A 1902 missive against Millerandism from Charles Rappoport, who defends Marx the revolutionist against his opportunist falsifiers and detractors.

‘Evolution and Revolution’ by Charles Rappoport from the Weekly People. Vol. 12 No. 23. September 6, 1902.

The following is translated from a pamphlet “Socialisme de Gouvernement et Socialisme Revolutionnaire” by Chas. Rappoport, and reproduced in The Workers Republic. Dublin. If contrasts the conception of Socialism which has sprung up as the outcome of opportunist Millerandism with the revolutionary Socialism preached by Marx, Engels, and other scientific exponents of the doctrine.

The new method is evolutionary. The new method is reformatory. The new method holds before all things to legality. It is therefore, above all things legal. In order to properly understand it in all its beauty, in all its grandeur, we have to study successively its conceptions of evolution, of reform and of legal revolution.

We take them in order and we begin at evolution.

The partisans of the new method owing, doubtless, to an excess of loyalty, put into the mouths of revolutionists, absurdities, which they have naturally only made ready use of. The revolutionists say they believe that the social revolution will be the result of a coup de main, of a skirmish with the police, or better, to use a favorite expression of the minister, (is it necessary to name him?) by a ‘stroke of a magic wand.’

The revolutionists are travested into socialist magicians, into miracle workers. And the realists of State Socialism– great idealists, in theory–never miss an occasion of manifesting haughty disdain for these dreamers of impossible catastrophies. They alone are in perfect accord with modern science, based on the idea of evolution. The revolutionists are romancers, benighted persons, in a word Utopians. Has not Bernstein said that Marx himself was often a common Blanquiste?

What is the reality?

Let us state in the first place that all the great masters of contemporary socialism, those even of them who have introduced therein the idea of Evolution. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Pierre Lavroff, were, during all their lives convinced revolutionists. This is an undeniable fact, and we will prove it.

The socialist work of Karl Marx has been compared to that of Darwin in the domain of nature. Indeed, his classic work, the Manifesto, by itself perhaps, of all the books of our time, is that which in a much restricted form, (thirty pages) containing such profound ideas, develops entirely a system of the, evolution of capitalist society. In the Manifesto we see Socialism coming forth by the mere force of circumstances from the loins even of capitalist society. It is capitalism itself that creates its own grave digger–the proletariat organized as a class party.

The Manifesto terminates with the ultra-revolutionary declaration:

“Communists consider it unworthy to cloak their conceptions and their aims. They declare openly that their goal can be attained only by the violent destruction of the existing social regime. Let the ruling class tremble before a communist revolution. The proletariat have nothing save their chains to lose thereby. They have a world to gain.”

We are far here from the theory “Be afraid to cause fear” which has led its author to the ministry of commerce.

The idealist Pierre Lavroff on the question of violent revolution was in complete agreement with Marx. He preached during the whole of his glorious career. ‘Revolution in the name of reason, of justice and of humanity.’ He sought to scientifically establish that ‘every socialist who thought logically ought to be a revolutionist,’ and he added always that the revolution would not be accomplished without violence. Pierre Lavroff introduced scientific philosophy into Russia, so contributing more than any other to the defeat of metaphysical and theological ideas in his own country. He was the sworn enemy of the miracle–meaning thereby the miracle of the social transformation by participation (in Bourgeois government).

The statement of Marx, that in England the Revolution could accomplish itself peacefully and legally is made use of in the same manner. In his preface to the English translation of Capital, Engels, recalling the words of his illustrious friend, wrote, ‘But he never forgot to add that he doubted very much that the English ruling classes would agree to a peaceful and legal revolution.’ (Introduction to Capital, 1887.) In other words, the revolution will be superfluous if the ruling classes be in a mood to commit suicide. It is evident that Marx, who thoroughly understood the economic conditions of England, only meant to convey that the materials for the revolution were there at hand, and in order to accomplish the revolution there needed only the revolutionary lever.

In 1887, at the Congress of Saint-Gall, Bebel said, ‘He who says that the final goal of Socialism will be brought about peacefully, either knows not what that goal is, or is mocking us.’ Furthermore, it is only in its scientific period of development based on the idea and the principle of evolution that socialism affirms itself revolutionary. The great Utopians, Fourier, Owen and Saint-Simon were peaceful reformers. This was precisely the period when social reformers addressed themselves to monarchs soliciting their co-operation in social reform in the name of ‘social preservation.’ The triumph of the truly realistic spirit was at the same time the triumph of the revolutionary spirit.

There exists only quacks who do not see beyond the end of their nose or those who have an interest in distorting historic truth, who pretend that revolution is contrary to evolution, of which it is in reality the fatal, irresistible, crowning point.

Thus, the Utopian period of Socialism was pacific. The scientific period adopts the revolutionary tactics.

Ferdinand Lassalle, who was the promoter of universal suffrage in Germany, the man par excellence of peaceful and immediate action, extolled the revolution as a means to an end, even in all work of, serious reform. He pointed to great reforms which have been realised only by revolution. For him as for every modern Socialist, the revolution is only a movement, a period of crises in what is called the ‘normal’ evolution of society, an evolution which has come to a head.

New York Labor News Company was the publishing house of the Socialist Labor Party and their paper The People. The People was the official paper of the Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP), established in New York City in 1891 as a weekly. The New York SLP, and The People, were dominated Daniel De Leon and his supporters, the dominant ideological leader of the SLP from the 1890s until the time of his death. The People became a daily in 1900. It’s first editor was the French socialist Lucien Sanial who was quickly replaced by De Leon who held the position until his death in 1914. Morris Hillquit and Henry Slobodin, future leaders of the Socialist Party of America were writers before their split from the SLP in 1899. For a while there were two SLPs and two Peoples, requiring a legal case to determine ownership. Eventual the anti-De Leonist produced what would become the New York Call and became the Social Democratic, later Socialist, Party. The De Leonist The People continued publishing until 2008.

PDF of issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/the-people-slp/020906-weeklypeople-v12n23.pdf