The Austrian Social Democratic Party
We have received this article from an Austrian comrade who, after a period in England, was deported to Austria at the conclusion of the first world war owing to having given expression to his socialist views while detained here as an “enemy alien.” Apart from the alteration of a word or two for the sake of clarity to English readers the article is published as it was received. It is evidence that there are workers on the Continent who share our outlook. It also shows that the errors of Labourism know no frontiers. Ed. Comm.
Workers in other lands may well ask themselves what has become of what used to be called Austro-Marxism. It was a social reformist movement, somewhat ahead of the British Labour Party, which it still is, since the head of the movement is now the head of the State. However high some heads of the British Labour Party may have climbed, they have not yet reached that pinnacle attained by a head of the Austrian movement. Perish the thought that such aspirations to the throne should exist among the English brethren ! Another stately white head chosen from the “reds” is at the head of the Vienna city council. Thus the city remains “red” Vienna, and since I have just read in theArbeiter Zeitung a reference to “red London,” there will be no need for the writer to explain to Englishmen the difference between red and red white-and-blue. Also, the respectful and enthusiastic recognition which these heads receive from all the other great and greater ones of the earth, would seem to answer the question where Austro-Marxism has landed. It should also answer the question as to the value of the movement to the working class.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And by what other test are we to appraise the quality of these heads if not by their work and policy as it affected the mass of the working population under their administration? Always applying that test, no socialist could be found on the side of those who are eulogizing and singing the praise of Franz Josef as a statesman. Under his reign, the conditions of the great mass of the people were bad. It was capitalism, and capitalism is what it is, the leopard cannot change it« spots. Neither can the bug leave the sucking of blood. Poverty and misery stalked the lands forming the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whilst a comparatively small class lived in comfort and luxury without doing any useful work. But what are we to say of an administration and conditions under which the mass of the people are ever lamenting the passing of even that epoch as the “good old times”? A Gallup poll taken on the question of how many Austrians would prefer a return from the times of Karl Renner to those of Franz Josef might indeed yield an interesting result. Fact is that the mention of the old monarch seldom fails to conjure up expressions of regret, coupled with a long sigh. On the other hand, those other simple souls who had lent a willing ear to Franz Josef’s successors and thought that the advent of Karl Renner meant the advent of better times or Karl Marxism, are of course sadly disappointed. It is no use referring these disillusioned and disconsolate people to the achievements of the Social Democratic Party, both in the field of social and of political reforms. Somehow these achievements will not enthuse, they will not defeat or make nonsense of the “good old times” wail. To make ends meet and to feed and clothe her family is now a far greater problem for the working class housewife than it used to be in days gone by, when a breakfast gulash and a glass of wine was always within easy reach of the husband. And with all the tenement houses built by the “red” Vienna municipality, the problem of accommodation is worse now than ever before. In the political field too, there is no cause for enthusiasm. Who can forget the tragic events of February, 1934, when the rottenness of the Social Democratic Party’s policy enabled a miserable and mediocre but brutal clique of fascist gangsters to crush that organisation, inflicting terrible punishment on thousands of workers and their families? For workers to organize, with their poor means, an armed force against the forces of the State, is of course the height of folly; it amounts to suicide. Yet such was the advice of the Austrian labour leaders, with the tragic results that are well known. Similar bungling episodes, involving great sacrifices from, and punishment for, the workers occurred in 1937 and in connection with the advent of Hitler. Surely, Franz Josef’s political unintelligence could not have done worse.
Capitalism, whether black or red, will produce evils at a far more rapid rate than its would-be reformers are able to cope with. No sooner have they patched up one evil than others crop up in its place. Sometimes the remedy is worse than the disease. The philosopher’s words to the effect that, if you reform a nonsense, you get a reformed nonsense, would seem to apply to the work of the whole crowd of job-hunting labour fakirs.
However, if the present head of the Austrian State, who passes as a representative of Austro-Marxism, or what is left of it, has nothing in common with Karl Marx’s work, he has something in common with Franz Josef. Both, it appears, have had one ambition in life: to do their duty. We have it from an intimate friend of the President that “to do his duty” has been his life’s ambition. Sure, Franz Josef also did his duty—to the possessors of wealth and privilege. He did not make socialists. He did not teach the workers how the capitalists’ wealth is filched from them through the wages system. He did not teach them how this very robbery is the cause of the people’s poverty, misery and insecurity; how the monopoly of the instruments of production causes the great class conflict raging in society between the haves and the have-nots, and how, finally, it leads to the commercial rivalries and fearful international conflicts between the Powers.
Neither Franz Josef nor Karl Renner can be reproached for such “subversive” teaching. Both did their duty, conscientiously assisting the capitalists in maintaining their system of wealth and privilege for the few and poverty and insecurity for the many. So effectively have they managed affairs for the capitalists that the mass of the people still believe in the necessity of supporting this system despite all the failures, catastrophes and disasters which periodically overwhelm society. Though, once upon a time, when the leaders of old Austro-Marxism were yet far from the lucrative jobs to which they have since attained, the present occupant of the throne in the Hofburg did propagate, occasionally and however inconsistently, Marx’s discoveries, and filled the workers’ hearts with enthusiasm and hope of being led forward to the millennium, it should now be abundantly clear that they were in reality led up the garden.
Thanks to the leaders of Austro-Marxism having in this way done their duty, the Austrian workers who trusted them, are, after sixty years of Social Democracy, little conscious of the fact that working for wages means producing surplus-value (unpaid) for the pockets of share-holders, landlords and other owners of property, and to maintain them and their retinue of lackeys, ministers and agents of all sorts in a life of ease and luxury, without their taking part in the production of the necessaries of life. True, the robbery taking place as it does in the complex process of production, is obscured by the wages system. The part of the value produced by the worker but not paid for by the employer, is indistinguishable from the part paid in the form of wages, the worker’s means of subsistence. The worker appears to be paid for the whole of his product, whereas in reality, he only gets a part of it, enough to enable him to keep alive and to reproduce his kind. But it is the business of a working class party, and especially of those calling themselves socialist, to enlighten the workers on this all-important fundamental point. The worker must he helped to understand that the production of surplus value (unpaid labour) is the pivot of the whole mechanism of the capitalist mode of production, in other words, that the exploitation with its attendant evils of poverty and insecurity of the working class is the indispensable condition of wealth production in present-day society. He must also understand that as long as a small section of the people own and control the instruments of production and distribution, as long as the mass of the people remain dispossessed, there can be no harmony and no peace in society, neither within the nation nor between nations.
Since man has a rooted objection to being robbed, it is quite obvious that only lack of understanding can account for the workers’ acquiescence in that system of legalized robbery. Through sheer ignorance also does he listen to and vote for individuals committed to the administration and continuation of that monstrous system. Once the worker becomes aware that he is the victim of robbery in the process of production, once he becomes conscience of the real cause of his frustration and wretchedness, once he realizes the futility and deceit of so-called social reforms advocated by honest or dishonest labour leaders and pseudo-socialists, the worker will see his way clear and know what line of action to take to end his misery and degradation. He will organize with his fellow-workers in whatever trade or land they may be for the purpose not of parleying with the robber-class, humbly asking for petty concessions and doles, but for the one purpose of stopping the plunder by overthrowing the thieving system. Strong in the knowledge that they are the sole producers of all wealth, the working class will repudiate the right and title of the non-producers to ownership and control of the machinery for wealth production and distribution. In revolt against the competitive system of capitalism—the cause of all modern wars— the workers will then no longer allow themselves to be fooled into fighting their master’s battles, which means in effect fighting the enemies of their enemies. Instead of wasting their time listening to the fraudulent promises, fancy phrases and appeals to patriotism, the workers will declare war on their master’s system by inscribing on the banners :
As instruments for educating the workers to class-consciousness and socialism, the Social Democratic Parties on the Continent have failed and are useless.
To such extent has this education been neglected in favour of a policy of assisting the capitalists to maintain capitalism and make that monstrous system workable, patching up evils, that the object, the only object in the fight for which the working class would not be wasting their time, is entirely lost sight of. While Russia provides the best illustration of the awful confusion to which the labour leaders have brought things, the S.D.P. on the Continent, including Austria, are not far behind in the fraudulent use of the name of Socialism.
So thoroughly have the masses been deluded and confused that anyone telling them that Socialism implies the end of money and capital, therefore the end of buying and selling, including of course the buying and selling of labour power, is invariably dubbed an impossibilist and a Utopian. They will say that they never heard of it; they certainly never read anything about it in the Arbeiter Zeitung. Judging by the contents of these “workers journals,” it would seem that the whole journalistic tribe have no notion whatever of the implications of Socialism. They seem to be totally oblivious of the fact that Socialism means something definite, namely the organisation of the working class for the sole purpose of overthrowing capitalism, and that all the land, all the factories and workshops, all the mines and forests, the railways and ships, all the stores and sources of supplies, in short, all the means and instruments of wealth production shall be converted to common property. For the journalistic scribes of the Arbeiter Zeitungen and the Communist papers, money and wages, interest and profits and the rest of the paraphernalia of capitalism continue to exist under Socialism !
Though the rank and file of the S.D.P. may now be described as anything but enthusiastic, they will argue that you must be practical, reasonable and rational. Hut where exactly reason and rationality comes in in a world that has in half a century of “practical” labour policy not solved a single problem but has instead seen the carnage, human and material ruin of ten years of war in one generation, and a world that is making gigantic preparations for a third one, it is hard to see. With labour governments in a number of countries large and small, with social democratic politicians and statesmen in high and influential positions in other lands, this world is so upside-down, so glaringly out of joint, it has roused man’s inhumanity to man to a pitch unparalleled in all history. The accumulation of the most destructive and terrifying arms is so enormous, the expenditure and waste of human energy in teaching and training men to operate these instruments of dealing death and destruction is so great, the forebodings of a third world war are so sinister, the general feeling of helplessness in face of this prospect and the acute tension between the great and small Powers, is so pitiful, that to talk of the actions and policies of your leaders of political parties being practical, reasonable and rational, is surely a had joke. Those must be blind indeed who support and vote at elections for individuals committed to carry on this sorry and sordid business of capitalism, whether privately or State administered. Do they not know that by doing so they admit a small clique’s unwarrantable and unjustifiable right to own and control the means of wealth production and there¬ with admit the right to inflict on the workers a life of poverty, wretchedness and degradation?
Recently the Vienna Arbeiter Zeitung celebrated its sixtieth anniversary. On that occasion it published a special edition running through some fifty pages. The work of the party in these sixty years was gratefully acknowledged and rewarded by no fewer than twenty-five pages of capitalist advertisements. So has Austro-Marxism deteriorated into a purely commercial enterprise. In their turn, the Arbeiter Zeitung showed their appreciation and solicitude for their paymasters by not bringing any jarring or discordant notes, such as, for instance, a declaration of the basic principles of Socialism or some elucidation of what the scientific work of its founders might have meant, to capitalist ears. Indeed the names of Marx and Engels were not even mentioned; it was also thought out of place to print the declaration of principles laid down at Hainfeld sixty years ago. Instead there were, in addition to the advertisement, pages of the usual clap-trap and meaningless vapouring from most of the leaders who sit in high and well-paid positions in the administration of the capitalist slate. All that the workers learned from these effusions is that Socialism means freedom, social justice, planning and similar virtues which have been for years the regular stock-in-trade of every capitalist politician in the world.
Perhaps the editor fell that lack, for he delivered himself of what looks like an apology in these words :
“It is not the individual items on the agenda, not the declaration of principles, not the speeches and resolutions that are the features bestowing on the Hainfeld meeting its historic significance. That which gives it its transcendent importance, is the principle which the Austrian party has never again forgotten, the principle which has maintained the party big and strong, is the principle of Unity.”
The purpose of this unity was not stated, but as it is obviously not sought for the purpose of overthrowing capitalism, unity can only he wanted for the purpose of making capitalism workable and perpetuating it. Do they not constantly harp on the urgent need of “reconstruction”—Wiederaufbau, as they call it here, of the more or less shattered capitalist world? After all, they are “practical” people and with twenty-five pages of advertisements, and the reproduction of the congratulations from all parts of the world, the jubilee edition of the Arbeiter Zeitung had neither space nor time for the discussion of “Utopias” such as the abolition of the wages system and the ousting of the profit-motive from this valley of toil and tears.
This year, in the Autumn, Elections are to be held, and the S.D.P. has already started its campaign to obtain a majority in the, Austrian Parliament. Appeals for support are being launched and not only at home. One of the prominent leaders of “Austro-Marxism” has gone to England, parleying with the heads of “Anglo Marxism” with a view to enlisting their support Speakers are even to be sent to Austria to address and impress the electorate. In a brochure written by Dr. Karl Renner, “The New World and Socialism,” the author says :
“Socialism has entered its period of realization; it is close to hand. Everywhere the workers are reaching out for the State, in many parts the have actually seized power, in others they have learned to handle it and obtained proud successes. Two of the greatest empires are already being controlled by the working-class, the Russian and the British imperium, involving the decisive part of the earth.”
There is no need to send for Russian “Marxists” to help in the campaign since those, apostles of “emancipation and liberation” are already in the country, in force.
And here is what Morgan Phillips, General Secretary of the Labour Party, wrote after a visit to Russia in 1946 :
“During my visit I was particularly anxious to learn from personal experience of the achievements of a socialist regime which has been in power for thirty years . . . Side by side with streamlined automobiles you find the bare-footed, poorly-clad peasant selling fruit and vegetables. During a luxurious stay in Moscow and Leningrad we saw the poor conditions of life of the overwhelming majority of the population. In the Russian capital, for example, two or even three families are often living in one room . . . There are still twenty-five million homeless in 1945, more than two million were exposed to the rigours of the Russian winter, living in earth-holes.”
Which did not prevent Morgan Phillips from saying:
“All on all, my first impressions of Russia were very favourable . . . Whereas we in England have only just begun with socialist planning, the Russians have had it for thirty years.”
Though the British delegate apparently did not see the Soviet prisons and forced labour camps, one may assume that even if he had his good impressions would not have been shaken any more than did the sight of the other “strange things and contrasts,” or the knowledge of the tremendous military preparations at a cost of sixty-six milliard Roubles per annum.
Here you have two shining lights in the European labour movement asserting that a socialist regime has already been established for years in a considerable part of the earth whilst on other occasions and in party publications the idea of Russia being a socialist country is being repudiated. The idea of Russia being socialist is of course a cruel hoax, and we quote the above two statements merely to show to what humbug and propaganda nonsense the working-class are being treated by their leaders. And the workers are asked to vote for these same individuals whose utter bankruptcy must be clear to anyone taking even a slight interest in social and political affairs !
Withal, the Social Democratic Party has its troubles and trials. They have not only to contend with their old antagonists, the avowed capitalist party, the “Christian Socials” (now the Oesterreichische Volkspartei) and the Communists who are reinforced by the Russian occupation element, but, like the Labour Party in England, the S.D.P. now finds itself faced with antagonistic elements within its own ranks. Do these elements revolt against the non-socialist policy of the party and its betrayal of the cause of Socialism? While such is not the case, the prospects are that even such a shadow will sooner or later fall across their path. The present rebels are as anti-socialist as the loyalists, or for that matter as the rebels inside the British Labour Party, but other more formidable ones will turn up. As long as secession is due only to personal squabbles, to discontent and disagreement with party policy on certain aspects of, and approaches to, reforms, the matter is not serious, though embarrassing. A little brochure entitled: “I cannot be silent” (note the emphasis on the “I”!> published by one of the rebels, proves how little these controversies have to do with principles. Indeed, the pamphlet is but a boring record of correspondence and controversies between these leaders, which it would be a waste of time to dwell on here. In vain would yon also search the columns of the rebel publications such as the Neuer Vorwärts for a statement of working class policy differing in any essential from that of the old S.D.P. Nevertheless, the day cannot be far distant when a genuine socialist party, based on true Marxian principles, such as the S.P.G.B., will emerge from the present bewildering chaos in these as in other parts of the capitalist world.
R.