|
|
Rosa Luxemburg
Reform or Revolution
Part One
Chapter I: The Opportunist Method
If it is true that theories are only the images of the
phenomena of the exterior world in the human consciousness, it must be
added, concerning Eduard Bernstein’s
system, that theories are sometimes inverted images. Think of a theory
of instituting socialism by means of social reforms in the face of the
complete stagnation of the reform movement in Germany. Think of a theory
of trade union control. Consider the theory of winning a majority in
Parliament, after the revision of the constitution of Saxony and in view
of the most recent attempts against universal suffrage. However, the
pivotal point of Bernstein’s system is not located in his conception of
the practical tasks of the Social–Democracy. It is found in his stand on
the course of the objective development of capitalist society, which,
in turn is closely bound to his conception of the practical tasks of the
Social–Democracy.
According to Bernstein, a general decline of capitalism seems to be
increasingly improbable because, on the one hand, capitalism shows a
greater capacity of adaptation, and, on the other hand, capitalist
production becomes more and more varied.
The capacity of capitalism to adapt itself, says Bernstein, is
manifested first in the disappearance of general crises, resulting from
the development of the credit system, employers’ organisations, wider
means of communication and informational services. It shows itself
secondly, in the tenacity of the middle classes, which hails from the
growing differentiation of the branches of production and the elevation
of vast layers of the proletariat to the level of the middle class. It
is furthermore proved, argues Bernstein, by the amelioration of the
economic and political situation of the proletariat as a result of its
trade union activity.
From this theoretic stand is derived the following general conclusion
about the practical work of the Social–Democracy. The latter must not
direct its daily activity toward the conquest of political power, but
toward the betterment of the condition of the working class, within the
existing order. It must not expect to institute socialism as a result of
a political and social crisis, but should build socialism by means of
the progressive extension of social control and the gradual application
of the principle of co–operation.
Bernstein himself sees nothing new in his theories. On the contrary,
he believes them to be in agreement with certain declarations of Marx
and Engels. Nevertheless, it seems to us that it is difficult to deny
that they are in formal contradiction with the conceptions of scientific
socialism.
If Bernstein’s revisionism merely consisted in affirming that the
march of capitalist development is slower than was thought before, he
would merely be presenting an argument for adjourning the conquest of
power by the proletariat, on which everybody agreed up to now. Its only
consequence would be a slowing up of the pace of the struggle.
But that is not the case. What Bernstein questions is not the
rapidity of the development of capitalist society, but the march of the
development itself and, consequently, the very possibility of a change
to socialism.
Socialist theory up to now declared that the point of departure for a
transformation to socialism would be a general and catastrophic crisis.
We must distinguish in this outlook two things: the fundamental idea
and its exterior form.
The fundamental idea consists of the affirmation that capitalism, as a
result of its own inner contradictions, moves toward a point when it
will be unbalanced, when it will simply become impossible. There were
good reasons for conceiving that juncture in the form of a catastrophic
general commercial crisis. But that is of secondary importance when the
fundamental idea is considered.
The scientific basis of socialism rests, as is well known, on three
principal results of capitalist development. First, on the growing
anarchy of capitalist economy, leading inevitably to its ruin. Second,
on the progressive socialisation of the process of production, which
creates the germs of the future social order. And third, on the
increased organisation and consciousness of the proletarian class, which
constitutes the active factor in the coming revolution.
Bernstein pulls away from the first of the three fundamental supports
of scientific socialism. He says that capitalist development does not
lead to a general economic collapse.
He does not merely reject a certain form of the collapse. He rejects
the very possibility of collapse. He says textually: “One could claim
that by collapse of the present society is meant something else than a
general commercial crisis, worse than all others, that is a complete
collapse of the capitalist system brought about as a result of its own
contradictions.” And to this he replies: “With the growing development
of society a complete and almost general collapse of the present system
of production becomes more and more improbable, because capitalist
development increases on the one hand the capacity of adaptation and, on
the other – that is at the same time, the differentiation of industry.”
(Neue Zeit, 1897–98, vol.18, pg.555)
But then the question arises: Why and how, in that case, can we
attain the final goal? According to scientific socialism, the historic
necessity of the socialist revolution manifests itself above all in the
growing anarchy of capitalism, which drives the system into an impasse.
But if one admits with Bernstein that capitalist development does not
move in the direction of its own ruin, then socialism ceases to be
objectively necessary. There remain the other two mainstays of the
scientific explanation of socialism, which are also said to be
consequences of capitalism itself: the socialisation of the process of
production and the growing consciousness of the proletariat. It is these
two matters that Bernstein has in mind when he says: “The suppression
of the theory of collapse does not in any way deprive socialist doctrine
of the power of persuasion. For, examined closely, what are all factors
enumerated by us that make for the suppression or the modification of
the former crises? Nothing else, in fact, than the conditions, or even
in party the germs, of the socialisation of production and exchange.” (Ibid., pg.554)
Very little reflection is needed to understand that here too we face a
false conclusion. Where lies the importance of all the phenomena that
are said by Bernstein to be the means of capitalist adaptation –
cartels, the credit system, the development of means of communication,
the amelioration of the situation of the working class, etc.? Obviously,
in that they suppress or, at least, attenuate the internal
contradictions of capitalist economy, and stop the development or the
aggravation of these contradictions. Thus the suppression of crises can
only mean the suppression of the antagonism between production and
exchange on the capitalist base. The amelioration of the situation of
the working class, or the penetration of certain fractions of the class
into middle layers, can only mean the attenuation of the antagonism
between Capital and Labour. But if the mention factors suppress the
capitalist contradictions and consequently save the system from ruin, if
they enable capitalism to maintain itself – and that is why Bernstein
calls them “means of adaptation” – how can cartels, the credit system,
trade unions, etc., be at the same time “the conditions and even, in
part, the germs” of socialism? Obviously only in the sense that they
express most clearly the social character of production.
But by presenting it in its capitalist form, the same factors render
superfluous, inversely, in the same measure, the transformation of this
socialised production into socialist production. That is why they can be
the germs or conditions of a socialist order only in a theoretic sense
and not in an historic sense. They are phenomena which, in the light of
our conception of socialism, we know to be related to socialism but
which, in fact, not only do not lead to a socialist revolution but
render it, on the contrary, superfluous.
There remains one force making for socialism – the class
consciousness of the proletariat. But it, too, is in the given case no
the simple intellectual reflection of the growing contradictions of
capitalism and its approaching decline. It is now no more than an ideal
whose force of persuasion rests only on the perfection attributed to it.
We have here, in brief, the explanation of the socialist programme by
means of “pure reason.” We have here, to use simpler language, an
idealist explanation of socialism. The objective necessity of socialism,
the explanation of socialism as the result of the material development
of society, falls to the ground.
Revisionist theory thus places itself in a dilemma. Either the
socialist transformation is, as was admitted up to now, the consequence
of the internal contradictions of capitalism, and with the growth of
capitalism will develop its inner contradictions, resulting inevitably,
at some point, in its collapse, (in that case the “means of adaptation”
are ineffective and the theory of collapse is correct); or the “means of
adaptation” will really stop the collapse of the capitalist system and
thereby enable capitalism to maintain itself by suppressing its own
contradictions. In that case socialism ceases to be an historic
necessity. It then becomes anything you want to call it, but it is no
longer the result of the material development of society.
The dilemma leads to another. Either revisionism is correct in its
position on the course of capitalist development, and therefore the
socialist transformation of society is only a utopia, or socialism is
not a utopia, and the theory of “means of adaptation” is false. There is
the question in a nutshell.
Next: Chap.2: The Adaptation of Capitalism
Last updated on: 28.11.2008
|
