Karl Liebknecht
Source: Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands.
Abgehalten zu Jena vom 17. bis 23. September 1905, Berlin 1905, pp. 326f.
From Karl Liebknecht, Gesammelte Reden und Schriften, Vol. 1, pp. 159–161.
Translated for marxists.org by V. Mirkader (2025).
Marked up: Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
There are no doubts that the trade unions have the special task of leading concrete economic struggles, and that this is what legitimizes the trade union movement. No one has ever questioned the necessity of a division of labor within the labor movement. Nor has it ever been suggested by anyone that what is now the responsibility of the political movement should, in the future, be taken over by the trade union movements, or vice versa. It has to do with a different question. It is not true, as Schmidt claims, that there are no differences between the two movements, that no attempts are being made to suppress political spirit in trade unions. He has not refuted Fischer’s arguments. [1] There is overwhelming evidence to debunk his assertions. Trade unions not only frequently proclaim neutrality, but on occasion, even take a stand against political activity. The view that there is a growing alienation between trade unions and the political party is by no means far-fetched. It is also backed by trade union leaders. Even two opposites in the party, Kautsky and Elm, agree on this point. If Schmidt believed that the political movement was to blame for the regrettable relationship between the two proletarian organizations, he was being one-sided.
With his quote against Kautsky, he has put himself in a difficult position. Kautsky is said to have described it as problematic if the trade unions secured wages too favorable for their members, because then the spirit of class struggle would be lost. That is incorrect. However, something else is true. Calwer advised the trade unions: “Do not set your demands too high, or else you’ll undermine your own labor market; be nice and modest.” That is what a revisionist says.
Contrary to class struggle, the unions are urged to be modest rather than discontented; there can be no worse sin than this. The rift between the party and the trade unions has already grown so wide that Der Tabakarbeiter [Trans.: Der Tabakarbeiter was the newspaper of the German Tobacco Workers’ Union] was able to speak of the imminent danger of a serious split. This danger undoubtedly exists.
What Molkenbuhr said is right, and I also do not believe that the trade unions should constantly succumb to an anglicising tendency. One fact prevents this: German culture, which is famously “freedom,” German jurisprudence, and German police practices. These conditions already shove the workers into class struggle and are a long way from the relatively democratic conditions in England, which, incidentally, are also deteriorating. It is very telling that the current political inclinations now emerging in the English and Dutch trade unions are linked to legislative measures and police practices. Whatever political pushes appear in unions abroad only occasionally, we experience in Germany constantly. For this reason, I am not particularly concerned about this tendency. The German trade union movement is self-correcting.
But I do not see why we should let things continue in this manner. The internal unity of the two organizational forms of the proletariat must be expressed more explicitly. In the Monatshefte [2] and in Neue Zeit [3], we encounter the phrase constantly: Closer contact between the Party and the trade unions is necessary. I also refer to Die Gleichheit [4] of September 20th, which also emphasizes the necessity of a formalized relationship.
Let us keep in mind: neither the question of the May Day celebration nor that of the general strike can be solved without the trade unions. The formalization of the relationship between the Party and the trade unions is a prerequisite for resolving these two issues. Therefore, we must pay the utmost attention to this issue. What is our future position on trade unions, and what should be done to prevent undesirable incidents in the future? Both are proletarian organizations, after all. At the Cologne Party Congress in 1893, the developments that we are now seeing were already anticipated. Arons demanded there that the politically active comrades which, given the high demands that both movements are increasingly placing on themselves, can of course only be achieved to a limited extent. At the time, Legien suggested that a special report on the trade union movement be presented at every Party Congress, and now von Elm is proposing a permanent trade union parliamentary advisory committee; in his article in Die Neue Gesellschaft [5], Hué also advocates collegial cooperation, for a connection between the party and the trade unions. However, he does not want to see organizational boundaries blurred. On the other hand, Kautsky also wishes to establish a connection, albiet only in the form of the party unilaterally electing a trade union leader to its executive board. No one is considering turning trade unions into political reading circles, as Schmidt claims; after all, trade unions have their own specific tasks to perform. But they must maintain contact with the broader labor movement, which they are in danger of losing.
The question of neutrality is brought up. However, Schmidt is wrong to claim that the question of neutrality has been settled once and for all. In trade union circles, there is certainly no belief that neutrality is a divine commandment that cannot be departed from. Bebel did indeed advocate neutrality, but I believe that this is one of the few instances where Bebel did not have the support of the majority of the party. ("Very true!") And Bebel’s neutrality is something quite different from that advocated by Schmidt.
We should not raise legal concerns either. Is there anyone left who still thinks trade unions are peaceful social clubs? The judiciary, like legal practice, has a completely different opinion. The time has come to show our true colors! Why all the cloak and dagger? As a defense lawyer, I find it difficult to say, ‘This is not a social democratic association at all.’ It is as social democratic organization, after all, but it pursues its agenda in the trade union sphere. Even Hué says that trade unionists have to hear it all the time: What do you want? You all are just social democrats at heart! If our opponents are going to insist on accusing us of this, why should we allow ourselves to be tied up in knots? Why shouldn’t we do as the Polish Sokol [Translator’s note: Sokol, a Polish sports organization in Charlottenburg near Berlin], which, despite all their objections, the police classified as a political association? Now, they have removed the clause that excluded political involvement from their rules. The practical bottom line is that we cannot leave here without striving to find common ground on this important issue.
I have submitted Resolution 143 [6]; I know it is not perfect, but that is fine by me. It is unclear (laughter), but I just wanted to give the issue a good kick start here. We do not need to vote on it, but we could elect a commission which will deal with this question in great detail. The organizational form is less important that coming to a thorough conclusion on the matter.
The example of Denmark provides us with an excellent model of how the party and the trade unions should work together, hand in hand. [7] We have only one struggle for emancipation, but it is being fought by two armies on two different fronts, and, hopefully in the future, increasingly under a single tactical leadership, and the idea of the May Day celebration serves as the banner under which the armies march and fight. (Bravo!)
1. Richard Fischer, who initiated the debate on May Day celebrations, said that it would be a serious mistake for them to delude themselves into believing that “the socialist spirit has been somewhat lost only here and there in the trade unions”. He spoke of symptoms of an illness within the trade unions and cited Bringmann, the representative of the Carpenter’s Union, as an example. Bringmann said that, in his experience, the May Day strike had had the same effect on the trade unions as a foreign body in the human organism, something unnatural and disruptive within the unions.
The debate about the May Day celebration at the Jena Party Congress was triggered by fierce criticisms of the organized worker’s strike on 1 May at the trade union congress in Cologne (22–27 May 1905). The discussion in Cologne centered on a resolution proposed by Robert Schmidt, which revealed that the General Commission of Trade Unions wanted to strip May Day of its militant character.
2. This refers to the journal of the Bernstein faction, Sozialistische Monatshefte, which was published from 1897–1933.
3. The theoretical organ of the SPD, published from 1883 to 1923, edited by Karl Kautsky until 1917.
4. A magazine promoting the interests of female workers, published from 1891 to 1925. It was founded and edited by Clara Zetkin until June 1917, when she was removed from her position by the social-chauvinist leadership of the SPD, because of her fight against the imperialist war.
5. A reformist weekly paper, appeared from October to December 1903 as Sozialistische Wochenschrift, published by Heinrich and Lily Braun.
6. Resolution 143 – Liebknecht et al.
In view of the tensions between the Party and the trade union movement, which do not necessarily result from the inevitable division of labor between the Party and the trade union movement but are increasingly detrimental to both proletarian organizations, the Party Congress resolves:
First, the primary goal should be to establish an organizational and organic link between the Party and the trade union movement.
Secondly, and immediately until such organizational links are established, to set up a body, or entrust an existing party body, to establish permanent contact and mutual understanding between the Party and the trade union movement on all matters of common interest, and to promote joint action by both sides. (via Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands. Abgehalten zu Jena vom 17. bis 23. September 1905, Berlin 1905, pp. 139/140)
The motion was remitted to the Executive for consideration.
7. When it was founded in 1898, the Samvirkende Fagforbund, the umbrella organisation for the Danish trade unions, granted the executive committee of the Danish Social Democratic Party special representation in its leadership. In return for this the trade unions were granted the right to appoint two representatives to the party executive.
Last updated on: 21 July 2025