Lenin was a central figure of the Second International, delegate to its congresses and a member of its leading International Socialist Bureau from 1907. Here, a valuable look into the pre-war politics of the Socialist International as Lenin reports on the Stuttgart Congress of 1907, the first held in Germany. With comments on the debates over militarism (where Lenin’s motion won), emigration, colonial policy, parliamentarism, and suffrage, Lenin scores the opportunists and describes the work of Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg on the left. U.S. delegate to the Congress included Frank Bohn and Daniel De Leon for the S.L.P., Louis B. Boudin for the S.P. ‘left’, Fred Heslewood for the I.W.W., Morris Hillquit, Algernon Lee, and A.M. Simons for the S.P. right.

‘The International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart’ (1907) by V. I. Lenin from Selected Works, Vol. 4. International Publishers, New York. 1937.

The Stuttgart Congress held recently was the twelfth congress of the proletarian International. The first five congresses belong to the period of the First International (1866-72), which was guided by Marx, who, as Bebel aptly observed, tried to unite the militant proletariat internationally from above. This attempt could not be successful before the national Socialist Parties were consolidated and strengthened, but the activities of the First International rendered great services to the labour movement of all countries and left lasting traces.

The Second International was inaugurated at the International Socialist Congress in Paris in 1889. At the subsequent congresses in Brussels (1891), in Zurich (1893), in London (1896), in Paris (1900), and in Amsterdam (1904), this new International, resting on strong national parties, was finally consolidated. In Stuttgart there were 884 delegates from 25 nations of Europe, Asia (Japan and some from India), America, Australia and Africa (there was one delegate from South Africa).

The great importance of the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart lies in the fact that it marked the final consolidation of the Second International and the transformation of International congresses into business-like meetings which exercise very considerable influence on the character and the tendency of Socialist work throughout the world. Formally, the decisions of the International congresses are not binding on the individual nations, but their moral importance is such that the non-observance of decisions is, in practice, an exception which occurs almost less frequently than the non-observance by the individual Parties of the decisions of their own congresses. The Amsterdam Congress succeeded in uniting the French Socialists, and its resolution against “ministerialism,” in effect, expressed the will of the class conscious proletariat of the whole world and determined the policy of the working class parties.

The Stuttgart Congress made a big stride forward in the same direction, and on very many important questions it proved to be the supreme body that determines the political line of socialism. The Stuttgart Congress, more firmly than the Amsterdam Congress, determined this line in the spirit of revolutionary Social Democracy against opportunism. The organ of the German Social-Democratic working women, Die Gleichheit (Equality), edited by Clara Zetkin, justly observed in this connection:

“On all questions the various deviations of certain Socialist Parties towards opportunism were corrected in a revolutionary sense with the co-operation of the Socialists of all countries.”

The remarkable and sad feature in this connection was that German Social-Democracy, which hitherto had always upheld the revolutionary standpoint in Marxism, proved to be unstable, or occupied an opportunist position. The Stuttgart Congress confirmed a profound observation uttered by Engels on the German labour movement. On April 29, 1886, Engels wrote to Sorge, a veteran of the First International, as follows:

“In general, it is a good thing that the leadership of the Germans is being challenged somewhat, especially since they have elected so many philistine elements (which is unavoidable, it is true). In Germany everything becomes philistine in calm times; the sting of French competition is thus absolutely necessary.

“And it will not he lacking.”

The sting of French competition was not lacking at Stuttgart, and this sting proved to be really necessary, for the Germans displayed a good deal of philistinism. It is especially important for the Russian Social-Democrats to bear this in mind, for our liberals (and not only the liberals) are doing their utmost to represent precisely the least creditable features of German Social-Democracy as a model worthy of imitation. The most thoughtful, sagacious and distinguished leaders of thought of the German Social-Democrats have themselves noted this fact and, casting aside all false shame, have definitely pointed it out as a warning.

“In Amsterdam,” writes Clara Zetkin’s journal, “the revolutionary Leitmotif of all the debates in the parliament of the world proletariat was the Dresden resolution; in Stuttgart a jarring opportunist note was struck by Vollmar’s speeches in the Commission on Militarism, by Peplow’s speeches in the Emigration Commission, and by David’s [and, we will add, Bernstein’s] speeches in the Colonial Commission. On this occasion, in most of the commissions, on most questions, the representatives of Germany were leaders of opportunism.”

And K. Kautsky in appraising the Stuttgart Congress writes:

“…the leading role which German Social-Democracy has virtually played in the Second International hitherto did not make itself felt on this occasion.”

Let us now pass on to the consideration of the separate questions that were discussed at the congress. The differences of opinion on the colonial question could not be smoothed out in the commission. The controversy between the opportunists and the revolutionaries was settled by the congress itself, settled in favour of the revolutionaries by a majority of 127 votes against 108, with 10 abstentions. Let us incidentally note this welcome feature, that all the Socialists of Russia, unanimously, and on all questions, voted in a revolutionary spirit. (Russia had 20 votes of which 10 were given to the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party not including the Poles, 7 to the Socialist-Revolutionaries and 3 to the representatives of the trade unions. Poland had 10 votes: the Polish Social-Democrats—4, and the Polish Socialist Party and the non-Russian parts of Poland—6. Finally the two representatives of Finland had 8 votes.)

On the colonial question an opportunist majority was formed in the commission, and the following monstrous phrase appeared in the draft resolution: “The congress does not on principle and for all time reject all colonial policy, which, under a socialist regime, may exercise a civilising influence.” In reality this proposition was equal to a direct retreat to the side of bourgeois policy and bourgeois outlook which justifies colonial wars and atrocities. It is a retreat towards Roosevelt, said one of the American delegates. The attempts to justify this retreat by talking about the tasks of a “socialist colonial policy” and of the positive work of reform in the colonies were most unfortunate. Socialism has never refused and never refuses to advocate reforms in the colonies as well; but this has nothing to do, nor should it have anything to do, with the weakening of our principle of opposing conquest, the subjugation of other nations, violence and plunder, which constitute “colonial policy.” The minimum programme of all the Socialist Parties applies both to the “mother country” and to the colonies. The very concept “socialist colonial policy” is an expression of endless confusion. The congress quite properly deleted the above words from the resolution and substituted for them a still sharper condemnation of colonial policy than that contained in former resolutions.

The resolution on the attitude of the Socialist Parties towards the trade unions is of particularly great importance for us Russians. In our country this question is on the order of the day. The Stockholm Congress settled it in favour of non-Party trade unions, i.e., it confirmed the position of our partisans of neutrality, headed by Plekhanov. The London Congress took a step towards Party trade unions as against neutrality. As is known, the London resolution caused great controversy and dissatisfaction in a section of the trade unions and especially in the bourgeois-democratic press.

In Stuttgart, the question raised was essentially as follows: trade union neutrality or closer rapprochement between the trade unions and the Party? And, as the reader may gather from the resolution, the International Socialist Congress declared in favour of closer rapprochement between the unions and the Party. There is nothing in the resolution to suggest that the trade unions should be neutral or non-Party. Kautsky, who in the German Social-Democratic Party advocated the rapprochement between the unions and the Party as against the neutrality advocated by Bebel, was therefore fully entitled to announce to the Leipzig workers in his report on the Stuttgart Congress (Vorwdrts, 1907, No. 209, Beilage):

“The resolution of the Stuttgart Congress expresses all we want. It puts an end to neutrality forever.”

Clara Zetkin writes:

“No one” (in Stuttgart) “any longer disputed on principle the fundamental, historical tendency of the proletarian class struggle to link the political with the economic struggle, to unite the political and economic organisations as closely as possible into a single socialist working class force. Only the representative of the Russian Social-Democrats, Comrade Plekhanov” (she should have said the representative of the Mensheviks, who delegated him to the commission as an advocate of neutrality), “and the majority of the French delegation attempted, by rather unconvincing arguments, to justify a certain limitation of this principle on the plea that especial conditions prevailed in their countries. The overwhelming majority of the congress favoured a resolute policy of unity between Social Democracy and the trade unions.”

It should be observed that Plekhanov’s unfortunate (according to Zetkin’s just opinion) argument went the rounds of the Russian legally published papers in this form. Plekhanov in the commission of the Stuttgart Congress referred to the fact that “in Russia there are eleven revolutionary parties,” and asked: “With which of them should the trade unions unite?” (We are citing from Vorwarts, No. 196, I. Beilage.) Plekhanov’s reference is wrong both in fact and in principle. In reality, not more than two parties in every nationality of Russia are fighting for influence over the socialist proletariat: Social-Democrats and Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Polish Social-Democrats and the Polish Socialist Party, the Lettish Social-Democrats and the Lettish, Socialist-Revolutionaries (the so-called Lettish Social-Democratic League), the Armenian Social-Democrats and the Dashnaktsutyuns, etc. The Russian delegation in Stuttgart also at once divided into two sections. The figure eleven is altogether arbitrary and misleads the workers. As regards principles, Plekhanov is wrong because the struggle between proletarian and petty-bourgeois socialism in Russia is inevitable everywhere, including the trade unions. The English delegates, for example, did not even think of opposing the resolution, although they, too, have two socialist parties fighting each other—the Social-Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party.

That the idea of neutrality, which was rejected in Stuttgart, had had time to inflict much damage on the labour movement is seen particularly clearly from the example of Germany. There, neutrality has been preached most and applied most. As a result, the trade unions of Germany have deviated so obviously in the direction of opportunism that this deviation was openly admitted even by a man like Kautsky, who is so cautious on this question.

In his report to the Leipzig workers he directly stated that the “conservatism” shown by the German delegation in Stuttgart “becomes understandable if we bear in mind the composition of this delegation. Half of it consisted of representatives of the trade unions, and thus the ‘Right wing’ of our Party was more strongly represented than their actual strength in the Party warranted.”

The resolution of the Stuttgart Congress will undoubtedly hasten the decisive break of Russian Social-Democracy with the idea of neutrality so beloved by our liberals. While observing the necessary caution and gradualness, and without taking any rash or tactless steps, we must work persistently in the trade unions for the purpose of drawing them nearer and nearer to the Social Democratic Party.

Then, on the question of emigration and immigration, a very definite difference of opinion arose between the opportunists and the revolutionaries in the commission of the Stuttgart Congress. The opportunists fostered the idea of limiting the right of emigration of the backward uneducated workers—especially the Japanese and the Chinese. In the minds of these opportunists, the spirit of narrow craft seclusion, of trade union exclusiveness, outweighed the realisation of the socialist tasks, viz., the work of educating and organising those strata of the proletariat which have not ‘yet been drawn into the labour movement. The congress rejected everything that smacked of this spirit. Even in the commission there were only a few solitary votes in favour of limiting the freedom of emigration, and the resolution adopted by the International Congress is permeated with the recognition of the solidarity of the workers of all countries in the class struggle.

The resolution on the question of women’s suffrage was also passed unanimously. Only one Englishwoman from the semi-bourgeois “Fabian Society” defended the admissibility of a struggle for women’s suffrage which was to be limited to those possessing property, instead of a struggle for full women’s suffrage. The congress absolutely rejected this and declared in favour of working women conducting the struggle for the franchise, not in conjunction with the bourgeois partisans of women’s rights, but in conjunction with the class parties of the proletariat. The congress recognised that in the campaign for women’s suffrage it was necessary to uphold fully the principles of socialism and equal rights for men and women without distorting these principles for the sake of expediency.

In this connection an interesting difference of opinion arose in the commission. The Austrians (Victor Adler, Adelheid Popp) justified their tactics in the struggle for manhood suffrage: for the sake of winning this suffrage, they thought it expedient in their agitation not to put the demand for women’s suffrage in the foreground. The German Social-Democrats, and especially Zetkin, had protested against this when the Austrians conducted their campaign for universal suffrage. Zetkin declared in the press that they should not under any circumstances have neglected the demand for women’s suffrage, that the Austrians had opportunistically sacrificed principle for the sake of expediency, and that they would not have narrowed the sweep of their agitation, but would have widened it and increased the strength of the popular movement had they with equal energy fought for women’s suffrage also. In the commission Zetkin was supported whole-heartedly by another prominent German woman Social-Democrat, Zietz. Adler’s amendment, which indirectly justified the Austrian tactics, was rejected by 12 votes to 9 (this amendment merely stated that there should be no abatement of the struggle for a suffrage that would really extend to all citizens, instead of stating that the struggle for suffrage should always be accompanied by the demand for equal rights for men and women). The point of view of the commission and of the congress may be most exactly expressed in the following words uttered by the above-mentioned Zietz in her speech at the International Conference of Socialist Women (this conference took place in Stuttgart simultaneously with the congress):

“On principle we must demand all that we consider to be correct,” said Zietz, “and only when we lack forces for the struggle do we accept what we are able to obtain. Such have always been the tactics of Social-Democracy. The more moderate our demands the more moderate will be the government’s concessions.”

This controversy between the Austrian and German women Social-Democrats will enable the reader to see how sternly the best Marxists regard the slightest deviation from the principles of consistent revolutionary tactics.

The last day of the congress was devoted to the question of militarism in which everyone took the greatest interest. The notorious Hervé advocated a very unsound position.” He was unable to connect war with the capitalist regime in general, and anti-militarist agitation with the entire work of socialism. Hervé’s scheme, to “reply” to any war by a strike and an uprising, revealed an utter lack of understanding of the fact that the application of one or other of the means of struggle depends not on any decision revolutionaries may have made previously but on the objective conditions of the particular crisis, both economic and political, caused by the war.

But even though Hervé did show that he was light-minded, superficial and easily carried away by resonant phrases, it would be extreme short-sightedness to reply to him by a mere dogmatic exposition of the general truths of socialism. Vollmar particularly dropped into this error (of which Bebel and Guesde were not entirely free). With the extraordinary conceit of a man infatuated with stereotyped parliamentarism, he attacked Hervé without noticing that his own narrow-mindedness and crusty opportunism compel one to recognise the living stream in Hervéism, in spite of the theoretical absurdity and folly of the manner in which Hervé himself presents the question. It sometimes happens that at a new turning point of a movement, theoretical absurdities cover up some practical truth. And this aspect of the question, the appeal that not only parliamentary methods of struggle should be valued, the appeal to act in accordance with the new conditions of the future war and the future crisis, was stressed by the revolutionary Social-Democrats, especially by Rosa Luxemburg in her speech. Together with the Russian Social-Democratic delegates (Lenin and Martov acted in full agreement on this), Rosa Luxemburg proposed amendments to Bebel’s resolution, and these amendments emphasised the need for agitation among the youth, the necessity of taking advantage of the crisis created by war for the purpose of hastening the downfall of the bourgeoisie, the necessity of bearing in mind the inevitable change of methods and means of struggle in accordance with the intensification of the class struggle and the changes in the political situation. Bebel’s resolution, dogmatically one-sided, dead, and open to a Vollmarian interpretation, was thus finally transformed into an altogether different resolution. All the theoretical truths were repeated in it for the edification of the Hervéists, who are capable of forgetting socialism for the sake of anti-militarism. But these truths did not serve as an introduction to a justification of parliamentary cretinism, to the sanction of peaceful methods alone, to the worship of the present relatively peaceful and quiet situation, but to the recognition of all methods of struggle, to the appraisal of the experience of the revolution in Russia, to the development of the active creative aspect of the movement.

Zetkin’s journal, to which we have referred more than once, very aptly describes this most outstanding, most important feature of the congress resolution on anti-militarism:

“And here too,” says Zetkin about the anti-militarist resolution, “the revolutionary energy (Tatkraft) as well as the courageous faith of the working class in its fighting capacity finally gained a victory over the pessimistic gospel of impotence and the fossilised tendency to confine oneself to old, exclusively parliamentary methods of struggle, as well as over the banal anti-militarist sport of the French semi-anarchists of the Hervé type. The resolution, which was finally carried unanimously both by the commission and by nearly 900 delegates of all countries, expresses in energetic terms the gigantic upsurge of the revolutionary labour movement since the last International Congress; the resolution advances as a principle of proletarian tactics their flexibility, their capacity for development, their intensification (Zuspitsung) in proportion as conditions ripen for that purpose,”

Hervéism has been rejected, but rejected not in favour of opportunism, not from the point of view of dogmatism and passivity. The keen striving for ever more resolute and new methods of struggle is wholly recognised by the international proletariat and linked up with the intensification of all the economic contradictions, with all the conditions of crises created by capitalism.

Not the empty Hervéist threat, but the clear conviction of the inevitability of the social revolution, firm determination to fight to the end, readiness to adopt the most revolutionary methods of struggle—such is the significance of the resolution of the International Socialist Congress in Stuttgart on the question of militarism.

The army of the proletariat is growing in all countries. Its class consciousness, unity and determination are growing by leaps and bounds. And capitalism is successfully providing for a greater frequency of crises, which this army will utilise in order to destroy capitalism.

International Publishers was formed in 1923 for the purpose of translating and disseminating international Marxist texts and headed by Alexander Trachtenberg. It quickly outgrew that mission to be the main book publisher, while Workers Library continued to be the pamphlet publisher of the Communist Party.

PDF of full issue: https://archive.org/download/selected-works-vol.-4/Selected%20Works%20-%20Vol.%204.pdf