unionism, or to the Zubatovs who are dragging it along the line of clerical and gendarme "ideology."
Recall the example of Germany. What was the historical service Lassalle rendered to the German labour movement? It was that he diverted that movement from the path of progressive trade unionism and co-operation, along which it was travelling spontaneously (with the benign assistance of Schulze-Delitzsch and those like him). To fulfil a task like that, it is necessary to do something altogether different from indulging in talk about belittling the spontaneous element, about the tactics-process and about the interaction between elements and environment, etc. A desperate struggle against spontaneity had to be carried on, and only after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it possible to convert the working population of Berlin from a bulwark of the Progressive Party into one of the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy. This fight is not finished even now (as those who study the history of the German movement from Prokopovich, and its philosophy from Struve believe). Even now the German working class is, so to speak, broken up into a number of ideologies. A section of the workers organised in Catholic and Monarchist labour unions; another section is organised in the Hirsch-Duncker unions, founded by bourgeois worshippers of English trade unionism, while a section is organised in Social-Democratic trade unions. The latter is immeasurably more numerous than the rest, but Social-Democracy was able to achieve this superiority and will be able to maintain it, only by unswervingly fighting against all other ideologies.
But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that ideology is far older in origin than Social-Democratic ideology; because it is more fully developed and because it possesses immeasurably more opportunities for becoming widespread.[1] And
- ↑ It is often said: The working class spontaneously gravitates towards Socialism. This is perfectly true in the sense that Socialist theory defines the causes of the poverty of the working class more profoundly and more correctly than any other theory, and for that reason the workers are able to appreciate it so easily, provided, however, that this theory does not step aside for spontaneity and provided it subordinates spontaneity to itself. Usually this is taken for granted, but Rabocheye Dyelo forgets or distorts this obvious thing. The working class spontaneously gravitates towards Socialism, nevertheless, the more widespread (and continuously revived in the most
42
