Playing his role in connecting European internationalists with their U.S. counterparts, S.J. Rutgers translates a piece from the new revolutionary Marxist German publication Arbeiterpolitik, edited by Johann Knief in Bremen.

‘From German Socialists: New Methods of Parliamentary Action’ from International Socialist Review. Vol. 17 No. 6. December, 1916.

THE period in the labor movement before the present world war may be called the period of parliamentarism. The organizations grew, victories were gained, there was an illusion of power and…a catastrophe. A new period of Socialism has begun. What position will Parliament, will parliamentary action hold in this new period?

Up until now parliamentary action had to conquer direct improvements for the working class. The delegates of the workers denounced the shortcomings of capitalist society, urged the necessity of improvements, fought every paragraph of every law and proposed amendments. By parliamentary action a growing number of mandates were conquered, a growing amount of power…till at last, as soon as a majority of Parliament, or at least of the citizens, should be in favor of Socialism, the end of the Supremacy of Capital would be in sight.

That such conceptions of the purpose of Parliament are outdone, is clear to almost anybody. That improvements in the conditions of the workers are not conquered by Parliaments is shown beyond the shadow of a doubt in the last decennium in Europe; in the same degree that mandates were conquered, reforms grew less and less important. Imperialism needed all the money and increased the self-consciousness of the capitalist class. And that political power is by no means identical with parliamentary power is clearly shown by the present situation.

Therefore, what can we expect from Parliament? It gives us no reforms and no power. Are we not bound to admit that the syndicalists were right in advising us not to spend energy in parliamentary action?

In order to answer this question, we have to dig a little deeper beyond the surface. What we have given above is only a superficial conception.

Reforms never were brought about by talking or by the suggestions of Socialists in Parliament. They were granted when the dominating class thought it to be of advantage to give reforms. This was brought about by a growing opposition of labor against capitalism. And such opposition was greatly strengthened by parliamentary action, by critics in Parliament. This aroused the masses; this showed them their own interests and what may be expected from bourgeois parties; it uncovered the real objects of the policy of the ruling classes. So indirectly parliamentary action caused reforms, and for this reason the Socialist party got the support of the masses and inspired the workers with a high ideal.

But as soon as the party lost sight of this reality and tried to get improvements by adjusting itself to capitalist politics; as soon as the proletarian power grew less quick than that of the bourgeois, the reforms were withheld. For the power became only a sham power.

How will all this work out under future conditions?

Whatever may be uncertain in future developments, one thing may be considered beyond doubt: Imperialism will not change anything in the fundamental economic position of the workers; it will demand new and great sacrifices; the power will be concentrated in the hands of Big Interests, against which Parliament is powerless. New power can only be gathered by the proletarians when they act as a class, in mass action. Only in this way reforms can be gained.

Now someone may ask: If all depends upon the action of the masses, is it not logical that a true Socialist, who happens to be a member of Congress should reason: I cannot achieve anything in Parliament, same being without significance, so I’ll resign and join the mass-action? The answer will have to be: This would not be the proper thing to do, because a class conscious socialist can do important work also in Congress. It is not true that Parliament under Imperialism is wholly without significance. Parliament is powerless against Imperialism, against the money trust. But it is important and powerful as an instrument of Imperialism.’ Parliament fulfills a very essential function under Imperialism: it is one of the most efficient mental weapons to subjugate the masses and to make them support Imperialism. The solemn speeches, the public statements, the complicated order of business…all this is of a strong suggestive character to the masses. In this also consists the assistance which the Social patriots render to Imperialism. The autocracy of Financial Capital is only possible under the form of acts of Parliament. Even an opposition of words and words alone may be to the advantage of Capitalism, because they satisfy the masses by hollow phraseology. It, therefore, is of the utmost importance that there should be real socialists in Parliament, who make Parliament instead of a tool of Imperialism, a battlefield against imperialism. What is said in Parliament about the real character of Imperialism may reach the remotest and most unconscious group of workers.

Those words will not be hollow long speeches, full of scientifically dressed platitudes, but sharp criticisms, which will come down like lightning. This is another kind of parliamentary action than the old styled one. But when compared with the methods of the best fighters in a period of about thirty years ago, it will prove only to have changed in form, but to be the same in spirit and aim. The essential features being now as before: To awaken the masses and to help in building up the proletarian power by showing the facts in their proper relations. And especially under circumstances under which the ordinary methods of propaganda are interfered with, such parliamentary action can be of utmost importance.

This is not mere theory or a conception for a possible future. (The minority weekly here evidently refers to Liebknecht, without being allowed by the censor to proceed in that line, and continues.): Also in this respect, the new parliamentary methods are very different from the old styled and resemble more the conditions in the early beginnings of parliamentary action, in that the function of the socialist representatives becomes much more difficult and dangerous. Imperialism arouses such strong passions, such a dominating will to conquer power, that a relentless opposition will attract the deepest, most unscrupulous hatred from all of its defendants, the Conservatives as well as the Social patriots.

The new advocates of parliamentary action form the sharpest contrast to those bureaucrats who consider themselves to be indispensable as “leaders,” for the very reason that the new leaders are convinced that the workers will have to learn to dispense with them until they prove to be real leaders, who can show to the workers the road that leads to a better future.

Translated by S.J. Rutgers.

The International Socialist Review (ISR) was published monthly in Chicago from 1900 until 1918 by Charles H. Kerr and critically loyal to the Socialist Party of America. It is one of the essential publications in U.S. left history. During the editorship of A.M. Simons it was largely theoretical and moderate. In 1908, Charles H. Kerr took over as editor with strong influence from Mary E Marcy. The magazine became the foremost proponent of the SP’s left wing growing to tens of thousands of subscribers. It remained revolutionary in outlook and anti-militarist during World War One. It liberally used photographs and images, with news, theory, arts and organizing in its pages. It articles, reports and essays are an invaluable record of the U.S. class struggle and the development of Marxism in the decades before the Soviet experience. It was closed down in government repression in 1918.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/isr/v17n06-dec-1916-ISR-riaz-ocr.pdf