[[90]]
Cf. Michels, Die deutsche Sozlaldemocratie im internationalen Verbande, “Arch. f.
Sozialw.,” vol xxv, pp. 213 et seq.
[[91]]
Max Lorenz has written a number of small socialist works, and is author of the reformist
book Die marxistische Sozialdemokratie, Wiegand, Leipzig, 1896.
[[92]]
Quite recently a number of the most eminent socialist leaders in France have passed over
into the governmental camp and are thus in violent conflict with their former comrades.
Among these may be mentioned René Viviani, now Minister of State; the university
professor V. Augagneur, at one time socialist mayor of Lyons and subsequently governor
of the Island of Madagascar; Gabriel Deville, disciple of Marx, and one of the founders of
the Parti Ouvrier; Alexandre Zévaès, formerly one of the ablest of the Guesdists leaders and
at that time a strict Marxist; Joseph Sarraute; and many others. De Pressensé writes very
truly, “How many men has the [French working class] seen who, after being prodigal with
words of revolt and often arousing high excitement—ceaselessly working at their
revolutionary propaganda—have scarcely risen to power when they cynically turn against
their own past and against their dupes? They have made it a crime to keep faith with their
own predictions. Mercilessly, unscrupulously they become apostles of social reaction. . . . Nevertheless, it seems to me that nothing could be more senseless or fatal than to abandon
ourselves to social apathy because of such actions, to give way to an idiotic delegation of
authority which would make us as much the toy of these vile politicians as we were formerly
of a naive credulity, an uncritical enthusiasm.” (Trans. from Francis de Pressensé, L'Affaire
Durant, ou la nouvelle Affaire Dreyfus, “Le mouvement socialiste,” xiii, No. 227).
[[93]]
Arturo Labriola, Riforme e Rivoluzione Sociale, Soc. Edit. Milan, Milan, 1904, p. 17.
[[94]]
Although, so far as is known, Bebel continued to the end of his life to maintain the
justice of the accusation he brought in 1872 (cf. August Bebel, Aus meinem Leben, Dietz
Nachf., Stuttgart, 1911, Part II, p. 130), the official historian of the party, Franz Mehring
(Geschichte der deutschen Sozialdemokratie, ed. cit., vol. iv, pp. 66 et seq.), takes the
opposite view. Commenting on Schweitzer's declaration after his exclusion from the Verein,
Mehring remarks: “We cannot read without emotion the wise and dignified leave-taking of
the man who in difficult times had so firmly steered the ship of the social democracy, who
had rendered so many invaluable services to the class-conscious proletariat, and who,
enmeshed in the consequences of his own best actions, committed more than one unjust
action, but suffered far greater injustice in return.”
[[95]]
Ernst Günther, Die Revisionistische Bevegung in der deutschen Sozialdemokratie,
Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung (Schmoller, anno xxx (1906), fasc. 1, p. 253.)
[[97]]
There is a word-play here which renders a literal translation impossible. The general
significance is that those only can be counted upon to support the state who receive much
at the hands of the state.—Much in the same way as in England the reactionaries are
accustomed to say (though here without any intention to gibe) that those only who have a
“stake in the country” can be trusted to care for its interests!
[[98]]
Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der sozialdemokratischen Partei
Deutschlands, abgehalten at Bremen, Sept. 10-24, 1904, Verlag “Vorwarts,” Berlin, p. 272.
[[99]]
Cf. leading article, Il Congresso di Brema, “Avanti,” anno viii, No. 2,608. Oda Olberg
writes: “Frankly, we cannot conceive a socialist party which attracts and retains its members
by offering them economic advantages. We consider that it would be far better to have a
handful of devoted comrades who have joined our ranks, not for lucre, but impelled by the
socialist faith, ready for every sacrifice, willing to give themselves, rather than a whole army
of members who have entered the party regarding it as a mutual aid society.” This view is
estimable from the moral and socialist outlook, but its utterance shows that Oda Olberg has
an inadequate understanding of the most conspicuous quality of the masses; unless it be that
she has abandoned her Marxism, that after the Blanquist manner she is willing to renounce
the democratic criterion of majority rule, and that she looks to find salvation solely from the
action of a small but intelligent minority.
[[100]]
Egidio Bernaroli, op. cit., p. 27.
[[101]]
Eduard Bernstein, Die Demokratie in der Sozialdemokratie, “Sozial. Monatsh.,”
September 3, 1908, p. 1108.
