Mass strike debate

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition to the revisionism dispute, the mass strike debate was one of the central conflicts within German social democracy in the period before the First World War . In it, the different theoretical and strategic views of the individual wing of the party became clearly visible. In the end, the union wing was able to achieve considerable success at the Mannheim party congress of the SPD in 1906 with the so-called Mannheim Agreement .

Course of debate

The term mass strike in this context does not mean a simple strike , but rather the nationwide stoppage of work with a political objective. As recently as 1893, Wilhelm Liebknecht had said at the social democratic party congress that the “general strike for a country or even a world strike” was “nonsense” and “a catchphrase for those who do not overlook the overall situation.” A decade later, however, this assessment had changed. The dispute was triggered by the strike of miners in the Ruhr mining industry , in which at least 200,000 miners took part, as well as by the Russian Revolution of 1905 and the forms of political conflict that occurred . The Italian general strike of 1904 and corresponding statements by the International also played a role. Within the Social Democratic Party was discussed whether not to abolish this means three-class franchise in Prussia or against the deterioration of the franchise in Saxony could use.

The mass strike was rigorously rejected by the free trade unions , who feared for their existence due to the expected political repression by the state. Their congress in Cologne in 1905 passed with a broad majority: “The general strike, as it is represented by anarchists and people without any experience in the field of economic struggle, considers the congress to be out of the question; He warns the workers not to allow themselves to be deterred from the daily detailed work to strengthen the workers 'organizations by taking up and disseminating such ideas. " Theodor Bömelburg , the chairman of the construction workers' association, added:" It took tremendous sacrifices to get the organization up to date to reach. (...) But in order to expand our organization, we need calm in the labor movement. "

The Jena party congress of the SPD in 1905 approved a motion in which the mass strike was viewed on the one hand as an effective weapon to ward off possible political attacks on the working class, but on the other hand it was not viewed as a revolutionary weapon. This decision was a consensus between the various wings of the party. Rosa Luxemburg, as the spokesperson for the determined left, the center around party leader August Bebel , and the revisionists around Eduard Bernstein , gave their approval .

This formula, of course, concealed very different political approaches. Bernstein's astonishing approval of an ultimately actionist concept can be explained by his criticism of pure reformism and the organizational routine of the trade union wing. “In general, the motto is: Our victory in spite of it all with a certain carelessness! The future muddled on. ”In addition, Bernstein's reform-oriented policy required democratic voting rights - which is why, precisely because of his revisionist stance, he advocated mass strikes to force electoral reforms. Rosa Luxemburg, on the other hand, orientated herself primarily on the model of the Russian Revolution. She contrasted the union concern about the limits of the strike funds with a very optimistic picture. "But in the storm of the revolutionary period, the proletarian turns from a precautionary family father seeking support into a 'revolutionary romantic', for whom even the highest good, namely life, let alone material well-being, is of little value in comparison with the ideal of struggle." The revolutionary left position soon turned out to be a misjudgment of the prevailing mentality of the organized workers and was therefore hardly able to influence the formation of will within the party.

August Bebel

The Mannheim Agreement

Should it not come to a break, a compromise between the decision of the trade unions and the party congress of 1905 was necessary instead. In confidential contacts against which Luxemburg and the left protested violently, the party executive tried to come to an agreement with the trade unions. Bebel formulated this unequivocally at the Mannheim party congress of 1906: “ Above all, we want to bring about peace and harmony between the party and the trade unions .” The party congress agreed to the board's proposal that political actions without active support from the unions could have no prospect of success . It was not the party but the General Commission of the Trade Unions that had the last word on the mass strike question. In fact, this meant a clear rejection of an offensive political mass strike.

The party congress was hectic and nervous, but ended with a decision that in fact meant a victory for the trade unions. This later so-called Mannheim Agreement redefined the role of trade unions and the party beyond the question of the mass strike. The party congress agreed with the formulation that the trade unions “are not inferior to the social democratic party in terms of importance. "In addition, with a view to a mass strike, it was stipulated:" In order to bring about a uniform approach to actions that affect the interests of the trade unions and the party alike, the central managements of the two organizations should seek to come to an understanding . "

The defeat of the Russian Revolution undoubtedly contributed greatly to the decline in support for the general political strike. This decision shows not only the strength of the unions, which have grown explosively in recent years. Rather, it was a sign of a turning away from the previous revolutionary concepts by social democracy towards a primarily social reform orientation during the Weimar Republic . In Bremen the debate was a trigger for a radicalization process that led to the emergence of the Bremen left-wing radicals . The mass strike debate itself no longer played a significant role in the following years. The international level was an exception. The problem was a central issue at the 1907 Socialist Congress in Stuttgart. In the Prussian suffrage struggle of 1910, the subject was essentially limited to a “desk debate” between Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Kautsky , and in 1913 the Social Democratic Party Congress confirmed the line of 1906.

literature

  • Antonia Grunenberg (ed.): The mass strike debate. Contributions by Parvus, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky and Anton Pannekoek , Frankfurt 1970.
  • Helge Döhring (ed.): Defense strike ... protest strike ... mass strike? General strike! Strike theories and discussions within the German social democracy before 1914. Basics of the general strike with a view, Edition AV, Lich 2009, ISBN 978-3-86841-019-8
  • Ralf Hoffrogge : Socialism and the Labor Movement in Germany: From the Beginnings to 1914 . Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2011, ISBN 3-89657-655-0 .
  • Klaus J. Becker / Jens Hildebrandt: 100 years of the "Mannheim Agreement". On the history of the SPD and trade unions, Ludwigshafen 2006, ISBN 978-3-938031-21-6 .
  • Peter Lösche : A short history of the German parties . Stuttgart, 1993. ISBN 3-17-010036-X
  • Detlef Lehnert: Social democracy between protest movement and ruling party. 1848-1983 . Frankfurt, 1983. ISBN 3-518-11248-1
  • Helga Grebing : History of the German labor movement. An overview . Munich, 1966.
  • Klaus Schönhoven : The trade unions as a mass movement in the Wilhelminian Empire 1890 to 1918. In: Klaus Tenfelde u. a. : History of the German trade unions. From the beginning until 1945. Cologne, 1987. ISBN 3-7663-0861-0
  • Franz Osterroth / Dieter Schuster : Chronicle of the German Social Democracy. Vol. 1: Until the end of the First World War . Berlin, Bonn, 1975. pp. 117-120, pp. 123f.
  • Dieter Dowe (Ed.): Disagreed - but agreed? - On the history of the relationship between the SPD and the trade unions, an exhibition by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung on the 100th anniversary of the "Mannheim Agreement" 1906, Bonn 2006, ISBN 978-3-89892-585-3
  • Rosa Luxemburg. Mass strike, party and unions. Hamburg, Verlag von Erdmann Dubber, Hamburg 1906

Web links

Remarks

  1. cit. after Schönhoven, p. 239.
  2. cit. according to Lehnert, p. 102.
  3. cit. according to Grebing, p. 121f.
  4. cit. Lehnert, p. 102.
  5. See Ralf Hoffrogge, Socialism and Workers' Movement in Germany - From the Beginning to 1914 , pp. 155, 156.
  6. cit. according to Lehnert, p. 103.
  7. cit. according to Lehnert, p. 103.
  8. See Hoffrogge, Socialism and Workers' Movement, p. 157.
  9. cit. after Grebing, p. 121