This is the first installment of "Theory Corner", where I'll be posting a thought-inspiring radical text on a (roughly) monthly basis. Alexander Berkman's 1929 classic "Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism", may be dated, but still holds up as an excellent and readable introduction to the subject matter. The chapter entitled "Socialism" I believe to still be of particular relevance to anyone who thinks that voting for a left-wing party could bring about true socialism, and poses a few questions relevant to today:
1. Should we be putting our efforts into campaigning for a more left-wing party (e.g. Labour, Greens, Socialist etc.) than the current government, or is revolution the only answer to our struggles?
2. How relevant would Berkman's ideas be is we had a different electoral system such as Alternative Vote or Proportional Representation?
3. Was Clement Attlee's post-war Labour government an exception, and could there possibly be other means of implementing socialism by parliamentary election?
I'm sure you can think of a few more - feel free to comment and discuss below.
SOCIALISM by Alexander Berkman
Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism, Chapter 13
Full book can be found here:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism
There are many varieties of Socialists. There are Social
Democrats, Fabian Socialists, National Socialists, Christian Socialists,
and other labels. Generally speaking, they all believe in the abolition
of poverty and unjust social conditions. But they disagree very much as
to what would be ‘just’ conditions and, still more, how to bring them
about.
These days even mere attempts to improve capitalism are often
called ‘Socialism,’ while in reality they are only reforms. But such
reforms cannot be considered socialistic because true Socialism does not
mean to ‘improve’ capitalism but to abolish it altogether. Socialism
teaches that the conditions of labor cannot be essentially bettered
under capitalism; on the contrary, it shows that the lot of the worker
must steadily get worse with the advancing development of industrialism,
so that efforts to ‘reform’ and ‘improve’ capitalism are directly
opposed to Socialism and only delay its realization.
The enslavement of the
workers, inequality, injustice, and other social evils are the result of
monopoly and exploitation, and that the system is upheld by the
political machine called government. It would therefore serve no purpose
to discuss those schools of Socialism (improperly so called) that do
not stand for the abolition of capitalism and wage slavery. Just as
useless it would be for us to go into allegedly socialistic proposals
such as ‘juster distribution of wealth’, ‘equalization of income’,
‘single tax’, or other similar plans. These are not Socialism; they are
only reforms. Mere parlor Socialism, such as Fabianism, for example, is
also of no vital interest to the masses.
Let us therefore examine that school of Socialism which treats of
capitalism and the wage system fundamentally, which deals with the
worker, with the disinherited, and which is known as the Social
Democratic movement. It considers all other forms of Socialism
impractical and utopian; it calls itself the only sound and scientific
theory of true Socialism as formulated by Karl Marx, the author of
Capital, which is the gospel and guide of all Social Democrats.
Now, then, what do the Socialist followers of Karl Marx — known
as Marxian Socialists, and whom, for the sake of brevity, we’ll call
simply Socialists — propose?
They say that the workers can never become free and secure well
being unless they abolish capitalism. The sources of production and the
means of distribution must be taken out of private hands, they teach
That is to say, the land, machinery, mills, factories, mines, railroads
and other public utilities should not be owned privately, because such
ownership enslaves the workers as well as mankind in general. Private
possession of the things without which humanity cannot exist must
therefore cease. The means of production and distribution should become
public property. Opportunity for free use would do away with monopoly,
with interest and profit, with exploitation and wage slavery. Social
inequality and injustice would be eliminated, the classes would be
abolished, and all men would become free and equal.
These views of Socialism are also in full accord with the ideas of most Anarchists.
The present owners — Socialism further teaches — will not give up
their possessions without a struggle. All history and past experience
prove that. The privileged classes have always held onto their
advantages, always opposed every attempt to weaken their power over the
masses. Even to-day they fight ruthlessly every effort of
labor for betterment.
It is therefore certain that in the future, as in the past, the
plutocracy will resist if you try to deprive them of their monopolies,
special rights, and privileges. That resistance will bring about a
bitter struggle, a revolution.
True socialism is therefore
radical and
revolutionary. Radical, because it goes to the very root of the social trouble
(radix
meaning root in Latin); it does not believe in reforms and makeshifts,
it wants to change things from the very bottom. Revolutionary, not
because it wants bloodshed, but because it clearly foresees that
revolution is inevitable; it knows that capitalism cannot be changed to
Socialism without a violent struggle between the possessing classes and
the dispossessed masses.
‘But if a revolution’, you ask, ‘then why do the Socialists want
me to vote them into office? Is the revolution to be fought there?’
Your question is to the point. If capitalism is to abolished by
revolution, what do the Socialists seek office for, why do they try to
get into the government?
Here is just where the great contradiction of Marxian Socialism
comes in, a fundamental contradiction that has been fatal to the
Socialist movement in every country, and that has made it ineffectual
and powerless to be of any use to the working class.
It is very necessary to realize that contradiction clearly in
order to understand why Socialism has failed, why the Socialists have
gotten into a blind alley and can’t lead the workers to emancipation.
What is that contradiction? It is this: Marx taught that
‘revolution is the midwife of capitalism pregnant with a new society’;
that is, that capitalism will not be changed to Socialism except by
revolution. But in his
Communist Manifesto, on the other hand,
Marx insists that the proletariat must get hold of the political
machinery, of the government, in order to conquer the bourgeoisie. The
working class — he teaches — must grasp the reins of the State, by means
of the Socialist parties, and use the political power to usher in
Socialism.
This contradiction has caused the greatest confusion among
Socialists and has split the movement into many factions. The majority
of them, the regular Socialist parties in every country, now stand for
the conquest of political power, for the establishment of a Socialist
government whose business it will be to abolish capitalism and bring
about Socialism.
Judge for yourself if such a thing is possible. In the first
place, Socialists themselves admit that the possessing classes will not
give up their wealth and privileges without a bitter fight and that it
will result in revolution.
Again, is the thing at all practical? Take the United States, for
instance. For over fifty years the Socialists have been trying to elect
party members to Congress with the result that after half a century of
political work they have now just one member in the House of
Representatives in Washington. How many centuries will it take at that
rate (and the rate is declining rather than growing) to get a Socialist
majority in Congress?
But even suppose that the Socialists could some day secure that
majority. Will they then be able to change capitalism to Socialism? It
would require amending and altering the Constitution of the United
States, as well as in the individual States, for which a two-thirds vote
would be necessary. Just stop and consider: the American plutocrats,
the trusts, the bourgeoisie, and all the other forces that benefit by
capitalism; would they just sit quietly and permit the changing of the
Constitutions in such a manner as to deprive them of their wealth and
privileges? Can you believe that? Do you remember what Jay Gould said
when he was accused of getting his millions illegally and in defiance of
the Constitution? ‘To hell with the Constitution!’ he replied. And so
every plutocrat feels, even if he is not as frank as Gould. Constitution
or no constitution, the capitalists would fight to the death for their
wealth and privileges. And that is just what is meant by revolution. You
can judge for yourself whether capitalism can be abolished by electing
Socialists to office or whether Socialism can be voted in by the ballot.
It is not hard to guess who’ll win a fight between ballots and bullets.
In former days the Socialists realized this very well. Then they
claimed that they meant to use politics only for the purpose of
propaganda. It was in the days when Socialist agitation was forbidden,
particularly in Germany. ‘If you elect us to the Reichstag’ (the German
parliament), the Socialists told the workers then, ‘we’ll be able to
preach Socialism there and educate the people to it.’ There was some
reason in that, because the laws which prohibited Socialist speeches did
not apply to the Reichstag. So the Socialists favored political
activity and took part in elections in order to have an opportunity to
advocate Socialism.
It may seem a harmless thing, but it proved the undoing of
Socialism. Because nothing is truer than that the means you use to
attain your object soon themselves become your object. So money, for
example, which is only a means to existence, has itself become the aim
of our lives. Similarly with government. The ‘elder’ chosen by the
primitive community to attend to some village business becomes the
master, the ruler. Just so it happened with the Socialists.
Little by little they changed their attitude. Instead of
electioneering being merely an educational method, it gradually became
their only aim to secure political office, to get elected to legislative
bodies and other government positions. The change naturally led the
Socialists to tone down their revolutionary ardor; it compelled them to
soften their criticism of capitalism and government in order to avoid
persecution and secure more votes. To-day the main stress of Socialist
propaganda is not laid any more on the educational value of politics but
on the actual election of Socialists to office.
The Socialist parties do not speak of revolution any more. They
claim now that when they get a majority in Congress or Parliament they
will legislate Socialism into being: they will legally and peacefully
abolish capitalism. In other words, they have ceased to be
revolutionists; they have become reformers who want to change things by
law.
Let us see, then, how they have been doing it during the past several decades.
In almost every European country the Socialists have secured
great political power. Some countries now have Socialist governments, in
others the Socialist parties have a majority; in others again
Socialists occupy the highest positions in the State, such as cabinet
offices, even those of Prime Ministers. Let us examine what they have
accomplished for Socialism and what they are doing for the workers.
In Germany, the mother of the Socialist movement, the Social
Democratic Party holds numerous government offices; its members are in
the municipal and national legislative bodies, in the judiciary, and in
the Cabinet. Two German Presidents, Haase and Ebert, were Socialists.
The present Reichskanzler (Chancellor), Dr. Herman Muller, is a
Socialist. Herr Loebe, President of the Reichstag, is also a member of
the Socialist Party. Scheidemann, Noske, and scores of others in the
highest positions in the government, in the army and navy, are all
leaders of the powerful German Social Democratic Party. What have they
done for the proletariat whose cause the Party is supposed to champion?
Have they brought about Socialism? Have they abolished wage slavery?
Have they made the least attempt toward those objects?
The uprising of the workers in Germany, in 1918, forced the
Kaiser to flee the country, and the reign of the Hohenzollern was at an
end. The people put their trust in the Social Democrats and voted them
into power. But once secure in the government, the Socialists turned
against the masses. They combined with the German bourgeoisie and the
military clique, and themselves became the bulwark of capitalism and
militarism. They not only disarmed the people and suppressed the toilers
but they even shot and imprisoned every Socialist who dared protest
against their treachery. Noske, as Socialist chief of the army during
the Revolution, ordered his soldiers out against the workers and
massacred them wholesale — the very proletarians who had voted him into
power, his own brother Socialists. At his hands perished Karl Liebknecht
and Rosa Luxemburg, two of the most devoted and loyal revolutionists,
coldbloodedly murdered in Berlin on January 16, 1919, by army officers,
with the secret connivance of the Socialist government. The Anarchist
poet and thinker, Gustav Landauer, and scores of the best friends of
labor shared the same fate all over Germany.
Haase, Ebert, Scheidemann, Noske, and their Socialist lieutenants
did not permit the Revolution to accomplish anything vital. The moment
they got into power they used it to crush rebellious labor. The open and
stealthy murder of the truly revolutionary elements was but one of the
means used by the Socialist government to subdue the Revolution. Far
from introducing any changes for the benefit of the workers, the
Socialist Party became the most zealous defender of capitalism,
preserving all the prerogatives and benefits of the aristocracy and
master class. That is why the German Revolution accomplished nothing
except to drive out the Kaiser. The nobility remained in possession of
all its titles, holdings, special rights, and privileges; the military
caste retained the power it had under the monarchy; the bourgeoisie has
been strengthened, and the financial kings and industrial magnates lord
it over the German toiler to-day with even greater arbitrariness than
before. The Socialist Party of Germany, with many million votes behind
it, has
succeeded — in getting into office. The workers slave and suffer as before.
The same picture you find in the other countries. In France the
Socialist Party is strongly represented in the government. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Aristide Briand, who had also held the post of Prime
Minister, was formerly one of the greatest lights of the Party in
France. To-day he is the strongest champion of capitalism and
militarism. Many of his former fellow-Socialists are his colleagues in
the government, and many more present-day Socialists are in the French
Parliament and other important offices. What are they doing for
Socialism? What are they doing for the workers?
They are helping to defend and ‘stabilize’ the capitalistic
regime of France; they are busy passing laws increasing the taxes so
that the high government officials may get better salaries; they are
engaged in collecting the war indemnity from Germany, whose workers,
just as their French brothers, have to bleed for it. They are working
hard to help ‘educate’ France, and particularly her school children, to
hate the German people; they are aiding to build more warships and
military airplanes for the next war which they are themselves preparing
by cultivating the spirit of jingoism and vengeance against their
neighbor countries. The new law mobilizing every adult man and woman of
France in case of war was introduced by the prominent Socialist, Paul
Boncour, and passed with the aid of the Socialist members of the Chamber
of Deputies.
In Austria and Belgium, in Sweden and Norway, in Holland and
Denmark, in Czecho-Slovakia, and in most other European lands the
Socialists have risen to power. In some countries entirely so, in others
partly. And everywhere, without a single exception, they have followed
the same course, everywhere they have fore sworn their ideals, have
duped the masses, and turned their political elevation to their own
profit and glory.
‘These men who rose to power on the backs of labor and then
betrayed the workers are scoundrels,’ I hear you say in just
indignation. True, but that is not all. There is a deeper reason for
this constant and regular betrayal, a greater and more significant cause
for this almost universal phenomenon. Socialists are not essentially
different from other men. They are human, just as you and I. And no man
turns scoundrel or traitor over night.
It is
power which corrupts. The consciousness that you
possess power is self the worst poison that corrodes the finest metal of
man. The filth and contamination of politics everywhere sufficiently
prove that. Moreover, even with the best intentions Socialists in
legislative bodies or in government positions find themselves entirely
powerless to accomplish anything of a socialistic nature, anything of
benefit to the workers. For politics is not a means to better the
conditions of labor. It never was and never can be.
The demoralization and vitiation take place little by little, so
gradually that one hardly notices it himself. Just visualize for a
moment the condition of a Socialist elected to Congress, for instance.
He is all alone, as against several hundred men of other political
parties. He senses their opposition to his radical ideas, and he finds
himself in a strange and unfriendly atmosphere. But he is there and he
must participate in the business that is being transacted. Most of that
business — the bills brought in, the laws proposed — is entirely foreign
to him. It has no bearing whatever on the things the Socialist believes
in, no connection with the interests of the working class voters who
elected him. It is just the routine of legislation. It is only when a
bill of some bearing upon labor or on the industrial and economic
situation comes up, that our Socialist can take part in the proceedings.
He does, and he is ignored or laughed at for his impractical ideas on
the matter. For they are indeed impractical. Even at best, when the
proposed law is not specially designed to grant new privileges to
monopoly, it deals with matters involved in capitalist business, with
some commercial treaty or agreement between one government and another.
But he, the Socialist, was elected on a Socialist ticket, and it is his
business to abolish the capitalistic government, to do away with the
system of commerce and profit altogether, so how can he speak
‘practically’ on the submitted bills? Of course he becomes a butt of
ridicule to his colleagues, and soon he begins to see how stupid and
useless his presence is in the halls of legislation. That is why some of
the best men of the Socialist Party in Germany turned against political
action, as did John Most, for instance. But there are few persons of
such honesty and courage. As a rule the Socialist remains in his
position, and every day he is compelled to realize more and more what a
senseless role he is playing. He comes to feel that he must find some
way to take a serious part in the work, express sound opinions in the
discussions and become a real factor in the proceedings. This is
imperative in order to preserve his own dignity, to compel the respect
of his colleagues, and also to show to his constituents that they did
not elect a mere dummy.
So he begins to acquaint himself with the routine. He studies
river dredging and coast improvement, reads up on appropriations,
examines the hundred and one bills which come up for consideration, and
when he occasionally gets the floor — which is not very often — he tries
to explain the proposed legislation from the Socialist standpoint, as
he is in duty bound to do. He ‘makes a Socialist speech.’ He dwells on
the suffering of the workers and the crimes of wage slavery; he informs
his colleagues that capitalism is an evil, that the rich must be
abolished and the whole system done away with. He finishes his
peroration and sits down. The politicians exchange glances, smile and
joke, and the assembly goes over to the business in hand.
Our Socialist perceives that he is regarded as a laughing stock.
His colleagues are getting tired of his ‘hot air’, and he finds more and
more difficulty in securing the floor. He is often called to order and
told he must speak to the point, but he knows that neither by his talk
nor by his vote can he influence the proceedings in the slightest
degree. His speeches don’t even reach the public; they are buried in the
Congressional Record which no one reads, and he is painfully
aware of being a solitary and unheeded voice in the wilderness of
political machinations.
He appeals to the voters to elect more comrades to the
legislative bodies. A lone Socialist cannot accomplish anything, he
tells them. Years pass, and at last the Socialist Party succeeds in
having a number of its members elected. Each of them goes through the
same experience as their first colleague, but now they quickly come to
the conclusion that preaching Socialist doctrines to the politicians is
worse than useless. They decide to participate in the legislation. They
must show that they are not just ‘spouting revolution’ but that they are
practical men, statesmen, that they are doing something for their
constituency, looking after its interests.
In this manner the situation compels them to take a ‘practical’
pert in the proceedings, to ‘talk lousiness,’ to fall in line with the
matters actually dealt with in the legislative body. Full well they know
that these things have no relation to Socialism or to the abolition of
capitalism. On the contrary, all this law-making and political mummery
only strengthens the hold of the masters upon the people; worse, it
misleads the workers into believing that the legislatures may do
something for them and deludes them with the false hope that they may
get results by politics. In this way it keeps them looking to the law
and government to ‘change things,’ to ‘improve’ their condition.
So the machinery of government carries on its work, the masters
remain secure in their position, and the workers are held off with
promises of ‘action’ by their representatives in the legislative bodies,
by new laws that are to give them ‘relief’.
For years this process has been going on in all the countries of
Europe. The Socialist parties have succeeded in electing many of their
members to various legislative and government positions. Spending years
in that atmosphere, enjoying good jobs and pay, the elected Socialists
have themselves become part and parcel of the political machinery. They
have come to feel that it is no use waiting for the Socialist revolution
to abolish capitalism. It is more practical to work for some
‘betterment’, to try to get a Socialist majority in the government. For
when they have a majority they will need no revolution, they now say.
Slowly, by degrees, the Socialist change has taken place. With
growing success in elections and securing political power they turn more
conservative and content with existing conditions. Removed from the
life and suffering of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the
bourgeoisie, of affluence and influence, they have become what they
call ‘practical.’ Seeing at first hand the political machinery at work,
knowing its debauchery and corruption, they have realized that there is
no hope for Socialism in that swamp of deceit, bribery, and corruption.
But few, very few Socialists find the courage to enlighten the workers
about the hopelessness of politics to aid the cause of labor. Such a
confession would mean the end of their political career, with its
emoluments and advantages. So the great majority of them are content to
keep their own counsel and let well enough alone. Power and position
have gradually stifled their conscience, and they have not the strength
and honesty to swim against the current.
That is what has become of Socialism, which had once been the
hope of the oppressed of the world. The Socialist parties have joined
hands with the bourgeoisie and the enemies of labor. They have become
the strongest bulwark of capitalism, pretending to the masses that they
are fighting for their interests, while in reality they have made common
cause with the exploiters. They have so far forgotten and gone back on
their original Socialism that in the great World War the Socialist
parties in even country in Europe helped their governments to lead the
workers to slaughter.
The war has clearly demonstrated the bankruptcy of Socialism. The
Socialist parties, whose motto was ‘Workers of the world, unite!’ sent
the toilers to murder each other. From having been bitter enemies of
militarism and war they became defenders of ‘their’ land, urging the
workers to don the soldiers’ uniform and kill their fellow workers in
other countries.
Strange indeed! For years they had been telling the proletarians
that they have no country that their interests are opposed to those of
their masters, that labor has ‘nothing to lose but its chains’, but at
the first sign of war they called upon the toilers to join the army and
voted support and money for the government to do the work of carnage.
This happened in every country in Europe. True, there were Socialist
minorities that protested against the war, but the dominant majority in
the Socialist parties condemned and ignored them, and lined up for the
slaughter.
It was a most terrible betrayal not only of Socialism but of the
whole working class, of humanity itself. Socialism, whose purpose it was
to educate the world to the evils of capitalism, to the murderous
character of patriotism, to the brutality and uselessness of war;
Socialism, which was the champion of man’s rights, of liberty and
justice, the hope and promise of a better day, miserably turned into a
defender of the government and the masters, became the handmaiden of the
militarists and jingo nationalists. The former Social Democrats became
‘social patriots.’
This did not happen because of mere treachery, however. To take
that view would be to miss the main point and misunderstand its warning
lesson. Treachery it was indeed, both in its nature and effect, and the
results of that treachery have bankrupted Socialism, disillusioned the
millions that earnestly believed in it, and filled the world with black
reaction. But it was not only treachery, not treachery of the ordinary
kind. The real cause tees much deeper.
We are what we eat, a great thinker said. That is, the life we
lead, the environment we live in, the thoughts we think, and the deeds
we do — all subtly fashion our character and make us what we are.
The Socialists’ long political activity and cooperation with
bourgeois parties gradually turned their thoughts and mental habits from
Socialist ways of thinking. Little by little they forgot that the
purpose of Socialism was to educate the masses, to make them see through
the game of capitalism, to teach them that government is their enemy,
that the church keeps them in ignorance, that they are duped by ideas
designed to perpetuate the superstitions and wrongs on which present-day
society is built. In short, they forgot that Socialism was to be the
Messiah who would drive darkness out of the minds and byes of men, lift
them from the slough of ignorance and materialism, and rouse their
natural idealism, the striving for justice and brotherhood, toward
liberty and light.
They forgot it. They had to forget in order to be ‘practical,’ to
‘accomplish’ something, to become successful politicians. You cannot
dive into a swamp and remain clean. They had to forget it, because their
object had become to ‘get results’, to win elections, to secure power.
They knew that they could not have success in politics by telling the
people the whole truth about conditions- for the truth not only
antagonizes the government, the church, and the school; it also offends
the prejudices of the masses. These it is necessary to educate, and that
is a slow and difficult process. But the political game demands
success, quick results The Socialists had to be careful not to come in
too great conflict with the powers that be; they could not afford to
lose time in educating the people.
It therefore became their main object to win votes. To achieve
that they had to trim their sails. They had to lop off, little by
little, those parts of Socialism which might result in persecution by
the authorities in disfavor from the church, or which would keep bigoted
elements from joining their ranks. They had to compromise.
They did. First of all they stopped talking revolution. They knew
that capitalism cannot be abolished without a bitter struggle, but they
decided to tell the people that they could bring about Socialism by
legislation, by law, and that all that is necessary is to put enough
Socialists in the government.
They ceased denouncing government as an evil; they quit
enlightening the workers about its real character as an agency for
enslavement. Instead they began asserting that
they, the
Socialists, are the staunchest upholders of ‘the State’ and its best
defenders; that far from being opposed to ‘law and order’, they are its
truest friends; that they are, indeed, the only ones who sincerely
believe in government, except that the government must be socialistic;
that is, that they, the Socialists, are to make the laws and run the
government.
Thus, instead of weakening the false and enslaving belief in law
and government, to weaken it so that those institutions could be
abolished as a means of oppression, the Socialists actually worked to
strengthen
the people’s faith in forcible authority and government, so that to-day
the members of the Socialist parties the world over are the strongest
believers in the State and are therefore called Statists. Yet their
great teachers, Marx and Engels, clearly taught that the State serves
only to suppress, and that when the people will achieve real liberty the
State will be abolished, will ‘disappear.’
Socialist compromise for political success did not stop there. It
went further. To gain votes, the Socialist parties decided not to
educate the people about the falsity, hypocrisy, and menace of organized
religion. We know what a bulwark of capitalism and slavery the church,
as an institution, is and always has been. It is obvious that people who
believe in the church, swear by the priest and bow to his authority,
will naturally be obedient to him and his commands. Such people, steeped
in ignorance and superstition, are the easiest victims of the masters.
But in order to achieve greater success in their election campaigns, The
Socialists decided to eliminate educational anti-religious propaganda
so as not to offend popular prejudices. They declared religion a
‘private matter,’ and excluded all criticism of the church from their
agitation.
What you personally believe in is indeed your private affair; but
when you get together with other people and organize them into a body
to impose your belief on others, to force them to think as you do, and
to punish them (to the extent of your power) if they entertain other
beliefs,, then it is no more your ‘private matter’. You might as well
say that the Inquisition, which tortured and burned people alive as
heretics, was a ‘private affair.’
It was one of the worst betrayals of the cause of liberty by the
Socialists, this declaration that religion is a ‘private matter’.
Mankind has slowly grown out of the fearful ignorance, superstition,
bigotry, and intolerance which made religious persecution and
inquisitions possible. The advance of science and invention, the printed
word and means of communication have brought enlightenment, and it is
that
enlightenment which has to some extent freed the human
mind from the clutches of the church. Not that she has entirely ceased
to damn those who do not accept her dogmas. There is still enough of
that persecution, but the advance of knowledge has robbed the church of
her former absolute sway over the mind, the life, and liberty of man;
just as progress has in the same way deprived government of the power to
treat the people as absolute slaves and serfs.
You can easily see then how important it is to continue the work
of enlightenment which has proven such a liberating blessing for the
people in the past; to continue it, so that it may some day help us do
away entirely with all the forces of superstition and tyranny.
But the Socialists determined to give up this most necessary work, declaring religion to be a ‘private matter.’
Those compromises and the repudiation of the real aims of
Socialism paid rather well. The Socialists gained political strength at
the sacrifice of ideals. But that ‘strength’ has in the long run spelled
weakness and ruin.
There is nothing more corrupting than compromise. One step in
that direction calls for another, makes it necessary and compelling, and
soon it swamps you with the force of a rolling snowball become a
landslide.
One by one those features of Socialism which were really
significant, educational, and liberating were sacrificed in behalf of
politics, to secure more favorable public opinion, lessen persecution,
and accomplish ‘something practical’; that is, to get more Socialists
elected to office. In this process, which has been going on for years in
every country, the Socialist parties in Europe acquired a membership
that numbered millions.
But these millions were not socialistic at all;
they were party followers who had no conception of the real spirit and
meaning of Socialism; men and women steeped in old prejudices and
capitalistic views; bourgeois-minded people, narrow nationalists, church
members, believers in divine authority and consequently also in human
government, in the domination of man by man, in the State and its
institutions of oppression and exploitation, in the necessity of
defending ‘their’ government and country, in patriotism and militarism.
Is it any wonder, then, that when the Great War broke out
Socialists in every country, with few exceptions, took up arms to
‘defend the fatherland’, the fatherland of their rulers and masters? The
German Socialist fought for his autocratic Kaiser, the Austrian for the
Hapsburg monarchy, the Russian for the Tsar, the Italian for his King,
the Frenchman for the ‘republic,’ and so the ‘Socialists’ of every
country and their followers went on slaughtering each other until ten
millions of them lay dead, and twenty millions were blinded, maimed, and
crippled.
It was inevitable that the policy of political, parliamentary
activity should lead to such results. For in truth so-called political
‘action’ is, so far as the cause of the workers and of true progress is
concerned, worse than inaction. The very essence of politics is
corruption, sail-trimming, the sacrifice of your ideals and integrity
for success. Bitter are the fruits of that ‘success’ for the masses and
for every decent man and woman the world over.
As a direct consequence of it millions of workers in every
country are discouraged and disheartened. Socialism — they justly feel —
has deluded and betrayed them. Fifty, nay, almost a hundred years of
Socialist ‘work’ have resulted in the entire bankruptcy of the Socialist
parties, in the disillusionment of the masses, and have brought about a
reaction which now dominates the entire world and holds labor by the
throat with an iron grip.
Do you still think that the Socialist parties with their elections and politics can help the proletariat out of wage slavery?
Several minor edits have been made to the above text in order to present it as a standalone piece
Copyright disclaimer: As far as I am aware, the copyright on the text posted above expired in 2006 (70 years after the death of the author) see here for more info: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm. Berkman also highly rated Pierre-Joseph "property is theft" Proudhon, and therefore I expect he'd have no issue with his work being distributed in this manner.
Theory Corner
1.
Socialism (Alexander Berkman)
2.
Rules for Radicals (Saul Alinsky)
