|
The Early Swedish Socialists: Utopianism, Lassalleanism, Marxism, Revolutionism, Reformism
by Hal Smith
Most of the literature on the Swedish welfare state portrays it similar to Marquis Childs in his book Sweden: The Middle Way on Trial. Childs writes that the welfare state is based on a "mixed economy" with "a combination of private ownership and social control."(1) It is maintained and put in place by the Social Democrats, who are characterized by a pattern of "reform socialism" and "cooperat[ion] with the owners of private industry."(2) But the characterization of a reformist organization running a system based on capitalist ownership of industry is out of place with the common belief that all Social Democratic parties share a 19th Marxist background. If this belief is correct, the question arises of how the Swedish Social Democratic Labor Party (SAP) went from a Marxist revolutionary organization to a reformist one. The term "revolution" here refers to a sudden and forceful overthrow of the social order.(3) The original ideology of the SAP is also important because of the party's later success- 70 years of nearly unbroken power in government.
The classic interpretation about the Swedish Social Democrats' original ideology was espoused by liberal historian Herbert Tingsten in the 1940's. He proposed that the SAP began as a dedicated orthodox revolutionary Marxist party and naturally evolved along a continuous development to a reformist welfare state ideology. More recent analysis by Leif Lewin and Timothy Tilton show that this model is incorrect. It does not explain why the party chose to implement a planned economy strategy in the depression of the 1930's after promoting Monetarism in the late 1920's. Nor does it show why the party chose a radical path towards employee ownership through wage owner funds in the 1970's. Most of all, the "dedicated Marxist" hypothesis discounts the fact that the Swedish Social Democrats were mainly Lassallean in their origins, and only to a lesser extent Marxist.(4)
Ferdinand Lassalle (1825-1864) was the founder of the modern Socialist German workers movement. In a letter to Marx he described himself as "a revolutionary ever since 1840 and a determined Socialist since 1843."(5) After the March 1848 revolt in Berlin, the democrats set up a National Assembly. It had executive powers and was based on universal manhood suffrage.(6) Lasalle joined the citizens' militia. He told a meeting in Dusseldorf, "We appeal to the Assembly- Give out the call to arms," and another meeting in Neuss to "get ready to strike as soon as the word is given."(7) The Prussian police arrested Lassalle for "inciting the populace to arms against the royal power."(8) Although acquitted by a sympathetic jury, he was imprisoned six months on lesser charges. From prison, he wrote "The revolution will celebrate a new and decisive triumphтАж This spring will find Europe in fire and flame! (9)
Lassalle explained his beliefs about law, force, and revolution in an 1862 speech in Berlin: "The actual constitution of a country has its existence only in the actual conditions of force which exist in the country; hence written constitutions have value and permanence only when they accurately express those conditions of force which exist in practice in a society."(10) George Brandes, Lassalle's biographer, paraphrases the speech: "When too wide a discrepancy exists between the written and the actual constitution, and when this discrepancy leads to oppression, a conflagration occurs in the form of actual revolution. The conflagrationтАж had occurred in March 1848, butтАж the triumphant people, instead of creating a strong defensive force from the lower classes and proletariat, and thus altering the actual situation, were so foolish as to draw up in writing a new and powerless constitution, which therefore proved absolutely useless." (11) The unwillingness of the National Assembly to strike against the monarchy and defend the revolution led to its demise.
Similarly in the 1862 "Workingmen's Programme," Lassalle contrasted revolution and reforms:
"Nothing but the Revolution could overthrow (and it did overthrow in one day, by the capture of the Bastille) that [feudal guild system] whichтАж had been vainly assailedтАж in France since 1614- for almost two centuries- by legal means." You see from this, Gentlemen, that however great the advantages of reformation by legal means are, such means have nevertheless in all the more important points one great disadvantage- that of being absolutely powerless for whole centuries; and, furthermore, that the revolutionary means, undeniable as its disadvantages are, has as a compensation the advantage of attaining quickly and effectively a practical result."(12)
Lassalle explained in a letter in 1863 to his colleague Gustav Lewy that although the bourgeoisie had led the French Revolution, "The internal development in France, England, and America shows that the bourgeoisie has lost its vocation for political leadership. It can no longer lead a revolutionтАж The German bourgeoisie is even less fitted than any other to conduct a political revolutionтАж Their motto is: above all, no revolution from below; better despotism from aboveтАж A revolution will only be effective if driven on by a solid and class-conscious workers' party."(13) Just as the bourgeois leadership of the French Revolution meant the replacement of the feudal guild system with Capitalism, a revolution led by a "class-conscious workers' party" would bring Socialism.(14)
Lassalle was most famous for his private negotiations with the Prussian Prime Minister Bismarck on behalf of the German workers. This was criticized by Marx, in whose eyes a Socialist revolutionary must not "shake hands" with the figurehead of the Prussian monarchy.(15) The aristocratic class had a feudal character, even though Germany had progressed to a generally capitalist economy. In fact, Lassalle carried on negotiations as a temporary tactical maneuver and remained an implacable enemy of feudalism. Even though Lassalle was on friendly terms with Bismarck, he never extended this rapport to the conservative movement, and in fact continued to condemn them.(16)
In Lassalle's mind, an alliance with the liberals was out of the question- they were too weak politically and hostile to Socialism. Liberalism here refers to the school of thought where government should serve to guarantee capitalism and the political freedoms of propertied individuals. According to Lassalle, the workers must emerge as a force independent of the liberals, not bound into a permanent alliance with them. Instead, he believed important concessions from Bismarck would place the workers in a position even more powerful than that the liberals- or Bismarck. As a dialectician, Lassalle saw that an increase in the authority of the Prussian nobility could even serve as a catalyst to more radical changes.(17)
Whatever one's opinions of these negotiations, they were not part of Lassalleanism as an ideology in the late 19th century. The members of Lassalle's Universal German Workers Association (ADAV) were not aware of the secret discussions as they went on.(18) Even Marx was not aware of them until 1865.(19) Nor were the negotiations continued by Lassalle's successors. (20) This is relevant to our discussion because August Palm, the founder of Social Democracy in Sweden, belonged to the ADAV. (21)
Universal voting rights was the central political demand Lassalle recommended to the labor movement. But he did not see voting rights as an end in itself. Like the other the concessions he demanded from the state, Lassalle believed it was a means to strengthen the working class in its battle with the upper classes- the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie.(22) In the aforementioned letter to Gustav Lewy, Lassalle wrote that the "Open Answer," which promulgated universal suffrage, "sets out the most conservative, most legal, and most peaceful way of emancipating the workers. But its effect can only be revolutionary, decisively so. For the ruling classes do not want labor to be emancipated."(23)
In Lassalle's eyes, the concession of a Prussian Diet based on universal suffrage was like the concession of the 1848 Assembly. It was a means to "effect" a revolution when the "ruling classes" reacted against the emancipation of labor. For Lassalle the use of force did not depend on the issue of voting rights. In 1848 he wanted the militia to strike before the Assembly was banned. Lassalle believed force "determines all the law and legal institutions of society" and could not be satisfied with legal means, which are "powerless for whole centuries."(24) He believed only a working class party could carry out a Socialist revolution.
Lassalle explained the workers' oppression in terms of an "iron law of wages." The iron law says the capitalists always lower wages to the minimum level that provides for the workers' means of subsistence. The only way to overcome this oppressive wage system was for the workers to become their own employers. Lassalle thought producer cooperatives were thus one means in the economic transition to Socialism. The democratic state controlled by the workers' party would have to subsidize the cooperatives if they were to succeed against heavily invested capitalist enterprises.(25)
When Germany's anti-combination laws were repealed in 1869, Lassalle's successors formed professional unions. The branch unions were united in one general union with a highly centralized structure.(26) This union was completely subordinate to the ADAV, a centralized and mass party.(27)
As leader of the German Socialist movement, Lassalle organized the ADAV along national lines. He envisioned that the success of Socialist parties at the national level would result in Socialism at the international level. Thus national unity, self-determination, and internationalism were all tenets of Lassalle.(28)
Karl Marx (1818-1883), on the other hand, organized the international Socialist movement. He believed the revolution must destroy the Prussian government and replace it with a Socialist one. He supported cooperation with the liberal bourgeoisie as long as they strongly opposed the monarchists and conservatives. Marx believed this to be the case in the late 1840's, when he wrote the famous Communist Manifesto. The bourgeoisie promoted capitalism, a higher social stage than Prussian feudalism.(29) Marx ruled out negotiations with the Prussian government because they meant an "alliance with absolutist and feudal opponents against the bourgeoisie."(30) After the suppression of the Paris Commune in 1871, he and the Communist International declared war on bourgeois parties and rejected coalitions with them.(31)
Marx supported universal suffrage, but did not believe it would be a major step in bringing Socialism to Germany. He believed universal suffrage would have meaning only in a democratic republic, not in a police-guarded monarchy "influenced by the bourgeoisie" and "embellished with parliamentary forms."(32) Instead of state-funded producer cooperatives as the means for the economic transition to Socialism, Marx urged centralization of the "instruments of production in the hands of the State."(33)
Marx used the theory of surplus value to explain the economic oppression of the workers. The surplus value theory states the capitalists pay the workers for their "labor power," and take the remaining wealth produced by labor as surplus value. "Labor power" means a production input like "machine power. The "price of labor power" (wages) depends on the workers' essential needs. Training and "historical and moral" factors determine the cost of those needs. Therefore wages are much more elastic than the iron law assumes.(34)
Marx believed in national unity and independence as much as Lassalle.(35) But just as Germany was within the framework of the world market, he urged Socialists to organize and act on the international level. He thought international Socialism would be achieved through the united struggle of the world proletariat.(36) As for organization, the Marxists were more decentralized and gave their individual trade unions independence of action.(37)
The ideologies of Marxism and Lassalleanism were maintained by the German Socialist Movement in the second half of the 19th century. Thus they also became central elements in the ideology of the early Swedish Social Democrats. The Swedish Socialist movement began as a Utopian movement in the mid 19th century. In the 1850's, with the monarchy's backlash against democratic revolts, the labor movement lost any central ideology. Instead it focused on bread and butter issues at the local level. After the arrival of Social Democracy from Germany in 1881, the Swedish Socialist movement was mainly Lassallean, until it was taken over by reformists. These were former liberals whose predispositions remained when they joined the Social Democrats. The reformists' takeover in 1887 transformed the party from a radical Socialist movement that was orthodox, but not necessarily Marxist, to its modern reformist counterpart.
In order to understand this process, one must understand not only the ideology of the Swedish Socialists, but also the organizational issues involved. Because the SAP was at first a small organization, the influences on leading figures played a major role in the nature of the party's ideology. Similarly, our definition of Marxism and Lassalleanism depends on how the Swedish Social Democrats perceived those ideologies. In studying the SAP, it is also important to show which positions were a result of adhering to those ideologies. Even in cases where a person would not be considered in full agreement with the entirety of an ideology, it is important to show the ideas they took from it. Socialism and the labor unions are inextricably bound in Swedish history, and understanding of Swedish Socialism demands an understanding of the experience of the labor movement.
When Sweden began to industrialize in the mid 19th century, the workers' enlightenment circles were the first organizations with worker participation. They began with the formation in 1845 of the Stockholm Association by "doctor-for-the-poor" Johan Ellmin. It was composed of intellectuals and journeymen, with the aim of educating and defending the interests of the workers.(38) Ellmin was "convinced through his work that capitalism conceals in itself destructive forces and that its development means poverty for the people."(39) The number of these societies in Sweden reached 30 and King Karl XV saw their popularity. He sent agents who gained control of the Stockholm Association and made it less democratic. So Ellmin founded the Scandinavian Society in 1847 with Per Gotrek (1798-1876), a Stockholm bookdealer from the Karlskrona enlightenment circle. In 1831 he had published the French utopian Saint Simon's writings, including "The Religion of the Future."(40) In an 1847 brochure "On the Proletariat and its Liberation by True Communism," Per Gotrek stated an inevitable battle between the two major social classes- the bourgeoisie and proletariat- would decide "the question of society... [and] humanity." (41) But a violent revolution would only be inevitable if there were no reforms accomplished by peaceful means. If the capitalists used repression and forced the workers to revolt, the communists would join them in revolution. (42)
At that time Swedish journeymen brought home links to the Communist League, led in part by Marx. Gotrek's Scandinavian Society was one of the underground groups coordinated from its London headquarters. In 1848 Gotrek translated the Communist Manifesto into Swedish. In the introduction, Gotrek described the Communist League as "the representatives of the poor and have-nots." While his knowledge of German provided an accurate translation, there were a few changes made: the title "Communist Manifesto" was replaced with "the Voice of Communism," the words "violent revolution" with "radical reorganization," and the famous last words, "Proletarians of the world unite!" with "the Voice of the People is the Voice of God."(43) This was done because of the Scandinavian Association's sympathy for religious-socialist Icarianism. (44)
"Voyage to Icarius" was a novel by Etienne Cabet, who led 1500 of his French followers to establish a peaceful, democratic commune in Nauvoo, Illinois. "On the Proletariat and its Liberation by True Communism" repeated Cabet's slogan "Forward to Icarius." But Gotrek had also objected "that it would be unfortunate if the best and most loyal sons of the proletariat left Europe during the period of a revolutionary situation." (45)
Indeed the 1848 revolutionary upheavals on the continent were felt that year in Stockholm and were expressed in an uprising in March. Sven Tradgardh, a tailor who helped found the Stockholm Association, demanded general suffrage and workers' rights at one of its public meetings. These were common demands of workers in Sweden and across Europe.(46) Only 5% of the Swedish population was eligible to vote, even after an 1865 reform of the Riksdag, or parliament.(47)
Franz Shoberg began a Socialist paper called People's Voice in 1849. It demanded general suffrage, but said this was not enough. It was necessary to fight the unequal distribution of wealth based on the capitalists taking profits from the workers. At Shoberg's proposal, the educational society in Erebru called a Folkriksdag, or "People's Parliament" in 1849, 1850, and 1853. It met to discuss and demand general voting rights. At the same time People's Voice hailed the flames of revolution spreading from the continent.
In 1850 Per Gotrek, Franz Shoberg, and some workers formed the "Workers Society for Reading," as the Scandinavian Society had been broken up by the police two years earlier. The new society's goals were to unite the Swedish working class, improve its social position, and achieve access to the legislative process. (48) At a public meeting Gotrek spoke in favor of religious socialism and Cabetism. Nils Person-Nurdin, another democratic editor, said "Socialism wants... freedom of conscience,... general education,... general suffrage,... the right to form unions,... military service to end expensive continuous armies, and aid for the elderly and sick." (49) In 1850 the revolutionary tide ebbed and the organization was broken up. The police compelled Gotrek to retire to Karlskrona with the promise to leave political activity.
The 1840's had seen the creation of the first labor organizations independent of the upper classes, beginning with the Typography Association in 1846. But many of them closed with the ebb of the revolutionary tide. The liberals took over the enlightenment circles and isolated them from the labor movement. Bread riots in 1855 and expressions of discontent met with military repression. In spite of this, strikes grew with industrialization and the number of workers. Characteristic were the Falun Copper Mine strikes in 1855 and 1857 against higher prices in the company stores, where the employees were forced to shop. From 1850-1869, the independent labor movement lacked clear long term goals, strategy, organization, or ideology. (50)
In order to channel the dissatisfaction into a more preferable form, the liberal-bourgeoisie created Workers Associations that claimed to be "above-class" and disapproved of strikes. Its members included both employees and the same businessmen they struck against. More important topics than working hours or the employees' situation were "sobriety and morality." The liberal leadership of an 1870 congress of Scandinavian Workers Associations refused to even discuss general suffrage because it would weaken the political power of the bourgeoisie. (51) The associations proposed the "self help" and cooperative theories of German liberal economist Shulze-Delitzsch that Lassalle fought. (52) Without government subsidies- which the liberals rejected- the cooperatives could not compete against big industry. Indeed the Workers Associations and the liberal cooperatives had failed by 1890 because slogans like "abstinence, work, and thrift" did not address the workers' class interests. (53)
The 1870's are considered the period of the rise of industry in Sweden, which occurred later than in other western countries. (54) Yet Swedish workers hardly shared in the fruits of their labor and Stockholm was considered one of Europe's poorest cities. (55) Typical demands of strikers in those days were those of the Vesteros tobacco factory workers in May 1872: a wage raise, shortening of the 11 hour workday, and freedom to change employers. The typographers succeeded in forming a union and made Sweden's first collective agreement with the publishers' association in 1872. (56)
The most famous strike of this period was the Sundsvall lumberers' strike in the summer of 1879. Wages were at most 1.5- 2 kroner/day - hardly enough to feed a person. The lumberers marched to the provincial capitol of Sundsvall and set up camp on its outskirts with 6,000 persons. They demanded a minimum wage of 2 kroners a day. Instead they were put down by the army. Yet the Sundsvall strike succeeded in showing the might and unity of the workers. It also showed the need for long term labor organizations. Because these organizations were repressed, and because the bourgeoisie opposed universal suffrage, the battle for workers' rights became the battle for democracy. (57)
Two years later, the masons of Stockholm took the cue from the Sundsvall lumberers. Four thousand workers gathered to demand a 30% pay raise and a 10 hour workday, which they received after repeated strikes. (58) That year the city's smiths, painters, and foundry workers also formed their own unions. The labor movement had achieved new strength and would advance into the political arena. (59)
That advance came when the tailor August Palm (1849-1922), a member of the Communist International, returned to his home province of Skane in 1881. He had been journeying and working for many years in England, Germany, and Denmark. He spent most of the time in Haderslev. It was in the former Danish province of Schleswig, which had been annexed by Germany. That was how Palm accepted specifically German Social Democracy, whose figurehead was Ferdinand Lassalle. (60) In fact he was to consider himself a Lassallean for the rest of his life. (61)
When Palm discovered Sweden lacked a Social Democratic movement, he quickly set about building one. He began by announcing the "first meeting of Socialists in Sweden," set for November 6, 1881 in Malmo's Hotel Stockholm. The date was significant because it was "Gustav II Adolf" Day, an official holiday of the monarchy. Even in the date he scheduled we may observe Palm's sense of irony and a challenge to the monarchy. Palm was a witty, energetic, and entertaining orator. His speech "What do the Socialists Want?" artfully repudiated the most widespread misrepresentations of Socialism, and showed how the accusations were more fitting for the capitalists. (62) It was similar to the popular (and ironically named) brochure of German Marxist Wilhelm Brakke, "Down with the Social Democrats." (63)
Palm's first point was that Socialists don't want to divide up all the property. While that might work for land, it could hardly be possible to divide up a train. Instead, it is the capitalists who divide the value of workers' output between the workers and themselves. He gives an example in capitalist production where a worker gets 50 ore and a capitalist gets 50 ore. After dividing the revenues this way with 50 workers, the capitalist has made himself well-off, but the workers stay at poverty level. As a result of this division of wages, "while the stores and barns are filled with grain, there are many people suffering from hunger." The workers won't receive the surplus of their labor (that is, the 50 ore taken away from them) "until capitalism is abolished and the state" takes over production or subsidizes worker associations.
This statement reflects the ideas of both Marx and Lassalle. Marx developed the theory of surplus value and would agree with the national ownership of production. But he would make it clear that the state should be run by the workers first. Lassalle, on the other hand, believed that the government should subsidize producer cooperatives, regardless of who controlled the state and whether the cooperatives would have to compete with capitalist businesses. Palm, like Lassalle, would later say that the producer cooperatives are meant for the transition to complete Socialism.
The agitator's second point was that Socialists don't want to abolish property rights. They want to get rid of property when it is an obstacle to humanity's economic progress. Even in capitalist society the state takes away property whenever it likes and repays the owner. Socialists want to protect the only property of the worker- his labor.
Palm next disproves the common slander of the time, that Socialists want to abolish marriage and introduce free love. In fact, it is the rich bourgeoise that has an extra house where he can hire an expensive prostitute and live away from his wife. But a poor man must share everything with his wife, and if they don't respect each other, they should be allowed to divorce. So Palm argued Socialists want marriage to be founded on love and end without it.
Another accusation Palm repudiates is that Socialists are unpatriotic. While Socialists love their fatherland, they place their love for the world -their internationalism- above the nation. Nationalism divides people, causes hatred and wars, which the king fights to "solidify his staggering throne." Instead we must seek peace and become one community. (64) "For isn't it more noble and beautiful to love the whole world than to restrict love to a small parcel, which the state authorities, by their own wishes, can increase or decrease?"
Next, Palm repudiates the claim that Socialists want to get rid of religion. Instead, they seek the right of every person to believe as they want. Only that way can religion become what it is supposed to be- "a matter of conscience." (65) (the Lassallean's term.[66]) Socialists "want to separate church and state, because we claim that if religion can't live without the shorthand support from the state, then it is not much to have." The state must respect the beliefs of others instead of forcing the Swedish Lutheran Church to live at their expense. (67)
Palm states the main foundation of Socialism is "the economic organization of the state by Labor." Labor, he says, must direct the state to abolish capitalism and protect the worker and his rights. Being a Socialist is something to be proud of because it means "Society Improver." Socialism isn't a strange movement created by an agitator, but a popular movement created by the progress of culture that cannot be turned back. To change the oppressive and unjust capitalist society, and protect the workers' labor, the Socialists must: unite and organize, participate in politics, create a newspaper, and agitate for general suffrage. (68)
While calling Palm "a revolutionary," biographer John Lindgren explains that here Palm was following Lassalle's tactic of "in open politics, not to openly declare everything." (69) Palm did not mention illegal demonstrations as a tool, yet he would lead them against tariffs several years later. (70) He was evicted from Germany in 1877 for participation in upheavals, which followed the annulment of a Social Democrat's election to the Reichstag. Then he was evicted from Denmark for leading a Socialist group. (71) So like Lassalle, Palm had to be concerned about police surveillance.
The ideas in Palm's speech at the Hotel Stockholm became the basis for many of his innumerable speeches, which were often unprepared. The more Palm spoke, the more workers came to his meetings. At one of them that year in Malmo, he formed an agitation committee to coordinate his trips to Stockholm and Goteborg. Pressure from the authorities often prevented owners from renting space for the meetings, and the liberal Workers Associations refused to house them. So Palm, who always draw large crowds, held his first speech in Stockholm on December 26th in the Lillensietten woods. The well attended speech went on for more than two hours, even though the temperature was below freezing.
His meetings were democratic and encouraged discussion on issues the Workers Associations would not. The public meetings also elected the agitational committees and collected money for Palm's travels. This trend was to be the norm for the style of agitation performed by Palm's Social Democrats for the next decade. These early meetings led to the creation of the Social Democratic movement. They also encouraged the creation of independent labor unions by developing the workers' class consciousness. (72)
In accordance with the need to set up a newspaper, Palm created Folkviljian, the People's Will, which first appeared on March 4, 1882. It was supposed to be a weekly, but was published irregularly. He also recognized the need for a central organization. The Social Democratic Workers Party (SAP) was proposed in the autumn of 1882 and Folkviljian became its official organ. The party was young, small, and closely grouped around Palm. "Connections with other regions of the country were at first restricted to only personal contacts." (73)
The first program of the Socialist movement was printed in Folkviljian on November 11, 1882. It was basically a translation of the Danish Gimle program, which was itself a copy of the German Gotha program of 1875. (74) The Gotha program was the compromise program worked out when the Eisenachers united with the ADAV. While it mixed the beliefs of both parties, Marx still found the draft copy sent to him to contain flaws. He revealed them in his famous Critique of the Gotha Program, considered Marx's most important document in relation to Lassalleanism. (75)
The Gotha Program begins the slogan of demonstrating workers in the 19th century: "Labor is the source of all wealth and all culture..." Marx criticized this statement by saying not only labor, but nature, is the source of material wealth. The program continues to argue that the capitalists have a monopoly of the means of production, which must become society's common property, with the fruits of labor fairly distributed. Marx's criticism was that landowners also participate in the monopoly of instruments of production (here land), but might only rent the land to the capitalist producers. In addition even with Socialism not all the fruits of labor should be given out directly- society might find it more desirable to use the benefits of labor to build more equipment or social programs. The important difference with Socialism is that the distribution "fruits of labor" will be determined by society, with none of them being taken by the capitalists. Another contentious statement is that "The emancipation of labor must be the work of the working class, relatively to which all other classes are only one reactionary mass." While the first part was true, Marx argued that the bourgeoisie were revolutionary in regard to the feudal classes. And besides, capitalism transfers the lower middle class into the ranks of the proletariat.
The program also mentions the need to abolish the wage system and the iron law of wages, which Marx had criticized using his theory of surplus value. The Gotha Program reiterates Lassalle's demand of "producer cooperative societies with state aid under the democratic control of the toiling masses." The program reflects Lassalle's plan for organization on national lines with: "the working class strives for its emancipation first of all within the framework of the national state" resulting in "the international brotherhood of peoples." The program ends with a list of practical short term goals, such as universal suffrage to achieve democratization. (76)
The Swedish translation of the Gotha Program was worked out carefully. Palm also introduced small but important changes. He dropped the words "all other classes [besides the working class] are only one reactionary mass," because he wanted to unite not just industrial workers, but all laboring classes, including the peasantry and artisans. Thus Palm followed Lassalle when he sometimes used the terms "working class" and "workers estate" interchangeably. (77) For Lassalle, the workers estate meant 89% of society, its poorest layers- the toiling masses. (78)
Palm also changed the phrase "iron law of wages" to "the wage system." But this still alluded to the iron law as the 1888 program of a Social Democratic congress in southern Sweden described "тАжthe so called wages of labor, which, at best, constitute a subsistence minimum." Thus the early Social Democrats saw the iron law as a "scientific fact." (79)
In later editions, more political demands were added to the SAP's program: the abolition of vagrancy laws that prevented workers from traveling freely without papers, the separation of political prisoners from criminals, the right to form unions, the disbandment of the standing army in favor of a general "militia army" etc. (80) The Gotha program would, with slight variations, remain the program of the Swedish Social Democrats until 1897. (81)
Unfortunately the organ that published the party program, Folkviljan, suffered from a shortage of funds. In March 1884, the Socialists in Copenhagen founded the Society of Assistance to Socialism in Sweden. Their donations allowed Palm to continue his agitation and newspaper. Thus the Danish Socialists provided not only experience and ideological background for Palm, but organizational support as well. That May the Scandinavian Union of Tobacco Industry Workers began to publish the newspaper. But the union was as inexperienced in publishing as Palm had been in the beginning. Fights arose over the paper's organization, printing, and expenses. The union wanted to have the legal rights to the paper, but Palm insisted they could only belong to the SAP. (82)
There were problems with printing too, until Palm procured his own small printer in the beginning of 1885. But when it was stolen, a meeting of the Society of Assistance to Socialism in Sweden decided Palm should close his paper and move the center of his activity- and therefore the Socialist movement- to Stockholm. He did this in the summer of 1885, but it was a difficult step for Palm; he had developed what he called a "love" for Folkviljian. It was especially important to him because although the social conditions were present for the growth of Socialism, Palm was not a determinist. He understood that it was necessary for people to raise their Socialist consciousness, and his paper was a means for that.
Palm also had to struggle against the liberals, who opposed the Socialist movement and its urging the workers to independently assert themselves in the political sphere. They counter-posed this with their own doctrine of "self-help" and told the workers to engage in a "moral struggle." This meant that people should only clean their houses, save their money, receive education and leave welfare in the hands of private charities, instead of striking and other "disorderly" activities. (83)
These views were shared by Anton Nystrom, a leading figure in the liberal workers movement. (84) They were part of his "Positivism," which told workers to focus on "realizable goals" and "moral principles." Nystrom was among other liberal democrats who described themselves as "worker friendly." Unlike the liberal bourgeoise, most liberal democrats favored increasing voting rights; some even wanted state pensions for the workers. But the liberals were united in supporting basically unregulated capitalism and rejected Socialism. As a result, Nystrom made vicious anti-Socialist speeches which led to a mutiny in Palm's Malmo agitation committee. This brought about Palm's open fight against liberalism. The creation of a Social Democratic paper in Stockholm, where Nystrom worked, gave Palm the ability to successfully repel Nystrom's attacks. (85)
The Stockholm Social Democratic Club was formed in 1883 by the carpenters' union. (86) Historian John Lindgren writes that before Palm's arrival, the club was similar in structure to the liberal Workers Associations. The workers formed the majority, but were politically "dependent and confused," while a group from "educated society" had entered and led the club. (87) Some of the latter came from liberal democratic circles: Gotfried Peterson and Gunnar Haegerstolpe from the "worker friendly" liberal paper Tiden, George Lundstrom from the tabloid Figaro, Doctor A. F. Akerberg, and Frederik Sterky. Many likely joined because they realized the liberal organizations- which opposed strikes and universal suffrage- were not addressing the workers' real needs. According to Palm, "Every Monday evening 20-30 people gathered in the club and enlightened each other." (88) After arranging two open mass meetings- against the new required military service and against liberalism- he left to agitate in the Northlands. Returning, he found the group hadn't progressed, and decided to create a Socialist paper. But the former liberal democrats opposed opening another newspaper for the workers besides Tiden, which had already been accepted by the unions. Palm cleverly proposed asking Hjalmar Branting, the editor of Tiden, if it might be officially considered a Socialist paper. (89)
Karl Hjalmar Branting (1860-1925) had studied astronomy in Uppsala University, where he founded the liberal democratic Verdandi student circle with future liberal prime minister Karl Staaf. Branting accepted Nystrom's Positivism and joined him in founding "Stockholm's first liberal electoral machine, the Reform Association.," which demanded only "extended suffrage." (90) Branting began to work at Tiden in 1883. He joined the Social Democratic club briefly in the winter of 1884 -1885, before he became editor and owner of Tiden. As cotreasurer of Nystrom's "Workers Institute," Branting desired cooperation with the Socialists. Later as a member of the SAP, he sympathized and desired close collaboration with the liberals. When Branting became editor, he announced that Tiden would not change its tone and rejected the Social Democrats' proposal that it be officially Socialist. (91)
Therefore the club agreed with Palm to form their own paper and published the first issue of Social Demokraten on the 25th of September 1885. Palm was the paper's main editor. His close friend Axel Danielsson (1863 - 1899), a literary scholar from Uppsala University, artfully formulated and edited Palm's thoughts. Fredrik Sterky was also on the editing board. (92)
The first issue of Social Demokraten introduced the new paper to its readers. The present economic and political development of society were characterized by the injustice of a small privileged class living in abundance at the expense of the working class who found it difficult to survive. The task of the working class and its "forceful and uncompromising spokesman" Social Demokraten was to protect and achieve a healthier, happier, more humanly dignified existence for them. The paper addressed itself to "the most numerous class in society- the working estate, to whose class also the small businessmen and professionals must be counted into, in short all those, who more or less for their existence are dependent onтАж the power of capital." They were bound by common interests to work for "the liberation of labor from the power of capital" and the "chains that restrain its social, political, and religious development." The working estate must participate in the political sphere for its social and economic benefit. (93)
Next, Social Demokraten explained how it was organizing itself and encouraged its readers to join. The paper depended on the support of the public and its readers, so Sweden would not be "the only civilized country in the world that lacks a Social Democratic party organ." It was necessary to support the struggle, strengthen their hope and courage, and bring in more workers. With the movement's growth, its opponents would be forced to make concessions and reforms. The party organ "works for the realization of the Social Democratic state." (94)
The words "Social Democratic state" are remarkable because it goes beyond the demand for the total abolition of the monarchy that the SAP adhered to. (95) Palm's Social Democrats therefore demanded not only a republic, but a state on a Socialist basis.
As for society's "religious development," Danielsson believed that "Christianity was a stage of culture which had passed." (96) Palm also rejected Christian Socialism as an unreasonable combination. Its promoters, the clergy, were reaching for a lifeline against the strong currents of the times. Danielsson wrote in another article, "To show constant invariable laws for governing [the influences of social and cosmic forces] on man is therefore to destroy religionтАж But this brings us to Socialism," where man remolds his social conditions. (97) Therefore refuting what Palm called "religious superstition" was unnecessary; he and Danielsson insisted that religion was a "private concern." (98)
Not long after the Stockholm Social Democratic Club's founding, the importance of the question of what position to take in relation to the liberals became clear. Many liberals were viciously antiSocialist. Palm concluded, however, that it was sometimes necessary to cooperate with the most radical liberal democrats in the battle against the conservatives: for example, in certain elections. But Palm did this only with a pre-election program agreement and maintained a separate platform. He never compromised his positions and always made clear his differences with the liberals. Thus the Malmo Social Democrats supported two liberal democratic candidates who spoke at one of the Socialists' meetings and sought universal suffrage. (99)
In taking this position, Palm was not in opposition to Lassalle. In September 1863 Lassalle asked his supporters to vote for Progressives- even while he was in negotiations with Bismarck. He did this to persuade the Prime Minister to give larger concessions and show the strength of democracy. (100) But Lassalle rejected even voting for liberals who did not stand for universal suffrage. (101)
Before Palm's arrival, the Social Democrats in Stockholm had united with the liberals in a coalition and "unconditionally voted for Adolf Hedin, who only stood for lowering the wealth limit for voting to 400 Kroner." Palm criticized this in Folkviljian. (102) Branting wrote back that "A victory for the liberals is still a victory for the workers." (103) Then he wrote in Tiden that because Hedin was a liberal democrat, Palm should "Listen to the advice of a person [Branting], sincerely devoted to SocialismтАж Don't push away from yourself without need those with whom you still can for a long time work together, and who consciously or unconsciously, prepare the way for victorious Socialism." (104) Palm replied in Folkviljian that "the difference between Swedish liberals and reactionaries is, at least through Social Democratic eyes, hardly noticeable," and rejected a "common left-front" with liberalism. (105) Therefore Palm followed Lassalle in desiring the workers to be independent of the liberals, whom he saw as basically reactionary. Branting's position, on the other hand, did not originate in Marxism after 1870 or Lassalleanism. He continued to highly value the liberals and desired a coalition to work for the goals they had in common with the Socialists.
Two other movements the Social Democrats opposed were the "Smith worker circles" and the Temperance movement. As with the liberals, Palm gave conditional support to those of them who accepted universal voting rights and progressive taxation. Lars Smith, Sweden's "Vodka King," set up a cooperative movement in liquor production. It was very popular among the workers and gave out free lunches from steam powered kitchens. As a consumer cooperative movement, it sold consumer products much cheaper than could be found elsewhere. (106) The Social Democrat's criticism, published in Folkviljian was of the consumer cooperative movement in general. If the cooperatives sold products at below market prices to help the other workers who were poor, then they were just lowering the cooperative's revenues. Saving, the supposed advantage of buying from the cooperative, wasn't the main goal, which was abolishing the Iron Law of Wages. The consumers wages would go down by the same amount that they had saved because the cost of their subsistence level had decreased. Here Palm used Lassalle's argument against the consumer cooperative model. (107)
The Temperance movement and its main organization, the International Order of Good Templars, were brought to Sweden by religious revivalist missionaries from England and America in 1879. The anti-alcohol movement was therefore imbued with the missionaries' fanatical Calvinism. It used "feelings of personal guilt" and condemnation to "save" people from "the liquor devil" and seducer of "moral degeneration." Another tenet of the sobriety movement was that alcohol was the main cause of society's problems and interest in other concerns such as raising living standards was slight. The Swedish temperance movement was anti Socialist and conservative. Carl Hurtig, one of its leading spokesman, told the workers in his paper "Reform," that they would be successful through diligence, meekness, sobriety, and the fear of God. He presented the anti-Semitic and socially conservative Christian Social Party in Germany as a model while that stating Good Templars stood apart from all political activity. Outside of the official temperance movement itself, anti-alcoholism was part of the liberals' doctrine of the workers' betterment through "self help." (108)
The Social Democratic leaders held temperance, along with the other tenets of Puritanism in contempt. Most of them- Palm, Danielsson, Sterky, and Branting, hardly abstained from alcohol, and their optimistic, socially active personalities clashed sharply with those of the Good Templars. The Socialists' theoretical criticism was that Social Revolution and universal voting rights were far more important than the sobriety movement's "moralistic" demands on its members. Not alcohol, but Capitalism was the source of society's problems. They saw alcoholism as a physical, as opposed to a moral disease., and considered it a product of capitalism. The Socialists said it would go away with the abolition of oppressive conditions and introduction of better healthcare. The Good Templars was not a democratic organization. It required of its members total abstinence from both alcohol and (nonconservative) political activity. It required members to accept religious doctrines, and enforced this policy with expulsions.
The organization also fought with the Socialists over the workers' loyalty. Palm held a meeting around 1885 in Stockholm that was attended by many members of the Good Templars. It was decided after some debates that because the Socialists represented the interests of the workers, and because the temperance movement had many workers, it was the duty of the temperance movements to support Socialism. This led to the expulsions of many workers from the temperance organizations. Two years later, another meeting in Malmo with more workers from the Good Templars denounced that organization's reactionary political leadership and secret religious-like ceremonies. (109) So Palm and the Social Democrats fought against the leadership and doctrines of the Liberal political movement, the Smith Circle movement, and the Sobriety movement, but they accepted members from and cooperation with these organizations on the condition of acceptance of well-defined platforms. Erik Nordman from the Smith Circle movement would become one of Palm's close friends and, in 1886, chairman of the Social Democrats' organization.
As for the unions, there were two possible forms of organization that were debated internationally: "industrial unionism" and "trade unionism." Trade unionism meant organizing the workers in unions by "trade," or profession. It was the earliest form that unions took. (110) Industrial unionism meant uniting the workers according to industry. In that case, all the union members in an industry acted together, regardless of their profession. (111) The 1935 split between the trade unionist American Federation of Labor and the industrial unionist Congress of Industrial Organizations- the largest American unions- provided the clearest example of this difference in structure. (112)
On one hand, German Social Democrats organized unions to fight a local and daily battle. These unions, aware of their greater mission, united with the party to fight the capitalist system as a whole. (113) The English trade unions of the late 19th century, however, rejected any greater political aims and limited themselves to issues of wages and working hours. The trade union leaders rejected Socialism, usually supported the Liberal Party. This was also tied to the choice between a mass, inclusive and a limited, exclusive organization. A mass union fights for the entire working class and includes even the poorest professions. (114) The strongest example of mass unionism is the International Workers of the World, which sought to join "every man, woman and child" into "One Big Union." (115) But the English trade unions leaders created a "labor aristocracy" that included only skilled workers. (116)
In 1883 the Stockholm trade unions, including those who accepted the liberals' ideology, formed the national Central Committee of Trade Unions (FCK). Nystrom wrote its first program. It called for education, training, defense of the interests of employers and employees, and an end to strikes and unemployment. The liberal leadership promoted the example of the English trade unions. It wanted unions to be passive, apolitical, and limited to skilled professions. (117) Branting planned to win the leaders over to more radical positions. But the Social Democrats rejected relying on them and wanted to turn the unions into a mass organization. This struck a chord with the workers, of whom only 20 percent were unionized. Branting criticized Palm in Tiden for splitting the working class. He proposed a compromise in the program to keep the factions together, but it wasn't possible. (118)
On September 9, 1885 a meeting of the FCK welcomed the proposal of SA. Junsson, founder of the Stockholm Social Democratic Club, for a new program. He was chosen with the Socialists Nordman and KGT. Vikman to write the new program. This led to lively debates in the unions and a fight between the Liberals and the Socialists for the leadership. IM. Engstrom, another Socialist, was elected FCK Chairman. Nordman and Vikman were also elected to the leadership. In May 1886 they drew up a new program, in agreement with that of the Social Democrats. (119) It declared "the profit of work belongs to those who work." (120) The unions would cooperate to defend the workers from the despotism of their employers and seek the full rights of a citizen for all in society. (121) The new program also made new demands for a maximum 10 hour working day, social insurance, arbitration for labor disputes, and universal suffrage. The Riksdag should become unicameral, instead of the two tiered system that favored the wealthy upper house. (122)
The Social Democratic Association became the new name of the Social Democratic Club in October 1885, under Palm's leadership. This reflected a change to a mass organization with a leading role in the working class. (123) Yet as shown by his experience with the Malmo tobacco union in 1884, Palm's Lassallean organizational structure would never give unions control over the party; the German Lassalleans subordinated the unions to the party. (124)
Another issue the Swedish Social Democrats devoted their attention to was protectionism. In the mid 1800's the United States used tariffs to protect developing industries from cheap British imports. Britain, on the other hand, had a strong manufacturing industry and promoted free trade. (125) Britain adopted the free trade principle when it repealed the protectionist Corn Laws in 1846. Wealthy landowners used the Corn Laws to set high prices on agricultural products, deepening the Irish Potato Famine. (126)
According to Axel Danielsson, Socialists could not take a permanent stand for or against tariffs. In the 1880's the Swedish Social Democrats opposed the tariffs on grain and pork that the rich landowners wished to levy. The tariffs were advantageous for the landowners because they raised consumers' prices by "protecting" the products from the competition of cheaper grain from America and Russia. This was harmful to the mass of workers living in poverty. The slogan of the Social Democrats was "Down with starvation tariffs!" in their first mass mobilization. On February 7, 1886 Palm led 10,000-15,000 people on a demonstration through Stockholm. Two weeks later there was a demonstration of 20,000 in Malmo. Liberal "free-traders," were elected to a majority in the Riksdag, but the protectionists annulled the mandates and introduced the tariffs anyway. The Social Democrats used this to show the workers not to rely on parliamentary procedures. Their leadership of the fight against starvation tariffs brought them the workers' loyalty. That is how the Social Democrats and their paper Social Demokraten came to lead the labor movement. (127)
Social Demokraten became the only paper written by a workers' organization as Tiden had closed down in January 1886 during the fight inside the FCK. The workers were attracted to Social Demokraten's class analysis and especially the literary talent of Axel Danielsson.
From its founding, there was a group with an orientation different than that of Palm and Danielsson inside the Stockholm Social Democratic Association. It was led by Frederik Sterky, who in January 1886 declared that Social Democrats are nonrevolutionary and "always maintain a legal path." For him, Socialism meant that over time the state would acquire certain big industries through a natural process. Palm was suspicious of Sterky because he came from a rich landowning family. Palm and the workers also referred derisively to Sterky's faction as "the intelligences," the peasants' slang for "educated society." (128) Many in the faction came from liberal circles and these influences remained when they became Social Democrats. While Palm encouraged "collectivism" in the Social Democratic Association, Sterky's faction desired "individualism." The faction focused on education and enlightenment. It also promoted a coalition with the liberals. (129) Like the liberal democrats, it promoted reforms as a method of social change and rejected revolution.
The faction criticized Palm's editorship for "rough language," which meant his hostility to the upper classes and revolutionary sentiments. Sterky, Akerberg, and Hinke Bergegren set up a "committee for supervision over the press" to express these criticisms of the editorship. But elections on April 27, 1886 confirmed Palm as editor of Social Demokraten. Engstrom, who belonged to the faction, was chosen as the Social Democratic Association's chairman. Sterky's faction was dissatisfied with the results because the editorship was the most important post. The faction demanded Engstrom become editor and offered that the surveillance committee become unpaid employees of the paper along with a gift of 500 kroner. The Social Democratic Association refused these demands, so Sterky's group formed the Social Democratic Fraternity on May 25, 1886. It set up a paper called Nua Samhallet, or New Community, with Akerberg as editor. (130)
Social Demokraten grew in popularity among the workers in spite of the split. On June 18th, Danielsson published an "Organizational Plan For the Working Class of Sweden." It said that "an organization gives the workers strength" and "oppression may be broken only by force." Of the two forms of organization, Danielsson wrote that unions must be independent of other classes, which excluded the liberals' control. The unions must claim all the workers in each profession, even the unemployed. In this way they should unite into a central organization. The unions struggle against Capital while caring for the daily needs of their members. Therefore Danielsson promoted trade unions in a mass organization, aware of its place in the struggle against Capitalism.
According to Danielsson the function of achieving long term goals belongs to a party, a socio-political organization with a wider base and more power than a union. It will have regional sections and belong to an international Socialist organization. The party will lead the workers' struggle for liberation. (131)
In contrast to the nonrevolutionary position of Nua Samhallet, Danielsson asserted that Social Demokraten would bring its ideas to the masses on a revolutionary and scientific basis. A social revolution would end class differences and the slavery of man to machines under Capitalism by bringing machines and land under the ownership of the people. In this struggle the bourgeoisie were the enemy, with interests opposite to those of the workers. As a scholar, Danielsson became familiar with Marx's work, especially the Communist Manifesto, and this had a great effect on his thinking. It was clear to Danielsson that the revolution shouldn't take the form of a coup, but as said in the Communist Manifesto, it must be done by the workers themselves and lead to "communist self-rule." He believed a revolutionary crisis was developing in the most advanced capitalist countries and that Sweden must participate in this revolution. Like other Marxists on the continent, he predicted it would occur simultaneously in different advanced capitalist countries and therefore be solid and lasting. (132)
Similarly, Palm believed social justice would come through revolution. (133) He rejected emphasizing reforms in favor of the revolutionary transformation of society. (134) As Palm described it in "at least one article" of Social Demokratin, a social revolution meant a violent rebellion. (135)
The Congress of Scandinavian Unions from 27-29 of August 1886 further strengthened the Socialists' position in the unions. The union leaders in the FCK with liberal tendencies did not share the idea of an international congress. So it was held by the FCK's section in Gothenburg, where the unions were sympathetic. Palm represented the Social Democratic Association. The congress resolved to demand the 8 hour workday and declared itself Socialist because "the private-capitalist mode of production always will prevent the achievement of happiness and satisfaction in society." (136)
Meanwhile, the Social Democratic Fratenity became isolated from the workers. Nua Samhallet didn't take class positions and distanced its positions from the other Social Democrats'. The Social Democratic Fraternity sought to reunite with the Social Democratic Association to avoid total dissolution.
The reunification took place at a meeting on August 28, 1886. Most of the rivalry was between Palm and Sterky, so Axel Danielsson represented the Social Democratic Association. Hjalmar Branting negotiated on behalf of the Social Democratic Fraternity because he had joined it after the schism in May 1886.
The parties agreed to form the Social Democratic Union with Social Demokraten as its organ and close Nua Samhallet. At the elections for Social Demokraten's editorial board, Danielsson became the chief editor with 108 votes, Palm was next with 76 votes, and Branting received 56 votes. It was clear that the Fraternity had capitulated. According to Palm, Sterky recognized that the Fraternity was a mistake. One weakness of the reunification was that it lacked a document that would hold its signers to future obligations in respect to this capitulation, to avoid interparty intrigues. The Gotha program remained the program of the Social Democratic Union. (137)
The reunification was a major event for Branting, who had been a figure in the liberal workers movement. His acceptance of the views of Nystrom, Knut Wicksell, and other famous liberals contrasted with the Social Democrats' struggle with them. Nystrom, who promoted Positivist morality and enlightenment, declared that Socialism was just a question for bellies. Palm replied in Social Demokraten that the "belly question" had become the most important question for the hungry masses, when capitalists stuffed their own at the people's expense. (138) Wicksell was a liberal economist who taught Neo Malthianism, a social welfare theory based on overpopulation, and advocated birth control to cure poverty. (139) Wicksell said the Social Democratic program's statement that labor creates all wealth was wrong and that capitalism wasn't exploitative. In his speech "the Theory of Value of Karl Marx," the Social Democrat Wermelin showed that Marx said nature also created wealth. But Wermelin added that the program must be interpreted in spirit. Its point was that capitalists take part of the wealth created by labor and this is the basis for exploitation and class conflict.
Branting's entrance into the Social Democratic Union, however he may have hoped, did not put him in a position to "unify" the labor movement. Instead, he came into conflict with the liberals himself by reuniting and strengthening the Socialist movement. Branting previously belonged to the liberals' organization "Worker Union." But after it resolved that Socialism was harmful for workers, Branting and other Social Democrats excluded cooperation with the leaders of that organization at a large meeting on November 1, 1886. On November 7th Palm and the Social Democrats attended one of the Worker Union's meetings. When the leaders denied him permission to speak, Palm pushed through to the stage. He took over the meeting with the audience's support and made anti liberal declarations. The press reported this as a "revolution." This serves as an example of how Palm (or for that matter Lassalle) might lead a real revolution. There was no violence, but at the same time, the Socialists forced their way through without regard for the liberals' "procedures." (140)
Thus Branting had seen the failure of Tiden, the success of the Socialist movement, and accepted more and more of its ideas. Although he still sympathized with the liberals, Branting's entrance into the Social Democratic Union separated him from the liberal movement. It marked his transition to Socialism.
Another major event for Branting as a Socialist was his speech to the workers' club in Gavle on October 24, 1886. "Why the Workers' Movement Must Become Socialistic" is the declaration of independence of specifically Swedish Social Democracy. Branting shows that the conditions for Socialism are developing in Sweden. The workers must become conscious of and accept their task to bring on Socialism.
He begins by declaring the issue of labor to be the most important. The labor movement was created by developments different from movements of the lower classes in "fundamentally different historical periods"- the ancient slave revolts, the bourgeoisie's revolutions against the aristocracy etc. The industrial worker comes from the mechanized large scale production that replaces the outdated feudal guild system. According to Branting, the small handicraft system, where workers were tied to a guild and their masters, was appropriate for medieval conditions. But economic conditions evolve and new systems develop. Capitalism is also becoming outdated. It was necessary to create large scale production. But as it develops further, so does its hopeless disadvantage for the workers in profit distribution. Therefore large scale production must become ordered, unified, and social, instead of remaining capitalist. Capitalism's free competition both created and will be ruined by the same large scale production. Small producers can't compete with factories producing 100 times as many products at lower costs. They can either industrialize or close down and join the workers.
The build up of large production changes the worker's situation too. He no longer has the guildmaster's patriarchal protection and a few coworkers. Instead he is organized with others in a mass army of labor and disassociated from the employer. The stock exchange further destroys any personal bond between the worker and the owner of his work. This disassociation is the basis for class antagonisms. The owner wants to raise profits and lower wages as much as possible. Without their own means of subsistence, the laborers will work for the lowest wages that sustain them. The new conditions themselves sharpen class antagonisms and lead to greater class consciousness. The workers begin to realize that their problems are from a whole system where employers must profit as much as possible to outdo the other businesses.
Free competition and large production also result in the workers' consciousness when they concentrate wealth and production in the hands of a few privileged individuals. A baker with the newest inventions and a large supply of capital charges lower prices than 20 small bakers. He uses free competition to succeed, but afterwards raises prices higher than any before. The capitalist achieves great wealth, but the 20 middle class bakers are reduced to poverty. Thus, millionaires are made at the expense of increasing property-less masses.
Branting disproved the liberals' claims that the common citizens' wealth is increasing. He said that if some of the poor's needs are better fulfilled now, it is at the expense of other needs. (141) In addition, poverty is a relative term. The increasing gap between the rich and the growing poor shows that the dissolution of the middle class is unquestionable. Millionaires will stand alone against hungry masses and the next social development will be simpler than the replacement of the guilds with large scale production.
Just as private property was appropriate for the feudal guilds, it will be impossible at the furthest development of large production. The capitalist owners do not profit because they are good managers, but because they own capital. Under conditions of intense large production, they become parasites on society and should fall off with their unfair profits. Society must take possession of their capital, "comfort everybody's necessary burden of work" and "make life happier for the mass of people." (142) Then will class antagonisms be broken and equality real. There will be no more competitive fighting in society. Rather society will collectively fight for its well-being.
The historical task of the working class is to enact this development. The workers movement must become Socialist. It must become conscious of and accept the task that conditions have provided.
Branting said that this is different from seeking small momentary reforms, being scared and confused, listening to unimportant leaders- traits of the nonSocialist worker movement and English Trade Unionism. He criticized them for seeking small improvements like raising wages, but ignoring politics, including only a small part of the working class, and for their leader's selfishness. Their success is from the good position of English industry, but they cannot resist competition from industrialization on the continent, which is bringing them to Socialism.
When the Swedish workers accept Socialism, they must understand the superiority of large scale production over small production. To cure the exploitative tendencies of capitalist large production, they must expropriate the millionaire's capital and "make capital also legally what it has already economically been, society's collective property." Branting here is referring to the increasingly social nature of mass production. While small production has the "free competition" of market chaos, inside of large production, the organization is unified, orderly, and purposeful, with huge armies of workers.
He proposes two organizations that work together towards Socialism: the union and the party. The union leads the daily economical struggle for bread and butter. It collectively resists the effect of the Iron Law to minimize wages, and fights the outrages of Capital by influencing working conditions. It organizes workers by profession and must contain all of them in the country, irrespective of political or religious beliefs. They must all belong to a union so that employers negotiate. But the unions can't become "fires of political agitation." This is the role of a social-political organization- the party.
The party strives for legal reforms for the workers, conquers political power, and arranges the transition to Socialism. The party is necessary because the unions alone cannot prevent the workers' ultimate dependence on Capital. The political party consists of class conscious workers and independent organizations like the Gavle Workers' Club and Stockholm Social Democratic Union. The party and the union must be equally strong. Through them, the labor movement fights for its final goal: "the complete freedom for the working class from all slavery- political, economical, social, and spiritual."
Branting said Socialism is revolutionary in the sense of a new principle of brotherhood, solidarity, and progress. It builds society on a basis superior to the liberals' principle "that everyone should try to fight his way though; if he fails, the worse for him!"
Therefore it is not enough for Socialists to cooperate with liberals to fight for political freedoms and only afterwards push for Socialism. The labor movement must not become the liberals' radical "tail." The liberals' political reforms are inadequate for the workers' needs. With the "freedom to work," the laborer still receives subsistence wages. Although the liberals want to end the despotism of the king and state church, they won't end the despotism of circumstances. Nor does liberalism show how the workers may escape their bad conditions. The liberals are wrong to say that sobriety or thrift could raise the working class from its social problems. Thrift won't help because the employers will see their workers are able to save more and work for less. "It is nonsense, there is nothing worse, disgusting hypocrisy, to come to those who have least in society and tell them to save more." (143)
Branting also saw "the temperance movement as worthless or a clear danger from the point of view of the working class," according to Tingsten. He explains that Branting used the "Iron Law" to show "temperance could not help the working class." (144)
In the speech, Branting said drinking is a "small amusement, a pleasure." He asked if the workers "abstained" from it, "what would be the consequences?" They would certainly not get to keep the few coins they saved, "whatever the temperance publications and temperance apostles might say." The workers' wages would fall to "the same price as before, minus the now withdrawn and unnecessary pennies for liquor. In the end the profits from the whole affair accrues to the employers, who will get their manpower cheaper."(145)
Therefore (in part because he had joined only two months earlier) Branting's speech was a standard Social Democratic because its major ideas came from Lassalle and Marx. Both of their writings review historical processes- the replacement of the guilds' small scale production by capitalist large scale production. Like Branting, they both saw the workers as the class that would create Socialism. (146) Social Demokraten stated in early 1886 that the class consciousness of the workers during the concentration of capital and sharpening class antagonism would bring developments in the direction of Socialization. This was the main point of Branting's speech, and in Marxism and Lassalleanism. (147) Lassalle's Iron Law is mentioned many times in the document. Branting quotes Marx's Communist Manifesto several times. (148) Historians suggest it provided much of the speech's basis. (149) Perhaps Branting made a standard Social Democratic speech and avoided any praise for the liberals because he had joined only two months earlier. He came from a faction that had just capitulated.
Yet Branting's Gavle Speech also reflects his reformism. For him, Socialism was revolutionary only insofar as it meant building society on a new principle. He would accept illegal methods if the upper classes refused universal suffrage and destroyed civil liberties. The requirement for a "peaceful workers movement" is that it has a way to assert itself. "Universal suffrage is thus the price, which the bourgeoisie must pay for its dissolution by administrative action rather than bankruptcy." (150) Tingsten explains that this meant Branting saw "revolutionary methods a necessity if suffrage were not granted, but he rejected the thought of revolution under other circumstances or other aimsтАж He accepted the bourgeois-democratic revolution but rejected the social revolution." (151)
Further, Tingsten uses Branting's July 10 1887 Lill-Jans resolution to show this was in fact Branting's position. It said that universal suffrage was necessary if the people were to become their own masters "through peaceful means and reform society according to their needs." It concluded by saying "the speedy granting of universal suffrage is the only way to a peaceful solution of the great Social QuestionтАж" (152)Tingsten says that "When he threatened violence, it was in regard to the struggle for universal suffrage."
For Lassalle, on the other hand, the mid 19th century French Republic, which had universal suffrage, was a bourgeoise republic, not a true democracy for the working estate. Lassalle also told the workers not to be satisfied after universal suffrage was granted, but continue with more demands in its place. (153)
As a result of the Gavle speech, Branting's authority rose greatly in the Social Democratic Union. The number of its reformist Socialists had increased both with reunification and with the recent entrance of the unions' upper layers which had been previously imbued with liberal ideas. Palm was hardly a master of interparty intrigues nor did he desire to be. Besides, his struggles had been with Sterky, not Branting. His friend Danielsson had since become an excellent scholar and coeditor, wielding great literary talent. With Danielsson now as primary editor, Palm went on another of his agitation journeys in early November. In his place as junior editor came Branting.
Branting then wrote articles that promoted Nystrom's "Workers Institute" and tried to raise respect and understanding for Nystrom. Branting wrote favorable articles about the liberal economist Wicksell more often than international Socialist events.
Meanwhile, the reformists became much more powerful in Palm's absence. They gave the unions, instead of the Social Democratic Union, ownership rights to Social Demokraten in the beginning of 1887. While the FCK accepted the Social Democratic Union, that fact did not necessitate which faction the FCK's entrance would favor: its first Socialist chairman was Engstrom, one of the founders of the Social Democratic Fraternity. While the rank and file union members favored the Social Democratic Association, it was the reformist upper layers of the unions that were delegated to a new directing committee of Social Demokraten. The committee replaced Danielsson with Branting as chief editor. Danielsson wrote of this incident that to "fatally wound a brave officer, the committee lowered his rank." (154) According to him, it occurred without the "common party members' knowledge." (155)
Danielsson left for Malmo with Nordman. There in the summer of 1887, Danielsson began a successful newspaper Arbetet and led the Social Democratic movement in the south of Sweden. Branting emerged from the interparty struggle as the chief editor of Social Demokraten, the leader of the Stockholm Social Democratic Union, and consequently of the Swedish Social Democratic movement. (155)
Therefore, the Swedish Social Democrats began as an organization that took its ideology mainly from Lassalleanism, and to a lesser extent Marxism, as the ideologies were conceived of by the Social Democrats at the time. Their organization was taken over by reformists who began with a similar ideology. But even at this early stage they differed with the more radical founders on the issues of cooperation with the liberals, revolution and its imminence, the trade unions, and the nature of the leadership. The founders were influenced by Lassalleanism and Marxism to reject compromise with the liberals, saw revolution as a forceful transformation of society, wanted the unions to be mass organizations subordinate to Social Democratic goals. In harmony with their agitator natures, Palm and Danielsson wanted the party leadership to be democratic and based on the workers.
On the other hand, the faction headed by Sterky, and later by Branting, wanted close cooperation and sometimes compromise with the liberals. It rejected a social revolution in favor of a democratic political revolution. Sterky's faction also sympathized with the more limited role of the trade unions, as shown by the failure of both Nua Samhallet and Tiden. Branting, however, came to accept a greater political role for the unions, as shown in the Gavle Speech. The members of Sterky's faction also desired a leadership that reflected their "academic" (and thereby better informed) and reformist interests, not mass participation by the workers in decision making. This was reflected in the way they removed Danielsson from the editorship in Palm's absence.
(1) Marquis Childs, Sweden: The Middle Way on Trial (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980) 167.
(2) Childs, 8. Dr Gunther Hega of Western Michigan University goes as far as to make "The Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) is a Marxist party" an incorrect answer on his final exam. See: Gunther Hega, "West European Political Systems" http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:aK49p85a5RYJ:homepages.wmich.edu/~hega/PSCI340/ps340fx.html+marxist+sap+swedish&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (last accessed 1 January 2004).
(3) "Force" also means "power." Thus a revolution refers to a "powerful" or "armed" overthrow. That infers to the potential for violence, but does not necessitate its actual use: "forceful," but not by necessity the employment of force. Hence the revolutionary Ferdinand Lassalle can say the upper classes maintain themselves by force- without actually employing it.
(4) Timothy Tilton, The Political Theory of Swedish Social Democracy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 251-254.
(5) Carl Landauer, European Socialism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959), 1063.
(6) Brett Silva, "Timeline- Revolutions of 1848" http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/revs/1848time.html (last accessed 7 January 2004).
(7) David Footman, Ferdinand Lassalle: Romantic Revolutionary (New York: Greenwood Press, 1947), 65.
(8) Footman, 65.
(9) Footman, 65. Lassalle would continue to speak proudly of the 1848 revolution and his role in it.
(10) George Brandes, Ferdinand Lassalle (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911), 54.
(11) Brandes, 54.
(12) Ferdinand Lasalle, "Workingmen's Programme," in Kuno Francke, The German Classics (New York: The German Publication Society, 1914), 410.
(13) Brandes, 164.
(14) Edward Bernstein, "Ferdinand Lassalle: CHAPTER V: The Worker's Programme" http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1893/lassalle/chap05.htm
(f10 (last accessed 9 January 2004). Elsewhere in the biography, Bernstein quotes a letter of Lassalle to Marx in 1862 about a fellow revolutionary named Captain Schweigart: He is at the head of the Wehr-Vereine (Arms-Club) that he has organized from Coburg, and is now proceeding to London to try and raise the money for getting 3000 muskets, which he requires for the Wehr-Vereine. I've no need to tell you how desirable this would be." Bernstein writes that this is a "further confirmation" of Lassalle's "revolutionary plans." Similarly, Lassalle established contacts with Italian Nationalists in 1861. He believed Garibaldi's assault on Austria would reignite the European revolution. (Landauer, 228)
(15) Karl Marx, "Marx-Engels Correspondence 1865: Marx To Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_02_23.htm (last accessed 11 January 2004).
(16) Landauer, 240, 1065-1066. A letter by Engels attests to the temporary nature of this alliance: "тАжhe seems just to have taken it for granted he would definitely do Bismarck in the eye, in exactly the same way as he could not fail to shoot Racowita dead." (Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Correspondence 1865: Engels To Marx In London" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_27.htm [last accessed 11 January 2004].)
(17) Landauer, 240-245.
(18) David Riazanov, "KARL MARX and FREDERICK ENGELS: An Introduction to Their Lives and Work. CHAPTER VI: MARX'S ATTITUDE TOWARD LASSALLE http://www.marxists.org/archive/riazanov/works/1927-ma/ch06.htm (last accessed 12 January 2004).
(19) Landauer, 254.
(20) Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Correspondence 1865: Engels To Marx In London" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_02_07.htm (last accessed 12 January 2004).
(21) Knut Backstrom, Istoriya Rabochego Dvizheniya v Shvetsii (Moscow: Izdatelstvo Inostrannoy Literatury, 1961), 131.
(22) Landauer, 240-245, 249. That universal suffrage can be seen as a powerful tool by a revolutionary is confirmed by Engels' words: "тАжuniversal suffrage is the best lever for a proletarian movement at the present time and will prove to be so here [in England]." Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Correspondence 1885: Engels to August Bebel In Plauen near Dresden" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885/letters/85_10_28.htm (last accessed 17 January 2004).
(23) Footman, 167-168. Why would Lassalle mention only "legal means" in his "Open Answer"? Landauer explains that if Lassalle's language was ever "less revolutionary than Marx's Communist Manifesto,тАж this was probably due to tactical considerations. Lassalle wrote under the eyes of an extremely watchful police in a semi-absolutistic state, and even his caution did not protect him entirely." (Landauer, 233)
(24) Brandes, 52. Lassalle, "Workingman's Program," 410. Lassalle did not fail to notice that the Prussian Diet was still subservient to the Kaiser, and that universal suffrage did not prevent France in 1848 from crushing the Socialist movement. He wrote that it was not a real democracy of the common people that ushered in the French dictator Louis Phillipe, but a bourgeois republic. In the end of his "Open Answer," Lassalle also showed that he could not be satisfied with universal suffrage. He declared that even if universal suffrage was achieved, the workers must fight for new and greater demands.
(25) Ferdinand Lasalle, "The Open Answer," in Kuno Francke, The German Classics (New York: The German Publication Society, 1914), 501-503, 508-509, 518.
(26) Landauer, 259.
(27) Karl Marx, "International Workingmen's Association 1868: Statement to the German Workers' Educational Society in London" http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1868/german-statement.htm
(n51 (last accessed 17 January 2004). Landauer, 238.
(28) Landauer 248-249. Gotha Congress, "The Gotha Program" in Robert Tucker, ed., The Marx Engels Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 533.
(29) Landauer, 108, 247, 258.
(30) Karl Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program" in Robert Tucker, ed., The Marx Engels Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 532-533.
(31) Landauer, 125.
(32) Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," 538. While agreeing that the Gotha Congress should be "cautious" and not demand a "democratic republic," Marx criticized as "dishonest" attempts to deceive the Prussian authorities that the Congress would "strive to use legal means" for the realization of goals that could only be fulfilled by a republic. (Such "deception" came from tactical considerations concerning the vigilant police.)
(33) Karl Marx, "Manifesto of the Communist Party" in Robert Tucker, ed., The Marx Engels Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 490. The Critique of the Gotha Program contrasts Lassalle's producer cooperatives with the more vague "cooperative production on a national scale." (Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," 536.)
(34) Landauer, 176-177, 1054.
(35) Landauer, 248.
(36) Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," 533-534.
(37) Landauer, 259.
(38) Backstrom, 61.
(39) Backstrom, 61.
(40) Backstrom, 61-65.
(41) Backstrom, 65.
(42) Backstrom, 65-66.
(43) Knut Backstrom, 67-74.
(44) Haеkan Blomqvist, Den Roda Traеden : Arbetarrorelsens Historia, en Alternativ oversikt (Stockholm: Roda Rummet, 1989), 40.
(45) Backstrom, 72-73.
(46) Backstrom, 75-76.
(47) Blomqvist, 56.
(48) Backstrom, 75-87.
(49) Backstrom, 86.
(50) Backstrom, 65-66, 87, 91, 93, 102-103. As for organizations like the Typography Association, they "were primarily educational in nature." (Angman, 9) Backstrom explains that they would provide the basis for the organization of independent labor unions.
(51) Backstrom, 101-102.
(52) Berndt Angman, The Early Ideological Development of The Social Democratic Workers' Party of Sweden, 1889-1920 (Maryville: Northwest Missouri State College, 1960), 9. Backstrom, 101-102 Shulz-Delitsch's cooperatives were viciously condemned by Lassalle for this reason. As for the German liberals' rejection of subsidies because the workers should use "self help," Lassalle in his Open Answer asked how it gave one less incentive if, when trying to climb a tower, someone gave them a ladder.
(53) Angman, 9. According to Angman, "The liberal workers' movementтАж failed about 1882, although [it] continued in being as late as 1890... The "self help" doctrines of Schulze DelitschтАж did not meet the workers' needs."
(54) Blomqvist, 58-59.
(55) Kerstin Wallin, The Origins of Trade Unions in Sweden (Stockholm: LO/TCO Bistaеndsnaдmnd, 1994), 5, 8.
(56) Backstrom, 104, 106-107, 122.
(57) Backstrom, 108-116.
(58) Backstrom, 125-127.
(59) Wallin, 60.
(60) Backstrom, 131-133.
(61) Yngve Palmgren, Fodd Till Agitator. En Studie i August Palms Politiska Utveckling och Verksamhet (Stockholm: Rabaйn & Sjogren, 1971), 144.
(62) Backstrom, 133-134.
(63) August Palm, "What do the Socialists Want?" in John Waldemar Lindgren, August Palm: Den Svenska Socialdemokratins Banbrytare (Stockholm: Tidens forlag, 1931), 1.
(64) In a footnote, Lindgren associates this with Palm's vision in 1905 for a Scandinavian Union and United States of Europe, instead of the forced union with Norway.
(65) Palm, "What do the Socialists Want?," 1-5.
(66) Gotha Congress, 540.
(67) Palm, "What do the Socialists Want?," 1-5. While the Lutheran state church was finally separated from the Swedish state in 2000, that does not remove the fact that church-state unity was allowed for 60 years when the Social Democrats ran the government. ("Church of Sweden" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Sweden [last accessed 25 January 2004]) Palm also says in the speech about the separation of church and state, "Only then will religion be able to fulfill its purpose- to comfort the misery, to console the grieved." This last sentence is an example of how, as Lindhagen says, Palm followed Lassalle's tactic of "in open politics, not to openly declare everything."(Palm, 2) Similarly, Lassalle had praised the work of Catholic Socialist Bishop Ketteler in his 1864 Ronsdorf address.
( (Georges Goyau, "Wilhelm Emmanuel, Baron von Ketteler" http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08629c.htm [last accessed 25 January 2004]) In fact, Palm saw religion as a tool used by the upper classes to make the workers submissive and politically indifferent. But he was a skillful agitator and the main goal was to persuade a middle-class audience about Socialism. Palm recognized religion had a strong hold on his audience: the success of the Temperance movement was due to its "mysterious secretiveness there with its signs, degrees etc. And it is not strange that a people like the Swedes, intellectually dulled by the clergy, join it." Elsewhere he described religion as a "spiritual plague which for centuries has hindered the progress of mankind." (Tingsten, 589, 641).
(68) Palm, "What do the Socialists Want?," 5-6.
(69) Palm, "What do the Socialists Want?," 2. Perhaps Lindgren was referring to Lassalle's "Open Answer."
(70) Backstrom, 169. Backstrom believes Palm did not mention revolution because he did not want to displease the middle class, which was most of his audience. Backstrom, 140, 156.
(71) August Palm, Ur En Agitators Liv (Stockholm: Solna, Seelig, 1970), 25-26, 36.
(72) Backstrom, 139-142, 145-146.
(73) Backstrom, 142, 146.
(74) Backstrom, 154.
(75) Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," 525.
(76) Gotha Congress, 525-541.
(77) Backstrom, 155-157.
(78) Edward Bernstein, "Ferdinand Lassalle: Chapter VI: The Open Reply Letter; its Political Portion" http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1893/lassalle/chap06.htm (last accessed 26 January 2004).
(79) Herbert Tingsten, The Swedish Social Democrats: Their Ideological Development (Totowa: Bedminster press, 1973), 116-117, 146.
(80) Backstrom, 156-157. Tingsten, 468.
(81) Backstrom, 194, 266-267.
(82) Backstrom, 142-145.
(83) Backstrom, 101, 150-152. Tingsten, 53-54, 633. See where Tingsten says, for example, "Closely related to this ["definite antagonism between Social Democracy and the temperance movement"] is the fact that the temperance demand was traditionally a component in the liberal self-help ideology, which was regarded as early socialism's most dangerous enemy."
(84) Backstrom, 150-152. When prominent political adversaries came to attack Palm at his meetings, he turned them away quickly with his sharp wit and humor. Usually the leaders in the liberal movement avoided the meetings. (Backstrom, 141) Nystrom never attended.
(85) Backstrom, 150-152. Hurd, 110-113. Backstrom distinguishes between the "liberal bourgeoisie" and the "liberal democrats," with the latter supporting increased suffrage. (Backstrom, 159) Hurd makes this distinction in terms of bourgeois liberals and "radical liberals" such as Nystrom, whom she calls "proworker." Based on some radical liberals' later support for the 8 hour workday and state pensions, Hurd concludes they had a "commitment to a statist answer to the "workers' question."" (Hurd, 110-113). This statement is misleading and the differences were based more on shades of attitude than ideological. The situation in Germany where Lassalle attacked the Progressive Party and Shulze Delitzsch along with other liberal groups, is comparable. The liberals who joined the Socialist movement came from the second, "liberal democratic" category.
(86) Backstrom, 159. Hans aЕkesson, "Branting Mot Palm- 1880-Talets Politiska Strid Gaеr Igen Idag," Socialisten (14 March 1996). http://home.swipnet.se/~w-22615/palm.htm (last accessed 20 December 2003). The carpenters formed it after one of Palm's public meetings. But the club was only officially constituted in August 1884. (Backstrom, 159-160)
(87) aЕkesson. Professor Berndt Angman describes Lindgren's book as "the best short political history of the party." (Angman, 9)
(88) Backstrom, 160. Many of them, including the leaders, likely joined the Socialists because they realized that the liberal organizations- which opposed strikes and universal suffrage- were not addressing the workers' real needs.
(89) Backstrom, 160-161.
(90) Hurd, 116-117, 197.
(91) Backstrom, 160-163, 189-190. Branting was also financially committed to Nystrom's "Workers Association": he gave them 3,000 Kroner from his inheritance. (Hurd, 194) In 1882 he also donated to a bankrupt liberal paper called "Sveriges," which promoted agreement across class boundaries. (Backstrom, 188-190) Branting differed from other liberal figures when, as co-treasurer of the "Workers Association," he did not attack the Socialists. Of course, Nystrom would not be opposed if the Socialists chose to "cooperate" by supporting the liberal candidates in elections !
(92) Backstrom, 160-163. Social Demokraten would play a major role in the fight against liberalism in the workers movement.
(93) August Palm, "To the Public!," Social Demokraten (25 September 1885), 1-2. Here Palm again uses the term "working estate" as Lassalle defined it by 89% of the population, which would include small businessmen.
(94) August Palm, "To the Social Democrats of Sweden!," Social Demokraten (25 September 1885), 1-2.
(95) Erik Asard, "Sweden: A Monarchy With a Powerless King, "Inside Sweden (May 1989), 13, 23. Asard writes that the party considered its anti-monarchist status as "self-evident." But after 1911, Branting and the majority of MPs believed the monarchy would disappear in time, as society was transformed in a "Socialist direction. Thus no particular agitation for a republic was necessary." "In time, the Social Democrats grew into the role of our foremost promonarchist party."
(96) Tingsten, 591.
(97) Tingsten, 589.
(98) Tingsten, 588-590. Hurd, 214.
(99) Backstrom, 151-152, 159-160.
(100) Landauer, 245.
(101) Lars Andersson, "Varfor Inte Palm?" http://marxistisktforum.cjb.net/uppsats/0006.htm (last accessed 2 July 2002).
(102) Backstrom, 151-152, 159-160.
(103) aЕkesson.
(104) Backstrom, 159-160.
(105) Ivar Sundvik, Branting Eller Palm (Stockholm: Tidens Forlag, 1981), 118-119. Palm wrote back that: "Palm does not feel that a "liberalism's victory over reaction can still be said to be a victory for the workers," but this general rule does not possess application on the given Swedish conditions: the difference betweenтАж" Sundvik quotes Branting as saying, "But yet so long is a victory for liberalism over reaction in general still a victory for the workers." This can probably be translated in different ways.
(106) Backstrom, 157-158.
(107) Tingsten, 667-668.
(108) Tingsten, 633-636.
(109) Tingsten, 633, 640-644.
(110) Savel Zimand, "Trade Unionism" http://www.boondocksnet.com/labor/history/trade_unionism.html (last accessed 29 January 2004).
(111) George Gorham Groat "Organized Labor in America: Industrial Unionism" http://www.boondocksnet.com/labor/history/ola/ola26.html (last accessed 29 January 2004). Whether trade or industrial unions should be used depended on how close the professions in an industry were. For example, the teamsters
(112) Roger H. Zieger, "The CIO and Industrial Unionism in America" http://lexisnexis.com/academic/2upa/A1/CIOIndustrialUnionism.asp (last accessed 29 January 2004).
(113) Landauer, 259. Kautsky explains the success of German unions in contrast to the stagnation of English ones as follows: "Socialists have founded the German Trade Unions, Socialists are its administrators, and it is the Socialists who have imparted to these Unions the vigour they possess. Kautsky, "On Socialism and Trade Unionism" http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1906/xx/unions.htm (last accessed 31 January 2004).
(114) Karl Kautsky, "Trade Unions and Socialism" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1901/04/unions.htm) last accessed 31 January 2004). Riazanov, "Karl Marx: Chapter VIII" http://www.marxists.org/archive/riazanov/works/1927-ma/ch08.htm (last accessed 31 January 2004). Marx also includes poor farm-laborers in his recommendation for mass unionizing.
(115) PBS, "Joe Hill: One Big Union" http://www.pbs.org/joehill/story/biography/big_union.html (last accessed 31 January 2004). Mass organizing does not have to rely on industrial unions: the IWW usually organized industrially, but also used trade unions.
(116) R.J. Morris, "The Labour Aristocracy in the British class struggle." http://www.ehs.org.uk/society/pdfs/Morris%207a.pdf (last accessed 31January 2004).
(117) Backstrom, 163-164. Instead of striking, the liberals promoted "discussion and literature" as the means to reforms. But like the English trade unions, the union leadership was willing to support universal suffrage. Riazanov, "Karl Marx: Chapter VIII"
(118) aЕkesson.
(119) Backstrom, 164-166, 188.
(120) Wallin, 9.
(121) Backstrom, 165.
(122) Larry Hufford, Sweden: the Myth of Socialism (London: Fabian Society, 1973), 4.
(123) Backstrom, 166.
(124) Landauer, 259-260.
(125) Ha Joon Chang, "History Debunks the Free Trade Myth" http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,742797,00.html (last accessed 1 February 2004).
(126) "Corn Laws" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws (last accessed 1 February 2004)
(127) Backstrom, 167-170, 172. In the course of events, the Stockholm demonstration became disorderly. Crowds converged on different parts of the city and ordered liberal democratic politicians to fight the tariffs. This should not be understood as Palm inciting a riot or, alternatively, using liberal politicians for his goals.
(128) Backstrom, 174-178 The Peasants' Party also used this term to stir up support among poor farmers against the liberal free-traders.
(129) Andersson. The author seems to be contrasting Palm's mixed centralized and democratic ("collective") organization against the decentralized organization of Sterky's Social Democratic Fraternity.
(130) Backstrom, 174-178. Akerberg held views close to religious Utopianism, which he expressed in the paper.
(131) Backstrom, 179-180
(132) Backstrom, 180-181,187
(133) Anniken Gustafsson, "Arbetarrorelsen i Sverige" http://www.mimersbrunn.se/arbeten/2551.asp (last accessed 2 February 2004).
(134) Sundvik, 161. Hurd, 116.
(135) Tingsten, 353. Tinsgten notes that both Palm and Danielsson were put on the defensive by Nystrom or another speaker. Under this pressure Palm said that violence would be used if freedom of speech was revoked and Danielsson said he didn't desire a violent revolution, and if violence became necessary, "it would be because of the upper class." Yet Tingsten makes it clear that Danielsson wanted a forceful overthrow.
(136) Backstrom, 164, 182-184. The Social Democratic Association had set up 11 unions in Stockholm.
(137) Backstrom, 175, 177, 181-182, 184 -185, 189-190, 194.
(138) Backstrom, 150-152, 190-193.
(139) "Knut Wicksell" http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Wicksell.html (last accessed 3 February 2004).
(140) Backstrom, 190-194. An illustration of the "Hall Revolution" in Branting Eller Palm shows people fighting, so it isn't clear whether violence occurred. But no one was hurt.
(141) Branting gave as an example that linen was more available but the quality of food decreased.
(142) In the bakery example, the bread price would be lowered and the workers would receive better pay and working hours.
(143) Karl Hjalmar Branting, "Why the Workers' Movement Must Become Socialistic," in Jan Lindhagen, ed., Bilden av Branting : En Antologi (Stockholm: Tiden, 1975).
(144) Tingsten, 641-642.
(145) Branting. Here Branting rejects the image of alcohol as a "liquor devil," and says it is an "amusement" instead. Branting also rejects the Temperance movement's recommendation for total "abstinence" from alcohol: asbtinence does not have any positive "consequences" because the Iron Law of Wages neutralizes the money that workers save on it. Rather, it denies workers a "simple pleasure"
(146) Branting.
(147) Tingsten, 139.
(148) Branting.
(149) Hufford, 3.
(150) Branting. He also said that Socialists would not "resort to unnecessary violence" if the upper classes respected popular will, even when it demanded an end to the upper classes' privileges. But Branting did not say whether there could be violence if they did not. Tingsten explains this vagueness by saying Branting wanted here to maintain good relations with the revolutionary and bourgeoise-democratic wings of the party.
(151) Tingsten, 349-350.
(152) Tingsten, 351. Tingsten concludes that "When he threatened violence, it was in regard to the struggle for universal suffrage."
(153) Lassalle, "The Open Answer," 520-.
(154) Backstrom, 167, 176, 184, 186, 194-197.
(155) Palmgren, 164-165.
(156) Backstrom, 194-197. Tingsten concludes that: "Various circumstances contributed to make Branting, who represented moderation and reformism from the start, the dominant force at the turn of the century." Both Tingsten and Sundvik write that no revolutionary elements in the trade unions played a decisive role in these events. (Tingsten, 459, 460.)
|
