V. I. Lenin

Muchhas been written in all the newspapers about the
Magdeburg Congress of the German Social-Democratic Party. All the main
events of this Congress, all the vicissitudes of the struggle are
sufficiently known. The outward aspect of the struggle of the revisionists
with the orthodox, the dramatic episodes of the Congress overmuch engaged
the attention of the readers, to the detriment of a clarification of the
principles involved in this struggle, the ideological and political roots
of the divergence. Yet the debates in Magdeburg—above all on the question
of the Badenites voting for the budget—provide exceedingly interesting
material for characterising the two worlds of ideas and the two class
tendencies within the Social-Democratic Labour Party of
Germany. The voting for the budget is but one of the manifestations of this
division into two worlds, a division which is so deep that it is
undoubtedly bound to be expressed on much more serious occasions, much more
profound and important. And now, when, as everybody can see, a great
revolutionary storm is impending in Germany, the Magdeburg debates
should be regarded as a small review of forces covering a small fraction of
the army (for the question of voting for the budget is only a small
fraction of the fundamental questions of Social-Democratic tactics)
before the beginning of the campaign.

Whathas this review shown as to how different sections of the
proletarian army understand the tasks that confront them? How, judging by
this review, will these different sections of the army conduct themselves
when the time comes?—these are the questions on which we intend to dwell.

Wewill begin with one minor (at first glance) clash of opinion. The
leader of the revisionists, Frank, strongly insisted, like all the Badenites, that although the Minister, von Bodman,
had originally denied “parity of rights” of the Social-Democrats with the
other, bourgeois, parties he had subsequently retracted this
“affront”. Bebel in his report made the following reply on this point:

“Ifthe minister of a modern state, a representative of the existing
state system and social order—and the purpose of the present-day state,
as a political institution, is to defend and support the existing state
system and social order against all attacks from the Social-Democratic
camp, to defend it by force too in case of need—if such a minister
declares that he does not recognise parity of rights of the
Social-Democrats, then he is quite right from his own point of view.”
Frank interrupted Bebel with the cry “outrageous!” Bebel continued in
reply to him: “I find this quite natural.” Frank again exclaimed
“outrageous!”

Whywas Frank so indignant? Because he is thoroughly imbued with faith
in bourgeois “legality”, in bourgeois “parity of rights”, without
understanding the historical limits of this legality, without
understanding that all this legality must inevitably be cast to
the four winds when the fundamental and cardinal question of the
preservation of bourgeois property is affected. Frank is steeped in
petty-bourgeois constitutional illusions; that is why he does not
understand the historical conditionality of constitutional
institutions even in a country like Germany; he believes in the absolute
value the absolute power of the bourgeois (more correctly:
bourgeois-feudal) constitution in Germany, and is sincerely
affronted when a constitutional minister does not wish to
recognise his, Frank’s, “parity of rights” as a member of parliament, as
a man who acts in strict accordance with the law. Intoxicated by this
legality, Frank goes so far as to forget the implacable hostility of the
bourgeoisie towards the proletariat and, without noticing it, adopts the
position of those who regard this bourgeois legality as something eternal,
who think that socialism can be fitted inside the framework of this
legality.

Bebelbrings down the question from these constitutional illusions,
which are characteristic of bourgeois democrats, to the firm realities of
the class struggle. Can we allow our selves to be “affronted” because we,
the enemies of the whole bourgeois order, are not accorded parity of rights on the basis of
bourgeois law by a champion of this order? Why the very admission that this
could affront me, would show me to be unstable in nay socialist
convictions!

And Bebel tried to drive Social-Democratic views into Frank’s head by
concrete examples. We could not be “affronted”, Bebel told Frank, by the
Anti-Socialist Law; we were filled with anger and hatred, “and if it had
been in our power at that time, we would have flung ourselves into battle,
as we were longing to do heart and soul, we would have smashed to
smithereens everything that stood in our path” (here the verbatim report
records loud cries of approval ). “We would have been traitors to
our cause not to have done so” ( Hear, hear! ). “But it was not in
our power.”

Itake it as an affront that a constitutional minister does not
recognise the parity of rights of the socialists, argues Frank. You must
not be affronted, says Bebel, because your parity of rights has been denied
by a man who not so long ago was strangling you, riding roughshod over all
“principles”, whose duty it was to strangle you in defence of the
bourgeois order who will put a stranglehold on you tomorrow (Bebel did not
say this, but he hinted at it broadly enough; we shall explain in the
proper place why Bebel so cautiously confines himself to hints). We would
have been traitors if, having the opportunity, we had not throttled these
enemies of the proletariat.

Twoworlds of ideas: on the one hand, the point of view of the
proletarian class struggle, which in certain historical periods can proceed
on the basis of bourgeois legality, but which leads inevitably to
a denouement, an open collision, to the dilemma: either “smash” the
bourgeois state “to smithereens” or be defeated and strangled. On the
other hand, the point of view of the reformist, the petty bourgeois who
cannot see the wood for the trees, who cannot, through the tinsel of
constitutional legality, see the fierce class struggle, who forgets in the
backwoods of some diminutive state the great historical problems of the
present day.

Thereformists imagine themselves to be realist politicians, doers of
positive work, statesmen. It is in the interests of the masters of
bourgeois society to encourage these childish illusions in the ranks of the
proletariat, but the

Social-Democrats must destroy them ruthlessly. The talk of parity of rights
is “nothing but meaningless phrases”, said Bebel. “Anyone who can take
in a whole socialist faction with these phrases is certainly a statesman,”
said Babel, amid general laughter from the Party Congress, “but those who
let themselves be taken in are anything but statesmen.” This is a home
thrust at all the opportunists in the socialist movement who let themselves
be taken in by the National Liberals in Germany and the Cadets in
Russia. “Negators,” said Bebel, “often achieve far more than those who
stand for so-called positive work. Sharp criticism, sharp opposition always
falls on fertile ground if this criticism is just, as ours unquestionably
is.”

Theopportunist phrases about positive work mean in many cases working
for the liberals , in general working for others, who hold the
reins of power, who set the course of the given state, society,
community. And Bebel drew this conclusion frankly, declaring that “in our
Party there are no few National Liberals of this kind, pursuing a
National-Liberal policy”. As an example he mentioned Bloch , the
well-known editor of the so-called ( so-called is Bebel’s word)
Socialist Monthly ( Sozialistisehe Monatshefte ). “National Liberals have no place in our Party,”
declared Babel outright, to the general approval of the Congress.

Lookat the list of contributors to the Socialist Monthly . You
will find there all the representatives of international
opportunism. They cannot find praise high enough for the behaviour of our
liquidators. Are there not two worlds of ideas here when the leader of the
German Social-Democrats calls the editor of this journal a National
Liberal?

Opportuniststhroughout the world favour the policy of a bloc with the
liberals, now openly and outrightly pro claiming and implementing it, now
advocating or justifying election agreements with the liberals, support of
their slogans, etc. Babel has time and again exposed the sheer falsity, the
sheer mendacity of this policy, and we can say without exaggeration that
every Social-Democrat should know and remember his words.

“IfI, as a Social-Democrat, enter into an alliance with
bourgeois parties, It is a thousand to one that the bourgeois parties will
gain by it, not the Social-Democrats. We shall be the losers. It is a
political law , that wherever the Rights and Lefts enter an alliance, the Lefts
lose, the Rights win....

“IfI enter into a political alliance with a party whose
principles are hostile to mine, I must of necessity modify my
tactics, i.e., my methods of struggle, in order not to break this
alliance. I can no longer criticise ruthlessly, I cannot fight for
principles, because this would give offence to my allies; I have to keep
quiet, cover up a lot of things, make excuses for the inexcusable, gloss
over matters that cannot be glossed over.”

Opportunismis opportunism for the very reason that it sacrifices the
fundamental interests of the movement to momentary advantages or
considerations based on the most short-sighted, superficial
calculations. Frank pathetically declared in Magdeburg that the ministers
in Baden “want us, Social-Democrats, to work together with them”!

Wemust look not above but below, we said during the revolution to our
opportunists who were repeatedly led astray by various prospects held out
by the Cadets. Babel, with the Franks arrayed before him, said in his
closing remarks at Magdeburg:

“The masses cannot understand that there are Social-Democrats who support
with a vote of confidence a government which the masses would much prefer
to do away with altogether. I often get the impression that a section of
our leaders has ceased to understand the sufferings and afflictions of the
masses ( thunderous applause ), that the position of the masses has
become alien to them.” Yet “all over Germany an enormous resentment has
accumulated among the masses”.

“Weare living through a time,” said Babel in another part of his
speech, “when rotten compromises are particularly impermissible. Class
contradictions are not subsiding, but growing more acute. We are on the
threshold of very, very grave times. What will happen after the forthcoming
elections? We shall wait and see. If matters coma to the outbreak of a
European war in 1912 you will see what we are in for, where we shall have
to take our stand. It will probably not be where the Badenites are standing
today.”

Whilesome people are becoming smugly content with the state of affairs
which has become customary in Germany, Bebel himself turns all his
attention to the inevitable change which is impending and advises that the
Party’s

attention should be turned to it. “All our experiences so far have been
skirmishes at the outposts, mere trifles,” said Bebel in his closing
remarks. The main struggle lies ahead. And from the standpoint of this main
struggle, the whole tactics of the opportunists are the height of
spinelessness and short-sightedness.

Bebelonly speaks in hints about the coming struggle. Never once does
he say outright that revolution is impending in Germany, although such,
undoubtedly, is the, idea in his mind—all his references to the
aggravation of contradictions, the difficulty of reforms in Prussia, the
inextricable position of the government and the classes in command, the
growth of resentment among the masses, the danger of a European war, the
intensification of the economic yoke as a result of the high cost of
living, the amalgamation of the capitalists in trusts and cartels, etc.,
etc.—all are clearly intended to open the eyes of the Party and the
masses to the inevitability of a revolutionary struggle.

Whyis Bebel so cautious? Why does he confine himself to pointed
references? Because the maturing revolution in Germany encounters a
special, peculiar political situation that does not resemble other
pre-revolutionary periods in other countries and for that reason requires
from the leaders of the proletariat the solution of a somewhat new
problem. The chief feature of this peculiar pre-revolutionary situation
consists in the fact that the coming revolution must inevitably be
incomparably more profound, more radical, drawing far broader masses into
a, more difficult, stubborn and prolonged struggle than all previous
revolutions. Yet at the same time this pre-revolutionary situation is
marked by the greater (in comparison with anything hitherto) domination of
legality , which has become an obstacle to those who introduced
it. There lies the peculiarity of the situation, there lies the difficulty
and novelty of the problem.

Theirony of history has brought it about that the ruling classes of
Germany, who have created the strongest state known in the whole second
half of the nineteenth century, who have consolidated conditions for the
most rapid capitalist progress and conditions for the most stable
constitutional legality, are now most unmistakably coming to a point when this legality, their legality, will have to be
shattered—so that the domination of the bourgeoisie may be preserved.

Forabout half a century the German Social-Democratic Labour Party has
made exemplary use of bourgeois legality, haying created the best
proletarian organisations, a magnificent press, having raised to the
highest pitch (that is possible under capitalism) the class-consciousness
and solidarity of the proletarian socialist vanguard.

Nowthe time is drawing near when this half-century phase of German
history must , by force of objective causes, be replaced by a
different phase. The era of utilising the legality created by the
bourgeoisie is giving way to an era of tremendous revolutionary
battles, and these battles, in effect , will be the destruction of
all bourgeois legality, the whole bourgeois system, while in form they must begin (and are beginning) with panicky
efforts on the part of the bourgeoisie to get rid of the legality which,
though it is their own handiwork, has become unbearable to them! “You
shoot first, Messieurs the Bourgeoisie!”—with these words, spoken in
1892, Engels summed up the peculiarity of the position and the peculiarity
of the tactical problems of the revolutionary proletariat. {2}

Thesocialist proletariat will not forget for a moment that it is
confronted, inevitably confronted, with a revolutionary mass struggle that
must sweep away all the legalities of the doomed bourgeois society. But, at
the same time, a party which has magnificently utilised a half-century of
bourgeois legality against the bourgeoisie has not the slightest
reason to renounce those conveniences in the struggle, that advantage in
battle afforded by the fact that the enemy is caught in the toils
of his own legality, that the enemy is compelled to “shoot first”, is
compelled to shatter his own legality.

Therelies the peculiarity of the pre-revolutionary situation in modern
Germany. That is why old Bebel is so cautious, fixing all his attention on
the great struggle which is to come, exerting all the power of his vast
talent, his experience and authority against the short-sighted, spine less
opportunists, who do not understand this struggle, who are not fit to lead
it, who during the revolution will probably find themselves degraded from the leaders to the
led or even cast aside.

In Magdeburg these leaders were remonstrated with, they were censured,
they were given an official ultimatum as the representatives of all that
was unreliable that had accumulated in the great revolutionary army, of all
that was weak, infected with bourgeois legality and stupefied by pious
prostrations before this legality, before all the limitations of what is
one of the eras of slavery, i.e., one of the eras of bourgeois
supremacy. In condemning the opportunists, threatening them with expulsion,
the German proletariat thereby expressed its condemnation of all the
elements in Its mighty organisation personifying stagnation, diffidence,
flabbiness and inability to break with the psychology of moribund bourgeois
society. In condemning the bad revolutionaries in its own ranks the
vanguard class held one of the last reviews of its forces before entering
upon the path of social revolution.

*     * *
Whilethe attention of all revolutionary Social-Democrats
throughout the world was concentrated on seeing how the German workers were
preparing for action, selecting the moment for action, keeping a watchful
eye on the enemy and purging themselves of the weaknesses of
opportunism—the opportunists throughout the world were gloating over the
differences which had arisen between Luxemburg and Kautsky in their
estimate of the present situation, on the question whether one of those
turning-points like the Ninth of January in the Russian revolution was due
now or not just yet , this very minute or the next . The
opportunists gloated. They did their utmost to make a burning issue of
these differences, which were not of prime importance, in the columns of
Socialist Monthly , Golos Sotsial-Demokrata (Martynov),
Zhizn , Vozrozhdeniye and suchlike liquidationist papers
and Neue Zeit (Martov) [1]

.

The shabbiness of these methods of the opportunists in all countries was indelibly registered in Magdeburg, where differences of opinion among
the revolutionary Social-Democrats of Germany did not play any appreciable
role. The opportunists however gloated too soon. The Magdeburg Congress
adopted the first part of the resolution proposed by Rosa Luxemburg , in which there is direct reference to the mass strike as a
means of struggle.

---
Notes:
[1]
In Neue Zeit Martov was met with an emphatic rebuke from
Comrade Karsky. — Lenin

{2}
Lenin quotes F. Engels’s article “Socialism In Germany (Marx/Engels/Lenin, Zur Deutschen Geschichte , Band II,
2. Halbband.., Berlin, 1954, S. 1140-1141).