-operatives in themselves
are by no means class organisations (as, for instance, the trade unions
axe), and that their importance is determined by the use which is made of
them. The workers, by joining the co-operative societies en masse ,
can benefit from them in their struggle against capital; from the example
they offer, the workers can to some ex tent get an idea of the socialist
society that would be organised after the contradictions of the present
social order have been eliminated. The draft therefore emphasises the
limited significance of the co-operative societies and calls upon the
socialist parties to assist the proletarian co-operative societies, warns
against illusions as to the role of co-operative societies, and recommends
socialists to unite Within the co-operative societies in order to explain
to the masses their real task: the conquest of political power and the
conversion of the means of production and distribution into common
property.

Itis quite clear that there are two main lines of policy here:
one—the line of proletarian class struggle, recognition of the value of
the co-operative societies as a weapon in this struggle, as one of its
subsidiary means, and a definition of the conditions under which the
co-operative societies would really play such a part and not remain simple
commercial enterprises. The other line is a petty-bourgeois one, obscuring
the question of the role of the co-operative societies in the class
struggle of the proletariat, attaching to the co-operative societies an
importance transcending this struggle (i. e., confusing the proletarian and
the proprietors’ view of co-operative societies), defining the aims of the
co-operative societies with general phrases that are acceptable even to the
bourgeois reformers, those ideologues of the progressive employers, large
and small.

Unfortunatelythese two lines were only sketched in the three
drafts that had been prepared beforehand, and they were not opposed one to
the other, clearly, distinctly and sharply, as two trends , whose
conflict should settle the question. Hence the transactions of the Congress
proceeded unevenly, confusedly, and as it were spontaneously. It “came up
against” differences of opinion, every minute, but they were not cleared
up and the result was a resolution reflecting the confusion of ideas, one
which did not say everything that could and should have been said
in a resolution of a Congress of Socialist Parties.

Inthe commission on the question of co-operative societies two trends
immediately became apparent. One was represented by Jaurès and
Elm. Elm was one of the four German delegates on the co-operative
commission and acted as spokesman for the Germans—adopting a definitely
opportunistic tone. The other trend was the Belgian. The mediator and
conciliator was the Austrian, Karpeles, a prominent leader of the Austrian
co-operative movement, who upheld no definite line of principle, but (or
“because” rather than “but”) who inclined more often than not to the
opportunists. Moreover, even when the Belgians did challenge Jaurès
and Elm this was due more to the instinct for a really proletarian approach
to co-operative affairs than to a distinct understanding of the hostility
and the irreconcilable breach between the proletarian and the
petty-bourgeois point of view on the question. That is why, for instance,
Anseele (chairman of the co-operative commission) made some forceful and
excellent speeches to the commission against neutrality in the co-operative
societies, against exaggerated ideas of their importance, and urging the
necessity of our being socialist co-operators, not co-operator socialists. Yet when the resolution was being drawn up
the same Anseele might have driven anyone to despair by his toleration of
the formulations put forward by Jaurès and Elm, his reluctance to
inquire into the causes of the dissension.

Butto return to the meetings of the commission. Naturally the course
of its work was decisively influenced by the representatives of nations
with a strongly developed co-operative movement. Moreover, it immediately
became apparent that there was a difference of opinion between the Belgians and the Germans, vastly to the disadvantage of the latter. At
any rate the Belgians pursued a proletarian line, although not quite
consistently, not quite distinctly. Elm came out as an opportunist of the
first water (especially in the subcommission, of which more
later). Naturally, the leading role belonged to the Belgians. The Austrians
were sympathetically disposed to them and at the end of the commission s
deliberations an Austro-Belgian resolution was read, while Elm,
who submitted the German resolution, declared forthright that he thought it
would be quite possible to make it agree with Jaurès’s draft. Since
among the French there was a strong minority against Jaurès (there
were 202 mandates for his point of view and 142 for Guesde’s) while among
the Germans there would have been a no less strong minority against Elm (if
the question of the two points of view had come up clearly and sharply),
the Austro-Belgian alliance had real chances of victory. And it was not so
much a question of “victory” in the narrow sense of the word as of
consistently upholding the proletarian point of view on the co-operative
societies. Due to the excessive concessions which the subcommission made to
Jaurès and Elm, this consistency was not attained.

Asfor us, the Russian Social-Democrats, we tried to sup port the
Austro-Belgian line in the commission and with this aim in view, before the
reading of the Austro-Belgian conciliatory draft, we submitted a draft
resolution of our own, as follows:

“Draft Resolution of the Social-Democratic Delegation of Russia “The Congress is of the opinion:

“1) That proletarian consumers’ societies improve the situation of the
working class in that they reduce the amount of exploitation by all kinds
of commercial middlemen, influence the labour conditions of the workers
employed by the supplying firms and improve the situation of their own
employees.

“2) That these societies can assume great importance for the economic
and political mass struggle of the proletariat by supporting the workers
during strikes, lock-outs, political persecution, etc.

“Onthe other hand the Congress points out:

“1)that the improvements that can be achieved with the help of the
consumers’ societies can only be very inconsiderable as long as the means of production remain in the hands of the class without whose
expropriation socialism cannot be attained; “2)that consumers’ societies are not organisations for direct
struggle against capital and exist alongside similar bodies organised by
other classes, which could give rise to the illusion that these
organisations are a means by which the social question may be solved
without class struggle and the expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

“The Congress calls on the workers of all countries:

“a)to join the proletarian consumers’ societies and to promote their
development in every way, at the same time upholding the democratic
character of these organisations; “b)by untiring socialist propaganda in the consumers’ societies, to
spread the ideas of class struggle and socialism among the workers; “c)to strive at the same time to bring about the fullest possible
co-operation between all forms of the labour movement.

“The Congress also points out that producers’ co-operatives can be of
importance for the struggle of the working class only if they are a
component part of consumers’ societies.”

Allthe draft resolutions were handed to a subcommission (the
commissions at International Congresses are so large—each nation
delegating four representatives to each commission—that it is simply Out
of the question to work out the text of resolutions at a full commission
meeting). This subcommission consisted of ten persons; two Belgians
(Anseele and Vandervelde), one Frenchman (Jaurès), one Austrian
(Karpeles), one German (Elm), one Dutchman (Wibaut—a Marxist), one
Italian, one Dane, one Englishman and one Russian Social-Democrat (Voinov
and myself— our Social-Democratic delegation was unable to meet to elect
a representative—so we both attended and one voted).

Itwas in the subcommission that the real business of drawing up the
text of the resolution took place. The text adopted by the Congress, except
for some small stylistic changes, is the same as the one drawn up by the
subcommission; the reader will find the text of the Congress resolution
elsewhere in this issue. The fight in the subcommission centred not on the
question of the relations of co-operators to the Party—as was the case in
the commission—but on the more fundamental question of the significance
and role of co-operative societies. The Belgians tended to define their
role, quite correctly in principle, as one of the possible (in certain
conditions) auxiliary weapons in the proletarian class struggle for the
“total expropriation” (expropriation intègrale) of the capitalist
class. Elm, supported by Jaurès, was strenuously opposed and revealed his opportunism to the full. He said
it was not certain that matters would ever come to expropriation, that he
personally considered it most improbable that for the “majority” (!) this
was a debatable question, there was nothing about expropriation in the
programme of the German Social-Democratic Party an4 that one should say
“Überwindung des Kapitalismus”—“the overcoming of capitalism”. Bebel’s famous words in Hannover, uttered at the conclusion
of the controversy with Bernstein, “es bleibt bei der
Expropriation”—“we stand as before for expropriation,” {1} were forgotten by one of the leaders of German
opportunism. In connection with this dispute the “question of
socialisation” arose. Jaurès demanded in the form of an ultimatum
that the definition of the significance of the co-operative societies
should include: “They help the workers land this was included in the text
adopted by the Congress I to prepare the democratisation and socialisation
of the means of production and distribution.”

Thisis one of those nebulous, indefinite phrases—entirely acceptable
to the ideologists of the petty proprietor and the theoreticians of
bourgeois reformism—at which Jaurès is such an adept and to which
he is so partial. What is the “democratisation of the means of production
and distribution?” (Later in the commission, when the draft came back from
the subcommission, the French altered the word “means”— moyens —to forces, but this did not make the
slightest difference.) Peasant production (as I told the commission) is
“more democratic” than large-scale capitalist production. Does this mean
that we socialists want to establish small-scale production? And what is
“socialisation"? It can be taken to mean conversion into the property of
the whole community, but it can also he taken to mean any palliatives, any
reforms within the framework of capitalism, from peasant co-operatives to
municipal baths and public lavatories. In the subcommission Jaurès
referred to the Danish agricultural societies, apparently sharing the view
of the bourgeois economists that these are not capitalistic enterprises.

Organisingopposition to this opportunism, we (Russian and Polish
Social-Democrats) tried appealing from Elm to Wurm, the co-editor of the
Neue Zeit , who was also representing the Germans on the co-operative commission. Wurm did not approve of the
phrase “democratisation and socialisation”, proposed (privately) a number
of amendments, and negotiated between Elm and the Marxists; but Elm was so
“adamant” that Wurm’s efforts came to nothing. Some time after the
Congress I read in the Leipziger Volkszeitung (No. 201, August 31,
1910, 3. Beilage), that the question of the co-operative societies had been
brought up in the German delegation the Tuesday before. “R. Fischer
inquired,” wrote the correspondent of this paper, “if there were any
differences on the question of co-operatives among the German delegates.”
Elm replied: “Yes. And they can’t he eliminated overnight. Congress decisions are always in the nature of a compromise and
on this question too matters will probably end in a compromise.”
Wurm :

“My views on the question of the co-operative societies are quite
different ( durchaus andere ) from the views of von Elm;
nevertheless, we shall probably find common ground in a combined
resolution.” After this the delegation considered further discussion
unnecessary.

Thisreport bears out the fact which was already quite evident at the
International Congress in

Stuttgart. {2} The German delegation is composed equally of Party
representatives and trade union representatives. The latter are almost all
opportunists as it is usually the secretaries and other trade union
“bureaucrats” who are elected. In general the Germans are incapable of
pursuing a consistent line of principle at International Congresses and the
hegemony in the International often slips from their hands. Wurm’s
impotence before Elm is but one more illustration of the crisis in German
Social-Democracy which consists in the growth of an inevitable and decisive
breach with the opportunists.

Onthe question of financial support for the Party from the
co-operative societies, Elm and Jaurès during the proceedings of the
subcommission also won an excessive concession from the Belgians, who
agreed to the formula: “It rests with the co-operative societies of each
country to decide whether and to what extent they should assist the
political and trade union movement directly from their own funds.”

Whenthe subcommission’s draft came back to the commission for final
adoption these were the two points upon which we fixed our
attention. Together with Guesde we moved two (main) amendments: firstly, to
replace the words “(the co-operative societies) help the workers to
prepare the democratisation and socialisation of production and
distribution” by the words: “(the co-operative societies) help to a
certain extent to prepare the functioning of production and distribution
after the expropriation of the capitalist class.” This amendment, which
stylistically is not very happily formulated, does not mean that the
co-operative societies cannot help the workers at present, but
that the future mode of production and distribution, which is being
prepared now by the co-operative societies, can begin to function
only after the expropriation of the capitalists.

The second amendment concerned the point which speaks of the relation of
co-operative societies to the Party. We proposed either to add the words
“which (i. e., aid to the workers’ struggle) is in any case desirable from
the standpoint of socialism”, or to replace the whole of this point by
another expressly recommending socialists in the co-operative
societies to advocate and insist upon direct support for the class struggle
of the proletariat.

Bothamendments were rejected by the commission and collected only
about 15 votes. The Socialist-Revolutionaries—as they always do at
International Congresses—voted for Jaurès. Before the Russian
public they are not averse to reproaching even Bebel with opportunism, but
before the European they follow Jaurès and Elm! Wurm tried to patch
up the last part of the resolution by rearranging the order of the last
three paragraphs. Let it be said first of all that the unification of the
co-operatives in a single federation is desirable (second paragraph from
the end). Then let it be stated that it rests with the co-operative
societies to decide whether they should render direct assistance to the
Party or not (third paragraph from the end). And let the last paragraph
begin with “but” ( but the congress declares that it would be
desirable to have increasingly intimate relations between the Party, the
trade unions and the co-operative societies). Then it would be clear from
the general context that the Congress recommends the co-operative societies to help the Party. Elm rejected even this amendment! Wurm then
withdrew it. After that Wibaut moved it in his own name, we voted for it,
but the amendment was rejected.

Asto the line to pursue at the plenary session of the Congress, we,
had a conference with Guesde. Guesde considered—and his opinion was
shared by the German revolutionary Social-Democrats—that at the plenary
session of the Congress we ought not to start a fight over minor changes,
but to vote for the resolution as a whole. Its defects consist in
the admission of a revisionist phrase which is not a substitute
for the definition of the aim of socialism but stands alongside
this definition—and in one insufficiently emphatic expression of
the idea that workers’ co-operative societies should help the workers’
class struggle. An attempt should he made to remove such defects but there
were no grounds for starting a fight at the general meeting because of
them. We agreed with this opinion of Guesde’s and the resolution was
unanimously adopted at the plenary session of the Congress.

Tosum up the work of the Congress on the question of co-operative
societies, we must say—without concealing the defects of the resolution
either from ourselves or from the workers—that the International gave, in
essentials, a correct definition of the tasks of the proletarian
co-operative societies. Every member of the Party, every Social-Democratic
worker, every class-conscious worker-co-operator must be guided by the
resolution that was adopted and carry on all his activity in, the spirit of
this resolution.

The Copenhagen Congress marks that stage in the development of the
labour movement in which its growth was, so to speak, mainly in breadth and
in which it began to bring the proletarian co-operatives into the
orbit of class struggle. Differences with the revisionists came to light
but the revisionists are still a long way from coming out with an
independent programme. The fight against revisionism has been postponed,
but it will come inevitably.