Rosa Luxemburg Internet Archive
Opportunism and the art of the possible
Written: September 1898
Source: Sachsische Arbeiter zeitung, September 30, 1898
Transcription/Markup: Dario Romeo and Brian Basgen
Online Version: Rosa Luxemburg Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000
Comrade Heine, as is well known, has written a pamphlet for the
party conference entitled To Vote or Not to Vote? In it
he comes out in favour of our participating in Prussian Landtag
elections. It is not the main subject of his pamphlet that leads
us to make a few necessary remarks, but rather the two terms which
he mentions in his line of argument, and to which we react with
particular sensitivity in consequence of the well-known events
that have taken place recently in the party. The terms are: the
art of the possible and opportunism. Heine believes that the
party’s aversion to these trends rests entirely upon a
misunderstanding of the true linguistic meaning of these
foreign words. Ah! Comrade Heine, like Faust, has studied
jurisprudence with zealous endeavour, but alas, unlike Faust, not
much else. And in the true spirit of juridical thought, he says to
himself, In the beginning was the word. If we wish to know whether
the art of the possible and opportunism are harmful or useful to
Social Democracy, we need only consult the dictionary of foreign
words and the question is answered in five minutes. For the
dictionary of foreign words informs us that the art of the
possible is ‘a policy which endeavours to achieve what is
possible under given circumstances’. Heine then proclaims,
‘Indeed, I ask all rational men, should a policy attempt to
achieve what is impossible under given circumstances?’ Yes, we
as rational men reply, if questions of politics and tactics could
be solved so easily, then lexicographers would be the wisest
statesman and, instead of delivering Social-Democratic speeches,
we should have to begin holding popular lectures in
linguistics.
Certainly our policy should and can only endeavour to achieve
what is possible under given circumstances. But this not say how,
in what manner, we should endeavour to achieve what is
possible. This, however, is the crucial point.
The basic question of the socialist movement has always been
how to bring its immediate practical activity into agreement with
its ultimate goal. The various ‘schools’ and trends of
socialism are differentiated according to their various solutions
to this problem. And Social Democracy is the first socialist party
that has understood how to harmonize its final revolutionary goal
with its practical day-to-day activity, and in this way it has
been able to draw broad masses into the struggle. Why then is this
solution particularly harmonious? Stated briefly and in general
terms, it is that the practical struggle has been shaped in
accordance with the general principles of the party
programme. This we all know by heart; should anyone challenge us,
our answers are as clever as they always were. Now we believe
that, despite its generality, this tenet constitutes a very
palpable guide for our activity. Let us illustrate it briefly by
two topical questions of party life – by militarism
and custom policy.
In principle – as everyone is familiar with our programme
knows – we are against all militarism and protective
tariffs. Does it follow from this that our representative in the
Reichstag must oppose all debate on bills concerning these matters
with an abrupt and blunt no? Absolutely not, for this would be an
attitude befitting a small sect and not a great mass party. Our
representatives must investigate each individual bill; they must
consider the arguments and they must judge and debate on the basis
if the existing concrete relationship, of the existing economic
and political situations, and not of a lifeless and abstract
principle. The result, however, must and will be – if we have
assessed correctly the existing relationship and the people’s
interest – no. Our solution is: not a man and not a penny for
this system! But, given the present social order, there can be no
system which would not be this very system. Each time tariffs are
increased we say that we see no reason for agreeing to the tariff
in the present situation, but for us there can be no situation in
which we could reach a different position. Only in this way can
our practical struggle become what it must be: the realization of
our basic principles in the process of social life and the
embodiment of our general principles in practical, everyday
action.
And only under these conditions do we fight in the sole
permissible way for what is at any time "possible". Now
if one says that we should offer an exchange – our consent to
militaristic and tariff legislation in return for political
concessions or social reforms – then one is sacrificing the
basic principles of the class struggle for momentary advantage,
and one’s actions are based on opportunism. Opportunism,
incidentally, is a political game which can be lost in two ways:
not only basic principles but also practical success may be
forfeited. The assumption that one can achieve the greatest number
of successes by making concessions rests on a complete
error. Here, as in all great matters, the most cunning persons are
not the most intelligent. Bismarck once told a bourgeois
opposition party: "You will deprive yourselves of any
practical influences if you always and as a matter of course say
no". The old boy was then, as so often, more intelligent than
is Pappenheimer [A]. Indeed, a bourgeois party, that is, a
party which says yes to the existing order as a whole, but which
will say no to the day-to-day consequences of this order, is a
hybrid, an artificial creation, which is neither fish nor flash
nor fowl. We who oppose the entire present order see things quite
differently. In our no, in our intransigent attitude, lies our
whole strength. It is this attitude that earns us the fear and
respect of the enemy and the trust and support of the people.
Precisely because we do not yield one inch from our position,
we force the government and the bourgeois parties to concede to us
the few immediate successes that can be gained. But if we begin to
chase after what is ‘possible’ according to the principles
of opportunism, unconcerned with our own principles, and by means
of statesmanlike barter, then we will soon find ourselves in the
same situation as the hunter who has not only failed to stay the
deer but has also lost his gun in the process.
We do not shudder at the foreign terms, opportunism and the art
of the possible, as Heine believes; we shudder only when they are
‘Germanized’ into our party practice. Let them remain
foreign words for us. And, if occasion arises, let our comrades
shun the role of interpreter.
[A]
A reference to the soldiers of General Pappenheim in the Thirty Years War.