I.

The recent discussion in The Call as to the propriety of requiring applicants for membership in our party to subscribe to the doctrine of the class struggle leads me to some reflections as to the nature of that struggle, and the relation of a belief in it to the general body of Socialist doctrine.

The first question that suggests itself is “What do we mean when we say we believe in the class struggle?” Do we “preach” the class struggle as some think we do? Or, do we merely point to it as others say that we content ourselves with doing? Comrade [Edmond] Kelly, in commenting on the statements in The Call of Humphrey B. Campbell and Comrade [Robert] Hunter, respectively, says (The Call, August 20, 1909):

“Mr Campbell forgets that the class struggle is a fact, and Mr. Hunter wants to lift the class struggle into a principle. Comrade Hunter contends that the difference between Socialists on the one hand and the Fabians, [Aristide] Briand and [John] Burns, on the other, is that the former admit the class struggle, while the latter deny it. In this respect, I think Comrade Hunter is making a mistake. No man in his senses, much less such men as [Sidney] Webb, [George Bernard] Shaw, Briand and Burns, can deny the class struggle. I was myself long kept out of the party by the notion that it involved the fanning of hatred between class and class; but upon reading the declaration I was called upon to sign, I found no justification for this whatever. On the contrary, I was called upon to recognize the fact of the class struggle — a fact so obvious that no man can deny it unless he is paid to do so.”

It all seems so very simple. All you have to do is read what you are asked to sign. And yet, is it really so simple? Wherefrom did Comrade Kelly get his “notion that it involved the fanning of hatred between class and class” which kept him long out of the party, and which still keeps so many out of the party, according to the assurance of Mr. Campbell? Is it really true, as Comrade Kelly assures us, that “the Fabians keep out of the Socialist party not because they deny the class struggle, but because they believe themselves better fitted to the work of permeation and propaganda than to that of political organization?” Comrade Kelly himself tells us in the very next breath that “this, however, did not prevent their contributing to the organization of the Socialist Parliamentary party now doing such effective work in England.” The “effective work” that this party does is, of course, political work. So that the Fabians evidently do not consider themselves “out of politics.” Why, then, did they not join the Socialist party until the organization of the Socialist Parliamentary party, under which Comrade Kelly evidently means the Labor party? Does not the key to their action lie rather in the fact that the Labor party does not recognize the class struggle as part of its creed, whereas the Social Democratic party, the chief antagonist of the Fabians, which still keeps out of the “Socialist Parliamentary party,” makes the class struggle a prominent feature of its platform?

Evidently Comrade Kelly is wrong either when he says that the fact of the class struggle is not denied by any man in his senses, and cannot be denied by anybody unless he is paid to do so, or when he assumes that a mere recognition of the fact of the class struggle, such as that struggle receives from Webb, Shaw, Briand and Burns, according to his assurance, is sufficient to satisfy the Socialist parties. I personally believe that Comrade Kelly is wrong both ways.

It may surprise some of my comrades to hear me say so, but I must reluctantly confess that the fact of the class struggle, at least as I understand it, is not “so obvious that no man can deny it unless he is paid to do so.” That there are many who do not see this fact, or at least profess not to see it, cannot be denied. And that they all do it out of corrupt motives is so utterly unscientific and contrary to common experience, that the idea cannot be entertained for a moment. I am sure Comrade Kelly entertains no such idea. The explanation lies in the fact that Comrade Kelly and I understand entirely different things under the “fact” of the class struggle.

Again, the Socialist parties, at least those of them that keep consistently to the Marxian teachings, are not satisfied with a mere recognition of the fact of the class struggle, but demand its practical application to current events. Comrade Kelly is quite right when he says “Burns and Briand are no longer recognized by the Socialist party, not because they do not believe in the class struggle,” but because the party does not believe in their political policies and tactics. Marxists, contrary to common report, are the least dogmatic people imaginable. They do not care a rap about professions of faith. It all reduces itself to practical questions with them.

It is true that they put much value upon the recognition of certain doctrines, usually dubbed by their opponents as “articles of faith,” but only because recognition of these doctrines in theory, followed out to their logical consequences, leads to certain modes of action in practice. If they were sure of the practice, they would gladly leave the theoretical questions alone, as far as party politics are concerned, taking in them only the interest which people usually take in abstract theoretical matters propagated in the interest of scientific knowledge and logical thinking. It is only because they believe that usually one’s theoretical position influences his practical action, or is an indication of what road he is going to follow in practice, that they pay so much attention to platform declarations, and enter into those wordy wars which to the uninitiated sound like the theological discussion of the medieval schoolmen. And here is where Comrade Kelly misses the point in the Burns and Briand affairs. While it is true that these “statesmen” were not disavowed because they did not believe in the class struggle, but because of their practical policies and tactics, it is equally true that their policies and tactics were repudiated because they were incompatible with the policies and tactics imposed upon the leaders of the working class by a true understanding of the nature of the class struggle.