CodalSearch this book — or all of Codal…⌘K
nydus/The ABC of CommunismPublic
Page 194 of 538
Table of Contents

THE SECOND AND THIRD INTERNATIONAL

The working masses were not accustomed to carry on a great fight upon the international scale. Indeed, they had no opportunity for anything of the sort. For the most part the activity of their organisations was confined within the limits of the State administered by their own bourgeoisie. “Their own” bourgeoisie managed to interest in colonial policy a section of the working class, and chiefly the stratum of skilled workers. The same bait was swallowed by the leaders of the working-class organisations, by the working-class bureaucracy, and by the parliamentary representatives of the workers, these being all persons who had secured cosy corners, and were inclined to advocate “peaceful,” “quiet,” and “law-abiding” methods. We have already pointed out that the bloodthirsty aspects of capitalism were especially displayed in the colonies. In Europe and the United States, industry was highly developed, and in these regions the struggle of the working class had assumed comparatively peaceful forms. Since 1871 there had been no great revolutions anywhere except in Russia, and in most countries there had been none since 1848. People were universally accustomed to the idea that the future development of capitalism would be peaceful, and even those who spoke of coming wars hardly believed their own words. A section of the workers, including the working-class leaders, was more and more inclined to accept the idea that the working class was interested in colonial policy and that the workers ought to join forces with their own bourgeoisie in order to promote, in this matter, “the common national welfare.” Consequently, large numbers of the lower middle class flocked into the socialist parties. In Germany, for example, among the members of the social-democratic parliamentary group, there was quite a number of publicans and keepers of working-class restaurants. In 1892, out of 35 socialist M.P.’s, there were 4 following these occupations; in 1905, there were 6 out of 81; in 1912, there were 12 out of 110.

It is not surprising that in critical moments their devotion to the imperialist robber State outweighed their devotion to international solidarity.

194