FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288  
289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   >>   >|  
. Jaures referred to the British unionists as an example of the success of reformist tactics. Bebel was able to dispose of this argument. "The capitalists of England are the most able in the world," he said. "If next year at the general elections English Liberalism is victorious, it will again make one of you, perhaps John Burns, an Under Secretary of State, not to take an advance towards Socialism, but to be able to say to the working people that it gives them voluntarily what has been refused after a struggle on the Continent, in order to keep the votes of the workers." (This is just what happened.) "Socialism," he concluded, "cannot accept a share of power; it is obliged to wait for all of the power." The Amsterdam resolution, passed by a large majority after this debate, was almost identical with that which had been adopted by a vote of 288 to 11 at the German Congress at Dresden in the previous year (1903), and although the Austrian delegates and others, nearly half the total, had expressed a preference for a substitute of a more moderate character, they did not hesitate, when this motion was defeated, to indorse the more radical one that was finally adopted. And in 1909, when this Dresden (or Amsterdam) resolution came up for discussion at the German Congress of Leipzig, it was unanimously reaffirmed. Those opposing it did not dare to dispute it at all in principle, but merely expressed the mental reservation that it was qualified by another resolution adopted at a recent Congress which had declared that the party should be absolutely free to decide the question of _temporary_ political alliances in _elections_. As such electoral combinations, valid only for the _second ballot_, and lapsing immediately after the elections, had always been common, the Dresden resolution was never meant by the majority of those voting for it to forbid them. Its purpose was only to insist that the object of the Socialists must always be social revolution and not reform, since, to use its own words, supreme political power "cannot be obtained step by step." "The Congress condemns most emphatically," the Dresden resolution declared, "the revisionist attempt to alter our hitherto victorious policy, a policy based upon the class struggle; just as in the past _we shall go on achieving power by conquering our enemies, not by compromising with the existing order of things_." (My italics.) In a recent letter widely quoted by the cont
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288  
289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
resolution
 

Congress

 

Dresden

 

adopted

 

elections

 

Amsterdam

 

struggle

 

Socialism

 

German

 
political

majority

 

recent

 

expressed

 

policy

 

victorious

 

declared

 

ballot

 
immediately
 
lapsing
 
decide

principle

 

mental

 

reservation

 

qualified

 

dispute

 

unanimously

 

reaffirmed

 

opposing

 
electoral
 

combinations


alliances
 
temporary
 

absolutely

 
question
 
Socialists
 
achieving
 

attempt

 

hitherto

 
conquering
 
enemies

letter
 

widely

 

quoted

 
italics
 
compromising
 

existing

 

things

 

revisionist

 

emphatically

 

purpose