Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T22:21:26.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 1903 Schism of the Bulgarian Social Democracy and the Second International

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

William Vettes
William Vettes*
Affiliation:
Wisconsin State College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Bulgarian Socialist movement should prove interesting to the student of modern socialism for two reasons: the striking ideological parallel of the left and right wings of the Bulgarian party to their Russian and Western counterparts, and the manner in which the Bulgarian schism of 1903 anticipated both the Menshevik-Bolshevik split later that same year as well as the permanent rift between the Bolshevik and Western socialist parties on the outbreak of World War I.

The Bulgarian Socialist party was founded in 1891 by left-wing intellectuals who had studied abroad, most of them in Geneva, Russia, or England. Although the party split up within a year's time over the issue of political activity by the proletariat, it was revived in 1894 as a reaction to the repressive policies of the Bulgarian premier, Stefan Stambulov. Throughout the ensuing decade of its existence the party, like its Western counterparts, was plagued by the perennial issue of collaboration or non-collaboration with bourgeois groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 1960 , pp. 521 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Inasmuch as the Narrow-Broad schism took place in March and the Menshevik Bolshevik break occurred in July and August of 1903 the Russian split was not a factor in the Bulgarian.

2 For the definitive expression of Revisionism see Bernstein, Eduard, Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie(Stuttgart, 1899)Google Scholar. This work was translated by Harvey, Edith as Evolutionary Socialism(New York, 1909)Google Scholar. For the rebuttal of the orthodox Marxists to the Revisionist teachings see Kautsky, K., Bernstein und das Sozialdemokratische Programm: eine Antikritik(Stuttgart, 1899)Google Scholar .

3 Blagoev believed there was a direct relationship between the Broads and the German Revisionists. He based this contention on the fact that Dimitri Dimitrov, the translator of Bernstein into Bulgarian, was a good friend of Sakuzov's. Actually, however, Sakuzov gives no hint in his writings of any basic knowledge of Revisionism as a philosophy. At any rate, he manifested tendencies towards evolutionary socialism several years before the first Revisionist articles were published in 1896.

4 Sakuzov, Y., “Die Spaltung in der Bulgarischen Sozialdemokratischen Arbeiterpartei,“ Die Neue Zeit, XXII,No. 15 (January, 1904), 472 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 Christian Rakovsky (1873- ) was a forerunner not only of Bulgarian but also of Roumanian socialism. Later he became identified with the forces of the extreme Left, joining the Third International. In 1938 he was purged as a Trotskyite. As G. D. H. Cole points out, in spite of his associations he always remained an independent-minded revolutionary. For a fuller account see Cole, G. D. H., A History of Socialist Thought (1889-1914), III, Part 2 (London, 1956), 589-90Google Scholar.

6 For evidence that Plekhanov's monistic interpretation of history was well known in Bulgarian student circles in those days see Borshukov, G., “Perviyat uchenickeski vestnik u nas i vereskite mu ses sotsialistecheskoto dvizhenie,” Izvestiya na instituta za Bulgarska istoriya, No. 4 (1951), 233 Google Scholar.

7 Marx, Karl, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Chicago, 1911), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

8 For a full discussion of Bulgaria's economic plight during the 1890's see Natan, Z., Ikonomicheska istoriya na Bulgariya (Sofia, 1938)Google Scholar, and Sakuzov, I., Bulgarische Wirtschaftgeschichte (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929)Google Scholar .

9 Although the terms “Revisionism” and “Participationism” appear to many observers to denote one and the same thing, or, at the least, to reinforce each other, it is important to distinguish between them. Far from seeing eye to eye with Collaborationism, the Revisionists voted against it because the very basis of Revisionism, seeking as it did to convert all classes to Socialism, could not countenance any weakening of Socialist party strength. Moreover, Revisionism represented an attempt to develop a socialist ethics. The Revisionist leader, Eduard Bernstein, taking the lead of such men as F. A. Lange, Hermann Cohen, Paul Natorp, and Ernst Cassirer sought to substitute neo-Kantianism for Hegelian dialectic dogmatism. Authorities differ in their estimate of the Kantian influence on Revisionism. Thus Sidney Hook stresses the importance of Kantianism in the movement without seriously considering any other source, while G. D. H. Cole recognizes not only Kant's influence but that of British Fabianism as well. Yet by far the most penetrating analysis of Revisionism in English is that of Peter Gay who not only finds the influence of both Kant and the Webbs significant but also points out Bernstein's philosophical shortcomings. According to Gay, Bernstein misunderstood Kant. For details see Gay, Peter, The Dilemna of Democratic Socialism. Edward Bernstein's Challenge to Marx (Columbia University Press, 1952), pp. 131–56Google Scholar. For the aforementioned views of Hook and Cole see Hook, Sidney, Towards the Understanding of Karl Marx (New York, 1933), 38 ffGoogle Scholar. and Cole, III, 38.

10 Carr, E. H., The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1923 (New York, 1951), I, 51 Google Scholar.

11 This is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that even as late as 1902 Blagoev thought Lenin was but a pseudonym for Plekhanovl Even after Lenin's real identity became known to Blagoev he refused to publish the Bolshevik leader's work although he continued to publish Plekhanov's writings for Bulgarian readers as quickly as they appeared. Only after the success of the October Revolution was Lenin formally accepted. Rothschild, J. R., The Communist Party of Bulgaria (Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 30 Google Scholar. See also Schnitman, A., “K voprosu vlijanii russkogo revoljucionoga dvizhenija 1885-1903 godov na revoliucionnoye dvizhenije v Bolgarii,” Voprosy Istorii, No. 1 (1949), p. 42 Google Scholar.

12 Mavor, James, An Economic History of Russia, 2nd. ed. (New York, 1925), II, 363–67Google Scholar.

13 Sakuzov, op. cit., p. 280. Holland, T. E., The European Concert and the Eastern Question (Oxford, 1885), pp. 290-91Google Scholar. Raudnitz, J., “Die Staatswirtschaftliche Entwicklung Bulgariens,” Zeitschrift fur Volkwirtschaft Socialpolitik und Verwaltung, XXII (1913), 453 ffGoogle Scholar.