the last chapter contained a description of the desires and demands of the german social democratic party, without entering into any discussion of the careers and characters of its leaders or of the organizations which have been formed to support its programme. this chapter will treat of what may be called social democracy in the concrete. i shall first take up the external history of the political party which is designated by that name, and then enter into a consideration of its internal history. by its external history i mean an account of its outward life, as manifested in the field of politics; by its internal history i mean a description of the men who have led the party, and a presentation both of the ideas which have controlled it and the measures which it has adopted in its political and economic propaganda.

it was the introduction of universal suffrage by the north german confederation, in 1867, and by the german empire, in 1871, which enabled the social democrats to enter into political contests with any reasonable hope of success. german laborers do not appear previously to have played any r?le in the politics of their country. the prussian constitution is so constructed as to give a preponderating influence to wealth. this is not the place to explain the prussian[212] system of voting. it is only necessary to remark that the voters are divided into three classes, according to their wealth, and that a voter of the wealthiest class in berlin counts for as much as fifteen voters of the poorest class. the laborer could not, of course, hope to gain political influence with such tremendous odds against him. it was to enable the poor man to fight his own battles that lassalle demanded universal and equal suffrage for all. this was, as will be remembered, the only explicit demand of the social democratic party, contained in the statutes or by-laws of the “universal german laborers’ union.” lassalle appears to have been acquainted with bismarck’s intention to embrace it in the constitution of the empire he was striving to found, and hoped great things therefrom. but as he died in 1864, and the citizens of the north german confederation first voted in 1867, he was never able to make use of it in his agitation. it is not often profitable to speculate upon what might have happened if this or that event had not occurred, but it is self-evident that lassalle’s agitation would have been very formidable if he could have led the laborers to the ballot-box and defended their cause, first in the north german, afterwards in the imperial, parliaments, with all the resources of his learning, mental acumen, and impassioned eloquence. lassalle’s death discouraged the social democrats for a moment only. it can scarcely be said that it caused an interruption in the progress of the party, though this progress would, we may believe, have been far more rapid had he lived. however, his death itself was made useful. living, he could scarcely have been glorified as he was after his death, and his name could not have so influenced the laborers.

[213]

the social democrats entered into the contest for election of members to the constituent assembly of the north german confederation. in one of the districts their candidate ran against bismarck and a leading liberal, and received about one fourth of the votes cast for the three candidates. as no one received a majority, a new election was ordered, and bismarck was elected by the aid of the social democrats, who always prefer conservatives to liberals. as bismarck was elected in another district, it was necessary to vote for a third time in this place, when the social democrat ran against the celebrated liberal, dr. gneist, professor of constitutional law in the university of berlin, and one of the leading jurists in germany. the votes were about evenly divided, but the social democrat was defeated by a small majority. the social democrats elected two representatives, however, and in the fall of the same year (1867) they sent eight members to the parliament of the north german confederation.

since the organization of the german empire the social democratic votes for members of the imperial parliament (reichstag) have numbered as follows: 1871, 123,975; 1874, 351,952; 1877, 493,288; 1878, 437,158. the entire number of votes cast in 1877 was 5,401,021. we see, then, that the social democratic voters numbered over one eleventh of all the voters in that year. when it is remembered that there are nine or ten political parties represented in the reichstag, it must be acknowledged that the elections revealed a large relative strength of the social democratic party. its votes have, however, been so scattered that it has not had its proportionate number of representatives in parliament. the social democratic[214] members of the reichstag numbered two in 1871, nine in 1874, twelve in 1877, and nine in 1878. the total number of members of the reichstag is about four hundred. it is thus seen that the social democratic party advanced in strength, as far as that is measured by votes, until 1878, when the decrease was only slight. two attempts were made on the life of the emperor william in that year, and the social democrats had to bear a good share of the blame. there was a considerable popular indignation manifested; private employers, as well as government, discharged laborers who entertained social democratic principles; and in the elections following the police put every obstacle in the way of the party. in the reichstag the celebrated socialistic law was passed, which gave government exceptional and despotic powers to proceed against social democracy. the severity of the government appears to have done more harm than good. in spite of what can be fairly designated as persecution, in the elections which took place in october, 1881, the social democrats secured thirteen seats, the largest number they have ever yet gained.[192] this is, indeed, significant when it is remembered that the exceptional law (ausnahmegesetz) allows severe measures against the social democrats which would not even be thought of against any other party. government has thus been enabled to suspend all their party newspapers, to prohibit the sale of their books and pamphlets, and to suppress all public agitation of the party. their associations were dissolved, and for[215] a hotel-keeper even to rent them rooms for a meeting was made an offence punishable with imprisonment for a length of time varying from one month to a year.

the german government was undoubtedly placed in a trying position, but they appear to have made a mistake. it is said that at the time the ausnahmegesetz was passed, things were in a bad way with the social democrats. they had twenty or thirty journals, but many of them were on the point of bankruptcy. differences existed in the party, and no one seemed to know what to do next. it is possible, if the party had been left alone, it might have fallen into a sad state of disorganization, and have become so weak that it would have ceased to trouble the peace of the government for years. however this might have been, it is certain that the measures of government were not altogether unwelcome to the party leaders. it relieved them of numerous perplexities. it was much better, e.g., for them to have their newspapers and magazines suspended by government than to cease to appear for lack of support. governmental persecution united the divided members and gave new energy to all. every social democratic laborer experienced, to a certain extent, the elevating feelings of martyrdom. they all became secret missionaries, distributing tracts and exhorting individually their fellow-laborers to join the struggle for the emancipation of labor.

the german social democrats have held two congresses since the socialistic law, both, of course, on foreign soil, and both have indicated progress. the first was held at wyden, switzerland, august 20-23, 1880. this resulted in a complete triumph for the more moderate party. the two leading extremists,[216] hasselmann and most, were both expelled from the party—the former by all save three votes, the latter by all save two.

the next congress was held at copenhagen, denmark, from march 29 to april 2, 1883. it exhibited greater unanimity of sentiment and plan, and a more wide-spread interest in social democracy, than any previous congress. one feature of interest was the very considerable financial aid from america which was reported.[193]

“bismarck has acknowledged that the measures which government has adopted up to this time have not proved successful in weakening social democracy, or in checking, in any effectual manner, its spread among the people. but he claims that he has not as yet carried out his full programme. this is true. during the discussion upon the socialistic law of october 21, 1878, he declared distinctly that he did not expect to cure the masses of the disease of social democracy by repressive measures alone. something more than external remedies was needed. the social democrats had built upon well-grounded discontent of the people, and he proposed to win back the masses for king and fatherland by removing the grounds of discontent. these grounds were of an economic nature. wages were low, taxes high, work scarce, and the entire economic existence of the lower classes uncertain and full of anxiety. but what was to be done about it? no one knew exactly, but all looked forward with eagerness to bismarck’s proposals. two years passed away without bringing any of his plans[217] to light. people began to think that the promises of relief to the poor had been thrown out simply as a bait to catch votes for the bill which became the socialistic law.”[194] that they were intended to serve this purpose is undoubted. the only question is whether bismarck really intended to make any attempt to carry through legislation in behalf of the laborers. the lapse of time made men sceptical. the opinion more and more prevailed that the last had been heard of government institutions designed to ameliorate the condition of the poor. “but bismarck has a good memory and a strong will. when he has once made up his mind to pursue a certain course of action he is not to be diverted therefrom. more than once germany has thought that he had forgotten some threat or resolve because he allowed years to slip by without making any public move towards the execution of his plans, but in such cases she has reckoned without her host. it now looks as if bismarck might have meant all he said when he promised to use the power of the state to relieve the poor classes. he had not for a moment forgotten his promise, but was only working out his plans and waiting for an opportune moment to execute them.” the german emperor, too, had been urging him forward in the path he had marked out for government. the old kaiser—who seems, in his way, to have a warm, fatherly affection for his people—professed his distress at the sufferings of the unfortunate, and maintained his sincere desire to relieve them. he was an old man, he said, and he longed to[218] see the labor question satisfactorily adjusted before his death. to one who realizes the utter impossibility of his seeing this pious wish gratified, there is something undeniably touching in the simple and honest expressions of this good-natured father of his people. “early in the year 1881 the reichstag obtained an earnest of bismarck’s plans for pacifying the discontented elements in germany in the accident insurance bill, which is merely an episode in the history of german socialism. the aim of the measure is to make provision for industrial laborers injured in the prosecution of their callings, or for their families when they are killed. it is proposed to establish a great insurance society somewhat like the one founded and managed by the baltimore and ohio railroad company.[195] the resemblance between many features of the two plans is, indeed, surprising. it is desired, however, in germany, that government should bear a portion of the expenses; at any rate, that is one characteristic of the government bill. government also wishes to manage the insurance society or societies undertaking this work, although it might allow employers and employees some representation in the administration of the business. in both these respects the bill is clearly socialistic, and no one is better aware of this than prince bismarck. it has been deliberately decided that private individuals, or voluntary combinations of private individuals, are unable to perform all the duties of society towards the poorer classes. the state is to become a benefactor and protector of the weak and needy. bills introduced by[219] government are always accompanied with so-called ‘motives,’ explaining and defending them. the ‘motives’ accompanying the accident insurance bill opened with these words: ‘that the state should care for its poorer members in a higher degree than it has formerly done is a duty demanded not only by humanity and christianity—and the institutions of state should be penetrated through and through by christianity—but it is also a measure required for the preservation of the state. a sound policy should nourish in the indigent classes of the population, which are the most numerous and least instructed, the view that the state is a beneficial, as well as a necessary, arrangement. legislative measures must bring them direct, easily perceived advantages, to the end that they may learn to regard the state not merely as an institution devised for the protection of the wealthier classes, but as one which likewise ministers to their needs and interests.’”

bismarck proposes, then, to conquer social democracy by recognizing and adopting into his own platform what there is of good in its demands. it is curious to notice that friends of bismarck and supporters of the government have even gone so far as to adopt some of the social democratic phrases. they have spoken of the laborers as the “disinherited” classes of society. yet this originated with the social democrats; and a few years ago government gave as one reason for prohibiting the sale of a certain book in germany the fact that it called the laborers the “disinherited” (die enterbten). thus far has bismarck gone in the way of making concessions. in the one point of the accident insurance bill he has drawn a number of social democrats to his support. they look[220] upon it as only a beginning, and, indeed, bismarck has proposed to add features making provision for old age and for death from disease and other causes than accident. but all that bismarck has promised is to them only one step. those who regard the matter in this light are willing to support him in this first step. bebel, one of their leaders at present, was one of the most earnest supporters of bismarck’s insurance bill in the reichstag, when the measure was brought forward. kayser, another social democrat, declared that he would let no one “terrorize him—he would defend bismarck.” all this makes a strange impression upon us when we remember the cruelties and persecutions which the social democrats have suffered through the instrumentality of the great german statesman. it is amusing, and, at the same time, it is not devoid of a certain pathos. it reminds one of an ancient prophecy—“the wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock.”

however, the two parties drew near together only for one special purpose, and but for a moment. no reconciliation has taken place between the opposing elements of industrial society in germany. only one of bismarck’s schemes for the amelioration of the condition of the laboring man has been adopted.

in treating of these schemes i have brought the external history of social democracy down to the present moment, for they are to-day being discussed in germany. they are viewed with the deepest distrust by large classes of the population, and parliament has greeted them coolly. were they accepted, they alone would not be sufficient to cure so deep-seated a disease; perhaps they would scarcely mitigate it. radical changes, not to be hoped for in our lifetime, must[221] take place before the conflict between capitalist and laborer—between rich and poor—will cease to disturb the peace of christendom. the evil is rooted in the very nature of society itself, and can only terminate in a transformation and moral elevation of the various social elements. its cause lies deeper than the agitation of karl marx or the eloquence of ferdinand lassalle, who only acted upon latent feelings and expressed thoughts, of which the laborers had already a dim consciousness. sooner or later their feelings were bound to become active and their thoughts to find adequate expression.

roscher, in his “political economy,” describes five conditions which, meeting together, produce communistic and socialistic movements. as his description of them has become celebrated, and explains not the mere surface phenomena, but the underlying causes of communism and socialism, i think it worth while to present them. i shall, however, take the liberty of making abbreviations and changes, and interspersing such remarks of my own as will better adapt the description to the purpose of this volume.

the first condition is “a well-defined confrontation of rich and poor. so long as there is a middle-class of considerable numbers between them, the two extremes are kept, by its moral force, from coming into collision. there is no greater preservative against envy of the superior classes and contempt for the inferior than the gradual and unbroken fading of one class of society into another.... but when the rich and the poor are separated by an abyss which there is no hope of ever crossing, how pride, on the one side, and envy, on the other, rage! and especially in the centres of industry, the great cities, where the deepest[222] misery is found side by side with the most brazen-faced luxury, and where the wretched themselves, conscious of their numbers, mutually excite their own bad passions. it cannot, unfortunately, be denied that when a nation has attained the acme of its development we find a multitude of tendencies prevailing to make the rich richer and the poor, at least relatively, poorer, and thus to diminish the number of the middle-class from both sides; unless, indeed, remedial influences are brought to bear and to operate in a contrary direction.”

the second condition mentioned is “a high degree of the division of labor, by which, on the one hand, the mutual dependence of man on man grows ever greater, but by which, at the same time, the eye of the uncultured man becomes less and less able to perceive the connection existing between merit and reward, or service and remuneration. let us betake ourselves in imagination to crusoe’s island. there, when one man, after the labor of many months, has hollowed out a tree into a canoe, with no tools but an animal’s tooth, it does not occur to another, who, in the meantime, was, it may be, sleeping on the skin of some wild animal, to contest the right of the former to the fruit of his labor. how different this from the condition of things where civilization is advanced, as it is in our day; where the banker, by a single stroke of his pen, seems to earn a thousand times more than a day-laborer in a week; where, in the case of those who lend money on interest, their debtors too frequently forget how laborious was the process of acquiring the capital by the possessors, or their predecessors in ownership! more especially, we have in times of over-population whole masses of honest men asking,[223] not alms, but only work—an opportunity to earn their bread, and yet on the verge of starvation.”

the third condition: “a violent shaking or perplexing of public opinion in its relation to the feeling of right by revolutions, especially when they follow rapidly one on the heels of another, and take opposite directions. on such occasions both parties have generally prostituted themselves for the sake of the favor of the masses.... in this way they are stirred up to the making of pretentious claims which it is afterwards very difficult to silence.” it is in this prostitution of parties that our greatest danger in the united states lies. it is already sought to influence large classes by promises of office. the evils of political contests controlled by those who hope to gain offices and those who fear they may lose them will increase in two ways. first, the number of offices will necessarily become greater with the increase of population and the growth of public business. instead of one hundred thousand federal office-holders, we will yet have two hundred thousand. second, as population increases, and it becomes ever more and more difficult to gain one’s bread, to say nothing about ascending the social ladder, public offices will be coveted even more than at present, and over each one there will be waged a bitter personal warfare. what, then, we have to fear is that, as in ancient rome, politicians will strive to influence the great masses by promises of favors—food and entertainments (panem et circenses). if a beginning is ever made in that direction the enemies of the republic will have already crossed the rubicon. it behooves us to stop in the downward path before it is too late. this can be done only by putting our civil service—federal, state, and municipal—on a sound moral basis.

[224]

the fourth condition: “pretensions of the lower classes in consequence of a democratic constitution. communism is the logically not inconsistent exaggeration of the principle of equality.” if you reflect upon it, you will perceive that political equality, in the course of time, very naturally leads to thoughts of economic equality—equality in the enjoyment of spiritual and material goods.

the fifth condition: “a general decay of religion and morality in the people. when every one regards wealth as a sacred trust or office, coming from god, and poverty as a divine dispensation, intended to educate and develop those afflicted thereby, and considers all men as brothers, and this earthly life only as a preparation for eternity, even extreme differences of property lose their irritating and demoralizing power. on the other hand, the atheist and materialist becomes only too readily a mammonist, and the poor mammonist falls only too easily into that despair which would gladly kindle a universal conflagration, in order either to plunder or lose his own life.” the maxim of the materialist, sunk in poverty and despair, is, as is noticed, not that noble one of our fathers, “give me liberty or give me death,” but “give me pleasure, enjoyment in this life, or let me die in my misery.” “the rich mammonist aggravates this sad condition of things when he casts suspicion on all wealth by the immorality of the means he takes to acquire it and the sinfulness of his enjoyments.”[196]

turning to the internal history of social democracy[225] after lassalle’s death, we have first to notice the condition of the “universal german laborers’ union” since that event. it was controlled for some time by the countess von hatzfeldt. her former connection with lassalle and the possession of large financial resources enabled her for some time to maintain her position as its leading spirit. she interested herself in politics, however, more on account of lassalle than for the sake of the laborers. she wished to honor his memory and promote the cause which had been dear to him.

before lassalle died he mentioned the name of a man whom he recommended as his successor in the presidency of the “laborers’ union.” the choice was not a happy one. the new president soon made enemies of the ablest members of the union, and finally had a falling-out with the countess, in whose house he lived, and who, for the sake of the cause, supported him. it appears that one day the countess commissioned him to purchase butter and cheese for the household. this was too much for the poor president. he regarded the performance of such offices as incompatible with his manly dignity and the respect due his high and honorable position. he did not, indeed, fail to appreciate to the fullest extent the honor which lassalle had conferred upon him. identifying the union with all mankind, he was accustomed to sign himself “president of humanity.” he compared his noiseless activity to the gentle rain, which, without thunder and lightning, gradually penetrates the hard crust of the earth.

the amenities of life among the social democrats are curiously illustrated by their dissensions during the presidency of this man—becker by name. becoming[226] enraged at marx once, he proposed that the author of “capital” and the founder of the international should embalm himself with his international and have himself hung in the chimney as a mad herring. in return for this liebknecht moved, in the berlin association, that becker should be expelled from the union as a low-minded slanderer and a hopelessly incurable idiot.[197]

new presidents were elected yearly for two or three years, but the countess could agree with none. she finally withdrew, with her followers, and established a new association, called the “female line.” it never played a considerable r?le, and in a few years died a natural death.

after the withdrawal of the countess the “universal laborers’ union” showed good sense enough to elect their ablest man president. this was jean baptista von schweitzer, a dramatic writer of some note, whose comedies are considered among the best which have appeared recently. perhaps the best known are “die darwinianer,” “epidemisch,” and “grosst?dtisch.”

von schweitzer belonged to an old and wealthy patrician family of frankfort-on-the-main. he had led a dissipated life, been involved in a scandalous affair in mannheim, and become a noted roué. when society in frankfort could tolerate him no longer he took up his abode in another city, but here again became suspected of improper acts. it is surprising that a man of such character should join the laborers and declaim about their hardships. while it is possible that he was so thoroughly blasé that he could find[227] needed excitement in no other way, i should prefer to regard this move on his part as the first step in a better path. he was a man of talent, and was never entirely absorbed in sensual pleasures. when he took up the cause of the social democrats he began to think about other things than his own selfish and immoral gratifications. for four years he held the post of president of the “universal german laborers’ union;” and in this position not only displayed administrative ability of a high order, but manifested an unwearied devotion in his leadership. he found the union weak and about to fall to pieces; he left it a strong, compact body. the social democrat, one of the most prominent organs of the party, was founded by him, and in this paper he defended the doctrines of lassalle with vigor and understanding.

von schweitzer withdrew from the social democrats in 1871, and led thenceforth an unexceptionable life. the love of woman had finally conquered his wild nature. he was happily married, and passed the last years of his life in literary pursuits. he died in 1875,[198] having already gained an honorable position as an author.

the union elected another president, who continued to hold the position as long as the association existed. its importance soon began to decline, however, and it was finally absorbed by the organization formally known as the “social democratic labor party” (“social-demokratische arbeiterpartei”). this grew out of the alliance of “german laborers’ unions” (“verband deutscher arbeitervereine”), whose members were gradually led over into the social democratic[228] camp, as i described in the first chapter of this work. the two leading spirits in this party, which swallowed up all other social democratic organizations, were liebknecht and bebel.

liebknecht, unlike some of the other social democrats, is, as generally admitted, personally an honorable man. nothing can be said against his private life. he differed from marx, lassalle, and von schweitzer in family and fortune. he was born poor, and has always remained so. while in party matters liebknecht is unscrupulous as to means, he would sacrifice no principle for the sake of personal gain or advancement. if he had been less conscientious his life might have been a prosperous one. i have it directly from a friend, who associated with him considerably in leipsic, that bismarck offered him an excellent position as editor of the kreuzzeitung, which i have already mentioned as the leading organ of the conservatives. liebknecht declined promptly, and without hesitation, what was intended as a bribe. he is satisfied with the merest necessities of life, so long as he can serve his cause. mehring, who is far from being a social democrat, says that in this respect he is irreproachable. “no one can accuse him of improper motives in the lower sense of the term.” it is only when the cause of the social democrats is concerned that he shows himself unscrupulous, exciting envy and discontent, and arousing class against class. his ideas have taken such hold of him that he cannot see the deeds of opponents in their true light. he ascribes the worst of motives to what government does with the best intention.

although he must be called a demagogue, liebknecht is a highly educated man. he comes of what[229] the germans call a beamtenfamilie—i.e., of a family whose members have for a long time devoted themselves to the civil service. this implies, at least, education and social respectability. liebknecht was only sixteen years of age when he graduated from a german gymnasium—what we would call a college—but he had already decided that a career as a civil-service officer placed one in a position of such dependence that it was unworthy of a freeman. at the university he took no regular professional course, as he despised bread-and-butter studies, but devoted himself to various branches of science according to his inclination, or as he fancied they might contribute to the free development of his mind. at twenty he thought he had freed himself from bondage to the antiquated institutions of a corrupt world.

liebknecht took part in the revolutionary movement of 1848 in germany, and threw himself into the contest with admirable personal bravery. regardless of danger, he was ever to be found in the thick of the fight. when the rebellion was put down, he found it necessary to flee to switzerland, whence he emigrated to london, where he lived in exile for thirteen years. his life in london was a hard struggle for existence, and this may have embittered him. his associates, while there, were the old rebels, engels, wolff, and marx, and they must have confirmed him in his views. amnesty was granted him when the present emperor william was crowned king of prussia, and he returned full of hatred for germany. he has devoted his entire life to the purpose of making propaganda for social democracy, and has never for a moment forgotten his end and aim. mehring says that in the years since he again set foot on german soil there has been,[230] perhaps, no day, no hour, no minute in which he has not been conscious of the object of his existence. it is this indomitable will, this inflexible purpose, this devotion on the part of men of learning and intelligence, which has filled the world with german socialism. anything like it has never been known in history.

liebknecht is not original, but is able to interpret marx to the common people, since he is not too much ahead of them, but only far enough to take the lead, to express thoughts struggling in their minds for utterance. he takes, however, extreme positions, and injures himself and his party thereby. while he can excite those already won over to his side, he cannot gain adherents from those as yet undecided, still less from those opposed. he cannot persuade such, because he is unable, even for a moment, to place himself in their position so as to understand their thoughts and feelings.

bebel is a disciple of liebknecht, and his most important one. he is a turner by profession, and his only education was received in common schools, in sunday schools, and in travelling about from place to place in the practice of his trade. he has never left his trade, and has never made any pretensions to being anything more than an ordinary artisan. he is sincere, simple, and of sound understanding. bebel has been called the incorporated ideal of a modern laborer in the best sense of the word. this was, however, before he had been embittered by liebknecht. he is unassuming, but has an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. his influence on the people has been very great. he has a homely sort of eloquence which appeals strongly to them. in the imperial parliament he has been able[231] to hold his own with men like lasker and simson, the chief-justice of the supreme court of germany. bebel’s historical importance lies in the fact that he is the first and, up to the present time, the only german artisan who has pushed himself into the foreground of political life and shown himself an equal of other leaders.

he has become prosperous, and employs two or three hundred laborers. he owns, also, a valuable house in leipsic. some have objected that he was inconsistent in paying his employees just as other masters do and in living well himself. those who do so cannot understand the social democrats. the very corner-stone of their belief is that the individual is not responsible for the present condition of things; that harmony can be secured only by the combined action of society—by a social, and not by an individual, regeneration. all that the individual can do, they hold, is to labor for the overthrow of existing society and the establishment of the people’s state, and in the meanwhile to live like other people.

a change has taken place in german social democracy since the death of lassalle, who was a patriot, and with whom it was national. he sought a basis in united germany. social democracy is now cosmopolitan and international in the sense of anti-national. it has approached more and more nearly to the most unqualified communism. like french communism, it lays most stress on equality, and at times appears ready to sacrifice everything else to obtain that. the unity of interests (solidarité) and economic equality (egalité) are the watchwords of the leaders. liebknecht says: “human progress consists in the approach to equality; freedom is only a conventional[232] phrase, which conceals all possible things.” it begins to be recognized that equality and liberty—as now understood, at any rate—are incompatible, and greater value is attached to the former.

most, in his lecture in baltimore, to which reference has already been made, brought out vividly the gross, materialistic view the social democrats take of liberty. “you boast of your american liberty,” cried he, “but of what value is it? has any one ever been able to clothe himself with it? to house himself in it? or to satisfy with it the cravings of his stomach?”

previous to the attempts to take the life of the german emperor, in 1878, the necessity of overthrowing existing institutions by violence was proclaimed with ever-increasing openness. lassalle had spoken of a radical change brought about peacefully, which he called a peaceful revolution. the upper classes had the choice between yielding to the demands of the fourth estate and a violent overthrow of existing economic institutions. “i am persuaded,” said he, “that a revolution will take place. it will take place legally and with all the blessings of freedom if, before it is too late, our rulers become wise, determined, and courageous enough to lead it. otherwise, after the lapse of a certain time, the goddess of revolution will force an entrance into our social structure, amid all the convulsions of violence, with wild, streaming locks and brazen sandals on her feet. in the one way or the other she will come; and when, forgetting the tumult of the day, i sink myself in history, i am able to hear from afar her heavy tread.”

but the social democrats soon became convinced that the existing powers of state and society would not yield their positions without a combat. glorification[233] of bloody struggles of laborers in the past became ever more common. laborers were taught that they had, in times gone by, seized the sword and sacrificed life in behalf of their wealthy oppressors; they were told that they must next use the weapons of war in their own behalf, to fight for the day of their own deliverance from bondage. this was made to appear just by representing them as humanity and the few rich people as wilfully cruel and wicked taskmasters. the presiding officer of the social democratic congress, in 1869, used these words in the address with which he closed their meetings: “there is a tree which bears golden fruit, but when those who have planted it reach out their hand to pluck it, it draws back and escapes them. wound about the tree there is a serpent, which keeps every one away from it. this tree is society; the serpent is our present economic organization, which prevents us from enjoying the golden fruit. gentlemen, we are determined to enjoy the golden fruit and to drive away the serpent. if that cannot be done in peace, then, as men who do not tremble before a conflict, are we ready to fell the old tree, and in its place to set a new, powerful tree.”

this sort of talk was stopped by the stringent law which was enacted after the attempts on the life of the emperor. there is no evidence to warrant the belief that the social democratic party had any direct connection with these attempts, but those who committed them had been, doubtless, excited by the constant talk of wrong and oppression, and of release therefrom by a destruction of our present leaders of society. they consequently struck at its very head.

social democrats are fond of comparing themselves to the early christians. they speak of their leaders[234] as the apostles of the present and of laborers as the rock upon which the church of the future must be built. the german has a strongly religious nature, of which he can never divest himself. so these social democrats make their economic belief a matter of religion, and therein attempt, even unconsciously, to satisfy their religious feelings.

we would not, for a moment, accept the comparison between social democracy and christianity in the sense in which these men mean it. yet when we find rude, uneducated men—for such are the social democratic masses—turning the world upside-down, and striking terror into the hearts of the powers that be, we are reminded of that earlier faith, propagated by poor, ignorant men, which, in the course of centuries, has become more powerful than statesmen, monarchs, and armies. no one, save a fool, would pretend to be able to describe exactly the ultimate organization of society; but we know that in profane, as well as in sacred, history, weak and contemptible beginnings have, ere this, led to grand and glorious growths and developments.