The Essence of our Present Demands

I.

Two views are at war with each other on the question of disarmament. On the one hand, it is emphasized that the increasing armaments oppress the proletariat with heavy taxes and at the same time increase the danger of war; therefore, our party must fight this with all its might, among other things by submitting motions in parliament that the governments should agree on limiting armaments. If the government and the bourgeois parties refuse, the masses will increasingly recognize the Social Democrats as the sole representative of their interests and will turn to them. On the other hand, it is emphasized that the armaments arise from the increasing imperialist antagonism between states, which is a natural product of modern capitalist development. Every bourgeoisie must arm itself for battle as much as possible if it wants to assert its interests in the world, because the distribution of the world is decided only by the power that each can muster against the others. Therefore, as long as the ruling class is in charge, it will be impossible for it to comply with our call for armaments to be limited. However, the party must not put forward an impossible demand that contradicts the actual development, since it would only create illusions about capitalism among the masses instead of organizing them to fight for socialism.

In No. 42 of the Neue Zeit, Comrade Eckstein attempts to substantiate the first point of view more firmly and to refute the second by discussing the significance of our present demands. In doing so, he proves, firstly, that the same impossibility that we claim for disarmament applies to all our present demands, which are just as impossible to realize under capitalism, and secondly, that the realization of armaments limitation is by no means impossible. This is definitely more proven than is necessary; either the one or the other would have been sufficient. We do not want to go into the last question here, which touches on the nature of imperialism and has already been discussed here, but merely make a few remarks about the nature and significance of our present demands.

Comrade Eckstein states that our current demands are incompatible with the existence of capitalism, and therefore cannot be implemented within capitalism. Good. But they have this characteristic in common with many other wishes and demands that are not included in our program of current demands. Why are these missing? Why does the program contain political democracy, the people's defense, the democratization of the judiciary, etc., all of which are impossible under capitalism, but not the right to work or the prohibition of the introduction of labor-saving machines, which are also impossible under capitalism? The logic of the statement that our current demands are impossible is obviously this: then we can add a few other impossible demands (such as disarmament). But then it is also clear that this statement does not touch on the essence of our current demands at all . The core question of what matters, why these demands in particular are included in our program and not other equally impossible ones, is not addressed by Eckstein.

The answer is immediately apparent when we ask why certain demands are impracticable. Let us take, for example, the demands which together constitute political democracy, on the one hand, and the prohibition of new machines which plunge masses of workers into misery, on the other. The fulfillment of both is incompatible with capitalism, but, as everyone immediately sees, for entirely different reasons. The fulfillment of the second demand is incompatible with capitalist production, whose development it would prevent; the fulfillment of the first would not impair this development, but merely endanger the political dominance of the capitalists. The impossibility for the ruling class to do anything which is contrary to capitalist development is of a completely different nature from its understandable refusal to reduce its own power in favor of the proletariat. The second demand is economically impossible , and therefore we cannot raise it. The first is politically impossible , because the will to power of the bourgeoisie is opposed to it, and therefore it is precisely a goal of struggle for the proletariat. One could perhaps object here that the political rule of the bourgeoisie is also necessary for the survival of capitalism; but that only proves that there is another difference behind this. The realization of our democratic demands, which would affect the rule of the capitalist class, means a further development of society beyond capitalism. So social development becomes the yardstick for our demands; what the bourgeoisie does not want because it would hinder development, we cannot want either; what the bourgeoisie does not want because it would develop society beyond capitalism to socialism is the object of our struggle, and only such demands can we include in our current program.

When Comrade Eckstein says: "The realization of our present program is nothing other than the political side of the social revolution itself" (p. 570), that is only half true. Of course, the proletariat will only be able to fully implement the demands and social reforms it has put forward once it has gained power; one cannot count on this before then. But in doing so it will not limit itself to what our program of immediate demands contains; one of its most important tasks will then be the practical implementation of the right to work, that is, the abolition of unemployment, which does not appear in our program. Of all the things that lie in the direction of development and would form a lever for the development towards socialism, our present program only contains those demands that are compatible with capitalism as an economic system .

This is self-evident because this program serves as a supplement to our criticism of capitalism in order to win supporters in the immediate struggle. Eckstein also points out the importance of this program in exposing the hypocrisy of the opponents. But this is only possible if speakers and listeners are all convinced that there is nothing impossible about these demands that would prevent their immediate implementation — nothing other than the refusal of the bourgeoisie to limit its own power and rule. The fact that they would undermine the existing economic system cannot be an obstacle for the masses we want to win over; but they must not presuppose a different economic system from the current one. Therefore, for example, they include improvements in elementary school education — but not academic and scientific training for all; people's militia — but not general disarmament; workers' protection and an eight-hour day — but not the right to work.1 This is their characteristic: they are possible under capitalism, therefore they are useful for our program; In their entirety they form a force that unhinges capitalism, and therefore they have not been implemented and are merely programmatic demands of the proletariat. It is probably superfluous to explain in detail that their implementation is not the only necessary path to socialism, but the path to socialism in a peaceful way, without tremendous political upheavals; therein lies their great agitational significance.

The nature of our present demands also means that their impracticability under capitalism is not absolute . How much or how little of each of them is actually implemented is a question of power. If the ruling class becomes convinced that the implementation of one of these demands is in its interest — either to appease the proletariat or against other bourgeois classes — then the impossible suddenly becomes possible. In fact, small concessions in this area, particularly in the area of ​​labor protection and the right to vote, have been repeatedly won by the workers. Differences of opinion can therefore easily arise between those who are otherwise closest to one another over the question of the extent to which a particular reform can be expected to be implemented.

This shows in what sense Radek is right to call these demands feasible and Eckstein to call them impracticable. At the same time, this insight removes the stark contrast between the present and the future that is evident in Eckstein, where he declares our present program to be a future program for "the day after the revolution." If now here and there the ruling classes are forced to accept expanded voting rights or reforms, and if in the future the ruling class in Germany, yielding to the pressure of a much more powerful proletarian action, must concede the most important and decisive democratic rights, there is only a gradual difference between the two processes — and yet the latter forms an important part of the political revolution that gives the proletariat power. In the revolution, what is happening now slowly and on a small scale takes place on a large, rapid and enormous scale: through a transformation of the balance of power, our program demands will then be fully implemented, of which only small beginnings have been realized up to now.

II.

Let us now consider the demands that are not included in our program. We have said that Social Democracy must not put forward demands that contradict economic development, even if they appear to be in the immediate interest of the workers. Why not? People often think of a kind of moral duty of the party — since it is the party that most represents the progress of the world — not to hinder this progress. New labor-saving machines throw countless workers out onto the pavement, consigning them to hunger and misery; nevertheless, we do not fight against this and call such an attempt reactionary, because — according to this line of thought — humanity is interested in increasing the productivity of labor as much as possible. But is that right? The working class does not benefit from it, because increasing the productivity of labor only increases surplus value. Only in the socialist future will its benefit accrue to all humanity; but then the backward and unproductive methods of work that exist will be eliminated with little effort and without causing any suffering to anyone. For the socialist society it is therefore not at all necessary that the new machines be introduced now.

Another interest for the proletariat could be seen in the fact that technological development is increasing the concentration of factories; the petty bourgeoisie is declining further, the proletariat is increasing and becoming more concentrated, and the material preconditions for the social revolution are being realized to a greater extent. But for a party representing these masses to want to promote a development that causes severe suffering to the masses of the people would be just as absurd as if the workers were to advocate their own impoverishment just to increase their indignation against capitalism. Impoverishment, proletarianization, insecurity of existence — capitalism already provides all of these things more than adequately without our intervention. We know that we cannot stop this development and can only partially alleviate its accompanying symptoms; therefore we do not participate in the petty-bourgeois bungling that believes it can fight against it. But it is not our task to promote capitalist development either.

This is the mistake of some revisionists who, from a mechanical understanding of the proposition that capitalist development produces socialism, deduce our duty to promote this capitalist development as much as possible. This view is particularly evident in their support of colonial policy; in general, such a standpoint must lead to the advocacy of a harmony of interests between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in questions of general social development. But it is not our business to stoke the engine more in the course of capitalist development so that it takes us more quickly to the promised land — its course means death and destruction for countless masses of people. We want to put the train of development on a different track. For socialism is not a new state of affairs that arises somewhere at the end of the track when the train has travelled far enough and its strength is exhausted. Socialism means a completely new, different direction of development that can be taken at any point in today's development and will actually be taken on the day the proletariat conquers power.

Let us return to the question of why we do not make demands which would tend to stop the course of capitalist development. Not, as we have seen, out of respect for this development itself, which we must not hinder, but out of the realization that this development is unstoppable. Not out of the awareness that it must not be, but out of the realization that it cannot be . Making demands which cannot be realized is a useless waste of energy; in terms of propaganda they only work to cloud our understanding of reality. The representatives of the bourgeoisie are strongly opposed to such demands because they feel that development is inevitable and that the dictates of reality and utopian wishes are in conflict here.

It might, however, seem risky to make such an assertion of impossibility; where the petty bourgeoisie or lower middle class are powerful in parliament, they could certainly push through a law to this effect, perhaps with the help of the proletariat. But then it will always be shown that the arrest of development is partly only an illusion and a momentary success, and partly a worse evil than development itself. If it were possible to build a dam in front of the raging stream, it would seek a detour or pour into a broad swamp. The arrest of capitalist development does not preserve the old pre-capitalist or small-capitalist prosperity and peace, but forces capital into new, usually usurious forms of exploitation; it leads to stagnation, which oppresses people even more and destroys their spirit and strength to such an extent that revolutionary energy can no longer arise from the pressure. The reactionary legislation produced so far — such as anti-trust laws — has missed its aim; Wherever reactionary parties have come to power, they have had to govern for big capital, only more corruptly than others, or they have failed. Therefore, one can safely assert that every attempt to stop capitalism in its development and to banish it to its old forms must necessarily fail. The proletariat cannot therefore put forward demands whose realization is excluded by actual developments.

Whether the limitation of armaments by international agreement is one of these demands is the real issue at stake. Everything else that is attributed to one another as false opinions only serves to complicate the matter and should therefore be removed from the debate; the above statements on the nature of our present demands, which we believe will meet with little opposition, are intended to serve this purpose. The clash of opinions is only about the question of whether, given the strength and inner necessity of imperialist policy, a limitation of armaments is hopeless and impossible for the bourgeoisie, as we believe, or whether it remains possible nonetheless, as Kautsky and Eckstein assume.

III.

Finally, we must deal with the conclusion of Eckstein's article, where he quotes a few sentences from one of our correspondence articles, thereby throwing us, according to an increasingly common pattern, into the anarchist wolf's ravine. In this article, "The Militia Demand," which was based on Comrade Grimm's essay2 , we ended by contrasting the demands of disarmament and the militia in the following way:

This is where the difference lies between the demands of disarmament (in the sense of continued armaments restrictions by governments) and the militia. Fulfillment of the first demand would mean easing the pressure of capitalism on the masses, but fulfillment of the second would mean a force for the overthrow of capitalism. The people's militia places an important part of its power in the hands of the proletariat; therefore it is a demand that is in the direction of development. Disarmament does not increase proletarian power; on the contrary, it could reduce it insofar as it dampens the discontent of the other sections of the people, and it is not in the direction of real development at all. The capitalist class does not want to know anything about disarmament because it wants to go forwards and not backwards; but it does not want to know anything about the people's militia because this would mean a leap forwards, beyond capitalism. For the proletariat, therefore, there is not the slightest reason to change our demand in the military field, the people's militia instead of the standing army.

Comrade Eckstein is horrified by this. How, he exclaims, "so easing the pressure of capitalism on the masses is not an increase in proletarian power! Why then all our social policy, why our unions and co-operatives?" Because, dear friend Eckstein, improving the situation of the workers and increasing wages are in themselves very valuable goals, even if the power of the proletariat does not increase as a result. The entire struggle of the working class consists directly of a never-ending struggle for improvements; it must fight for them, just as every living being fights for life and air. The effect of the struggle is usually also an increase in power; but the improvement in the standard of living itself can sometimes have the opposite effect.3 Standard of living and power are two different things. What misled Comrade Eckstein here is the fact that they occur together in the unions and co-operatives; but here, as everyone knows, the power lies not in the improved standard of living but in the organization.

Easing the pressure has nothing to do with increasing power. The struggle for relief can, if it is carried out for achievable ends, increase our power; but relief itself can, if it is due to accidental circumstances and can then lead to the organization becoming sluggish and weakened, reduce proletarian power. If this is true to some extent for the workers, it is all the more true for other sections of society which do not form a revolutionary power of their own accord. The more or less proletarianized petty-bourgeois sections, without organization, without clear insight, without firm proletarian discipline, rebel against capitalism only when it oppresses them unbearably. But that is the effect of imperialism. With its taxes, its rising prices, and its threats of war, it shakes up the widest sections of the population who would otherwise have remained fairly indifferent to capitalist exploitation, and drives them to our party, as was already shown in the elections of the last few years.

Of course, the revolutionary effect of this increased pressure is no reason for us to want to maintain or promote it; the same applies here as we said about the two labor-saving machines: it is not our business to promote capitalist development; in both cases we do not fight against an inevitable development simply because it is hopeless. Our business, as with all capitalist development, is to determine how it promotes our goals and strengthens our strength; our business is to exploit it by informing the masses about the cause of the pressure. That is what is contained in the sentence under attack: the statement that the other petty-bourgeois sections of the people are becoming rebellious under the pressure of armaments and taxes.

• 1We leave aside the question of whether all the demands contained in our program correspond to the characteristics set out here; this is not a criticism of the content of the program, but an explanation of its general character.
• 2We take this opportunity to apologize to Comrade Grimm, who was rightly offended when we said of him that his article was intended to "lower" the demand for a militia. With this word we did not mean, of course, that he was trying to unduly tear down this demand, but merely that he wanted to reduce the exaggerated appreciation which, in his opinion, prevailed among us to the right level. But he could see that he is factually wrong in this opinion from the same article, where we emphasized the contrast between the declining petty-bourgeois democracy, powerless against the intrusion of capitalist oppression, and the rising proletarian democracy which is defeating capitalism, including in the army organization.
• 3In order not to take up too much space here, we would like to refer to our paper “The Tactical Differences” (p. 20 ff.) for the relationship between social reform and proletarian power.