Labour’s Movement Political Thought
By Riccardo Piroddi
Abstract: Il confronto tra le diverse anime del socialismo moderno ha plasmato il dibattito politico europeo tra XIX e XX secolo. Al centro di questa frattura, il contrasto tra il marxismo rivoluzionario e l’anarchismo radicale di Mikhail Bakunin, che rifiutava lo Stato in ogni sua forma, proponendo una liberazione totale da ogni gerarchia. In Inghilterra, invece, il movimento operaio prese una strada più pragmatica e riformista, scegliendo il dialogo istituzionale, influenzato dall’approccio gradualista della Fabian Society. In Germania, le tensioni tra riformismo (Bernstein) e rivoluzione (Luxemburg) diedero vita a una nuova fase del socialismo europeo, sempre più orientata alla mediazione politica. Infine, l’Austro-Marxismo di Max Adler introdusse una visione del socialismo come crescita etica e comunitaria, unendo idealismo e lotta sociale.
Mikhail Bakunin
The debate over the “workers’ question” unfolded primarily through the theoretical and political conflict between Marxism and anarchism. The ideological clash between Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin became especially pronounced following the failure of the Paris Commune in 1871, which led to the dissolution of the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA), founded in London in 1864. This organization was intended to unite various socialist, communist, and anarchist factions, but the growing divide between Marx and Bakunin ultimately fragmented the movement.
Mikhail Bakunin’s (1814–1876) theories were deeply intertwined with his dramatic and rebellious personal history. Initially associated with the Hegelian left, Bakunin radicalized the ideas of Arnold Ruge regarding religious alienation, proposing what he called a “political antitheology.” He drew a full parallel between God and the State, viewing both as oppressive institutions. In Bakunin’s view, the State was not merely an instrument of class domination, as Marx argued, but the very foundation and justification of all forms of political and social control. He believed that just as religion enslaved people’s minds, the State enslaved their bodies and political agency.
For Bakunin, true liberation required the destruction of both religion (which he, like Marx, famously referred to as the “opium of the people”) and the State, which he saw as a source of irreversible slavery. Unlike Marx, who advocated for the proletariat to seize state power, Bakunin argued that the revolution should not focus on taking control of the State but on dismantling it entirely. The State’s abolition would pave the way for a classless society, where no caste or privilege system could survive.
Bakunin strongly criticized Marx’s emphasis on the industrial proletariat as the vanguard of revolution. In his view, Marx’s theory simply replaced one form of domination with another: instead of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat would become the ruling class, perpetuating the same power structures inherent in the State. Bakunin believed the true revolutionary subject was not just the proletariat but the entirety of the oppressed masses, the dispossessed. He envisioned a revolution led by “the people”—a broader, more inclusive force that transcended industrial workers and incorporated peasants and marginalized groups.
Politically, Bakunin placed great faith in the spontaneity and direct action of the popular masses. He advocated for small, secret groups of revolutionary militants to emerge within each state, spreading anarchist principles and actively resisting authority. These autonomous cells would work to erode the power of the State until it collapsed, thus enabling the reorganization of society from the ground up. His vision of revolution was decentralized, with the people self-organizing into autonomous units, which would replace the State with local, self-governing communities focused on production and mutual aid.
The influence of Bakunin’s anarchist ideas spread rapidly throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly his advocacy for direct action, social rebellion, and the dismantling of centralized state power. Anarchism’s core principles—especially the rejection of hierarchical authority, the decentralization of political power, and the belief in autonomous production units—became significant components of various radical movements across Europe, Latin America, and beyond. Anarchism’s emphasis on grassroots organizing and non-hierarchical structures continues to resonate with contemporary social movements advocating for direct democracy and the abolition of oppressive systems.
British Trade Unions
The Labor Movement in Great Britain developed in a unique context, distinct from the more revolutionary ideologies prevalent in continental Europe. After the failure of the Chartist movement in 1836—where workers demanded a labour charter to address employer abuses—trade unions began to play an increasingly important role in both the social and political life of the country. Rather than pushing for radical systemic change, British trade unions focused on pragmatically managing individual worker disputes while engaging in broader political action. However, this approach remained moderate, aimed at achieving incremental improvements rather than revolutionary upheaval.
This pragmatic stance led to an unusual alliance between the trade unions and the Liberal Party, a collaboration that delayed the formation of a distinct political movement to fully represent the interests of workers. The consequence was a weakening of radical labour activism, as trade unions preferred negotiations and reforms over confrontation. Meanwhile, the Labour Party, which eventually emerged to represent working-class interests, found its more radical elements diluted by moderate influences.
One of the key moderating forces on the British Labour Movement was the Fabian Society, a group of intellectuals and activists that advocated for a gradual and peaceful transition to socialism. Founded in 1884, the Fabians accepted Marx’s critique of capitalism and agreed on the necessity of an alternative social order, but they rejected the idea that revolution was the path to achieving these aims. Instead, they promoted a strategy of incremental reform through education, political engagement, and legislative action. Their approach to socialism was evolutionary rather than revolutionary, aiming to use the existing political and economic structures to transition Britain toward a more just and equitable society.
The Fabian influence on the Labour Party, with its emphasis on gradualism and moderation, meant that the party often focused on achievable reforms within the parliamentary system rather than advocating for radical or immediate changes. This approach marked a significant departure from the more militant or revolutionary labour movements seen elsewhere, shaping British socialism into a movement characterized by reformism and practical engagement with the structures of power, rather than outright confrontation.
Germany
Ferdinand Lassalle (1814–1864) played a crucial role in the rise of Marxism as a dominant ideology within the European labour movement, even though he compromised with conservative forces, notably German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Lassalle shifted the focus of socialist action from class struggle to the pursuit of universal suffrage and the creation of State-supported production cooperatives. These cooperatives were designed to shield workers from exploitation by entrepreneurs and to protect wages from gradual erosion. Lassalle’s vision was more progressive than revolutionary, aiming for gradual social change through political engagement rather than direct confrontation with the bourgeoisie.
However, this process faced a significant setback in 1878 when Bismarck enacted a law that restricted the freedom of association and the press, effectively curbing the activities of socialist groups. Forced into secrecy, Marxism continued to evolve primarily in the realms of cultural dissemination and theoretical development. After the repeal of Bismarck’s anti-socialist law, the Social Democratic Party (SPD) was reintegrated into German political life. The SPD grew in popularity by aligning itself with the daily lives of its members, offering support “from cradle to coffin,” thereby embedding itself in the social fabric of the working class.
German social democracy at the time adopted a largely reformist approach. Rather than inciting immediate revolution, the SPD employed a “wait-and-see” strategy, allowing the proletariat to slowly undermine the bourgeoisie from within the system. This approach became even more pronounced in the ideas of Eduard Bernstein (1850–1932), who is widely regarded as the father of revisionism within Marxist theory. Bernstein argued that Marx’s predictions of the inevitable collapse of capitalism, due to worsening economic crises and market anarchy, had not come to pass. Instead, he saw the gradual adaptation of capitalist society and believed that its downfall was not as imminent as Marx had envisioned.
In a series of articles published in Die neue Zeit (New Time), Bernstein critiqued the simplistic Marxian binary opposition of bourgeois and proletarian society. He proposed a more nuanced understanding of social stratification, recognizing that capitalist society had become far more complex than Marx’s original analysis allowed. Bernstein’s revisionism suggested that socialism could be achieved through incremental reforms and democratic processes, rather than through violent revolution.
Rosa Luxemburg, another prominent figure in the revisionist debate, offered a different perspective. While Bernstein advocated for gradualism, Luxemburg focused on the transformations within capitalism that had already occurred during Marx’s lifetime. She emphasized the need for more radical tactics, particularly theorizing the general strike as a primary tool for working-class resistance. Luxemburg believed that spontaneous mass action, rather than gradual reform, was essential to achieving socialist goals.
This ideological split between reformists (or revisionists) and revolutionaries became a defining feature of the labour movement leading up to the First World War. The conflict itself, however, appeared to vindicate the reformist approach. As the war unfolded, it exposed the limitations of revolutionary strategies, and the reformists’ gradualist, parliamentary tactics gained greater traction in the post-war period. The debates between figures like Bernstein and Luxemburg thus laid the foundation for the continued evolution of socialist and labour politics, shaping the course of 20th-century socialism.
Austro-Marxism and Max Adler
Austro-Marxism, a significant philosophical and political current, played an important role in defining socialism by framing it as a spiritual community (Geistesgemeinschaft). One of its foremost proponents was Max Adler (1873–1937), a sociologist who significantly contributed to this school of thought. Drawing upon the intellectual influences of Hans Kelsen, Carl Menger, and the Austrian School of Economics, Adler emphasized that progress is not an inevitable outcome of natural processes but is instead rooted in the human spirit, making it scientifically indemonstrable.
According to Adler, historical development alone does not necessarily equate to progress. For progress to be meaningful, it must lead to the enhancement of core values such as justice, equality, and freedom. These values, in Adler’s view, are the true measures of societal advancement. In this sense, Austro-Marxism blended Marxist ideals with a broader philosophical outlook, focusing not merely on material conditions but on the moral and ethical growth of human society. It sought to reconcile socialist goals with cultural and intellectual development, making it a unique and influential current within the broader socialist movement.
