Eduard Bernstein Ferdinand Lassalle as a social reformer (1893) 1 Ferdinand Lassalle Eduard Bernstein Halaman 2 First published as the introduction to Ferdinand Lassalles Gesammelte Reden und Schriften , vol. 1, Berlin 1893. Published in English by Swan Sonnenschein, London 1893. Translated By Eleanor Marx-Aveling. [1] The German edition published in 1904 under the title Ferdinand Lassalle und seine Bedeutung für die Arbeiterklasse , Berlin 1904, is a radically revised version of this book, reflecting Bernstein’s conversion from Marxism to revisionism. Transcribed by Ted Crawford. ( note ) Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive . Preface I. The political position in Germany at the beginning of Lassalle’s agitation II. Lassalle’s youth and early manhood – The Hatzfeld lawsuit, 1848 – Franz von Sickingen III. Lassalle and the Italian War IV. The System of Acquired Rights, and other minor works (1860- 1861) V. The struggle for a constitution in Prussia – Lassalle and the “Progressist Party” – The Worker’s Programme VI. Breach with the Progressist Party – The Open Reply Letter; its political portion VII. The Open Reply Letter; its economic portion – The iron law of wages, and productive co-operative societies with state-help VIII. Lassalle as agitator and leader of the Association IX. Vain attempts to compel immediate political success – Approaching the reactionary government of Prince Bismarck – Lassalle’s death X. Conclusion – Lassalle’s legacy to the German working class movement Note 1. In this text Eleanor Marx uses the term “middle class” to translate the German words “bürgerlich” and “Bürgertum”. In the Victorian period this term was used to refer to the bourgeoisie or capitalist class. In modern Marxist terminology the words “middle class” would be replaced by “bourgeois” and “bourgeoisie“ as appropriate. Ferdinand Lassalle Eduard Bernstein Halaman 3 PREFACE THE short account of Lassalle here submitted to the English reader is, with some slight alterations, a translation of my Introduction to the complete edition of Lassalle’s Speeches and Works . I was asked to edit these by the executive of the German Social-Democratic Party of Germany in the spring of 1891. In the German this Introduction bears the title Ferdinand Lassalle and his Significance in the History of Social-Democracy . I did not adopt the same title for the English edition in order to avoid confusion between my own and other works already published in England under similar titles. Indeed, this sketch is not intended to compete with elaborate works like that of Mr. W.H. Dawson. It is intended rather to act as a complement to Mr. Dawson’s book and other works dealing with Lassalle and German Social- Democracy. For a full treatment of the subject it is far too incomplete, and its constituent parts are of purpose unequally balanced. Thus many important statements and criticisms were in the original reserved for the special introductions to the various works of Lassalle, and these I have not incorporated in the English volume. But, on the other hand, it deals with questions almost ignored by other writers, and after I have had access to documents hitherto unknown to them. Further, it is written at the same time from a Social-Democratic and a critical standpoint, whilst other critics of Lassalle have mostly been more or less opposed to Social-Democracy, or, in the case of Socialists who have written about him, they either did not criticise him at all, or criticised only his acts, and did not enter into any analysis of his theories. But such treatment of the subject is indispensable now that Lassalle is being exploited by the enemies of Socialism against Social-Democracy. Ferdinand Lassalle Eduard Bernstein Halaman 4 It is undeniable that Socialism in Germany to-day has no resemblance to the special characteristics of Ferdinand Lassalle’s Socialism. The more this became evident, the more Lassalle became the hero of the middle- class littérateur , and was held up as the “good” Socialist, as opposed by the middle-class politician to the “bad” Social- Democrats of to-day. Was he not a national patriot, in contrast to the unpatriotic internationalists, destitute of “fatherland” – the followers of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels? Was he not a real statesman, as compared with these mere demagogues or abstract theorists? Had he not, at least, a scheme, even though it may have been wrong, for bringing about the peaceful socialisation of society, whilst these men do nothing but draw bills on a future revolution ? With all this cant we have had to deal in Germany, and that it has been imported into England is only too evident. This is why I have allowed passages dealing with this point to remain unabridged in the translation. The reader will at once see that my standpoint is that of Karl Marx and Fr. Engels, whose doctrines are to-day accepted by the Socialist Parties – with some few exceptions – all over the world. Many misrepresentations and misunderstandings have been circulated as to the relation of Ferdinand Lassalle’s Socialism to these doctrines, and as to his personal relations with the author of Das Kaptal . To some Lassalle is a disciple of Marx and Engels, who only differed from them on the question of productive co-operative associations; to others he is an original Socialist thinker, who merely took a few details of his criticism of capitalist production from Marx. Neither view holds good on closer examination. Lassalle was much more indebted to Marx than he admitted in his writings; but he was a disciple of Marx only in a restricted sense. As to the former point, even in the book in which he speaks of Marx – Herr Bastiat- Ferdinand Lassalle Eduard Bernstein Halaman 5 Schulze – Lassalle takes much more than he acknowledges from the book of Marx to which he refers. Very important deductions and even quotations from this book are made use of without any allusion to the original. In his speeches and pamphlets, again, in which he never refers to any of his Socialist predecessors, the influence of these must strike the reader acquainted with Socialist literature. This does not apply to Marx and Engels only, but also to Louis Blanc and other French Socialists. The points in which Lassalle – sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously – differed from Marx and Engels I have dealt with explicitly in this book, and therefore I need not recapitulate them here. But upon one point a few words should be said, as it bears upon a question much discussed recently on this side of the channel. Marx has been reproached – and this even by a section of English Socialists – with basing his Socialism upon the Ricardian theory of value adopted, and but slightly modified by him. In his History of Socialism , written, on the whole, in the fairest spirit, Mr. Thomas Kirkup, e.g., says that when the Economists did not follow the Ricardian principle to its obvious conclusion – “that if labour is the source of wealth, the labourer should enjoy it all” it was “otherwise with the Socialists,” and “as posited by the Economists, and applied by the Socialists, Marx accepted the principle.” It “was made and continues to be, the foundation-stone of the system of Marx, and is really its weakest point.” (Page 147.) Now, already in the treatise which Mr. Kirkup quotes on this occasion, the Misère de la Philosophie , written and published in 1847, Marx says – “All the egalitarian conclusions which Mr. Proudhon draws from Ricardo’s theory are based upon a fundamental error, for he confuses the value of commodities measured by the quantity of labour embodied in them with the value of commodities Ferdinand Lassalle Eduard Bernstein Halaman 6 incurred by the value of labour ” (p.31 of the French, and p.30 of the first German editions). After showing why and how this is inadmissible, Marx gives the names of the English Socialists who before Proudhon – who posed as the inventor of the idea – had made an “egalitarian” application of Ricardo’s formula, and gives as examples passages from Bray’s Labour’s Wrongs and Labour’s Remedies , London, 1839. And afterwards he proves that Bray’s ideal of improving society by following out Ricardo’s theory “to its obvious conclusion” is nothing but the reflex of society as it is. This was written, as I have said, in 1847, i.e. , at a time when Marx had not yet completely worked out his own theory. Even then he saw clearly that what Mr. Kirkup, in accordance with, or may I say, misled by, many other writers, calls “the foundation-stone of the system of Marx” was a theoretical impossibility. In his Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie , published in 1859, Marx refers again to the egalitarian application of Ricardo’s formula by English Socialists, and again makes it clear that he does not agree with them. He states four objections to the Ricardian theory of value (the second of which is the one taken up by these Socialists), and lays them down as so many problems to be solved by a closer analysis of the society from which the Ricardian theory is drawn, viz., modern capitalist society. A little further on he quotes John Gray, another English Socialist, earlier in date than Bray, who attempted an egalitarian application of Ricardo’s formula, and again proves its fallacies and intrinsic contradictions (c.i., p.40, and pp.61-64.). [1] In Das Kapital Mr. Kirkup could have read, firstly, that “labour is not the only source of material wealth” (p.18 of the second edition of the German edition, and p.10 of the English). Wealth and exchange value are two very different Ferdinand Lassalle Eduard Bernstein Halaman 7 things.