Whether a workers' party waits or fights
Over twenty years the same question returns in these pieces under new names: may socialists share in governing, rely on elections, hold back a movement already in the streets?
In 1899 the French socialist Alexandre Millerand entered a non-socialist cabinet. Luxemburg's articles on the case hold that in bourgeois society a socialist party is by nature an opposition, and that Millerand, who stayed in office after troops shot strikers, ended as the government's hostage. In 1904 she describes the Reichstag as a machine for saying yes to decisions taken elsewhere, worth defending only with pressure from outside it. In 1910 the opponent is Karl Kautsky, who advised wearing the enemy down until the next elections. She answers that this strategy of attrition comes to nothing but parliamentarism, and asks the party to raise the demand for a republic.
- political strategy
- parliamentary politics
- mass strikes
- republicanism
- party politics
- social democracy
- political action
- mass movements
- trade unions
Enter a dialogue
- The French socialist Millerand stayed in cabinet after troops shot strikers, as you recount in “The Socialist Crisis in France”. Why does a ministry bind a socialist's hands?
- A socialist party may govern only on the ruins of the bourgeois state, you wrote in “A Tactical Question”. Why rule out sharing power before then?
- In “Theory and Practice” you urge your party to demand a republic. Why, when even the best republic remains, by your own account, a class state?
- In “Social Democracy and Parliamentarism” you call the Reichstag an automatic yes-machine for decisions taken elsewhere. Why should socialists still fight to keep it?
- Your article on the origin of May Day traces it to Australian workers who stopped work for a day in 1856. What can one day without work change?