clumsy confusion of contradictory teachings. This is shown in the fact
that even now, after his thoughts have lived through a half-century,
we must still exert ourselves to get at the real meaning and the deep
importance of his teaching. This is due especially to the
"middle-class" critics of Marx; but it is also because of the members
of his own party. I recall the fact that the fundamental principle of
Marx's economic system--the theory of value--has become an object of
fruitful discussion as lately as two years ago. At that time I
attempted to bring into use this method which I have just specified as
the only true one for such a peculiar formation as the Marxian
teaching; I asked how the parts of Marx's theory which stand in such
opposition to each other could be reconciled, in order to bring out
the sense which so earnest a thinker must surely have laid underneath.
At that time the aged Engels could bear witness that I had about "hit
the right mark," but that he could not endorse all that I had
"introduced" into the Marxian teaching. Other critics thought at the
time that nothing more would be heard of Marx's teaching concerning
value. Perhaps they are right; but if Marx's _Theory of Value_ is a
scientific work, it can be such only in my interpretation.

I have thus spoken in order to show you how I stand concerning Marx's
theory of the social movement. I make most earnest effort to separate
it from all extraneous matter, to comprehend it in its essential
points, and so to present these essentials in such way that they shall
be consistent with reality. At the same time I emphasise the spirit of
Marx's theories, and only hope that it is truly the soul of Marx, and
not of myself, "in which the times reflect themselves."

I shall attempt to speak later concerning what I look upon as
confusing "non-essentials" of the theory; I speak now of what I think
to be the historically important essence--the κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί--of Marx's
theory of the social movement.

First and before all, it is a scientific accomplishment of the first
order to give prominence to the historic conception of the social
movement and the inner relationship of the "economic," "social," and
"political" manifestations and precedents. Marx applies the evolution
idea to the social movement. Other conspicuous men have tried to
consider socialism and the social movement as in the flow of historic
life--I think, for example, of Lorenz von Stein, that writer who,
perhaps, has most influenced Marx. But no one has so clearly,
illuminatively, effectively shown these historical relations. That
political revolutions and agitations are fundamentally great
displacements of social classes is a truth enunciated before the time
of Marx; but no one has ever presented it in so impressive a way. He
takes economic revolutions as his starting-point, in order to explain
the creation and the conflict of social classes; and in _Misère_
(175), before the "Communistic Manifesto," he had already said: "il
n'y a jamais de mouvement politique qui ne soit social en même temps."
But therewith--and it is this that is of importance to us--is the
proletariat brought to full self-consciousness and taught to know
itself in its historic relations. Out of this historic conception
arises, for Marx and for the proletariat, with certainty the main
points of the programme and the tactics of the social movement. They
are only "a general expression of actual relations in an existing
struggle of classes," as the "Communistic Manifesto" has expressed it
somewhat vaguely. To state it more exactly, the theory of Marx affirms
the identification of that which unconsciously and instinctively had
arisen as a proletarian idea with that which is actually observable as
the result of economic development. As to tactical management,
however, the idea was decisive that revolutions could not be forced,
but were the outgrowth of specific economic antecedents; while class
strife in both its forms--the political, of which the "Communistic
Manifesto" speaks chiefly, and the economic, for which in _Misère_
Marx breaks a lance--is recognised as the instrument which the
proletariat must use in order to protect its interests during the
process of economic transformation. Thus he formulates that which
every intelligent proletarian movement must recognise as its
fundamental principles. Socialism as a goal, struggle between classes
as the way towards it, cease to be merely personal opinions, and are
understood as necessary.

This elementary conception, that these two main pillars of the modern
social movement are not merely arbitrary creations, but are
unavoidable products of the historic development, is even to-day so
little accepted that it is worth our while to spend a little time upon
it.

First, it must be noticed that in all the writing's of Marx and
Engels, whose "Anti-Duehring" always constitutes a necessary
complement to all the theories of Marx, there is no proof of the
asserted "necessity" of the social movement which fully satisfies the
demands of our day as to scientific method. It is known that Marx
stands upon the Hegelian dialectic, out of date now. What we demand is
a psychological founding of social happening, and for this Marx cares
little.

Now it seems to me easy to fill this gap. I shall attempt it so far as
the limitations of time allow.

Why must the ideal of every proletarian movement be necessarily a
democratic collectivism--that is, the communisation of the means of
production? It seems to me that the following considerations contain
the answer to the question.

The modern social movement strives after that which is represented by
the battle-cry, "The emancipation of the proletariat." But this has
two phases, an ideal and a material. Ideally a social class can
consider itself as "emancipated" only when it as a class is
economically and politically dominant or at least independent; the
proletariat, that now finds itself in economic dependence upon
capital, can only become "emancipated" by throwing off this
connection. Perhaps we can conceive of the proletariat as using
employers as agents to carry on the work of production. But even then
the management will be no longer in the hands of the employers as
to-day, but of the proletariat as master of the situation. So long as
this supremacy is not reached in any such form, there can be no
thought of an "emancipation" of a class. Nor can we speak of this
"emancipation" in a material sense, so long as those conditions obtain
which to-day, from a class standpoint, are looked upon as marking a
social inferiority and are derived from the capitalistic social
system. If the proletariat sets an aim clearly before itself, this
goal can only be, from the class standpoint, the overthrow of this
capitalistic order. Now this overthrow is possible in either of two
ways. Either operations on a large scale, which have replaced the
earlier and smaller methods of production, can be so reconstituted as
that large interlocal and international production shall be again
narrowed and localised--in which case the overthrow of the
capitalistic order will be simply a retrogression to the
"middle-class" system. Or this present order can be conquered in such
a way that the existing forms of production on a large scale shall be
retained--then the results will be socialism. There is no third
possibility. If the proletariat does not vanquish capitalism by a
return to the smaller forms of operation, it can accomplish this only
by putting a socialistic organisation in place of the capitalistic.
And further: the proletariat can attach itself only to the latter
method, because its whole existence is interwoven with the system of
production on a large scale; it is indeed only the shadow of the
system, it exists only where this system rules. Therefore we can say
that socialism as the aim of the social movement arises fundamentally
and necessarily out of the economic situation of the proletariat. The
whole demonstration falls to the ground in a moment, wherever a
tendency to the development of proletarian production on a large scale
does not exist in economic life.

What I would here show, let me say again, is the necessity of the
ideal; but this must not be confused with the certainty of its
realisation. In order to prove this, it would be necessary to present
other considerations, which lie far from our subject. Thus, whether
any such realisation of the ideal is scientifically possible seems to
be doubtful. For this would not be proved even if it should be
demonstrated that what the proletariat desires and strives for has
been provided in the course of social development. I shall have
opportunity later to draw attention to this, that the conception of
socialism as a need of nature, and thus "necessarily" to be realised,
does not rest upon clear thought.

What we must now hold fast as the result of our investigation is this,
and it is a true Marxian thought, that social ideals are only
utopianism so long as they are merely evolved in the head of the
theorist. They obtain reality only when they are united to actual
economic conditions, when they arise out of these conditions. The
possibility of realising the good and beautiful is enclosed within the
sheath of economic necessity. This covering, created out of
capitalistic and proletarian conditions and historic economic
circumstances, is of such a nature that the ideal of proletarian
exertion can only lie in the direction of a socialistic order of
society.

But why must the way towards the realisation of this aim lie through
class strife? To this we answer in brief: modern society presents
itself to us as an artificial medley of numerous social classes--that
is, of certain groups of persons whose homogeneity arises out of
their attachment to specific forms or spheres of economic life. We
distinguish the "junker," as representative of feudal agrarianism,
from the bourgeoisie, the representatives of capital; we distinguish
the "middle class," the representatives of local production and
distribution, from the modern wage-worker or the proletariat, etc.
Each one of these groups of economic interests has its special
adherents in the professional classes of society among the officials,
scholars, artists, who stand outside the economic life, but who unite
themselves by birth or position to one or another of the social
classes.

This attachment to a social class works decisively in two directions.
It implants in the mind of each individual member of a class the
conception of the world and life characteristic of that group of men
whose thoughts and feelings tend to become identical through the
uniformity of the external circumstances that control them; similarity
of aspiration and ideal is created. Further, this attachment
accomplishes a positive control over the individual in the maintenance
of that which is represented by the class--its social position as
truly as its material interests; it creates what we may call class
interest.

Everywhere and spontaneously there is developed a distinction between
classes, and class interest is involved in this. The upholding of this
class interest leads throughout to class opposition. Not always does
the upholding of a class standard involve necessarily collision with
the interests of other classes; at times an identity of interests
arises; but this harmony never lasts. The interest of the "junker"
must at a certain point come into conflict with that of the burgher,
that of the capitalist with that of the proletariat, that of the
hand-worker and tradesman with that of the large capitalist; for each
class strives naturally for itself, and by that very fact excludes
other interests. Then comes to pass the saying:

    "Where one goes ahead, others go back;
    Who would not be driven must drive;
    So strife ensues and the strongest wins."

It is here that differences of opinion may emerge: but must this
really come to "strife" and "warfare"? May we not hope that, through
love of mankind, or sympathy, or interest in the welfare of the whole,
or some such noble motive, each class will freely divest itself of
such of its privileges as stand in the way of others? I have already
had occasion in another place to express my opinion on this
point--that I look upon such well-intentioned judgment of average
human nature as in contradiction with actual life. I have referred to
the fact that conclusive proof for or against such a conception cannot
be presented; that the final ground of decision rests in the depths of
personal conviction on the part of the individual. But what offers
some proof for the justification of the realistic opinion presented by
me is the circumstance that history has as yet given no example of a
free divestment of class privilege; at least I will say that every
instance claimed as such may easily be invalidated. On the other side
we have innumerable instances in history where such reform has been
begun by well-meaning friends of humanity, theorists, only to be
shattered soon on the _rocher de bronze_ of the strong self-interest
of the threatened dominant class. They eagerly hold up before us
unbelievers the night of the 4th of August, 1789, and they forget the
hundred burning castles in France. They remind us of the Prussian
agrarian reforms, and forget not only the French Revolution but also
the Declaration of 1816. They remind us--but why add illustrations?
Let such men prove authentically a single case in history in which a
social class has against its own interests and out of altruistic
motives made an essential concession. Certainly there have been
conspicuous individuals who have done this; why not? We see this
daily. But a whole class--never! If this is so, then the word of the
great realist must be true, that "only strength conquers." So we find
as the conclusion of our thought, first a difference of classes, then
class interests, then class opposition, finally class strife. It is
thus that Marx would have developed his theory of class strife, and
easily, if he had chosen to proceed upon a psychological foundation.

As we now turn to this theory itself and its significance for the
social movement we are obliged, I think, to concede that the entrance
of Karl Marx was a decisive turning-point in this agitation, because
through him it was based upon a fundamentally changed conception of
history and humanity. This change is occasioned by the fact that, in
place of an idealistic, or rather partisan, way of looking at things,
a realistic vision obtains, and thus for the social movement the idea
of "revolution" passes into the thought of "evolution." The spirit of
the nineteenth century supplants the spirit of the preceding
centuries. You remember how I sought to make clear to you the essence
of this spirit in connection with the teachings of the utopists; if I
may be allowed to refer to it again, it is that idealistic conception
of man and life,[1] cherished now only by the scholars, that faith in
humanity as good by nature, that belief that men so long as they are
not led astray by the mistake or malice of individual bad men will
live in the most affectionate peace with their brethren; it is that
belief in a "natural order" of the past and future--that rock-fast
confidence that only explanation and exhortation are needed in order
to bring men out of this vale of tears to the happy islands of the
blest. This is that faith in the power of eternal love which through
its own force shall overcome the bad, and help the good to victory.
This it was that, though the leaders were not conscious of it, really
lay at the bottom of all political and social agitation until the
middle of our century; this it is that, in my opinion, as I have
already said, still slumbers in the lap of anarchism, even to-day as
an instinct. This fundamental tendency is now directly reversed; the
belief in a humanity good by nature gives place to the conviction that
man is of himself ruled by no noble motives, that he carries within
himself the _bête humaine_ even in all culture and in spite of all
"advance." Hence the conclusion: that a man, in order to accomplish
anything in the world, must before all call upon "interest"--a normal
and material instinct. For it is the most important conclusion for the
fate of the social movement, that now "interest" rules in the world;
that where anything is to be done, or a class, like the proletariat,
is to be emancipated, a man needs some weapon stronger than the theory
of "eternal love" against the interest of the capitalist class, and
must present force against force, might armed by "interest." At the
end of all thought upon this matter lies this consideration, which
leads not only to the theory, but as well to the practice, of class
strife. Combat is the solution of the difficulty for this hard and
unlovely proletarian generation which has grown up since the middle of
our century; not peace, not reconciliation, not a general
brotherhood--but battle. That this strife is no longer open warfare,
like street riot, does not alter the fact that it is really strife.
Out of this is to come a generation of men qualified to live and work
in an order of society higher than the present capitalistic order.

It is this that I call the realistic conception of the social
movement; and there is no doubt that it is the outcome of that Marxian
theory of the world and society which I have just attempted to sketch.
Only thus could the social-political realism, which heretofore has
been proclaimed in a limited way, now arise as the principle of the
whole social movement.

It is this social-political realism which gives the finishing stroke
to all utopism and revolutionism. The insurrectionists in Lyons and
the Chartist revolutionaries were both utopists--for they shed their
blood and yet only strengthened the reaction. The Putschists,
Clubists, and Blanquists were utopists, who through conspiracies and
street riots would through all time control economic development. Not
less utopian were those "geniuses" who offered exchange banks or the
_Organisation du travail_ or such remedies. Utopists also were those
who believed in the power of all kinds of schemes. Finally, utopists
were all those kindly souls who hoped to allay and overcome the
sufferings of the proletariat by an appeal to the good hearts of the
friends of humanity. Karl Marx has succeeded in freeing us from the
use of empty phrases in the sphere of social politics.

Let us now in closing recapitulate the points wherein I see the
historic significance of Marx's teaching for the social movement. Marx
points out as its _object_ the communisation of the means of
production, as its _way_ the struggle between classes; he erects these
two as the main pillars upon which the whole structure must be built.
He secured for these principles general acceptance; and he succeeded
in this without preventing the development of national and other
peculiarities. In placing the social movement in the flow of historic
development he brings it theoretically into harmony with the objective
and subjective factors of history, he bases it upon actual conditions
of economic life and of human endowment, he shows its economic and
psychological features.

Thus I look at Marx, when I attempt to fathom the spirit of his
teaching; this is the deep meaning of Marxism.

There is no doubt that, according to the common idea, Marx and Engels,
who must always be named with him, appear in a light essentially
different from that which I have attempted to show to you. In general
these men have been looked upon, not only as different from what I
have stated, but as in a bad sense the very opposite of social
realists; namely, as the father and the guardian of the worst kind of
revolutionary thought. And who would not apparently be justified in
this belief, reading the writings of both these men? He reads of
clanking chains which must be broken, of revolutions towards which man
tends, of bloody battle and death and assassination. How does the
matter really lie?

Marx himself once said, _Moi je ne suis pas Marxiste_, but he gave to
these words a meaning different from the ordinary one, as I also do
when I say that Marx and Engels have not always shown themselves
consistent Marxists either in theory or in practice.

Doubtless there are inconsistencies in theory, contradictions of the
fundamental thoughts, discrepancies which can have only one
source--that is, an overwhelming revolutionary passion which obscures
a vision otherwise so clear.

For example, I think of their unreasonable belief in what they call
the "fall" of humanity through the introduction of the principle of
private property, from which as they say history, and as well the
forces of history, take their start; the astonished hearer asks
himself, What impelled man to the introduction of this principle? I
think, also, of the hypothesis of a strifeless condition of humanity
after the introduction of socialism--and the like. Here, and
throughout, the old dreams of a Paradise lost and regained, of a happy
condition of humanity originally, come as a disturbing element into
their new world of thought.

With both these men it was in life as in theory. Here also appears the
old revolutionary Adam every moment and plays tricks with them. Since
the year 1845 they have not ceased to dream of revolution, and indeed
fierce revolution; repeatedly have they announced the outbreak as
near. This could be only the outcome of an unrealistic judgment of the
situation, of a mistaken conception of the political, economic, and
social conditions; thus it was an error of judgment as to the time,
if not a contradiction of their supreme principle that "revolutions
are not made." Psychologically these contradictory phenomena are
easily to be explained. Both Marx and Engels have never ceased with
intelligence and calm judgment to present that realism which we have
seen as the essence of their view of life. But you must not forget
that they have conceived their teachings under the roar of
revolutionary battles; that they were themselves of those fitful and
fiery souls who, like the "world squirrel,"[2] go assiduously from
place to place in order to set Europe on fire. Think of the mass of
malice and hatred that must have accumulated within these exiles, who
experienced through life nothing but derision, scorn, suspicion, and
persecution from their powerful opponents! Imagine what a superhuman
self-discipline and control was needed to prevent them from petty and
vindictive attacks upon the hated opponents at every opportunity. As
this deeply rooted passion arose in these revolutionary heroes, as
rage almost strangled them, their logic flew out of the window and old
revolutionary fury broke out and overwhelmed them. But that I am right
in characterising Marxism as a social-political realism you see
clearly from the many and fundamental declarations and acknowledgments
of its founders, which come to us out of all periods of their lives.
And indeed there is always a declared opposition to general
revolutionism, to "Putschism," as they assert their standpoint. The
strife with the party of Willich-Schapper in the year 1850, the battle
with Bakunin in the "International,"--concerning which I have yet to
speak,--the declarations against the anarchists, the discussion with
Duehring, the disowning of the "Jungen,"--all tends in the end to help
to victory the evolutionary principle in the social movement. It is
easy to explain how the true conviction came to expression on these
occasions.

The last word of Marxism, which also contains a _résumé_ of its
teaching; is a writing by Engels, published shortly before his death;
the introduction to the _Struggle of Classes in France_. It is an
epilogue to his own life's drama, a confession, the last words of
warning which the dying man cries to the contesting proletariat. Here
the clear, logical position, as I think it is demanded by the
conception of history held by that school, finally comes to distinct
expression. This introduction shows perhaps best and most quickly how
at the end Engels and Marx understood the social movement. Some of the
most significant passages may here find place:

    "History has proved wrong us and all who thought similarly (sc.
    expecting the victory of the proletariat in the near future of
    the year 1843). It has made clear that the condition of economic
    development upon the Continent at that time was far from ripe
    for an abolishment of capitalistic production; it has proved
    this through the economic development which since 1848 has
    seized upon the whole continent and has made a home for the
    great industries in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and lately
    Russia, has made out of Germany an industrial country of the
    first rank--all upon a capitalistic basis, which in the year
    1848 was but little developed. To-day the great international
    army of socialists is resistlessly stepping forward, is daily
    growing in number, discipline, intelligence, and assurance of
    victory. As to-day this mighty army of the proletariat has not
    as yet reached the goal, as it is far from accomplishing the
    victory by one great stroke, but must slowly press forward in
    hard persistent struggle from position to position, this proves
    once for all how impossible it was in the year 1848 to
    accomplish the social overturning through a simple unexpected
    attack.... The time of surprise, of carrying through a
    revolution by a small minority at the head of ignorant masses,
    is passed. For a complete overthrow of the social organisation
    the masses themselves must be concerned, they must understand
    what they do, why they take part. The history of the last fifty
    years has taught this to us. But through this teaching the
    masses are learning what is to be done, and that long and
    patient work is needed, and that it is just this work which we
    now urge forward with such success that our opponents are
    brought to confusion. The irony of history turns everything
    upside down. We, 'revolutionaries,' succeed far better by means
    legal than illegal and destructive. The party of order, as it
    calls itself, goes to pieces through the very conditions created
    by itself. It cries out confusedly with Odelon Barrot--_la
    légalité nous tue_ (conformity to the law kills us); while we,
    with this legality, develop round muscles and red cheeks and
    seem destined for eternal life."

What comes to expression in these words is merely a confession
of--Marxism.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In what follows I reproduce some passages out of my book
concerning Friedrich Engels (Berlin, 1895).

[2] In German mythology the world is represented as a great tree, with
its roots in Niefelheim, and its branches in Asgard. Wotan
communicates with the world by a "welten eichhoernchen," a "world
squirrel," which runs up and down the tree. (Translator.)

CHAPTER VI

THE TREND TOWARDS UNITY

    "Schon laengst verbreit etsich's in ganze Scharen Das Eigenste,
    was im allein gehoert."

                              SCHILLER's _Wallenstein_.

    Now, after long, that diffuses itself through large masses of
    men Which once was most private, which belonged to him alone.

Karl Marx closed his manifesto with the celebrated words,
"Proletarians of all lands, unite yourselves!" He uttered this cry on
the eve of the revolution of 1848, which was admittedly
proletarian-socialistic in its character, in various places, but which
exhausted itself in those separate spots where it had broken out. In
Germany, where Marx himself stood in the battle, it reached no
importance. In England, it seemed for a moment as if the February
revolution would infuse new life into the old Chartism; but this had
already been buried. The French movement is the only one left; how it
ended is well known. And then the deep night of the reaction of the
'fifties settled upon Europe. All the seeds of an independent
working-men's movement were suppressed. Only in England the
trade-union movement was developed.

Since the beginning of the year 1860 signs of life among the working
people have appeared in different places. They recover here and there
from the blows and repression which they experienced during and after
the agitation of 1848, and an interest and participation in public
life begin again to awake. The characteristic trait is this: the
activity of the new and independent life receives an international
stamp. Naturally this is no mere chance. It was not by chance that, at
the World's Exposition, the working men of different lands first
reached the hand one to another; it was a development of capitalism
itself, stepping upon a stage of international largeness. The
Continental powers of Europe began to rival England. Commercial
politics were first of all robbed of their exclusive character through
a series of treaties, and were directed towards the unifying of
business life throughout Europe.

Since those first beginnings, at about the year 1860, the idea of
internationalism has never quite disappeared from proletarian
agitation, even though it may have experienced in the course of the
years essential changes in the form of its development.

It will be my duty in what follows to show to you how this tendency
towards internationalism, after many abortive attempts, has been
really carried out, and how, in close connection with it as concerns
goal and progress, the social agitations of individual lands more and
more press towards a unity upon the principles of the Marxian
programme.

The first form in which an attempt was made for international
combination of the proletariat is the celebrated "International."
Allow me to dwell somewhat at length upon this. It is essentially of
importance and interest for two reasons. One is that through it, and
its speedy end, a specific form of the internationalising of the
social agitation has been brought _ad absurdum_. The other is because
in it with striking clearness contradictions are presented, which
pervade all social agitation.

It was in the year 1862, when the French working-men, at the World's
Exposition in London, agreed with the English workers to counsel
together concerning united agitation. Further conferences ensued, and
in 1864 a union was founded which had as its object the uniting of the
representatives of workmen of different lands for common action and
advance. This was the International Association. What were the duties,
what was the thought, of such a brotherhood? Apparently twofold. We
can suppose that they meant to create merely a kind of correspondence
bureau--a place where the working men of different lands might unite
in a general international secretariate, to which they might turn for
information concerning any question pertaining to the social
movement--that is, an institution far from exerting an influence upon
the agitations of the working men in the various lands. The majority
of the men who, at that time, in the beginning of the 'sixties, strove
to carry out the idea of an international union thought of it surely
in this vague form.

The other conception goes further; a central spot should be created
for the working-men's movement, a place from which the working-men's
agitations in turn might receive assistance and inspiration, from
which influence could be exerted upon the separate national efforts.
The most important representative of the latter and larger meaning
was Karl Marx, who was called upon to play a decisive rôle in the
founding of the International Working-Men's Association. For him this
organisation was the first answer to his cry to the world,
"Proletarians of all lands, unite yourselves!" It is not to be doubted
that if a central organisation was to be created, to reveal a spirit
of unity and to ensure a unification of national proletarian
agitation, the Marxian spirit should control. Although he viewed the
situation clearly enough to see that extremest caution was needed, he
aimed to unite the many streams into one great river.

The "International" was founded upon the basis of the so-called
"Inaugural Address" and the "Statutes," both of which were evolved by
Karl Marx and accepted as he presented them. In them great diplomatic
skill is revealed. The "Inaugural Address" is a masterpiece of
diplomatic finesse. It is indefinite throughout its whole structure,
rendered purposely so by Karl Marx. He aimed, by it, to cover various
parties of the time, the Proudhonists, the working-men's associations
of France, the trade unions in England, the followers of Mazzini in
Italy, the supporters of the Lassalle agitation in Germany; and it
actually accomplished this in a masterly way. It commended itself to
each and every one of them. It pictures in effective way the misery
into which the working people are plunged by capitalism; it finds
words of recognition for the results of the English trade unions. It
praises the characteristics and services of the "free-coöperative
movement"--Proudhon, Duchez; but it has also a friendly word for the
organisations which receive aid from the state--Lassalle, Blanc.

Out of it all is drawn only this conclusion, with which all
sympathise--that the proletariat of all lands should be conscious of
an international solidarity. In some general and sentimental phrases,
which surely were traced by Marx with reluctance, national differences
find their adjustment, and their representatives find a uniting bond.
The "Statutes" were prefaced by some considerations which contained
_in nuce_ the principles of Marxism--with various concessions, as, for
example, the appeal to _vérité_, _justice et morale_. But even here is
all pressure avoided. A man could, on any point of uncertainty, always
think that something else was meant, and could at least feel himself
free concerning it. Very little reference was made to the objects of
the International Working-Men's Association. Its activity during the
first years consisted essentially in the support of strikes, for which
reason it enjoyed at the beginning the lively sympathy of many outside
of the circles of working men.

But now Marx began to develop his plan systematically; that is, slowly
to fill the International Working-Men's Association with his spirit,
and through it to support the proletarian agitation of different
lands. As we look at the congresses of this organisation, in Geneva,
1866; Lausanne, 1867; Brussels, 1868; Basle, 1869, we find that in
fact, step by step, from congress to congress, the International
Working-Men's Association supports more and more the Marxian ideas,
noticeably, and without any appearance of the moving spirit on the
scene. But now it is interesting to observe, and it shows the degree
of development which at that time the social movement had reached,
that the time for the inspiration of the whole European world of
working men with the Marxian ideas evidently had not yet come. In
proportion as the "International" began to display the spirit of Marx,
opposition raged in every quarter. The Proudhonists began to oppose
it; then the trade unions, especially after that moment when Marx
declared himself in sympathy with the Commune in Paris; the followers
of Lassalle began to grumble at it. A great part of the opposition
crystallised itself, towards the end of the 'sixties, in one man,
Michael Bakunin. As to the part which personal anger and envy played
in this opposition, we are not interested. It is possible that this
personal friction was essentially the reason for the destruction of
the "International." It seems to me, however, that at the bottom of
the antagonism of Bakunin against Marx lay a much more essential and
considerable opposition. For in 1868 Bakunin founded the _Alliance
Internationale de la Démocratie Sociale_, in which he united chiefly
Italian and Spanish associations, and as well the French; and it is in
this _alliance_ that the opposition on principle to Marx's efforts
comes to clear and sharp expression. But the real point of difference
lies in the distinction which you already know between revolutionism
on the one side and the evolution idea on the other, between the
idealistic and the realistic conception of history. Bakunin based his
whole activity upon the idea of revolution by force, upon the belief
that revolutions must be made because they can be made. In opposition
to him, Marx defended the fundamental thought that a revolution is at
most the last feature of a process of development, the breaking of the
husk through the ripening of the fruit.

The opposition of Bakunin led finally, as is well known, to the
dissolution of the International Working-Men's Association. In 1872
its general office was transferred to New York, apparently in order to
avoid a formal burial of the organisation.

Thus it came to pass that the Bakunists were shut out, and with them
were a number of "exclusions" from the circles of the orthodox; the
process of excommunication began, which to-day, as you know, is not
ended. Exactly the same thought lies at the bottom of the exclusion of
the Bakunists from the "International" as, this very year, in the
driving of the anarchists out of the London congress. Always again the
contradiction presents itself, socialism and anarchism; or, as deeply
understood, evolutionism and revolutionism.

Thus was shattered that first attempt to make a union of the
proletariat of all lands, and it will be many years before the thought
of international solidarity can again rule the working man. In spite
of its speedy ruin, the "International" has large historic
significance, and this lies in the fact that for the first time it
brought the internationalism of the movement and the international
community of interest of the proletariat in some measure to clear
expression; further, in that for the first time the social movement of
different lands was made familiar with the Marxian scheme of thought,
and at the same time affected with the Marxian spirit.

The compromises of the Marxian scheme gave the first impulse to the
general linking of international social agitation. But finally this
unification would be accomplished in a way quite other than that which
the founder of the International Working-Men's Association had
imagined. A mistake as to way was made; for this reason the
"International" went down. It had placed before itself the task of
forcing solidarity into the social movement from without, inwards.
This is a thought which is essentially un-Marxian; again, one of the
cases in which Marx was not Marxian. The way to unity should have been
reversed; from within, outwardly. First must the agitations in
individual lands be divested to some degree of their national and
contingent features, first must the general economic development be
further advanced, before the proletariat could by internal development
become conscious of its international solidarity and come to a
recognition of this unity in the chief points of its programme.

This internal and external unification, which is the product of the
last decade, I might specify as the third stage in the development of
the social movement; and then the second stage would be the complete
saturation of the German social democracy with the Marxian spirit.
This political party becomes thereby the organ through which those
ideas spread into other lands.

In Germany there has grown into recognition a social movement which,
at the beginning, was conducted in the spirit of both Marx and
Lassalle, but which soon came under the control of pure Marxism. I
recall the following stages of development. When thirty-two years ago
the deadly bullet struck Lassalle in Geneva, that man was removed who
alone had represented the German working-men's movement; and what he
left behind was next to nothing. His "Working-Men's Union" numbered
only four thousand six hundred and ten members at the moment when he
closed his eyes. So also immediately after Lassalle's death the
agitation was nothing more than a useless and petty strife. It was a
coterie rather than a social party. Thus the field in Germany was open
for the development of a new social-democratic movement from another
source. This was started in 1864 by Wilhelm Liebknecht, who came to
Germany as the direct envoy of Karl Marx, and with strong belief in
his ideas; the purpose was to establish the working-men's movement
upon a basis other than that of Lassalle. He won to this cause the
youthful energy of the master-turner August Bebel, who, at the age of
twenty-four, was already the leader of a number of working-men's
unions which had been until that time in advanced radicalism. These
are the organisations, you know, which in the year 1868, in Nuremberg,
seceded from Schulze to Marx. Fourteen thousand working men were
represented. The resolution through which this transfer was
accomplished was drawn by Liebknecht and was inspired by the Marxian
spirit. Thus in 1868 a new social party was formed in Germany which
took the name of the Social-Democratic Working-Men's Party, and which,
after the congress in Eisenach, stood for a time alone as the
so-called "Honorables," until in the year 1875 the union of the
Lassalle and the Bebel faction was accomplished in Gotha. Since that
time, as you know, the one "Social-Democratic Party" exists. It is
significant that the present union rests upon a compromise between
Lassalle and Marx, but is really directed by the Marxists, who step by
step have won control in the party. The "Gotha" programme remained as
the platform of the movement in Germany for sixteen years; and not
until the year 1891 was it replaced by a new platform, the "Erfurt"
programme, which now constitutes the confession of faith of the
Social-Democratic movement in Germany. It is pervaded by a strongly
Marxian spirit and contains essentially only a statement of Marxian
doctrines in accordance with the spirit of the age. Let me in a few
words present merely the lines of thought in this programme. It begins
with the phrases:

    "The economic development of middle-class society leads by a
    necessity of nature to the extinction of that economic order,
    production on a small scale, which rests upon the private
    ownership of the workman in his means of production. It
    separates the workman from his means of production, and changes
    him into a possessionless proletarian; while the instruments of
    production become the monopoly of a small number of capitalists
    and landowners, etc."

As you see, this programme proceeds from the fundamental thought that
economic development completes itself in a specific way; hence follow
all the other matters with which the programme deals. This special
Marxian thought, that an economic evolution is involved, has become
the central point of the Erfurt programme. It shows, further, how out
of the economic development a conflict emerges in the form of class
strife; and then it concludes that only a change to communal ownership
of the means of production can quiet this conflict. The party for
which the platform was created takes hold of the communistic thought
of the Erfurt programme in this sense, that the duty of a political
party can only be to bring to the consciousness of the workman the
existing economic revolution.

These are the words: "To bring this warfare of the working classes to
consciousness and unity, to show the natural and necessary goal--that
is the duty of the Social-Democratic Party." This is the point that is
especially important for us--the German agitation becomes completely
saturated, rapidly and uninterruptedly, with Marxian ideas, and thus
this spirit spreads gradually into other lands.

If you now ask me how this gradual extension of the Marxian system and
in connection with it the unification of the Marxian movement are
shown, the following, points seem to me of especial importance. In
1873 the "International" came to an end. It seemed as if, with it, the
internationalisation of the social movement in like manner had ceased.
But for about a decade past we have had again general and formal
"International Working-Men's Congresses." The year 1889 opened the
series with a working-men's congress in Paris, again at a world's
exposition. Here again, in a new and freer form, this idea of the old
"International" arises, and in a much larger form than the old
international working-men's associations had ever realised it. For
these former international working-men's associations had been really
only a combination of a number of representatives and secretaries.
The masses scarcely stood upon paper. The congresses which now again
the world of working men have created rest upon a much broader basis,
in my opinion, since, in spite of all "exclusions" and factional
strife, these international meetings represent a real combination of
working men conscious of their aim and organised for it--a fact which
we can no longer hide from ourselves, since the old English
trade-unions have become represented at the congresses. Thus the
international congresses now include the so-called "socialists" and
the trade unions as well. In spite of all differences of opinion on
certain points, at these congresses there is such expression of
internationality and solidarity on the part of the proletariat as was
never approached by any of the meetings of the old "International."
And it is certainly not by chance that the pictures of Marx and Engels
look down upon these new unions of the international proletariat.

But let us now look at a number of evidences, which make clear to us
that the movements of different lands approach more and more to a
unanimity resting upon the leading thoughts of the Marxian programme.
There is first the important fact to remember that the French,
originally uneconomic in temperament, have now begun effectively the
trade-union agitation. The creation of _Bourses du Travail_ prove how
earnestly this part of the social movement is cultivated by the
French. Through the agitation of class strife, the general movement
towards such associations receives a new impulse. And as the French,
inclined to revolutionary and political agitation, begin to become
economic, we see on the other side the very important fact that the
English working-man recedes step by step from his purely trade-union
"Manchester" platform.

I have never believed what some years ago was announced to the world,
in connection with a snap resolution of a working-men's congress, that
the English trade-unions would go over to the socialistic camp with
torch and trumpet. Such decisive changes in social life are not
accomplished in that way; there is needed a slow ripening. And the
proceedings of the London congress in this year (1896) prove how much
antipathy yet exists between the English trade-unions and certain
elements of Continental socialism. But in spite of all these
tendencies the fact remains that the English working-men's movement
approaches the Continental on important points; that is, it has at
least begun to be socialistic in aim and political in the means used.
That an "Independent Working-Men's Party" as yet plays no rôle in
England proves for the present nothing. The peculiar conditions of
English party life make a representation of the working men in
Parliament unnecessary under the circumstances. But who can doubt, in
view of the proceedings of the last decade, that the English
trade-unions, even the older ones, stretch out the hand more than
formerly towards the door-latch of legislation? Let me remind you of
the fact that with small, though deeply interested, minorities the
trade unions have written upon their programme a legal work-day of
eight hours. Also, in spite of much limitation and qualification, the
resolution of the English working-men in the year 1894 remains--the
communisation of the English means of production, at least the most
important of them, as the object of their agitation. Is that anything
other than a conversion of the English working-men's association?

In Germany we find that the normal line, upon which the social
movement in all nations begins to arrange itself, was nearly reached
at the start. It was only necessary to throw off some of Lassalle's
peculiar ideas, those revolutionary notions which arose here and there
about the year 1870, and especially to give broader play to the
trade-union movement, in order to reach the "minimum programme" of all
social agitation. This programme is, to repeat concisely:--the object
of the social movement is the communisation of the means of production
in its largest technical development upon a democratic basis; the
means of reaching this aim is the struggle of classes; this has two
equally justifiable forms, the economic--which finds its expression in
the trade-union movement, the political--which finds its expression in
representation in Parliament. The formulation of this proposition is
the specific service of Karl Marx, as we have seen; and for this
reason I think I am warranted in speaking of the whole social movement
of our time as infused with the Marxian spirit. For it is not unknown
to you that the social agitation in lands of later capitalistic
development--Italy, Austria, and Russia--has been from the beginning
in accordance with the thought of that platform.

If in any such way I think that I see a unification of the social
movement, that does not mean that I see a machine-like uniformity of
this movement in the different lands. I am not blind to the
innumerable diversities which are developed by the various nations,
and which are revealed every moment. I have attempted to show to you
how absolutely necessary these national peculiarities are, and to a
certain degree always will be--because of historic tradition and
difference of national character. So when I speak of a unity, I only
mean, as I have already often said, a tendency to this which struggles
to assert itself in spite of national disposition. The social
agitation will always retain a double tendency, a centripetal and a
centrifugal. The former, arising from the uniformity of capitalistic
development and from the similarity of original causes, tends towards
conformity; the latter, the product of national differences and of
manifold causes, tends to divergence.

I have to-day attempted to show to you how the centripetal tendency
reveals itself. The object of my next lecture will be to present to
you a systematic review of the manifold points of difference which
have already often been referred to in the course of these lectures.
Thus will be completed the picture of the essentials of the modern
social movement, which I am attempting to sketch for you.

CHAPTER VII

TENDENCIES OF THE PRESENT

    "Usually a man refuses to dismiss the fool that he carries
    within, and to admit any great mistake, or to acknowledge any
    truth that brings him to despair."

                     GOETHE, _Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship_.

Who, caring at all about what is going on in these days, has not
noticed the many contradictions which are now apparent in the great
social movement? Even the inexperienced observer, or he who stands too
near to real life to have free and wide outlook, will easily see
behind these contradictions a tendency towards a unity of effort. Now
that we have obtained a right understanding of this we shall, I hope,
do justice to these differences, these contradictions--we shall be
able to comprehend them in their essence and necessity.

The sources out of which they spring are as numerous as the
contradictions themselves. How often a personal motive can, under
certain circumstances, appear as an essential difference! Morbid
self-conceit, desire for power, quarrelsomeness, caprice,
malevolence, lack of honour--innumerable traits of character give
occasion for friction and contention.

But for these the social theorist cares nothing. Only that is of
importance to him which rests upon an essential difference. And of
these also there are enough, because the causes of them are numerous.
What is here decisive is the variation in the view of world and life,
is the difference of national character, is the varying degree of
vision into the essence of social development or of understanding
concerning accepted principles, is the varying measure of ripeness and
education of the masses, is the difference in economic development in
the various lands, etc.

But I cannot possibly exhaust the points of contradiction and strife
which arise out of these manifold and effective causes. I shall here
simply present certain matters which seem to me especially important
because essentially significant. My duty as to this problem can be,
again, only that of a theorist who tries to make a clear explanation,
who desires not to work upon your will but upon your intelligence, who
does not carry in his hand the brand of agitation but the lamp of
illumination.

If I do not pay attention to some points of difference which may seem
to you of supreme importance, it is not because I do not myself
recognise this importance, but because I suppose the contradiction
that comes to expression in them to be either out of date or only
imaginary, or because I go back of them to the deeper, essential
differences. Thus, for example, the alternative, _trade unions_ or _a
working-men's party_, is either the expression of a deeper opposition
concerning which I shall later speak, or it is a question that does
not concern us in these days. Thus concerning all those
representatives of the working-men's movement who place themselves
upon the platform of legal struggle. These men know that politics and
trade unions are like the right and left legs upon which the
proletariat marches; that political part-taking is needed in order to
obtain influence upon legislation; that economic organisation is
needed in order to discipline and educate the masses. The only
question can be now as to the degree, the more or less, of the one or
the other form of social agitation;--always within the limits of legal
agitation on the part of the working men. Any such question cannot be
general; it must be decided separately in each place and case. The
economic ripeness of the masses, the degree of political freedom, and
much else, must decide.

In a similar way is another point of difference to be judged; shall
there be an independent working-men's party or not? You know, I have
already spoken to you a number of times concerning this, saying that
in England thus far there has been practically no independent
working-men's party; I have given to you the reasons why, as it seems
to me, any such party has been until now at least unnecessary, even if
the working men desired to busy themselves in political matters. The
political influence of the social movement is not dependent upon the
existence of an independent party of working men. Even that question
is not a general one; it must be decided according to local
circumstances.

If we ask now for antitheses of real importance, we are met first and
especially, to-day, by that sufficiently explained opposition which is
contained in the words _revolution_ or _evolution_, the old point of
discussion which was, is, and I believe will be, a constant feature of
social agitation; that point of separation which we traced first in
the "International," and which to-day we see revived in the opposition
of the so-called "Junger" and the anarchists against the majority of
organised labour. The reasons on account of which I think that also in
the future this discussion will not cease are as follows.
Revolutionism is, as I have shown you, a manifestation of unripeness.
A man can, in a certain sense, assert that the social movement begins
anew every moment; for every day new masses arise out of the lower
strata of the proletariat yet living in stupid unconsciousness, and
they attach themselves to the social movement. These unschooled
elements, of course, in their part-taking show the characteristics of
the social movement itself in its beginnings. They find their natural
leaders in the disinherited citizens of the day, like Catiline of old,
mostly young men who have nothing to lose and who try to substitute a
fiery enthusiasm for theoretic insight and practical judgment. The
process which we have watched for a decade is one which must ever
again be repeated; the maturer elements are absorbed and disappear,
new hordes of revolutionists arise, and the process of absorption by
the riper, evolutionary, elements begins anew. Thus we see two
opposing phases of the development of social agitation that play their
part at the same time in different spheres of the proletariat. So far
as can be seen, there has been thus far an uninterrupted progress in
the absorption of the unripe revolutionary elements by the
evolutionists.

But even here, where the idea of evolution, consciously or
unconsciously, obtains recognition as the basis of the social
movement, we meet questions, many of which, as it seems to me, arise
because of a false conception of the essence of social evolution.

Although I have had opportunity at different times to show what social
evolution is, at least in a general way, let me here repeat concisely
what I understand by this idea; for a right comprehension of this
point is all-important. Social evolution, and the conception of the
social movement as such an evolution, rest upon the thought that we
find ourselves in a continued condition of economic and thus social
change, and that specific social interests and the necessary relations
of mastery are connected with each change; thus in proportion as the
evolution proceeds and as the activities of the interested groups
develop, the balance of power becomes displaced, with the result that
the ruling classes are slowly replaced by other classes that reach
control. Here also lies at bottom the thought that the division of
power at any given time is truly the expression of economic relations,
and is no merely accidental and artificial work; that this power can
only be displaced gradually, and only as the economic relations are
changed, and as at the same time the personal and subjective
conditions and the characteristics of the aspiring classes are
developed. In a word, social evolution is a gradual achievement of
power, the creation of a new condition of society, corresponding to
the overthrow of economic relations and the transformation and
schooling of character.

Among the evolutionists differences have emerged owing to a confusion
of the terms "quietism" and "evolution." Especially among the Marxists
has the thought spread, that evolution is so entirely a process of
nature, independent of human activity, that the individual must let
his hands rest in his lap and must wait until the ripened fruit drops.
This quietist and, as I believe, pseudo-Marxist idea has no real
connection with the inner thought of evolution. Its fundamental
mistake lies in the fact that all the occurrences in social life are
carried out by living men, and that men complete the process of
development by placing aims before themselves and by striving to
realise these aims.

The standpoints of the social theorist and of him who deals
practically in social life are entirely different; but men constantly
interchange the two. For the theorist, social development is a
necessary sequence of cause and effect, as he sees it in the shaping
of life compulsorily by the motives of the persons involved; and these
motives themselves he tries to understand in their limitations. For
him social life is a process rather of the past. But for the man who
deals practically in social life, it lies in the future. What the
theorist understands as the working of specified causes is, to the
practical man, an object lying in the future which his will should
help to accomplish. This very will is a necessary element in the
causation of social happening. And this will, conditioned as it may
be, is the highest personal possession of man in action. As the social
theorist seeks to show as necessary specific tendencies of the will,
and with them specific developments of the social life, he can do
this with the self-evident limitation that the energy of the
practical man in creating and accomplishing these efforts of the will
does not fail. If for any reason, for example through the pressure of
quietistic sentiment, this energy should be lessened, the most
important link in the assumed chain of causes would drop out, and the
development would take an entirely different course. It is a great
mistake to apply unqualifiedly to social life the idea of a process in
accordance with natural law; for example, to say that socialism must
come by a "necessity of nature." Socialism has nothing to do with any
such necessity. Thus, for example, we cannot see why the development
of capitalism should not lead just as well to the overthrow of modern
culture. And it must surely take this course if the leaders of advance
do not develop during the transformation of the social life the
necessary qualities for a new order of society, if they allow
themselves to sink into a marasmus or quietism. For them, all social
happening is only a condition to be created: and in order to
accomplish this in the future they need an energy of resolution.

In close connection with the point of which we have just spoken
stands another matter, which also in the last analysis depends upon a
right understanding of the essence of social evolution. I refer to the
confusion of "ideal" and "programme"--the substitution of politics for
idealism. I mean this: superficial evolutionists, especially in the
ranks of the Marxists, are inclined to look with supreme contempt upon
idealists and enthusiasts, and to rest only upon practical politics;
they emphasise the rational to the exclusion of the ideal. That is a
conception which does not at all harmonise with the real meaning of
evolution. For evolution wants its highest social ideals to be
realised, but these are founded only upon postulates essentially
ethical. To realise these ideals it is necessary to become inspired,
to kindle a heart's glow, to develop a fire of enthusiasm. The warming
sun must shed its beams, if all is not to go under and become
darkened--with danger of the annihilation of all life. The word of the
dying St. Simon, with which he took departure from his favourite
scholar Rodriguez, is eternally true: "Never forget, my friend, that a
man must have enthusiasm in order to accomplish great things." When
this idealism and enthusiasm disappear from a movement, when its
impetus is lost, when it passes into a littleness of opportunism, into
an emptiness of small politics, it dies like a body without life. And
it is certainly one of the most unpleasant traits of many of the
modern representatives of the proletarian movement, that in the dusty
atmosphere of common politics they have lost their enthusiasm and have
sunk to the level of political malcontents.

But on the other side, we must not confuse idealism with fantasy or
utopism. Enthusiasm for an object should be combined with common
sense. In the one is warmth, in the other clearness; in the one lies
the ideal, in the other the programme, that will offer ways and means
for reaching the end.

Only when we learn to distinguish between these two fundamental
thoughts shall we be able to unite ideal enthusiasm with practical
common sense. For as the confusion of programme with ideal tends on
the one side to a decline into useless commonplace, so on the other
side it leads to a crippling of practical activity. But he who learns
to distinguish the road from the goal will see that tireless exertion
is needed in order to press towards the mark. An understanding of the
importance and necessity of gradual reform is only awakened as a
deeper insight into the worth and essence of the ideal is obtained.

It must be allowed that a certain contradiction will remain in any
full understanding of the evolution idea in a social movement. We
cannot avoid the fact that the sceptical pessimist stands by the side
of the light-hearted optimist; that there will always be some who hope
for a speedy entrance into the promised land, while others are of the
opinion that the march thereto lies through the wilderness and will
last long. Hence the differences of position that men take regarding
what we call practical reforms. Men who believe that we are about to
move into a new building will not be willing to try to improve the old
structure; but those who think that the new edifice may be long in
rising will be contented to live for a while longer as comfortably as
possible in the old structure. This contradiction is in the nature of
man. It will continue ineradicable. It is enough for a man to be
conscious of its existence.

What we have learned to recognise thus far of antithesis rests upon
essentially different conceptions of the essence of social
development or upon different interpretations of one of these
conceptions--the evolutionary. Let me now, in a few words, speak of a
matter which rests upon the different interpretations--at least when
they arise to consciousness--which men place upon the progress and the
direction of social development. This contradiction rests upon a
variation of ideal, and consequently of programme; and it may be
expressed in the antithesis _democratic or socialistic_. In order to
understand properly this most important contradiction, which to-day
stands as the central point of discussion and which finds its acutest
expression in the exciting "agrarian question," I must remind you of
something said heretofore--at that hour when I spoke to you concerning
the necessary limitation of the proletarian-socialistic ideal. You
remember that there I specified as a necessary condition for the
development of socialism as the object of the modern social movement,
the previous development of capitalism and with it the impoverishment
of the masses. There must be a thorough proletarian condition.

But now consider the following. When the proletariat sets up this
object upon the basis of its economic conditions of existence, how
will the proletariat conduct itself with all those strata of society
who have not this same basis of economic existence? What will be the
relation of the proletariat to those masses who are not yet made
proletarian in character--as, for example, the lower middle-classes?
And there is a question yet more important--What will be the relation
of the proletariat to that part of the people, the _demos_, who cannot
possibly ever have a tendency towards becoming proletarian? Here
arises the great dilemma, and this is the deep contradiction which
comes here to expression: Shall the aim of the proletariat remain
essentially and preponderantly proletarian, or shall it become on the
whole democratic? And further, if the working-men's party will
interest itself in all these component parts of the _demos_, how shall
the proletariat conduct itself with them? If there is to be a general
democratic "people's party," what then becomes of the proletarian
programme? For this is clear: the whole reason for the existence of
socialistic agitation, as it is to-day attempted, with the cry of a
"need of nature" in the economic development, falls to the ground in
the moment when this economic development does not lead to the
proletarianisation of the masses and to the communisation of the
processes of production--to mercantile operations on a large scale. If
socialism is postulated upon any other grounds of ethics or
expediency, it cannot be "scientific" in the thought of the day. Here,
as I believe, lies the justification for the antithesis "socialistic
or democratic." And in the opposition of these two general thoughts,
each of which is represented within the social movement, is expressed
that deeply lying conflict of which we speak.

How these tendencies will settle themselves we cannot yet clearly see.

I believe that the following considerations may tend towards a
clearing of the situation.

The whole strength of the social movement, all chances for the final
victory of its ideas, so far as I see, rest upon the fact that it
proposes to be the representative of the highest form of economic life
at every period of production upon the largest scale. It tries to
climb upon the shoulders of the bourgeoisie, who are now the
representatives of the most highly developed forms of economy; and it
thinks that it will be able to overtop. History teaches us that what
we call advance has always been only change to a higher system of
economy, and that those classes thrive who represent this higher
system. Behind capitalism there is no "development"; possibly there
may be ahead. The degree of production which has been reached by it
must in any case be rivalled by any party that will secure the future
for itself. In that is shown, I think, the standard of any advance
movement.

If the social democracy is to maintain its historic mission, if it is
to be a party of advance, it must avoid compromise with the
notoriously declining classes, as the hand-workers and other
economically low organisations. Even a temporary compact with them is
dangerous. It will not be admissible, also, to change the programme
and goal of the social movement to suit the middle-class elements that
have crept in, if that great aim of production upon the largest scale
shall be held fast--because we know positively that their hand-work
represents in general a low form of economy. But now the other side of
the question. If there are spheres in economic life which are not to
be subjected to this process of communisation, because the smaller
method of business is under the conditions more profitable than the
larger,--how about the farmer? That is the whole problem which to-day
stands before the social democracy as the "agrarian question." Must
the communistic ideal of production on a large scale, and the
developed programme connected with it, undergo any essential change as
applied to the peasantry? And if a man reaches the conclusion that in
agrarian development no tendency to production on a large scale
exists, but that here operation on a large scale is not at all the
highest form of management, then we see before us the decisive
question--Shall we now be democratic in the sense of allowing
production on a small scale in this sphere and thus change our
programme and desert the communistic ideal; or shall we remain
proletarian, hold fast to the communistic ideal and exclude this class
from our movement? In this case the former decision would not be
reactionary, because, in spite of the acceptance of that lower
middle-class element into the movement, it is not necessary to come
down from the level of production that has been reached in the spheres
of industry that have been communised.

I have here been obliged to speak doubtfully because thus far, so far
as I know, there is no certainty either as to the tendency of
development among the agriculturalists or as to the form of
management, nor are we certain as to whether any specific form of
agrarian production is the superior. But, so far as I see, the Marxian
system breaks down on this point; the deductions of Marx are not
applicable to the sphere of agriculture without change. He has said
much of importance concerning agrarian matters; but his theory of
development, which rests upon an assumption of business upon a large
scale and upon the proletarianising of the masses, and which
necessarily leads to socialism in its development, is only for the
sphere of manufactures. It does not apply to agricultural development;
and to me it seems that only a scientific investigation will be able
to fill the gap which now exists.

Of far-reaching importance, and at this moment of pressing interest,
are two points which I would present in conclusion. I mean the
attitude of the social movement towards religion and towards
nationality. Because here personal feeling and temperament may easily
interfere with the clear vision of the observer, it is doubly
necessary to divest oneself of all passion and to deal with these
problems objectively. Let us make the attempt. Leaving out of
consideration the English working-man, who to-day, as a generation
ago, seems to oscillate between pietism and positivism, and who on
this point cannot be considered typical because of the well-known
peculiar conditions of his development, the proletarian movement
doubtless is strongly anti-religious. How comes this?

So far as I see, the opposition to religion comes from two different
sources: it has a "theoretical" and a "practical" origin.
Theoretically the proletariat and its leaders have become heirs of the
liberal "age of illumination." Out of a superficial study of natural
sciences have sprung all these anti-religious writings of the years
1860-1880 which in an intoxication of joy announced the first
recognition of the atheistic dogma to the world. These writers never
rose above the level of "itinerant preachers of materialism," and they
have never reached to the level of the Marx-Engels conception of life.
The platform of this dogmatic atheism may be considered to-day as
entirely something of the past. There is no earnest representative of
science anywhere who to-day dares to assert that science means atheism
and excludes religion. Thus the attitude of the proletariat towards
religion would be entirely free and independent if the ground of its
irreligion were merely a theoretic and misleading incursion into the
dogmatism of natural science. But the enmity to religion has much
deeper grounds. Not only has an enthusiasm for scientific materialism
taken hold of the proletariat with special force; but also the
enthusiasm for unbelief has been helped greatly in its development by
the instinctive feeling, or the clear consciousness, that in the
materialistic conception of the world lies the germ of a mighty
revolutionary force, well suited to drive authority from all spheres
of life. What wonder that the proletariat took hold of it as a useful
weapon for the strife; for, as we know, one of the conditions of the
very existence of the proletariat lies in a tearing asunder of all the
old points of faith. Thus the predilection for materialism and atheism
is well explained.

And now consider that the acceptance of this dogma betokens a protest
against the Christian system of thought, which the working man must
look upon as inimical because represented by the ruling classes and
used in their interests. For there can be no doubt that, in an
overwhelming majority of cases, official Christianity has been used by
the ruling classes against the movement for the emancipation of the
proletariat. The fate that falls upon heretical Christians is the best
proof of this. So long as men try to support monarchy and capitalism
as a necessary and Divine institution, using the Christian Church for
this purpose, the social movement must become anti-ecclesiastical and
thus anti-religious. Thus a mistrust as to the position, in the social
struggle, of the official representatives of the Church estranges the
proletariat from this Church and thus from religion. In the moment
that this mistrust is removed--and you all know that the new
Christian-socialists, especially in Germany, have taken this as their
task,--in the moment when Christianity is presented either as
unpartisan in its social influence, as Goehre preaches it, or as
directly social-democratic, as Naumann presents it,--in that moment,
so far as I see, there will be no reason why the proletariat should
maintain an anti-religious character.

In saying this, of course, I assume that religion is adapted to the
needs of the proletariat. Whether or not Christianity possesses this
adaptability, I do not dare to say. But that it is thus adapted would
seem to be indicated by the fact that it became the religion of Rome
in its decadence and of the German tribes in the youthful freshness of
their civilisation, of feudalism as well as of those stages of
civilisation in which the free cities and later the bourgeoisie have
had predominance. Then why may it not also be the religion of the
proletariat? But it must be presented to the lower classes with all of
the joy of life of which Christianity is capable. For the element of
asceticism in Christianity pleases little these classes, which press
towards air and light and which do not show any inclination to allow
the good things of life to be taken from them.

As if overhung with thick clouds of passion, appears now the question
as to the attitude of the social movement towards nationality. A great
part of the heated discussion on this point, as it seems to me, is due
to lack of clearness in thought. It is not so much our German
language, as it is our German instinct, that distinguishes between two
ideas, rightly but not always sharply separated; we are accustomed to
specify them as _patriotism_ and _nationalism_.

Patriotism, the love of the Fatherland, is indeed a feeling that
unconsciously and without effort is held fast in our hearts, and
exists therein like love of home and of family. It is an aggregation
of impressions, of memories, over which we have no control. It is that
indefinable power exercised upon our souls by the sound of the mother
tongue, by the harmony of the national song, by many peculiar customs
and usages, by the whole history and poetry of the home land. It is
that feeling which comes to its fulness only in a strange land, and
presses as truly upon the soul of the exiled revolutionist as upon
that of the peaceful citizen. I cannot see why this should be the
heritage of a particular class. It is a foolish idea that such a
feeling may, or can, die out in the great masses of men, so long as
there are lands and peoples with their own languages and songs.

Quite different is nationalism--the intelligent presentation, if I may
so express it, of national opinion, especially in opposition and
enmity to other nations. The modern proletariat does not simply refuse
to share this feeling; it actually fights against it.

Here again we meet the same fact that we observed before in
connection with the attitude of the proletariat towards religion; they
identify the idea of "nationalism" with the ruling classes, and as
enemies of the representatives of the idea they turn their hatred
against the idea itself. Especially is this so because, in many lands,
it is not made easy for the rising working-men's movement to identify
itself with the official representatives of the nation; hate,
persecution, repression, are not suitable means to arouse pride in
that national structure in which the working men must live together
with those from whom all this evil proceeds. At the same time a
friendly hand is reached over the national boundary-line by the
proletariat of a strange and unfriendly land, by companions in
suffering, with similar interests and efforts. Truly it is no wonder
that the modern proletariat generally becomes imbued with an
anti-national, an international, tendency.

But I hold it to be quite wrong to justify an anti-national theory by
this impulsive anti-nationalism. I see in the essence of modern
socialism no reason for such an idea. I have explicitly pointed out to
you the tendency towards an international understanding and unity on
the part of the proletariat. But that is only an artificial abolition
of national barriers. Only one who chases after the phantom of a world
republic will be able to imagine a social development outside of
national limitations. A man will hardly venture to prophesy with
certainty, even for only a short time, as to when the social
contradictions within a nation shall rival those points of difference
at present existing between nations. But it must be clear even to the
short-sighted that, so far as we can see, an energetic upholding of
national interests can never be entirely unnecessary.

Even if in Western Europe the differences between nations should be so
far obviated that only social questions remain in the field, I believe
that we could never assume that this Western European civilisation can
pursue its course undisturbed and without the admixture of other
elements. We must never forget that, as a result of modern means of
communication, not only Russian civilisation threatens that of Western
Europe, but even the Asiatic more and more strongly presses upon us.
The development in Asia which we have seen in the course of the last
decade, the rapid advancement of Japan, and now the attempt of China
to enter civilisation in order to nibble at the fruits of commerce and
to grow out of its narrow circle--this development will doubtless take
a course which must of necessity lead to new international
complications. I believe that the moment will come when European
society as a whole will say to itself: All our mutual differences are
of no importance as compared with that which threatens us from this
enemy. As an indication of this see the attitude of America towards
Asiatic development. There is a case in which the "internationalism"
of the proletariat is simply thrown aside; and this would be the case
also among the proletariat of Western Europe, if the coolies should
begin to swarm over us like rats. An artificial sympathy with the most
downtrodden people would prove too weak to restrain a sound national
self-interest. So soon as a common enemy threatens the existence of a
society it becomes again conscious of its economic interests and
rallies to their support; and in the meantime its internal differences
are forgotten.

Thus there can be no talk of an essential repudiation of nationalism
on the part of the proletariat throughout the world. Discussion of
the question concerns only a circle of kindred nations to which one
does not want to see the principle of anti-nationalism applied. How
such national groups are constituted is a question which it is not
necessary for us here to determine, as I desire only to present the
essential point in the national problem. You see that, with this
discussion, I complete the circle of my thought, and return to that
with which I began--the idea that there is, and apparently always will
be, an antithesis around which, as around poles, human history
circles, the social and the national. That is something which the
proletariat should never forget.

CHAPTER VIII

LESSONS

"Πόλεμος πατὴρ πάντων"

War is the father of all things.

Can we draw lessons from this historical review of the social
movement? I think we can, on many points; to show you what these
lessons are will be my effort in this last lecture. Perhaps I may
exert some influence upon the judgment of those who personally stand
outside of the present social strife and desire to be merely
passionless observers. And I shall be glad if, here and there among
those actively engaged in the struggle, some shall be found who will
recognise the justice of what I may say.

It seems to me that the first impression to be made upon anyone by
quiet observation of the social movement must be that it is necessary
and unavoidable. As a mountain torrent, after a thunder-storm, must
dash down into the valley according to "iron, unchangeable law," so
must the stream of social agitation pour itself onward. This is the
first thing for us to understand, that something of great and historic
importance is developing before our eyes; to recognise "that in all
that happens and is accomplished in connection with this movement we
are in the midst of a great process of world history which with
elementary force takes hold of individuals and even nations, and
concerning which it is as wrong short-sightedly to deny the fact as
inadequately to struggle against it." (Lorenz von Stein.) Probably
there are some who believe that the social movement is merely the
malicious work of a few agitators, or that the social democracy has
been "brought up by Bismarck," and the like; probably there are some
who naturally are forced to the false idea that some medicine or charm
can drive away this fatal poison out of the social body. What a
delusion! What a lack of intelligence and insight as to the nature of
all social history! If anything has resulted from my investigation I
hope it is this--a recognition of the historic necessity of the social
movement.

But we must advance to a further admission--that the modern social
movement, at least in its main features, exists necessarily as it is.
Among these main features I include the object that it sets before
itself, the socialistic ideal; also the means which it chooses for the
accomplishment of this ideal,--class strife. I have already attempted
to show you why these points must be allowed as the necessary result
of existing conditions.

Now shall we who do not stand in the ranks of those who struggle for
the new social order, shall we who only tremble for the permanence of
that which seems to us necessary for the upholding of our
civilisation--shall we be greatly pained and troubled at the present
condition of things as thus shown?

I think it hardly necessary to excite ourselves over the "dangers" of
any socialistic order of society in the future. We who know that all
social order is only the expression of specific economic relations can
face what comes with indifference; so long as these arrangements of
economic life are not given up, especially so long as the character of
the persons involved, is not completely changed, no power on earth, no
party--be it ever so revolutionary--can succeed in establishing a new
social order for humanity. And if these conditions are at any time
fulfilled--then will be the time to look further.

But it is not this socialistic ideal of the future that principally
causes anxiety to so many men. It is rather the form in which this
ideal is striven for; it is that word of terror, uttered by
Philistines both male and female--class strife.

I must acknowledge that for me this idea has in it nothing at all
terrible, rather the opposite. Is it really true that, even if strife
rules throughout society, man must give up entirely the hope of a
further and successful development of humanity? Is it really true that
all culture, all the noblest acquirements of the race, are endangered
by that strife?

First let me dispel the delusion that "class strife" is identical with
civil war, with petroleum, dynamite, the stiletto, and the barricades.
The forms of class strife are many. Every trade union, every
social-democratic election, every strike, is a manifestation of this
strife. And it seems to me that such internal struggle, such conflict
of different interests and ideas, is not only without danger to our
civilisation, but on the contrary will be the source of much that is
desirable. I think that the old proverb is true as applied even to
social strife, "Πόλεμος πατὴρ πάντων" It is only through struggle
that the most beautiful flowers of human existence bloom. It is only
struggle that raises the great masses of the common people to a higher
level of humanity. Whatever of culture is now forced upon the masses
comes to them through struggle; the only warrant for the hope that
they can be developed into new and higher forms of culture lies in the
fact that they must rise through their efforts, that step by step they
must fight for their rights. It is struggle alone that builds
character and arouses enthusiasm, for nations as for classes. Let me
remind you of a beautiful saying of Kant's, that expresses the same
thought: "Thanks to nature for intolerance, for envious and emulous
self-seeking, for the insatiable desire to have and to rule! Without
this, all the desirable qualities of humanity would lie eternally
undeveloped. Man wants peace, but Nature knows better what is
necessary for him; she wants strife."

And why lose courage, as we see that even in social life struggle is
the solution? To me this seems no reason for despair. I rejoice in
this law of the history of the world; that is a happy view of life
which makes struggle as the central point of existence.

But we should never forget that as conflict is the developer of what
is good, so it may also be the disturber and destroyer of all
civilisation. It does not lead only and by necessity to a higher life,
it is not necessarily the beginning of a new culture: it can also
betoken the end of the old, and of all, human existence.

For this reason I think that we should never lose sight of two great
ideas in this strife.

First, all social struggle should be determinedly within legal bounds.
Thus only can the sanctity of the idea of right remain uninjured.
Without this we plunge into chaos. Man must struggle in the name of
right against that which he considers wrong, upon the basis of
existing right. Man must respect this right because it has become
right, and passes for such; and he must not forget that our fathers
struggled not less intensely for that right which to-day we hold, and
have had in heart not less enthusiasm than their sons for the right of
the future. Only thus can a man awaken and sustain faith in that which
at some future time shall be right.

This exhortation addresses itself in like manner to both parties in
the struggle; to those who are now in power, not less than to those
who are carrying on the social agitation. _Intra muros peccatur et
extra!_ There is sin within, as without, the walls.

The same is true of a second demand, which must be developed in the
name of culture and humanity within these struggling parties, if the
social strife is not to be a war of extermination. It must be carried
on with proper weapons, not with poisoned arrows. How greatly have
both sides been to blame in this respect! How difficult it is to keep
out of the battle on the one side bitterness, mendacity, malice; on
the other side brutality, derision, violence! How readily does the one
opponent charge dishonour or bad motive against the other! How
repellent, how offensive, too often, is the tone in which opinion is
expressed! Must that be? Is that necessary for energetic assertion of
one's standpoint? Does a man think that he loses anything by conceding
that his opponent is an honourable man and by assuming that truth and
honour will control in the dealings of his adversary? I do not think
so. The man who places himself really in the struggle, who sees that
in all historic strife is the germ of whatever occurs, should be able
easily to conduct this strife in a noble way, to respect his opponent
as a man, and to attribute to him motives no less pure than his own.

Then is not the social struggle, according to this idea of it, as
necessary as a thunder-storm in a heavy atmosphere? He who sees in the
struggle something artificial, produced by bad men, may perhaps
attribute to the creator of the disturbance bad motives for this
knavery, for this frivolous and malicious upsetting of social rest.
But he who understands that the struggle arises necessarily out of the
constitution of social life, and that it is only a warfare between two
great principles, each of which has been, and must be, constituted by
a combination of objective circumstances--he who looks at differences
of idea as to the world and life which arise from the fact of
different standpoints and which are the necessary occasion of
differences in conditions of life--this one will come to the
conviction that even his opponent stands on much the same grounds as
he himself; that not personal baseness, but the compelling force of
fate, has placed him in a position such that he must be an opponent.
Then will it be easy, I think, to respect the other man, to refrain
from suspicion and contempt, to battle with him openly and honourably.
Shall we extol the Geneva Convention, which humanised warfare, as a
fruit of advanced culture; and yet within our kingdom, like
barbarians, without any consideration for the opponent, fly one upon
another with dishonourable weapons?

In this the development of English social agitation can serve as a
model. It points out to us how men may conduct in social life a moral
and civilised warfare. Even upon the Continent, I hope, will the more
humane form of struggle reach acceptance, if only because it springs
of necessity from a deeper conception of what class strife really is.
So long as the battle rages legally and honourably, we need not worry
about the future of our civilisation.

Schiller's lines show how undisturbed we may be at the social
struggle:

    "A full life is what I want,
    And swinging and swaying, to and fro,
    Upon the rising and falling waves of fortune.
    For a man becomes stunted in quietness of life;
    Idleness and rest are the grave of energy.

    But war develops strength.
    It raises all to a level above what is ordinary,
    It even gives courage to the cowardly."

CHRONICLE OF THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT (1750-1896).

These tables contain the first attempt to make a synchronistic
presentation of the most important dates in the modern social, that
is, the proletarian, movement. We here specify these dates for the
chief countries, England, France, Germany; and as well for the
international activity of the working-men's movement. In addition, the
most important occurrences in the development of capitalism and of
social legislation, so far as they have relation of cause or effect
with the social movement, are indicated in heavy type.

  ======+=================+=================+=================+=================
   YEAR.|   ENGLAND.      |   FRANCE.       |   GERMANY.      | INTERNATIONAL.
  ------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------
   1750-|Notable          |                 |                 |
   1800 |inventions of    |                 |                 |
        |modern           |                 |                 |
        |machinery:       |                 |                 |
        |(1764-75.        |                 |                 |
        |Spinning machine.|                 |                 |
        |1780.            |                 |                 |
        |The puddling     |                 |                 |
        |process.         |                 |                 |
        |1785-90.         |                 |                 |
        |The machine loom.|                 |                 |
        |1790.            |                 |                 |
        |Steam engine.    |                 |                 |
        |1799.            |                 |                 |
        |Paper machine.)  |                 |                 |
        |Rapid development|                 |                 |
        |of the great     |                 |                 |
        |centres of       |                 |                 |
        |industry.        |                 |                 |
        |"Machine Riots." |                 |                 |
        |Petitions to     |                 |                 |
        |forbid legally   |                 |                 |
        |machines and     |                 |                 |
        |manufactories,   |                 |                 |
        |and to           |                 |                 |
        |reintroduce the  |                 |                 |
        |Elizabethan trade|                 |                 |
        |ordinances.      |                 |                 |
        |Laws for the     |                 |                 |
        |protection of    |                 |                 |
        |machines.        |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1776 |Adam Smith       |                 |                 |
        |(1723-90).       |                 |                 |
        |"Wealth of       |                 |                 |
        |Nations."        |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1796 |                 |Babeuf's         |                 |
        |                 |conspiracy, or   |                 |
        |                 |"The Equals."    |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1800 |Robert Owen      |                 |                 |
        |(1771-1858; chief|                 |                 |
        |writings: "A New |                 |                 |
        |View of Society,"|                 |                 |
        |"Book of the New |                 |                 |
        |Moral World").   |                 |                 |
        |Enters the Dale  |                 |                 |
        |manufactory at   |                 |                 |
        |Lanark.          |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
        |Rigorous         |                 |                 |
        |prohibition of   |                 |                 |
        |combination.     |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1808 |                 |Charles Fourier's|                 |
        |                 |(1772-1837) first|                 |
        |                 |great book       |                 |
        |                 |appears: "Théorie|                 |
        |                 |de quatre        |                 |
        |                 |mouvements"      |                 |
        |                 |(1822: "Théorie  |                 |
        |                 |de l'unité       |                 |
        |                 |universelle,"    |                 |
        |                 |1824: "Le nouveau|                 |
        |                 |monde industriel |                 |
        |                 |et sociétaire"). |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1813-|Complete removal |                 |                 |
   1814 |of the           |                 |                 |
        |Elizabethan trade|                 |                 |
        |restrictions.    |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1815-|Struggle of the  |                 |                 |
   1832 |proletariat for  |                 |                 |
        |political rights.|                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1819 |The "Savannah"   |                 |                 |
        |arrives at       |                 |                 |
        |Liverpool.       |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1821 |                 |Saint Simon's    |                 |
        |                 |(1760-1825) chief|                 |
        |                 |work, "Du Système|                 |
        |                 |Industriel,"     |                 |
        |                 |appears (1825:   |                 |
        |                 |"Nouveau         |                 |
        |                 |Christianisme"). |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1825 |More liberal     |                 |                 |
        |coalition law.   |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
        |Rise of the Trade|                 |                 |
        |Unions.          |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1830 |Opening of the   |                 |                 |
        |Manchester-      |                 |                 |
        |Liverpool        |                 |                 |
        |Railroad.        |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1830-|                 |July Kingdom.    |                 |
   1848 |                 |Rapid economic   |                 |
        |                 |development;     |                 |
        |                 |"Enrichissez-    |                 |
        |                 |vous, messieurs."|                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1830-|                 |The movement of  |                 |
   1832 |                 |Bazard and       |                 |
        |                 |Enfantin, the    |                 |
        |                 |disciples of     |                 |
        |                 |Saint Simon.     |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1831 |                 |Insurrection of  |                 |
        |                 |the silk workers |                 |
        |                 |in Lyons: "Vivre |                 |
        |                 |en travaillant ou|                 |
        |                 |mourir en        |                 |
        |                 |combattant."     |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1833 |Beginnings of    |                 |                 |
        |specific         |                 |                 |
        |legislation for  |                 |                 |
        |working-men.     |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1834 |Grand national   |                 |Founding of the  |
        |consolidated     |                 |German           |
        |trade union, in  |                 |Zollverein.      |
        |the spirit of    |                 |Beginnings of    |
        |Robert Owen.     |                 |national         |
        |                 |                 |industry.        |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1836 |                 |Beginning of the |                 |The "Junger
        |                 |"Journalistic"   |                 |Deutschland" in
        |                 |period of        |                 |Switzerland.
        |                 |Fourierism under |                 |"Bund der
        |                 |Victor           |                 |Gerechten";
        |                 |Considerant.     |                 |with its
        |                 |Appearance of the|                 |central office
        |                 |Christian        |                 |in London after
        |                 |socialists (De La|                 |1840.
        |                 |Mennais); the    |                 |
        |                 |"Icarian         |                 |
        |                 |Communism" of    |                 |
        |                 |Cabet (Voyage en |                 |
        |                 |Icarie, 1840).   |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1836 |                 |Beginning of the |                 |
        |                 |economic unions  |                 |
        |                 |(Buchez, born    |                 |
        |                 |1796).           |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1837-|The Chartist     |                 |                 |
   1848 |movement. Six    |                 |                 |
        |points. Lovett.  |                 |                 |
        |Feargus O'Connor.|                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1839-|Activity of      |                 |                 |
   1854 |Thomas Carlyle   |                 |                 |
        |("Past and       |                 |                 |
        |Present," 1843), |                 |                 |
        |and the Christian|                 |                 |
        |socialists       |                 |                 |
        |(Charles         |                 |                 |
        |Kingsley, Thomas |                 |                 |
        |Hughes, J.D.     |                 |                 |
        |Maurice).        |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1839 |                 |Louis Blanc      |                 |
        |                 |(1813-1882):     |                 |
        |                 |"Organisation du |                 |
        |                 |travail."        |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1840 |Rowland Hill's   |Fullest          |                 |
        |penny postage is |development of   |                 |
        |introduced. The  |anarchistic-     |                 |
        |telegraph is     |communistic      |                 |
        |first applied to |clubbism and     |                 |
        |English          |conspiracy in    |                 |
        |railroads.       |"Société des     |                 |
        |                 |Travailleurs     |                 |
        |                 |egalitaires."    |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
        |                 |P.J. Proudhon    |                 |
        |                 |(1809-1865).     |                 |
        |                 |"Qu'est-ce que la|                 |
        |                 |propriété?"      |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1844 |The Pioneers of  |                 |Loom riots in    |
        |Rochdale.        |                 |Langenbielau u.  |
        |                 |                 |Peterswaldau;    |
        |                 |                 |tumults of       |
        |                 |                 |working-men in   |
        |                 |                 |Breslau,         |
        |                 |                 |Warmbrunn, and   |
        |                 |                 |other places.    |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1847 |                 |                 |                 |The "Bund der
        |                 |                 |                 |Gerechten"
        |                 |                 |                 |changes itself
        |                 |                 |                 |into the "Bund
        |                 |                 |                 |der
        |                 |                 |                 |Kommunisten"
        |                 |                 |                 |and takes as
        |                 |                 |                 |its platform
        |                 |                 |                 |the
        |                 |                 |                 |"Communistic
        |                 |                 |                 |Manifesto,"
        |                 |                 |                 |written by Karl
        |                 |                 |                 |Marx (1818-
        |                 |                 |                 |1883) and
        |                 |                 |                 |Frederick
        |                 |                 |                 |Engels
        |                 |                 |                 |(1820-1895).
        |                 |                 |                 |"Proletarians
        |                 |                 |                 |of all lands,
        |                 |                 |                 |unite
        |                 |                 |                 |yourselves."
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1848 |                 |The Paris        |Communistic      |
        |                 |"February        |agitation on the |
        |                 |Revolution."     |Rhine, started by|
        |                 |                 |Karl Marx and    |
        |                 |Proletarian      |associates.      |
        |                 |representatives  |("Neue Rheinische|
        |                 |in the           |Zeitung," 1. VI. |
        |                 |provisional      |48-19. V. 49).   |
        |                 |government;      |The German       |
        |                 |Louis Blanc and  |working-men's    |
        |                 |Albert. 23. u.   |movement captured|
        |                 |24. VI., "June   |by the           |
        |                 |insurrection."   |hand-workers.    |
        |                 |The proletariat  |Stefan Born. W.  |
        |                 |defeated in      |Weitling.        |
        |                 |street fights.   |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1850-|England's        |                 |                 |
   1880 |position of      |                 |                 |
        |industrial       |                 |                 |
        |monopoly in the  |                 |                 |
        |markets of the   |                 |                 |
        |world. Rapid     |                 |                 |
        |development of   |                 |                 |
        |the trade unions.|                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1850-|                 |                 |Stern regulations|
   1856 |                 |                 |of the various   |
        |                 |                 |German           |
        |                 |                 |governments and  |
        |                 |                 |of the           |
        |                 |                 |Confederation for|
        |                 |                 |the complete     |
        |                 |                 |repression of the|
        |                 |                 |working-men's    |
        |                 |                 |movement.        |
        |                 |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |Gradual founding |
        |                 |                 |of working-men's |
        |                 |                 |associations and |
        |                 |                 |"culture unions" |
        |                 |                 |(Schulze-        |
        |                 |                 |Delitzsch).      |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1851-|                 |Severe laws of   |                 |
   1854 |                 |Napoleon III. for|                 |
        |                 |the repression of|                 |
        |                 |all social       |                 |
        |                 |agitation.       |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1851 |Founding of the  |                 |                 |First World's
        |United Society of|                 |                 |Exposition in
        |Machinists.      |                 |                 |London.
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1852 |                 |                 |                 |The "League of
        |                 |                 |                 |Communists"
        |                 |                 |                 |dissolves.
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1862 |                 |                 |Deputation of    |
        |                 |                 |working-men from |
        |                 |                 |Leipzig to the   |
        |                 |                 |leaders of the   |
        |                 |                 |national union in|
        |                 |                 |Berlin; "Honorary|
        |                 |                 |members!"        |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1863 |                 |                 |Ferdinand        |
        |                 |                 |Lassalle         |
        |                 |                 |(1825-1864; 1858,|
        |                 |                 |"Heraklit, der   |
        |                 |                 |Dunkle"; 1861,   |
        |                 |                 |"System der      |
        |                 |                 |erworbenen       |
        |                 |                 |Rechte"); 1.     |
        |                 |                 |III.: "Offenes   |
        |                 |                 |Antwortschreiben |
        |                 |                 |an das Central   |
        |                 |                 |Kommittee zur    |
        |                 |                 |Berufung eines   |
        |                 |                 |allgemeinen      |
        |                 |                 |deutscher        |
        |                 |                 |Arbeiter-        |
        |                 |                 |Kongresses       |
        |                 |                 |zu Leipzig."     |
        |                 |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |23. V.: Founding |
        |                 |                 |of the general   |
        |                 |                 |German           |
        |                 |                 |working-men's    |
        |                 |                 |movement by      |
        |                 |                 |Lassalle.        |
        |                 |                 |Disruption after |
        |                 |                 |Lassalle's death |
        |                 |                 |in the male line |
        |                 |                 |(Becker, J.B. von|
        |                 |                 |Schweitzer) and  |
        |                 |                 |in the female    |
        |                 |                 |line (Countess   |
        |                 |                 |Hatzfeld).       |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1864 |                 |                 |                 |Founding of the
        |                 |                 |                 |International
        |                 |                 |                 |Working-Men's
        |                 |                 |                 |Association by
        |                 |                 |                 |the delegates
        |                 |                 |                 |of different
        |                 |                 |                 |nations at the
        |                 |                 |                 |World's
        |                 |                 |                 |Exposition in
        |                 |                 |                 |London.
        |                 |                 |                 |Inaugural
        |                 |                 |                 |address and a
        |                 |                 |                 |constitution by
        |                 |                 |                 |Karl Marx. He
        |                 |                 |                 |remains the
        |                 |                 |                 |veiled leader
        |                 |                 |                 |of the
        |                 |                 |                 |"International."
        |                 |                 |                 |The general
        |                 |                 |                 |office of the
        |                 |                 |                 |Society is in
        |                 |                 |                 |London.
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1865 |                 |                 |Beginnings of    |
        |                 |                 |trade agitation; |
        |                 |                 |the tobacco      |
        |                 |                 |workers; (1866   |
        |                 |                 |the printers).   |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1867 |                 |                 |Bismarck forces  |Appearance of
        |                 |                 |the general,     |the first
        |                 |                 |equal, secret,   |volume of
        |                 |                 |and direct       |"Capital" by
        |                 |                 |ballot.          |Karl Marx.
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1868 |                 |                 |                 |Founding of the
        |                 |                 |                 |"Alliance
        |                 |                 |                 |international
        |                 |                 |                 |de la
        |                 |                 |                 |démocratic
        |                 |                 |                 |sociale" by
        |                 |                 |                 |Michael Bakunin
        |                 |                 |                 |(1814-1876),
        |                 |                 |                 |with
        |                 |                 |                 |anarchistic
        |                 |                 |                 |tendencies in
        |                 |                 |                 |clear
        |                 |                 |                 |opposition to
        |                 |                 |                 |the Marxist
        |                 |                 |                 |ideas.
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1869 |                 |                 |Liberal trade    |
        |                 |                 |regulation for   |
        |                 |                 |the German       |
        |                 |                 |Empire. Rapid    |
        |                 |                 |development of   |
        |                 |                 |capitalism,      |
        |                 |                 |especially after |
        |                 |                 |the war.         |
        |                 |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |The founding of  |
        |                 |                 |the "Social-     |
        |                 |                 |Democratic       |
        |                 |                 |Working-men's    |
        |                 |                 |Party" at the    |
        |                 |                 |Congress at      |
        |                 |                 |Eisenach: the    |
        |                 |                 |so-called        |
        |                 |                 |"Ehrlichen."     |
        |                 |                 |August Bebel     |
        |                 |                 |(born 1840);     |
        |                 |                 |Wilhelm          |
        |                 |                 |Liebknecht (born |
        |                 |                 |1826). Founding  |
        |                 |                 |of the           |
        |                 |                 |"Hirsch-Duncker" |
        |                 |                 |trade unions.    |
        |                 |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |The General      |
        |                 |                 |Assembly of the  |
        |                 |                 |German Catholic  |
        |                 |                 |unions decides   |
        |                 |                 |upon             |
        |                 |                 |participation in |
        |                 |                 |the social       |
        |                 |                 |movement from the|
        |                 |                 |Catholic         |
        |                 |                 |standpoint.      |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1871 |Trade-union act, |The Paris        |                 |
        |supplemented in  |Commune.         |                 |
        |1875, sanctions  |                 |                 |
        |the trade-union  |                 |                 |
        |agitation.       |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1872 |                 |                 |                 |Congress of the
        |                 |                 |                 |"I.A.A." at
        |                 |                 |                 |Hague.
        |                 |                 |                 |Exclusion of
        |                 |                 |                 |Bakunin and his
        |                 |                 |                 |faction, who
        |                 |                 |                 |yet for a time
        |                 |                 |                 |find a
        |                 |                 |                 |standing-place
        |                 |                 |                 |in the
        |                 |                 |                 |"Fédération
        |                 |                 |                 |juraissienne."
        |                 |                 |                 |Removal of the
        |                 |                 |                 |general office
        |                 |                 |                 |of the "I.A.A."
        |                 |                 |                 |to New York.
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1875 |                 |                 |Fusion of the    |
        |                 |                 |followers of     |
        |                 |                 |Lassalle with the|
        |                 |                 |Eisenachers at   |
        |                 |                 |the congress in  |
        |                 |                 |Gotha. The       |
        |                 |                 |"compromise      |
        |                 |                 |platform" of     |
        |                 |                 |Gotha.           |
        |                 |                 |Gotha.           |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1876 |                 |First general    |                 |The "I.A.A."
        |                 |French           |                 |formally
        |                 |Working-Men's    |                 | dissolves.
        |                 |Congress at      |                 |
        |                 |Paris.           |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1877 |                 |                 |                 |The Ghent
        |                 |                 |                 |"World's
        |                 |                 |                 |Congress."
        |                 |                 |                 |Attempt for the
        |                 |                 |                 |reconciliation
        |                 |                 |                 |of the
        |                 |                 |                 |Bakunists and
        |                 |                 |                 |the Marxists
        |                 |                 |                 |miscarries. A
        |                 |                 |                 |general union
        |                 |                 |                 |of
        |                 |                 |                 |"International
        |                 |                 |                 |Socialism" is
        |                 |                 |                 |resolved upon
        |                 |                 |                 |by the
        |                 |                 |                 |Marxists, but
        |                 |                 |                 |does not come
        |                 |                 |                 |to importance.
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1879-|                 |                 |                 |
   1890 |                 |                 |Law concerning   |
        |                 |                 |the socialists.  |
        |                 |                 |                 |
        |                 |                 |Destruction of   |
        |                 |                 |working-men's    |
        |                 |                 |organizations.   |
        |                 |                 |Removal of the   |
        |                 |                 |strength of the  |
        |                 |                 |agitation to     |
        |                 |                 |other lands.     |
        |                 |                 |("Social-        |
        |                 |                 |demokrat" in     |
        |                 |                 |Zurich and       |
        |                 |                 |London.)         |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1878 |                 |                 |Founding of a    |
        |                 |                 |conservative     |
        |                 |                 |Christian        |
        |                 |                 |Socialism by     |
        |                 |                 |Stöcker.         |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1879 |                 |Working-Men's    |                 |
        |                 |Congress in      |                 |
        |                 |Marseilles for   |                 |
        |                 |the first time   |                 |
        |                 |gives power to   |                 |
        |                 |the              |                 |
        |                 |Collectivists.   |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1880 |                 |Working-Men's    |                 |
        |                 |Congress in      |                 |
        |                 |Havre; rupture   |                 |
        |                 |between the      |                 |
        |                 |moderates and the|                 |
        |                 |radicals. The    |                 |
        |                 |latter constitute|                 |
        |                 |themselves as a  |                 |
        |                 |"Parti ouvrier   |                 |
        |                 |révolutionnaire  |                 |
        |                 |socialiste       |                 |
        |                 |français."       |                 |
        |                 |                 |                 |
   1881 |Founding of the  |                 |                 |
        |Social-Democratic|                 |                 |
        |Federation under |                 |                 |
        |the control of   |                 |                 |
        |Marxian          |                 |                 |