Source: The New Review, December 15th, 1915. Current Affairs section. Vol. 3, No. 19.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for the Marxists Internet Archive, October, 2022
One of the most needful things in the Socialist movement of this country is that Socialists, and particularly the members of the Socialist Party, take themselves and their party seriously. The failure to take ourselves seriously is not only one of the crying evils of our movement, but amounts to a positive scandal and is liable to have the most disastrous results.
The question of preparedness has made the situation acute, and it is therefore our duty to attend to this matter without much further delay.
In our last issue I called attention to the fact that while the National Constitution of the Socialist Party contains a very drastic and unconditional prohibition against the granting by Socialists of any military supplies at any time and under any circumstances, very important official party organs are maintaining an attitude and preaching doctrines which might easily land us in the Preparedness camp. And I asked the question: Where does the Socialist Party stand on the question of Preparedness? To some the question may have seemed utterly unwarranted. Our party policy is not decided by this or that leader, nor by this or that party newspaper, but by the vote of the party membership; and the party membership has spoken on the subject recently and decisively. But those who are familiar with our party life knew that the question was fully warranted and quite in order. The painful, but undeniable truth is that resolutions, particularly those adopted by the membership on referenda, are not taken seriously by anybody, least of all by the party members themselves. The question of militarism and of voting funds for military supplies is an excellent illustration in point, and I shall therefore mention some more examples of the utter contempt with which the party resolution on the subject is treated, notwithstanding the overwhelming majority by which it was carried on referendum.
On November 22nd the [New York Daily] Call published an editorial article headed “Under Any Circumstances,” in which the writer attempts to show that the party declaration against voting for military or naval expenditures “under any circumstances” does not really mean what it says, and that it is therefore meaningless. And a few days earlier the N. Y. Volkszeitung, used editorially the following argument in favor of the holding of a national convention of the party next spring:
“Only a national convention, representing the best brains in our movement, can state the exact position of our party to the question of ‘preparedness’ in this country. Only the declaration of such a convention would have the necessary authoritativeness to do away with the diversity of opinion which prevails in our party on this subject. . . The next presidential campaign will be fought on this issue of Preparedness. We must therefore be well prepared to meet that issue. Not— as is the situation to-day— with a declaration couched in such general terms as to make it ring untrue and even ridiculous, but with a thoroughly considered program, based upon realities and clear of purpose.”
And when we bear in mind that the Volkszeitung is the best Socialist newspaper in this country, and very strong on anti-war and anti-preparedness, the contempt implied in these utterances for the judgment of our party membership as expressed in the resolution which is now a part of our “supreme law” becomes appalling. And we must seriously ask ourselves the question: whence this contempt?
The answer to this question is not far to seek: our decisions are but seldom thoroughly considered. And they are not thoroughly considered because we do not take ourselves seriously. We have not as yet acquired the habit of thinking that by our decisions we may be really deciding something of great importance to the world, and we have therefore no feeling of responsibility when passing judgment. A combination of unfortunate circumstances— many years of opportunistic leadership, and an impossibilist phrase-mongering opposition— have prevented the average party member from acquiring the psychological pre-requisite to the serious consideration of any problem— the feeling that upon his decisions great events may depend.
It is only natural that our opportunistic leaders and leaderlets, who want a free hand when the time comes for decisions, so that they decide upon important questions as they may see fit, should be anxious to continue the present conditions of affairs indefinitely. The more thoughtless the average member in his decisions, the more important the leader. The more impossibilistic the party’s decisions, the greater the impunity with which they may be set aside without any fear of serious consequences to the transgressors of the party will. And once the party resolution is set aside, the leader becomes a law unto himself and is free of all constraint. That is why our opportunist leaders, who now treat the party declaration on armaments with utter contempt, never uttered a word against it while it was being voted on by the membership.
If we want to preserve democracy in our party; if we want to shape our own policy, and not be the prey of every opportunistic politician who rises to temporary leadership in the movement, we must consider well before we decide, and we must adopt decisions which may serve as rules of conduct in actual and important emergencies. We must take ourselves seriously.
Last updated on 09 October 2022