Das Erfurter Programm ("The Class Struggle")

http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-stru...x.html?t=81525 (trashed thread)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kaut...furt/index.htm (1910 translation by William E. Bohn)

http://www.marxistsfr.org/deutsch/ar...rter/index.htm (German)



To quote the first post of my trashed thread:

How shall the study of this be conducted? By paragraph? By chapter section?

I think by chapter section would be the best method. Going paragraph by paragraph would just be tedious.

I'll start on it in the next couple of days.

I should remind comrades fluent in German about helping out just in case the abridged English translation conflicts with the longer German original.

I'll start translating the part in Chapter V tomorrow, hopefully it takes a bit till you guys have reached this chapter. ;P

Well to get this thing rolling I guess I'll weigh in on the first section of chapter one.

First, and this is probably a stupid question, but according to Kautsky the "minimum program" is the demands which socialists make to "make their belief effective", yet he also says that the third part of the maximum program is "the means which are to lead tot he realisation" of socialism. Seems like the third part of the maximum program would be the same as the minimum program...

This part:

So long as labor was performed with comparatively simple tools which each laborer could possess, it went without saying that he owned the product of his toil. But as the means of production have changed, this notion of property right has passed away.

Doesn't seem entirely correct. It misses the whole formal/real subsumption of labour under capital and the production of absolute/relative surplus-value. Initially capitalism asserts itself within the context of the material-technical conditions of feudal society and only formally changes the relations of production. Initially under this purely formal capitalism the capitalist can only increase his surplus-value by lengthening he working day however this soon becomes a problem as the worker can only work for so many hours before the quality of her work deteriorates. The capitalist then realises that she can increase her surplus-value if the individual value of her product is made lower than the social value of her product by an increase in the productivity of the labourer. So the means of production are innovated and the individual value of her product brought below it's social value giving her an increase in profit for a short while. However her other competitors soon catch on and she is forced to innovate again. The process leads to new specifically capitalist material-technical conditions of production i.e the large factories of the industrial revolution which prevents any reversion back to individual property.

The fact that capitalist relations of production predates the creation of industrial machinery and the fact that largescale machinery is actually the result of capitalist relations of production seems like a big part of Marx's argument in the "missing sixth chapter" of Das Kapital as well as a big part of the theory of primitive accumulation. After all, if it was only an increase in machinery that cause capitalism to develop then it would've been unnecessary to drive the small proprietors off of the commons land since they would've been outproduced by the big factories.

It also ignores the fact that the process of movement into the formal and real subsumption of labour under capital is an ongoing process within capitalism. Luxemburg pointed this out in her critique of Bernstein that the small proprietors are continously being ruined under capitalism and that it is not a process which can complete itself (The latter being the supposedly "Marxist" idea that Bernstein was attacking):

There remains still another phenomenon which, says Bernstein, contradicts the course of capitalist development as it is indicated above. In the “steadfast phalanx” of middle-size enterprises, Bernstein sees a sign that the development of large industry does not move in a revolutionary direction, and is not as effective from the angle of the concentration of industry as was expected by the “theory” of collapse. He is here, however, the victim of his own lack of understanding. For to see the progressive disappearance of large industry is to misunderstand sadly the nature of this process.

According to Marxist theory, small capitalists play in the general course of capitalist development the role of pioneers of technical change. They possess that role in a double sense. They initiate new methods of production in well-established branches of industry; they are instrumental in the creation of new branches of production not yet exploited by the big capitalist. It is false to imagine that the history of the middle-size capitalist establishments proceeds rectilinearly in the direction of their progressive disappearance. The course of this development is on the contrary purely dialectical and moves constantly among contradictions. The middle capitalist layers find themselves, just like the workers, under the influence of two antagonistic tendencies, one ascendant, the other descendant.

Well to get this thing rolling I guess I'll weigh in on the first section of chapter one.

First, and this is probably a stupid question, but according to Kautsky the "minimum program" is the demands which socialists make to "make their belief effective", yet he also says that the third part of the maximum program is "the means which are to lead to the realisation" of socialism. Seems like the third part of the maximum program would be the same as the minimum program...

Here's where I think some *German* help would be needed, because I have shifty eyes with respect to Google Translate:

Das Programm, das sich die deutsche Sozialdemokratie auf dem Parteitag zu Erfurt (14.-20. Oktober 1891) gegeben hat, zerfällt in zwei Teile, einen allgemeinen, theoretischen, der die Grundsätze und Endziele der Sozialdemokratie behandelt, und einen praktischen Teil, der die Forderungen enthält, welche die Sozialdemokratie als praktische Partei an die heutige Gesellschaft und den heutigen Staat stellt, um damit die Erreichung ihrer Endziele anzubahnen.

Uns beschäftigt hier nur der erste, allgemeine Teil. Derselbe zerfällt wieder in drei Unterabteilungen: 1. Eine Kennzeichnung der heutigen Gesellschaft und ihres Entwicklungsganges. Daraus werden gefolgert: 2. die Endziele der Sozialdemokratie und 3. die Mittel, welche zu ihrer Verwirklichung führen können und werden.

Yeah, I do think Kautsky was a tad redundant there in trying to distinguish between the political party and reform demands. Also, this was written before the "Kautskyan" take on the minimum program ("reforms" vs. "revolution") became the norm.

To highlight my point, I should restate the Erfurt Program itself in full and highlight key parts:

http://www.marxists.org/history/inte...rt-program.htm

The economic development of bourgeois society invariably leads to the ruin of small business, which is based on the private ownership by the worker of his means of production. It separates the worker from his means of production and turns him into a propertyless proletarian, while the means of production become the monopoly of a relatively small number of capitalists and large landowners.

Hand in hand with this monopolization of the means of production goes the displacement of these fractured small businesses by colossal large enterprises, the development of the tool into a machine, the gigantic growth in the productivity of human labor. But all the benefits of this transformation are monopolized by the capitalists and large landowners. For the proletariat and the sinking middle classes – petty bourgeoisie and farmers – it means an increase in the insecurity of their existence, of misery, of pressure, of oppression, of degradation, of exploitation.

Ever greater becomes the number of proletarians, ever more massive the army of excess workers, ever more stark the opposition between exploiters and the exploited, ever more bitter the class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, which divides modern society into two hostile camps and constitutes the common characteristic of all industrialized countries.

The gulf between the propertied and the propertyless is further widened by crises that are grounded in the nature of the capitalist mode of production, crises that are becoming more extensive and more devastating, that elevate this general uncertainty into the normal state of society and furnish proof that the powers of productivity have grown beyond society’s control, that the private ownership of the means of production has become incompatible with their appropriate application and full development.

The private ownership of the means of production, once the means for securing for the producer the ownership of his product, has today become the means for expropriating farmers, artisans, and small merchants, and for putting the non-workers – capitalists, large landowners – into possession of the product of the workers. Only the transformation of the capitalist private ownership of the means of production – land and soil, pits and mines, raw materials, tools, machines, means of transportation – into social property and the transformation of the production of goods into socialist production carried on by and for society can cause the large enterprise and the constantly growing productivity of social labor to change for the hitherto exploited classes from a source of misery and oppression into a source of the greatest welfare and universal, harmonious perfection.

This social transformation amounts to the emancipation not only of the proletariat, but of the entire human race, which is suffering from current conditions. But it can only be the work of the working class, because all other classes, notwithstanding the conflicts of interest between them, stand on the ground of the private ownership of the means of production and have as their common goal the preservation of the foundations of contemporary society.

The struggle of the working class against capitalist exploitation is necessarily a political struggle. Without political rights, the working class cannot carry on its economic struggles and develop its economic organization. It cannot bring about the transfer of the means of production into the possession of the community without first having obtained political power.

It is the task of the Social Democratic Party to shape the struggle of the working class into a conscious and unified one and to point out the inherent necessity of its goals.

The interests of the working class are the same in all countries with a capitalist mode of production. With the expansion of global commerce, and of production for the world market, the position of the worker in every country becomes increasingly dependent on the position of workers in other countries. The emancipation of the working class is thus a task in which the workers of all civilized countries are equally involved. Recognizing this, the German Social Democratic Party feels and declares itself to be one with the class-conscious workers of all other countries.

The German Social Democratic Party therefore does not fight for new class privileges and class rights, but for the abolition of class rule and of classes themselves, for equal rights and equal obligations for all, without distinction of sex or birth. Starting from these views, it fights not only the exploitation and oppression of wage earners in society today, but every manner of exploitation and oppression, whether directed against a class, party, sex, or race.

Proceeding from these principles, the German Social Democratic Party demands, first of all:

1. Universal, equal, and direct suffrage with secret ballot in all elections, for all citizens of the Reich over the age of twenty, without distinction of sex. Proportional representation, and, until this is introduced, legal redistribution of electoral districts after every census. Two-year legislative periods. Holding of elections on a legal holiday. Compensation for elected representatives. Suspension of every restriction on political rights, except in the case of legal incapacity.

2. Direct legislation by the people through the rights of proposal and rejection. Self-determination and self-government of the people in Reich, state, province, and municipality. Election by the people of magistrates, who are answerable and liable to them. Annual voting of taxes.

3. Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army. Determination by the popular assembly on questions of war and peace. Settlement of all international disputes by arbitration.

4. Abolition of all laws that place women at a disadvantage compared with men in matters of public or private law.

5. Abolition of all laws that limit or suppress the free expression of opinion and restrict or suppress the right of association and assembly. Declaration that religion is a private matter. Abolition of all expenditures from public funds for ecclesiastical and religious purposes. Ecclesiastical and religious communities are to be regarded as private associations that regulate their affairs entirely autonomously.

6. Secularization of schools. Compulsory attendance at the public Volksschule [extended elementary school]. Free education, free educational materials, and free meals in the public Volksschulen, as well as at higher educational institutions for those boys and girls considered qualified for further education by virtue of their abilities.

7. Free administration of justice and free legal assistance. Administration of the law by judges elected by the people. Appeal in criminal cases. Compensation for individuals unjustly accused, imprisoned, or sentenced. Abolition of capital punishment.

8. Free medical care, including midwifery and medicines. Free burial.

9. Graduated income and property tax for defraying all public expenditures, to the extent that they are to be paid for by taxation. Inheritance tax, graduated according to the size of the inheritance and the degree of kinship. Abolition of all indirect taxes, customs, and other economic measures that sacrifice the interests of the community to those of a privileged few.

For the protection of the working classes, the German Social Democratic Party demands, first of all:

1. Effective national and international worker protection laws on the following principles:

(a) Fixing of a normal working day not to exceed eight hours.
(b) Prohibition of gainful employment for children under the age of fourteen.
(c) Prohibition of night work, except in those industries that require night work for inherent technical reasons or for reasons of public welfare.
(d) An uninterrupted rest period of at least thirty-six hours every week for every worker.
(e) Prohibition of the truck system.

2. Supervision of all industrial establishments, investigation and regulation of working conditions in the cities and the countryside by a Reich labor department, district labor bureaus, and chambers of labor. Rigorous industrial hygiene.

3. Legal equality of agricultural laborers and domestic servants with industrial workers; abolition of the laws governing domestics.

4. Safeguarding of the freedom of association.

5. Takeover by the Reich government of the entire system of workers’ insurance, with decisive participation by the workers in its administration.

Can mods please go into my trashed thread and copy-paste my comments there into this thread?

First, and this is probably a stupid question, but according to Kautsky the "minimum program" is the demands which socialists make to "make their belief effective", yet he also says that the third part of the maximum program is "the means which are to lead tot he realisation" of socialism. Seems like the third part of the maximum program would be the same as the minimum program...

The third part of the explanation of the maximum programme concerns the means. There he talks about the party, the class, the movement and tactics. You could say it explains the minimum programme without explecitely analyzing it, but this actually proves that the maximum and minimum programme are one (and cannot be separated artificially without abandoning one or the other).

Also, this was written before the "Kautskyan" take on the minimum program ("reforms" vs. "revolution") became the norm.

Can you expand on this part? I thought the "Kautskyan" take on the minimum program was the one about "the demands which the Social Democracy makes of present day society" vs "the fundamental principles".

As explained in my programmatic work-in-progress, the "Kautskyan" or orthodox minimum program from the 1900s and onward "would recover what the bourgeoisie has lost. It would sweep all remnants of feudalism away and realize that democratic programme for which the bourgeoisie once stood. As the lowest of all classes [the proletariat] is also the most democratic of all classes."

This quote from The Social Revolution is where we get our term "bourgeois-democratic revolution."

While this is separate from the pre-orthodox Marxist minimum program (DOTP), it is still useful in discussing the anti-feudal revolution vs. the "bourgeois revolution" (remember classical economics here).

EDIT: Hence, my programmatic Chapter 5 (pre-orthodox) and Chapters 6-8 (Kautskyan).

...It would sweep all remnants of feudalism away and realize that democratic programme for which the bourgeoisie once stood. As the lowest of all classes [the proletariat] is also the most democratic of all classes."

I don't think the bourgeoisie ever stood for any "democratic" program. The democratic party is the party of the petit-bourgeoisie, which seeks through populist demagoguery to reconcile class antagonisms within existing society. The proletarian class interest is democratic in as much as it realises the ancient ideal of demokratia, but anti-democratic inasmuch as it's program is in opposition to the party of petit-bourgeois democracy (Of course some Left-Communist groups have an embarrassing habit of confusing the party of democracy with democracy as an ideal and proudly declaring communism to be undemocratic).

While this is separate from the pre-orthodox Marxist minimum program (DOTP), it is still useful in discussing the anti-feudal revolution vs. the "bourgeois revolution" (remember classical economics here).

So if I am reading you right, the "anti-feudal" revolution is merely the sweeping away of feudal institutions, while the bourgeois revolution is the program of taxing away economic rent common to the classical economists?

No, the anti-feudal revolution is more radical than the bourgeois revolution. The former purges rent, inheritance, etc. while the latter goes for just the symbols (and, yes, taxes rent instead of socializing it altogether). There is a reason why Hudson raises the cries of "neo-feudalism" and "debt peonage" - because of the great political failure of his precious "industrialists" to synthesize the two revolutions.

However, I did call the anti-feudal revolution the highest form of Bourgeois Socialism (land, utilities, banks, etc.) because it was conceived of by bourgeois thinkers. Had it not been for Japanese interference and CPC opportunism (in the 1920s and 30s, not 40s), Nationalist China would have achieved this.

I do agree with your first reply about the so-called "democratic party" being the party of the left-populist petit-bourgeoisie ("Social-Democracy" in Marx's commentary on Louis Bonaparte). Thus, you need to correct yourself in the State Capitalist Theories user group re. Chavez.

[So here we are with economic conflicts between Bourgeois Socialism and petit-bourgeois "democratism" - because the latter, from Proudhon to most mutualists to modern cooperative fetishes, prefer multiple coops even in areas where classical economic rent is to be extracted; "Credit unions, not state banks" is one of their watchwords.]

Here's where I think some *German* help would be needed, because I have shifty eyes with respect to Google Translate:

Alright, here's the part you quoted in German:

The programme adopted by German Social Democracy at the Party Congress in Erfurt (14th - 20th October 1891) is divided into two parts: one general, theoretical part which deals with the principles and the final aims of Social Democracy and into one practical part which contains the demands which Social Democracy as a practical party makes on present day society and the present day state in order to initiate the achievement of our goals.

We are only concerned with the first, the general part here. This part again separates itself in three sub-parts: 1. a characterisation of present day society and its development. From this we conclude: 2. the final aims of Social Democracy and 3. the means which can and will lead to the realisation of these aims.

Yes, that translation makes much more sense! "Making their belief effective" sounded a tad too reformist. Maybe Bohn was a reformist translator.

I have a question about how an adherent to the Erfurt Progamme makes demands, but specifically ones pertaining "political rights". DNZ, you made this part bold, as it's particularly relevant (emphasis mine):

The struggle of the working class against capitalist exploitation is necessarily a political struggle. Without political rights, the working class cannot carry on its economic struggles and develop its economic organization. It cannot bring about the transfer of the means of production into the possession of the community without first having obtained political power.

A while ago DNZ, I remember you posting an article by Mike Macnair (at least I think it was him, it was definitely one of the CPGB crowd) that said calling for abolition or radical amendment of the anti-trade union laws in Britain is "not enough". As I remember, although I might a bit wrong here, the reason for this is that it's inherent in the nature of a capitalist mode of production to weaken worker's rights like this; i.e. fair, democratic trade union laws are incompatible with capitalism itself. As I understand, decent trade union laws are a political right. I'm fairly sure that the CPGB are Erfurtian, and I know for sure that you are DNZ, so is there a contradiction here? If we are just calling for better political rights for workers under capitalism, are we really going to get anywhere, if my original assertion is true? Anyway, I could a bit wrong here, or I could have interpreted that article wrongly.

And is this focus on the political at all in response to the purported "vulgar economism" in the transitional progamme, when used incorrectly by some Trotskyist organisations? What's the relevance of distinguishing between political and economic demands? Is it in the mind of Erfurtians that economic demands are largely unattainable without some political rights first, perhaps? I'm a bit of a novice on all of this, so apologies if my questions and musing are completely irrelevant, confusing or incorrect. Thanks comrades.

Before I continue, I hope this thread and the links within will help:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/begin-rede...948/index.html

As I understand, decent trade union laws are a political right.

The broader demand to be explicitly raised is:

Full, lawsuit-enforced freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association for people of the dispossessed classes, even within the military, free especially from anti-employment reprisals, police interference such as from agents provocateurs, and formal political disenfranchisement

As mentioned just above, there are plenty of areas besides "decent" trade union laws that this demand raises.

What's the relevance of distinguishing between political and economic demands? Is it in the mind of Erfurtians that economic demands are largely unattainable without some political rights first, perhaps?

Sorry if I delve into my own jargon here, but there are economic struggles, "politico-economic" demands, and "politico-political" demands. Economic struggles are things like struggles for better working conditions, better pay, etc. "Politico-economic" demands include zero unemployment structurally and cyclically through public employer of last resort (for consumer services). "Politico-political" demands are things like my assembly and association demand above, or recallability for all public officials.

The answer to your second question quoted should be in the affirmative, especially in light of my assembly and association demand.

I *think* the answers to your other concerns can be found in my programmatic work-in-progress, if you're privately interested. Be prepared to spend quite a bit of time reading, though.

By the way, here is the original article I was referring to: http://www.revleft.com/vb/not-enough...952/index.html

And thanks for your informative replies DNZ, they're much appreciated.

No problem.

I wonder if there should be more discussion on minimum-maximum programs or alternate programmatic approaches, or if we can move on to things like:

Many a man thinks he has given proof of wisdom when he says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” There is nothing more false. Modern science shows that nothing is stationary, that in society, just as in external nature, a continuous development is discoverable.

On which I wrote in the trashed thread, "Hehehe. The phrase 'nothing new under the sun' comes from the Hebrew Bible, specifically from 'The Gatherer' / 'The Teacher' (obscured by the Greek rendition known today as 'Ecclesiastes'). The author then goes on to briefly mention the history of economic development, not mentioning pre-capitalist production in Marxist language (slave, feudal, etc.)."

Happy New Year's bump!