Marx The Teacher

IV. A DMINISTERING C APITALISM?

1. So far, then, we have not seen any convincing reason why the experiments in political responsibility that socialist parties made after 1918 should not have been perfectly successful. To repeat: in some countries— in Sweden for instance—socialists merely continued to consolidate a power they had acquired before; in others, power had come naturally to them without having to be conquered by revolutionary action; in all countries, they seemed to be much more in a position to grapple with the great problems of the time than was any other party.

As I have put it before, they almost seemed to monopolize the essential conditions for success. Moreover, though most of them had not had any previous experience in office, they had acquired plenty of experience of a most useful sort in 17 This of course particularly applies to the communist group or groups in the United States. The conditions of American politics are not favorable to the growth of an official communist party—a few county treasurerships do not go far from the recruiting standpoint. But the importance of the communist element must not be measured by the membership of the official party. Those intellectuals who are either straight communists or fellow travelers have really no motive to join it. They have every motive to stay out of it, for they are much better able to serve if, without carrying the badge, they conquer positions on opinion-producing committees or in administrative bodies and so on, remaining free to deny, with perfect truth, that they are communists in a party sense. Such invisible groups are incapable of concerted action except for the lead from Moscow.

organizing, negotiating and in administration. In fact, it should be stated at once that they hardly ever did a downright foolish thing. Finally, neither the inevitable emergence of a new party to the left of the socialists nor the connection of that party with Moscow was as serious for them as their opponents tried to make out.

But in spite of all this, their situation was everywhere precarious. To the true believer it might well have seemed an impossible one. For all those tactical advantages hid a fundamental difficulty which they were powerless to remove. The war and the upheaval caused by the war had brought the socialists into office; but below the tatters of the old garb, the social organism, and in particular the economic process, were still what they had been before. That is to say, socialists had to govern in an essentially capitalist world.

Marx had visualized the conquest of political power as the prerequisite of socialization which was to be taken in hand immediately. This implied, however, as in fact Marx’s argument implied throughout, that the opportunity for that conquest would occur when capitalism had run its course or, to use our own phrase again, when things and souls were ripe. The breakdown he thought of was to be a breakdown of the economic engine of capitalism from internal causes. 18 Political breakdown of the bourgeois world was to be a mere incident to this. But now the political breakdown—or something akin to it—had happened, and the political opportunity had occurred, while the economic process was nowhere near maturity as yet. The “superstructure” had moved more quickly than the propelling mechanism. It was a most un- Marxian situation. The student in his closet may speculate about what the course of things would have been if the socialist parties, recognizing the state of things, had refused the Trojan horse of office, remained in the opposition and allowed the bourgeoisie to deal with the wreckage left by the war and by the peace. Perhaps it would have been better for them, for socialism, for the world— who knows? But for men who by that time had learned to identify themselves with their nations and to take the point of view of responsibility there was no choice. They resolutely faced what fundamentally was an insoluble problem.

There was a social and economic system that would not function except on capitalist lines. The socialists might control it, regulate it in the interest of labor, squeeze it to the point of impairing its efficiency—but they were unable to do anything specifically socialist. If they were to run it, they would have to run it according to its logic. They would have to “administer 18 This in part explains the favor enjoyed in the United States by theories which aim at showing that capitalism is as a matter of fact breaking down from internal causes. See ch. x. capitalism.” And this they did. Something was done to dress up their measures in socialist phrases, and the magnifying glass was applied, with some success, to every difference between their policy and what the bourgeois alternative was in each case supposed to be. In substance however they had to do what liberals or conservatives would also have done under the same circumstances. But, though the only possible course, 19 this was, for the socialist parties, a most dangerous one to pursue.

Not that it was entirely hopeless or, from the standpoint of the socialist faith, entirely incapable of defense. At the beginning of the twenties, socialists in Europe may well have hoped that, with luck and cautious steering, they would establish themselves in or near the centers of political power so as to be able to avert any danger of “reaction” and to buttress the position of the proletariat until the day when it would be possible to socialize society without any violent break; they would preside over the euthanasia of bourgeois society and at the same time make sure that the process of dying went on all right and that the victim would not experience a comeback. But for the presence of other factors than those which enter the socialist’s or the labor man’s picture of society, this hope might have come true.

Defense from the standpoint of the Faith might have been based on the proposition stated above, viz., that the situation was a novel one and had not been foreseen by Marx. The bourgeois victim turning to the socialists for shelter—such a case was evidently not provided for in his schema. It might have been argued that under the circumstances even mere “administering capitalism” was a great step in advance. Nor was it a question of administering capitalism in the capitalist interest but of doing honest work in the field of social reform, and of building a state that would pivot on the workman’s interests. In any case that was the only thing to do if the democratic road was to be chosen, for the immaturity of the situation asserted itself precisely by the fact that there were no majorities to be had for the socialist alternative. No wonder that the socialist parties which had resolved to accept office under such circumstances loudly proclaimed their allegiance to democracy!

Thus, the political hack’s craving for office was capable of justification on the highest grounds of doctrine and proletarian interest. The reader will have no difficulty in visualizing how such comfortable concordance must have impressed radical critics. But since later events have induced so many people to speak of the failure of that policy and to lecture the leaders of that

time on what they ought to have done, I do wish to emphasize both the rationale of their views and the compelling nature of the pattern within which they had to act. If failure there was, its causes must be looked for elsewhere than in stupidity or treason. In order to convince ourselves of this we need only glance at the English and German cases.

2. As soon as the orgy of nationalist sentiment that accompanied the close of the war subsided, a genuinely revolutionary situation developed in England, the temper of the masses asserting itself, for instance, by political strikes. Responsible socialists and responsible laborites were so completely driven together by these events—and by the danger of the nation’s being goaded into a truly reactionary mood—that they henceforth accepted a common leadership, at least as far as parliamentary maneuvering was concerned. The lion’s share of the combined weight went to the labor interest and, within the labor interest, to the bureaucracy of a few big unions so that an opposition of disgruntled intellectuals developed almost at once. These intellectuals objected to the laborite character of the alliance and professed themselves unable to see anything socialist about it. The ideological opportunism of the laborites lends some color to this view but, stressing the facts of the situation rather than slogans, we shall nevertheless equate the whole of the political labor forces, as far as they then accepted MacDonald’s leadership, with the Social Democratic party of Germany.

Having successfully emerged from that revolutionary situation the party steadily improved its position until MacDonald came into office in 1924. He and his men made so creditable a showing that even malcontent intellectuals were temporarily subdued. In matters of foreign and colonial policy, this government was able to strike a note of its own—particularly with respect to Russia. In domestic affairs, this was less easy to do, mainly because fiscal radicalism had been (and continued to be) carried, quite as far as was possible under the circumstances, by conservative governments dependent upon a share in the labor vote. But while in legislation the labor government did not go beyond comparative details, it proved itself qualified to administer the nation’s affairs. Snowden’s excellent performance in the office of chancellor of the exchequer would have sufficed to show to the nation and to the world that labor was fit to govern. And this was in itself a service to the cause of socialism. 20

Of course that success was greatly facilitated and any other kind of success was rendered more difficult or even impossible by the fact that the labor government was in a minority and had to rely not only on the cooperation of the liberals—with whom they had much in common, for instance their free-trade views—but also, to some extent, on the tolerance of the conservatives. They were in much the same situation as the conservatives were during their short spells of office in the 1850’s and 1860’s. It would not have been so easy for them to take a responsible attitude if they had had a majority. But, as stated above, the very fact that they had not should have proved even to a Marxist tribunal that the time had not yet come for a stronger course of action—at all events, on any plan that would answer democratic requirements.

The rank and file however did not appreciate all this. Still less did the masses realize that they owed to the labor party not only what that party itself accomplished but also part of what was being done for them by its conservative competitor for the labor vote. They missed spectacular proposals of reconstruction and promises of immediate benefits, and did not know how unfair they were when they naïvely asked: “Why don’t the socialists do something for us now they are in power?” The intellectuals who did not relish being sidetracked naturally availed themselves of the opportunity afforded by this mood in order to attack the sway of the laborites over the true socialists and to work up current grievances into horrible wrongs callously neglected by tyrannical trade-union bureaucrats. Under their influence the Independent Labor party grew increasingly restive during the subsequent years of opposition especially when MacDonald proved impervious to their arguments for a more radical program.21 Thus, to many people, success looked much like failure, and responsibility much like cowardice.

This was unavoidable however. The difficulties and dangers that are inherent in a policy of socialist parties which involves accepting office under conditions of “immaturity” are still better illustrated by the history of MacDonald’s second ministry. 22 Historians have learned to do justice to the

21 That program primarily ran in terms of the socialization of banking and of certain key industries and hence was not really on the lines of orthodox socialism. But under the circumstances it was advertised as the genuine thing whereas MacDonald’s was styled “reformist”—a term which according to classical usage applies equally well to the I.L.P. program. 22 Readers may miss a comment on the general strike of 1926. Though it was to the interest of both parties to the contest to minimize its symptomatic importance and though the official theories of it have been shaped accordingly, it was much more than a series of tactical errors issuing in a situation in which the trade-union congress had to “bluff” and the conservative government had to “call the bluff.” We need only ask ourselves what the consequences of a success would have been, for the authority of government and for democracy, in order to realize that the strike was an historical event of the first order of importance. If that weapon had proved effective, the trade unions would have become absolute masters of England and no other political, judicial or economic power could have continued to exist beside them except on sufferance. And in this position they could not have remained what they were. However reluctantly, the leaders would have had to use the absolute power thrust upon them. For our purpose, only two points need be noticed. First, the situation described above, in particular the discontent that spread among the rank and file and was sedulously fostered by

statesmanship of Sir Robert Peel. 23 I trust that they will learn to do justice to the statesmanship of MacDonald. He had the singular misfortune of coming in at the very beginning of the world depression which, moreover, was the immediate cause of the breakdown of the international system embodied in the League of Nations.

Lesser men might have thought—lesser men did think, as a matter of fact—that an opportunity had come for fundamental reconstruction. This would have rent the nation in two and there cannot be any doubt about what the result would have been. Short of fundamental reconstruction, however, a policy of monetary expansion combined with less-than- fundamental social reform—individual measures of nationalization for instance and additional security legislation—and resort to mercantilist policies in the field of international relations was being widely recommended. But part of this program would undoubtedly have intensified the depression, and the rest of it—abandonment of the gold parity of the pound and mercantilism—meant so radical a break with the national tradition and with the tradition of the labor party itself that the socialists would hardly have been able to carry it, still less to make a success of it; to carry it safely and effectively it had to be carried by consent, that is to say, by a coalition.

So long as coalition was not possible, therefore, MacDonald and his men applied themselves to the task of working the system as they found it. This, under such conditions, was the most difficult of all the tasks they could have undertaken. While everybody was clamoring that “something” must be done at once, while irresponsibles of all types had the floor to themselves, while the masses were grumbling, businessmen despairing, intellectuals ranting, they steadily fought every inch of their ground. At home they kept order in the finances, they supported the pound and they refrained from speeding up the legislative machine. Abroad they strove with desperate energy—and considerable success—to make the Geneva system work and to reduce dangers and tensions all around. When the time had come and the national interest seemed to warrant the party risk, they took the plunge and helped the National Government into existence.

It is a melancholy reflection that, in many and important cases, a policy many irresponsible elements, had much to do with the causation of the strike. Second, the strike did not impair the power of the party-as it might have done. On the contrary, defeat seems to have produced a radicalization of the masses which partly accounts for the party’s success in 1929.

is bound to be the more unpopular with the public and with the intellectual critic the wiser it is. This is a case in point. To the radical critic who failed to link up that policy with the comparative mildness of the depression in England and with the steadiness of the subsequent recovery, there was nothing in it except weakness, incompetence, hidebound traditionalism, if not traitorous abandonment of the socialist cause. What probably was one of the best performances in the history of democratic politics and one of the best examples of action responsibly decided on from a correct perception of an economic and social situation, the critic looked upon with “shame and disgust.” At best he considered MacDonald simply as a bad jockey who had brought the horse to its knees. But the hypothesis that appealed to him most was that the MacDonald government yielded to the diabolical whisperings (or worse) of English bankers or to the pressure of their American backers.

Unfortunately, such nonsense is a factor of real importance and must be taken account of in any attempt at prognosis. It may seriously interfere with the ability of socialist parties to serve the cause of civilization during the transitional age in which we live. But if we discard this element and also the truism that any party which makes a sacrifice in the national interest will suffer for it in the short run, we shall have little difficulty in recognizing that in the long run the labor influence may well turn out to have been strengthened by MacDonald’s second tenure of office. Again the analogy with Sir Robert Peel’s second ministry will help to illustrate this. Peel’s conservative majority split on the issue of the repeal of the corn laws. The Peelite wing, though much more numerous and important than MacDonald’s personal following, soon disintegrated. The conservative party was maimed and proved unable to get into power—though it got three times into office—until Disraeli’s great victory in 1873. But after that and until Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman’s victory in 1905, it held power for about two-thirds of the time. More important than this, the English aristocracy and gentry, politically speaking, held their own all the time much better than they would have done if the stigma of dear bread had not been removed. As a matter of fact, the labor party quickly recovered and consolidated its position in the country during the years that followed upon the split. It is safe to say that even in the normal course of things—irrespective of the war, that is—the socialists would have again come into office before long, with increased power and better chances of success, and that they would have been able to take a stronger line than they had taken previously. But it is equally safe to say that both as to their program and as to their ability to give effect to it, their policy would have differed only A Historical Sketch of Socialist Parties370 in degree from the MacDonald policy—principally by some individual measures of socialization.

3. The postwar career of the German Social Democratic party of course differs from that of the English labor party in many particulars. But as soon as the German socialists who stayed in the Social Democratic party had accepted office and made up their minds to fight communism they were just as much committed to “administer capitalism” as were their English colleagues. If we grant these premises and take account of the fact that they did not have, and could not expect to have in the calculable future, a majority either in the federal parliament or in the Prussian diet or in the population, everything else follows with inexorable logic. In 1925 the total population was about 62 millions. The proletariat (laborers and their families; I include the domestic servants) numbered not quite 28 millions and part of the vote of this class went to other parties. The “independent” population was not much smaller—about 24 millions—and largely impervious to the socialist persuasion. Even if we exclude an upper stratum—say one million—and confine ourselves to the groups that count at the polls—the peasants, artisans, retailers—there was not much to be conquered there, not only for the moment but even for the near future. Between these two groups there were the white- collar employees, no less than 10 millions of them including their families. The Social Democratic party of course realized that this class held the key position, and made great efforts to conquer it. But in spite of considerable success, these efforts only served to show that the white collar is a much more serious barrier than it should be according to the Marxian theory of social classes.24 Thus, even if the communists had been the allies of the Social Democrats instead of being their bitterest enemies, the party would still have been in the minority. It is true that the non-socialist majority was not actively hostile in all its sections: the left-wing liberals (the Democratic People’s party), stronger in talent than in numbers, were always ready for cooperation (up to a point). It is also true that this majority was split up into many groups which were quite incapable of acting in unison and whose members and supporters were not anything like as disciplined as were the Social Democrats themselves. But sensible people who were neither able nor

24 When confronted with this fact socialists usually derive comfort from the arguments that non-socialist employees are just erring sheep who have not yet found their true political location but who are sure to find it eventually, or that they are prevented from joining the party by the ruthless pressure exerted by their employers. The first argument will not carry conviction to anyone beyond the Marxian fold—we have seen that the theory of social classes is one of the weakest links in the Marxian chain. The second argument is false as a matter of plain fact. Whatever truth it may have contained at other times, the German employers of the twenties were, save exceptions without quantitative importance, in no position to influence the vote of their employees.

willing to embark upon hazardous courses would nevertheless feel that there was for them but one line to take—the line of democracy—and that this line spelled coalition.

The party that best qualified for the role of an ally was the Catholic party (the Center). It was powerful. Before the advent of Hitler it seemed that nothing could shake the loyalty of its supporters. Its organization was excellent. Provided the interests of the church were safeguarded, it was prepared to go nearly as far in social reform of the immediately practical kind as were the socialists themselves, in some respects even further. Not harboring any particularly fervent feelings for the displaced dynasties, it stood squarely behind the Weimar constitution. Last but not least, it welcomed spoils-sharing arrangements that would guarantee its preserves. Thus understanding came about with what to the foreign observer might seem surprising ease. The socialists treated the Catholic Church with the utmost deference and tact. They made no difficulties about a concordat with the pope that gave the clergy more than it ever had had under the heretic Hohenzollerns. As to policies, there were hardly any dissensions at all. But although this alliance was fundamental, no party that professed allegiance to the Weimar constitution was excluded from office. Democrats, National Liberals, Nationals (=Conservatives) were all of them admitted, even to positions of high command. Coalition as a universal principle meant compromise as a universal principle. The necessary concessions as to measures were in fact readily made. The army was left alone, practically under management of its own choosing, and adequately provided with means. Eastern Prussia was subsidized and agriculture in general was the object of solicitous care. Some implications of this which might not quite tally with socialist professions were made more palatable to the proletariat that paid the bill by calling this sort of thing Planning—perhaps the reader feels that there is nothing new under the sun.

In its attitude toward the industrial masses and toward its own program the Social Democratic party laborized itself. At the beginning a token payment was made by the passing of a very moderate bill of which the most radical feature consisted in the word Socialization that was inserted in its title (1919). But the socialists soon shelved all this in order to apply themselves to labor legislation of the kind made familiar to Americans by the New Deal. This satisfied the trade unions whose bureaucracy was increasingly allowed to form the operative section of the party’s policy-making machine. This, so one might think, should have been difficult for a party with a Marxian tradition that continued to prevail in the party schools. But it was not. Except for a certain amount of communist defection, the intellectuals from whom opposition within the party could have been expected to arise were kept well in hand. Unlike the English party, the German one had settled down in the administrative apparatus of the Reich, the states and the municipalities. Moreover, it had, in its press and elsewhere, many jobs of its own to offer. This patronage was energetically used. Obedience spelled preferment in the civil service, in the academic career, in the numerous public enterprises and so on. These means were effective in bringing radicals to heel.

The firm hold the Social Democrats acquired on all the parts of the machinery of public administration not only made for stricter discipline but also helped to increase membership and, beyond membership, the vote on which the party was able to count. Of course it also increased its power in other ways. For instance, the socialists secured dominant power in the Prussian Free State. This gave them control of the police force and they were careful to choose party members or reliable careerists for police presidents (chiefs of police) in the big towns. Thus they buttressed their camp until their position seemed impregnable according to all ordinary standards. And, again according to all ordinary rules of political analysis, even an orthodox Marxist could have comforted himself by arguing that in those trenches they could quite comfortably dwell till things in their secular course would of themselves change minority into majority and draw the curtains that veiled the Ultimate Goal for the time being. Quotation from the Communist Manifesto…

Irrespective of the mechanics of the party’s power plant, the political setup as well as the general social situation looked eminently stable. Moreover, whatever might be urged against many individual measures, legislative and administrative, on the whole the coalition’s policies made for and not against stability. Much that was done must command our sincere respect. Nothing that was done qualifies for explanation of anything worse than the ordinary measure of discontent that every regime elicits which lacks authority and glamour. The only possible exception to this lies in the financial sphere. Part of the cultural and political achievements of this governmental system was associated with large and rapidly increasing public expenditure. Furthermore, this expenditure was financed by methods— though a highly successful sales tax was among them—which drained the sources of accumulation. So long as the inflow of foreign capital continued, all went comparatively well, although budgetary and even cash difficulties began to appear more than a year before it ceased. When it did cease, that well-known situation emerged which would have undermined the position of the most magnetic of leaders. All in all, however, the socialist critics of the party and its conduct during this spell of power will be entitled to boast of no mean achievement if, in case they were ever installed in office, they should do equally well