In the meantime we have received Hdéchberg’s Jahrbuch, 
containing an article, “Rickblicke auf die sozialistische Bewegung 
in Deutschland,” * which, as Héchberg himself informed me, was 
actually written by the three members of the Zurich committee.” 

Here we have their authentic critique of the movement up till 
now, and hence their authentic programme for the new paper’s 
stance insofar as this is dependent on aoe 

At the very start we read: 

“The movement, regarded by Lassalle as an eminently political one, to which he 
sought to rally not only the workers but all honest democrats, and in the van of 
which were to march the independent representatives of science and all men imbued 
with a true love of mankind, was trivialised under the chairmanship of J. B. von 
Schweitzer into a one-sided struggle of the industrial workers to promote their own 
interests.” 3 

I shall not inquire whether and to what extent this is historically 
true. The specific charge against Schweitzer is that Schweitzer 
trivialised Lassalleanism, here regarded as a bourgeois democratic- 
philanthropic movement, into a one-sided struggle of the industri- 
al workers to promote their own interests—trivialised it by 
emphasising its character as a class struggle of industrial workers 
against the bourgeoisie.” He is further charged with having 

“repudiated bourgeois democracy”. But has bourgeois democracy 
any business to be in the Social-Democratic Party at all? If it 
consists of “honest men”, it surely cannot wish to join, and if it 
nevertheless wishes to join, this can only be for the purpose of 
stirring up trouble. 

The Lassallean party “chose to present itself in a most one-sided 
manner as a workers’ party”. The gentlemen who wrote those 

words are themselves members of a party which presents itself in 
the most one-sided manner as a workers’ party, and now hold 
office in the same. Here we have a complete incompatibility. If 
they think as they write, they ought to leave the party or at least 
resign from office. If they don’t, it is tantamount to admitting that 
they intend to use their official position to combat the party’s 
proletarian character. Hence the party is betraying itself if it allows 
them to remain in office. 

Thus, in the view of these gentlemen, the Social-Democratic 
Party ought not to be a one-sided workers’ party but a many-sided 
party of “all men imbued with a true love of mankind”. This it is 
to prove, above all, by divesting itself of crude proletarian passions 
and applying itself, under the direction of educated philanthropic 
bourgeois, “to the formation of good taste” and “the acquisition 
of good manners” (p. 85). After which the “seedy appearance” of 
some of the leaders would give way to a respectable “bourgeois 
appearance”.* (As though the outwardly seedy appearance of 
those referred to here were not the least that could be held against 
them!) After which, too, 

“there will be an influx of supporters from the ranks of the educated and 
propertied classes. These, however, must first be won over if the ... agitation engaged 
in is to have perceptible results...”. German socialism has laid “too much stress on 
winning over the masses, thus omitting to prosecute vigorous” (!)“propaganda 
amongst the so-called upper strata of society”. For “the party still lacks men who 
are fit to represent it in the Reichstag”. It is, however, “desirable and necessary to 
entrust the mandates to men who have had the time and the opportunity to 
become thoroughly conversant with the relevant material. Only rarely and in 
exceptional cases does ... the simple working man and small master craftsman have 
sufficient leisure for the purpose’’.> 

Therefore elect bourgeois! 

In short, the working class is incapable of emancipating itself by 
its own efforts. In order to do so it must place itself under the 
direction of ‘educated and propertied” bourgeois who alone have 
“the time and the opportunity” to become conversant with what is 
good for the workers. And, secondly, the bourgeois are not to be 
combatted—not on your life—but won over by vigorous prop- 
aganda. 

If, however, you wish to win over the upper strata of society, or 
at least their well-intentioned elements, you mustn’t frighten 
them—not on your life. And here the Zurich trio believe they have 
made a reassuring discovery: 

“Now, at the very time it is oppressed by the Anti-Socialist Law, the party is 
showing that it does not wish to pursue the path of forcible, bloody revolution, but 
rather is determined ... to tread the path of legality, i.e. of reform.” 

If, therefore, the 5-600,000 Social-Democratic voters, ?/19 to 1/s 
of the total electorate—and dispersed, what is more, over the 
length and breadth of the country—have sense enough not to 
beat their heads against a wall and attempt a “‘bloody revolution” 
with the odds at one to ten, this is supposed to prove that they 
will, for all time, continue to deny themselves all chance of 
exploiting some violent upheaval abroad, a sudden wave of 
revolutionary fervour engendered thereby, or even a people’s 
victory won in a clash arising therefrom! Should Berlin ever be so 
uneducated as to stage another March 18,°” it would behove the 
Social-Democrats not to take part in the fighting as “louts besotted 
with barricades” (p. 88) but rather to “tread the path of legality”, 
to placate, to clear away the barricades and, if necessary, march 
with the glorious army against the one-sided, crude, uneducated 
masses. Or if the gentlemen insist that that’s not what they meant, 
then what did they mean? 

But there’s better in store. 

“Hence, the more calm, sober and considered it (the Party) shows itself to be in 
its criticism of existing circumstances and its proposals to change the same, the less 
likelihood is there of a repetition of the present successful move” (introduction of the 

Anti-Socialist Law) “by means of which conscious reaction has scared the bourgeoisie 
out of their wits by holding up the red spectre” (p. 88). 

In order to relieve the bourgeoisie of the last trace of anxiety, it 
is to be shown clearly and convincingly that the red spectre really is 
just a spectre and doesn’t exist. But what is the secret of the red 
spectre, if not the bourgeoisie’s fear of the inevitable life-and- 
death struggle between itself and the proletariat, fear of the 
unavoidable outcome of the modern class struggle? Just abolish 
the class struggle, and the bourgeoisie and “all independent 
persons” will “not hesitate to go hand in hand with the 
proletarians”!” In which case the ones to be hoodwinked would be 
those self-same proletarians. 

Let the party, therefore, prove, by its humble and subdued 
demeanour, that it has renounced once and for all the “improp- 
rieties and excesses” © which gave rise to the Anti-Socialist Law. If 
it voluntarily undertakes to remain wholly within the bounds of 
the Anti-Socialist Law, Bismarck and the bourgeoisie will, no 

doubt, oblige by rescinding what would then be a redundant law! 

“Let no one misunderstand us”; we don’t want “to relinquish our party and our 
programme,? but in our opinion we shall have enough to do for years to come if 
we concentrate our whole strength, our entire energies, on the attainment of 
certain immediate objectives which must in any case be won before there can be 

Then, too, the bourgeois, petty-bourgeois and workers, who “are 
now scared off ... by ambitious demands”,* will join us en masse. 

The programme is not to be relinquished, but merely postponed— 
for some unspecified period. They accept it—not for themselves 
in their own lifetime but posthumously, as an heirloom for their 
children and their children’s children. Meanwhile they devote 
their “whole strength and energies”’ to all sorts of trifles, tinkering 
away at the capitalist social order so that at least something should 
appear to be done without at the same time alarming the 
bourgeoisie. Here I can only commend that communist, Miquel, 
who gives proof of his unshakable belief in the inevitable downfall 
of capitalist society within the next few hundred years by 
swindling it for all he’s worth, contributing manfully to the crash 
of 1873, and thus really doing something towards the collapse of 
the existing order.*” 

Another offence against good manners was the “exaggerated 
attacks on the Gründer”,** who, after all, were “only children of 
their time”; hence “the vilification of Strousberg and suchlike men 

. would have been better omitted”.* Sadly we are all “children of 
our time”, and if this be sufficient grounds for excuse, it is no 
longer permissible to attack anyone, and we for our part would 
have to desist from all polemic, all struggle; we would calmly 
submit whenever kicked by our opponents, because we would 
know in our wisdom that they are “only children of their time” 
and cannot act otherwise than they do. Instead of repaying them 
their kicks with interest, we should rather, it seems, feel sorry for 
the poor fellows. 

Similarly, our support for the Commune had one drawback, at 
any rate, namely 

“that it put off people otherwise well-disposed towards us, and generally 
increased the hatred felt for us by the bourgeoisie”. Moreover, the party ‘cannot be 
wholly exonerated from having brought about the October Law,325 for it had 
needlessly exacerbated the hatred of the bourgeoisie”’.€ 

There you have the programme of the three censors of Zurich. 
As regards clarity, it leaves nothing to be desired. Least of all so 
far as we’re concerned, since we are still only too familiar with all 
these catch-phrases of 1848. There are the voices of the 
representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, terrified lest the pro- 
letariat, impelled by its revolutionary situation, should “go too 
far’. Instead of resolute political opposition— general conciliation; 
instead of a struggle against government and bourgeoisie—an 
attempt to win them over and talk them round; instead of defiant 
resistance to maltreatment from above—humble subjection and 
the admission that the punishment was deserved. Every historically 
necessary conflict is reinterpreted as a misunderstanding and 
every discussion wound up with the assurance: we are, of course, 
all agreed on the main issue. The men who in 1848 entered the 
arena as bourgeois democrats might now just as well call 
themselves Social-Democrats. To the former, the democratic 
republic was as unattainably remote as the overthrow of the 
capitalist order is to the latter, and therefore utterly irrelevant to 
present political practice; one can conciliate, compromise, philan- 
thropise to one’s heart’s content. The same thing applies to the 
class struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. On paper it is 
recognised because there is no denying it any longer, but in 
practice it is glossed over, suppressed, emasculated. The Social- 
Democratic Party should not be a workers’ party, it should not 
bring upon itself the hatred of the bourgeoisie or, for that matter, 
of anyone else; above all, it should prosecute vigorous propaganda 
amongst the bourgeoisie; instead of laying stress on ambitious 
goals which are calculated to frighten off the bourgeoisie, and 
unattainable anyway in our own generation, it should rather 
devote all its strength and energies to those petty-bourgeois 
stop-gap reforms which provide new props for the old social order 
and which might, perhaps, transform the ultimate catastrophe into 
a gradual, piecemeal and, as far as possible, peaceable process of 
dissolution. These are the same people who keep up an 
appearance of ceaseless activity, yet not only do nothing them- 
selves but also try to ensure that nothing at all is done 
save—chin-wagging; the same people whose fear of any kind of 
action in 1848 and ’49 held back the movement at every step and 
finally brought about its downfall; the same people who never see 
reaction and then are utterly dumbfounded to find themselves at 
last in a blind alley in which neither resistance nor flight 1s 
possible; the same people who want to confine history within their 
narrow philistine horizons, and over whose heads history invari- 

ably proceeds to the order of the day. 

As for their socialist import, this has already been adequately 
criticised in the Manifesto, Chapter: ‘““German, or “True’ Socialism”. 
Wherever the class struggle is thrust aside as a distasteful, “crude” 
manifestation, the only basis still left to socialism will be a “true 
love of mankind” and empty phrases about “justice”’. 

It is an inevitable manifestation, and one rooted in the process 
of development, that people from what have hitherto been the 
ruling class also join the militant proletariat and supply it with 
educative elements. We have already said so clearly in the 
Manifesto. But in this context there are two observations to be 
made: 

Firstly, if these people are to be of use to the proletarian 
movement, they must introduce genuinely educative elements. 
However, in the case of the vast majority of German bourgeois 
converts, this is not the case. Neither the Zukunft nor the Neue 
Gesellschaft has contributed anything that might have advanced the 
movement by a single step. Here we find a complete lack of 
genuinely educative matter, either factual or theoretical. In place 
of it, attempts to reconcile superficially assimilated socialist ideas 
with the most diverse theoretical viewpoints which these gentlemen 
have introduced from the university or elsewhere, and of which 
each is more muddled than the last thanks to the process of decay 
taking place in what remains of German philosophy today. Instead 
of first making a thorough study of the new science, each man 
chose to adapt it to the viewpoint he had brought with him, not 
hesitating to produce his own brand of science and straightaway 
assert his right to teach it. Hence there are, amongst these 
gentlemen, almost as many viewpoints as there are heads; instead 
of elucidating anything, they have only made confusion worse—by 
good fortune, almost exclusively amongst themselves. The party 
can well dispense with educative elements such as these for whom 
it is axiomatic to teach what they have not learnt. 

Secondly, when people of this kind, from different classes, join 
the proletarian movement, the first requirement is that they 
should not bring with them the least remnant of bourgeois, 
petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but should unreservedly adopt 
the proletarian outlook. These gentlemen, however, as already 
shown, are chock-full of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideas. In a 
country as petty-bourgeois as Germany, there is certainly some 
justification for such ideas. But only outside the Social-Democratic 
Workers’ Party. If the gentlemen constitute themselves a Social- 
Democratic petty-bourgeois party, they are fully within their 

rights: in that case we could negotiate with them and, according to 
circumstances, form an alliance with them, etc. But within a 
workers’ party they are an adulterating element. Should there be 
any reason to tolerate their presence there for a while, it should be 
our duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no say in the Party 
leadership and to remain aware that a break with them is only a 
matter of time. That time, moreover, would appear to have come. 
How the Party can suffer the authors of this article to remain any 
longer in their midst seems to us incomprehensible. But should 
the Party leadership actually pass, to a greater or lesser extent, 
into the hands of such men, then the Party will be emasculated no 
less, and that will put paid to its proletarian grit. 

As for ourselves, there is, considering all our antecedents, only 
one course open to us. For almost 40 years we have emphasised 
that the class struggle is the immediate motive force of history 
and, in particular, that the class struggle between bourgeoisie and 
proletariat is the great lever of modern social revolution; hence we 
cannot possibly co-operate with men who seek to eliminate that 
class struggle from the movement. At the founding of the 
International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emanci- 
pation of the working class must be achieved by the working class 
itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that 
the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and 
must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members 
of the upper and lower middle classes. If the new party organ is to 
adopt a policy that corresponds to the opinions of these 
gentlemen, if it is bourgeois and not proletarian, then all we could 
do—much though we might regret it—would be publicly to 
declare ourselves opposed to it and abandon the solidarity with 
which we have hitherto represented the German Party abroad. 
But we hope it won’t come to that. 

It is intended that this letter should be communicated to all five 
members of the committee in Germany,” and also to Bracke.... 

Nor have we any objection to its being communicated to the 
people in Zurich.