§ I. Socialistic Evasions

SOCIALISTS are adepts in the art of criticising modern social conditions. Every grievance that is cropping up, be it large or small, must furnish the text for a homily on the oppressiveness, injustice, maladministration, and bankruptcy of the present social system. In social democracy alone all hope is centred, it alone is the redeemer of suffering humanity. Tirades of this kind may be found almost every day in the Vorwärts and other socialist publications.

Fault-finding and criticising are easy. But if we venture a modest inquiry as to what the socialist gentlemen propose to establish in lieu of the existing social order, they suddenly become wonderfully reticent. Instead of detailing their plans for the future, they have recourse to obscure and meaningless phrases, they make pitiable efforts to evade the question, or even shower down upon the unlucky questioner a flood of invectives, calling him a dogmatizing blockhead, a man devoid of science or power of thought, affected with incurable stupidity, and such like pleasantries.

Whence these tactics? The answer is plain. Socialism, especially in Germany, has become a powerful political party. Political parties, however, are easily kept together as long as their platform is highly aggressive and critical and as negative as possible in its demands; and the more so the more wide-spread the dissatisfaction with other parties. But if the socialist leaders were to draw up a positive programme of practical measures, the party would soon disrupt entirely, or at least split into different factions. Also here the old adage would be verified: Quot capita, tot SENSUS.

Again, there is reluctance on the part of socialists to reveal their ideas on the future state of society for fear of criticism and ridicule. From the times of Minos to those of Cabet’s Icaria, every attempt of practical communism has been doomed to dismal failure.¹ It needed no excessive penetration to foretell as much. And if now socialists were to come down from the clouds and to unfold their plans of the future, it would soon be evident that they are but revamping ancient, unpractical utopias. Therefore they wisely remember that silence is gold.

¹ Concerning the communistic settlements made principally in the United States during the last century, cf. Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, vol. XIX. p. 284 sqq.; H. Noyes, History of American Socialism; Nordhoff, Communistic Societies of the United States; Morris Hillquit, History of Socialism in the U. S., part I. Of about one hundred communist experiments practically all have been failures. Most of them did not even reach the first anniversary of their foundation. Only those which were based on religious tenets have been more or less successful, but without attaining to any importance. (One of this kind, the Amana community in Iowa, is still in existence.) It is self-evident that communities based on religious enthusiasm cannot be introduced generally, and that their temporary success furnishes no argument for the practicability of the socialist scheme.

That in reality there are no other motives for this socialist game of hide-and-seek is made evident by a glance at the pitiable subterfuges by which socialist leaders try to evade curious questions concerning the future state of society. We shall present to the reader an assortment of their current excuses, that he may judge for himself of the much-vaunted “scientific methods” and the “consciousness of purpose” of socialists.

1. “What we think of future society does not concern you. Therefore you need not bother our heads about it.” A truly wonderful reply! Socialists are about to tear down the house in which we have lived peacefully hitherto; they want to make us emigrate, willy nilly, into a new abode, and yet we are denied the right to inquire into the condition of this new dwelling! Or are socialists inclined to throw all their opponents overboard before the shore of the promised land is reached?

2. “Well, how do the other parties imagine that future society will be?” Tow can such a question be addressed in full earnest to those who do not advocate any radical change of social conditions, but who rather endeavor to retain existing society at least as to its main features? A man who intends to preserve his house and to repair it as far as circumstances require, has no need of drawing up a plan for a new dwelling. But we are quite justified in demanding such a plan from him who is about to destroy the old house and to erect a new one.

Only a madman will tear down his house without knowing whether he will be able to replace it by a better one. Now, socialists are clamoring for “a radical abolition of the present social order” (Liebknecht), they intend to “make a clean sweep” of modern society (Bebel). They pursue their aim by all possible means, by arousing the passions of the poorer classes against the rich, by conjuring up before the eyes of the working population deceitful visions of a future reign of justice and prosperity. We are, therefore, perfectly justified in insisting that socialists should state their aims and purposes clearly and unmistakably.

3. “What is to be done after the death of present society, events will show.” This is unpardonable frivolity toward the whole of society. A system of organization for a society numbering tens of millions cannot be fetched from the pantry like a meat pie; it must be prepared long beforehand and introduced by gradual transitions. In fact, in all great changes, notably in the French Revolutions of 1789, 1830, and 1848, there were but enacted plans and measures which had been considered in detail many years before. The actual Revolution merely put into practice the plans long before, matured in theory. Only raving maniacs destroy regardless of the future.

4. “Idyllic pictures of the future are unscientific and utopian.” So they are, in sooth; but to advance this excuse is rather strange for socialists who are hoodwinking the people with visions of future bliss. It is rank rascality to inveigh in unmeasured terms against existing society and to arouse the most ardent hopes in the hearts of workingmen by picturing to them their future paradise, but when it comes to give detailed information about it, to beg to be excused, because, forsooth, idyllic pictures of the future are unscientific and utopian.

The inquiry into the practicability of the future state can be called unscientific only if we are prepared to assume that in future men will be quite different and actuated by other motives than at present. Many socialists, indeed, favor this assumption, which, however, is undoubtedly false. Man may become more perfect, but at bottom he will remain essentially the same and be actuated by the same propensities and impulses.

We do not require of socialists to detail the future organization of society to the very last item, but we must demand of them to point out at least the principal features of their future building, the foundations, the main walls and pillars, the different floors and compartments, that we may know whether we can live there or not. No sensible man will expect the human race to take a leap in the dark with the chance of landing in chaos. Not unfrequently socialists demand that their schemes for the future be shown to be impracticable. This is shifting the burden of proof to the wrong shoulders. By their reorganization of society socialists intend to remove the existing misery and to inaugurate a reign of freedom and happiness. They have, therefore, the burden of proof; they must demonstrate the possibility of the proposed social system.

5. So far we have spoken of the future state. This word also serves socialists as a loophole to escape unwelcome questions. “In the future we do not want any state at all,” Bebel exclaimed when hard pressed by his opponents in the Reichstag on the score of his schemes for the future. Mere tomfoolery! Socialists must also admit that in future there will be required some sort of regular community life; they must advocate what Engels and Bebel call “creating an organization of the administration which is to take charge of production and exchange,” in order that collective industry “may become a source of the greatest prosperity and of universal harmonious perfection.”¹ In a society of this kind there must be laws, therefore also legislative and judicial powers, What else is needed to constitute a state? That the people itself is supreme lawgiver and judge leaves untouched the essence of the state. It is useless . cavilling for socialists to maintain that they want no state in the future. In his speech anent the Erfurt platform Liebknecht himself characterized the question whether the socialist system was to be called a state or not as a “war about words.”

¹ Marx illustrates his idea of the future state by referring to a society of free laborers, “who work with instruments of production owned in common, and who consciously expend their many individual labor capacities as one social labor power.” The “systematic social distribution of labor... . regulates the proportion of the different functions to the different needs.” (Capital, p. 45.)

Of course, if Engels’ definition of the state as “an organization of the exploiting class for the maintenance of the conditions of production and thus especially for the heavy-handed oppression of the exploited classes”² is accepted as true, then it is evident why socialists advocate the abolition of the state. But this definition is not only arbitrary, but manifestly incorrect, since it makes of an accidental abuse the very essence of the state.

² Entwicklung des Sozialismus, p. 40.

Moreover, by advancing excuses of this kind, socialists forget to act their part. They pretend to eschew visions of the future and yet they predict that in future there will be a social and economic system without a state. It might perhaps be objected that a state necessarily presupposes authority, whilst socialists intend to abolish every artificial and trumpedup authority. “We are opposed to every authority,” Bebel exclaimed in the Reichstag (Feb. 3, 1893), “to that of heaven as well as to those of earth with which you confront us.” Only'that authority Bebel is willing to tolerate which each one has acquired for himself.

If this tirade is to be taken literally, it is tantamount to the hare-brained anarchist motto Ni Dieu, ni maître. Imagine a community numbered by millions carrying on production and exchange according to a uniform plan, but without any regulating authority! It is probable, therefore, that Bebel rejected authority only in so far as it is based on class supremacy and special privileges. But that socialists should have recourse to such ambiguities in order to ward off their assailants is an indication of the little confidence they have in the firmness of their own position.

6. The inquiry concerning the future state is “a question which only fools will answer.’ Thus Liebknecht replied to Dr. Bachem (Feb. 7, 1893), and he added: “The state of the future is a matter of imagination; ... it is in certain respects an ideal, but science was never concerned about it. Our party has,... never admitted into its platform the Utopia of a future state; ... our party has never spoken to the workingmen about the future state, except as about a Utopia.”

Liebknecht could have pronounced no more scathing condemnation of himself and his whole party than is contained in these words. If only fools answer questions concerning the future state, and if socialists, notably Liebknecht, have answered such questions, among which category of men shall we class him and his “comrades”?

In the official platform, indeed, there are only a few, but comprehensive, indications concerning the system planned for the future. The party leaders, however, from the first to the last, have given very detailed answers to questions to which, as Liebknecht tells us, only fools would reply. Detailed descriptions of the future are furnished by Liebknecht himself in his book: ‘Die Grund und Bodenfrage,” which, though published in 1876, is still offered for sale by the Vorwärts. Also in his other work, “ Was die Sozialdermokraten sind und was sie wollen,¹ he indulges in copious descriptions of the future.

¹ Second ed. (Berlin, 1891). Also published in English by Kerr & Co., Chicago.

The writings of Bebel abound still more in graphic accounts of the future, e.g., his book “Unsere Ziele”² and especially his famous work “ Der Frau,” which is teeming with vivid pictures of the coming paradise. Last year (1903) the thirty-fourth edition of this book was published, but not one of the glowing descriptions has been curtailed. Bebel himself declared in the Reichstag (Feb. 6, 1893) that he abides fully and squarely by whatever he had laid down in his last-mentioned book. On the same occasion he repeated twice that the aims of socialism can be ascertained as to their main features in the existing socialist literature. Thus, almost in the same breath Liebknecht proclaims that only fools can answer questions concerning the future state, and Bebel refers to his book “Die Frau,” which by a remarkable coincidence was just then published in its fourteenth edition, and to socialist literature in general for the required answer. And at the very same time Liebknecht avers that his party never speaks to the workingmen about the future state! What opinion can be entertained of men entangled in such contradictions and talking at random, just as momentary necessity requires?

² Sixth ed., 1886. In his preface Bebel remarks that he no longer agrees with all the positive statements made in the book, yet he reissues it again “because it is still of some value for agitating.” This is evidently the main point.

The example of Liebknecht and Bebel induced other partisans of socialism to furnish graphic accounts of how things will be managed in future and thus to answer questions which no reasonable man is supposed to answer. We may mention, e. g., J. Stern,¹ O. Köhler,² Bruno Geiser,³ G. P. Weilgert,⁴ Atlanticus.⁵

¹ Thesen über den Sozialismus, 1891.

² Der sozialdemokratische Staat, 1891.

³ Die Forderungen des Sozialismus an Zukunft und Gegenwart, 1876.

⁴ Die positiven Ziele der Sozialdemokratie, 1890.

⁵ Ein Blick in den Zukunftsstaat, 1898. This book has a preface by Kautsky, who remarks, that the socialist party is not tied down to any fixed plans for the future, but also that it does not taboo schemes of future social construction. Ideals of the future are to his mind the firmest bond of union between the different classes of workingmen. “Take away from the struggling proletariat its socialist aims, and you deprive it of its enthusiasm and solidarity.’ Besides, socialism has need of practised thinkers from the bourgeois ranks, but these “intellectuals” will not be attracted to socialism if its revolutionary aims are obscured. The greatest champions of the proletariat—Marx, Lassalle, etc.—were idealists and revolutionaries, not merely advocates of paltry labor reforms, “If theoretical reasons forbid the movement to become more important than our aims the same is the case also for practical reasons of propaganda.’ Propaganda, as it seems, always takes the leading part. Quite recently Kautsky himself attempted to sketch visions of the future in a book entitled “Am Tage nach der sozialen Revolution,”^† 1903.

It cannot be objected by socialists that these predictions are merely private opinions, for, the opinions of so many prominent “comrades,” who are looked up to by their followers as leaders in Israel, may certainly be taken as the general view of the party. And if the leaders are so ready with their answers, what visions of a future paradise will be conjured up by the fertile imagination of the masses?

7. There remains yet one excuse used by socialists to get rid of importunate questioners: We need not make any plans for the future, because the existing social system of its own accord develops into socialism. No one can predict what the future will be like, therefore all descriptions of the future are utopian dreams long since discarded by “scientific” socialism. Socialists do not clamor for the future society, they await its coming.

Such language may befit orthodox socialists who cling convulsively to their theories of concentration, of pauperization and collapse. The real worth of these theories, however, has been exposed above (p. 158 sqq.), and the revisionists who join us in rejecting them as at variance with reality are entirely unjustified in offering similar excuses.

But the assertion that we do not know in the least what the future will be like is utterly false. Man remains essentially the same everywhere and at all times, a being composed of body and soul, with the same inclinations and aversions, the same leaning toward enjoyment, idleness, liberty, and independence, etc.

Moreover, Bebel and the rest have not always spoken as they do now. In his book “Unsere Ziele,” the eleventh edition of which appeared last year (1903), Bebel avers: “When the time of action has arrived it will be too late for theoretical discussions. The plans for our future state must be worked out in every detail before the great event.”

When his contradictions were cast up to him in the Reichstag by the deputies Richter and Bachem, Bebel replied that his views had been modified, that since the time of the pronouncement quoted above he had “developed” further. On the same occasion he made the important confession that his party is “continually moulting.”

This is the much-vaunted “science” which socialists never tire of extolling. In every edition Bebel’s work “Die Frau” has the following boastful conclusion:

“Socialism is science applied with full consciousness and clear knowledge to every function of human activity.” Yet at the same time he endeavors to protect himself and his partisans by referring to their “continual moulting.” Can we really speak of science if the most deep-rooted convictions of to-day are rejected as false to-morrow? Genuine science rears blocks of granite for an indestructible edifice. As long as there is reason to fear that our theory may be exploded some fine morning, it is anything but an immutable verdict of science. If socialism is indeed “continually moulting,” a little more modesty would certainly not come amiss, but alas! genuine science and swaggering bravado are not usually found together.

Besides, the appeal to the “moulting” process will not avail Bebel very much. For the predictions of the future contained in his former works are repeated again and again in every new edition of “ Die Frau.” Why does he regale his readers anew with the selfsame visions, although his own views have been modified? although present society is developing of its own accord into the future system? although no one can know how things will look after twenty or thirty years? Is it perhaps because these predictions “are of some value in agitating”?

There is yet another circumstance liable to arouse serious doubts as to whether Bebel himself believes in the inevitable development of the socialist system. Both he and Engels had prophesied the great Kladderadatsch (the social revolution) to take place before the close of the nineteenth century. At the Erfurt convention Bebel declared: “I make no secret of it, it rejoiced my heart when my friend Engels in his well-known letter in the Sozialist predicted a radical change for the year 1898. Vollmar was pleased to poke fun at it, but I wrote to Engels: ‘Old man, you and I are the only “juniors” of our party.’”¹

¹ Report of the Transactions, pp. 282, 283. During the same Erfurt convention Bebel also said: “I am sure the realization of our ultimate purpose is so near at hand that but few in this hall will not live to see the day.” (Report, p. 172.)

Was Bebel, indeed, of such astounding simplicity as to believe that in the brief period of seven years till 1898 existing society would “develop” into collectivism ? Meanwhile, 1898 has come and gone. Where is the great Kladderadatsch, the collectivist society? We are inclined to suppose that Bebel merely employs these catchwords as bait for the impatient rabble who cannot brook the slowness of parliamentary activity and therefore threaten to join the anarchist ranks. In fact, he acknowledged as much when, in his reply to Vollmar, who urged measures of present reform, he said that present reform tactics would ruin the party; the “comrades” would lose their enthusiasm if they were told that the ultimate purpose can be attained only in the remote future.

What we have said so far may suffice to characterize the present tactics of socialists. In view of their holeand-corner politics and the screening of their ulterior projects it looks like a farce to see the Vorwärts² proclaiming in bold words: “We have nothing to conceal and our banner is waving in bold defiance.” And again:³ “In reality, our party is the only one that shows and can show to the people its purposes undisguised.”

² Vorwärts, 1892, n. 275.

³ Ibid., 1893, n. 138.