In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3. Sŭiuz vs. Partiia: The Priority of Political or Economic Organization? The initial attempt to create a social-democratic party in 1891 found a number of intellectuals in disagreement. Conditions in Bulgaria were still immature for the official entry of the Socialists into the political scene. There was always the problem of reaction and persecution, but, above all, there was as yet no sufficient social material—workers—who could function as the party’s army. The Unionists deemed it thus more appropriate to start by laying the groundwork, by educating workers and assisting their economic organization. The Sŭiuz (Union) was to function as an association, a society for the propaganda of socialist ideas and was to concentrate its principal activity on the creation of syndicates. The Union developed its organizational conception leaning on the guidelines of the Bulgarian student group in Geneva (Rakovski , Balabanov, Nokov), itself under the influence of Akselrod. The impending task of the Bulgarian socialist intelligentsia was to unite into a social-democratic union, an assembling point of all revolutionary forces that would function as a bridge, connecting the proletariat with its own revolutionary ideology. Agitation and propaganda should go hand in hand with the organization of the workers.49 The Geneva group espoused an “orthodox” scenario, whereby the strength of socialism depended upon the perseverance of capitalistic production and was to be represented by the objective numerical strength of the proletariat. On the basis of intensified social conflict, the spontaneous syndicalist organization of the workers, assisted by the socialist intelligentsia , was to acquire a political character, and ultimately contest the political hegemony of the bourgeoisie. Their blueprint envisioned two steps. In the first place, the intelligentsia (including students, teachers, etc.) organized separately or entered the ranks of the local workers’ organizations . In the second, the workers organized in professional organizations of a predominantly educational and economic character, and moved progressively to more sophisticated and elaborate forms of organization , like nation-wide professional federations. Under the influence of socialist propaganda, workers were to realize the necessity to exceed 180 IV. Caught up in the Contradictions of Modernity the limits of everyday economic struggle and destroy the capitalistic order. At precisely this point, the now imbued class-conscious workers were to enter the political arena as an independent political force.50 The Union saw its initial task in uniting all existing socialist groups and was to center its activity on propaganda among workers, helping them unite—according to the degree of their class-consciousness—in economic organizations. On the basis of real class conflict, the socialist intelligentsia would inculcate the workers’ movement with revolutionary theory and help workers’ organizations develop a class political character. The final step would be to unite into the labor party, which would then enter into the phase of open political struggle.51 The Union versus Party debate, as a quasi “false” dilemma over the priority of economic or political organization—is representative of the predicament associated with the development of socialism in conditions of “backwardness.” As a dilemma, in the accentuated form it took, it could only arise in countries where the prevalent socio-economic conditions did not allow for the simultaneous realization of both, since political and economic organization do not represent two antithetical, but two complementary, aspects of the labor movement. The debate in all its insignificance was a first signal of the different perceptions that intellectuals would develop on what constituted Bulgarian “reality” and how to go about the realization of the socialist ideal. This first confrontation also posed some significant and persisting questions: was socialism in Bulgaria the “natural” consequence of the effects of capitalistic development, or did it still represent an intellectual movement ? Was the viability of socialism as a movement connected primarily to social processes, or predominantly to political causes? What was to be the character of the Social Democratic Party and whose class interests could it possibly represent? Both positions were to test the limits and the viability of their theoretical assumptions in the short period of their independent existence. As maintained by Bakalov, “[The Union’s] principal goal was the creation of a mass workers’ movement. The Party was a social democracy without workers and ran the risk of degenerating into a peasant and artisan party, as soon as it attempted to exercise political influence and win over the popular masses.”52 As will become evident from the following analysis, in this initial phase the faction of the socialist movement that seemed to...

Share