§ III. Question at Issue More Accurately Determined

We have become acquainted with the foundations and the supporting pillars of the socialist edifice. Before we begin, however, to test their strength and solidity we must determine more accurately what we intend to prove.

1. When we call the socialistic demands impracticable or impossible, we intend to confine this statement to modern democratic socialism. We do not maintain that a social order, such as that devised by the socialists, involves a contradiction or is impracticable under all conditions. If men generally were entirely unselfish, industrious, obedient, filled with interest for the common weal, always ready to give everybody else the preference, and to choose for themselves the last and most disagreeable place— in short, if men were no longer men, as they are, but angels, a social order, according to the plan of the socialists, would not be impossible. But such a supposition cannot be made in favor of modern socialism.

2. Nay, we concede still more: we will not even dispute that a state organization for the regulation and the distribution of all produce might be practicable under a strictly absolute government. If we could imagine an uneducated and undeveloped population blindly following the dictates of a despotic monarch, we might conceive most of the demands of the socialists as practicable. In the ancient kingdom of the Incas many of the dreams of socialists were realized. But we must bear in mind that the Inca, as the supposed offspring of the sun, enjoyed divine honor and ruled with unlimited sway. Moreover, the state of civilization in the ancient kingdom of the Incas cannot be brought into comparison with the circumstances of modern civilized countries.

Socialism on a democratic basis,¹ implying the absolute equality of all, is, at least in its entirety, something impossible. We say in its entirety, or inasmuch as it is conceived as one organized system; for whether one or a few demands taken singly may be realized or not it is not our business to investigate, since this one or these few demands do not constitute socialism. For the rest, many of the socialistic demands are essentially connected with one another, so that one cannot exist without the others. Such are, for instance, the possession of all means of production by the state, the systematic organization of production, and the distribution of produce according to some given common standard.

¹ By its very nature, modern socialism implies extreme democracy, as is evident not only from the demand of perfect equality, but also from the collective ownership of the means of production. To socialize the instruments of labor, and yet to reserve their control to a certain faction would be tantamount to condemning every one else to absolute slavery.

3. It is not our intention to maintain that socialism might not for a brief period be realized by force. For what a violent revolution, which sweeps over a country like a hurricane, might bring about by the reign of terror goes beyond all human calculation. Even the incredible has been realized in the world’s history. We need only recall the English Revolution in the seventeenth century and the French Revolution in the eighteenth. What we maintain is that a permanent socialistic order is impossible, because it is in direct contradiction with the unchangeable inclinations and instincts of human nature.

4. In our refutation of socialism we shall confine ourselves to that form which goes by the name of social democracy or collectivism, which terms we take to be synonymous. This form of socialism comprises the most numerous and influential opponents of the existing social order, and in the minds of its defenders has most prospects of realization because it embodies the most rational and the most systematic plan for a social revolution. If, then, we have refuted this most popular and wide-spread form of socialism, the minor systems will of themselves fall to pieces. Our attention, however, will be directed principally to its economic aims and to their necessary consequences. For these aims form the very marrow of socialism and differentiate it from other systems. The Erfurt platform separates the economic from the political | demands, which latter are characterized as attainable already in the existing order of society. The political demands generally enumerated in socialist platforms are partly realized in certain states, as, e.g., the referendum in Switzerland, the initiative in Colorado, South Dakota, and some other states of the Union. Others, again, as the settlement of international disputes by arbitration, might well be adopted by non-socialist platforms.

5. In the course of this chapter we shall repeatedly have occasion to draw certain consequences from socialist demands. To guard against being reproached with useless pettifogging, we remind the reader that from the demands whose impracticability we are going to show, we draw only those consequences which follow with absolute necessity. For the best criterion of the correctness or falsity of general principles and demands lies in the consequences necessarily derived from them.¹

¹ In a review of the fourth German edition of the present work (Neue Zeit, 1890-1891, II. p. 638) Kautsky remarks: “To quarrel with them (the adversaries of socialism) about the consequences which would, might, could follow the realization of our demands appears to us entirely superfluous.” Superfluous indeed! In this manner one may comfortably avoid all disagreeable discussions. As if our inferences had been drawn arbitrarily and at random!

Now, in all socialist writings we meet again and again the following fundamental demands which are found already in the Gotha and Erfurt platforms: (x) Socialization of all the means of production. (2) Social organization of the entire field of production to replace the existing anarchy of production, (3) on the basis of the greatest possible democratic equality, so as to remove permanently all class supremacy and class privileges. These essential demands necessarily imply (4) the distribution of the social product according to a fixed standard. For the social product is owned by society at large and must be distributed to the single members according to some standard or other. The social organization of production also involves unavoidably the distribution of work and of labor forces. Again, the transformation of society into a co-operative company is impossible without far-reaching changes in every phase of human life. It implies the abolition of private enterprise, of commerce, of money in the ordinary sense of the word, of banks, stock-exchanges, and financial corporations. Family life, education, etc., would take an entirely new aspect.

It is our purpose, therefore, to test the principal socialist demands by their necessary consequences and thereby prove to the thoughtful reader how utterly untenable they are.