The Socialism of the Socialist Government

On the conference of the state representatives, the Stuttgartian reformist [Berthold] Heymann asserted that the workers’ and soldiers’ councils have done their work, that the old order is overthrown and that they can leave now; the revolution is complete, we have a socialist government and a new Germany can begin rising. According to him, then, the revolution is done and finalized. Let us see, what this revolution has achieved.

It has eliminated all sorts of old feudal mess and thus made Germany a modern bourgeois state. No one would dare to claim that Germany is a socialist country. There indeed exist forces that can lead to socialism, but for the time being, the republic is still a bourgeois republic. The workers and soldiers have overthrown the emperor and some generals, whom they considered the culprits in the war's misery. But the workers and soldiers have also allowed that in place of those same culprits their accomplices, who by their consent and support made the misery of war possible, Ebert and Scheidemann now rule.

Some new people have scaled the peak. Should one believe that something essential occurred with this? Let us assume that the men at the top are not actually themselves but truly revolutionary men of the people, who want to realize socialism with all their might. Does anyone think that this would secure the matter? They will only have to be replaced by one or another power, and all socialism will have disappeared forthwith. The nature of the new republic is not determined by a change of leaders, but by what they do to consolidate and drive the revolution forward. So, what did they do?

They have started by keeping the entire bureaucracy intact. All of these gentlemen, who have abused and tortured the workers for centuries, were not chased away with affront but kept in their offices instead. The entire oppression machine still exists unharmed; the pressure of their iron heel simply subsided due to the current circumstances. All of these gentlemen - and how beautifully! - have devoted themselves to the new order and for the time being, they all behave democratically and wear red badges. But this only proves that they are convinced that their time will return again and that the current government is not ill-disposed towards them. Once the soldiers return home, the workers reassume their daily work, once the spiritual atmosphere of the revolution has evaporated and the bourgeois influences begin their work, then the old time returns, with its old institutions.

A revolutionary government needs to have two tasks. Firstly, to completely annihilate the power of the enemy, overthrown for the time being, so that it cannot rise again. And secondly, to consolidate the power of the revolutionary class. The Ebert-Haase government has done the exact opposite: they have kept standing the great power-bearing complex of the bourgeoisie, the state-bureaucracy, and try to convince the masses that these gentlemen need their gratefulness for their unbroken patriotism. They seek to paralyze the new power nuclei of the proletariat, the soldiers' councils, by aiming to restore the disciplinary power of the officers. If they were to succeed, the first step towards counter-revolution would have been taken. The soldiers have shown more socialist insight in many places than these leaders by strongly rejecting this imposition.

In his speech on constitutional affairs - the studying of which is extremely valuable today - Lassalle, with corrosive sharpness, mocked the bourgeois democrats of 1848, who did not know that constitutional questions are questions of power, that the enemy must first be disarmed, and that such long paper constitutions are in effect worthless. He had apparently anticipated Ebert and Haase, because the same deed is now repeated. They direct the eyes of the masses toward the National Assembly, which is supposed to establish a constitution, a paper constitution. But they forget that the real constitution lies in the present power relations. That their main task must therefore lie in strengthening the real power, the power nuclei of the proletariat, which truly weaken the bourgeoisie. And if these men are continued to be granted free reins over the governance, it will end in Hindenburg or another high-standing general chasing away this new government and restoring a purely bourgeois-capitalist rule.

What they therefore miss in their bourgeois limitations, the masses themselves must make up for: consolidation of the workers' and soldiers' councils into an unassailable power of the masses. And once the soldiers gradually return home and are demobilized, the workers must be armed in their stead. Not disarranged, but organized according to factories and workshops, the workers are to form red guards in defense of the revolution. These guards, then, will be carriers of political power, they form the armed people, who can regulate and lead their own providence.

We are accused of wanting the country to be ruled by a select few. This is not true. We want the working class, along with the other proletarian castes - they form the majority - to govern the country together and them to furnish the power necessary for this. We know very well that the majority of these masses has not yet adopted our point of view. But that doesn't hurt, they will be taught by indisputable facts that our way is the right one, and we can wait for that. With our appeals we want to prevent the masses, now that they do not yet realize this, from allowing themselves to be disarmed by the false leaders, the henchmen of the bourgeoisie, to then later stand powerless once they realize what has to be done.

The new government, as the embodiment of the obscurity that still prevails in a large part of it, finds itself between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and hopes, similar to Kerensky in Russia, to be able to govern together with both. It will therefore later, to the extent that the class consciousness becomes sharper in the masses and the antagonisms break loose, lose its grip and be crushed, as it continues to be stuck between the two worlds. For the time being, it must offer both classes something; namely, it offers according to the clarity of class consciousness on both sides, actual deeds to the bourgeoisie, beautiful phrases to the workers. The workers – as in the proclamation to the returning army – are promised socialism – just not too fast, not too hasty, no experiments! The bourgeoisie however is assured that the government is not considering nationalizing the banks or as much as thinking of touching their private property; and the bourgeoisie is also calmly starting to rebuild its capitalist economy.

Above all, there is inability and bewilderment in this attitude. The new government sees no way to vigorously initiate a new order. It must rely on the help of the old bureaucracy because it has no confidence in the new force of the masses. It does not dare to intervene in economic life; it does not believe it can get by without the bourgeoisie – in Germany, which Kautsky declared mature for socialism 20 years ago! But in the end, the more decisive elements, if they are driven further by the masses, will have to do something. The independents [USPD -K.V.] are already working out plans to start their socialization. So, will socialism not be realized after all? Herein lies a new danger for the masses if they do not pay attention. The socialist measures that are meant here concern the nationalization of large private enterprises. But this is not the socialism that the proletariat needs, it is state socialism. And with that, the proletariat is not better, but rather worse off. Two years ago, when [Edgar] Jaffé, the current Bavarian finance minister, came forward with his state socialist plans, he was accordingly warned in "Vorbote" [Vorbote was the newspaper Pannekoek and Roland-Holst, among others, edited. Here is a link. - K.V.].

State socialism is the zenith of capitalism; and far-sighted big-capitalists have already spoken out in favor of it. When the state takes over their giant businesses, it ensures that they receive the surplus value as interest, and they no longer have to quarrel with the workers. The state holds the workers under its yoke by granting certain ones privileged positions and corrupting them, thereby weakening the resistance of the rest through its authority, ultimately securing profits for capital. It is also a regulation of production, organized labor, therefore socialism, but a socialism which means the deepest, most unalterable slavery of the proletariat. It differs from proletarian socialism in that exploitation still remains intact. Not organization by the state but the exploitation, the capital formation, discerns both. Proletarian socialism does not simply consist of the socialization of production, but primarily in the confiscation of capital income. Whether nationalization leads to one outcome or another depends on which state enacts it and who holds power within that state. Thus, we arrive once again at the same conclusion as before: the central issue in today’s situation is the question of social power. (“Socialism is not a matter of state enterprises but a question of proletarian power.” (Vorbote No. 2, page 25))

When a government, like today’s, announces nationalization without making the power of the proletariat supreme and dismantling the power of the bourgeoisie, it leads to state socialism—the worst form of enslavement for the proletariat.

Only when the working class secures full control of the state and renders the bourgeoisie powerless can it achieve socialism and freedom through the nationalization of production.