|
|
Rosa Luxemburg
Reform or Revolution
Introduction
At first view the title of this work may be found surprising. Reform or Revolution? Can the Social–Democracy be against reforms? Can we conterpose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily practical struggle for reforms, for the improvement of the condition of working people within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social–Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class struggle and working towards the final goal – the conquest of political power and the elimination of wage labour. Between social reforms and revolution there exist for the Social Democracy an indissoulable link. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its goal.
It is in Eduard Bernstein’s theory, presented in his articles on Problems of Socialism, Neue Zeit of 1897–98, and in his book Die Voraussetzungen des Socialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie[1]
that we find, for the first time, the counterposing of the two elements of the labour movement. His theory tends to counsel us to renounce the social transformation, the final goal of Social–Democracy and, inversely, to make of social reforms, the means of the class struggle, its goal. Bernstein himself has very clearly and characteristically formulated this viewpoint when he wrote: “The final goal, no matter what it is, is nothing; the movement is everything.”
But since the final goal of socialism constitutes the only decisive factor distinguishing the Social–Democratic movement from bourgeois democracy and from bourgeois radicalism, the only factor transforming
the entire labour movement from a vain effort to repair the capitalist order into a class struggle against this order, for the transformation of this order – the question: “Reform or Revolution?” as it is posed by Bernstein, equals for the Social–Democracy the question: “To be or not to be?” In the controversy with Bernstein and his followers, everybody in the Party ought to understand clearly it is not a question of this or that method of struggle, or the use of this or that set of tactics, but of the very existence of the Social–Democratic movement.
Upon a casual consideration of Bernstein’s theory, this may appear
like an exaggeration. Does he not continually mention the
Social–Democracy and its aims? Does he not repeat again and again, in
very explicit language, that he too strives toward the final goal of
socialism, but in another way? Does he not stress particularly that he
fully approves of the present practice of the Social–Democracy?
That is all true, to be sure. It is also true that every new
movement, when it first elaborates its theory and policy, begins by
finding support in the preceding movement, though it may be in direct
contradiction with the latter. It begins by suiting itself to the forms
found at hand and by speaking the language spoken hereto. In time the
new grain breaks through the old husk. The new movement finds its forms
and its own language.
To expect an opposition against scientific socialism at its very
beginning, to express itself clearly, fully and to the last consequence
on the subject of its real content: to expect it to deny openly and
bluntly the theoretic basis of the Social–Democracy – would amount to
underrating the power of scientific socialism. Today he who wants to
pass as a socialist, and at the same time declare war on Marxian
doctrine, the most stupendous product of the human mind in the century,
must begin with involuntary esteem for Marx. He must begin by
acknowledging himself to be his disciple, by seeking in Marx’s own
teachings the points of support for an attack on the latter, while he
represents this attack as a further development of Marxian doctrine. On
this account, we must, unconcerned by its outer forms, pick out the
sheathed kernel of Bernstein’s theory. This is a matter of urgent
necessity for the broad layers of the industrial proletariat in our
Party.
No coarser insult, no baser aspersion, can be thrown against the
workers than the remarks: “Theocratic controversies are only for
academicians.” Some time ago Lassalle
said: “Only when science and the workers, these opposite poles of
society, become one, will they crush in their arms of steel all
obstacles to culture.” The entire strength of the modern labour movement
rests on theoretic knowledge.
But doubly important is this knowledge for the workers in the present
case, because it is precisely they and their influence in the movement
that are in the balance here. It is their skin that is being brought to
market. The opportunist theory in the Party, the theory formulated by
Bernstein, is nothing else than an unconscious attempt to assure
predominance to the petty–bourgeois elements that have entered our
Party, to change the policy and aims of our Party in their direction.
The question of reform or revolution, of the final goal and the
movement, is basically, in another form, but the question of the
petty–bourgeois or proletarian character of the labour movement.
It is, therefore, in the interest of the proletarian mass of the
Party to become acquainted, actively and in detail, with the present
theoretic knowledge remains the privilege of a handful of “academicians”
in the Party, the latter will face the danger of going astray. Only
when the great mass of workers take the keen and dependable weapons of
scientific socialism in their own hands, will all the petty–bourgeois
inclinations, all the opportunistic currents, come to naught. The
movement will then find itself on sure and firm ground. “Quantity will
do it”
Rosa Luxemburg
[1] The Pre–Conditions of Socialism and the Tasks for Social Democracy [English translation: Evolutionary Socialism]
Next:Chap.1: The Opportunist Method
Last updated on: 28.11.2008
|
