Source: The New Review, January 15th, 1916. Current Affairs section. Vol. 4, No. 2.
Transcription and Markup: Bill Wright for the Marxists Internet Archive, September, 2022
Comrade [Meyer] London’s taking his seat in Congress brings before the Socialist Party a problem which it faced once before, but left unsolved,— the problem of the responsibility of Socialists elected to Congress.
When Victor Berger took his seat in Congress, on March 4, 1911, this problem was put up squarely to the membership of the Socialist Party, and had it been solved then we would have been spared the humiliating and disheartening discussions which followed the introduction of the “Socialist” Old Age Pension bill, and the irreparable damage which the party suffered in consequence. We would also have had one problem less on our hands. As it is, it is still on our hands and demands immediate solution. And the fact that our present Congressman is less likely to put us in a hole if left to himself is no argument for postponing action. On the contrary, it makes the solution of the problem much easier by placing the discussion on the plane of principle and reducing the personal element to a minimum. Now that we have a Congressman in whom we have full confidence, and before anything has happened to create “sides,” is the time to decide the question: To whom is a Socialist Congressman responsible?
Is a Socialist Congressman his own master, responsible only to his “conscience”; or is he responsible to the Socialist Party? And if the latter is the case, how is this responsibility to be enforced? Obviously, the method which we followed in the Berger case of first letting him do as he pleased and then scolding him for not doing as we pleased, is both unjust to our representative in Congress and extremely dangerous to the welfare of the party. Not only is an ounce of prevention better than a pound of cure, but in this case there really is no cure. Those who remember the unedifying experience of the Berger Old Age Pension bill will recollect that the final interference of the National Executive Committee in ordering an amendment of that bill, cured neither the bill nor the unfortunate situation in the party which its introduction had created. Had the bill been submitted to the National Executive Committee before its introduction to Congress we would have spared our Congressman from the public rebuke which was implied in the order to amend the bill, and the party from a row which fairly threatened to split it in two.
And let no one think that the trouble then lay in the fact that we were unfortunate in having as our representative a man whose Socialism is of a very peculiar kind,— a kind very unlike that of the great majority of our party membership. That merely made the situation acute. But the root of the problem lay much deeper,— in the fact that while Berger represented the Socialist Party as a whole, and the party as a whole was held responsible for his doings, he was permitted to act according to his own sweet will as if he represented nobody but himself, or at most the few thousand Milwaukee voters who voted for him on election day. And this problem remains the same no matter who happens to be our representative for the time being.
In the nature of things no man can be expected to satisfy everybody by his conduct,— there will therefore always be those who will claim that he does not truly represent the party sentiment, unless his actions are actually directed by the party. Besides,— we are all only human, and an election to Congress does not make one immune from error as to what the party sentiment may be on any particular question, nor does it wholly free him from the other frailties which human flesh is heir to. The best man is liable to differ with the party, and it is important that the collective party view should prevail and not the view of the particular person who for the time being happens to be our representative in Congress.
Comrade London is no exception to the rule, and his short incumbency of the office of Congressman has demonstrated the fact that he is prone to disagree on very important matters not only with many Socialists, but even with the party as a whole,— and that when he disapproved of them, party decisions had very little weight with him.
Since Comrade London took his seat in Congress he acted twice in his official capacity, once in voting for the so-called War Tax and again in introducing his Peace Resolution. According to the N.Y. Volkszeitung Comrade London committed a rave error in voting for the War Tax. We shall not enter here upon a discussion of the question “upon the merits.” The question as to whether London or the Volkszeitung is right as to the merits of the War Tax dwindles into insignificance besides the question of who is to decide how our representative in Congress is to vote on so important a question as the imposition of taxes? Is such a matter to be left to the uncontrolled will of the Congressman, or is the party to decide? Can we afford to permit any man, no matter how good and wise, to commit us on so vital a subject?
Comrade London’s action in introducing his Peace Resolution has evoked so much and such deserved enthusiasm, that we are prone to overlook the shortcomings of his Peace Program. This is, however, a matter of great importance, as we have already had occasion to point out. But more important even than the question as to whether or not Comrade London has made any mistakes in the construction of his Peace Platform, is the question: On whose responsibility did Comrade London act in making up his list of Peace Terms? Does he represent himself only in this matter, or the Socialist Party of this country?
This question is particularly pressing in view of the fact that in this matter, unlike the War Tax question, the party had spoken officially and solemnly. At its last meeting, held in Chicago last May, our National Committee adopted a Peace Program, which was thereafter approved by a referendum of the entire membership. This Peace Program was unceremoniously set aside by our Congressman, and he proceeded to construct a Peace Program of his own. Here, again, the most important question is not whether Comrade London’s or the Party’s Peace Program is the better one. The great question before us is: Can we permit our representative in Congress to disregard the party’s solemn expression of opinion on so tremendously important a subject? And this, in turn, is only part of the greater question demanding our immediate answer: On whose responsibility does our representative in Congress act?
B.
Last updated on 24 September 2022