th directing their chief attention to promoting the reforms of
"State Socialism," it will make little difference whether the first
argue that these beneficial measures are a part of Socialism and a
guarantee of the whole; or the second claim that, though such reforms
are no part of Socialism, the superiority of the movement is shown
chiefly by the fact that they could not have been brought about except
through its efforts. Mankind will rightly conclude that the things that
absorb the chief Socialist activities are those that are also forming
the character of the movement. In direct proportion as reforming
Socialists spend their energies in doing the same things as reforming
capitalists do, they tend inevitably to become more and more alike. Only
in proportion as Socialists can differentiate themselves from
non-Socialists _in their present activities_ will the movement have any
distinctive meaning of its own.
FOOTNOTES:
[169] W. J. Ghent, "Socialism and Success," p. 47.
[170] Rappaport, "Der Kongress von Nimes," _Die Neue Zeit_, 1910, p.
821.
[171] _Die Neue Zeit_, Oct. 27, 1911.
[172] "Parlamentarismus und Demokratie," edition of 1911, p. 121.
[173] "Parlamentarismus und Demokratie," edition of 1911, pp. 132-133.
[174] "Parlamentarismus und Demokratie," edition of 1911, pp. 131-134.
[175] "Parlamentarismus und Demokratie," edition of 1911, pp. 131-134.
[176] "Le Syndicalisme contre L'Etat," pp. 223-235, 239-242.
[177] "Parlamentarismus und Demokratie," p. 114.
CHAPTER VI
REVOLUTIONARY POLITICS
In the most famous document of international Socialism, the "Communist
Manifesto" (published by Marx and Engels in 1847), there is a
fulmination against "reactionary Socialism," which it will be seen is
approximately what we now call "State Socialism." After describing the
Utopian Socialism of Fourier, of Saint-Simon and of Owen, the
"Manifesto" says:--
"A second form of Socialism, less systematic but more practical,
tried to disgust the working people with every revolutionary
movement, by demonstrating to them that it is not such and such a
political advantage, but only a transformation of the relations of
material life and of economic conditions that could profit them.
Let it be noted that by transformation of the material relations of
society this Socialism does not mean the abolition of capitalist
relations of production, but only administrative r
|