Thompson: What Means [Oct. 1903] 1

What Means. by Carl D. Thompson

Published in The [Green Bay, WI], v. 2, no. 2 (Oct. 1903), pp. 13-

Socialism is not a reform, it is a . And first of all, let it be clearly understood This is the position held by all scientific Socialists everywhere that by revolution Socialists do not everywhere. But such a statement made without mean or bloodshed. It is safe to say that explanation with a non-Socialist or in a lecture to every scientific Socialist in the world would re- an ordinary audience is certain to be misunder- gard it a calamity to the cause, as well as to hu- stood. When the word “revolution” is spoken the manity, to have a violent upheaval in society. The common run of people think of violence, future may see violence of bloodshed, of armies and navies. It does and war, as has the past. not matter what the “scientific” and “dic- Our present social prob- tionary” definition of the term is, common lem may involve this people don’t carry an unabridged dictio- nation and others in se- nary with them as a rule. To use the term rious trouble, but it is without explanation is to get one’s self and quite evident that if one’s cause seriously misunderstood. And such should be the case sometimes while listening to the speech of it would be not the re- Socialists one cannot but feel that they are sult of the teaching of not always entirely clear themselves as to Socialism, but rather the just what is meant by the expression “revo- result of the refusal of lutionary Socialism.” the rulers to accept the And yet we need some designation Socialistic program. For that shall distinguish us as Socialists from Socialism offers a pos- those who merely wish to patch up the sible, a peaceful solu- present system and keep it. The old par- tion. ties, every one, and new ones, every day springing So, then, by “revolutionary Socialism” we do up, all claim to be reformers. And they really do not mean an appeal to arms. We mean by “revo- advocate reform measures. How, then, can we So- lutionary Socialism” the capture of the political cialists distinguish ourselves from them? There is powers of the nation by the as op- certainly a radical difference. It is to make the point posed to the capitalist class. This is the essence of of difference clear and to distinguish sharply be- revolutionary Socialism. Whoever sees clearly and tween all such programs and Socialism that the holds firmly the necessity of the “organization of Socialists use the term “revolutionary.” We are not the working class and those in sympathy with them “reformers” — we are “revolutionists.” into an independent political party, distinct from What, then, is meant by the term? and opposed to all capitalistic parties to capture 1 2 Thompson: What Revolutionary Socialism Means [Oct. 1903] the powers of ” in order to carry out These are exact and discriminating words, the principles of Socialism; whoever holds this and, it seems to me, exactly the truly scientific position is a revolutionary Socialist. On the other Socialist’s position. And this ought to settle the hand, the one who thinks we are to get Socialism question as to whether or not one is a revolution- through any of the old political parties, or with- ary (and therefore scientific) Socialist. It is not to out organizing a new, , that person be decided by the amount of property one owns, is not a revolutionary Socialist and, indeed, it seems or does not own, nor by the kind of clothes he to the writer is not a Socialist at all. wears, nor by the profession he followed before “The conquest of political power by a new becoming a Socialist, nor by the kind of class, in this lies the essential difference between or irreligion he may profess — but by the very revolution and reform,” says in his simple and direct question: Does he believe in the new book, The : independent political party to capture the powers of government by a hitherto oppressed class as a “Those who repudiate as the means of securing Socialism? If he does, he is a principle means of social transformation, or wish to confine this to such measures as have been granted revolutionary Socialist. And that ends it. by the ruling class are social reformers, no matter how much their social ideas may antagonize existing social forms. On the contrary, anyone is a revolutionist who seeks to conquer the political power for an hitherto oppressed class, and he does not lose this character if he prepares and hastens this conquest by social reforms wrested from the ruling classes. It is not the striving after social reforms but the explicit confining of one’s self to them which distinguishes the social reformer from the revolutionist.”†

†- Karl Kautsky, The Social Revolution. A.M. Simons and May Wood Simons, trans. (Chicago, IL: Charles H. Kerr & Co, [1903]), pp. 8-9.

Edited by Tim Davenport. Published by 1000 Flowers Publishing, Corvallis, OR, 2005. • Free reproduction permitted.

http://www.marxisthistory.org