Sunday, September 13, 2009
sept. 7-13
As I sit here looking over my notes from friday's discussion about the Erfurt Program, it seems to interesting to me that Reformist and revolutionaries in the program were essentially polar opposites. Reformists, the southern wing and labor unions were working to better working conditions, like an eight hour work day and better wages. Revolutionaries on the other hand were obviously working to overthrow the current economic system and create a utopian socialist society. The labor unions had the most invested in the current economic structure. Consider this, If the goal of the union is to work towards bettering working conditions while also voicing the grievences of its members, a total overthrow of the economic system would put them out of a job. For that reason, they had a fundamental difference with radicals within the program. Throughout the 1890s labor unions became increasingly centralised in order to achieve more, become stronger, etc. as a result they made several contracts with employers and employer associations'. The unions had contractual obligations to capitalism and did not want to see an overthrow. In the 1896 Leipzig Trade-Union congress voted in favor of the contracts with employers. Differences like these between the two branches created a rift within the social Democrats that split the party down the middle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is why Bernstein was so important. He comes along and says revolution is not necessary, giving the reformers and moderates a concise, clear, and most importantly, a convincing argument to combat the views of the revolutionaries. Their goals were different, as were their political aims... just like 2 oxen trying to go in 2 different directions, the reformers and revolutionaries eventually split their "yoke" of unity and thus divided the Social Democratic Party in 2.
ReplyDeleteGreat points. The seeming great irony of the SPD lies in its split between practice (reformist) and theory (revolutionary) that perhaps weakened the ability of the party to meet the challenges of German politics. The party in many ways seemed to work at cross-purposes with itself.
ReplyDelete