Mass Actions

Kautsky recently published a series of articles on mass action in Die Neue Zeit, in which he examines the role that mass action has played in history to date and whether such action can be expected in the future. The reason for this investigation is undoubtedly to be found in the fact that in recent years mass actions have become more and more prominent in the proletarian movement and that in the discussions more and more reference has been made to them as a new tactical weapon of the proletariat. It must therefore be emphasized from the outset that mass action was understood differently than in these articles. Kautsky expressly deals with the action of unorganized masses; he had to do so because in previous history the great mass of the people has always been unorganized, united only for a moment by a common will and then disintegrated again. Even today the great masses are still unorganized; therefore, whoever thinks of an action of the great masses must necessarily examine the action of unorganized masses. But wherever there has been talk of mass action in recent party discussions, it has always been about the action of organized masses. It was not a question of leading the entire still unorganized people into the field instead of the small core group of organized people, but of a new mode of activity of the organized masses.

Questions that are the subject of lively party discussions are never abstract or remote theoretical questions, but questions of immediate practice. The practice of modern capitalism has imposed new forms of action on organized, class-conscious workers. Until now, their practice consisted of elections, the parliamentary struggle of their representatives and the trade union struggle for better working conditions. The imperialist development has not only increased competition, brought high tariffs, consumption taxes and inflation, strengthened the power of business and domestic reaction, it has also greatly reduced the influence of parliament. The masses must therefore take up the political struggle more vigorously, while at the same time the previous method, the struggle in parliament, has become less effective. They therefore had to step onto the scene themselves and make their voices heard directly. The struggle for democratic suffrage, inflation and the threat of war successively gave rise to such mass actions. So when we talk about mass actions and their necessity, we mean nothing more than the political activity of organized labour, not through representatives, but directly itself.

Our mass actions also have a different goal and a different effect than those old popular movements. Our battalions are not yet strong enough for the political revolution, for the conquest of power; initially it is only a matter of demonstrating the proletarian will in order to assert it as strongly as possible against the other powerful forces in society. However, the conquest of power is also our ultimate goal; but we know that it is only possible through an organized, socialistically enlightened majority of the people. Therefore, the immediate goal of all our actions is to increase our power; our mass actions also have this effect of rousing wide circles, politically enlightening them and drawing them into organization; and thus the scope of the masses in action grows. The constant building up of our organizational power is the content of all proletarian progress, the lasting result of all struggles. This is what distinguishes today's mass actions from those of the past; in the past, popular power could not be built up steadily and surely, but could only manifest itself in sudden, violent uprisings; mass actions either had to conquer the whole goal or they failed. Our mass actions cannot fail because we have the weapon of organization at our disposal and can thus build up the people's power gradually and steadfastly, to the extent that the victory over the state power of the bourgeoisie is completely beyond the reach of chance.

But this does not solve the question of the future of mass action. For Kautsky rightly points out that the modern development of capitalism creates situations similar to those which in the past gave rise to spontaneous revolutionary popular uprisings. History will not simply wait until we have systematically expanded the proletarian army through our gradually increasing mass actions; intolerable conditions may arise, as a result of which the entire mass of millions of people will suddenly be driven into struggle against the rulers. Kautsky shows that parliamentarism, instead of rendering such mass actions superfluous, actually realizes their basic conditions by rousing the remotest sections of the people to political struggle. The two great historical causes of the revolutions, inflation and war, are now once again looming as terrible spectres before the eyes of the frightened masses. It is therefore not impossible that they will whip up the whole people and, as in earlier times, bring about violent actions by the mostly still unorganized masses.

But such mass actions will differ considerably from earlier popular movements. The fact that today there are strong core troops in the form of the existing workers' organizations, which naturally take over the leadership, is not yet the essential point, even if it is of great importance. What is essential is the completely different class composition of the modern masses. The old masses were petty-bourgeois; they consisted of artisans and workers in small businesses, occasionally supplemented by an action of the peasants. Today's masses are workers in the service of big capital. The living conditions of a class determine its views, its character and its mode of action. The difference in class character, the contrast between the petty-bourgeois and the proletarian class psychology is much more essential than the difference between whether the workers are now organized or unorganized.

It has already been pointed out repeatedly that not all strata of workers can be organized to the same extent. And it is precisely the workers in the most highly capitalistically developed and concentrated enterprises, in cartelized heavy industry, in the railroads, and to some extent also in the mines, who lag far behind those in less concentrated large-scale industry in terms of organization. The reason lies in the fact that the power of capital is so immense and overwhelming that resistance, even by means of organization, seems hopeless. These masses are in their deepest character more proletarian than any others; in the school of capitalist production they have learned an instinctive discipline. Where once they have suddenly gone on strike – their struggles have the character of spontaneous rebellions – they have shown an astonishing solidarity and discipline; in America, for example, the unshakable firmness of the unorganized strikers against the powerful trusts has only too often put the old trade unionists to shame. They have not, of course, the experience, the political insight, the perseverance which they can maintain even in the face of defeat, and which can only result from prolonged practice; hence their mighty uprisings often quickly collapse again. But they are completely different from the individualism of the unorganized petty bourgeoisie; their class position means that they will grasp and apply the lessons of organizations and socialist class consciousness with lightning speed. Now they are unorganized; as soon as some event makes the power of capital no longer seem overwhelming and untouchable to them, they will move into the field and perhaps play an even greater role in the mass actions than the mass of the now organized.

If the contrast between organized and unorganized masses is thus reduced to a small degree, the significance of organization in the mass struggle also changes. Conscious preparation, unified leadership and the official apparatus, which has to maintain the successes, belong to the fixed forms of association in which organizational life is now confirmed. These forms may perish in the struggle, but the essential thing that remains is the spirit of organization, the discipline that leads instinctively, as it were, to organized, united action and creates for itself in every new situation the forms and organs in which the will of the masses can find expression. This organizational spirit, which springs from the proletarian class situation, which lies dormant in the entire modern proletariat and often only awaits the right impulse, gives not only our present mass actions but also the future larger actions of the masses a completely new character, which distinguishes them completely from all earlier mass movements.