In the present article I intend to limit myself to setting forth the course of the Congress's proceedings on the question indicated in the heading and characterizing those tendencies of socialist thought which struggled with one another here.

Before the Congress, three draft resolutions on cooperatives were published. The Belgian project (No. 5 of the "Periodic Bulletin of the International Socialist Bureau," which appears irregularly in three official languages of international congresses) begins with a warning to worker-socialists against the teaching of those who see in cooperatives something self-sufficient, some means for resolving the social question. Recognizing subsequently that the working class is extremely interested in utilizing cooperatives as an instrument of its class struggle, the project of the Belgian party points to the immediate advantages of cooperatives (struggle against commercial exploitation, improvement of working conditions for suppliers, etc.) and expresses the wish that there be established between socialist parties and cooperatives "organic, increasingly close connections."

The project of the majority of the French Socialist Party is composed in the spirit of Jaurès. Cooperatives are exalted to the heavens and presented—just like among bourgeois reformers—as a "necessary" element of "social transformation." Vague phrases are uttered about the transformation of cooperatives from associations of individual persons into universal federations of associations. Proletarian cooperatives are confused with cooperatives of small proprietors (in agriculture). The neutrality of cooperatives is preached; the harm of imposing any obligations upon cooperatives toward the socialist party is described.

Finally, the project of the minority of French socialists (the Guedist one) decisively declares that cooperatives in themselves are by no means class organizations (as, for example, trade unions are), that their significance is determined by the use made of them. Workers, entering cooperatives in masses, can extract benefit from them for their struggle against capital, can to a certain degree clarify for themselves through example what a socialist society would be like, organized after the elimination of the contradictions of the present order. The project therefore emphasizes the limited significance of cooperatives and calls upon socialist parties to support proletarian cooperatives, warns against cooperative illusions, and recommends that socialists organize themselves within cooperatives for the purpose of explaining to the masses their true task: the conquest of political power and the transformation of the means of production and exchange into common property.

It is entirely evident that here two basic lines are outlined: one—the line of proletarian class struggle, recognition of the value of cooperatives for this struggle as its instrument, as one of its auxiliary means, and the determination of conditions under which cooperatives would truly play such a role and not remain mere commercial enterprises. The other line—petty-bourgeois, obscuring the question of the role of cooperatives in the class struggle of the proletariat, extending the significance of cooperatives beyond the bounds of this struggle (that is, confusing the proletarian and proprietary views of cooperatives), determining the aims of cooperatives with such general phrases as are acceptable also to a bourgeois reformer, that ideologue of progressive proprietors and proprietorship.

Unfortunately, the two indicated lines were only outlined in the three previously prepared projects and were not clearly, distinctly, and sharply opposed to each other as two tendencies whose struggle should decide the question. And therefore the proceedings of the Congress went unevenly, confusedly, as it were spontaneously. Disagreements were continually "encountered," but were not fully elucidated, and as a result there emerged a resolution reflecting confused thinking, not giving all that a resolution of a congress of socialist parties could and should have given.

In the commission on the question of cooperatives, two currents immediately became evident. One—that of Jaurès and Elm. Elm was one of four German delegates in the cooperative commission and spoke as a representative of the Germans, speaking in a distinctly opportunist spirit. The other direction—the Belgian one. An Austrian, Karpeles, a prominent figure in the Austrian cooperative movement, served as mediator and peacemaker, not defending a definite principled line but (or rather, not "but," but precisely for that reason) leaning much more often toward the opportunists. And the Belgians were made to argue with Jaurès and Elm far more by the instinct of genuinely proletarian treatment of the cooperative question than by a clear understanding of the hostility and irreconcilability of the proletarian and petty-bourgeois views on the question. Thus, for example, Anseele (chairman of the cooperative commission) delivered passionate and excellent speeches in the commission against cooperative neutrality, against exaggerating their significance, for the necessity of us being socialist-cooperators rather than cooperator-socialists—yet in drafting the resolution, that same Anseele could bring people to despair by his compliance regarding the formulations of Jaurès and Elm, by his unwillingness to delve into the causes of disagreement.

But let me return to the commission's sessions. Naturally, the decisive influence on the course of work was exercised by representatives of nations with strongly developed cooperative movements. A divergence between the Belgians and the Germans immediately became evident, greatly to the disadvantage of the latter. The Belgians in any case conducted a proletarian line, though not entirely consistently, not entirely distinctly. Elm spoke as a pure opportunist (especially in the subcommission, of which more below). Naturally, the leading role belonged to the Belgians. The Austrians inclined toward them, and by the end of the commission's work an Austro-Belgian resolution was read, whereas Elm, who had submitted the German resolution, directly declared that he considered agreement with the Jaurèsist project entirely possible. Since the French had a strong minority against Jaurès (his point of view had 202 mandates, while the Guedist one had 142), and the Germans would certainly have had no less strong a minority against Elm (had the question of two points of view been posed clearly and sharply), the Austro-Belgian alliance had sure chances of victory. And the matter was, of course, less a question of "victory" in the narrow sense than of upholding consistently a proletarian point of view on cooperatives. This consistency failed to be achieved owing to excessive concessions made by the subcommission to Jaurès and Elm.

As for us, Russian social-democrats, we endeavored to support in the commission the Austro-Belgian line, and to this end, even before the Austro-Belgian compromise project was presented, we submitted our own draft resolution of the following content:

"DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC DELEGATION OF RUSSIA

The Congress holds:

1) That proletarian consumers' cooperatives improve the position of the working class in that they narrow the scope of exploitation by all sorts of commercial middlemen, that they affect the working conditions of workers employed in suppliers' establishments, and improve the position of their own employees.

2) That these cooperatives can acquire great significance for the economic and political mass struggle of the proletariat, supporting workers during strikes, lockouts, political persecution, etc.

On the other hand, the Congress points out:

1) That the improvements which can be achieved with the help of consumers' cooperatives can be only very insignificant so long as the means of production remain in the hands of that class, without the expropriation of which socialism cannot be realized;

2) That consumers' cooperatives are not organizations of direct struggle against capital and exist alongside similar organizations of other classes, which can give rise to the illusion that these organizations are a means by which the social question can be solved without class struggle and without the expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

The Congress calls upon the workers of all countries:

a) to enter proletarian consumers' cooperatives and in every way to promote their development, while upholding the democratic character of these organizations;

b) by means of tireless socialist propaganda in consumers' cooperatives to promote the dissemination among workers of ideas of class struggle and socialism;

c) to strive, at the same time, to achieve the closest possible rapprochement of all forms of workers' movement.

The Congress notes also that producers' cooperatives have significance for the struggle of the working class only when they are an integral part of consumers' cooperatives."

All draft resolutions were submitted to the subcommission (the commissions of international congresses are so large—each nation sends four delegates to each commission—that working out the text of resolutions in the full meeting of the commission is out of the question). The subcommission consisted of 10 persons: two Belgians (Anseele and Vandervelde), one Frenchman (Jaurès), one Austrian (Karpeles), one German (Elm), one Dutchman (the Marxist Vibo), and one each: Italian, Dane, Englishman, and Russian social-democrat (Voinov and I—our social-democratic delegation failed to assemble to elect a representative—and so we were both present, though only one voted).

In the subcommission there proceeded purely practical work on drafting the text of the resolution. The text adopted by the Congress, except for the most minor stylistic changes, is exactly what was worked out by the subcommission; readers will find the text of the Congress resolution elsewhere in the present issue. The struggle in the subcommission—unlike in the commission—centered not on the question of the relations of cooperatives to the party, but on the more principled question of the significance and role of cooperatives. The Belgians inclined toward a perfectly correct principled definition of their role as one of the possible (under certain conditions) auxiliary instruments of proletarian class struggle for the "complete expropriation" (expropriation intégrale) of the capitalist class. Elm, supported by Jaurès, rose up decisively and displayed his opportunism in its entirety. He said that it is unknown whether expropriation will come about at all, that he personally considers it entirely incredible, that for the "majority" (!) it is a disputed question, that the program of the German social-democratic party contains no expropriation, that one should say "Ueberwindung des Kapitalismus"—"overcoming of capitalism." The famous words of Bebel in Hanover, spoken in conclusion of the disputes with Bernstein, "es bleibt bei der Expropriation"—"we still stand for expropriation"{124}—were forgotten by one of the leaders of German opportunism. In connection with these disputes, the "question of socialization" arose. Jaurès demanded ultimatively that in the definition of the significance of cooperatives there stand: "they help workers (as it now stands in the text of the resolution adopted by the Congress) to prepare the democratization and socialization of the means of production and exchange."

This is one of those vague, indefinite phrases, entirely acceptable to ideologues of petty proprietorship and to theorists of bourgeois reformism, which Jaurès is such a master of and is so fond of. What is "democratization of the means of production and exchange"? (In the commission later, when the project returned there from the subcommission, the French replaced the word "means"—moyens—with the word "forces"—forces, but this changed nothing.) Peasant production (I said in the commission) is more "democratic" than large capitalist production. Does this mean that we, socialists, want the creation of small production? What is "socialization"? By this one can understand the transformation into the property of society as a whole, but one can also understand any partial measures whatsoever, any reforms within the framework of capitalism, from peasant cooperatives all the way to municipal baths and public urinals. Indeed, Jaurès referred in the subcommission to Danish agricultural cooperatives, evidently believing, following bourgeois economists, that these were not capitalist enterprises.

Organizing opposition to this opportunism, we (Russian and Polish social-democrats) attempted to appeal from Elm to Wurm, co-editor of "Neue Zeit," who had also been in the cooperative commission representing the Germans. Wurm did not approve the phrase about "democratization and socialization," proposed (privately) a number of amendments, negotiated between Elm and the Marxists, but Elm displayed such "rock-like" firmness that Wurm accomplished nothing. Already after the Congress I read in the "Leipziger Volkszeitung" (No. 201, August 31, 1910, 3. Beilage) that in the German delegation the question of cooperatives had been raised on Tuesday. "R. Fischer asked," writes the correspondent of this newspaper, "whether there were disagreements on the question of cooperatives among the German delegates." Elm answered: "There are. They cannot be eliminated overnight. The decisions of congresses are always compromise decisions, and in this question too the matter will probably end in compromise." Wurm: "My views on the question of cooperatives are entirely different (durchaus andere) from the views of von Elm; but we shall nevertheless probably agree on the common resolution." The delegation considered further discussion unnecessary after this.

This communication confirms the phenomenon which had already become fully evident at the Stuttgart international congress. The German delegation is composed equally of representatives of the party and trade unions. From the latter pass through almost exclusively opportunists, because they usually elect secretaries and other union "bureaucracy." In general, the Germans are incapable of maintaining a consistent principled line at international congresses, and hegemony in the International sometimes slips from their hands. Wurm's powerlessness before Elm merely once again illustrated that crisis in German social-democracy which consists in the growth of an inevitable decisive break with the opportunists.

On the question of financial support of the party by cooperatives, Elm and Jaurès in the subcommission also achieved excessive concessions from the Belgians, who agreed to the formulation: "it is left to the cooperatives of each country to decide whether and to what extent they should give direct help from their funds to the political and trade-union movement."

When the subcommission's project returned to the commission for final approval, we directed all our attention precisely to these two points. Together with Guesde we submitted two (main) amendments: first, to replace the words: "(cooperatives) help workers prepare the democratization and socialization of production and exchange" with the words: "(cooperatives) help to a certain degree prepare the functioning of production and exchange after the expropriation of the capitalist class." The sense of this amendment, formulated not entirely successfully stylistically, consisted not in the fact that cooperatives cannot now help workers, but in the fact that the functioning of future production and exchange already being prepared now by cooperatives can only arrive after the expropriation of capitalists. The second amendment related to the point which speaks of the relation of cooperatives to the party. We proposed either to add the words: "which (that is, aid to workers' struggle) is in any case desirable from the point of view of socialism," or to replace the entire point with another, directly recommending that socialists in cooperatives preach and uphold the necessity of direct aid to the class struggle of the proletariat.

Both amendments were rejected by the commission, gathering only about 15 votes. The Socialist-Revolutionaries voted—as always at international congresses—for Jaurès. Before the Russian public they are not averse to reproaching even Bebel with opportunism, yet before the European public they go along with Jaurès and Elm! Wurm attempted to correct the end of the resolution by rearranging the last three paragraphs. Let it first be said that it is desirable to unite cooperatives into one federation (the second paragraph from the end). Let it then be declared that it depends on cooperatives whether to offer direct aid to the party or not (the third paragraph from the end). And let the final paragraph begin with the words: "but" (but the Congress declares that ever more intimate relations are desirable between the party, trade unions, and cooperatives). Then from the general context it would be clear that the Congress recommends that cooperatives aid the party. Elm rejected even this amendment! Wurm then withdrew it. Then Vibo raised it in his own name; we voted for it, but the amendment was rejected.

Regarding how to conduct ourselves at the plenum of the Congress, we held a conference with Guesde. Guesde believed—and his opinion was shared by revolutionary German social-democrats—that we should not wage war at the Congress plenum over particular amendments, that we should vote in general for the resolution. Its defects consist in the allowance of one revisionist phrase, which does not replace the definition of the aim of socialism but stands alongside such a definition—and in an insufficiently strong expression of the thought that workers' cooperatives should aid the workers' class struggle. Such defects ought to have been corrected, but there was no basis for waging a struggle at the plenum over them. We agreed with Guesde's opinion, and the resolution was adopted at the Congress plenum unanimously.

In summing up the Congress's work on the question of cooperatives, we must say—concealing neither from ourselves nor from the workers the defects of the resolution—that the International gave a correct definition in its main features of the tasks of proletarian cooperatives. Every member of the party, every social-democratic worker, every conscious worker-cooperator should be guided by the adopted resolution and conduct all their activity in its spirit.

The Copenhagen Congress marks that stage of development of the workers' movement when it proceeded, so to speak, predominantly in breadth and began to draw into the mainstream of class struggle proletarian cooperatives. Disagreements with revisionists became evident, but the appearance of revisionists with an independent program is still far away. The struggle against revisionism is postponed, but this struggle will inevitably come.

"Social-Democrat" No. 17, September 25 (October 8), 1910. Signed: N. Lenin

Printed according to the text of the newspaper "Social-Democrat"