Collected Works of V. I. Lenin - Vol. 16 - From Marx to Mao

THE QUESTION OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES277Unfortunately these two lines were only sketched in thethree drafts that had been prepared beforehand, and theywere not opposed one to the other, clearly, distinctly andsharply, as two trends, whose conflict should settle thequestion. Hence the transactions of the Congress proceededunevenly, confusedly, and as it were spontaneously. It “cameup against” differences of opinion every minute, but theywere not cleared up and the result was a resolution reflectingthe confusion of ideas, one which did not say everythingthat could and should have been said in a resolution of aCongress of Socialist Parties.In the commission on the question of co-operative societiestwo trends immediately became apparent. One wasrepresented by Jaurès and Elm. Elm was one of the fourGerman delegates on the co-operative commission and actedas spokesman for the Germans—adopting a definitely opportunistictone. The other trend was the Belgian. Themediator and conciliator was the Austrian, Karpeles, a prominentleader of the Austrian co-operative movement, whoupheld no definite line of principle, but (or “because” ratherthan “but”) who inclined more often than not to the opportunists.Moreover, even when the Belgians did challenge Jaurèsand Elm this was due more to the instinct for a really proletarianapproach to co-operative affairs than to a distinctunderstanding of the hostility and the irreconcilable breachbetween the proletarian and the petty-bourgeois pointof view on the question. That is why, for instance, Anseele(chairman of the co-operative commission) made someforceful and excellent speeches to the commission againstneutrality in the co-operative societies, against exaggeratedideas of their importance, and urging the necessity of ourbeing socialist co-operators, not co-operator socialists. Yetwhen the resolution was being drawn up the same Anseelemight have driven anyone to despair by his toleration ofthe formulations put forward by Jaurès and Elm, his reluctanceto inquire into the causes of the dissension.But to return to the meetings of the commission. Naturallythe course of its work was decisively influenced bythe representatives of nations with a strongly developedco-operative movement. Moreover, it immediately becameapparent that there was a difference of opinion between