The Mass Strike Debate

The discussions about the mass strike and the differences of opinion that emerged between comrades who were otherwise in complete agreement are not merely of theoretical significance. They also brought to light the practical difficulties that stood in the way of this new tactic. Under the influence of the Russian example, the mass strike was recognized by the German party in 1905 as a possible weapon, even if only for defensive purposes. The elections of 1907 pushed the danger of a coup d'état against the Reichstag suffrage into the distance, but instead the proletariat launched a powerful offensive in the struggle for Prussian suffrage. Every time this struggle flared up, first in 1908 and then again last spring, the idea of using the mass strike also emerged. The conviction that the traditional tactics would not achieve the goal, and that this new method of struggle would have to be added, became more and more powerful. But apart from a few small episodes, this did not happen. The new method is facing heavy resistance. Forces for and against wrestle with each other. The theoretical discussion is not a battle of words about some absolute truth, but the theoretical expression of those forces fighting with each other. The necessity of the new tactic is embodied in the arguments of one side, and the difficulties encountered in its application are embodied in those of the other side. Therefore, in this discussion one also becomes acquainted with the real forces which at this moment determine the tactics of German Social Democracy.

The main reason put forward against the use of mass strikes was the reference to the upcoming Reichstag elections. The leading circles of the party in particular were averse to a political strike movement because they regarded it as superfluous and harmful in view of these elections. This shows the power of the parliamentary tradition in our party. The parliamentary struggle has made the party great; we have won victory after victory by means of the strike ballot; that is why parliamentarism is our best and most powerful weapon. With it we will undoubtedly win even greater victories; so why resort to new means? Our press is attuned to this point of view; it talks of crushing defeats inflicted on the enemy, of their fear and helplessness before new losses. But it is necessary to remember that all this applies only within the sphere of parliamentarism, where the goal, proletarian rule, is not yet at stake, but only the means to the goal, a few mandates, the organization of the proletarian masses, the unmasking of the bourgeois parties and the government as organs of class rule. Before a real struggle for state power could begin, the masses had first to be organized and educated to class consciousness and the authority of the ruling classes had to be broken. This task fell to parliamentarism with the trade union movement complementing it, and it accomplished this task excellently. No other method of struggle has yet achieved such an accomplishment, which represents nothing less than a spiritual upheaval and liberation of the most numerous class of people. This is the reason for the high esteem in which parliamentarianism is held, and its role in this field has certainly not been exhausted. Nevertheless, there is a growing awareness that, from the point of view of revolution, all this is only preparatory work; the organized proletariat still has the task of conquering power, and even with the most brilliant electoral victory we are still just as far away from that real victory.

Parliamentarianism is a weapon that we know exactly how to use. We are familiar with its methods down to the last detail. The entire structure of the organizations is adapted to it, and every sudden necessity finds the entire party apparatus ready to act as a perfectly functioning giant machine. One knows exactly what to expect in each individual case. In the mass strike, on the other hand, you find yourself on a whole new terrain where everything is strange, unknown and untested. What results will follow from the action there, what forms the action itself will take, can only be guessed at, uncertainly deduced from the experiences of other countries. One is afraid of dangers that are perhaps imaginary and does not see others that may arise unexpectedly. How possible it is to take a disastrous step in this unknown area, which could bring us defeat or significant loss! It is therefore easy to understand why people are reluctant to apply the new method and prefer to stick to the tried and tested old one. In the theoretical discussion, the most striking thing was the lack of agreement on the conception of mass strikes: how will it work out in practice? This uncertainty is the theoretical expression of a second major obstacle to its practical application: unfamiliarity with the handling of the new weapon. Here the most important tasks remain for theoretical discussion and enlightenment; the more clearly the masses together recognize the first forms of this method of struggle from foreign practice and their own circumstances, the more confidently and firmly they will handle it when the time comes.

But it is not only a spiritual but also a material power of tradition that stands in its way. The organizational form is adapted to the old methods of struggle and is therefore also strictly separated for the political and the trade union struggle. The smaller social-democratic associations are constituted as electoral associations, the large trade union organizations are set up for wage struggles and collective agreements, while the mass strike is a mass trade union action for political purposes. Each organization is adapted in all its organs to its particular function, and in order to use it for new functions a process of reorganization is necessary which can only take place slowly and gradually. The difficulty of imagining how political and trade union struggle can merge into a unity was, as is well known, one of the arguments in the mass strike debate.

The unity of the two forms of organization and struggle is realized in the masses: they feel the necessities arising from new situations most directly and are least inhibited by the power of tradition. The inhibiting forces lie in the forms of organization adapted to the previous tactics, in the highly developed bureaucratic apparatus and in the leaders who represent them. Among these people, the party and trade union officials, the parliamentarians, the theoreticians, the temporary necessity of practice has condensed into firm, well-founded theoretical views and doctrines. These have a much firmer hold than the views of the class-conscious masses, follow less easily the transformations of conditions, and are therefore less subject to the influence of the momentary situation, but they also act as restraining forces at a time when new views and methods have to assert themselves. Therefore, the initiative must then come from the masses; they must free themselves from the old view that their leaders will do everything at the right time; conversely, they must drive these leaders forward into the new paths.