(d) The Policy of Coalition

The Middle Class Revolution ended in counter-revolution, the instrument of which is usually military dictatorship. This is made possible by the fact that, after the ravages of the internecine strife into which they plunge, the various classes of the Revolution – bourgeoisie, peasants, and workers – reach a state of equilibrium, in which none of these classes is able to assert its political dominance over the others. At this stage democracy is not yet firmly rooted, while the civil war and the foreign wars which are a frequent incident of the revolutionary period result in the creation of a new, strictly disciplined army which takes the place of the old and now dissolved army of absolutism. Whoever controls this army may easily become master of the classes that are holding each other in check. Thus the revolution ends in what is termed Bonapartism or Caesarism.

In the case of a real, and not, as in Russia, an apparent Labour revolution, all the conditions are lacking for such a development, which was an inevitable termination of the Middle Class Revolution. They are absent because democracy is well established at the commencement of the Labour Revolution, whose political struggles are not fought out through the agency of civil war, which sets up a new militarism in place of the one that has been abolished. Moreover, the Labour Revolution presupposes at its inception a preponderance of the working class over all other classes, so that only a split in the Labour ranks would enable the opponents of the Revolution to recover their lost advantages, which is by no means likely, and indeed only happens in exceptional cases.

Yet the state of equilibrium of classes which marks the close of the Middle Class Revolution may exist at the inception of the Labour Revolution., This condition arises at a time when the workers are not far enough advanced to gain political power for themselves, but are too strong for any of the middle classes to maintain its rule in opposition to the workers.

At this conjuncture orderly political administration and consequently a flourishing economic life would be quite impossible, if efforts were made to form a pure class Government. The State and society and all its sections, including the workers, would be overtaken by dire necessity. Civil war, the attempt of one class to suppress its opponents by force, would achieve nothing but complete economic collapse to the extent of what we see to-day in Russia, assuming that this policy was practicable under the developed democratic institutions which we are predicating.

Under these circumstances only two forms of Government are possible: either one of the parties would form a Government with the acquiescence or support of at least one of the opposing parties, whose prejudices would have to be taken into account, or the Socialists would form a coalition Government with one or several of the middle class parties.

Examples of the first type of Government are to be found in Austria and Sweden. In Sweden there is a purely Socialist Government whose vitality depends upon Liberal support. In Austria there is a Christian Socialist Government, which would become impossible on the day the Socialists decided to overthrow it.

Previously there was a coalition Government in Austria. in which the Socialists participated. This was also the case in Belgium and Denmark. We had a Socialist-bourgeois coalition Government in Germany.

To support a Government because it is the best under the circumstances, without taking part in or influencing Cabinet discussions, or to enter such a Government and directly assent to its decisions, may sometimes be an important tactical distinction, but never a question of principle. There are some politicians who are chiefly agitators, and consequently shrink from open co-operation with middle class elements, preferring to employ covert methods. Thus, for example, among the German Social Democracy, at the time of the old electoral system, it went without saying that votes were cast for a member of the middle class Opposition, a Democrat or a Centre Party candidate, at the second ballot. But a special arrangement to this end with the parties concerned would have been rejected by many of our radicals as base treachery to the principles of the class struggle. Thus many Socialists today consider it reprehensible to enter a coalition ministry, even when its necessity is fully recognized.

Appeal is constantly made to the principle of the class struggle in support of this rigid attitude. Now it is certainly one of the most eminent services of Marx and Engels that they recognized the significance of the class struggle in politics, but they never dreamed of maintaining that a class could only effectively safeguard its interests by remaining completely isolated. Do I cease fighting because I seek allies in order to maintain the struggle more successfully? Of course, if I have allies, I must take them into account, and this might prevent me from imposing such severe conditions on the beaten foe as I could do if I defeated him alone.

The attitude of refusing to join a coalition under any circumstances arises from that conception of the class struggle which regards all middle class parties as equally reactionary, an idea that nobody opposed more than did Marx, because it countenanced class narrowness more than class consciousness.

An important contribution to this question was made by Otto Bauer in an article published in the Berlin Freiheit, under the title of Coalition Governments and the Class Struggle.

He distinguished between two types of coalition Government, one of which he called the “reformist.” This type of Government is formed at a time when the middle class is considerably more powerful politically than the workers, and is therefore not obliged to grant them any concessions. Once a solitary Socialist enters a middle class Government, he becomes responsible for a purely capitalist governmental policy.

The position is quite different to-day when the workers are so strong as to be able to hold the other classes in check.

“Where power is so evenly distributed among the classes, a coalition Government may be a temporary necessity.”

With this I heartily agree. Yet it seems to me that Bauer has the special conditions of Austria too much in mind when he emphasizes military power as one of the weapons which the workers must employ, in order to strengthen their position.

“Reformist ministerialism allows Labour parties to share in the powers of government, although the various military and economic resources are still monopolized by the bourgeoisie; but the Austrian coalition Government was based on the fact that such weapons as the control of the army and of the means of transport had fallen into the hands of the workers.”

Bauer is manifestly of opinion that the workers in the parties belonging to the Second International are less powerful than the workers of Austria, else he would not have added that “reformist ministerialism to-day dominates the parties of the Second International.”

In my judgment, the working class is stronger in Germany than it is in Austria, although in the former case it does not control the militia, and is moreover far superior numerically to the peasantry than in the Alpine countries. This applies still more to England, where there is no longer a peasantry. The peasantry is strong in Belgium and Denmark, but even there the workers occupy a position of relative strength certainly equal to that of the Austrian workers. A coalition policy in these countries would therefore not partake of the character that Bauer describes as “reformist ministerialism.”

But Bauer is quite right when he asserts that a coalition policy has all the greater prospect of success, and the dangers which it involves are all the more diminished, a when a powerful Labour movement stands behind the Ministers in a coalition Government. Once coalition policy becomes unavoidable, the Labour movement should be made as powerful as possible, in order to extract the fullest advantages for the workers from this policy.

The opponents of the policy of coalition in our ranks usually dilate upon the comparative advantages of a purely Socialist Government.

But this comparison is absurd, for no Socialist would prefer a coalition Government, if given the choice of a Socialist Government. Only the latter type of Government can pave the way to Socialism, and proceed energetically and systematically to the socialization of the capitalist process of production. About this there can be no question. We are, however, referring to the stage at which the workers are not strong enough to set up and maintain a purely Socialist Government, although they are powerful enough to render any Government impossible which adopts an attitude hostile to Labour. At this stage the alternatives are either a coalition Government or a middle class Government by the favour of the workers.

A purely Socialist Government, dependent upon the goodwill of the Liberal Party, such as the British Labour Government of 1924, could not accomplish the tasks which a Socialist Government, supported by a powerful Labour movement, would be able to execute.

It might happen that, if a middle class regime creates extraordinary difficulties, the Socialist Party would prefer to leave to the bourgeoisie the unenviable task of clearing up the mess, for example, dealing with the consequences of the war. But it might very often be extremely dangerous for Labour to leave the middle class parties in unrestricted control of the resources of the State. It is Bauer’s opinion that the Austrian coalition policy was justified because the workers in that country controlled the armed forces. I might add that precisely because they controlled the armed forces, the Austrian Socialists were able to risk leaving the coalition as soon as it became inconvenient to them.

In a country where Labour does not control the armed forces, and this will be the rule for a long time to come, the greatest disasters are likely to happen if Social Democracy leaves the entire resources of the State in the hands of the middle classes, without exercising any control or having any say as regards their employment.

It may be admitted that the idea of coalition is obnoxious to Labour. None of the middle class parties is a pure class party, but each is comprised of an assemblage of various class elements. Only the Labour Party is a purely class party. By virtue of their class position, the workers are in the strongest opposition to the existing order, and this impels them to offer constant opposition in the State. Consequently, to abandon their post of opposition for any purpose short of the immediate overcoming of capitalism would go very much against their grain.

But our actions must be dictated by our perception of what is fitting rather than by our class feelings. The above considerations explain why those who object on principle to the idea of coalition and the surrender of the post of opposition find support among the workers more readily than those holding the opposite opinion.

They explain why the idea of coalition only slowly makes headway, but they cannot prevent the arrival of what is inevitable. Given the stage at which the capitalist countries have now arrived, the idea of coalition, in spite of all opposition, will gain ground and tend to dominate Labour politics, not as substitute for the Labour Revolution, but as preparation for this Revolution, that is to say, the sole political rule of the workers through the agency of a purely Socialist Government.

In his well-known criticism of the Gotha programme of German Social Democracy, Marx wrote:

“Between the capitalist and the Communist social order lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. To this there would correspond a political period of transition, when the State could be nothing else than the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

In the light of the experiences of recent years pertaining to questions of government, we might vary this sentence by saying:

“Between the time when the democratic State has a purely middle class Government and the time when it has a purely Labour Government extends a period when the one is being transformed into the other. To this a political period of transition would correspond, when the Government would generally assume the form of a coalition.”

This would apply to all countries where the conquest of political power by Labour is effected by means of democracy, which is the normal method now that the military monarchies have collapsed.

Those who to-day reject the policy of coalition on principle are oblivious to the signs of the times, and incapable of rising to the height of their tasks.